The NEW one and only loot is good or bad thread

[zachUVA]

Several months ago, the SC developers gave an interview on Reddit, and they knew the total amount of resources in storages that day: 6.5 trillion gold, 8.4 trillion elixir, and 43 billion DE.

http://www.reddit.com/r/ClashOfClans...team_anything/

The SC developers must have some "dashboard controls" that easily snapshot the system-wide loot in storages. And if they have coded that, it should be trivial for them to snapshot the system-wide loot in collectors as well.

Zach, do you really think that SC can't easily change the algorithm that says how far inactive bases are pushed down the matchmaking queue? I'd be very surprised that SC couldn't dynamically change the algorithm.

Otherwise, how else would SC tweak the macro-economy, if they see system-loot going too too far in either direction? A temporary 1-gem boost could help if the systemic loot was too low, but how would SC tweak the economy if it was over-heating? As someone else also mentioned on this thread, I can't imagine SC would leave the macro-economy to chance.

Of course they have statistics on these things, and they no doubt have the capability to alter their system for pushing back inactives. However, as I've previously said, all of this is untestable and masks other issues. Really, almost all loot issues could fall under the umbrella of that theory, in which case there's no point of even arguing about it.

As for overheating, that's precisely what their system prevents. Without production increases, and with quitters being cycled to the back (albeit at unknown rates), there's very little upward potential. To me, this micro-managing theory is just unnecessarily complicating the issue, while also dismissing other real factors that cause fluctuations.

Perhaps a somewhat crude analogy would be "God controls the weather.". Can we disprove that? No. Assuming God exists, is that plausible? Sure. Does that mean we should fire all the weathermen and forget about predicting it? No. That's basically my argument.

[Lloopy14]

I don't come here often so can someone give me insight into the loot complaints?

1. Is this stuff just coming from TH9/TH10 players?

2. Are people who complain that the BARCH method/picking off collectors doesn't bring in loot dead set on that strategy or is going for storages also ineffective?

1. Not exclusively but the loot issues start to affect at TH9 and continue to TH10 affecting them particularly. (due to the loot penalty and the sheer cost of upgrades)

2. People are complaining about different things.

Inactives (collector raids) are an important part of the economy - how much of a part is open for debate. If you are saving up 7.5 mil for archers hitting storages for elixir is simply not effective. Which is why I started to train cheaper armies. Also, if a base looks inactive they are less likely to revenge you

There are several problems with collector bases. The most common complaint is that there are less of them. I would agree that it looks like it. A few months ago I could get one collector base each lunch hour from a TH10 with 3 maxed DE drills. Now I can go days without seeing a similar base (I'm in gold1).
The second complaint is that SC is hiding the collector bases ( because there is less of them). This is "true" depending how you look at it. SC has designed their matchmaking so that collector bases are not prioritised.
The community gets fractured as people start complaining and demanding more collector raids and others argue that they should be attacking storages.

My experience is that there are still plenty of collector bases. The problem is that those bases do not have maxed collectors and therefore I am seeing more and more bases that do not cover the raid of a barch army to get the loot.

Storage raids.
From my point of view the bases with the best raids are TH10..... but these are protected by Infernos. To get to centralised storages in anycase I need a good army that usually cost both time and resources. The reality is that in Gold 1, for example, that I end up nexting through lots of TH7s and some TH8s ( also a problem in Crystal 3) just to get to bases worthy for my army. I moved up to crystal to find more consistent bases that were TH9 but from what I could see is that the TH9 bases there were dumping their gold into walls. Elixir was ok - but now people can put this into walls (I've yet to go up there again to see the situation) it may be that Crystal is only going to be viable for DE.... providing people aren't using it to make up for the lax of elixir troops

The problems here are - TH7s everywhere! Well not quite but where as I used to see fellow TH9s in gold 1 I am seeing more and more polaraised bases. TH7 with no loot and maxed TH10s with lots of loot but inaccessable to me. I chose to train cheap armies because they are more flexible. The TH levels are too inconsistent and so therefore is the loot.

There have been various suggestions to fix loot. Adding extra levels or more collectors are only going to help if people max them in the first place. People have requested that the win bonus is increased. And lets not mention clan wars. ...

From the player point of view it is has been suggested that we flatten all TH7s (loot or not) to send them back to a lower league where they belong and always provide collector bases with a shield.

People have also called for radical reforms to the 'win' system. This is to stop farmers from getting a cheap shield (and therefore hid loot) so that there will be storage raids available. A stop to the cheap shield system could also stop TH snipers. This is because, from proposals in general, they would not get a win bonus - or a great reduction to it making it difficult to make a profit and therefore less likely to remain in certain leagues.

Not sure if this has muddied the water further or helped somewhat.

[bradleytjohnson1]

Your storages are completely full?

Yes 8 million each.

There is no loot problem guys...

[Natesmiles]

Yes 8 million each.

There is no loot problem guys...

can i ask what level your walls are, if they are below lvl8 . . . . or completely maxed at lvl11 . . . . you are one confused person.

[MajesticM]

So this is not your storage?

Nice evidence. Loot is horrible. Lightning are horrible. The whole economics of supercell is horrible.

[Natesmiles]

So this is not your storage?

Is that a townhall 9 with lvl7 walls, saying loot is great?

[nesnnesn]

Of course they have statistics on these things, and they no doubt have the capability to alter their system for pushing back inactives. However, as I've previously said, all of this is untestable and masks other issues. Really, almost all loot issues could fall under the umbrella of that theory, in which case there's no point of even arguing about it.

As for overheating, that's precisely what their system prevents. Without production increases, and with quitters being cycled to the back (albeit at unknown rates), there's very little upward potential. To me, this micro-managing theory is just unnecessarily complicating the issue, while also dismissing other real factors that cause fluctuations.

Perhaps a somewhat crude analogy would be "God controls the weather.". Can we disprove that? No. Assuming God exists, is that plausible? Sure. Does that mean we should fire all the weathermen and forget about predicting it? No. That's basically my argument.

I suspect that SC has a system-wide aggregate loot range that they deem "balanced" (factoring in things like normal economy fluctuations, SC's business goals of player enjoyment, game longevity, etc.), and that SC doesn't usually manage the system-wide economy, unless the system-wide aggregate loot somehow leaves that range on its own.

However, unless a SC developer spills the beans, we won't know for sure whether/how much the economy is actively managed by SC.

P.S. Thanks for participating in this thread! It's always good to see a Mod actively taking part in forum discussions.

[Trellish]

Perhaps a somewhat crude analogy would be "God controls the weather.". Can we disprove that? No. Assuming God exists, is that plausible? Sure. Does that mean we should fire all the weathermen and forget about predicting it? No. That's basically my argument.

tbh, I think your metaphor is somewhat dodgy, as is the assertion that this is untestable. Statistics is a meaningful form of mathematics. Your argument is based off of the paradigms of a philosophy class, and not off the logic of a mathematics class. (slightly different applications and proofs...) In point of fact, we the user can measure how many "nextings" it takes to find a dead base, and can actually see and measure changes in this. It must of course, be measured over a long period of time in order to be statistically significant, but it's kinda silly to say that we the user can't actually know and measure this stuff or that the results are meaningless... Granted, most are not actually doing the work that would be required for it, but it's absolutely measurable and knowable to anyone willing to put in the work.

edit... not claiming ive done that work... just tired of the dismissiveness of what can actually be known and measured,,,

[n3r0s]

Is that a townhall 9 with lvl7 walls, saying loot is great?

♥♥♥♥, he brags how easy loot comes and doesn't even have half of my GG or EE. Busted with a lie. I had all skulls when I left TH8.

[zachUVA]

tbh, I think your metaphor is somewhat dodgy, as is the assertion that this is untestable. Statistics is a meaningful form of mathematics. Your argument is based off of the paradigms of a philosophy class, and not off the logic of a mathematics class. (slightly different applications and proofs...) In point of fact, we the user can measure how many "nextings" it takes to find a dead base, and can actually see and measure changes in this. It must of course, be measured over a long period of time in order to be statistically significant, but it's kinda silly to say that we the user can't actually know and measure this stuff or that the results are meaningless... Granted, most are not actually doing the work that would be required for it, but it's absolutely measurable and knowable to anyone willing to put in the work.

edit... not claiming ive done that work... just tired of the dismissiveness of what can actually be known and measured,,,

Are you quoting the wrong post? I'm arguing exactly the same thing as you are...

I believe in math and statistics above pretty much everything, but if you are claiming we can measure SC's prioritization of inactives in the queue, I think you are mistaken. We simply do not have the data to test such claims.

What we can test is exactly what you are describing: loot in each range and the number of nexts to get it. My argument is that the "SC changes loot at will" argument is thst we can only test the effects of this indirectly, ones that could be traced to dozens of other factors. It lacks any form of testable explanations. That theory I'm criticizing is what is being dismissive of the data, because it assumes such efforts are futile.

Edit: To be a little more clear, changes in loot are perfectly testable with enough data. However, all this data can tell us is whether or not loot has changed and in what direction. The claim by some people is that this is CAUSED by SC through constant manipulation of inactives. However, it is not clear that this is the only possible explanation (indeed it is clear that it is not), and there's no way to isolate this variable with any data we could realistically gather. Other variables such as distribution of inactives across trophy ranges (part of my distribution argument) can be measured and tested though! I'm simply saying it is better to work off of theories that are testable with a reasonable amount of data, rather than to accept a catch-all hypothesis that is impossible to isolate.