It was just a simple suggestionOriginally Posted by rwelshjr
I figured it would help you out in wars. Both in finding more even matches and possibly getting some wins.
It was just a simple suggestion
Perhaps this is just something we haven't experienced yet. However we are on 45 wins so we should have.
We mostly have heroes between 10-2 and when we have been faced with clans who have level 35-40, when you look at their TH8 bases they comparably weaker than ours. This would seem to me to balance out. We will have an easier time down low and have to work harder up top. It then all comes down to picking the correct strategy for base matching and individual raids to ensure you win.
I do think however that it would be nice to add a little fines to the war system so that we could maybe choose certain criteria to try and match up war clans with war clans etc. This would however present it's own issues but might be worth the geniuses in SC looking into lol
And even if they are all correct about the single war they are talking about, there is no way that it happens every time. It goes back to the logic I stated about for every under there has to be an over etc...
In your scenario I agree. Whichever way we look at it and with whatever assumptions made, we can say that anyone using the word "always" is exaggerating or unable to attack effectively
I hate seeing that a war is lost before it has even started. The chances are with that attitude you will lose more wars. if people think that the war is lost they may attack low or with cost saving in mind or maybe some won't even attack at all.
Play each war out, plan a strategy each time for each individual war and see how you get on. you probably won't win every war but you have to try!
Those guys can come here and complain and people give them grief. Granted a lot of times they complain about exp level or th lvl without giving specifics. However, when our lvl 6s are paired with lvl 8s it can be problematic. A lvl 6 even fully maxed on troops is not equipped to take out three teslas, 4 mortars, three airdefenses, three wizard towers....and the list goes on. Even if they aren't fully developed its still that many more defenses pounding the offense. Add to that the 100 extra walls and getting those three stars is not bloody likey. Yes the upper guys can attack lower. But they can only do so much. When there are more lower guys on one team than the other it becomes way more difficult. Thank goodness those opponents couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag.
most of our matches have been lopsided. Many of them we still win, but opponent as a ♥♥♥♥ attacker is not part of the current algorithm. Lopsided doesn't mean you can't still win, but it is demoralizing for the bottom guys. Some leaders may not be able to push their guys through it.
I think encouraging trophy pushing helps people learn to attack their own level and better. But it better be real pushing and not just hitting townhalls. We expect better.
I agree with Lfx last post. I can't tell you how many times we've gone into a war thinking we're screwed after looking at our opponent's bases and troop levels. Only to crush them. Now we, just do our best, which is 9/10 times good enough.
Last edited by wepeeler; December 12th, 2014 at 04:26 PM.
I am not complaining about the wars, just calling out the complainers. My own clan can win an even matchup and within reason we can win the overmatches. So we fare quite well. Sure once in a while we get something that is just utterly stupid. Half of those are against us an half for us. On the ones in our favor we just make sure we lock them down early then loot snipe later. For the ones that are just hopeless I actually tell the clan that attacking is optional we can just wait it out. But with only a couple cases ever my guys all go at it anyhow. Just for loser bonus and practice. And note that I am saying that the really stupid ones go both ways. So in the big picture we are not getting screwed by them.It was just a simple suggestion
Just for grins I will tell of about 10 wars ago, we had one we thought we were in real trouble. The guys were gonna make a go of it anyhow (every one of them is an ornery bloke who would rather go down swinging than not fight, Gotta love them) but we thought our chances looked poor because we were just too over matched. But near the end of prep day our opponent put up a rant about SC matching (complete with cussing) and how unfair it was and that they hoped we felt like big men picking on them. And then never attacked, they gave up. We were like "gee" and took the gift. But what a difference in perspective huh?
I tell myself that such a large and mainstream game must have some sort of MMR component however in my experience being on both sides, winning 85 percent of the time and losing 85 percent of the time or more yes that much. It seems that clan war matchmaking is heavily weighted on the Town Hall level, number of defensive towers and their level. Walls and troops seem to negligibly affect clan war matchmaking.also MMR or matchmaking rating is nonexistent or abysmally present. I understand how any Mr system can be abused however I personally feel and I have talked toothers to share my opinion that the MMR component should play a more significant part in matchmaking. This could be accomplished by taking a two-part MMR one with the Mr of the clan and second with the MMR of each individual this would be affected by success of attacks, wins, war stars, and where attacks were placed etc.
I can only say --- > Huh?
Posting Permissions
