“The Road to Better World War Matchmaking” aka Sandbagging!

[S_How]

We are in a war against WAR, a perfect example of a team that does well only because they manipulate matchups by sandbagging. They had to have put the glory change in, because WAR can gain 8 glory by beating us, and stand to lose over 1000. The most we can lose is 8. This is an example of the change working actually very well. But, it's no where near a comprehensive solution and stalemates have to be addressed sooner rather than later in order to make a change that will help good teams that want to go in full weight but can't.

 

[Veldan]

We are in a war against WAR, a perfect example of a team that does well only because they manipulate matchups by sandbagging. They had to have put the glory change in, because WAR can gain 8 glory by beating us, and stand to lose over 1000. The most we can lose is 8. This is an example of the change working actually very well. But, it's no where near a comprehensive solution and stalemates have to be addressed sooner rather than later in order to make a change that will help good teams that want to go in full weight but can't.

Tbh this is very nice. This is half the solution already, the other half would be reducing the war loot that sandbaggers can get. If they can't get war loot or glory, they will stop doing it.

 

[S_How]

Tbh this is very nice. This is half the solution already, the other half would be reducing the war loot that sandbaggers can get. If they can't get war loot or glory, they will stop doing it.

I agree, its going to be a big help to teams like mine who dont sandbag. And, it will be a big deterrent to teams that sandbag only to get easy matchups and glory, of which there are hundreds. But, they now need to really prioritize fixing stalemates. There are some of the best teams in the game who will be unable to get matches that dont end in stalemates going in full weight. I hope that is next.

 

[Glacier]

35vs35 was a total of 1302 glory at stake. Currently we are in same size with only 805 0.0 Does that mean our Legit alliance is also punished because we can only win 600 of the 805? or maybe the 1302 was divided up then our opponents were penalized? Interesting nonetheless .

 

[IzEagle]

I have posted an idea in below link, worth to have a look
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexon...alemate-issues

 

[Equal]

ok, i have a question. what glory gives to alliance? all our alliance members are from small country, so being on a leaderbord does not helping with attracting new members anyway. does glory give some advantages over other alliances? i think not. only the right to claim, that look, we are the best of defeating smaller and weaker alliances, because in an even matchup we get nothing. Nexon should change not how stalemates are handled, but how to improve ww scoring system to determine a winner.

 

[Vixen]

true... but I must say that when we took a climb right up the glory leaderboard our alliance filled very quickly to the brim...

 

[Fable]

Absolute Mockery (Why war)

So Sandbagging,,Stalemates,,Low ball Sandbagging (not ud the TC) I guess were not enough of a reason to kill WW. Let's add the ability for ppl to have an army of 500 or more. It's definitely realistic for an IA base to 5* an AA base...only a diff. of 60+ lvls!

U guys have the uncanny ability to take something (with extreme potential) and instead of listening to those who play the game more than u, add things that make it worse! So on top of the aforementioned problems now u literally can buy a win. If your mission was to bleed your player base, ignore their rants and ideas then congrats, u did a splendid job! The 1 thing so many r hanging around for now and u go and F it up more! Hats off guys! I posted this before, but obviously it was neglected.



WW's need a complete overhaul, let's be honest.

1) Stalemates (although my clan has never experienced one) to still be an issue is absolutely despicable!
There's been plenty of suggestions on this subject, pick the easiest fix!

2) Sandbagging...whatever your opinion of it is, it's a problem.
Again take your pick here, any acc. that don't ud can't receive troops, why not any acc.s not ud can't war? How bout the difference from your #1 to your bottom has to b within 100 levls...maybe 50?

3) Sandbagging 2.0 = clans not ud their war bases so u have an IA player at roster #33 (out of 35) who can 5* a #1. Yes, they r an easy 5*, but that's besides the issue.
Simple, MAKE acc.s ud their war base layout or they can't war! U do it for donations don't tell me u can't do it to war.

4) Pay to win...yes anyone can purchase special troops sales, but not everyone will or can. As we've noticed first hand with the Elephant Archers (btw I'd pay $50 for the Elephant stable alone to permanently keep) it gives players the ability to 5* almost any acc.
Why not limit it to 5? Ik the special troops provide extra income to u so to suggest killing them completely is not financially logical.

5) Hackers & straight up cheaters...no need to explain.
They r still out there, permanently ban them and b done with it!

6) Connection issues. Losing att.s in WW r a crime and the fact that u guys do nothing about it (100 crowns is nothing, sorry) is disrespectfull especially when it's YOUR fault. They have improved imo lately though.
Ud/buy more servers, if the problems persist do something more than 100 crowns, you'd be surprised how a little accountability (and legit compensation) can keep ppl from playing your bugged out game!

 

[Vixen]

BFisher - I hope you are reading
Nb4powerup - thanks for passing on our concerns
this just about sums up the mood.... we are not seeing any progress on the issues ... just a new issue

 

[Warlord1981]

We have now been searching over 48 hours...

PLEASE FIX THE REAL PROBLEM

So has United Allies, Korea Army, Vikings, RATs, Dutch Warlords, 1st, Top Team Korea, Good People etc etc etc...

And please dont imply the best and oldest teams in the game are inlegimate.
That is really completly unbelieveble to hear.

We are your oldest fans, Nexon - who represent the biggest part of your community.
Please dont give in for a little group of players who are trying to take over the forum.

They will not be here in the long run - we will.

You know, I've been around a bit, and I've seen some things before that irked me, but i kept it quiet, however, you have alienated an entire group and called them a small portion. What's worse is that you feel that since you started playing first, the rules should be made to your liking.

Your belief that you deserve something because you played first is arrogant and highly childish and simply proves exactly what the issue with Sandbagging is.

Make no mistake, i have irons in my lineup, and it has afforded us easier wars. The difference is that my irons attack, develop, and learn. We are growing our Alliance organically, we kick inactive players and players that refuse to war or attack based on Needs For Victory, compared to the best attack for loot.

Alliances like mine, suffer because of alliances like yours. We would be considered a stacker Alliance because of you and your belief that you deserve to be at the top because you started playing first. Lol that's the same argument made by kindergartners who fight because Tommy was playing with Timmy's toy and Timmy was upset because "I was playing with it first, it's mine", very small minded way of thinking though, alienate the majority because they won't be around long lol. I see exactly where things stand.

 

[Warlord1981]

When they say fixed the glory by penalizing sandbaggers and lowering the glory they can gain, how would the system no the difference between Sandbagging and a diverse Alliance?

Brad's last post said they didn't want to penalize alliances that are actually trying to develop players.

I ask this for a specific reason. Our last 2 wars have given us only 80 glory to win. In a 30 man war? Is this a result of their changes? I'm confused.
​​

 

[S_How]

A normal iron-classical player are only those ages for a matter of days at most, so if they are players being developed, and just a handful of them, Id say it would have almost no impact. What was the makeup of your last war roster by age? 100 glory also isnt too bad imo. Could be fairly normal

 

[Freightshaker]

By war ranking, I'm the most powerful player in our alliance, but I'd barely make the top 10 if I was in the alliances we've been fighting. This is the first time I'm opting out of war. I'm tired of beating my head against the wall.

 

[Equal]

i agree, for a multinational english speaking alliance it is true. but like for us, it is no use if we would be in a top 100. we have like 4-5 stronger alliances at all from our nation.

 

[Fable]

The fun of warring is gone, whoever is running the Nexon/BHG team should b ashamed of what this game has become! The 1 thing that separated this game from others u guys have ruined, awesome.

 

[tincouch]

You finally managed to destroy any reason to still play world wars. Good thing I still got my clash of clans account. Supercell is doing a hell of a job, making their game better and better, and maintain a game where skills still is a factor to win wars. Keep up the good work, Nixon, and you will have no players left in 6 months

 

[Fable]

When my clan was ranked (#5 at our brightest) we didn't have any problem with recruits either. (Most) ppl who want to war will try to get in a ranked clan to learn/reap the rewards of winning.

 

[poop_]

Phil-Elite, How did I miss this comment? I've have been distracted. I AM SO SORRY! I will try to make more time for you!

<3 <3 <3

 

[Vixen]

what language?

 

[Nb4powerup]

Hi all!

After reviewing the post, it's inline with what has already been posted on our forums. There is nothing new information wise that I saw.