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

[Green Master]

We faced W.A.R. 2, Wing of W.A.R, mainly all maxed AA, they killed us fast , and because they had only little glory we lost 743 glory. We lost 93:150.
That clearly shows how wrong your algorithms are. FIX IT ASAP !!!

 

[Tenacious D]

I agree that an update would be helpful. Imagine facing a sandbagging alliance that has 10 AA/ 15 GA/ 10 IA / 5 EA when you have 20 GA and 20 IA? You can't win. If you really unlucky and get matched with Active Warfare and the like, the spread will be even wider with gunpowder and medieval bases. Active's bottom 15 will struggle, but they are just there for show. And you will not be able to touch the AA bases. When will this be fixed?

 

[S_How]

I agree that an update would be helpful. Imagine facing a sandbagging alliance that has 10 AA/ 15 GA/ 10 IA / 5 EA when you have 20 GA and 20 IA? You can't win. If you really unlucky and get matched with Active Warfare and the like, the spread will be even wider with gunpowder and medieval bases. Active's bottom 15 will struggle, but they are just there for show. And you will not be able to touch the AA bases. When will this be fixed?

Hi, I know you're just trolling but I'll give you a response anyways . We meet mixed teams all the time and they are great competitive wars. The only extreme examples of manipulation I've ever heard on this thread and others are of mixing atomic and Iron Age. The standard deviation of these mixes is over 3x that of an alliance like mine which is pretty much all IA-Atomic.

If you think the influence of an Iron Age vs the influence of an Industrial base is similar in any way, there's probably nothing I can do to help you lol. Adding 8 Industrial Age bases to Korea united would have dropped their average level by about 7. Adding 8 Iron Age bases dropped their average by about 40. You need to think of a better argument to keep sandbagging in the game

Btw, you still in Anzac Forces? We met them and they had a mix, but it wasn't like what you mentioned above. It was iron ages along the bottom of the roster. No wonder you want to deflect and cause confusion from the problem haha. It's the only reason I can think of why you're defending what allows teams to bring 30 people stronger than your opponents top. How can it even be fun?

 

[JNation]

We are currently up against an alliance with 1AA/ 3GA 4IA/ 4EA/ 3GUNA/ 5MA/ 2CA/ 3ironA. and we have 3IA/ 7EA/ 8GunA/ 7MA.

Myself and another are the top players in our alliance and we sit at level 140. and their top player is level 183.. In fact their top 6 players out rank both of us.

Some of these match up are annoying.

 

[Vixen]

JNation that is so unfair..
I wish there was a range of a maximum of four levels in a war.. e.g. If you put in atomics the lowest you could go is EA

 

[JNation]

That would be an interesting solution. I looked up the alliance, because sometimes it's not really sandbagging it just that who they have in their alliance, but these guys clearly have other players to choose from, so their pick was deliberate.

I would understand if lets say you were in an alliance of 20 members that spans serval ages but everyone wanted to participate in wars and the bottom players were just new but thats just not the case with these guys..

 

[Dampkring]

Except you're talking about honest alliances that simply let their lower level ACTIVE players play, comparing having a mixed alliance with using inactive iron age bases is just ridiculous. Just a quick recap of the meaning of sandbagging for you (bizarre that you need it..):
Alliances with EA/GP active players that want to play and grow ---> good guys, great and just leaders.
Alliances with top 30 maxed out AA and bottom 10 lev. 20 iron age that don't log in since repairing alliance gate ---> sandbaggers (also known as stackers).
Stop trying to justify the unjust way of playing you adopted by saying stupid and false things about honest alliances.

 

[dolphin225]

If anyone was pitted against us right now, they might assume we're sandbagging. : ( But honestly, we're a start-up Alliance who just happen to have a lot of Iron Age players who are anxious to try out wars. I constantly monitor activity and we are now big enough that I can start kicking inactive players. Do you all have a set limit for inactivity? I'm thinking 3d for brand new and 5-7d for long-time members - unless they have communicated a legitimate reason, then I'd let them stay.

 

[poop_]

Tenacious D What the hell are talking about? We have no atomics. Nor do we have medieval in our wars.

We have some gp, but they are badass, and our bottom half usually clears most of our bases every war anyways.

Next time you try to troll, at least know what the f*ck you are talking about.

 

[AmbriaJT]

It shouldn't take more than a day or two to get through Iron Age and no more than a week or two, when maxing, to get through Classical.

Very easy ages.

 

[AmbriaJT]

Okay guys, lets not feed this troll.

When you feed them it's like throwing a gremlin in water. They think they get a right to go bat crap cray cray.

Anybody who is of any sort of sensibility knows that Active Warfare is an honest alliance with an honest spread.

Go get your niblets elsewhere. We don't need your kind here.

 

[Tenacious D]

Active Warfare is one of the biggest sandbaggers there is. They have 16 players that range from lvl 194 to lvl 150. Then they have 10 fillers below lvl 100. That lvl 47 might attack in the war, but he is a member so they can sandbag. Pure and simple

 

[Tenacious D]

I am not trolling. First, almost every alliance sandbags. Anzac would usually include 2 medievals and an EA. They included 2 Iron ages too, but not generally. But that is small potatoes compared to the dilutive effect the so-called mixed alliances enjoy. But let's not obfuscate with euphemisms like mixed. Call them what they are -- sandbaggers.

 

[poop_]

@tenacious d-
If you must get an explanation, we just formed a new additional alliance, AdaptiveWarfare and so we lowered our medal count to get some fill. If letting lower level players into your alliance is manipulation, then yes, we manipulated the hell out of the system.

Have these lower levels warred? No.

Have we sent good active lower level players over to Adaptive so we wouldn't inadvertently manipulate the match up? yes.

Did we leave some higher level players out of Adaptive's war so we wouldn't inadvertently manipulate the matchup? yes.

Now it is time for you, troll, to crawl back under your bridge.

 

[poop_]

@tenny d, what happened?

I know, I forgot to make you that friendship bracelet.

Here is the thing, you clearly need an intervention.

This may be hard to hear, but I need to be honest:

Recovering from trollism is a long road, but I believe if you commit, you can do it.

We will all support you on this long and difficult journey, but the first step it is admit you have a problem and are indeed a troll.

Don't be afraid to ask for help. We are here for you!

 

[dolphin225]

Had someone join my alliance with his second game & he's saying most Alliances have stopped sandbagging - that only a couple of Korean alliances are still doing it. Anyone else here been observing that or know if that's true?

 

[Tenacious D]

Ha! My stalker has returned. Nothing to add to the dialog again I see. Have a great day!

 

[Tenacious D]

Poop, I think I understand you point of view. My alliance's sandbagging is okay. But please stop those other alliances that copied our strategy. Because when they do it we can't beat them (hint: it is because they are stronger than your weak alliance)

 

[S_How]

Not true. It's still the most rewarded war strategy and we are hitting them nearly every war

 

[Equal]

well well. there is 16!!!! pages of disscusions that leads nowhere and about 0!!! responses from the person that created this topic. just absolutely GREAT!!! well done BHG.