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

[ColdestRage]

Everyone that doesn't want to implement "unbeatable strategy" is lazy , or idiot, or both .
The problem is that there's no unbeatable strategy.
Even Sandbaggers lose though they manipulate their war averages.
That's how it is, for each strategy there's a countermeasure .
Each strategy no matter how good it may be has some holes which can be exploited.
Someone saying "I have an unbeatable strategy" is already in the wrong.
There's no such thing as unbeatable.

jmemira don't feed the troll .
He'll feed on your comments , and call you names

 

[Christopher-Outlaws!!]

PT, if you are lazy I hate to see where that lands my leadership. Complicated things scare me.

I'm very sorry you had a negative experience with PT @HappyFeet They are a helpful group and the leaderboard would be evidence they do well with the current leadership and strategy. However, it's difficult to feel like you're not heard, likely Clint or Mira may have been less defensive if this conversation weren't so public. And they do have right to be, understand you are attacking their alliance in a public forum and contrary to evidence. I hope you find a place where your voice is heard, you sound ambitious and though you have a lot of ideas regarding strategy!

Sincerely,
Christopher

 

[aquawind]

Solution to Sandbagging: Alliance Ranking

Sandbagging became a major widespread issue, which affects a majority genuine warring alliances, only after the implementation of the Glory system and the Glory-based alliance ranking system.

It is obvious that most of those alliances that uses sandbagging not only wants to win, but to climb up to and stay within the Top Alliances ranking, or in other words to get Glory points and to never lose Glory points.

The current alliance ranking system is based purely on the Glory points of alliances with Alliance Medals as the tie breaker, which has been proven that it is extremely easy to manipulate simply by sandbagging. Therefore, modifying how alliances are being ranked might be a solution to discourage sandbagging. Instead of using Glory points as the sole factor of ranking, multiple factors should be considered simultaneously to promote healthy competition between alliances.

An example would be having alliances ranked based on a figure derived from multiple weighted factors: 30% from Alliance Medals, 30% from Glory points, 40% from overall town/city strength(inclusive of military, economy and other miscellaneous factors) of all its members.

Taking consideration of the overall town/city strength of all members of the alliance, that includes not only the offensive factors but all other factors including economic factors, when being ranked could promote a more balanced gameplay and discourage sandbaging. Those alliances that still attempt to do sandbagging under this ranking system would probably still get matched with a relatively weaker alliance, but their ranking would also be pulled down due to those underdeveloped bases used for sandbagging, making sandbagging less effective to achieve what they want to. On the other hand, including more factors that determine the ranking would also make it harder to manipulate the system.

 

[Vixen]

Back on topic ..... Nexon when are you going to fix war matching ... sandbagging ... and make stalemates hard to achieve??

 

[SebQuattro]

An easier solution is to change the matchmaking so you are matched against an alliance with similar Glory. The current matchmaking algorithm was from before Glory was introduced, glory should play a factor in who are matched against.

 

[JahWerx]

this stacking/sandbagging issue is so prevalent and insidious it's caused decent alliances to fall apart. and the solution is so easy - only factor in the top 2/3 of an Alliance's members when matching - sandbagging would stop IMMEDIATELY. Go ahead and load up with irons on the bottom - they WOULDN'T factor. I've said this before... since everyone gets 2 attacks, you can't just take the "average" of an alliance. If everyone only got 1 attack, a straight average would be fine... it wuld balance itself out on the high end and low end, but in extreme case of stacking say 50% Atomic/50% Irons, HALF of the Alliance can CLEAN an entire fair play alliance. SIMPLE. FIX IT. NOW.

 

[Equal]

then imagine a war of 40, where 17 of them would be iron-medieval age mixed with maxed GA and AA bases. factoring only a part of the team would not solve the problem. it could only make it worse.

 

[Equal]

it is just a game after all.why to be so insulted about this? i have been dropped from minimum 10 alliances and only can laugh at it after that. someone is taking it too serious i think.

 

[Tenacious D]

Maggiepie, exactly,

 

[Tenacious D]

Vixen, get some strong players in your top 25 and you will earn your way into the top 100. I know, I know, it is easier to post here and try to get the developers to dumb the game down so your alliance of misfits can sneak in.

 

[poop_]

Tenacious D! You promised me you would stop flirting with Vixen! I know she is a foxy lady, but you can't have both of us!
We already put that down payment on the $99 estate! I will not put up with this behavior!

 

[poop_]

BTW, for all of those who are not regular readers of the forums. I have an affection for trolls. I tend to show them the love they need that allows them to live a peaceful, happy life without trolling.

 

[Vixen]

Imo ... irons should be banned .. you can move through in 24 hours ... they have no place in war

 

[poop_]

Yeah, this is a valid point. Starting another account a few weeks ago, I am already gunpowder. but others don't move through as fast.

BUT, including medieval still has a strong effect.

I also like getting people involved in war early because it is the BEST part of the game. I wonder if they could have a mock war for irons like they have the single player battles.

BTW, I starting another account, makes me realize that NEXON teaches players bad habits in attacking...

BHG, if you want help in redoing the intro ages and that old man's tips, let me know. I will help make better players. Better players mean more longevity, which is better for you guys.

 

[SebQuattro]

World War matchmaking should be based solely on your Glory, anything else will be taken advantage of and manipulated. It gets rid of sandbags and selective upgrading.

It should also ensure a more competitive and fun war as you'll be faced against an opposing alliance who wins a similar amount of wars as yourself.

If you have an alliance where everyone has upgraded their raiders, that alliance will effectively be penalized even though they aren't used in war. Why should an alliance be penalized for that? If you remove the penalty for upgrading your defenses, then you should get fewer stalemates.

If they get rid of sandbags by some other means, all an alliance has to do is have 1 account with maxed defense/ offence and 9 accounts with no defenses at all but maxed offence. Any opposing alliance should have shouldn't have enough offence to defeat their maxed defense player.

 

[poop_]

What are you talking about? I use ALL RAIDERS in my war attacks (well, maybe a couple miners too). But, I prefer to keep them at the medieval level. They seem most effective that way.

What you are proposing is like the medal system. BUT, the medal system has some limitations in that you can only attack +/1-1 above your age.

This proposal seems like it would come from an alliance that has a lot of atomics.

I would pass on this proposal.

 

[Tenacious D]

Ah, poopsie. Are you not getting enough attention? Post away, little one

 

[Tenacious D]

Actually, PT is one of the prime examples of mixed alliance sandbagging.

 

[Vixen]

Gee... poop_ we may have to fight over him.....

 

[Wendy]

i'm too clever for this