“The Road to Better World War Matchmaking” aka Sandbagging!
- Thread starter TimTrain
- Start date
JNation
Approved user
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2016
- Messages
- 146
Not so sure about this idea either, I agree with poop, it would only makes things worse... So far the potential ideas that could work are.
1) 1 attack per person
2) weighted averages, this would make lower age players weight much less compared to the rest of the team thus effecting the total average much less
3) introduction of an additional or bonus star system (something i posted before but on previous page)
4) I think a two defense system but i would have to review it again, unless someone can explain it better.
5) changing the worth of defensive/ offensive upgrades so it reflects your current level more appropriately, or something like that, my wording could be off.
Im sure i am missing some so if theres more feel free to add.
1) 1 attack per person
2) weighted averages, this would make lower age players weight much less compared to the rest of the team thus effecting the total average much less
3) introduction of an additional or bonus star system (something i posted before but on previous page)
4) I think a two defense system but i would have to review it again, unless someone can explain it better.
5) changing the worth of defensive/ offensive upgrades so it reflects your current level more appropriately, or something like that, my wording could be off.
Im sure i am missing some so if theres more feel free to add.
JNation
Approved user
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2016
- Messages
- 146
I can see that. I would say that it may take longer for some mostly because there is always that one person that has absolutely no idea what they are doing. Iv had a few people in my alliance that didnt even know that there was a chat system, im not sure how but sometimes it happens. Ive also seen some that stayed in iron for a few day maybe even a week because they said they were never able to get enough resources for upgrades. that was of course until we pointed out that you can get way more from multi-player battles than the single player stuff. But all of this is more of the reason why i wish chat was more effective and that you could share just a regular multi player attack so they can get some ideas. At the end of the day i just refer them to some youtube videos but some new players need more help than that.
Sep 22 - TimTrain starts this thread and tells us many adjustments are coming in the next few months.
Nov 10 - BDS (Brian), new Executive Producer, announces that changes are about to be released and they will keep us posted on the updates
- silence -
Jan 30 - Sandbaggers continue to benefit, and thus their numbers have multiplied, and legit teams have to arrange wars or downsize dramatically to avoid this nonsense
What an awful display of customer disservice on Nexon / BHGs part. Clearly their focus is one thing - selling us card armies, blessings, lures, and other crap. None of which actually improves the war experience. Don't they realize that war is the one feature that develops in-game communities and can actually keep this game interesting for the majority of players?
Nov 10 - BDS (Brian), new Executive Producer, announces that changes are about to be released and they will keep us posted on the updates
- silence -
Jan 30 - Sandbaggers continue to benefit, and thus their numbers have multiplied, and legit teams have to arrange wars or downsize dramatically to avoid this nonsense
What an awful display of customer disservice on Nexon / BHGs part. Clearly their focus is one thing - selling us card armies, blessings, lures, and other crap. None of which actually improves the war experience. Don't they realize that war is the one feature that develops in-game communities and can actually keep this game interesting for the majority of players?
There are so many ways to make this better, and they have all been discussed on here many times over the last year, all to fall on deaf ears. We even saw a post from the game producers indicating they were "working on improvements" but that still hasn't materialized. Perhaps the guy who wrote that code is gone, and nobody else is skilled enough to improve it ? Or they just don't believe it will make them any money, so they just keep coming up with more special stuff for us to buy every single day.
SebQuattro
Approved user
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2016
- Messages
- 163
I'm in an alliance that has just 2 Atomic age players and one of them joined just today (and I have a hunch that player has come from another alliance to poach our players). What I want is a competitive match up, a match up were both alliances has a chance of winning. A hard fought battle where if you win, you get a sense of achievement.
We're at around 18k glory, 90% of the time we either face sandbaggers who have 20k+ glory and we have no chance of winning against (we don't use any sandbagger accounts) or we end up against an alliance with 12k glory. They've got 12k glory because they never win, most of their players don't attack, those that do attack all target the same player, their global age players attack our gunpowder age, they have poor base layouts etc etc. Neither for me is a particularly enjoyable war. The first thing I do on planning day is check the opposing alliances glory, if there's a massive gap I know who will win straight off without even viewing their players.
Sure, if they based it on glory, match ups would be mismatched for the first few weeks. But the glory rankings will change so the stronger, talented and organised alliances populate the top few hundred alliance rankings. After a while, the glory rankings will reflect the ability of an alliance and not how many sandbaggers they are using.
War match ups would then be based on ability rather than what upgrades a player has done. If you're a good well organised alliance and you face a another good alliance with a similar amount of glory, they should have an overall similar strength and it should be a good war. But a good alliance could also face and defeat a stronger but poorly managed alliance or an alliance with less talented players.
We're at around 18k glory, 90% of the time we either face sandbaggers who have 20k+ glory and we have no chance of winning against (we don't use any sandbagger accounts) or we end up against an alliance with 12k glory. They've got 12k glory because they never win, most of their players don't attack, those that do attack all target the same player, their global age players attack our gunpowder age, they have poor base layouts etc etc. Neither for me is a particularly enjoyable war. The first thing I do on planning day is check the opposing alliances glory, if there's a massive gap I know who will win straight off without even viewing their players.
Sure, if they based it on glory, match ups would be mismatched for the first few weeks. But the glory rankings will change so the stronger, talented and organised alliances populate the top few hundred alliance rankings. After a while, the glory rankings will reflect the ability of an alliance and not how many sandbaggers they are using.
War match ups would then be based on ability rather than what upgrades a player has done. If you're a good well organised alliance and you face a another good alliance with a similar amount of glory, they should have an overall similar strength and it should be a good war. But a good alliance could also face and defeat a stronger but poorly managed alliance or an alliance with less talented players.
Last edited:
Vixen
Approved user
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2016
- Messages
- 843
SebQuattro
have you looked at joining the domi prime community and doing planned h2h's
Our alliance is similar... we were getting either stacked alliances way too hard or wars that were pathetically easy and boring our members. H2H's are a way to find a decent match and enjoy a war. We have grown in strength a bit now and can deal with most sandbaggers we get now so things improving.
have you looked at joining the domi prime community and doing planned h2h's
Our alliance is similar... we were getting either stacked alliances way too hard or wars that were pathetically easy and boring our members. H2H's are a way to find a decent match and enjoy a war. We have grown in strength a bit now and can deal with most sandbaggers we get now so things improving.
Vixen
Approved user
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2016
- Messages
- 843
They obviously don't see the issues as we do. Now the blood rush excitement of going Atomic is over and people are back to the same stalemates and sandbagging mismatches there is a lot of big players quitting the game. These are the same players that probably bought crowns so that will hit Nexon's hip pockets. There obviously isn't a massive influx of new players as it is rare to get attacked in gunpowder age and people aren't even bothering redesigning their bases.
SebQuattro
Approved user
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2016
- Messages
- 163
@Vixen
I looked at it a few days ago as it does sound interesting, but to be honest it seems a bit complicated. We have a decent leader, but he frequently does impressions of the hulk and he's the only one that starts war. I'm not going to push him to install discord or start war at times when he's at work etc as I suspect he'll start turning green.
I will suggest it to him though...
I looked at it a few days ago as it does sound interesting, but to be honest it seems a bit complicated. We have a decent leader, but he frequently does impressions of the hulk and he's the only one that starts war. I'm not going to push him to install discord or start war at times when he's at work etc as I suspect he'll start turning green.
I will suggest it to him though...
Last edited:
JNation
Approved user
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2016
- Messages
- 146
I highly recommend that you try discord. You can not go wrong with the kind of community that exist on there. I haven't yet done a h2h but i cant wait to set one up. trust me, they have the system figured out to about 95% accuracy, if not higher. They also take stacking very seriously, so if its something you want to avoid you definitely should check them out.
poop_
Approved user
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2016
- Messages
- 147
SebQuattro, we are in the same boat as you. We either get alliances that are way more casual than us (not making attacks or very bad attacks) OR we get a sandbagger. Sometimes we get both, a terrible alliance who also sandbags, but they still only give us 4 glory, and not a very exciting war. I don't think doing it like the medal system would help though.
On this other more exciting point: you should join discord. Then report back to your leader all the wonderful things there.
On this other more exciting point: you should join discord. Then report back to your leader all the wonderful things there.
Equal
Approved user
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2016
- Messages
- 152
I truly hope that there is something in the works for this in the update that is coming this week or next (5.3, assuming the timeframe). Its taken nearly 2 months since the last update, and I dont think many people want to wait another two months for a fix. Its already been the worst example Ive ever seen in any game of how to manage a leaderboard or matchmaking of any kind.
Ive kinda just stopped describing the examples of how it impacts many teams because it falls on deaf ears. But, I'll throw our current example out there. We are currently matched with UA Onyx. Great team for sure, but they have 7-8 sandbags in our 35v35 war to match as low in strength as us, creating a horrible mismatch. We 10 or so atomics, of which only 5 are close to max offense....going against their 20+ atomics. We have zero atomic defenses, they have at least a dozen, probably much more. We will try hard, never throw in the towel....but the experience is awful. Our top 10 will be stretched to cover an impossible amount of atomic defenses. Our middle will be hitting 30-50 levels higher than them (our 14 is a 157 industrial player with EA defense....their 14 is a 208 atomic with a significant atomic defense) and it will be a crazy frustrating experience. Our low end, who need loot the most, will be hitting iron/classical bases for nothing. They can win 250+ glory from the matchup, despite it being a crazy mismatch. Sandbagging is the biggest deciding factor in our wars, much more than anything skill or design related.
Im sure UA Onyx would be hard pressed to get any match going in full weight, or face their own frustrations with stalemates if they face other equally upgraded teams. I have no desire to take their top 10 spot, I just dont want the war experience to be the crappiest experience ever in this game, and that is exactly what it is nearly every war. It is the only team activity we all have, and it sucks. There is only so much suck people will accept before they just walk away. Its happening to good teams everywhere.
Ive kinda just stopped describing the examples of how it impacts many teams because it falls on deaf ears. But, I'll throw our current example out there. We are currently matched with UA Onyx. Great team for sure, but they have 7-8 sandbags in our 35v35 war to match as low in strength as us, creating a horrible mismatch. We 10 or so atomics, of which only 5 are close to max offense....going against their 20+ atomics. We have zero atomic defenses, they have at least a dozen, probably much more. We will try hard, never throw in the towel....but the experience is awful. Our top 10 will be stretched to cover an impossible amount of atomic defenses. Our middle will be hitting 30-50 levels higher than them (our 14 is a 157 industrial player with EA defense....their 14 is a 208 atomic with a significant atomic defense) and it will be a crazy frustrating experience. Our low end, who need loot the most, will be hitting iron/classical bases for nothing. They can win 250+ glory from the matchup, despite it being a crazy mismatch. Sandbagging is the biggest deciding factor in our wars, much more than anything skill or design related.
Im sure UA Onyx would be hard pressed to get any match going in full weight, or face their own frustrations with stalemates if they face other equally upgraded teams. I have no desire to take their top 10 spot, I just dont want the war experience to be the crappiest experience ever in this game, and that is exactly what it is nearly every war. It is the only team activity we all have, and it sucks. There is only so much suck people will accept before they just walk away. Its happening to good teams everywhere.
Last edited:
