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

[Tenacious D]

The top alliances have no choice but to sandbag with the current glory system. It is the mediocre alliances who for a brief time were in the top 100 that are complaining so loudly about sandbagging. And they are the biggest sandbaggers. They love their form of sandbagging - always admitting a lot of lower levels. They want to eliminate the type of sandbagging top alliances use. Both types should be eliminated.

 

[Tenacious D]

Active Warfare is something of a misnomer is it not?

 

[snowleopard]

So someone trying to say something which you oppose is a troll. Good job.

 

[poop_]

snowleopard, click on tenny d and look at his past comments.

 

[poop_]

Waste of a post. This is pointless.

Go find some meaning in your life.

 

[Tenacious D]

Poop, everyone has you on ignore. I hope you know this. When you aren't insulting alliances that are leagues better than yours you are trolling leaders trying to get them to kick players. Newsflash: Sev left Active Warfare because he wanted a war alliance. People have different objectives in this game. I can't fault him for his choice.

 

[poop_]

What are you talking about?

I have no idea what he told you, but "Sev" left us because I wanted him to be nicer/friendly/more welcoming to people. He didn't want to be; he was more the condescending/elitist crowd. Ironic how he ended up with you guys. And, telling how he left on planning day and didn't make his attacks. Sorry, but I have no respect nor want anything to do with players who leave their team mid war.

You can have him. But, I think he left you guys too for a bit. Guess you weren't what he was looking for. Probably went back though because he fits right in with your obnoxious, cheating attitude.

I won't pick on "Sev" too much because I don't think he is as bad as your lot, and it is unfortunate that he now has such crap role models. But, as I said, you can keep him.

And, alas, your post is pointless. I addressed it for passerby readers so they don't start to think you are anything but scum.

As I said before, go jerk off elsewhere. This is not the place.

 

[Tenacious D]

Poop, why so angry? It is obvious that leading a top alliance is well beyond your grasp, but creating a mediocre alliance and driving it into the dirt is the next best thing. Right, sweetie?

 

[poop_]

Tenny D, another pointless post. Congrats! (slow clap)

 

[S_How]

Outrageous.... truly outrageous.

We have recently expanded and created another alliance and are finding that wars with 10 or 15 participants is the safest bet against stacked mismatch-ups, but we've had a few Iron Age opponents tossed in wars even that small.

Yes many alliances have done this, splitting, or many have lost enough members now that they can do 15-25 member wars. The thing is, we dont want to, playing together is what we like, and the game is putting us in a situation where we cant. Its crazy that this game forces teams to either split or load their rosters with unplayed accounts as the only viable war strategy lol. This war we are against Dutch Warlords. Another team that is a good team, and they were put in a bad situation of not being able to match full weight because zero other atomic teams go in full weight that I am aware of. I was a bit surprised they use so many (20%) sandbags now, but I guess thats the way it is. I know it was very bad in their shoes, not being able to match....but let me tell you, I'd take not having a match any day, over having a match where the matchups are so lopsided.

Can you imagine in multiplayer if there was a bug, that only offered you opponents two ages higher than you in upgrades? I bet people wouldnt play this game for an hour even lol. But this is what its like in war. Current war against DW is not the worst we've seen, but its still horribly lopsided, the most we can offer is a two or three defenses that have maybe a 25% atomic defense against their 20 atomic offenses lol. They have more than double our atomics, and their members in the ~20 range would surely be in our top ~5. Even when we are able to stalemate teams like this, its terrible for everyone but our very top people, and that is the best possible outcome.

We could easily sandbag ourselves and just pass the crappy experience down to others and probably never face risk of a loss, but what fun would it be, and why ruin another team's game? It feels easier and more compelling just to try and take the entire team elsewhere now.

 

[Tenacious D]

My personal view is that combining your mixed alliance sandbagging, which has brought you to where you are today, with iron age sandbagging would be a bit over-the-top. Don't you agree? Reputable alliances only do one form of sandbagging, not two.

 

[DynoBot]

Sandbagging is a snowball effect from stalemates in most cases. We can build a team of any level more powerful than you can imagine with or without sandbags. Show me where It is a problem within the Asia community. Unlike you, we communicate with top teams from Asia and are friends of mine (KA,KU,Korea Soul,HK,Project Tera should I go on?) and they say it is a non-issue. Unfortunately the loudest and constant voices here at the forum have no real grasp of the game or its problems. Just a bunch of poop_ coming out of your keyboards. It is exactly why every adjustment made by NEXON is catered to the fools who don't have much knowledge of Dominations and come here and speak out of turn. It is exactly why the game has became progressively worse. So please shut your mouths and let the big dawgs do the talking, you might actually get a game we can all enjoy XOXOXO

 

[Equal]

agreed. stronger alliances are loading this problem on average alliances heads and nexon does nothing about it. i am not forced to play this game, so maybe a day will come, when i leave, and nobody knows, how many players are thinking the same. why to put effort, when it is no fun anymore.

 

[aquawind]

I'm not here to start an argument. However, the act of sandbagging, i.e. intentionally creating and having low level underdeveloped inactive(or equivalent to abandoned) bases to "be participated" in WW in order to drag the alliance's average military(attack & defense) power down to get matched with a weaker alliance, is in fact cheating and deceiving the WW matchmaking system IMO. And I doubt solving the issue of excessive stalemates at this point of time would solve the issue of sandbagging, it has already became too widespread, something more fundamental has to be changed/improved.

Some of the top alliances you mentioned have warred against us before, they are indeed strong themself, so I'm not too surprised that sandbagging is not an issue to them. But that has caused many other alliances out there to imitate them(and/or the other top alliances that do sandbagging) using sandbagging as a "strategy". It is very frustrating for a genuine alliance to be matched against sandbagging alliances extremely frequently. Please bare in mind that this game is not created for top players/alliances only, it is important for developers to balance and provide an enjoyable and fulfilling gaming experience to all players(both the top players/alliances and the other players/alliances) and everyone here has their freedom of expression as long as they do not violates the forum rules and the law.

And if you would like to see a broader picture of what the Asian communities thinks about the game issues, I suggest you visit those official/semi-official pages/forums frequently, though I have to admit, this forum is far more easily accessible(for reading/posting) than those Asian forums(not because of the language but because of the way the Asian forums works), thus having more interactions between players here.

 

[Tenacious D]

The alliances that folks complain about (for using iron age bases to level down) are just as genuine alliances as any other, and in fact almost all are much more competent than other alliances that populate these forums. But the people that complain the loudest about sandbagging themselves intentionally keep a mix of lower and higher level players so that they will have easy war match ups. The are called mixed alliance sandbaggers. The do this so that they will get war match ups they can win. Unlike the Iron Age sandbaggers, the mixed alliance sandbaggers actually need to do this in order to win wars. The strong alliances that use iron age bases do not need any kind of crutches to win wars. They know they will either win or stalemate because they will make a perfect score every war no matter who the opponent.

So let's focus on the real problem. Mixed alliance sandbaggers. The same mixed alliance sandbaggers who have been manipulating wars in this fashion for far longer than the glory system was in place. You would think that they would all be global age by now, but they continually need to add lower-level players so that they can continue to parlay their sandbag scheme. Now of course they also do things like manipulate war match up so that they can guarantee to be matched against weaker teams and get easier glory, but let them have their fun on that one.

 

[Vixen]

....but what fun would it be, and why ruin another team's game?....
my thoughts exactly....
....It feels easier and more compelling just to try and take the entire team elsewhere now.....
seems to be a common theme amongst a lot of alliances
come on Nexon .. please don't make us quit.. we love the game

 

[poop_]

@tenny d, you have a weird definition of 'competent.'

And, well done on another pointless comment.

 

[aquawind]

Although I cannot rule out that there maybe alliances that use your so-called "mixed alliance sandbagging" as a mask to do the sandbagging that is causing the issue, I do not agree that widespread "mixed alliance sandbagging" is an issue itself, rather that's an unpreventable outcome of the inability for allisnces to actively recruit new members within the game, which is a different issue all together. (yes, alliance can recruit externally, i.e. on the forums or other platforms, but it's obviously not efficient)

The intention of doing that is not to win WW, at least for the alliances that I'm in. All alliances have to recruit new members in order to grow and be sustainable, older members would sooner or later quit the game, which is a typical scenario in gaming (you wouldn't play a game forever, right?). Most alliances would love to recruit high Age, high Level and experienced players, but the reality is: it isn't that easy nor are there so many of those active players that are searching to join an alliance. So, alliances would have to recruit lower Age, lower Level and less experienced players, helping them progress and make their way up. In return these players would eventually help the alliance grow. The alternative is to start a feeder-alliance for less experienced players to progress before joining the parent-alliance, but not all alliances can afford to do that.

Extending the Top Alliances ranking list(it used to list the top 500 alliances a year ago) does ease the issue of difficulties in recruiting but it is a very inactive way of recruiting, and it doesn't solve the sandbagging issue nor does it target your so-called "mixed alliance sandbagging". The only positive effect of extending the ranking list is to make it more convenient to search for an alliance.

I agree that the game is off balanced, making players, those that know how it works(anyway all players that play this game long enough would eventually know), focus on offensive upgrades rather than other aspects. Regardless of whether sandbagging is an issue, or which kinds of sandbagging is an issue, something fundamental has to be altered to promote a fairer and more balanced gameplay, not only in WW but as a whole.

 

[S_How]

Equal, to be fair, the strongest alliances have their own problems which are very frustrating to their experiences too - such as stalemates and matchmaking times. Nexon needs to address all of it for all teams if they want the game to survive for any significant time. Ive said it from day 1, they need to solve sandbagging and stalemates essentially at the same time. If they solve stalemates (which it appears they are on the road to do with better defense in atomic, and stronghold to limit troop cards) but not sandbagging, it will dramatically increase sandbagging because its an easy way to avoid teams that can beat you. If they solve sandbagging but not stalemates, it will simply increase the amount of stalemates that are had.

 

[Tenacious D]

If you are good, the world beats a path to your door. The alliances I have been in turn down strong players daily. The mixed alliance sandbaggers recruit low level players so they can get easy matchups and win wars. All of them. When they get matched against a strong alliance, their top players do not know what to do because they have never faced hard bases.