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

[Nakfarfar Titi]

What do I bother with such noobs. Read the post again, it shows that you didn't understand a single word.

 

[poop_]

I don't agree with this. I think there are a lot easier ways to improve the sandbagging glitch/cheat by just by changing the matching algorithm.

Our alliance is different in that we span the ages AND excel in every age. It isn't to sandbag (more often than not, we still get outmatched). Often, it leaves us best suited to beat the sandbaggers because our bottom actually attacks, knows how to attack, and has put time and thought into their bases. We accept everyone as long as you communicate and want to get better. Some of our best players are gunpowder and not long ago were medieval.

Honestly, alliances like ours are good for everyone because we bring new players into the game and guide them from the start. We also help players who were maybe not given the best advice previously. Ultimately, it helps everyone to have more skill in the game. Punishing "teaching" alliances that welcome newer players is not the way to go.

Two ways:
1. Ties are first decided by the avg destruction of best attacks. If both sides got a perfect score, then it is avg destruction of all attacks (missed attacks are counted as 0%)

2. Incorporate the weight of the top players on either side into how much glory they gain. So, if one side has 10 globals and the other has 1, then the clearly, the side with 10 globals is favored to win, and should only get minimal glory for doing so. But, if they lose, they lose A LOT.

 

[poop_]

Btw, quebec knows all about medieval bases still being sandbagging. I just don't understand how they are on here complaining about it when they participate in the problem.

 

[poop_]

You know who else can't get war matches? Alliances that are under 10 members.

Maybe if you tried opening your membership to others besides global age players, you might have different experience.

Just because you want to be exclusive, doesn't mean the rest of us have to experience your fallout.

 

[poop_]

Btw, I remember Elitist Phil now. He stopped by our alliance. He was elitist back then too.

He liked the way I did my war plan and in a condescending manner told me that I should keep doing it that way (like I wasn't already planning to). He left when he realized we help teach each other. I'm sure he judged me on my lack of correct lingo. Sorry, phil, we developed our own that might not be the same as yours. He must hate people who speak different languages.

Silly, elitist Phil....

 

[Phil-Elite]

What gives Poop the authority to police who writes here or not? Quebec is coherent, and has just as much right to post comments as anybody else. But more importantly it highlights again just how little Poop knows about the situation of the top 20.

 

[Phil-Elite]

If this engagement happened, was it politeness you observed or a case of someone not mocking the afflicted? Puerile Poops strikes out again.

 

[Phil-Elite]

Do you ever read your posts before you post them?

 

[Phil-Elite]

Guys face it - your trolling doesn't work on me. Try as you might to chase out any criticism of your silly complaints about sandbagging but its failed, your power plays are as bad as your war-making. You failed in wars and now you want Nexon to change the system to suit just the dozen of you. It's an unrealistic prospect even if you had a thousand followers, which you haven't. Time to face the reality - this is not Monopoly - there is no fairness in this app. The only solution is to win your wars.

 

[Player Killer]

Not necessary. If enough alliance jump ship and have prearrange wars and bypasss Nexon there be less food for you lol.

 

[Phil-Elite]

Leaving Nexon, such a devilish notion.

 

[Christopher-Outlaws!!]

Are you saying that Nexon hasn't addressed this as being a problem? that they haven't come out publicly and stated this is a problem? because that's how I read that. Secondly, Nexon is a business, they strive to grow and continue to make money. I'm quite satisfied in the logical conclusion that since sandbagging has been introduced, the number of people staying and remaining active has likely lead to them stating they are going to resolve it.

I am a hummingbird.

 

[Chadwicke]

If the next update does not include sandbagging my alliance will quit

 

[Phil-Elite]

Good riddance.

 

[Chadwicke]

How exactly do you win a war when a alliance like yours stacks and each mirror is 15-30 levels above , until the bottom 10 but we know if your 30 levels above on over half the number in war then all you have to do is win the war with half the bases active, and that give you "skill" I believe your the one who need to learn how to win a war , take off your training wheels

 

[Eisenoxyde]

Phil-Elite My alliance just lost a 25v25 sandbagged war, 117-107. Our average level was 110.8 and theirs (excluding the 5 sandbagged accounts) was 143.4. Would you care to explain how my alliance should overcome such a significant difference in level? Do you have some genius tactical advice that you can impart on us plebes that we're obviously lacking, so we might be able to beat significantly stronger opponents?

 

[KingRichard71]

The top complain that they have to sandbag to avoid stalemates. How about encourage nexom to change the tie breaker rules to include % destruction of all attacks, not just the best attack. If someone doesn't use both attacks, they get 0% destruction toward total. Fix stalemates and slows sandbagging, imo.

 

[Quovatis]

Then all that does is encourage everyone to attack the lowest player over and over. There's no good, fair way to have a tiebreaker.

 

[Brand Marrow]

go eat cheetohs Phil-Elite, your mom may get concerned about your calorie intake

 

[Equal]

count maximum two best attacks on a single opponent. easy. this way EACH attack would matter. if a sandbagger alliance has 20 global and 10 classical or iron, this would lead them to about 75% average destruction score. this way we would get back to normal wars, where only strongest would war, and then even eavenly spread alliances wouldnot suffer a lot, because of their low level accounts in a case of stalemate. i think there is more chance that enlightenment age player would take 60-70% score from a industrial or rushed global, than iron or classical age player would take from the same enlightenement age player.