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

[Phil-Elite]

I think you should give up trolling, and you don't have the skills for satire.

 

[Phil-Elite]

Do you use a translator?

 

[KingRichard71]

@Qovotus, people may attack the lower bases over and over, but those 8 to 10 iron age bases will then have to do their 2 attacks, thus bring down total destruction %. Sandbaggers will lose tie breakers because their destruction % will be less.

 

[Max_imus]

What do you not like?

If you kean grammar, Im obviously not a native english speaker...

 

[poop_]

At the time, it was weird to me. I was wondering why you were telling me to do something I was already doing... It was clearly a condescending attitude to make yourself feel superior. I humored you, so I guess I was the polite one.

Good try, elitist phil. I am not sure people are observing this politeness you speak of.

 

[poop_]

Elitist phil-

Do YOU actually read other's comments before posting a response?

I didn't say they couldn't post. I said I didn't understand it.

I know a lot about the situation of the top 20: they are scared to fall down the list, so they cheat. I think I got it, right?

 

[Eisenoxyde]

Has weighting the various ages been suggested before? Like a multiplier for each age, 2^1 for Iron, 2^2 for Classical, 2^3 for Medieval, ..., 2^6 for Global

This is what it would look like:

Sandbagging Army		Non-sandbagging Army
Age	Multiplier	Armies	Avg level		Age	Multiplier	Armies	Avg level
Iron	1	0	20		Iron	1	0	20
Classical	2	10	30		Classical	2	0	30
Medieval	4	0	80		Medieval	4	0	80
Gunpowder	8	0	100		Gunpowder	8	9	100
Enlightenment	16	5	120		Enlightenment	16	11	120
Industrial	32	10	150		Industrial	32	10	150
Global	64	10	170		Global	64	5	170
		35					35
	Old average level			Old average level
	117.1428571			130.5714286
	Weighted average			Weighted average
	4771.428571			3734.857143

The sandbagging army would be unable to lower their level enough to match the level of the weaker alliance. Any thoughts/suggestions? The weighting can be adjusted and fine tuned, but this would be a great way to combat sandbagging.

 

[Player Killer]

They should add a time component to the calculations. The fastest time to 5 star all bases wins stalemate. When i say time. I mean time taken to 5 star a base.

 

[poop_]

I'm assuming that they have a "war weight" for each player that isn't their level or their age, but based on defense/offense. But, yes, it they took your system or a system like yours so that the players with more "war weight" would go through a multiplier and count more towards the total alliance's war weight.

I would be interested to know how they currently match. I am guessing it might something simple like a number for each alliance (estimating their strength) as opposed to something based on the range of players in an alliance or the difference between opposing players.

If you based it on minimizing the difference between mirrors that might be the best way.

I just think there are so many options that would be so much better than what we have now. I don't know what is taking them so long. I think there are a lot of math majors in this world that would quickly come up with a solution.

 

[poop_]

Ooooooh! I think I get it now.

Elitist phil doesn't think we have the skills to create 2nd accounts, have them join our alliance, put them in wars, and then ignore them.

Or, elitist phil, do you think we don't know how to make good iron age defensive bases? Please share your wisdom!

Guys, it's just been a big misunderstanding! Elitist phil just thinks we haven't mastered the iron age, and he CLEARLY has.

Sorry, for misunderstanding you earlier phil. You just wanted to teach us how to sandbag.

I think what we are saying is that we don't want to sandbag because it then isn't so much a challenging game more a predetermined outcome. Does that make sense to you?

 

[poop_]

Player Killer, I don't like that idea. It would benefit me but would change the game. Although there might be a bunch of switches to Versailles and some clear cutting.

 

[Phil-Elite]

Puerile Poop and his bizarre fantasies - very sad.

 

[poop_]

Clearly, you don't remember that I am a 'she.'

Are you calling me puerile because I'm named 'poop' or because you want to use a big word to make yourself seem smart? I'm guessing the latter.

 

[Player Killer]

Not sure how it would change the game as only affects stalemate.. It only adds a extras consideration for the top tier players and is easy to implement as they already record that stat anyway.

 

[Player Killer]

Percent destruction does not decrease if you 5 star all bases.

 

[poop_]

Player Killer I mean, I guess it is better than a stalemate, but right now, you get an allotted time for qv and to finish. As long as you finish in the allotted time, there is no benefit to being faster. Maybe, I am alone in thinking this, but changing it to reward certain types of attack that attack faster might benefit different players/nations disproportionately. Again, as I said, I attack fast, but that is my strategy. There are others that work too. As long as your done by the buzzer. I just have a feeling there would be a large group against this solution. I could be wrong.

I think just ending stalemates by the avg destruction of all attacks (missed attacks are counted as 0) would work. They used to keep this stat (without the missed attack part). Or just use total stars of all attacks.

I am partial to solutions that reward the whole team, not just the half that make the 5 star attacks.

 

[Phil-Elite]

Why would I want to remember you?

 

[poop_]

Indeed, poop is very forgettable.

 

[Phil-Elite]

We have never met. I keep a record of all the alliances visited. Active Warfare is not on my list.

 

[Phil-Elite]

Your fantasies are very sad.