“The Road to Better World War Matchmaking” aka Sandbagging!
- Thread starter TimTrain
- Start date
Agree with your first statement. This is one of many solutions Nexon could pursue for a more comprehensive solution. I can only speak for myself on the crash piece, but I'd rather lose to a crash than because I had no chance due to a sandbagging team, too, but I guess thats a different discussion.
On the second part, I actually quite agree with the recent glory change reducing points for those who sandbag. Its been good for my team, which has met teams that sandbag every single war since the change (most of which have no need to do so other than getting easier matchups). Im not unhappy with it at all, the opposite actually. Our glory risk is way down, though we still enjoy denying it. But, I agree that it was no where near a comprehensive solution, and it really should have been. Its so disheartening, no matter what side of the argument youre on, that Nexon continues to drag their feet and give the impression they just dont care.
On the second part, I actually quite agree with the recent glory change reducing points for those who sandbag. Its been good for my team, which has met teams that sandbag every single war since the change (most of which have no need to do so other than getting easier matchups). Im not unhappy with it at all, the opposite actually. Our glory risk is way down, though we still enjoy denying it. But, I agree that it was no where near a comprehensive solution, and it really should have been. Its so disheartening, no matter what side of the argument youre on, that Nexon continues to drag their feet and give the impression they just dont care.
Glacier, the only team Ive seen hit hard by this that we have faced is W.A.R. who had 25 global/AA, and 15 iron age. Other teams we've faced that sandbag have been just barely reduced. I'd be interested in hearing what your "non sandbag" roster looks like tbh. Maybe it was just an unlucky matchup where your glory was way higher. Do you have screenshots of glory and your roster?
Chadwicke
Approved user
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2016
- Messages
- 1,811
We just ran a 30 war the other team has 15 mix global and atomic over 190 and 3 industrial 155,145,99 then 2 classical level 45 and 30, and the difference 10 ions levels 10 is the highest one. This is crap it will always be crap , if alliances want change then the have to make it themselves, top 100 need to stop then they gwt more matches , bit they have to agree to stop , 1st dynasty usae justice , Quebec glory , any of the before mentioned could crush this team we are facing it's teams like this copying the style of 1st dynasty and all the other top 50s that make this a screwed up terrible experience for a game , doesn't matter how all got there there needs to be a way to communicate to all in that range to stop doing it and then others will copy that stlye same as they did when I started playing before glory everyone wanted to be like USA ELITE tm all max level top to bottom that was the standard and they somehow managed to find war all the time . Either NEXON steps in and does something or the players have to of they even like the game because the pool of opponents will get real small when everyone quits and finds a new game to play . We are already starting a team in a few games to see if we like it better , and if we do well what a waste of time this was since glory. It's not even fun anymore , chat conversation is more fun than the game itself, that is of chat doesn't have a glitch that day. And we could do that on Facebook anyway, game is ruined and from the post today about world war it's clear it's going to be like Version 12.5 before it's considered to be fixed . So it's really up to the players keep it the way it is and play alone or change and change the game . Simple right
Wendy
Approved user
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2016
- Messages
- 200
you don't get it. i don't care how much they win i'm just happy we don't just gift them 770 glory per war. If this was the way from the beginning those alliances couldn't be where they are. that's why i'm totally into a reset of the leaderboard. we could get ridd of all those joke alliances in a minute, and yes they could keep sandbagging but just to go from 12.000 glory to 12.001
Chadwicke
Approved user
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2016
- Messages
- 1,811
That's not what I'm saying at all , I'm saying as a top 1-5 alliances look at that as a blueprint , not knowing the cause I ment you could crush the team we are facing right now , they are a copy of you without the high levels they have 11 200 bit not developed . Out of 45 wars we have seen 38 wars that are impossible to win because some call this a" strategy" not a need. This is my problem , if glory were to be split in a stake mate 60% 40% either on who had the advantage would plus a war pool make you stop sice you could still gain glory?
Quovatis & Europeos - You are speaking only from the perspective of the top 10. If looking at it from that angle, you are right there has been 0 measurable progress and the partial solution they've put in seems laughable. I have a lot of respect for 1D, I think you all have some of the smartest players and posters on this forum, and you've been able to help articulate to others what it is like in your alliances in the current system. We had one of your members visit us last week and he was great, we have a lot of friends there 
But, the problem is for every 1D (and other 'top 10' teams) that are in a horrible situation of being forced to sandbag, there are literally 10 other teams that have absolutely no reason to do it other than to manipulate matchups. There are probably hundreds of these teams that have emulated this practice now, and for every 'non top 10' team that chooses not to have inactive irons in their war lineups, it has ruined the game. You are probably having an experience of 7/10 wars being stalemates, with the other being wins. Most of the normally built teams not in the top 10 have those same stalemate issues (we have had 6 in our last 10), and for most teams the rest of wars are instead losses to teams that have so effectively sandbagged that there was no chance to win.
Its crazy, in our alliance we are so badly outmatched almost every single war, we now look at stalemates as victories. We've faced a lot of the current top 25 glory teams, let me tell you a lot of them have no business being there lol. I cant even begin to count the number of people in those top 25 that have wiped out on our industrial/early global defenses. But it doesnt matter when they have 15-20 players stronger than our strongest.
Since the change in glory that reduces rewards for teams with sandbag accounts, here are the positive things we have experienced:
1) We faced W.A.R., a notorious top stacking team. They are top 10 now I believe, and had a 25 atomic/global and 15 iron age stack. They were really bad but still got a perfect score because outside our top 15 they only had to deal with EA level defenses, or lower. However, their upside was only 8 glory if they won (we stalemated) and I dont think they will sustain top 10 for much longer.
2) We faced Voodoo Nation 3x in the past 3 weeks. The first two times were before the change. One was a stalemate and one we lost, both times we could have lost 500-600 glory (they gained the same). They had about a 20% sandbag and came with easily 10-15 bases more advanced than our top 2. Then we met them a third time after the glory change. We had gone down a bit in glory, they had gone up a bit, but not too much.....however their upside was about 120 glory instead of the 500-600, and we could only lose that 120, a very significant change. We stalemated again. I would say they are an above average team, but certainly no where near the 1D/UA/true top team level. They've been successful because they sandbag.
3) We are currently in a war against a Chinese team that has about a 10% sandbag. Its a pretty even match, but we have beat this team before, and we are being rewarded with a higher glory win potential than we ordinarily would be because they are sandbagging and we arent. So, there is positive upside if we can prevent a stalemate.
4) Before our current war, we faced two teams in a row that didnt sandbag. This is probably the first time this has happened twice in a row in over 4 months. Usually its about 1 in 10-15 wars we get non-sanbagged teams. (One we stalemated bc they were very good, one we easily won)
So, to say nothing has changed is not accurate. For those highly active teams not in the top 10, of which there are hundreds, there has been change. Its changed sandbagging teams experiences (you can see many of them complaining on the forums with very ambiguous claims of 'my diverse team is being punished' lol), and its changed the experience for teams like mine who have no desire to be a top 10 glory team, but just want fun, reasonably matched wars where we dont have manipulated matchups. It was fun for us when we even broke the top 100 haha. I think the current top 5 on the leaderboards is pretty much where it should be. The rest of the top 50 though, with notable and impressive exceptions, are teams that are only there because they've manipulated matches better than others, and I hope the recent changes will make a little dent in that, from our experiences it may.
I say all of this for one reason though, just to give a different perspective. While there is some positive to the recent changes, I think it is woefully inadequate to solve the broader problems that impact many teams. Stalemates are just crazy awful. Even with depleted supply drop event inventories and increasing atomic defenses there is still a massive likelihood of stalemating, especially in above average age teams. The troop card problem is real, even one troop card played is often equivalent to 40-50 capacity, enough to easily throw off any balance. And then to make available and allow multiples of these is nuts. The matchmaking problem for top advancement alliances is awful, hearing about DW (a team I respect a lot) having to wait over a week for a full weight match really shows how big of a problem it is. Nexon has a lot of work to do, and any positives this recent glory change has brought, is still dwarfed by the monumental problem they have. The scary thing is, I dont even think they realize it....the promises of communication have been broken, no detail has been presented, and we hear things like 'we will continue to monitor' which just disheartens people experiencing the problem since its the same old BS we've always heard.
But, the problem is for every 1D (and other 'top 10' teams) that are in a horrible situation of being forced to sandbag, there are literally 10 other teams that have absolutely no reason to do it other than to manipulate matchups. There are probably hundreds of these teams that have emulated this practice now, and for every 'non top 10' team that chooses not to have inactive irons in their war lineups, it has ruined the game. You are probably having an experience of 7/10 wars being stalemates, with the other being wins. Most of the normally built teams not in the top 10 have those same stalemate issues (we have had 6 in our last 10), and for most teams the rest of wars are instead losses to teams that have so effectively sandbagged that there was no chance to win.
Its crazy, in our alliance we are so badly outmatched almost every single war, we now look at stalemates as victories. We've faced a lot of the current top 25 glory teams, let me tell you a lot of them have no business being there lol. I cant even begin to count the number of people in those top 25 that have wiped out on our industrial/early global defenses. But it doesnt matter when they have 15-20 players stronger than our strongest.
Since the change in glory that reduces rewards for teams with sandbag accounts, here are the positive things we have experienced:
1) We faced W.A.R., a notorious top stacking team. They are top 10 now I believe, and had a 25 atomic/global and 15 iron age stack. They were really bad but still got a perfect score because outside our top 15 they only had to deal with EA level defenses, or lower. However, their upside was only 8 glory if they won (we stalemated) and I dont think they will sustain top 10 for much longer.
2) We faced Voodoo Nation 3x in the past 3 weeks. The first two times were before the change. One was a stalemate and one we lost, both times we could have lost 500-600 glory (they gained the same). They had about a 20% sandbag and came with easily 10-15 bases more advanced than our top 2. Then we met them a third time after the glory change. We had gone down a bit in glory, they had gone up a bit, but not too much.....however their upside was about 120 glory instead of the 500-600, and we could only lose that 120, a very significant change. We stalemated again. I would say they are an above average team, but certainly no where near the 1D/UA/true top team level. They've been successful because they sandbag.
3) We are currently in a war against a Chinese team that has about a 10% sandbag. Its a pretty even match, but we have beat this team before, and we are being rewarded with a higher glory win potential than we ordinarily would be because they are sandbagging and we arent. So, there is positive upside if we can prevent a stalemate.
4) Before our current war, we faced two teams in a row that didnt sandbag. This is probably the first time this has happened twice in a row in over 4 months. Usually its about 1 in 10-15 wars we get non-sanbagged teams. (One we stalemated bc they were very good, one we easily won)
So, to say nothing has changed is not accurate. For those highly active teams not in the top 10, of which there are hundreds, there has been change. Its changed sandbagging teams experiences (you can see many of them complaining on the forums with very ambiguous claims of 'my diverse team is being punished' lol), and its changed the experience for teams like mine who have no desire to be a top 10 glory team, but just want fun, reasonably matched wars where we dont have manipulated matchups. It was fun for us when we even broke the top 100 haha. I think the current top 5 on the leaderboards is pretty much where it should be. The rest of the top 50 though, with notable and impressive exceptions, are teams that are only there because they've manipulated matches better than others, and I hope the recent changes will make a little dent in that, from our experiences it may.
I say all of this for one reason though, just to give a different perspective. While there is some positive to the recent changes, I think it is woefully inadequate to solve the broader problems that impact many teams. Stalemates are just crazy awful. Even with depleted supply drop event inventories and increasing atomic defenses there is still a massive likelihood of stalemating, especially in above average age teams. The troop card problem is real, even one troop card played is often equivalent to 40-50 capacity, enough to easily throw off any balance. And then to make available and allow multiples of these is nuts. The matchmaking problem for top advancement alliances is awful, hearing about DW (a team I respect a lot) having to wait over a week for a full weight match really shows how big of a problem it is. Nexon has a lot of work to do, and any positives this recent glory change has brought, is still dwarfed by the monumental problem they have. The scary thing is, I dont even think they realize it....the promises of communication have been broken, no detail has been presented, and we hear things like 'we will continue to monitor' which just disheartens people experiencing the problem since its the same old BS we've always heard.
Last edited:
Europeos
Approved user
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2015
- Messages
- 146
I'm happy to hear the situation is improving for teams like yours. I am aware how hard it's been for middle weight alliances refusing to use sandbags. I'm not sure sandbagging will stop though, until other issues (stalemates, waiting time to be matched, etc...) is solved.
I usually post in answer to (I think) unfair and unfounded criticism to us, but it doesn't mean I don't realize many alliances face problems which are entirely different to those heavy weight teams face. In any case I really like the fact you express this in such a respectful manner.
I usually post in answer to (I think) unfair and unfounded criticism to us, but it doesn't mean I don't realize many alliances face problems which are entirely different to those heavy weight teams face. In any case I really like the fact you express this in such a respectful manner.
Yes, I agree entirely. This wont eliminate sandbagging, it still pays off for many middle/high weight teams. This should have been one part of a much bigger solution put in. Its tough for anyone, big or small, who wants to compete in a somewhat fair environment right now.
I understand. Each team will have their own priorities given their position I suppose and it's hard to understand them without being in their shoes. For 1D, we stalemate 80% of the time, and haven't lost a war since glory began (not counting two >100% bug losses). Others saying that we wouldn't be in this position without sandbagging are very delusional, and that goes for most top alliances. We don't win because of "sandbagging". History has shown we win on skill, sandbags or not. Our priorities are glory and variety in matchmaking. So for us, nothing has changed.
I certainly want it to be fair to everyone. But I also don't think an alliance full of industrial players has any right to be #1 on the leaderboard, especially in the current system where we would never have a chance to be matched with them and challenge. The solution is not easy, that's for sure, but we also are all in agreement that the current system doesn't work.
I certainly want it to be fair to everyone. But I also don't think an alliance full of industrial players has any right to be #1 on the leaderboard, especially in the current system where we would never have a chance to be matched with them and challenge. The solution is not easy, that's for sure, but we also are all in agreement that the current system doesn't work.
Vixen
Approved user
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2016
- Messages
- 843
Resetting the leaderboard might change the priorities of those alliances who will do anything to protect their spot - I totally support it. The legitimate top alliances who don't sandbag will go straight back to the top and can beat their chests with honour. This helps the awful matchups industrial alliances like ours are enduring. Less glory for including irons and classic ... fantastic. Still need to work on more matches for top teams to keep them out of our wars. Gail suggested war can start only every 2nd day so more people searching the same time. I like this concept. Stalemates need to be harder to get ... maybe count both hits. And there should be some glory for stalemates as it is not a loss.
Keep working together for solutions!!!
Keep working together for solutions!!!
JuDomines
Approved user
- Joined
- May 14, 2015
- Messages
- 597
nope, No reset of the glory. No reason to punish the alliances that made it without using sandbags. We need leagues. That results in AA fighting with AA, IA with IA and so on. And stalemate rewarded with some form of glory points.
GailWho
Approved user
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2015
- Messages
- 1,014
Thank you S_How for thoughtfully articulating what we as middle/high weight alliances are going through. And thank you Europeos and Quovatis for acknowledging we have a legitimate need for this issue to be resolved. We know it has been difficult for the elite teams as well. Even though it has gotten slightly better we can all agree Nexon has a long way to go to solve this issue for all involved. It has been a tough few months and tensions were high. Scandalous things were said on both sides in the heat of the discussion and I hope that is all in the past. Perhaps going forward we can all work together to continue productive dialogue like this so it stays on the agenda for Nexon to resolve.
