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

[Jakob_888]

@Prodical Clint

Yes. There certainly many different perspectives on the matter And as you say, 1st Dynasty is the 0.001%... But also Protical Thieves is 0.001%, Dutch Warlords is 0.001%, Hobbit Zombies is 0.001% etc etc etc... Many different perspectives...
I dont claim to be the majority... I claim to be 0.001% And I claim everybody are equals and entitled to their voice.
Just because eg. 1st Dynasty, Prodical Thieves and Hobbit Zombies are very verbal about the matter, I dont want ONLY their opinions to be what Nexon to listen to.

THE BIG MAJORITY we know nothing about. So it is not a easy job for the game developers.

 

[S_How]

If you have trouble distinguishing that from mixing max atomics with iron ages, especially in cases where teams could easily go in full weight, there is probably nothing that can be done to convince you otherwise

 

[S_How]

I think your last sentence is spot on. And, I think the game developers have to think if they want the most important strategy in war to be adding in undeveloped accounts to change your competition range. For a select few alliances like yours Jakob, it is unfortunately needed because none of your peers go in full weight and no matches would even be made and that problem must be addressed. But, for almost all sandbagging teams we meet, it is done only to make sure they get non-competitive matches to climb the glory ranks.

 

[S_How]

Jakob I dont think that many of the alliances on the leaderboard are no good, sorry if that was implied, it was not intended. I do think that if teams were unable to artificially lower their war weight, and battled their peers, the leaderboard would look much different.

If they make any changes though, I think it needs to be done in a way that truly allows the best heavyweight teams, to still dominate the top 10 of the leaderboard. It is only fair. But this should not be at the expense of the quality of wars for other teams in the game.

 

[JuDomines]

Am Sorry but conceptually, it's exactly the same thing. I supply don't get why people feel entitled to decide what's morally good and what's evil.

 

[JuDomines]

We don't know if uni is factored in in matchmaking. Do we have bullet proof evidence of that?

 

[Bowmore]

In the AMA thread today, NB4Powerup responded that Uni is factored into the war rankings. That's about the only thing I saw answered in the 1 hour the thread was live though.

 

[S_How]

Im not trying to judge your morally lol. I am challenging your logic though. I think my comment came across rude and short, for that Im sorry I admit I get frustrated hearing things like this sometimes.

To me, it is clear. Advancing uni is an action taken by a player to improve their abilities, advance their powers, make themselves better. Objectively, it also is almost always tied alongside upgrading troops, upgrading buildings, research, etc. If an atomic player advanced their uni to the max, but left their mortars gunpowder, they will still have a weak defense....it is the combo of uni+upgrades that makes people powerful.

Having 25 atomic players, and adding 5 iron age accounts to your roster, when their only purpose is to artificially lower the strength of your competition and make the matchup unwinnable for a team even before planning day, is much different.

I dont call it cheating, but I wish there were a system in which people were encouraged and rewarded for battling their peers. To me, it is unfair that I choose to bring my top 25 strongest and most capable players to a war and this is a strategy that is not rewarded nearly as much as just including undeveloped bases to give me easier competition.

 

[Christopher-Outlaws!!]

why not allow the individual alliances the control to war or not? I posted the idea that I believe is dead simple to implement based on what I know of database structure and application development. https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...77443-the-easy-fix-to-matchmaking-sandbagging

I know there are dozens out there. But it took my 10 year old to bring this one up.

for the record I concur, however this solution doesn't require their intimate knowledge of teams.

 

[miyanc]

I understand wanting to win, but sandbagging is like going to a middle school so I can dunk on 10year olds. Nobody on the leader board that sandbags should be proud of it. Just like I am not going to post on a forum that I beat some 10 year olds at basketball. If i wanted to brag i would join a league of my peers. It doesnt supprise me that people cheat. You can call it stradigy all you want, but cheating is a stradigy. If I had the best players, I would want to stand tall and fight the best. Adding lower ranked plays to gain glory is gutless, and defeats the purpose of compition. The fact that bhg, nexon or whomever is behind the wheel on this game, hasnt done anything (its only gotten worse so if they did something we havent seen it) is a clear sign they don't care. No world war replays and a mysterious ranking system all add up to them not caring. Going to a 25 team war and having a 14th ranked base 36 levels higher then our top guy is not strategy, its a broken system.

Until/if they change the rules do what you like. May the glory be all yours.

 

[Wendy]

to be fair it should be said that a small % of heavy teams started doing that because of long searches. Beside that i quote every single word you wrote, even if a lot of people just can't understand it.

 

[Quang t legend]

the match mechanic is wrong from the start when you have 2 attacks but only 1 defense, but weight the whole alliance equally. This should be addressed directly. I can accept a random match with higher level alliance but cannot stand if they get us because of their sandbagging.

 

[ColdestRage]

Uni researches have impact at matchmaking and are hightening your war rank .
The only thing is that they don't raise your lvl , but they do raise your sumed up total ofense and defense .
That's why at war you can see 2 bases which are almost same lvl and 10 war ranks apart from eachother .
One has Uni researches done, second doesn't , and that's where the huge difference in war rank comes from

 

[Bowmore]

There's so much wrong with the match making, but clearly this "Road" goes to nowhere. We decide to accept what they are giving us and continuing playing, or just move on.

 

[S_How]

Well, we had a super rare, unicorn like, streak of two wars with no sandbagging. First was against Active Warriors (great war team!), the second was unfortunately KA (but they had 0 bad sandbags, was very impressive to see the #1 team go in full weight and they were amazingly good, although it was a horrible 27 level mismatch). Anyhow, now back to normal sandbagging.

The team below has a 15% sandbag. Which, due to BHGs incorrect definiton, isnt actually sandbagging lol. You'd think that if they define it as not sandbagging, it wouldnt have much of an influence on the war match. Not the case, these 4 bases lower their overall level by 25, an absolutely massive impact, way more than it requires to overload the odds in most cases. But wait, BHG said they've effectively prevented sandbagging as a means to climb the leaderboard. Nope...this team can still take 350 glory from us. There is no meaningful penalty.

This is not a '5%' problem as stated in the AMA. BHG, quit defining it in a way that allows you to avoid the problem. It is breaking your system. There is currently almost no scenario, where it benefits a team to bring their best most prepared players, over taking undeveloped iron age accounts. Sandbagging (or whatever you want to call it), is still the number one way for almost every team to climb the leaderboard. There is no better strategy.

 

[Riyad604]

I bet this thread would be at 30 pages by now if people weren't quitting the game so frequently. Lost our best player due to annoyance of stacking last week. In addition to a few others that have quit due to sandbagging. So now it's developing players GPA that join. So maybe in a year we may have plenty of GA/AA players.

 

[Bowmore]

plenty of players in a year? that's pretty optimistic. I wonder if there will be any players in a year.

 

[Equal]

hello... i was looking for a hope here somewhere. but that sneaky diva is hiding deep into the forums.. if someone will see her, let me know. i'll be back..

 

[GailWho]

I believe Greed, Indifference and/or Apathy may have her held hostage for the moment. I'd really like to see her show her face again soon, I'm starting to forget what she looks like.

 

[Scuba]

I don't know if anything has been implemented recently but our last 4 WW's have been pretty much bang on what we would expect (just about)

One war was a mini 10 man war and we had 1 atomic and 2 globals to the oppositions 1 global and in that small scale it was to much for them even though they had a terrific setup.

Our current war still on planning day is the best match we've ever had. Similar levels, similar glory. Only thing is their no1 is atomic 222 which is 52 levels above our no1 global player.

In 2 weeks I've noticed such a difference with the players in our alliance. Much more involved in chat, tactics, helping out etc.

This is the way the game should be. Hope it's something that's been done and not just a bit of luck the matchmaking system had a cold.