“The Road to Better World War Matchmaking” aka Sandbagging!
- Thread starter TimTrain
- Start date
BigBabyJesus
Approved user
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2017
- Messages
- 5
The matchmaking is still really lousy. I like the idea of a "forfeit" option. We've been getting a lot of impossible wars lately. I don't care about the glory points, I just want to have wars that are remotely possible. It's just depressing getting matched with an alliance that has 6 AA, when we have none. It means we have to wait another two days just for a chance at a war that might be possible.
MrTras
Approved user
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2017
- Messages
- 40
Guys, do you want a solution? Quit and move to another game. If they lose people, they will see theyre doing bad, or at least his company will sink, what it deserves for its excellent customer servkce (kappa).
Btw TinSoldier, have your team though about selling this game to Supercell? I see most of the CoC playerbase is happy with the company, they must be doing something good, dont you think?
Btw TinSoldier, have your team though about selling this game to Supercell? I see most of the CoC playerbase is happy with the company, they must be doing something good, dont you think?
Last few wars did not encounter sandbagging. But total mismatch in terms for attack, defence strengths and experience levels. And all wars we were matched with teams having 1, 2 or 3 alliance perks higher. Domi glory points awards does not work as advertised as stronger teams get more when they win. We are a mid-tier team that war once a week for recreation, so not bitching win or lose, but something wrong with the matching last few weeks with all the lopsided wars that's no longer enjoyable.
rising_meatball
Approved user
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2016
- Messages
- 59
Since this game is a complete copy cat of CoC, i think supercell would shut it down the minute it was sold
Here's another mismatch we have encountered.....:
Enemy: 18AA 4GA 2IA 1EA 1GP 4Iron
Us: 9AA 9GA 6IA 1EA 1GP 2C 2Iron
Win:Lose Glory is 1187:33
I reckon there must be a glitch or exploit that these teams are using to hide base strength in AA bases. Previously we have AA major bunker glitch, I believe there are more but less obvious.
Enemy: 18AA 4GA 2IA 1EA 1GP 4Iron
Us: 9AA 9GA 6IA 1EA 1GP 2C 2Iron
Win:Lose Glory is 1187:33
I reckon there must be a glitch or exploit that these teams are using to hide base strength in AA bases. Previously we have AA major bunker glitch, I believe there are more but less obvious.
Nexon forced everyone to sandbag unless the issue is fixed. To be honest, 80% of the teams we have faced have been using sandbags, hence we have must some counter measures for those sandbag bases. The reason I am posting this is that Nexon need to address base strength values especially in AA bases along with sandbagging issue.
At the current stage enemy 19 out of 20 attacks were 5 stars and their no. 10 have already easily 5 starred our no. 1; so whats the fun of playing this.
At the current stage enemy 19 out of 20 attacks were 5 stars and their no. 10 have already easily 5 starred our no. 1; so whats the fun of playing this.
World war matchmaking and sandbags is getting more and more annoying in Dominations. Matchmaking logic is unclear and seems illogical as alliances get 20-30 average lvls stronger alliances in ww. Suggestion is as follows:
Use matchmaking based on average level of the top half alliance players participating in world war. I.e. In 20 players war only level of top10 players would count, in 25 players war - average level of top13 players. That would make sense because of following reasons:
1. Theoretically top half of the players participating in ww can 5-star all opponents as they have 2 attacks, so only these players make the real difference.
2. Such system would allow to avoid sandbags as lower half players just would not count selecting an opponent. Involving very low level players in ww just would not make sense anymore.
3. Every alliance would have equall possibilities to win if matchmaking would be done with tolerance of the first half players average level of +/-5 levels. I.e. Alliance with top half players participating in ww average lvl of 210 could face alliance with top half average players level of 205-215.
Please comment if you agree/disagree and why or offer more reasonable way to increase competitiveness of world war and to make this game more interesting to all of us.
Use matchmaking based on average level of the top half alliance players participating in world war. I.e. In 20 players war only level of top10 players would count, in 25 players war - average level of top13 players. That would make sense because of following reasons:
1. Theoretically top half of the players participating in ww can 5-star all opponents as they have 2 attacks, so only these players make the real difference.
2. Such system would allow to avoid sandbags as lower half players just would not count selecting an opponent. Involving very low level players in ww just would not make sense anymore.
3. Every alliance would have equall possibilities to win if matchmaking would be done with tolerance of the first half players average level of +/-5 levels. I.e. Alliance with top half players participating in ww average lvl of 210 could face alliance with top half average players level of 205-215.
Please comment if you agree/disagree and why or offer more reasonable way to increase competitiveness of world war and to make this game more interesting to all of us.
))Silentmajority
Approved user
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2017
- Messages
- 3
If war match ups were determined according to average level of the top half it would make it very unfair for diverse alliances who include people of all ages included in war. For example a size 20 team with 5 atomic, 5 global, 5 industrial, 5 enlightenment could match a team thats all atomic or global making it impossible for them to win.
We are a diverse alliance and frankly after being hit time and time again with 1000 to 2 glory (we being the 2) any fun and interest in wars is evaporating. Spending resources even to do a battle is a no no when your opponent is 30 levels above you and got the match because they ensured the top 10 were maxed . Sandbagging ... win at any costs and cheaters has taken its toll. There should be 2 areas .. those who want fun as an alliance and those who are so power hungry that they will cheat and manipulate the stats to achieve an easy. They are the cheaters and exploiters. They feel no shame - fair play is non existent in this game. Well the makers don't care.
New Age? Your having a laugh .. fix the wars because your cheating Alliances are running riot.
New Age? Your having a laugh .. fix the wars because your cheating Alliances are running riot.
Last edited:
DUSTY1
Approved user
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2016
- Messages
- 124
I would have loved a forfeit options for this one versus the Parallel World:
DUSTY1
Approved user
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2016
- Messages
- 124
Solution: Top 1/2 of the lineup is usually sufficient to potentially dominate the entire war, so when the top 1/2 is excessively dominant it should get a doubled weight. The lineup was very high down to level 12, whereupon the average dropped 100 points. This drop was meaningless to the overall outcome.
Last edited:
Im mostly retired from the forums, because the communication between BHG/Nexon and the community became so poor. But, I still can't help but feel it is a real travesty for the game that sandbagging was never fixed. Dominations is still the only game Ive ever played, where the best strategy for alli vs alli competition is to bring undeveloped, mostly alt accounts to war to manipulate the matchup, rather than be rewarded for fighting peers.
The worst part about it, beyond the countless posts by developers on how they want to improve matchmaking and fix sandbagging (all can be looked back at as one big joke now), is that this will only become even worse with the Cold War Age about to be released.
Consider a 20v20 war, one team bringing 4 alt level 10 iron ages and 16 real players. The other team decides to bring their best, most prepared, 20 real players.
In the industrial age, bringing 4x lvl10 iron ages combined with 16 lvl110 industrials lowered the average level by 20 for the sandbagging team. A 20 level *average* advantage over your opponent is pretty significant.
In the global age, bringing 4x lvl10 iron ages combined with 16 lvl170 globals lowered the average level by 32 for the sandbagging team. A 32 level *average* advantage over your opponent became nearly impossible to overcome, although teams could still shoot for stalemates.
In the atomic age, bringing 4x lvl10 iron ages combined with 16 lvl230 atomics lowered the average level by 44 for the sandbagging team. A 44 level *average* advantage over your opponent is insurmountable. Timed tiebreakers encourage sandbagging even more, because with a 20-45 level advantage over your opponent, you dont have to spend money on cards as much to be able to compete. The few iron ages that can be cleared quickly for time, simply dont matter when there are crazy matches where one team has 10-15 stronger bases than the opposing teams top 2-3. Its easy to sandbag your way to tiebreaker prevention.
Coming up next, the cold war age. Perhaps a level 290 average for a heavy CWA team? Bringing 4x lvl10 iron ages combined with 16 lvl290 cold war bases will lower the average level by 56 for the sandbagging team.
You can switch up the average levels, change the equation some....but the reality is, the higher the "war weight ceiling", the more of an influence bringing iron age/undeveloped early age accounts will have on matchmaking.
There have been so many ideas from the community. My favorite remains just not counting the bottom 20% of a roster in the matchmaking equation (there arent too many rational arguments to bring your classical age "friends" to a war dominated by atomics anyways, what kind of experience would that be for a newer player?). But, if you dont like that, there are other great ideas like giving each base 2 defenses (worth up to 10 points), restricting the age range for wars, or many other choices. Literally anything would be better than the current state.
When the #1 strategy for wars is to bring undeveloped accounts to war, and the #2 strategy is to buy elephants or sentry towers....well...its not very good for the game.
The worst part about it, beyond the countless posts by developers on how they want to improve matchmaking and fix sandbagging (all can be looked back at as one big joke now), is that this will only become even worse with the Cold War Age about to be released.
Consider a 20v20 war, one team bringing 4 alt level 10 iron ages and 16 real players. The other team decides to bring their best, most prepared, 20 real players.
In the industrial age, bringing 4x lvl10 iron ages combined with 16 lvl110 industrials lowered the average level by 20 for the sandbagging team. A 20 level *average* advantage over your opponent is pretty significant.
In the global age, bringing 4x lvl10 iron ages combined with 16 lvl170 globals lowered the average level by 32 for the sandbagging team. A 32 level *average* advantage over your opponent became nearly impossible to overcome, although teams could still shoot for stalemates.
In the atomic age, bringing 4x lvl10 iron ages combined with 16 lvl230 atomics lowered the average level by 44 for the sandbagging team. A 44 level *average* advantage over your opponent is insurmountable. Timed tiebreakers encourage sandbagging even more, because with a 20-45 level advantage over your opponent, you dont have to spend money on cards as much to be able to compete. The few iron ages that can be cleared quickly for time, simply dont matter when there are crazy matches where one team has 10-15 stronger bases than the opposing teams top 2-3. Its easy to sandbag your way to tiebreaker prevention.
Coming up next, the cold war age. Perhaps a level 290 average for a heavy CWA team? Bringing 4x lvl10 iron ages combined with 16 lvl290 cold war bases will lower the average level by 56 for the sandbagging team.
You can switch up the average levels, change the equation some....but the reality is, the higher the "war weight ceiling", the more of an influence bringing iron age/undeveloped early age accounts will have on matchmaking.
There have been so many ideas from the community. My favorite remains just not counting the bottom 20% of a roster in the matchmaking equation (there arent too many rational arguments to bring your classical age "friends" to a war dominated by atomics anyways, what kind of experience would that be for a newer player?). But, if you dont like that, there are other great ideas like giving each base 2 defenses (worth up to 10 points), restricting the age range for wars, or many other choices. Literally anything would be better than the current state.
When the #1 strategy for wars is to bring undeveloped accounts to war, and the #2 strategy is to buy elephants or sentry towers....well...its not very good for the game.
I couldn't agree more with the mismatches lately. Last 3 weeks there has been an average of 1300 glory point difference between the up and down and we are always the underdogs. It has cost us players and is definitely making good players lose interest in staying around. And when you say anything to nexon there is the typical blah blah blah answer. They clearly don't understand the affect this is having on those that have been with the game a long time. We used to at least have decent matches mixed in but it's been nothing but impossible mismatches now. Their response of looking at troop power to determine matches is ridiculous. I wonder if anyone there is looking at these and then looking at the battles to see how bad it is.
Our biggest issue right now is repeat matchups. We have faced the same alliance six times in the past couple of months, and there are several others that we have faced 2 or 3 times in the same time period. We are by no means a top-tier alliance, generally hovering somewhere between 22K and 24K glory, so I can only imagine that this problem becomes even worse the higher you go.
In general, I would say the war experience is drastically different based on where you fall in the glory range. When we were at 20K glory, we rarely encountered sandbaggers and didn't often run into loaded strongholds. Once we passed 22K, we started seeing more bags and a lot of packed strongholds. We have adjusted, but I can imagine war will become more and more of a chore if we keep progressing.
In general, I would say the war experience is drastically different based on where you fall in the glory range. When we were at 20K glory, we rarely encountered sandbaggers and didn't often run into loaded strongholds. Once we passed 22K, we started seeing more bags and a lot of packed strongholds. We have adjusted, but I can imagine war will become more and more of a chore if we keep progressing.
DUSTY1
Approved user
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2016
- Messages
- 124
I have only had one repeat matchup in the past many months (since I started logging every war in a google sheets document). Our last opponent was all atomic/global 1/2 way, then classical/medieval there on down. Not even pretending, by loading a few Iron age in there. The top half did all the lifting and the bottom half was just filler.
