Jolly the Wise
Approved user
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2015
- Messages
- 123
Sandbagging is the inclusion in a war team of very low level players in order to reduce the team’s average level in matching as teams are matched in War based on their average level. As iron Age accounts are the lowest that can play war these are often the ones used by sandbagging teams. This strategy is effective because each player has two attacks in War and so only half the players in a team need to score to enable a team to reach the maximum. Thus at the extreme in for example a 20:20 war a sandbagging team can field ten Atomic Age players and ten Iron Age players and win because although the Iron age accounts may be unable to score any stars or indeed may not make any attacks at all, the Atomic Age players can all score five stars twice against enemy bases.
i suggest that to dissuade sandbagging, War scoring be modified to include stars not scored. Let me explain.
Call the score derived by the current method “A” (which as we know is the sum of the stars scored in the best attacks against enemy bases).
Let’s call a star not scored above a certain minimum level (X) “a blank”.
Let X be the minimum number of non-stars a player gets in order for his blanks to be included in B. Thus if X = 3 and a player makes a two star attack his blanks = 3 - 3 = 0. If he scored only one star then his blanks = 4 - 3 = 1.
Finally let B then be the sum of the blanks scored by each of the players in a team. Assume X is set as a constant by the game designers. (It needn’t be but making this set by teams and part of matching may make matching impractical).
Then the final score of an alliance war team would be:
A - B.
Example:
In a 20:20 War a sandbagging team fields 10 Atomic and 10 Iron Age players. Say X has been set to 0 meaning that any attack that scores less than five stars will be included in the total B as for example a four star attack produces one blank. (Had X been set at say 3 then a four star attack would not produce a blank). Say the Iron Age accounts are dummies and make no attacks and the Atomics all make five star attacks, twice. Then the alliance score is:
A = 10 x 5 x 2 = 100 (as normal).
B = 10 x 5 x 2 = 100 blanks
Score = 100 - 100 = 0.
Note that X need not be set at 0. It could be any number from zero up to 5 though effectively a setting of 5 is what we have now meaning any attack with any number of zero-stars does not count against a team. If X is set at 1 then B becomes the sum of any attack with zero stars each counting as 1 blank and thus deducted from A. So in our example if X is set at 1 and the Iron Age accounts are dummies that don’t attack or cannot get any stars the score would be:
A = 100.
B = 10 x 1 x 2 = 20.
Score = 100 - 20 = 80.
This system encourages teams to field their strongest players and the X-factor allows for a setting that still encourages looting and improvements to average destruction time. Personally I think X = 3 or 2 is the most reasonable.
i suggest that to dissuade sandbagging, War scoring be modified to include stars not scored. Let me explain.
Call the score derived by the current method “A” (which as we know is the sum of the stars scored in the best attacks against enemy bases).
Let’s call a star not scored above a certain minimum level (X) “a blank”.
Let X be the minimum number of non-stars a player gets in order for his blanks to be included in B. Thus if X = 3 and a player makes a two star attack his blanks = 3 - 3 = 0. If he scored only one star then his blanks = 4 - 3 = 1.
Finally let B then be the sum of the blanks scored by each of the players in a team. Assume X is set as a constant by the game designers. (It needn’t be but making this set by teams and part of matching may make matching impractical).
Then the final score of an alliance war team would be:
A - B.
Example:
In a 20:20 War a sandbagging team fields 10 Atomic and 10 Iron Age players. Say X has been set to 0 meaning that any attack that scores less than five stars will be included in the total B as for example a four star attack produces one blank. (Had X been set at say 3 then a four star attack would not produce a blank). Say the Iron Age accounts are dummies and make no attacks and the Atomics all make five star attacks, twice. Then the alliance score is:
A = 10 x 5 x 2 = 100 (as normal).
B = 10 x 5 x 2 = 100 blanks
Score = 100 - 100 = 0.
Note that X need not be set at 0. It could be any number from zero up to 5 though effectively a setting of 5 is what we have now meaning any attack with any number of zero-stars does not count against a team. If X is set at 1 then B becomes the sum of any attack with zero stars each counting as 1 blank and thus deducted from A. So in our example if X is set at 1 and the Iron Age accounts are dummies that don’t attack or cannot get any stars the score would be:
A = 100.
B = 10 x 1 x 2 = 20.
Score = 100 - 20 = 80.
This system encourages teams to field their strongest players and the X-factor allows for a setting that still encourages looting and improvements to average destruction time. Personally I think X = 3 or 2 is the most reasonable.
Last edited:
