• Goodbye 8th Year Event Goals Fix
    A fix is now live. An additional goal, Earn 5 Stars, has been added. Completing this will grant the additional 500 RP to complete the reward track.

Alternate theory on Stalemates and Alternative solution for sandbags

snowleopard

Approved user
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
108
Alternate Theory: As far as I know, sandbags started because of top alliances getting matched over and over with other top alliances and stalemating. Now some alliances are presenting solutions to remove stalemates altogether to discourage alliances to use sandbags.
Well, I don't think so. Removing stalemate going is not going to resolve sandbags problem and I think it will have an opposite effect. Suppose a strong alliance under 50 rank meets a strong alliance which is way down on glory points. In a normal scenario, the under 50 rank alliance would be able to stalemate the other strong alliance and save them going down on ranks. In the "no stalemate" scenario, if they lose they will be down on ranks multifold. This will encourage them to use sandbags to get easier alliances to remain on top. Bottom line: The stalemates are not bad for all and should not be banned.

Solution to Sandbags: I don't know if someone already introduced this idea but I'll throw out here anyways. The war matching algorithm should be divided into parts. Suppose if there is a 25x war, the algorithm should divide the players into 5 parts and search for the matching alliance accordingly. For ex: In a 25x war alliance, the level of first 5 players should be matched to the level of first 5 players of the other alliance and likewise the last 5 players should match to last 5 players of other alliance and so on. This will help the search to become complex and the sandbagging alliances will not be able to find many alliances and if they are able to search successfully, with this algorithm they will be always matched with another sandbagging alliance.
 
Last edited:

Quovatis

Approved user
Joined
Aug 29, 2015
Messages
1,454
I do see your argument, but I don't think sandbagging would be encouraged without stalemates because it would be too much of a risk to lose to a stronger alliance. Only the very top alliances with almost all maxed defenses would consider sandbagging. Yes, sandbagging would allow you to match to lower alliances and get a free win, but losing to a stronger alliance is a bigger penalty that I don't think many alliances would risk.
 

Europeos

Approved user
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
146
I don't think sandbagging started with top alliances. Remember USA Dankness and the likes... However I agree stalemates wouldn't automatically stop sandbagging. It all depends on how stalemates are solved. A 2 defences per base system would prevent both stalemates and sandbags. It would be good for everyone.
 

Tenacious D

Approved user
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Messages
60
This solution has merit. It would ensure that the mixed sandbag alliances get matched with other sandbaggers. We would still have to find a solution to stalemates for the real alliances (read, the ones with AA players), but you have isolated 80% of the sandbagging problem.
 

Hyhyhy

Approved user
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
59
IMHO the solution is not realistic. In a 50v50 war, there would be 10 pieces that have to be matched in order to find an allience to fight.with. I think in most cases you wouldn't find a matching opponent due to too complex and specyfic search criteria.
 

snowleopard

Approved user
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
108
I do see your argument, but I don't think sandbagging would be encouraged without stalemates because it would be too much of a risk to lose to a stronger alliance. Only the very top alliances with almost all maxed defenses would consider sandbagging. Yes, sandbagging would allow you to match to lower alliances and get a free win, but losing to a stronger alliance is a bigger penalty that I don't think many alliances would risk.

Think of an alliance using only 2 iron age base for 25X war. This won't put them in risk.
 

snowleopard

Approved user
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
108
What I am arguing is that stalemates are not bad after all. Without stalemates, the leaderboard will be volatile.
 

snowleopard

Approved user
Joined
May 17, 2016
Messages
108
IMHO the solution is not realistic. In a 50v50 war, there would be 10 pieces that have to be matched in order to find an allience to fight.with. I think in most cases you wouldn't find a matching opponent due to too complex and specyfic search criteria.

We can always modify this searching method. For ex: 50 war should also divided into 5 parts of 10 players. I don't think anyone will have problem searching for alliances. Yes for 40x + wars we always have to search for long. This will definitely discourage sandbags and after sometime all will be on same level playing field.
 

Europeos

Approved user
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
146
Stalemates are a game killer for a lot of alliances right now. Just like sandbags are for others. My opinion is we need to get rid of both.
 

poop_

Approved user
Joined
Apr 7, 2016
Messages
147
Wait, WHAT?!

Alliances without AA players are FAKE?!!

OMG!

@nb4, does BHG know about this big scandal?
 

poop_

Approved user
Joined
Apr 7, 2016
Messages
147
"poop" is my REAL name domi name. Look up "Active Warfare."

You are starting to like me aren't you?

Also, I am a she. ;)
 

dolphin225

Approved user
Joined
Jan 7, 2017
Messages
22
Only the Alliances have AA are real Alliances??? What about those who can't afford to or don't want to pay real money to play? We've worked harder than others to get to where we are only to be judged as not being real? Ouch....
 
Last edited:
Top