An idea that can help to resolve sandbagging and stalemate issues

[IzEagle]

Now in AW the number of stars and after that average destruction determine the winner. In many of top alliances wars they both take all possible stars and consequently the 100% destruction. Below idea can resolve this issue and sandbagging at the same time.
The destruction level shall be calculated according to all done attacks. It should consider the destruction which is achieved in every single attack according to below formula:
(Destruction achieved in attack #1 + Destruction achieved in attack #2 + Destruction achieved in attack #n) / total number of possible attacks (ex. it is 40 in a 20vs20 war)
In this way all attacks matters and many of stalemates will be kicked. Also the sandbaggers who don’t use all possible attacks will get a lower average destruction.

 

[cclaerbo]

They need to show each players war level not just experience level. There is a huge difference between someone who upgrades all their farms, caravans, roads, and economic types of building rather than offense or defense. Walls aren't even calculated in your experience level but play as huge roll in wars. Nexon has to calculate everyone's war level in some way. Don't need to know the formula but should be able to see each players war level. It would help with picking correct base to try to attack in wars as well.

 

[cclaerbo]

Sandbagging though is not necessarily always what it looks like. The best way to get lower members extra resources is to have them in wars to get loot. As long as they attack to get one star they can level up much easier that way. your idea does make sense though it helps to take unused attacks into the equation a little bit.

 

[Radzeer]

It would be enough to add the fourth tie braker rule to the current one:
The alliance with the higher XP level of the lowest ranked member wins.
If a sandbagger alliance (lowest ranked member ca. 10) meets a honest alliance (lowest level member well over 10), the honest alliance wins - if all other critreria lead to a tie.

 

[Equal]

IzEagle ok i have one scenario for your proposal. war is 20x20 with like 5 sandbag accounts on team A and 0 on team B. team A reaches a perfect score easily, but team B has no chanse of doing so. your avg destruction scenario not even kicks in. equally spread team B looses pointless war. nothing is changed. but lets say Team B also has a 2 sandbags. Team A strongest player quickly reaches perfect score and team B also does the same. sandbags will attack sandbags (whitch in most cases are second or third accounts of the same players, because i have no other ideas how a random iron age player is accepted to strongest alliances together with atomic-global players) again and again the same sanbags 10 times. what do you think, how long it will take alliances to learn and adapt so each attack is 5-100%? i will give a month. in the end nothing is gonna change, if we will try to include extra tiebreakers in a case of tie score at the end of the war. it's not a solution. this can lead to even more sandbagging. in my opinion, scoring system should be changed in a way, that to reach a perfect score would be nearly impossible, and only then if a score is a tie (not nessesary a max), add extra rules.

 

[IzEagle]

As I said in the title this idea CAN HELP and it is mainly an idea for stalemate, and my concern is not the wars between two sandbaggers alliances. My alliance had several stalemates with sandbaggers and we could be the winner if my proposed system was existing. The problem of match up with sandbaggers needs a very deep and comprehensive solution because it comes from human manner not a system mal-function.