An Idea to Fix Stalemates and Sandbagging

[Which]

Hey guys, this is my take on some ideas that might fix stalemates and eliminate sandbagging altogether and make ww fun again. Now no matter which option, i think that

an alliance cannot start a war if the difference in age between the most advanced player and the least advanced player is greater than 2.
(Atomic age can only queue into WW if the alliance roster is Industrial age and higher)

This needs to be implemented to avoid hassle in balancing..exploiting and workarounds.


Option A - Introduce prestige points

• Each alliance will now a new resource bar named prestige equal to 3 times the current war size.
• The first attack from each player costs 1 prestige and the subsequent attack costs 2.
• Prestige will have no effect on the war attack but will serve as a tiebreaker and a prevention measurement for alliances bringing in sandbags.
• After an alliance reaches full score, the prestige bar will be removed and the alliance will be given a prestige score equal to the value of the prestige bar at that time. Whoever has the higher prestige score will win the war in the case of a full score stalemate.This makes it so alliances who is strong overall (using 35 attacks to score perfect score) and has the better planning of war execution will be rewarded.

Option B - Introduce Overtime

• In the event of a full score stalemate, the alliances will now be put in overtime session that lasts for 24 hrs
• Players will now have an additional war base layout save slot for their "overtime session war base layout"
• All defenders and defensive buildings in overtime deal 50% extra damage and have 25% extra health (math tbc)
• Overtime results are calculated as normal
• There is only one attack per player during overtime

Please let me know what you guys think, any ideas would be great, thanks

 

[Tsamu]

Interesting idea to fix sandbagging, but as the co-leader of an unintentional sandbagging alliance, I think it is overly restrictive. We started with 12 high level players, and were happy for months, then somehow we were "featured" and had an influx of low level players. We want to encourage our new allies, so we include them in wars. What would you have us do?

A better solution would be to use, in addition to the current criteria for matching, an alliance variance score, which is the mean of the squares of the deviations from the mean. Let's take two alliances, who would be matched under the current system:

	Alliance 1	Alliance 2
Player		level	deviation	deviation squared		level	deviation	deviation squared
1		180	82.5	6806.25		140	42.5	1806.25
2		175	77.5	6006.25		130	32.5	1056.25
3		160	62.5	3906.25		120	22.5	506.25
4		100	2.5	6.25		120	22.5	506.25
5		80	17.5	306.25		110	12.5	156.25
6		70	27.5	756.25		90	7.5	56.25
7		60	37.5	1406.25		80	17.5	306.25
8		55	42.5	1806.25		70	27.5	756.25
9		50	47.5	2256.25		60	37.5	1406.25
10		45	52.5	2756.25		55	42.5	1806.25
	Average	97.5	Variance	2601.25	Average	97.5	Variance	836.25

Both alliances average about 100, so they will be matched, but alliance 1 will always beat alliance 2. However, if we also take variance into account, the alliances are not a match.

In order to avoid long search times, alliances could be matched based on total score, but then the war loot would be adjusted based on variance. In the example above, Alliance 1 would only get one third the loot, because their variance is 3 times that of alliance 2. Alliance 1 would still win, but would be discouraged from warring because the rewards are low.

I have not experienced any stalemates, so have not given much thought to the subject, but of your two options, A would be preferable. I think wars last long enough already, so would be against anything that makes them longer.

 

[Which]

I like your approach in using the variance. However that is mostly a fix to the matchmaking equation and it does not solve the stalemate issue.

Great info though!

 

[Navalis]

One minor drawback I see with #1 is that it would discourage certain players from making early second attacks. Anyone with a work schedule knows they have to attack when they have the opportunity.

 

[Brand Marrow]

much simpler fix... tiebreaker for stalemates based on average destruction for all attacks (including 0% for those not taken). This will reward active alliances and ensure that alliances with the most dedicated, high level players will consistently climb up the leader board.

Keep giving loot to both alliances in the stalemate but glory distribution would be decided by this metric.


Another simple fix.... tiebreaker for stalemates is time to victory for all attacks (full time, 3 minutes, for attacks not taken). Same benefits as average destruction....