C'mon with the stalemates already!!!

[QuébecGlory]

I understand that matchmaking and sandbagging are complex issues to fix, but for pete's sake, BHG needs to figure a way to end stalemates....anything! We'll adjust to whatever system is introduced, but c'mon already! Fighting so hard for no winner, no glory points and 40% of ressources is ridiculous. You might be surprised of all the positive changes that would come from fixing stalemates! Let's all join forces at least on this one issue that we all agree on!

 

[Europeos]

Agreed, whatever the differences on other issues, we all need to be united on this.
The best solution IMO is to have 2 attacks count per base.
Nb4powerup any chance we get an official stance on that suggestion?

 

[Jes852]

Agreed, it makes ww boring.

 

[Prodigal Clint]

Please already. 40% glory for perfect score stalemates, same as loot.

 

[KatZA]

The war system is becoming stale...just like the results. Please make a change...

 

[dolphin225]

Haven't had stalemate yet but agree about mismatched wars. We are waiting for current war to end. Only ONE of their people attacked and the rest are all INACTIVE players. Ugh! : (

 

[Blacknife686]

On a similar issue; our alliance has lost the past two wars and are absolutely going to loose this war due to a whole new group of stackers. Currently facing a previous T100 group which have maxed Atomics, Global and Industrial players with Iron at the bottom. Seems some people really want to get back to the top....

 

[Tenacious D]

Stalemates are not the result of improper war matchups. They occur when the matching system works as it should. Every top alliance would prefer tough matchups. But if the result is a stalemate, and it usually is, under the current system it is a disaster. No glory and 40% resources. Fix stalemating and you will fix the sandbagging problem that occurs among top alliances. They will simply stop doing it. Before the current broken glory system was instigated none of the top alliances had lower level accounts. None. Fix stalemating and then Nexon can focus on fixing the mixed alliance sandbag problem.

 

[poop_]

So when the matching encourages alliances to develop their offense over their defense, which creates perfect scores, which in turn create stalemates....

Hmmm...

I think you might want to rethink Tenny D.

I am not arguing against a solution to stalemates. I am promoting a solution that reduces the number of stalemates as well.

 

[Althalus]

You really expect us to buy that 40% resources are an issue for high level alliances? It's the lack of glory on a stalemate that's the issue. If fixed, some of those 'top' alliances will start to lose and how long before they reach for their sandbags to get easier matches to propel them back to the top 100? I'm not saying all will but some certainly will. So both issues are intrinsically linked and need resolving if those 'top' teams really want to prove they've earned their place at the top of the tree.

 

[Tower]

Let us be honest, the only real annoying thing about stalemates is the 0 Glory problem... No one go to war for the loot... You can get that in 1-2 attacks in pvp...

The best and fastest way to fix the glory part of the stalemate problem is to give 25% of the glory to both teams in case of a stalemate.
25% is just perfect. Something is better than nothing and 25% is not so good that you wouldn't want to win -

and then troop cards should be limited to 1 pr attack. In a recent war one of our EA guys took out a pretty tough Global using 4 troops cards... That is just silly

 

[Europeos]

I disagree, it's not just about glory, it's also boring. If you just get glory from stalemates you'll get the top 10-15 alliances facing each other over and over again having endless stalemates and getting the same amount of glory over and over again. The leaderboard will hardly ever change.
Stalemates do need to be solved.
Again, make 2 defenses count per base would solve stalemates, sandbags, and bring excitement back to WW.

 

[Bobortvogel]

Some really good comments here. I agree with poop and tenacious D. I have seen a lot of suggested solutions. I think the issues at the very top are different than the issues for everyone else. So here are my thoughts:

1. The matching system needs to be weighted. Your #1 player should have more weight than your #30 player. A 30, 29, 28 weighting might be too much but some weighting would help. Another way would be 2/3 top half, 1/3 bottom half.

2. No glory points for ties doesn't seem fair. Maybe a third tie breaker goes to the team with the most stars bottom half.

3. The issues are the top are totally different. Maybe a straight ladder at the top.

Good luck.

 

[poop_]

@europeos: here is the issue with that solution:

If that solution were implemented, it would encourage more investment on offense to get as many stars as possible because that is what wins the war.

Again to properly fix stalemates, they need to fix the matching algorithm to weight offense more than they do now or find a solution to stalemates that rewards investment in defense, otherwise it is a race to the highest level troops.

Right now, stalemates might be the only thing preventing a lot of players from ignoring defense completely. Think about it.

 

[Bobortvogel]

Worth repeating...

Some really good comments here. I agree with poop and tenacious D. I have seen a lot of suggested solutions. I think the issues at the very top are different than the issues for everyone else. So here are my thoughts:

1. The matching system needs to be weighted. Your #1 player should have more weight than your #30 player. A 30, 29, 28 weighting might be too much but some weighting would help. Another way would be 2/3 top half, 1/3 bottom half.

2. No glory points for ties doesn't seem fair. Maybe a third tie breaker goes to the team with the most stars bottom half.

3. The issues are the top are totally different. Maybe a straight ladder at the top.

Good luck.

 

[QuébecGlory]

Repeat all you want, the point is to fix stalemates. Your #2 is a very poor solution and too hard to implement.

 

[QuébecGlory]

Matchmaking issues have nothing to do with stalemates. In fact, the more even the teams, the more stalemates there will be. Either the find a way to break a tie somehow, or make it much harder to get a perfect game. I remember when a perfect game was something to be proud of....now, you fail if you can't achieve it.

 

[Jakob_888]

To avoid stalemates Nexon has to stop the extra troops - and never introduce them again.
An ocational event troop (max 3) is okay. But never ever the many gifts - the game are ruined for months because of it.

When people get Atomic age defences (and not only Atomic age offence), perfect scores will probably end as a standard.

 

[poop_]

I will break it down for you:
If you weight defense less than it is now compared to offense, players will invest in more defense.

And defense will get stronger overall for alliances.

If defense get stronger, it will be harder to achieve a perfect score.

If it is harder to achieve a perfect score, there will be LESS stalemates.

(Read the above again if you still don't get it.)

Stalemates and war weight are directly linked.

Think of it in reverse if you need. If the game barely weighted defense, bases would be incredibly difficult, and a perfect score would almost never be achieved.

This is not rocket science.

 

[Vixen]

I disagree too.. just make stalemates harder to get.. fun is achieving the win.. not achieving hte perfect