C'mon with the stalemates already!!!

[ColdestRage]

Poop has a point.
All of those heavyweighted alliances say they "need to sandbag cause it's hard to find matchups that don't end with stalemate".
Truthfully speaking my alliance meets Sandbager or Stalemates 7/10 wars thanks to their justified sandbaging which is copied by many others.
There is no justification for sandbaging since no matter what issues you have in your alliance that's only your problem , and you have to deal with it .
By sandbaging you make your alliance problem a problem of all alliances since your fix for stalemates is "steal the candy from a baby" type.
If you have alliance full of heavyweights why not create second alliance , divide your alliance in two, and take members across all Ages to join?
It would end your stalemates problem permamently , and you'd be doing challenging wars (that's what you want in the long run right?) instead of unjust ones.
Why haven't you done it?
Answer is simple - you want to steal candy from babies , you don't care about fair matches, all you care for is to be at top of leaderboards.
If I'm mistaken please do enlighten me in my wrong asumptions .
But you probably won't , or your reasoning will be flawed like the reasons you defend yours sandbaging till now saying it's "justified because..." and adressing that other alliances that ain't heavyweight that use it are bad.
That's just hipocrisy ... it all started with you heavyhitters in the first place.
Alliances that ain't heavyweighted are even more "justified" to sandbag than you , since they did it to not meet you heavyweights in their matchups.
They done "nothing wrong" too, they just want to have wars at which they will have a "chance at win"

 

[Europeos]

ColdestRage, we've explained so many times why we have to use sandbags and why we have the right to be heavy weight, I really feel tired to explain it again and again to people who are not interested in listening.
I will just say this: What kind of opponents do you think my alliance is facing in those wars you're imagining? Checking our war history in the last 10 wars we have faced Samurai (3 times) Dutch Warlords (twice) Guerra Brasil, 3 Korean alliances and 1 Chinese alliance whose names are in Asian characters. All of them are heavy weight alliances too most of whose members are AA (one of them, Samurais even heavier than we are). Where are those unfair wars you mention? Where are those babies we're stealing from? What are you talking about?

 

[Vixen]

so let's get rid of tiebreakers/stalemates? Count ten stars.. or seconds per attack to get there or one of the hundreds of great suggestions put out there

 

[Europeos]

I completely agree S_How.

 

[poop_]

Europeos, what do you mean when you say, "we have the right to be heavy weight"?

Are you meaning that you have the right to have a lot of high levels in one alliance?

I will wait for you to answer in case I have it wrong.

 

[poop_]

I will repeat this in maybe a slightly different way because maybe I didn't do the best job the first few times.

The following are aspects of the game that I have observed:
-A maxed out offense can always beat a maxed out defense of the same age. (Maybe not the first try due to human error, but generally, this is true.) In fact a maxed out offense can often beat a base with defenses above their age.
-Every player gets 2 attacks per war.
-Currently, when I install/upgrade defensive buildings, I jump in ranks much more so than if I were to upgrade offensive units/tactics/etc. This indicates that the game weights defenese much more heavily than it weights offense. In fact, we get matched with many alliances who have units far exceeding ours while their defense is lacking. We have relatively evenly developed offense/defense, which reaffirms that the game weights defenses upgrade more.

All of the above make getting a perfect score VERY likely.*

Shocking that we have so many stalemates, right?

No. Shocking that we don't have more stalemates.

If you implement a solution that rewards more offense, you are going to get players investing in even more offense over defense. I guarantee if the total star solution is implemented, in a few months, everyone will be up in arms about how some are abusing the system with players who have AA offense and 1 tower.

The best solution to stalemates is to reduce stalemates. How do you reduce stalemates?

I believe the best way is to increase the weight that offense has in war weight compared to defense (or vice versa if you prefer, but it is just semantics.)

Then you will have alliances matched with other alliances based more on their offensive strength than their defense (as compared to now), which will reduce the incentive to rush offensively and increase the incentive to upgrade your defense. This will make 5 staring your opponents in war more difficult thus making a perfect score less likely.

Now, there will still be stalemates. I am not denying that. But, currently, war weight and therefore matchmaking is screwed up causing LOTS of problems (including sandbagging).

The game needs to fix matchmaking. This is the MAJOR problem. Everything else is just a symptom.



*Sandbagged wars excluded.

 

[British Coffee]

They should have deathmatch or something if it comes to stalemate

 

[Vixen]

total destruction no good if 100% destruction
total stars again no good in stalemate
time to destruction... yes agree...!!!!! and from both attacks so people stop using low level accounts intentionally

 

[Vixen]

I think total stars or the time taken from all players is a great solution for stalemates... what if we got rid of stars and worked only on time? and they would wear a full penalty of 3 and a half minutes for the irons .. would that work?? Lowest time wins...

 

[ColdestRage]

Europeos please don't tell me fairy tales, of course you meet lighter oponents.
Adding 5 IRon Age bases to your search roster does lower your average by around 30 levels.
Of course you meet alliances that have a chance at winning with your alliance, but the fact that they must struggle where you don't stays the same , and that's what I mean by saying "taking candy from babies".
Some babies might bite your hand as you try to steal their candy, but only some.
Most won't even if they wanted to cause they know from the start that they are too weak.
The fact that whole sandbaging started with you heavyweights alliances stays the same too.
If you didn't resort to sandbaging probably no one would.
Even if we call what heavyweight alliances do is justified sandbaging the fact that they are guilty of whole situation we have now at wars stay the same.
Only difference between your "justified" sandbaging and others unjustified sandbaging is the difference of number of Iron Ages you take with you to wars.
And please don't (as I wrote at beginning ) tell me fairy tales that you meet only heavyweighted alliances .
You have been meeting them before using your justified tactics before.
I don't believe that you are matched with heavyweights when your average lvl droped, or at least even if it ain't 10/10 matches , at best you get matched like this 3/10 times and rest of times you have it so easy that after deploying troops and destroying Tc you can close your eyes because you'll 5 star your target no matter what happens next

 

[poop_]

Here is why I don't like total stars:
Ex: We are often outmatched in our wars. They have atomics, and we have no atomics. We only have a few GBA. Henestly, I don't mind because I like attacking higher bases, BUT if you did total stars to decide a stalemate, we would lose because honestly, if they have 15 people with GBA or AA offense and we have 4, who will win most stars?
And, who should win in the event of the stalemate, the alliance that has the biggest guns or the alliance that 5 starred bases with a hand pistol?

For all of you advocating this total star thing, go to your most recent stalemate where you were either outmatched or sandbagged against, and who would win?

Then, reconsider if total stars is the best way.

Same for quickest time. Obviously AA troops are going to rip through bases faster than GBA ones.

How alliances are weighted and matched is resulting in poor match ups and encouraging upgrading that leads to more stalemates. If you just do a quick patch, the system is still broken underneath, and there will soon be another big gash with more problems.

 

[poop_]

I thought of this concept before because I thought it would be exciting! But, I had no idea how it would be set up.

Then this idea occurred to me: you could do it though would be for each player to attack their own base with the same troops that were used to 5 star it.

Seems a crazy idea right? I thought so too at first.

But, think about it, if extra card troops were used, they had more upgraded troops than you because they were sandbagging, you would get to use these. It might be funny to see some of these players struggle with these lower level troops. But, we would need war replays to see that...

Ultimately then, the better attackers would win.

It also would lead to players learning to 5 star bases with less (in order to give the opposing team less to work with in the runoff). If there were multiple 5 star attacks on a base, then the leader could choose the troop combo that opposing team would get, which means once a team reached perfect, they would then aim to do hard bases with lesser troops.

It would promote skill as opposed to upgrading or purchasing.

 

[Christopher-Outlaws!!]

It's like every day though there's a trip sale. I appreciate the whole buy or stuff, get a read for your friends thing, but yes, limit it please!! And not to mention the HUD is crappy enough as is without more stuff on it

 

[Vixen]

ok then how about we have normal stars but in the case of a stalemate the alliance who did it in the least time per base wins... only affects stalemates... does not help to address the larger issue of sandbagging

 

[poop_]

Vixen, that was my comment about quickest time. That aa troops are going to blow through bases faster than gba troops. It rewards the alliances that has upgraded the most or sandbagged or offensively rushed... not skill.

 

[Christopher-Outlaws!!]

Why have we not explored the concept of weighted averages?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...NLCtlE-c0Wh2Gho4WOiaCXYo9QY/edit?usp=drivesdk

Was this concept not valid as far as pitting like alliances against one another?

Forgive me I may have missed something here.

 

[Christopher-Outlaws!!]

Another option presented was to use a 3rd quartile value alongside standard deviation in order to mathmatically calculate stacked alliances. This would require some tweaking, but it's not as though they don't have a database full of information to calculate from.

If an alliance was using stacking, the reward would be 0. likewise the oposition would be given the full loot value but no glory award.
Further to this a suggestion of further penalization would be to impose a timeout, ie. 1st offense, you can't start a war for a week. 2nd offense 2 weeks, and 3rd a month. After which it resides at a month.

I personally like that idea, but sadly my faith in BHG not breaking it and penalizing everyone and their dog is low. If my faith in transparency and development were higher, I would have more faith in them implamenting something of this nature.

**THE ABOVE DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR STALEMATES**

 

[Vixen]

so...
- to improve matchups we use weighted averages.. much fairer and discourages sandbagging
- if someone stalemates we still give them 40% glory - especially on perfect stars cos they should still be treated as a win
- we buff defence (or make upgrade times easier) so harder to kill bases

anything else

 

[Vixen]

to recap ...
- to improve matchups we use weighted averages.. much fairer and discourages sandbagging
- if someone stalemates we still give them 40% glory - especially on perfect stars cos they should still be treated as a win
- we buff defence so harder to kill bases
- we use geek maths to apply a formula that highlights who is stacking and they get a time out for doing so (love this!!! )

- we get Nexon to listen
Nb4powerup BFisher


Let's keep adding....

 

[Christopher-Outlaws!!]

I think that's nailed it