C'mon with the stalemates already!!!

[poop_]

I don't think upgrade times are often the issue why defense is ignored.

Very off topic, but why do you all think they came up with the university? why do upgrade times increase? Because they can't keep up with your advancement. Which honestly, might be understandable, especially if you want them to spend time fixing current bugs. But, then again, they would have to spend time fixing bugs, which I am not seeing a lot of evidence of.

 

[Tenacious D]

Poopsie, most top alliances know that defense wins wars. So now your alliance know something that top alliances know. So ... bonus.

 

[Tenacious D]

One hundred times this! But event cards are like crack cocaine to Nexon. I fear they are here to stay. So wars are basically a crapshoot. The better team may win, but most likely the far worse team will tie.

 

[JNation]

Chris, you and I think alike with regards to weighted averages. Having Iron Age bases will be close to meaningless with weighted average.

 

[Europeos]

poop_ yes
Coldest rage, you don't believe me, fine...

 

[KatZA]

Benjie, we've all seen that you use sandbags as well, time to stop pretending like you aren't.

 

[poop_]

Europeos, ok, so I agree that you have the right to have a lot of high levels in 1 alliance.

I do think that if you make that choice, you need to understand the limitations that will give you in terms of opponents. There are not a lot of alliances with only high level players. For a fair match, you may have long war search times, or may not even find anyone at all.

I do not think players have the right to put a lot of high level players in one alliance and then add irons/decoys/sandbags so that they get matched with lesser alliances. That is greedy, selfish, and poor sportsmanship.

You can't get everything you want. Certain choices mean you will have to accept the limitations of that choice.

I am sorry that there isn't the perfect solution for you, but there rarely is a perfect solution.

We just started a second alliance: it is composed currently of really low level and really high level. I had a choice. I could put everyone in a war and potentially inadvertently manipulate a match up or I could leave some at the top out or some at the bottom out. It was a choice. I did not want to make my problem someone else's problem, so you can probably guess which one I chose. There wasn't a perfect solution as is life.

Now, if you REALLY must sandbag, this is what I propose: The next time you get matched with an alliance that isn't not sandbagging, your top guys do not attack (however many sandbags you have), and set up their base to be a giveaway. If you are as skilled as you say, this will be easily achievable for you. I look forward to your screenshots as proof of this. This proposal is said in all seriousness. I am not joking, nor trying to call you out/ be an *ss, or ____(fill in with whatever.) AND, if you achieve perfect without your top guys attacking, then I think it is fair for the top guys to still attack, but only AFTER perfect is achieved.

 

[Nb4powerup]

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions!

 

[Europeos]

poop_ For many reasons I have explained at length many times, I think until the system changes sandbagging is legitimate and sometimes inevitable. It is there and whether you (or I) like it or not it won't disappear. Just do like (almost) everyone else and use them, and then things even out.
I know you disagree, and have made the choice not to use them and I respect that. However, this is your choice and you should accept the consequences of that choice. What I propose is we stop blaming each other and encourage all alliances to work together to find a system satisfactory for all, not just to a group of alliances.
We agree to disagree. Respectfully...

 

[Christopher-Outlaws!!]

What's wrong with poop's proposal? I for one think that's an amazing proposition!! and would allow for somewhat of a middle ground! I would gladly promote such a system, albeit a bit of an honor based system with proof afterwards... but still, EPIC Idea!!

There are many of us that have made the decision to not sandbag, and yes Europeos, I concur there are consequences to decisions, both yourself and poop, and everyone likely would agree on that point. not sandbagging, sandbagging, increasing the xp lvl of your alliance past the point of any other, all have consequences.

I do appreciate and recognize the maturity in which you handle yourself sir. Thank-You for that.

 

[Europeos]

Thanks Christopher, I truly appreciate your expressing your point of view in such a respectful way. I think it's solid ground for moving forward on matters which in different ways affect all of us.
Here's why I don't think poop_'s proposal is a good idea: If I recall correctly, last time we matched an alliance which didn't use any sandbags it was the Japanese alliance SAMURAI, which, believe it or not, happens to be even heavier than we are with many 220+ bases with maxed walls (let it be clear I'm not complaining or criticising them in any way). OK, I think we only used 1 iron age account and 1 classical age account in that war, but still, I don't think it would have been fair to ask us to leave our top 2 players out of this war (I personally had to attack a maxed out lvl 251 base with maxed walls, and almost certainly maxed university, and I was lvl 201 then, so it wasn't exactly easy). That said, if we ever have an unfair match (which can occasionally happen, I'll give you that, albeit much more rarely than some think), it could be fun to do what poop says and make the war a bit more exciting. I'm only speaking in my name here, and I don't believe we have any moral obligation to do that though.

 

[Europeos]

Nb4powerup BFisher Please notice that while perfectly legitimate, this list is supported by a (respectable) group of alliances, which in no way represents the whole community of players.

Personally I am strongly against using weighted averages or the maths mentioned, as it would make matching times and ranges even worse for heavyweight alliances, which already is an issue. I am also against giving glory to stalemates as it would make wars even more boring. I am however in favour of buffing defence.

If I had to make a list it would be the following one:

- Introduce a 2 defences per base system which would make stalemates almost impossible and make sandbagging disappear.
- Make extra troop cards unusable in WW.
- Make upgrades (in particular defensive ones) substantially shorter.

 

[poop_]

Europeos, I appreciate you considering this proposal. I also think it would be a powerful statement if you followed through with it.

You would instantly separate yourself from the others.

If you want to bring it up with your alliance and see what they think, I would be appreciative of that.

 

[Vixen]

@Europeos
It shouldn't be us versus you.. by solving your issues we hopefully address our issues too... We need to recognize the issues that you face and you need to understand the consequences your actions have on our mid range alliances. By you I don't mean your alliance specifically .. I mean the top range. Let's keep throwing the ideas back and forth..

Weighted averages will only match you with someone closer to your ability.. it eliminates the effect of the irons and classics in war. Maybe the range of alliances you can match with needs to be widened?
If stalemates are resolved then the 40% per stalemate is irrelevant
Two defences per base.. there was some argument against it somewhere .. will go back and read
Definitely agree on get rid of troop cards and shorter defensive upgrades

 

[JNation]

You can still keep weighted average and extend the viable range for war match up. I don't see why we can have both.

Regardless tho, your wait time may have nothing to do with the "geek math" (sorry Vixen, i had to. it was too funny not to use). Understandable, the higher your alliance is ranked the less available alliances there will be for you to attack. So your long wait time may be from 1. no other alliances in your range is searching for war. 2. already in a war.

Maybe with weighted average you will get more sandbagging alliances against other sandbagging alliance.

Sandbag showdown!

 

[Europeos]

A lot of good points, Vixen. I agree all issues need to be taken into account.
To get back on topic, let's deal with stalemates and sandbags first, and I think 2 defences per base would solve both. Once those 2 issues are solved, WW would become quite different and then we would need to see what happens and start thinking about what to do with matchmaking, whether using weights, make it wider, etc...
Regarding the cons about having 2 defences per base, the biggest one probably is crashes would hugely penalise those who would suffer them, but I think it would make wars so exciting it's still the best solution around.
Oh, and by the way, most heavyweight alliances already face other sandbagging alliances, 90% of wars are like that where we are.

 

[ColdestRage]

2 defenses per base would help with Stalemates, but would promote sandbaging even more since when you sandbag like f.e. Dankness you can 5 star each target on first attack , and non sandbaging alliance that'd be matched against them would be at a clear disadvantage since they can try each base only 2 times which means Dankness in most cases wins the match

 

[Europeos]

On the contrary, Coldest Rage, it would make using sandbags a big disadvantage as all attacks would count and damages would probably get 0 star out of 10, so I think people would stop using them.