C'mon with the stalemates already!!!

[QuébecGlory]

What a condescending attitude you have.... I know what you are saying, am I allowed to disagree?

 

[Bobortvogel]

The point is to improve the war experience. All three ideas are easy to implement, fix stalemates and would improve the war experience. On #2 seriously think about it. It is no different than a handicap system which has been used used successfully around the world for decades. Don't be to quick to dismiss new ideas.

 

[poop_]

You can disagree, but you would be wrong.
When perimeters are defined, some things are facts (as opposed to opinions). Saying that stalemates have nothing to do with how alliances match are matched is just incorrect.

Just because you want to believe something, it doesn't make it true.

@quebec, you know where we stand. If you don't, PM me, and I will clarify.

 

[benjieland]

No Title

here is the proposed remedy for stalemates and gifts
the whole communyty says thanks you guys

 

[QuébecGlory]

Now that read it again, you are right, I now see the light, O Great Poop Master! I will not comment anymore on this forum since I'm wrong all the time. I will read only your "facts" and learn how to be a great leader, maybe someday our alliance will be as great as yours! ....and I thought I was helping the cause, what a fool...bye...

 

[poop_]

QuébecGlory, you are welcome.

I am here to help any time you need.

 

[Europeos]

How would not using sandbags prevent stalemates?

 

[Bowmore]

Add another tiebreaker: battle time. Just add up the best battle times for the top attack against each base and best time wins. This keeps the decision skill based. And do you think those sandbaggers will still put those easy Iron Age bases out there?

Oh, and I ran into a career stacking alliance over the weekend. They were fighting 20v20 with 5 classic age accounts, ones that hadn't logged on in over 200 days!

 

[Europeos]

poop_ You've got a point when you say we need to promote defense. One of the reasons there is an imbalance towards offense is the game is designed in such a way it's relatively fast to get the essential offensive upgrades. When you move up age you can get them in a few weeks, while upgrading your defense takes many months. I think Nexon should really revise the building times for defensive upgrades and reduce them dramatically.
I disagree on putting penalties on offensive weight in matchmaking however as it would worsen the difficulties heavy weight alliances have to get a match. As a result they would need to use even more sandbags and nobody wants that.

 

[S_How]

Fixing stalemates alone will do absolutely nothing to fix sandbagging. There are a few (10-20 heavyweight teams) that have a very hard time matching or are so skilled that they will always stalemate each other. Aside from these 10-20 teams, the remaining 95% of teams that use this tactic will continue to do so, because it gives such easy matchups against non sandbagging teams. I agree with Jakob's statement that atomic defenses will help end stalemates....but only for heavyweight teams, the problem is 95% of sandbagging teams will rarely if ever meet full atomic defenses in large quantity because they've artificially lowered their weight so much, and may sandbag even moreso to prevent these matches.

Im all for the two defenses per base solution (originally Gail's idea), because I feel it will address both problems in a very positive way.

Unfortunately, for some reason, BHG has chosen to not care about this issue. And, they are the only ones who can help.

 

[S_How]

Yes, they will still put those iron age bases out there. Because sandbagging will prevent many/most matches from even going to a tiebreaker.

 

[Europeos]

I'm for the 2 defenses per base solution too. It'd solve both stalemates and and sandbags.

 

[poop_]

Penalties? What are you talking about? Reduce the effect that defense has in war weight. Period.

I don't think it would effect your ability to get a match. It might even help you.

And, honestly, I don't really care that a few alliances with the "heavyweights" can't get a match. They have the composition that doesn't match with many other alliances. DEAL WITH IT (and I don't mean by adding irons and making it someone else's problem.)


Also:
"need" to use sandbags?!

Seriously?

 

[Havardr]

No Title

Stalemates should be fixed.

Total destruction stats or total stars and/or time to destruction could potentially be used as tie breakers.



Canadian Forces is recruiting.

 

[Europeos]

Sorry, was I disrespectful or rude in any way in my comment? I just said I agreed with parts of what you said... I understand you think the problems the heavy weight alliances are facing shouldn't be addressed at all but where's the need for the aggressivity?

 

[S_How]

I think it would leave the biggest major problem as matchmaking times. But, it may even help there, if teams were going in full weight. If stalemates and sandbagging were resolved, I also think they could widen the matchmaking range, too. Anyhow, it all comes back to real action from BHG, which is the missing element.

 

[Christopher-Outlaws!!]

Why not in the event of a natural tie, ie. total stars, take into account the number of total stars? penalize sandbagging and resolving stalemates?

 

[S_How]

Most of the egregious examples of sandbagging will never allow the non sandbagged team to achieve a stalemate. I dont feel that this would help resolve it.

 

[Porcupine]

We have a history of matching together. We matched together several times last year without sandbags, but then they introduced the glory system and you started using sandbags.
You're not complaining because of the 'remedy' because you use it as well. You're crying because you can't hide anymore.

 

[Christopher-Outlaws!!]

that is a fair point, but would resolve the stalemate issue, which to my understanding is the reason the majority sandbag?