Don't Bother vs. Base Stackers

[Vixen]

Slandis ... and in that moment you lost any right to be in this argument

 

[UA Bidness]

Noone really cared about stacking as it impacted them, until teams with global age started mixing with iron ages. This was done because of the stalemate issue for top teams. Address the stalemate issue and the top players will not have any reason to add weaker players to increase odds of victory instead of stalemate.


​​​​​​This is a glory issue, it was constructed improperly and now requires exploitation of the higher alliances in order to compete with the glory leaderboard. The clear evidence of this was that the top alliances didn't do this until glory was introduced and the difference between stalemate and victory actually meant something besides 2-3k oil and 3-400k gold/food. Provide proper compensation for fielding a full team of the best players you can field, and teams will do that.

 

[Ravenlord]

And what of the alliances that have low age players who really want to war - I'm sure there are 1 or 2 of them - won't they be penalised unnecessarily?

 

[Ravenlord]

Here's a question: Is the stacking of alliances really - I mean really - an issue? How often do you come across teams doing this?

From memory the hobbitzes have had a good win/loss record lately - so either they're not experiencing stacking too much or they're just so badass that it doesn't affect them!!

I can understand people get frustrated by stackers but if you only come across this occasionally is it really worth all this angst? And besides, the whole premise behind a random matchup is that you can come across any type of team - stackers or not - less powerful than you, equal to you or more powerful than you - right ??!!!

If you start a search then you must be prepared to take your chances ..... if you want to play it safe then stick to pvp where you can skip the battle .....

 

[ped2000]

ever get the feeling they're laughing all the way to the bank?

 

[Ravenlord]

Yeah - and their smiles are not unlike yours .....

 

[Wendy]

Until two weeks ago we met them occasionally. At the beginning we met many alliances with a couple of iron age and we didn't care, as a couple are not a problem and we thought they used iron age just to get to the right number of players.
now that this thing is spreading, 1/2 wars is with stackers. also weaker alliances are starting to do that and so the matchmaking is totally unpredictable ( as i said our camp composed by medieval players had to face an IA alliance last war)
In my opinion is not a big deal to lose a war against stackers once in a while, the big deal is the amount of Glory points we lose every time we face them.
700 glory points is too much for a war lost after 3 hours.

 

[Vixen]

Ravenlord are you playing in any wars?

 

[Radzeer]

I don't get You, Ravenlord. If the algorithm is tweaked in the way that the lowest level member on both sides must be in a range of 20 (25, 30) levels, then no lower level alliances will suffer.
There are many ways to achieve it, it can be level or age. like: If an Alliance has an Iron Age member then the opposing alliance's lowest Age member can be Bronze, Iron or Classical Age (Tolerance of one Age up or down) for the matchmaking to be concluded. Such an Alliance should not meet an alliance full of IA, EA members.

 

[Ravenlord]

Vixen - no l don't. I don't spend enough time in the one alliance I'm in. I'm not reliable enough for wars - as I've said numerous times, l have too much real 'life' going on in my life to be depended upon. It wouldn't be fair to my alliance to make myself available for wars and not be there when the time came.

 

[Glacier]

Average destruction killed the stalemate;-] its a tie breaker!

 

[Radzeer]

Average destruction in case of a perfect score is 100%. So in case of a perfect score tie the avg. destruction is not a tie breaker.

 

[JuDomines]

Noone really cared about stacking as it impacted them, until teams with global age started mixing with iron ages. This was done because of the stalemate issue for top teams. Address the stalemate issue and the top players will not have any reason to add weaker players to increase odds of victory instead of stalemate.


​​​​​​This is a glory issue, it was constructed improperly and now requires exploitation of the higher alliances in order to compete with the glory leaderboard. The clear evidence of this was that the top alliances didn't do this until glory was introduced and the difference between stalemate and victory actually meant something besides 2-3k oil and 3-400k gold/food. Provide proper compensation for fielding a full team of the best players you can field, and teams will do that.

Now the Pandora Box is opened... I have strong doubts it will be closed again. Fallback arguements are ready: when want to mix the team we are facing; it's faster to get a match; leaderboard deserves global age player only and we Will clean it by pushing dankness-like alliance out the door.

 

[S_How]

Ravenlord, 90%+ of 40/45 player wars have this, and more than 50% of 25-35 player wars have stacked teams now, and its growing because the only easy way to compete is to do it yourself.

 

[S_How]

Now the Pandora Box is opened... I have strong doubts it will be closed again. Fallback arguements are ready: when want to mix the team we are facing; it's faster to get a match; leaderboard deserves global age player only and we Will clean it by pushing dankness-like alliance out the door.

Yes Im wondering the same. But, he is right in that they need to fix it all, not just using undeveloped bases. Just as importantly they need to fix the stalemate problem, and the fact that virtually all of the glory reward is based on opponents glory rather than war size or team advancement like it was originally stated.

 

[Glacier]

Only if every attack if 5☆s yes, you saying this is the case?

 

[Nb4powerup]

I've never understood this logic. Why would outrage over an issue make money? Furthermore, why would it cause us to laugh all the way to the bank? I can tell you that no one from Nexon/BHG, our Community Team or Customer Support chuckles at game issues. In fact it's the opposite. We're gamers, not Bank of America. We do have some soul left

 

[Hugh Jazz]

I suppose morals and integrity isnt enough .. Its much more important to sell your soul to have your name in lights I guess.

 

[Ravenlord]

Nb4powerup - l think the average sensible player realises that Nexon takes the issues & complaints seriously. Doesn't mean we all can't still have a dig at Nexon to vent our frustrations - big corporation is just a nice easy target, after all!

Seriously, l doubt many of us think you need to justify your position but it's appreciated nonetheless.

 

[Vixen]

Ravenlord is showing his nicer side