Dream teams ... A new trend?

[GailWho]

OK I think our alliance is the test market for war alliances using extraordinary means to get more glory. Every time we are about to get into the top 100 something comes along to thwart our efforts. We were one of the 1st steamrolled by sandbaggers war after war back before it was common knowledge (at beginning of glory leaderboard), a much debated horse beaten into submission on this Forum. Now it seems the new thing is having an entire war lineup of bases who's level (and war rank) don't reflect their actual strength in war, a Dream Team. Meaning every player have managed to get to global age with ONLY buildings/research/troops upgraded that will help them 5 star/defend against like levels in war.

Imagine your alliance of EA to Global ranging from lv100-180 (with one 198) average lv 158 going up against an alliance with mostly Global and a few IA ranging lv145-170 (one 198 ranked #2) average lv 158 all with minimal economic upgrades, 2 bunkers(most upgraded) majority with 3 generals (in the teens 20's and 30's) maxed out tank depots, full resistance, upgraded factory troops, embassy, I'm guessing Uni research and decent sized walls. In first war, their #25 (lv161) 5 starred our #1 (Level 198). Now ideally we all would like bases like this for war (I'd like to undo some of the upgrades I've made that in retrospect do not help me in war) but it has taken me a year and a half to get my Global age base to where it is now. It makes me wonder how long it takes (with hindsight) to get a second or third account upgraded with exactly the upgrades you need for war both offense and defense and still remain at an upper midrange level. And then do it in an entire alliance. I wonder if the last 2 alliances we played are the same 5 guys with 5 accounts or if they give their people the exact formula needed to upgrade the bare minimum to hit hard and have grown that way together for months (or possibly weeks?)


I don't know if I'm complaining or just venting frustration here (because this seems fair as long as they aren't cheating crowns to do it) I'd just like to hear what y'all think about it. Has your alliance ever faced a Dream Team like I described above? If your alliance faced Dream Teams two wars in a row would you be frustrated or just say "Cest la vie" ? Or perhaps your team is a Dream Team (maxed 198 don't count)... If so how did you do it? And when are you searching next so I can avoid you.

Ok I'll shut up now... Vent over.

 

[The Huns]

We've been pushing our alliance to kind of do that. Concentrate on building an army that can successfully five-star opponents without upgrading those things you don't use. I hadn't thought of it a cheating. I like to think it's a far cry from sandbagging. I DO think the fact (well I don't know it's a fact, but I believe it's so) that University upgrades aren't being figured into war strength is a bit of a problem.

 

[GailWho]

I don't think of it as cheating at all unless they are cheating crowns to grow over night. We all try to give our alliances good information to get best results in war. But these teams obviously grew together. Many of their base designs were even the same (which actually helped us to be honest). Kind of a cookie cutter alliance.

 

[Nakfarfar Titi]

Did you just complain about your opponent being more balanced and smartly upgraded then you? Did you really just complain about your opponent having a better upgrade strategy then you?
What's next, our opponent is too skilled and it's not fair?

I think you're being a little emotional. This is what strategy is about.. Decision. I get that sandbagging doesn't reflect the players skills in most cases. But chosing what you upgrade in your own village is your (and your alliance) business only.
In my alliance we just upgrade everything but we've seen light weight global alliances on the leaderboard like 'Valkyrie' with very light upgrades, getting stalemates on heavy team. And we had nothing but respect for them, they are smart, they worked as a unit and upgraded smartly. They can match with the high and with the low and still perform well. Sure it's frustrating to get a stalemate against an almost IA (defense) lvl players but we appreciated what they managed to do with the resources they have.

It's a mismatch maybe, the other team did nothing wrong to you. We've had many mismatches in the past. Fighting teams with 1-30 max bases including walls. Fighting teams that sandbagged when glory wasn't even released. Fighting teams that have double and triple accounts for all top players. And you know what? It made us stronger, because we embraced those matches.
You can't just hate everyone who is different then you, that's racist. And you can't just hate everyone who is better then you, that's weak.
Many strategies, many ideologies.. I just think if you gonna lose, lose gracefully even if it's a mismatch, like a true warrior, learn from it and move on.

 

[Sheldore]

I think the lineup was upside down. I put in a ticket to have them change the numbers but it was too late.......

 

[Nakfarfar Titi]

And don't tell me you're just saying they are 5 players who made all the accounts in the alliance. That's even worse That's just making accusations and excuses after losing a war. Just let it go

 

[GailWho]

Umm I'm not sure if I was complaining about their method as much as venting frustration for having been matched twice in a row with two very similar teams. I have much admiration for them... I did call them Dream Teams. I have more curiosity than anything.... How many of them are out there?

I suppose if I am complaining it would be about being matched with them because even though they had the same average level they were both clearly stronger than us just by looking at their bases. We just try our hardest and learn from the experience and move on. Hopefully next war will be more favorable

 

[Motaz Tarek]

The idea of matchmaking depending on level (which reflect military + economic power) is fairest way of match making in wars (if sandbagging problem got solved of course)
an alliance with such a strategy to get the least possible level with the most possible military power is not considered a cheating cause in turn they get hard times managing their economic status (although it's practically impossible that somebody could have done that by now without cheating)
however, once ur alliance mates become more dedicated to military upgrades specially offensive ones u will easily face any alliance with any strategy or formation, just a matter of time

 

[Nakfarfar Titi]

That's the spirit! In that case I understand, mismatches happen (the natural ones). But cheer up, they make you stronger.

I don't know how much, but many skilled people out there. I've seen many IA get 5 stars on advanced GA. Not as rare as you think, I've cleared a fair amount of advanced GA bases while still IA myself.

 

[Warlord1981]

I have been in many many alliances and I have helped build a few before deciding to start my own with a friend. What I've learned is that the alliances that have players who are fully upgraded before moving on, and are balanced both militarily and economically, tend to have more flexibility than alliances who focus primarily on War upgrades.

Remember, those who skip steps, typically are inpatient and tend to want immediate results. Is this the case with everyone who only does war upgrades? No, but it does hold true for many.

I will say this though: An Alliance that has that high of cooperation and is able to coordinate upgrades, that is inspiring, not at all a bad thing.

 

[GailWho]

I don't think I made myself clear. I don't think it's cheating. And my team can take care of itself. We have a lot of great players who had no problem 5 staring their bases my self included. There were just too many of them. Before these two losses we have 7wins and a stalemate on our current war history, 5 of those were perfect. The others nearly perfect. The only reason we aren't in top 100 is because we do smaller wars and the rewards are less. There is something going on with the matching. But I suppose people will have to experience it for themselves to be convinced.

 

[Ravenlord]

Racist ?? Why do people persist with the ''racist'' card all the time - and usually totally out of context??!!! GailWho never said anything remotely hateful or remotely racist - sheesh!!!

If you're going to use the word ''racist'', at least try and use it in context !!

But, as a parting shot, seems like you two have cleared up any misunderstanding so it's all good!

 

[Nakfarfar Titi]

Ravenlord I'm clearly stating the point 'complaining about alliances with different strategies/goals then you'.
It was clearly and definitely an exaggeration for the sake of the argument, but you clearly got the context so nevermind!

And yes, we cleared the misunderstanding.

 

[Tower]

We saw something similar a few weeks ago.. A Korean alliance - they were not all global (mostly IA) but they were tough as H***!

Before the war started we thought it would be an easy win. They didn't look that developed and had "low" levels.
But when the war started they 5 starred a lot of our top players many levels higher and we struggled with their players many levels lower. In fact some of their 5 starring of our players were so fantastic that some of our players thought they were cheaters... When we looked at their bases more closely we could see what Gailwho talks about. Maxed out armies, lv 9-11 walls, strong defense and all economic buildings at classical age and lower.

Also, all their members were Korean, British and German civ... Also a tell tale sign (might have been 1 or 2 other civ).

After this war we learned to look more closely on our oponents..

 

[Blacknife686]

I get ya GailWho, it's not cheating it's just a D*** move. Our alliance has never come across teams like this or in fact ANY maxed accounts, but we've had our fair share of stupid matches.

People can shame you for complaining but a real leader cares about their entire team not just themselves; and that's how I interprete this post.

 

[Europeos]

I think the problem here is economic building upgrades are taken into account in matchmaking and they shouldn't. Only offensive and defensive upgrades should count.

 

[GailWho]

Wow! I didn't even see that remark. I'm not sure how race has anything to do with it. I suppose that's why I dismissed it. Thanks Ravenlord for coming to my rescue! You're the best knight ever!

 

[The Huns]

I was lead to believe that ONLY offensive and defensive upgrades are taken into account for matchmaking. That said there are different ways to do your offensive and defensive upgrades. Do you max your heavy tanks even if you don't use them? Do you only upgrade those troops and tactics you actually use?

Also there is the issue of perception. Someone who hasn't upgraded their economic buildings at all will have a much lower level and if you don't look carefully you will be taken by surprise.

 

[UA Bidness]

Sometime between global and glory releases they changed the calculation process and economic buildings were given more weight. Economic buildings are definitely counted towards your war base's "strength" value.

 

[Europeos]

Yes, it's unclear, but I believe economic buildings are taken into account.