Dream teams ... A new trend?

[Thud_]

Would be good to know if economic buildings count for war ranking. I lost a player who had maxed economic buildings and lower defenses. This combination pushed him to the top of the alliance roster. He did not stand a chance being the #1 with that account.

 

[Nakfarfar Titi]

Oh my.. Full of drama queens this forum
Race has nothing to do with it. It's an exaggeration and comparison..

 

[ColdestRage]

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.

Economical buildings ain't taken into account.
Your war base rank is based on added up ofensive and defensive capabilities.
Upgrading ofensive capabilties doesn't weight in matchup as much as upgrading defenses, that's why ppl that rush Ages upgrading only ofensive capabilities can be Global and even though still higher placed than EA bases.
That's why in my opinion rushing Ages and upgrading mostly ofensive powers is the thing to do if you see that your alliance gets matched unfair, because it really ain't , it only means that your alliance members focused more on defenses than on ofensive upgrades.
And one more thing is - upgrade only those troops you use in wars to have easier matchups.
Neglect raiders, wall sapers, foot troops if you don't use them in war, so that your sumed up ofensive and defensive researches ain't too high.
Want easier matchups?
Then do only ofensive and economical buildings upgrades till you can go to another Age starting from GPA , and try to have most defenses at GPA lvl till you hit IA , then upgrade them to EA , do IA ofensive upgrades and go to Global Age.
If all allies of yours would do so you should get fairer matchups.
And one more thing , try not to upgrade walls too high....they raise your defensive capabilities like nothing else

 

[Danix den Andre]

At least it does not count like XP, but I can see that the added hitpoints that come with economic building upgrades would add a bit to a bases rating. I think some defenses add more to the rating than others.

 

[ColdestRage]

At least it does not count like XP, but I can see that the added hitpoints that come with economic building upgrades would add a bit to a bases rating. I think some defenses add more to the rating than others.

Read ingame FAQ , it is stated there , that economical buildings don't add anything to bases rating.

Upgrading economical building adds hp to it, but it doesn't add anything to your rank same as Town Center upgrade - you get more hp but it doesn't influence your war rating

From World War FAQ: Matchmaking posted on Nexon tactics and strategies forum:


How is strength calculated in a World War?
Strength is based on each member’s attacking power (Troops and Barracks upgrades, War Tactics and Generals) and defensive strength (defense buildings, walls, traps, and generals). Base layout does not affect this calculation. The only way a member’s strength can be increased is if they upgrade their troops, defenses, war tactics, or other contributing offensive and defensive capabilities.

 

[Sheldore]

How do farms make you stronger or weaker?

 

[Equal]

well i can say, that i did not upgrade any caravan or farm since a gunpowder age not because of a better matchups in a world wars. and not even for a world wars themselves, because then there was no such a thing. i forgot them to upgrade because economy does not exist in this game. and there is no time to upgrade some usseles farm that gives me 20k food per 12 h. i can get that in a few seconds in one attack. so why not to go crazy way and eliminate economic upgrades at all from players experience. anyway, this game is driven by OFFENSE and DEFENSE. period. and then do a machups based on exp level. No 'hidden' experience, no unexpected war results. and give a wall upgrades some smartly chosen exp also.

 

[The Huns]

Same here. Mine are stuck back at Medieval? Gunpowder? Not because I was trying to set myself up for wars, but simply because I didn't have the workers to upgrade them when they were all busy working on offenses and defenses.

 

[Motaz Tarek]

Sheldore I didn't say it makes u stronger but could u suggest a more fair way for matchmaking instead of levels ?

 

[ColdestRage]

well i can say, that i did not upgrade any caravan or farm since a gunpowder age not because of a better matchups in a world wars. and not even for a world wars themselves, because then there was no such a thing. i forgot them to upgrade because economy does not exist in this game. and there is no time to upgrade some usseles farm that gives me 20k food per 12 h. i can get that in a few seconds in one attack. so why not to go crazy way and eliminate economic upgrades at all from players experience. anyway, this game is driven by OFFENSE and DEFENSE. period. and then do a machups based on exp level. No 'hidden' experience, no unexpected war results. and give a wall upgrades some smartly chosen exp also.

Then don't do it.
It's not that I encourage ,or dare you to try.
My point was - if you want more fair matchups at which you have less chance to meet sandbagging alliance then you can try to do it the way I described.

Most alliances that don't use sandbagging are complaining that there ain't no way to avoid alliances which use sandbagging.

Well guess what , there is, and it's what I described.

If all your allies would focus on upgrading only ofensive capabilities , and leave mostly GPA defenses on Global Age bases you wouldn't be matched with alliances that have 20 max Global players and 20 Iron Age players because your sumed up ofensive and defensive power wouldn't even be close to theirs.

For each exploit there's a countermeasure based on the same exploit.

In this case countermeasure is - Underpower your defenses as much as possible.

That's the whole point of my previous post.

Around two months ago looked up through top 10 alliances at leaderboard , 3 of them used sandbagging.
Around a week ago 7 out of 10 top 10 alliances at leaderboard used sandbagging (have screenshots ,but to lazy to upload them),

My point is that more and more alliances do it .

Now you have 3 choices:
1Do as you did till now and complain about sandbagging
2Start using sandbagging yourself
3Start Underpowering your defenses so that you don't meet sandbagging alliances at wars.

Your choice which one of those 3 you choose

 

[GailWho]

In case you were wondering what our next match up is like (I know you all are) We are fighting against Sandbaggers this time. Four Iron Age, Top 8 above lv190. Good news is we beat these guys last June so I guess I'd rather have this than the last two lol. At least our lower levels have something to attack lol.

 

[Europeos]

Are you really sure economical buildings aren't taken into account? I know it's what Cs said when glory was introduced, but it wouldn't be the 1st time their information isn't accurate.

 

[ColdestRage]

Are you really sure economical buildings aren't taken into account? I know it's what Cs said when glory was introduced, but it wouldn't be the 1st time their information isn't accurate.

Pretty sure economical buildings ain't counted towards your rank.

What I'm unsure is if connecting them to road so that TC gets health bonus counts towards your war rank, and here most probably the answer's yes it does count towards your rank.

The reason is that at wars your TC is counted as defensive building since it has defenders inside it whole the time.

So most probably connecting more buildings to tc using road increases your war rank.

 

[Equal]

Then don't do it.
It's not that I encourage ,or dare you to try.
My point was - if you want more fair matchups at which you have less chance to meet sandbagging alliance then you can try to do it the way I described.

Most alliances that don't use sandbagging are complaining that there ain't no way to avoid alliances which use sandbagging.

Well guess what , there is, and it's what I described.

If all your allies would focus on upgrading only ofensive capabilities , and leave mostly GPA defenses on Global Age bases you wouldn't be matched with alliances that have 20 max Global players and 20 Iron Age players because your sumed up ofensive and defensive power wouldn't even be close to theirs.

For each exploit there's a countermeasure based on the same exploit.

In this case countermeasure is - Underpower your defenses as much as possible.

That's the whole point of my previous post.

Around two months ago looked up through top 10 alliances at leaderboard , 3 of them used sandbagging.
Around a week ago 7 out of 10 top 10 alliances at leaderboard used sandbagging (have screenshots ,but to lazy to upload them),

My point is that more and more alliances do it .

Now you have 3 choices:
1Do as you did till now and complain about sandbagging
2Start using sandbagging yourself
3Start Underpowering your defenses so that you don't meet sandbagging alliances at wars.

Your choice which one of those 3 you choose

1 st. i never complain about sandbagging. i am complaining and unhappy about current matchmaking. sometimes we also get so weak alliances, that to get a perfect score we use only regular armies. and we are not using and will never use sandbagging tactic. that is an answer to your second option. for the 3 option, i have almost no offensive upgrades left, so last 2-3 months all my workers are doing defensive upgrades. more interesting is the fact, that i am slipping on my alliance rating every week.so how can you explain this? or when i look at my alliance members ww bases, that are rated better then i am, i have no idea by what criterias thay are 'stronger' than i am. i think i agree with opinions, that nexon started to take econimic buildings into alliance 'strenght' score. probably buildings hp counts, and so economic upgrade affects ww ranking. that woul be my guess.

we all have one main problem here, really bad matchmaking, but looking from the different angles. nexon should start to read and listen to our ideas and propositions. we are the players, who plays this game anyway.

 

[ColdestRage]

Would be good to know if economic buildings count for war ranking. I lost a player who had maxed economic buildings and lower defenses. This combination pushed him to the top of the alliance roster. He did not stand a chance being the #1 with that account.

They ain't .

Your friend which you lost did most probably upgrade his walls till max lvl for his age.

Walls are the most heavyweighted structures from which your war rank depends .

You can test it .
Take 4 low Age players.


Lets say you have 4 low Age allies:


Leader at which upgrades only economical buildings at #27, Ruler who upgrades ofensive powers only at #28,Emperor who upgrades defenses at #29 ,and Dictator who upgrades walls only at #30.

After they all would use same ammount of resources their ranks would be:
Leader at #30
Ruler at #29
Emperor at #28
Dictator at #27

What decides your rank most heavily are wall upgrades, then defenses, then ofensive powers, and you're at standstill upgrading economics only.

And why do wall upgrades have huge impact at your war rank you might ask?

Think about it that way - which upgrade gives you huge exp boost? The road upgrade.

Why? Because it gives fixed amount of xp for each road piece you have.

It's the same thing with walls .

Each piece of wall counts towards your rank and since they are relatively cheaper (1 piece of wall costs less than stables or catapult upgrade) and before you know it you have upgraded 20 walls and skyrocketed from #30 to #26 at war ranks given that you have couple of allies of the same Age at which you are.

Let's say theoreticaly that each wall piece gives you +20 to war rank points, and each defense or ofensive power gives you +200 to war rank points which decide your rank

You are able to upgrade 15 wall pieces for cost of one defense or ofensive power .

That's 300 points vs 200.

And why do defenses rank you higher than ofenses even though they give same amount of points?

Because there are more defensive upgrades than ofensive ones ,and that's why upgrading defenses completely and then going to new Age puts you at let's say #10 when ally which rushed to another Age ignoring fully upgrading defenses is ranked at #13 even though he has already higher Age troops researched

 

[Europeos]

Really funny you're saying that because one of our players with the strongest walls keeps going down the ranks as he upgrades them. We keep wondering why. I personally have dropped spots since I completely stopped upgrading my economical buildings, which had lead me to think they do count in war weight despite the official version. To be honest how war rankings within alliances is calculated remains a mystery to me to a large degree.
Are you saying all that from experience or do you have sources?

 

[UA Bidness]

In our alliance we have compared bases that are otherwise identical besides the economic buildings, and the ones with higher economic buildings are ranked higher. The FAQ may say the are not counted, and they may not have been counted originally, but they are definitely counted now.

 

[Tower]

Nb4powerup would it be possible to get a comment from you on this? Does economic buildings count now? Does walls count "the most"?

 

[ColdestRage]

In our alliance we have compared bases that are otherwise identical besides the economic buildings, and the ones with higher economic buildings are ranked higher. The FAQ may say the are not counted, and they may not have been counted originally, but they are definitely counted now.

Did you compare lvl of University upgrades too?
If not then that's why.

Economical buildings don't count towards war rank.

There was a time when I upgraded road, farms and caravans only , my rank didn't go up.
I did go down a couple of ranks in wars thanks to ot because allies that were an Age lower than me got in front of me even when they had weaker defenses and stronger than mine walls.

Buildings that rank you higher up than other are those for which resources are hardest to come.

That's why ofensive upgrades have lesser impact than defensive ones (because food is easier to gather than gold) .

While we are at it - there are buildings that have more impact at your rank than even walls - those are buildings for which you need to use oil.
Even more if it's bunker since it's defensive one.

And about economical buildings having impact on your war rank - that's really not true , and even if they do , then let me ask you this : do you think that upgrading economical building that gives you 500hp more has more of an impact at your rank then upgrading one wall piece which gives you 2k hp?

You probably think that economical buildings have impact at war rank because you either think that upgrading library (building, not researches) is counted as upgrading economical building, or you didn't consider that those allies of yours can have more Uni upgrades done , higher lvl of Alliance Gate , or higher lvl of Embassy than you , and those have impact at your rank too.

Either way I can be wrong too, and really don't care about ranks , and I've gone offtopic from my initial tought



My initial tought was - do ofensive upgrades , leave defenses around 2 -3 Ages behind , and doing so you won't meet sandbagging alliances

 

[JuDomines]

Do you have proof economic building counts? Because it was clearly stated They don't, in this very forum.