Extreme Sandbaggers

[yemen]

Making an alliance bring all members would result in an immediate rearranging of alliances. We have several active members who aren't interested in war. They would immediately leave. Matching numbers would be a challenge too. Don't think this one is going to work.

 

[Bootney Lee Fonsworth]

Seems perfect for ESPN8 - The Ocho.

 

[Bootney Lee Fonsworth]

It seems to me if they reduced the viability of sandbagging as a strategy that they would actually sell more troop cards and NTG shipments to the alliances who actually care about glory. Not to mention it would be a boost to overall war enthusiasm in general if the matchups were more even and not so easily manipulated.

The most galling thing about this nearly 2 year long saga is the complete lack of communication from people actually capable of doing something about it. Why sticky the ''Road to blablabla'' for a year and ultimately do or say nothing about it?

 

[ratata]

The lowest 20% of players shouldn't be taken into account when calculating the strenght of an alliance.
2 players in 10 vs 10
3 players in 15 vs 15
4 players in 20 vs 20
5 players in 25 vs 25
6 players in 30 vs 30
8 players in 40 vs 40
10 players in 50 vs 50

I'm very curious if alliances still will use sandbags this way.

 

[kosno]

good idea but with 2 attacks 50 % of an alliance roster in WW can win it so if they going to implement this it should be only top 50 % which will count towards weight not bottom 20%.

example: 20 v 20 war if top 10 players are well upgraded CWA players doesent neccesary have to be maxed can reach 100 stars no matter what ages they lower 50 % is consisting of

conclusion: if bottom 20 % would not count
yes they would still use sandbags

 

[Niblick]

Yemen, it’s worked in other games with a similar format. If people don’t want to fight in wars, then why by in an active alliance at all? I ran a group in modern war called the infirmary where people who didn’t want to be involved in wars could gather. Where there’s a will, there’s a way

 

[Attila]

This must have been suggested elsewhere, but why not just remove 1 star for each attack that isn't used? So if you have 25 dead accounts that don't even make an attack, you are penalized 50 stars. This way only members that are actually going to attack would ever be brought to war.

 

[yemen]

It would be extremely easy to work around this. Anyone can log into those irons, hit attack twice for no stars, and then go do the next one. All attacks used, outcome the same as it is already, no penalty. And then the more casual teams, that do take a chance on new players, would be penalized even more than they are already when a player doesn't do their attacks.

 

[Attila]

Hmmm, you have a point there. I guess I was looking for a solution that didn't involve reducing attacks to one, but it's becoming clearer to me that this is the only way it can be made fair. I also like only basing the war match up on the top half of the alliance. Something needs to happen, but I fear no matter how many ideas we throw up there isn't a lot of motivation to fix the problem.

 

[Sanjeev Tripathi]

Good suggestion

 

[Ollie]

I agree with Kosno.
Only the top 50% of the bases should be used for determining war weight.

And btw.... sandbagging alliances Deserves no respect whatsoever

 

[FroggyKilla]

Introduce an Age Range? Like if your comp is mostly Atomic, then the minimum Age required is Gunpowder? At the very least, players would have to put effort into upgrading them, and that would make it more rewarding to attack them.

 

[TLucas]

Beer man,
I think we could define a sandbag in the sense of inactive, low level accounts that do not contribute in any way to the war. If you have global age players with low level defenses and maxed offenses, then you are simply a liability for your team, and not a sand bag. As an active Enlightenment age base, i have beaten many opponents in WW that are Global or Atomic with extremely limited defenses. So, while that player may be able to attack higher, they are also beaten by much lower level players, and therefore it is a bit of a wash.

 

[sileepuppee]

There are always good ideas but there's no idea that would benefit all without hurting some players. I'd say raise the age req to lets say gunpowder for example to go to war but the problem obviously is that your shunning those lower age bases. The likelihood of those lower age bases making a difference are low. It would also give them something to strive for assuming you actually have those players in your alliance. I know there's holes in this suggestion but it would force those iron age bases to become gunpowder instead and I think 40-45 is the level for gunpowder? That won't create a massive change but that might sway it a little for some alliances. In my alliance we do have one true sandbag because we only have 24 players and that base makes 25 so it's there to help 4 people go to war otherwise we would have to go with 20 person war. The next highest up is gunpowder 55 who actually attacks.

 

[Cannibals]

Alliance medal count is calculated by 1/2 medals for the first 10 members + 1/4 for the next ten + 1/8 for the next etc. Why not just adapt that diminishing multiplier for war weight?

 

[Skilladilla]

Thank you for advertising have you maybe thought that some alliances went to sandbag because they couldn't stand anymore matches against sandbag alliances? And there are more sandbag alliances than those that don't do sandbag, it is not illegal.. We are happy to quit sandbaging if matchmaking finally gets fixed.. Even when you sandbag heavy you get mismatches, we are currently in one war like that where we will lose 1100 glory,and this would be the fifth time this hapens.. And we never won 1100 glory in one war while we sandbag,never.. Our opponents don't have any iron age accounts while we have 7, their top5 are all 40-50 levels higher than ours, while also they have more cwa and atomics.. So it can happen even if you sandbag.. Are you happy? If you can't beat them, join them Best regards from Serbian Empire