February State of the Nations!

[JNation]

Theres two alliance with 10 member that has some that havent logged in for awhile. Plus theres another alliance with 14, 8 of which has logged in anywhere between 30-90 days...

 

[Jakob_888]

Thank you for the info, Brian. Im exited to see how the game will be influenced - a game many of us love (read addicted to)

On that chart you show I guess we were the team ranked #1 in october 2016. A lot has happened since that, but to be honest - we are not #1 anymore for a real simple reason.
Korea Army is the best and strongest team in the game. They deserve it. No doubt.
Hopefully one day we can again be as strong and good as Korea Army, but for now we will fight for second place against the other amazing korean teams.

I dont agree with you about offence being overpowered in Atomic Age. Defence is almost perfect balanced in Atomic Age compared to offence. When people start focusing on defence (instead of offence) stalemates will be rare. Plus it will also matter much when all the extra troops from presents and supply drops from november/december are gone in the near future.

 

[Bowmore]

Why does Korea Army carry a handful of low level and fairly inactive accounts on their roster? I'm pretty sure its not because they are investing in a new player training program. And there's no accounts in the Ages between Iron/Classical and Atomic, so I guess they haven't been very successful retaining their ''trainees''

 

[Equal]

348,549,117,243,51,143. these are the numbers of glory we lost on last 3 weeks against stacking alliances. while 51 being against a top 40 alliance. and 549, 243 and 117 being on a 20 vs 20 wars. so what are you talking about when you say, that you penalized alliances, which are using low level accounts BDS ??? i was reading all you statement about fixing sandbagging and could not believe what i saw.. damn...

 

[Tenacious D]

1st Dynasty has always been a Great War alliance (autocorrect believes that they are also aging war veterans). Perhaps the reason that KA is now stronger is because what was once a single alliance is now spread over five.

 

[Nb4powerup]

Quite a few! Patch notes are on the way.

 

[Europeos]

Tenaxious D, even if we put our strongest players in the same team KA have more depth than we do... For now. And yes, we're not getting any younger, unfortunately...
Regarding Jakob's comment, I agree there isn't an offense/defense balance problem when facing fully maxed aa bases. The problem is it takes much too long to upgrade defense while you can get the most important offensive upgrades in a few weeks. So rather than an offense/defense unbalance, there is an offensive upgrade times/defensive upgrade times unbalance. That, I believe, should be addressed.

 

[Jakob_888]

Thank you Tenacious. I beleive we just cannot keep up with Korea Army at the moment. I hope we can again some day. At least it is fun trying

Well said Europeos. I agree - it takes too long time to upgrade defence in an age compared to offence.
This result in most players rush their offence in an age and wait with defence buildings.
Therefore stalemates - Atomic age offences are attacking industrial/global defences.

Im a good (read bad) example. I have many Atomic age offence troops (level 177) but I have only one single building which is Atomic age...
Rest is enlightenment, industrial and ONE global defence building.

 

[Jakob_888]

Which alliance are you from Equal? Maybe the teams you are playing not sandbagging according to Nexon's definition (dead accounts)... and the penalty are not high if your opponents are using few sandbags (1-4).
So far I have only seen major penalties for use of sandbags. We actually recent saw an alliance 40 ranks below us getting less glory for a win then we would. They got a big penalty.
It ended in stalemate but was good to see.

 

[Equal]

Lietuva elite. yes we do not have a lot of glory, but we run max 25 sized wars and those 3-4 low level accounts means a lot. or an alliance of top 10 average 207, and for a all 20 average drops to 157. and we had one player over 200 on that war. so maybe yes, our opponents are not sandbagging by their understanding. just terrible experience and really bad matchups.

 

[Bowmore]

Hey Equal. We just finished a recent war vs each other (Wind Warriors vs Lietuva) - it was a good battle. And I can confirm that the matchup neighborhood we are both in is ripe with sandbaggers, the alliances that have about 20 high level accounts and then 4-5 iron age spare accounts, with no other purpose than to skew the matchup. Its too bad that these groups continue to be rewarded for this behavior.

 

[Equal]

Bowmore it was a good battle for you maybe lol. my team now face some consequences after such a poor execution. your best bases were taken out with nearly no extra attacks, and we stuck on some really easy ones lol. well i think one day we will meet again. yes for us is the same. we have some early atomic-global-industrial alliance and we are no match for these sandbag teams. wars like we had with you is 2-3 of 10, where it is fun and equal fight. the rest are super easy or about 0 chance to get a max score. and i do not know what will be the use of extra tirebreakers if we could not achieve a max score against a stacking alliances at all. i am afraid that if they leave an existing scoring system, just add some extra rules in a case of a tie, it can lead to even more sandbagging.

 

[Bowmore]

It will be interesting to see what happens if they have an effective solution for eliminating stalemates. Will those alliances who blamed stalemates for their sandbagging ways return to seek out competitive matchups? and risk potential losses ? I certainly hope so, since competition should be more important than Glory, but we'll see. And we'll look forward to a rematch with your team in the future. And we did expect a stalemate once you took down our top 5 or 6 - its unusual for a war like that to be decided by the second half of defenses.

 

[poop_]

There are a lot of promises in here for change.
Same as the last state of the nations.
Are your frustrations still not fixed?
If you are looking for actual change, join us at the round table:
Leaders for Change - Announce your Alliance and that you would like to join the discussion
Please come here https://discord.gg/csnmzkP

 

[dolphin225]

What I'm noticing too - A LOT of people skipping defense upgrades. Last war I easily took out an AA base as if he was GpA, even though I'm only mid-level IA. Have to keep reminding my team to ignore Age & XP and look at how weak their defenses are when they complain about their war assignment.

 

[Max_imus]

UA Obsidian is a top alliance who just switch all their player to other alliance.
Other similiar case was vietnamese and russian alliance in top20.(now active again)

 

[Vixen]

eventually slowly.. people will pass them... would be good if nexon could nerf them

 

[Max_imus]

I believe only top alliances who use sandbaggs will quit this "strategy". Those who want to match with easier teams will keep it probably (after new tiebreaker is rolled out)

 

[Max_imus]

First time in 1,5 year the thought of leaving the game went thru my mind. Scary, considering how much I like people in PT and the game itself.

 

[Max_imus]

Anyway thank you dev team and Nb4powerup for hearing our voices at least in some matters.