Handicap System for War Mismatches?

[StarTrekAlliance]

Why not Institute a handicap system into the game? When there is a World War mismatch, the weaker team is given additional attacks for random players, until the Total Strength number between the two teams is equalized. So, for example, a weaker team may gain a few attacks, so some of their players would have 3 attacks, instead of two. There would be no additional loot gained for the extra attacks. The game knows the total team strength when matching, so this seems a feasible solution. Not sure what it would take from a development standpoint. This seems like a win-win for both players and Nexon/BHG, as extra attacks may mean more Troop Cards purchased. For all complainers, this is a fair game, and you can compete without breaking the bank. The developers deserve more than their daily bowl of gruel. ;-)

 

[StarTrekAlliance]

This solution could also potentially help resolve the issue when teams stack with non-active players. If their non-active player happens to be the one who receives an extra attack due to a WW mismatch, they lose out.

 

[Beefcake]

Ya but according to nexon there’s nothing wrong with their matching and all of them are even in strength

 

[phil_dee]

I don't think this would have any measurable effect, even on wars that are more even. If an underpowered alliance has to deal with a very stout base, they could hit it 84 times and it still won't be flattened.

 

[phil_dee]

This system would definitely be worth a few extra stars per war overall, though

 

[StarTrekAlliance]

Not perfect, but better than nothing. It could help, especially if your elite players draw the extra attacks.

 

[No Angel]

The problem is, the algorithm couldn't determine either which side is ''weak'' or ''strong''

 

[Beefcake]

It would end up with a bug giving the strong side extra attacks lol

 

[Blood]

Do you really think they are capable of executing something like this? Seriously? Maybe you should pay more attention to what’s happened over the last 6 months and less time putting up speeches.

 

[StarTrekAlliance]

Hanidcap system seems a reasonable solution to me.

 

[StarTrekAlliance]

If you have a better suggestion Blood, please share.

 

[Blood]

My point was nexon is incapable of programming this. I posted many solutions back when I thought there was a chance the game could be saved. Now it’s just a waste of type.

 

[NateTheGreat]

I disagree with extra attacks. What phil_dee said about not being able to 5* a really hard base with 80+ attacks on a team that sandbags is true.

0 SH/ 0 TT
0 stronghold / 0 troop tactic leagues where it's not about which team will spend $1000 on EA's, Sherman Crab Tanks, and KA Attack Heli.

Surrender Option
Alternatively, a match where your alliance feels completely outmatched and hopeless your team could have a vote option and if a super majority (60% of players in war) + war leader decided to surrender then the winning team would automatically win. This has to be done in planning day, it can't be done on war day. The winning team gains 1/2 glory available + 100 alliance xp . Surrendering team loses 1/2 of glory to be lost and gain 0 alliance xp. Some combination of glory/alliance xp could be tested by BGH that results in more fair surrender conditions.

 

[NateTheGreat]

Challenges/Leagues
Current war system does not incentivize alliances to play their hardest, there is no real glory or rewards except to be on a top 100 global alliance leader board, which is full of cheating or Pay-to-Win alliances I might add.

4 Week Leagues -- War Teams
Your team is "set" and has to "ante up" 5M Gold/Food/20k Oil/1000 Rubies per player and the "war teams" stay the same through the period.
Top 10 teams split the bounty of the total league entry price
Entry price can increase based on league entering into
10/20 man wars and alliances could have multiple "war teams" play in their respective wars, even having players simultaneously in 3-4 wars if desired.
Leagues are reset every 4 weeks
Any team in a league can challenge any other team
OR We could have brackets like college basketball, with ranks ie. Favored #1 team, or #12 seed

Bronze I/II/III-Silver I/II/III- Gold I/II/III- Platinum I/II/III--Diamond I/II/III
Progression through leagues, more rewards as you go up leagues,
eg. 2/4/6/8/10 bonus troop chests, artifact rerolls, event buildings for series winners
The reward system is endless

 

[StarTrekAlliance]

I love the Troop Cards, they add to the fun and complexity of the game. I like analyzing my troops cards, decided which to use based on opponent, and even deciding where, how, and when they should be deployed. They are part of the game, and I like donating them to my team mates in WW. The Surrender option will never work and will punish stronger teams. Think about it logically folks, a Stronger team will never even get a War...because everyone will use the Surender option. How fun would that be for a stronger team? I like the current war match process, if they would add a handicap system. Handicap system will make it more fun and fair, and it could be huge for a weaker team if your elite players draw the extra attacks. As I mentioned, extra attacks to random player on the weaker team could help resolve sandbags with inactive bases. I don't want any players involved, whatsoever, in the War matching process; seen this too many times ruin other games, get players involved and you enable trolls and grudges.

 

[Saruman the White]

Great idea, but there is a large gap between what NEXON thinks of strong and weak and what actually is. So if a mismatch is between Global Age players and Enlightenment Ages ones, don't be surprised if the Global Age players get the extra attacks

 

[HawkEyeHK]

If it is that easy to identify which team is strong and which is weak, Nexon should have eliminated the sandbagging problem long time ago.
The fact that sandbagging problem still exists simply means Nexon has no idea on how to identify or measure the real strength of a team.

 

[Black tiger]

Two simple solutions to solve sandbagging in war matchups:

1) Calculate war strength based only on the top half of each alliance’s war team.

2) Allow each player only 1 attack in war.

Nexon, what are your plans?

 

[phil_dee]

That second option would make things worse, a 20-player team with ten sandbags and ten maxed CWA players would dominate with a decent number of opponents' attacks yielding one star or less.

 

[No Angel]

When it comes to number and calculation, unfortunately the game hasn't created any good history on them
Matchmaking algorithm has a flaw (I'm not a developer team, so I don't know what's just wrong with its application?!) so we can't trust them.
Which is why calculating top half is not effective either (cause we're never sure how they calculate it either lol).

There are a few simple resolutions though, none of them are algorithm/Elo related :
1. Inactive players are not allowed to be chosen (this will eliminate most sandbagging)
2. Participants are not allowed to hit targets 2 ages down or up (this will encourage players to always attack and/or practice on their age range ~ no more CWA attacking globals eh?! )
3. Penalize unused attacks, 5 points per unused attacks.
4. Surrender button, 24 hr cooldown penalty per use; or Next Match button.

Then we don't have to worry about matchmaking anymore, it will just depend on ourself, attack bravely or lose.
​​​​​​