How do we fix ww to make it fun?

IShrugged

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
21
War after war after war, we get glory odds like 850/10. Or 10/850. The point I have is that either the ww is impossible to win or so easy to win it is no challenge. Either they walk all over us or we walk all over them. It has been war after war after war like this. Of the last 40 or 50 wars we have had 2 (as in two) with odds more in balance. When we are matched for a sure loss the bottom players are classical and or Iron Age, they never fight, even if they are real players they wouldn't stand a chance at level 22 or 57 attacking a level 100+ base. Which is our lower end.

scoring allows a player to earn 2 wins. The top half of the roster can win the war without any "help" from the lower level players. Is this intensional? If so why?

It would seem to me that if each player could fight 2 battles but only have their best attack count for scoring then at least the bottom half of the roster would matter and could make a contribution. The battle that didn't count for a score would not be destroyed so another player could fight them for a score. Maybe it's more complex then this but there has to be a better way and a way to bring some balance and fun since the way it is is quickly becoming pointless.

id sure like to hear what others think regarding ways to improve ww so that it is actually fun and challenging.

perhaps during the matching phase of finding a war we could set a range of preferred odds? Even if a match takes hours it would be worth the wait for a battle worth fighting. Maybe a match list of available opponents to chose from?

what do you all think? There has to be a way to fix this right? If not why bother at all?
 

Bootney Lee Fonsworth

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
459
There are numerous ways to fix this. There have probably been thousands of posts about war matchmaking, options, sandbagging, etcetera. Some more practical than others. But here we are coming up on the 2 year anniversary of the current war system and very little has happened besides lip sevice. All the devs are interested in doing is adding new content rather than fixing or improving old stuff. That's their right of course, it's up to the individual if/when they exercise their own right to walk away from the game due to the dev's apathy over addressing said issues.

Personally I find myself leaning more and more towards why bother at all? Wars are merely something to do between tedious upgrades. But between crap matchmaking, cardspamming in lieu of any real strategy, the endless litany of bugs, hacks, cheats and glitches and the devs' unwillingness or inability to address any of the above or shake things up in the slightest, the appeal is really not what it was. Wars provide no in game benefit once you get the war stars achievement, in fact they're actually more of a detriment in higher ages.

It's really more habit, my alliance mates, and a probably misplaced sense of hope that keeps me going these days, more than any real sense of fun. At least as far as wars go. I still enjoy raiding and building, slowly but surely.

Sorry to be a downer. I hope you find some better answers than this. Hell, I hope we all do.
 
Last edited:

nobodyknowsthetrouble

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
110
Awards
1
Would be nice if you had written how much Glory your alliance has and how many players participate in the war.
We fight wirth 15 or 20 players and around 16'000 Glory. Last wars were around +/-50 and -/+400-600

Nearly every alliance use sandbags.

Your first idea to count only the best of attack from each player makes it difficult in large wars. Some players do not attack immediately as they work. This makes advance planning almost impossible.

"preferred odds" may be possible; I like this idea.

"list of available opponents to chose from" is almost impossible. Both alliance get a list and a WW starts only when both choose each other ... this odds tends to zero

i prefer ideas like "last login of all war member must not exceed 1 day" or "the ages of all members must be +/- 1 to their average" e.g. average is gunpowder then only medieval and enlightenment can participate.
 

Pooping Fury

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2017
Messages
42
Or a Max difference of 100 (?) levels between top and bottom players of an alliance .
 

Snarlylemming

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
14
We have started to face this quite a lot lately, has there been any recent dev posts on this at all.

surely even something as simple as disregarding the bottom third or even half of a teams war strengths would would make sandbagging less viable.
 

Wong48

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
40
There is only one way to make wars fair and to stop sandbagging

limit attacks to one per player

thats it

done

solved
 

Mcnasty

Approved user
LV
0
 
Joined
Sep 20, 2017
Messages
456
Where did you get your information that nearly all alliances use sandbags? And even if they are “sandbags” that doesn’t mean they are gonna win. We just finished a war against “sandbaggers” and we kicked their ass.
 

nobodyknowsthetrouble

Approved user
LV
4
 
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
110
Awards
1
this is my experience:
9 of 10 alliance use sandbags, sometimes even with the same name like high levels or bases without all buildings from tutorial and first missions.
 
Top