How to improve war matchups - battle the stackers

[Radzeer]

1. Minimum level rule: Lowest level member must be at least 30% of the level of the highest war member If the highest lvl member is lvl 198, lowest lvl member must be at least 99
2. Only one attack in war, reduce planning day duration to 6 hours, war day duration to 12 hours
3. Counting all stars achieved, but only the highest two will be taken into account (if a base is 5,4 and 2 starred, then 9 stars will go towards to total)
4. For a war matchup to be created put an additional criteria - lowest level members in both squads cant differ more than 30(20?) lvl points. Pls, do not communicate this solution, so the stackers can't adapt

 

[Norcaltone]

let them enjoy their "win". Just enjoy your war vacation for 2 days when facing these guys.

 

[Wendy]

I voted for stackers meet stackers, even if i don't know how it could be possible, maybe matching up alliances counting only the first half of the players, as with two attacks they can easily 5 star the entire enemy alliance.
Another thing could be to penalize the alliances for every iron age they have in war. -10% of glory point for each iron profile.
Because the problem right now is not losing a war against them, problem is the glory points you lose against them.( we lost 1400 in 2 wars)
They shouldn't be rewarded that much for an easy victory.

 

[Eddie F1]

5. Something Else - rewrite the entire thing from the ground up, get rid of the stupid Elo Rating, stop copying other games, make sure it works before releasing it, hire some programmers.

Read the forums - your players understand your game better than you.

 

[Patrick Bardet]

Only the second proposition is the solution: one attack per war member. Iron base stacking is only the symptom of the problem. The true problem is the two attacks that create the imbalance. Whatever your alliance composition only the first top half in a war counts: if the top first half is stronger than the other alliance, then you automatically win; the first top half of your alliance will 5* the first top of the other alliance and then on the second attack, your first top half can address the remaining stars in the bottom half of the other alliance.

Takes a war of 20, alliance 1: 10 GA 10 GP ; alliance 2: 10 IA 10 EA; with the 2 attacks alliance 1 wins. and there is no iron age base stacking there.

 

[Wendy]

Patrick, then maybe matching alliances for their first half could solve the problem, i see no sense in doing only one attack, attacks would be just mirror and this has proven to be a very bad strategy.
plus with the crash problem the alliance with less crashes wins.

 

[Patrick Bardet]

crash during wars is out of the equation as this creates unfairness anyway.
With only 1 attack, your alliance has to carefully plan the attacks as you don't have a second chance. You don't have to mirror necessarily to attack your counterpart it depends on the composition of your alliance versus the other alliance.
In a ideal world for WW, every war members is of the same strength as his number of the other alliance, then you can mirror. But in reality it is not the case there are differences in the matching. For me, the 1 attack is still a very good solution and addresses the unavoidable differences in the strength of the war members.

 

[Europeos]

1 attack per player is the best solution because it'll solve the stalemate problem. Besides it's the simplest one to implement.

 

[Ravenlord]

True - but apparently only feedback about special deals can be passed on .....

 

[S_How]

My vote would be to cut the bottom 25%-35% of rosters from the matchmaking equation.

Just as much as they need to fix this though, they need to encourage teams to be heavyweights in war by 1) fixing stalemates which are more common than wins/losses in high advancement teams, 2) make glory rewards actually reward average advancement and war size, like they said it would, rather than just opponent's glory.

 

[Wendy]

100% agreed

 

[Jester]

#4. Stackers meet Stackers.
While searching, add an additional Age filter. Not a new thing since in multiplayer, we can only find someone with 1 age up and below after all.
For example, Alliance A search a war with 10 GA, 5 IA and 5 iA. (Later iA means Iron Age )
They will be match up with another alliance which include about the same war strength, as calcuated by the attack strength, defence, etc.., and include the highest and lowest ages as Alliance A.
So, it goes like this.
Alliance A's age range = from iA to GA
Opponent's age range = from iA to GA

Alliance B search a war with 5 GA, 10 IA and 5 EA
They will be pitted against an opponent of same war strength and Age range.
Alliance B's age range = from EA to GA
Opponent's age range = from EA to GA

This will solve the Iron Age stacking. Who cares if the alliance with more iA win or lose when they stack iAs!!

This will not solve the problem of overpowered offences. Since the defences are mostly neglected compared to offence, let me introduce 2 things.

1. Just like we only get 2 attacks per player, make it so that a player can only be attacked twice. This will definitely help to make each attack counts.

2. For every player, they can attack any number upward of their number but cannot attack lower than war size divided by 10.

For example, in a 10 vs 10 war, number 5 can attack 1,2,3,4 and 5 freely which are above him. For below, he is restricted and can only attack 6.

For example, in a 20 vs 20 war, number 7 can attack 1 to 7 freely which are above him. For below, he is restricted and can only attack 8 and 9.

For example, in a 35 vs 35 war, number 28 can attack 1 to 28 freely which are above him. For below, he is restricted and can only attack 29,30,31 and 32.

This will not solve everything. But will greatly helps in solving most of the current issues.

 

[Patrick Bardet]

I don't think that what you proposed with the matching of ages will change anything, first because the age is a weak indication of the power of a base (I have EA bases much stronger that IA bases in my alliance), second because the number in an age matters: if you have 5 GA and 5 GP against 1 GA 1 IA 6 EA 2 GP, guess who wins. In addition, you will have much more difficulty to be matched with another alliance.

 

[Jester]

Matching ages is to eliminate Iron Age Stacking Issue. Regular and honest alliances will not be effected by matching ages.
Also, yes. It will be a bit more difficult to be matched with another alliance. But where's the harm if we just need to wait for an extra hour or two and get fairer matches. Right!

 

[Brand Marrow]

Form a stacker killing alliance - get 25 or 30 global hitters from a number of real alliances to group together in a temporary alliance - recruit 10 iron age bases, kill a stacker alliance in war so they fall off the charts. Disband - repeat once a week or so...not enough for the temporary alliance to gain glory but enough to start killing stackers that do not have top notch global players at the top of their stacks....

 

[Sletteer1987]

Brand Marrow Fantastic idea lol now if only we could get a schedule of when these alliances start their wars.

 

[Radzeer]

Added the explanation for each poll option above...

 

[Radzeer]

That is what I try to do with a poll, Im sure at nexon the forum is followed. As there are many solutions they could get an impression, what is the most popular suggestion

 

[phil_dee]

This wouldn't work--we already know that a team can lose at #1 and make it back to the top in only sixteen days...there would have to be dozens of these temporary alliances to make this work

 

[GailWho]

Instead of 1 attack per war add two 5star defenses per base. Same outcome But we still get to attack twice per war.

https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...de-the-box-gail-s-answer-to-world-war-problem