Nexon can you help us understand your stance on war issues?

phil_dee

Approved user
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
94
Our record is the product of using our technique during a period in which everyone else focused upon medal score. Things are VERY different today, this is why you and others are so vocal now. Be careful not to apply our 90 or so pre-glory wars to my current argument.
 

S_How

Approved user
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
688
Something for you guys to think about--what many of you are advocating for is nearly impossible, and it is nearly impossible for two reasons.

First, there is little evidence that there is even a "loophole" (as ccfoo calls it) to fix. Use of the term "loophole" implies that developer intent has always been to promote flat war rosters (i.e., rosters with a high degree of parity between members). However, there is too much evidence to the contrary to draw that assumption--not only have alliances been using our technique for a long time in this game, but it was a well-known technique in other games. The technique is well-known enough that its use was clearly foreseeable among the developers of this game, who then provided for its use anyway. We should be operating under the assumption that the technique was embraced from the moment that World War was introduced here.

Second, how would such a "fix" be enforceable? In alliances where the disparity between bases on a war roster is arbitrarily decided to be "bad" by the five to ten self-appointed arbiters in this forum, how would alliance intent be determined? Who decides whether this disparity arose from a desire to be manipulative? Who decides how much disparity is too much, and by what standard? Will very strong alliances find themselves flagged whenever a series of new players happen to waltz into their rosters? By what standard should those very strong alliances be compelled to reject those new members? Why should ANY alliance be compelled to reject new members--and then, if keeping new members, why should they be compelled to keep others just to avoid making their roster look TOO unbalanced (whatever that means)? What does "too unbalanced" look like, and how is this decided?

Think about these things carefully before arguing vaguely that "someone needs to fix this."

Phil, have you ever considered a career as a lawyer, or maybe a lobbyist? Lol. You have a very unique way with words, but bundling a bunch of smart ones around an argument full of fallacies doesnt make it any more legitimate. I will absolutely concede that the technique of stacking low level bases to manipulate war matchups has been around since the beginning of war. Its been silly from the start, but thankfully the first several months of war it was not very common. It's taken on a different light now though, when so many more players are exposed to it because of its proliferation. Maybe you are right, the developers do support it, that was actually the first question I asked in the original post - what is there stance and is this working as intended. I really hope there is an answer.

As to comparisons in other games - this used to be a huge problem in other games, and theyve worked very hard to address it. I can't really link patch notes of competing games here, but you can google it yourself, they have made significant changes to help reduce matchmaking manipulation even in the past few months in many different ways, including weighting the more significant upgrades/players more because is was recognized as such a huge, negative impact to the community and game.

I can't speak for everyone but I promise I will do my best not to be vague :) I dont know all of the answers, only that it is a problem and creating a very poor experience for those meeting teams choosing to do this. While we have poor experiences, I can only imagine it was never the intention of the developers to match EA players against max global players, but this is for them to clarify as well, and hopefully resolve. Beyond the iron age technique, I would say that there were very clear solutions, no ambiguity whatsoever to the other 4 points in the OP.
 
Last edited:

S_How

Approved user
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
688
Hi Phil, not sure what formula you used for disparity and very unsure about the point you are trying to make, its fairly confusing because the examples dont align with assumptions. If you are taking averages of top and bottom half to get disparity, 34% sure is a pretty nice improvement from what it is now. Currently your top 20 average what, about 160? Bottom 20 average 20? So 800% using that same formula. Your new roster example wouldnt be nearly as dominant, not sure why you feel it would....its mid IA-max GBA based on the levels of 130ish and 198, the most extreme examples possible. Beats the heck out of max global and barely iron age being combined :)

But, I dont know if such a complex formula is the way to go about it. Would rather see the bottom portion of a roster cut from the matchmaking formula. And Im sure a game developer like Nexon would have even better ideas than me.
 

phil_dee

Approved user
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
94
The 34% figure refers to the difference between the strongest and weakest players (130 is 34% lower than 198, or 66% of 198). This hypothetical roster would be dominant because fifteen players at level 198 would have no problems maxing a 30-player flat lineup that averages 164, the same average as this hypothetical lineup (with fifteen at level 198 and fifteen at level 130)...and would be dominant despite not being paired against the VERY large number of alliances which would be fielding lineups averaging less.
 
Last edited:

S_How

Approved user
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
688
Yes I've got the math now. The 130 min 198 max is actually probably very typical of an alliance makeup. The 34% in this scenario is in stark contrast to the almost 1000%+ difference you are fielding right now with so many in the teens
 

phil_dee

Approved user
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
94
That's what I'm trying to get at here, though--the disparity in that hypothetical lineup is probably typical, but people will have a problem when even THIS roster is intentionally trimmed to make it as far from flat as possible (and I would definitely do this). The results of such an effort would mirror what we have now IRL.
 

Ankara

Approved user
Joined
Jul 13, 2016
Messages
28
I'm not sure you're allowed anymore to raise concerns on a forum that are well reasoned, articulate and civil in nature. Nor do i think it is currently permitted to carry out a discussion on a public forum where two differing viewpoints present their opinions in such a manner that a reader of same may become interested in the subject where before he or she was not, and, further, venture even to break silence to express an appreciation publicly for both members involved in the debate.

I AM pretty sure that somebody by now is supposed to have posted lividly about the greed of the developers, that they, many other players (or both), are going to quit the game, and then close with "end rant", or soemthing of the like.

C'mon get with it guys.
 

ccfoo

Approved user
Joined
Mar 22, 2016
Messages
218
No Title

Something for you guys to think about--what many of you are advocating for is nearly impossible, and it is nearly impossible for two reasons.

First, there is little evidence that there is even a "loophole" (as ccfoo calls it) to fix. Use of the term "loophole" implies that developer intent has always been to promote flat war rosters (i.e., rosters with a high degree of parity between members). However, there is too much evidence to the contrary to draw that assumption--not only have alliances been using our technique for a long time in this game, but it was a well-known technique in other games. The technique is well-known enough that its use was clearly foreseeable among the developers of this game, who then provided for its use anyway. We should be operating under the assumption that the technique was embraced from the moment that World War was introduced here.

Second, how would such a "fix" be enforceable? In alliances where the disparity between bases on a war roster is arbitrarily decided to be "bad" by the five to ten self-appointed arbiters in this forum, how would alliance intent be determined? Who decides whether this disparity arose from a desire to be manipulative? Who decides how much disparity is too much, and by what standard? Will very strong alliances find themselves flagged whenever a series of new players happen to waltz into their rosters? By what standard should those very strong alliances be compelled to reject those new members? Why should ANY alliance be compelled to reject new members--and then, if keeping new members, why should they be compelled to keep others just to avoid making their roster look TOO unbalanced (whatever that means)? What does "too unbalanced" look like, and how is this decided?

Think about these things carefully before arguing vaguely that "someone needs to fix this."

I find it appalling that you are exploiting the system, and using flawed reasoning to justify your means. I applaud that you have found the flaw in the system, brought a well known exploit from other similar games into Dominations to give you easier match ups and abused it for months until now. If you decide to continue to rule the diminishing mole hill of this game with your conscious seared and derive satisfaction from it, no one is stopping you. Similar to the latest pokemon go, we can't stop players from spoofing and justifying their means by saying, "Why didn't the developers anticipate this and prevent it? Since Niantic created the game, they must have embraced this! Who are they, and worse other players, to decide if I'm really at that location or not?"

Good luck then.
 

Attachments

  • photo8065.jpg
    photo8065.jpg
    86.8 KB · Views: 43
  • photo8066.jpg
    photo8066.jpg
    84.3 KB · Views: 48
  • photo8067.jpg
    photo8067.jpg
    86.7 KB · Views: 46

S_How

Approved user
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
688
I still dont understand the point you are making. You are saying that even a mid IA through max global roster is unfair, just the same way a half iron age half global roster is unfair? It really just doesnt make any sense. Yes of course you can trim a roster that is still within the boundaries of IA/Global, but the impact of doing this is much less than the iron age/global alliance.
 

phil_dee

Approved user
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
94
I don't think *either* is unfair--instead, I'm only anticipating the reactions of those who will have to face this hypothetical roster.

If it is sufficient to simply make the impact of this strategy lesser, how MUCH lesser is justified? There will be complaints at any point that someone appears to be intentionally taking advantage of the matchup algorithm in what the complainants view as an unnatural or intentional manner.
 

phil_dee

Approved user
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
94
Let us know when Niantic allows that to continue unabated for nine months--this is more powerful evidence than you appear willing to admit. Also, spoofing is not actually a part of the Pokemon GO game itself...while creating a DomiNations war lineup, accepting and kicking alliance members, and all of the other acts which comprise our strategy and bring it to manifest most assuredly ARE part of our game.
 
Last edited:

S_How

Approved user
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
688
Phil I think you are cornering yourself lol. People will always feel some matchups were difficult, but your hypothetical of max global through mid IA spread - Ive never ever heard of someone complaining about this. It is also very different than the scenario your team uses. The topic we are discussing, is mixing max global players, with iron age players, so that the teams you face are so abnormally easy for your globals, there is zero risk or challenge in going to war for you. These zero risk scenarios, (and conversely 100% impossible scenarios for your competitors, a set of EA players will never perfect score a set of Globals), are something the game should make every effort possible to avoid. It is done in multiplayer by the arbitrary +/- 1 age restriction. Something needs to be put in place to prevent this matchup manipulation in war as well, as a game that rewards woefully non-competitive war matchups more than any other, is not a game that will survive.
 

S_How

Approved user
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
688
If there is one thing you and I can agree on Phil, it is the powerful message Nexon is sending to its player by choosing not to address this problem.
 

phil_dee

Approved user
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
94
Of course, nobody has complained about player disparity in this sort of lineup because such a lineup (fifteen level 198 players, fifteen level 130 players) doesn't exist...all it would take for that lineup to have people standing on moral soapboxes in this forum is to win one or two wars and begin creeping upward on our leaderboard.
 

phil_dee

Approved user
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
94
Also, for what it's worth, I think you may be unintentionally overestimating our use of these bases in our lineups. Our current war lineup only employs thirteen of these bases, out of forty total players.
 
Last edited:

ped2000

Banned
Joined
Feb 12, 2016
Messages
98
glory and medals are the dumbest part of this game. so many seem to be all about it, to me it's epitome of pointless. You out spent someone and have a bigger army, congrats, you got "bragging rights." Because that's 95% of it.
 
Top