Not the usual thread about sandbagging but..

[Wendy]

...still a thread about sandbagging!
So after loosing a huge amount of glory points against sandbagging alliances, me and my team mates have decided to try for a couple of wars with this "tattic" and here's my report.
So instead of the usual complaint about sandbaggers I'm going to write from the point of view of sandbaggers, trying to be as honest as I can.
We made 3 wars sandbagging.
the first using 2 classical age and 2 iron age
the second using 2 classical age and 1 iron age
the third using 1 classical and 1 iron
First thing I have to say is we won all the 3 wars, the first 2 with perfect score, the 3rd with 149/150.
the amount of glory points we won is huge, related to the usual ammount we get without sandbagging. In 3 wars we won about 1200 glory points while we usually get 500/600 in the same number of wars.
The second thing I want to say is that the top 3 of our alliance never got attacked. Number 4 was attacked a couple of times but never been 5 starred.
the top 3 of us, also didn't have to attack to win the war. We just sit and watched our allies taking down one by one the enemy's bases and we just went for loot at the end of the war( still 5 starring the top numbers without mercenaries or all the tattics)
So the game wasn't fun for us at all, and I guess it wasn't for our opponents too. I usually check the war a lot of times during the day giving advices and trying to organize the second attacks, these wars I simply didn't. I just didn't care because results were clear after the first 5/10 attacks.
I must say that many of my allies were instead happy to 5 star a number 1 or 2 when they usually have to face number 10/15.
At the end we had a very boring week, but we earned a lot of glory points.
Our conclusions: no way we are going to do this again. The game is not interesting, there is no real glory in winning these wars, but if we kept doing this way for a couple of weeks more we'd surely be back in the glory points ranking. It's just too easy.
I also want to apologize and give my compliments to the alliances we faced. They tried in all the ways they could, they simply couldn't do more. It's math.
i understand why some of the top alliances have to do this. BUT for any other that use this way to win I must say: shame on you! You are not even having fun, and if you are, it means that you are just not good in this game and you need to lower the level of you game in order to have a win.

 

[Quovatis]

2-3 bases, only 1-2 of which are iron doesn't make a difference in matchmaking. Your easy wars were just a coincidence. In my experience, we were matched with the same alliance in 35v35 with 5 iron age bases and also with 0. The range of matchmaking scores is quite large.

 

[S_How]

2-3 bases, only 1-2 of which are iron doesn't make a difference in matchmaking. Your easy wars were just a coincidence. In my experience, we were matched with the same alliance in 35v35 with 5 iron age bases and also with 0. The range of matchmaking scores is quite large.

In our experiences, this is very incorrect. We've seen horrible stacking results just facing 2-4 low development bases in 35v35. In fact, I remember Chris Outlaws had this as well and he posted the level comparisons. Levels of course do not equate to war rank, but over a large sample they are at least somewhat telling. The 3 bases reduced the overall avg level by almost 15, when pairing iron age and global. The range is large, but coupled with 10-15% stacked bases, it becomes much worse.

I cant remember if it was Project Tera, or Ares Army, but one of those two only had 4 stacked bases at 35. It was enough that our suggested target for our #1 was like 18. This was probably an extreme example of being on both the outer edge of the matchmaking range, coupled with stacking. Its the only way that match could have been suggested by their algorithm. Usually when we see our suggested targets ~20 ranks below its is the result of a 40-45% stack, but it happens with 10-15% also.

 

[Wendy]

2-3 bases, only 1-2 of which are iron doesn't make a difference in matchmaking. Your easy wars were just a coincidence. In my experience, we were matched with the same alliance in 35v35 with 5 iron age bases and also with 0. The range of matchmaking scores is quite large.

i can tell you, there's a huge difference.
one of those alliances had no global age players, and all of them lost a lot of stars on bases that are usually easy 5 stars for a same age player.
when we don't meet stackers we meet anyway alliances that can take down our top numbers or at least that can make us suffer a won.
maybe a couple of classical/ medieval age can make no difference, but Iron Age do!

 

[Wendy]

Ares army uses 8-12 fake profiles, so not them!

 

[ColdestRage]

i can tell you, there's a huge difference.
one of those alliances had no global age players, and all of them lost a lot of stars on bases that are usually easy 5 stars for a same age player.
when we don't meet stackers we meet anyway alliances that can take down our top numbers or at least that can make us suffer a won.
maybe a couple of classical/ medieval age can make no difference, but Iron Age do!

Scoend this.
Couple of Iron Ages does affect matchmaking greatly .

Strenght of alliance is counted by adding defnesive and ofensive power of alliance.

How much defenses, and ofensive powers does Iron Age base hold?

Next to none.

Add 3-4 Iron Ages and your average defensive and ofensive power from which matchmaking depends lowers greatly

 

[Christopher-Outlaws!!]

I'll jump in here. Despite the no evidence or math argument regarding matchmaking, short you coming to me saying "i've got the calculations and math over x sample size and here it is", i'm going to argue my point based on the sample size and experience. however PLEASE NOTE: Correlation does not equal causation! thus to mean there is much validity in the mistrust of this metric! it is warrented!

But here it is:
When doing a H2H, we know that having an overall average xp level within 5% is optimal and allows the system to match you within 30 seconds. This has been proven over 24 H2H matchups with varrying timelines and sizes.

The metrics run regarding xp lvl have been observed by running the metrics against stacker alliances and calculating their average xp vs ours, and yes, the xp has been within that 5% metric mentioned above, and without the sandbag accounts is well outside this metric. Further evidence to this is that we have not faced these alliances before, many of them are very new, this holds validity as the Outlaws have warred fairly nonstop since war was introduced.

I hope this helps to at least say there is a correlation between these two things.

Cheers,

 

[poop_]

Wendy and Christopher are correct. (They get the poop stamp of approval.)

I'll jump in here and add in an opinion without any official spreadsheet backing it up. Just my experience.

I've been warring non stop since wars came out. In 3 alliances before the current one. I'll use war weight instead of level because even though the game doesn't tell us our war weight, we all have one.

Depending on the size of your war, the current war weight of your players, and who is searching for war when you are searching, adding a few iron age players can potentially not make that big a difference, but only if you are lucky. (Read that statement again, if you are confused.)

Otherwise, it makes a BIG difference. Based on my experience (and I am a little OCD for noticing patterns), the game is matching based on either an avg war weight for your alliance or total war weight (essentially the same). I do not think they take into account the range of your alliance, which means that iron age players would have a big effect on your avg war weight and therefore your match. (This matches with what Christopher has more scientifically observed.)

As our current alliance was growing, we put a lot of different combinations into wars. Mine is purely observation, but I figured out the pattern before I was even aware of the greater wide world of cheaters using it to manipulate the system to their advantage.

What I don't understand is why this is still a discussion of whether sandbagging is cheating (although I am glad you added your experience, wendy).

Sandbagging obviously gives you an unfair advantage.

I looked up the definition of cheating to clarify to you who missed that on the vocabulary test:

"cheat
CHēt/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: cheating
act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination."



BTW, I'm sure those stockbrokers trading subprime mortgages didn't think they were cheating either.


Also, side point, I want to say that I appreciate everyone who has not caved to the pressure to sandbag, spoken out about it, and/or done something about it.
I am just a lowly troll on here with an agenda harassing elitist phil...(I love you, phil!)

 

[dannemare]

On the topic of sandbagging I've made a pretty interesting observation. Namely that some of the individuals complaining again and again about sandbagging in WW actually sandbag themselves (or their alliance comrades do it) in MP battles by lowering their medal score drastically. Quite interesting methinks.

 

[maggiepie]

On the topic of sandbagging I've made a pretty interesting observation. Namely that some of the individuals complaining again and again about sandbagging in WW actually sandbag themselves (or their alliance comrades do it) in MP battles by lowering their medal score drastically. Quite interesting methinks.

And yet as an IA I'm no longer able to decimate iron or classical age bases because of the limits imposed long ago after complaints on such vast, unfair, mismatches. Perhaps such strict restrictions are not appropriate for WW, but it appears there's growing discontent as to how many wars are being structured. To try to claim MP and WW are apples and apples is a very superficial examination.

 

[dannemare]

And yet as an IA I'm no longer able to decimate iron or classical age bases because of the limits imposed long ago after complaints on such vast, unfair, mismatches. Perhaps such strict restrictions are not appropriate for WW, but it appears there's growing discontent as to how many wars are being structured. To try to claim MP and WW are apples and apples is a very superficial examination.

I never claimed apples-apples, but cheating is cheating, right?

 

[dannemare]

Sandbagging obviously gives you an unfair advantage.

I looked up the definition of cheating to clarify to you who missed that on the vocabulary test:

"cheat
CHēt/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: cheating
act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination."



BTW, I'm sure those stockbrokers trading subprime mortgages didn't think they were cheating either.

I'm sure all those medal dumping Domi players didn't think they were cheating either.

 

[Glacier]

Cool, I drop medals, I am a cheater ;-] I constantly run up and down the medal ranges looting resources therefore the quickness of advancing my base by not crowning it and only through hard work, is a cheater base! Woot!!!!!!!!!

 

[vincentdang4]

I like fun challenging wars, so I too hope for a resolution of "sandbagging" in its current form but dannemare makes an interesting point. Isn't dropping medals the multiplayer equivalent of sandbagging? I read many threads of people encouraging others to "drop" medals to hunt for easier bases and nation trade goods and avoid "the bigger fish." Isn't that what some of these "sand-bagging" alliances are doing, trying to hunt easier war targets and avoid the bigger fish? Currently, the biggest argument against sand-bagging is the enormous mismatches it create. But consider this scenario: a developed industrial army attacking a minty fresh EA base in the 600-800 medal range. The EA guy never has a chance! S/he would have very few defenses to resist the 3 planes onslaught; I doubt s/he could stop a full tank rush. If the base is fresh to EA, then s/he will have mostly gunpowder - or perhaps even earlier - defenses. You become a maxed industrial army attacking a gunpowder base. Congratulations you champions of fair play! I remember in gunpowder, at low enough medals, I could easily 5* medieval bases with just raiders and incurring very minimal losses!

Disclosure: I play high medals and never intentional loses (every single one of my losses in the last 3 months have been due to crashes). I stay up here because it is challenging, and I got bored of beating up on bad bases. I hunt for nation trade goods at high medals, and yes... it is very painful... especially when looking for those rare items like silk or scrolls. Fortunately, my coalitions are not yet maxed, so I can still war continuously with coalitions if I devote enough time to 4-5 starring bases in Empire league. Do I wish people would stop dropping medals? You betcha, it would definitely make my life easier! But i don't blame the folks who do, for they are working within the legal confines of the game. I don't think they are cheaters, but I do think they have an unfair advantage over many of the bases they face (when compared to me).

However, having said all this, I would like a resolution to the current "sandbagging" issue. After all, I wouldn't sit in high medals if I wanted an easy way out. Likewise, I'd like for wars to be challenging for everyone, sand-baggers and sans.

 

[poop_]

The equivalent of in mp would be global players attacking gunpowder and medieval bases. Funny how the game doesn't allow that.

I hope that makes you think.

 

[poop_]

dannemare You have silly logic.

 

[poop_]

What are you talking about? Please explain how medal dumping is cheating and gives players an unfair advantage over one other. I am very excited to hear you explanation!

 

[poop_]

@vincent, here is where you logic is flawed:
Medals are earned through battles.
Medals are not a measure of a base's offense and defense.
The game does limit you to attacking only 1 age below you.

Matching in war is determined by alliance member's offensive and defensive strength. It is not determined by their previous success in war.

If I need to connect these dots for you, I can, but I think it is pretty obvious that dropping medals and putting iron age accounts into your war lineup are NOT the same.

 

[dannemare]

In MP you match against other players with a somewhat similar medal count (within your own age +/- 1 age, I believe). Dropping medals intentionally, say from 2,500 to below 1,000, provides you with a huge advantage in MP battles, because you are much more likely to face much weaker bases (but the pay-off in gold/food is often the same; not so much for oil, of course). I know this for a fact, because I do it myself to gain an advantage when raiding/destroying enemy bases in MP. It is simply ridiculously easy to stomp on most low medal players and take their resources with a minimal loss. Done right, you can pancake enemy bases without any troop loss (and zero use of tactics, generals, mercs, and alliance troops even). Zero rebuild time. If sandbagging/hiding your true level in WW is cheating, I think it is fair to say that sandbagging/hiding your true level in MP is cheating.

 

[dannemare]

And so do you. It's all in the eye of the beholder.