Not the usual thread about sandbagging but..

[poop_]

dannemare read this.

 

[poop_]

dannemare read my post below.

As a slight side comment: if you are talking about attacking weak rushed bases, that is a separate argument. No one forces a player to go up an age, but the game might want to better inform players about the consequences before they offer discount after discount for tc upgrades.

But, otherwise, you are allowed to attack a base within +/-1 of your age. This is not a huge advantage considering you CANNOT steal all of their resources and they get a peace treaty if you get at least a star.

Additionally, there are a TON of abandoned bases out there that I am pretty sure their previous owners don't care about you looting them. These bases do NOT have high medal counts.

As hard as you try you can't bend facts to meet your argument. It just doesn't work. Face it.

 

[vincentdang4]

@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.

Thanks for the response poop! I equivocate the the two because both sandbagging and dropping medals achieve one common goal for the party (most anyways) involved: to try to gain an easier matchup. This was my original argument. I think you missed my point... You are right, they are not exactly the same, but I would like to elaborate on your two points.

(1) war matchmaking is a measure of base's offense and defense
(2) muliplayer matchmaking limits attacking to 1 age below you.

After all, I do like to learn how to connect dots, so we will look at some numbers.

As you stated, we know that war matchmaking happens through offense and defense capabilities. Unfortunately, Nexon does not provide these numbers so the best thing we can look at is XP (or average base level). Assume we have 3 base stacking scenarios. We will use 10v10 for simplicity sake. The base stacking alliance will use be comprised of (a) 10%, (b) 20%, and (c) 40% (the worse kind of base-stacking) iron agers. I will arbitrarily use level 180 as the average age for the non-stackers. I think we can agree level 180 is approaching high global.

(a) 9x level 180 bases with 1x level 10 bases trying to avoid a team with average of level 180. By adding 1 iron age, they now have an average level of 163, hence will still meet an average age global team (still within the realm of regular multiplayer matchmaking +/-1 age)
(b) 8x level 180 bases with 2x level 10 bases. With 2 iron ages, they now have an average level of 146. This is new global, mid-industrial (still within the realm of regular multiplayer match matchmaking +/-1 age)
(c) 6x level 180 bases with 4x level 10 bases. With 4 iron ages, they now have an average level of 112. Uh oh, this is where it gets really nasty. But let's see when you can actually go to industrial age? Why that's level 80. I got to industrial age at around level 105-110 (can't remember exact number), so this is still within the +/-1 age multiplayer matchmaking algorithm. I'm sure you globals down in low medals have seen, and may attacked industrials at around level 110s.

It is hard to limit attacking to +/-1 age in wars for several reasons, one of which is that most alliances are made up of a variety of people spanning multiple ages. Can you punish an alliance for having 2-3 globals, no industrials, 4-5 enlightenment, and 2-4 classicals?. It would be very hard for them to match up with an aged balanced alliance using the expanded +/-1 age formula applied to wars. All Nexon can do at this point is allow matchup base on combined level.

No one is cheating, but merely using a system provided for all within the game. I don't care to drop medals, just as you don't care for base stacking.

 

[dannemare]

... I think it is pretty obvious that dropping medals and putting iron age accounts into your war lineup are NOT the same.

Of course, they are not the same, but it doesn't change the fact that people are intentionally lowering/hiding/sandbagging their true strength in MP when they intentionally drop medals. See, this is once again simply a flaw in the game. Nothing more. In the case of MP matching, it is a clear flaw that the matching is so heavily based on medals. This makes it very, very easy for a lvl 190 GA player to terrorise lvl 100 IA players with pretty big and juicy amounts of loot up for grabs.

 

[dannemare]

Thanks for the response poop! I equivocate the the two because both sandbagging and dropping medals achieve one common goal for the party (most anyways) involved: to try to gain an easier matchup.

Exactly.

This was my original argument. I think you missed my point...

Exactly.

 

[poop_]

By "true strength" do you mean skill or how upgraded their offense and defense is?

IMO, if you are lvl 100, you have no business being IA.

 

[dannemare]

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!!!!!!!!!

You are also missing the point.

It is pretty simple, really: If sandbagging your way to easier matchups in WW can be considered cheating, then sandbagging your way to easier MP matchups can be considered cheating.

 

[dannemare]

I already did, naturally. It doesn't change the fact that you are missing my point.

 

[poop_]

I think you missed connecting the dots.

First, I was not advocating for only attacking within 1 age in war. That is silly.

My point is that medals are inaccurate measure of a player's offensive/defensive upgrades. They only indicate how much someone has attacked for them. I repeat, they only indicate how much a player has attacked for them. They do not indicate offensive/defensive upgrades/

I thought the point of a war was to match alliances based on their offensive and defensive upgrades so that it was a level playing field and then, the winner is based on skill.

Clearly, some of you think the point of war is to figure out a cheat, so you can gain the upper hand. That is where it is Nexon's job to come in, put you back on the scale, and throw you out of the game. Or, they could fix the glitch.


I think I may be starting to understand why those high medal alliances are the ones now cheating. They are used to the medal system, which was really never about evenly matched players battling. It was about who could attack more or poach a tc. Or, honestly, I don't even know what it was about. I never bought into it.

Maybe if we just bring back the top medal board and all you sandbaggers can go "compete" over there for medals and leave the rest of us alone.

 

[dannemare]

I prefer to leave skills out of the equation. The game cannot take into consideration our individual skill levels.

It is besides the point whether or not a lvl 100 should have upgraded his TC to IA.

My point boils down to people (including myself) intentionally dropping medals to get much easier MP matchups. We sandbag (aka. hide) our true offensive strength levels (not taking into consideration individual human skills) when we do an MP search simply because the game is stupid enough to look at your low medals and say: "Oooh, only 600 medals. What as weak-ass player. I need to make sure I match him with people of similar capabilities (aka. medal count)."

So (for the last time), I'm not trying to compare MP sandbagging to WW sandbagging in terms of "damage" and whatnot. I merely state that both forms of hiding your level is... well, sandbagging (by definition). And if sandbagging is considered cheating... well then MP sandbagging should be considered cheating just as well, IMO.

 

[dannemare]

These stupid comments (not yours, poop_ ) but the CONCEPT of these stupid forum comments make it VERY easy to miss some of them... (so I'll not reply to this comment poop_, because I have already - hopefully - made my point even more clear in other comments and quotes).

 

[poop_]

Your point is not a valid argument. I'm sorry if that is hard for you to understand.

I will repeat this many times so maybe you will understand: Medal amount is determined by how much someone attacks. War weight is determined by offensive/defensive upgrades. They are NOT the same. I will say it again: they are NOT the same.

Nexon intended matching on offensive/defensive upgrades in order to get an even match. They did not choose to match alliances in wars based on medals or previous war history for a reason. Read that again if it isn't clear.

Sandbagging causes uneven matches, which is NOT what was intended. In fact, nexon has said that it is not what was intended.

Read above again and repeat if necessary.

How is this even still a discussion?

 

[dannemare]

My point is that medals are inaccurate measure of a player's offensive/defensive upgrades. They only indicate how much someone has attacked for them. I repeat, they only indicate how much a player has attacked for them. They do not indicate offensive/defensive upgrades/

Yes, exactly. Medals are a very inaccurate measurement, and this is the sad part, because the game uses one's medal count to match you with other players in MP. So when people intentionally drop medals they get easier matchups (except for matchups against other heavy players doing the exact same ; kinda like when a sandbagging WW team meets another sandbagging WW team, you could say ; luckily you can just skip these other sandbaggers and quickly find yourself a juicy weak-ass IA base with lots of loot instead).

 

[poop_]

I do not think medals were ever intended to be a way to get even matches, but something people could compete for it that chose to. I choose not to. I repeat: They are not intended to make even matches. Medals are something to compete for. They aren't a measure of something. The game imposed a restriction on what ages you are able to attack in order to try to get more even matches.

Read again and repeat if still not clear.

 

[dannemare]

Your point is not a valid argument. I'm sorry if that is hard for you to understand.

I will repeat this many times so maybe you will understand: Medal amount plays a huge role in MP matchups. When you sandbag your strength by intentionally lowering your medal count, you gain an advantage of facing easier matchups. WW matchups and MP matchups are NOT the same. I will say it again: they are NOT the same.

Nexon intended MP matching on medal count which was stupid (and it will probably never be fixed). They simply chose to match players in MP battles based on medals for no good reason. Read that again if it isn't clear.

Sandbagging (aka. lowering your medal count) causes uneven MP matches, which is NOT what was intended. Unfortunately, Nexon has never stated that they intend to change it.

Read above again and repeat if necessary.

How is this even still a discussion?

 

[poop_]

dannemare you are missing the point.

The game put constraints on what age you could attack as a way to make even match ups in mp.

Medals have nothing to do with it. Medals are what players compete for. You get matched with people within your medal range because you are competing for medals.

If the game changed the glory system to be similar to the medal system it would include war weight AND glory amount in determining your match up. People lowering their glory to get less skilled alliances would NOT be sandbagging.

How is this not clear?

 

[dannemare]

dannemare you are missing the point.

The game put constraints on what age you could attack as a way to make even match ups in mp.

Medals have nothing to do with it. Medals are what players compete for. You get matched with people within your medal range because you are competing for medals.

If the game changed the glory system to be similar to the medal system it would include war weight AND glory amount in determining your match up. People lowering their glory to get less skilled alliances would NOT be sandbagging.

How is not clear?

poop, you are missing the point.

Yes, the game allows only for a +/- 1 age difference but it is far from enough to make for even MP matchups. Just like WW matching is flawed, MP matching is flawed.

I will keep repeating this one line to you over and over again: If you are intentionally lowering your medals, you are sandbagging by definition. Period! *THIS* was my point. Everything else is besides my point.

How is this not clear?

 

[poop_]

dannemare I addressed your misunderstanding in my most recent post. I hope it finally clarifies it for you.

 

[dannemare]

poop, I addressed your misunderstanding in my most recent post. I hope it finally clarifies it for you.

 

[Nakfarfar Titi]

You lower roster weight to get easier wars
You lower medals count to get easier battles

Of course wars and mp are different by nature with different parameters and different goals. What you lower is different, how you lower is different and who you matched with is different. These aren't in question here.

What we're talking about here is ideology . Same concept same ideology adopted by almost everyone in here since forever.