Sandbagging - I thought I had seen it all

[Tower]

we frequently encounter sandbaggers in our war match up. But most of the time it is 4-6 Iron age.. now we just got matched against W.A.R. In a 40vs40 war and they got TWELVE!! Twelve non-active Iron Age players in their match up.
This Sandbagging is seriously destroying the game..

we are the ideal alliance in Nexon view. 49 members. All ages except Iron Age and 45 have been active the last 9 hrs. The remaining four the last 24.. and we have to face alliances like W.A.R...

alliances like W.A.R should be disqualified for bad sportsmanship

 

[Mythic]

hmm, has anyone seen one with half iron age? Just curious. I'd expect to see that more often.

 

[Max_imus]

Yes, but in earlier days of stacking... our alliance recently faced 13 ...200-200 was the score lol

 

[Texan]

So since many players had figure out way too adapt too new glory in alliance wars. So alliances where not being matched with alliances running multiple accounts in their alliance.

Anyone can have Iron age active if player logs off one account and back into their other on another device.

What Im reading is your pissed an alliance matched up with you and they had 12 top players. Your upset these 12 players more likely 5 stared both attacks. Had strong defenses your players couldnt beat very well.

Their low level iron age accounts where dead weight that you had too use attacks on too get your 5 stars where could.

Dankness has too learn too adapt too changes like everyone else, no one can determine what level of university or library reaseearch players have completed.

Even those that think their teams unbeatable best, has too except their alliances filled with great players. We all have battles we could learn from.

 

[Riyad604]

Yeah, we are facing a Russian alliance now ranked 30 or so with 9 iron and medieval age sandbags...

 

[TitaniumNinja12]

You mean USA Dankness? They got on the top glory leaderboards in the alliance spotlight

 

[S_How]

Some of the most effective sandbagging alliances run at near 40% Iron Age inactives. It allows for the widest mismatch potential. 100% of our 35-45 player matches and about 75% of our 25/30 man wars for the last 3 months have been like this. It's almost inconceivable that nexon hasn't acted on this yet lol.

 

[Tower]

So our war against W.A.R is coming to a close. And surprise surprise, we failed to achieve a win or a stalemate since our middle was completely outclassed.... Actually only our top 5-6 could match W.A.R top 20... so unless we suddenly get 3-4 attacks each we are in trouble...

Since W.A.R now is certain to win you would expect some of their THIRTEEN iron age bases to try a few attacks to get loot. I mean, the win is certain - obviously you would want some loot?

So how many attacks do you think those THIRTEEN players have done? (No reward for guessing the correct number...)

Hopefully Nexon comes up with a solution very soon, or else the whole leaderboard will be covered by alliances where 40-45% are inactive iron age bases...
But perhaps that is the goal...

 

[ColdestRage]

19 Iron Ages here.

https://www.yogile.com/i6qfnyex/41m/share/?vsc=edab071c


USA D**kness did it again.

Phill you sure all those members are active?
I mean how can someone be active player in Iron Age not loging in for 18 days straight , and having nation set as default (meaning he didn't yet chose one) ?

I'm pretty sure I'll be lol'ing at your answer so don't even bother with one.

Or maybe do answer I'll lol at it so hard that I'll 5 star all of your bases with my lol'ing alone.

Pretty sure that your answer will be - they are waiting for Atomic Age release to see which Nation will be OP to make the right choice

 

[phil_dee]

No, they clearly aren't active. It's been months since they all were (and, consequently, months since I've noted that they are).

You've gotta stop trying so hard, if anything I have never misled anyone with regard to what it is that we do (and how we've done it). When our players were all active, I noted they were all active. Most of the players you are looking at now are the exact same players who were active last time we had this discussion. I see no pressing reason to move them.

 

[phil_dee]

Also, there are fifteen Iron Age members (not nineteen).

 

[ColdestRage]

Right , exact same active players, of Iron Age .
Don't they know that you can gain Iron from mines in later Ages too?
Enlighten them , cause as I see it those are so active that their lack of knowledge about mines made them stay at Iron Age for couple of months .
And one thing about trying so hard... You should stop trying so hard to justify your methods just because you are scared of losing war to alliances with same strength as your Globals have
Yes, there are 4 Classical Age players , my mistake... When did they log in last time?
One of them for example did log in last time 57 days ago... Pretty active if you ask me
Oh.. I know, he started second account and is gathering Iron in Iron Age cause there's none in Classical Age

 

[phil_dee]

I'm not sure why it is so hard for you to understand how this roster ends up as it is. Iron Age players join all alliances often, many of them abandon the game early on but remain allied. We keep them. My guess is that there are millions of Iron Age accounts in this game, most players have very short lifespans. A small number of these players join us and keep playing, and increase in strength. We generally do not keep them. It should be easy to understand.

The last time we had this discussion, our leaderboard position resulted in us receiving these players at a very high rate (due to our exposure, as any of them could find us easily). We cycled these players in and out quickly enough that, at that time, I could tell you that all of our players were active. Since then, recruiting has slowed and--when we do get these players--the odds of them being, say, level 15 or under are pretty low. Hence, what you find now is a high number of weak inactive players, while those who are slightly stronger (say, from levels 20-30) are more likely to still be active.

 

[ColdestRage]

Tell your fairy tales to children ... Been in couple of alliances, am still in some, and none of them were joined by only Iron Age players.
Possibility of that is close to 0% so stop telling lies that only ppl with IQ of an ant would believe

 

[TitaniumNinja12]

Sandbagging alliances don't try to recruit Iron Agers. Some make second accounts to rush them to Iron Age to include them in war to sandbag

 

[phil_dee]

I did not say that ONLY Iron Age players join us. Come on, man. (I'm beginning to understand why comprehension is difficult here, I think)

 

[ColdestRage]

So where are those other Age members?
Why don't you include them in wars?
Let me guess , only Iron Ages , Industrial Ages , and Global Ages join you?
Oh... I know those other Age members probably were so active that they moved past Space Age and used New Game+ feature thus so many Iron Ages in your alliance
You mister are getting more and more laughable.
Please don't stop replying I'll lol till morning

 

[phil_dee]

Obviously, if incoming members are above some arbitrary (but low) level, we kick them immediately. We keep SOME Classical Age members, even if it is for a short period, and keep anyone over about level 150. For incoming players, those falling between about lvl 30-150 will not stay. Those who do stay will remain until displaced from the bottom of our war lineup by another (weaker) incoming player. I can't believe I have to explain this.

 

[ColdestRage]

So.. Now you're saying that you only have Iron Ages , Industrial, and Global ones... Why do you write something only to negate it in next comment?
You like beeing laughed at because of beeing a liar, and poor one at that?
And stop lying about replacing old Low lvl allies with new ones cause you don't , many of those "replacements" haven't loged in for more than 2 weeks straight

 

[phil_dee]

You've intentionally ignored the part where I note that we keep SOME Classical Age members. Are you going to take time to analyze this properly at some point?