Sandbagging

[FroggyKilla]

How about the player, or in this case, an account has to be Level 100 in order to participate in Alliance War?

 

[LordJestix]

No point of having an alliance then prior to level 100 other than getting a few troops here or there.

 

[FroggyKilla]

Don't think the lower level players should be creating alliances, but I guess the level could be subject to change.

 

[BeerMan]

They could just do a max delta allowed between the top player and bottom player in the war, like say 75. So if your top player was level 200, your lowest player has to be at least 125. And it could scale based on the max base, so if your max base was only level 100 maybe the max delta is 50.

 

[FroggyKilla]

Hey that's a pretty nice idea.

 

[S_How]

They could just do a max delta allowed between the top player and bottom player in the war, like say 75. So if your top player was level 200, your lowest player has to be at least 125. And it could scale based on the max base, so if your max base was only level 100 maybe the max delta is 50.

Another good idea to consider from the community. I Was really disappointed that they removed the two sticky threads on sandbagging, with no solution presented. There were so many good ideas in those threads.

 

[LordJestix]

Another good idea to consider from the community. I Was really disappointed that they removed the two sticky threads on sandbagging, with no solution presented. There were so many good ideas in those threads.

They dont want to use our good ideas and they want us to forget about them. I was ignored when i asked if any of our ideas had been tried when they said they have tried different things to fix sandbagging.

 

[Xerxes]

Or how about something even simpler. If a player fails to attack during war, the player is automatically set to "OUT" and can't be added back to the war roster without opting back in. This wouldn't stop all sandbagging of course, but it would significantly curtail it, I think, based on the fact that when we get an obviously sandbagged matchup, we scout the other alliance and find that their sandbags haven't logged in for days, sometimes months.

A side benefit would be giving alliance leaders a more diplomatic way to bench negligent members. "Hey, I would have left you on the roster but you didn't use either of your attacks last war so my hands are tied!"

 

[SebQuattro]

Player level has no effect on match making or glory, it wouldn't take that much effort to get a sandbag to level 100 with nothing but economic buildings leveled. Roads alone can account for a large proportion of that

They've also explicitly stated

We think players should be able to engage in Wars with their friends if they want to, regardless of their Age.

 

[SebQuattro]

I can't see how that would have any effect. Most of these Iron Age sandbags are going to be 'alts'.

 

[LordJestix]

They dont want to use our good ideas and they want us to forget about them. I was ignored when i asked if any of our ideas had been tried when they said they have tried different things to fix sandbagging.

This is one suggestion that i was thinking about. You could even limit it to 3 ages less, so EA is lowest you can have if atomics are in the war.

 

[Ludog]

There is always a way around this. Keep your roads at level 1 don't build caravans or farms. No factory or vault or any wonders. The highest player would be a level 175 with 250 defenses and offenses. I like the approach you have but I believe this will cause more head ache...

 

[Ludog]

Why not make a button that says accept or decline for a war declared. Both parties will either accept or decline. If you decline then you go to the next. This will take away all complaints and put the power in the hands of the leaders. Even make a search to declare wars on alliances you can chose that you may have a beef with. That would be fun. I know a lot of people would love to squash my base. haha

 

[SebQuattro]

Chris has previously suggested this and it won't work. Alliances use sandbags because they want an 'easy' match up, those same alliances will just refuse match ups that look 'difficult'. How many alliances would 'accept' a war with KA? lol.

 

[JMoney]

Too easy to game the system for mmr/glory. Same reason people can't just pick who they want to match against in, say, a game of DotA 2 ranked matchmaking. Sure, in that game, you can just abandon the match against people you don't want to play against to have more favourable matchups, but at the end of the day, it's still the person that leaves the game that loses mmr and gets a penalty. So really, if you want to make it so you can decline wars in this game, you might as well make it so the team that does so automatically loses the glory they would have if they warred that alliance. I'm not quite fond of surrender buttons, though.

 

[Ludog]

No body would war against KA, the way they are set up. This will make them change their line up. Maybe hide the name and the glory and just show the level of the players that have been chosen. There is several ways to do this. No one said you had to know the alliance name or even the players names to accept the war. if it said KA I would decline but if it said Atomic 225, Atomic 217, Global 200, and so on, then I would definitely accept the fight. This would give the leaders a chance to match up without doing a ton of research on an enemy alliance until you have accepted the war. Just a thought and this would allow the leaders to sandbag or not. Take the issue out of BHG and Nexon control and put it in the alliances control.

 

[FroggyKilla]

Curses! Well... I have nothing then. Sorry to bother you all.

 

[LordAnubis]

that is a very good idea. then use that as a baseline and penalize glory gained or increase glory lost for each sandbag base below that lower limit.

i actually agree with Ludog on his point. there is a way around it. but it wont matter what system BHG puts in place there will always be players finding ways around it.

I think match on alliance xp they are working on will be the best option though.