Sandbagging

[DavidLee161]

A way to stop it is to penalize a team -1 max points for a player gaining no stars in a war. If you have a war with 20 players and 1 gains no stars you can max at 99 and not 100. Should stop sandbagging fast.

 

[DavidLee161]

Forgot to point out that it shouldn't stop at 1, if 2 players than -2 and so on.

 

[Secular]

Sandbagging is the only thing that will probably make me stop joining world wars. The most irritating thing regarding it is that the system often threat sandbaggers as a weaker team and give them a lot of points for winning. Today my team will lost more than 700 points of prestige in such war.

 

[Teflonicus]

A way to stop it is to penalize a team -1 max points for a player gaining no stars in a war. If you have a war with 20 players and 1 gains no stars you can max at 99 and not 100. Should stop sandbagging fast.

This seems like an effective way to deal with those alliances that keep inactive lower-aged players around just to sandbag. Nice idea!

 

[Master Contrail Program]

A bit too harsh on growing alliances I think. Some players just suck, or don't know what they're doing. They're not trying to game the system. Sometimes life happens. Or growing alliances are trying out new players who turn out to be unreliable.

Yes, we all see the obvious sandbags. The pitfall is having the game distinguish them from new players who are just learning.

I think your idea is one of the better ones I've seen. Just needs a few tweaks.

 

[Tsamu]

I was thinking of something similar, but only as a tie-breaker. So if both teams get a perfect score, with 100% destruction, rather than using time as the second tie-breaker, use total stars from all attacks.

 

[RottPhiler]

Average destruction is all you need as a tiebreaker. Average destruction of all possible attacks (taken and not taken = 2x number of players in war), and not the average destruction of enemy bases. The average destruction as currently implemented is completely redundant, since a perfect war guarantees 100% average destruction to both teams.

Yes, the second attack becomes important now, and you can't simply rush the opposing #1's TC for 2 stars (and max loot). You will have to pile on the bottom guys to guarantee maximum average destruction, and again this will be great against sandbagging alliances, since 100 percenting the bottom guys will be easier.

Loot gained in war should be secondary anyway to improving alliance reputation (call it glory, XP, medals, whatever).

 

[DavidLee161]

We just had a 25 vs 25 world war against an alliance with high level atomic players, 18 had full level 15 walls. They had full strongholds and were P2W. An average alliance doesn't have enough high level players to even tie them to begin with so how is your tie breaker scenario even going to come into play for them to care about it and stop sandbagging?
20 atomic
2 midievil & 3 classical that combined for 0 attacks