Stalemates - Consequences & Suggestions to BHG/Nexon

[Max_imus]

Hello.
Seeing how little it is done on this biggest (2nd biggest, or whatever) issue of DomiNations game provoked me to be once again active on forums. Instead of complaining and doing sarcastic jokes lets try to describe the problem for BHG/Nexon and put some suggestions how to solve the Stalemates issue in the best way possible.

Consequences
I have serious doubts that Nexon/BHG realise what this issue is doing to their game. Firstly, when you run a game for almost 2 years your main goal should be to make people to stay in the game and eventually to spend money to earn $$$ because of smaller influx of new players. Problem is that nowadays in DomiNations in large portion of player base the one contradicts the other. With all those new features there is more things you can pay for and with a good reward, I understand that and I have nothing against it. BUT the real problem is that the portion of biggest spenders is actually leaving the game because of this sake feature which even more enhace stalemates.

Lets take a look at P2W (I dont like this term, lot of them would "win" anyway) players base. Most of those players are A)In smaller and less active alliances or B)In top alliances in DomiNations. I do have a feeling that Nexon too much rely on the first group. The first group needs event troops and other features to be superior and win wars, but the problem is that those players will never stay in the game for too long (they are jot that interested as long time players) that means they are not likely to spend money in next biggest update (Cold War Age). On the other hand those paying players from group B) will keep investing their $$$ to this game as long as they will play. And here we run into the problem. There are probably 50-70 alliances in/just outside Top100 that at some point or constantly spend money on DomiNations. Best examples are KA (Korea Army R) and UA (mainly Obsidian). I have big respect for those teams, and nothing has changed when I knew they spend biggest money on this game. I support that. Only those 2 alliances have in total about 40-60 big spending players. Im sure at least once in month in avg of one Age they buy 100$ crowns pack. Thats 5000$ a month from only 2 alliances (and Im being veeeery modest). Multiply this with other top alliances number (about 50-70) and you will get ridiculous number of money.

The real consequence is that Nexon is losing those players. Lot of them are quitting the game and because of what? Stalemates.
Our team usually has 6-7 stalemates from 10 matches (with others being small wins or stacking losses), but those spending teams have 9/10 matches ending in a freakin DRAW. I even saw 10 out of 10 matches to being stalemates in all kind of different war sizes.
And that is why those people are leaving the game. Its NO fun anymore, and extremely frustrating to see stalemate after stalemate after you spent hundreds of dollars. But ohh yes, we get another christmas feature with another Troop Cards. That means Nexon/BHG support stalemates even more! Really guys? Now it will be 10/10 in every Top50 alliance in the world. EVERY. Because if somebody buys a 100$ crown stash whole team gets event building or loads of special troops. I doubt you (guys from sales department) see this issue at all. There will be a wave of players quiting in coming months if you dont solve this in term of weeks. You dont have to be genius to see that. Just listen to your spenders on serious issues.

Suggestions
There are several suggestions how to solve stalemates:

1) Restrict troop cards to 1 in every ww battle
It solves the stalemate issue for this group of paying alliances only when AA defenses are near to max. Months away. Suit yourself.

2) One attack per war
Very good but a bit risky solution due to crashes. Maybe some feature should be added so when you crash, you dont lose your 1 and only attack.

3) Award glory in stalemate
Interesting suggestion which would allow those alliance to get loot and portion of glory BUT still we would see only draws. Not a good one imho because draws is meh.

4) Avg destruction method
This might be the most complex but very good suggestion. Stay with 2 attacks and restrict a player to attack only 5/10 positions below himself. In most cases there wouldnt be 100% avg destruction because not even top alliances can 5* every single hit.

Edited (other ideas here)
5) Fewest attacks to reach perfect score
Very good idea which improves the "first to reach perfect score" as that has some major disadvantages. Very simple and effective option.

6) Make a tiebreaker the sum of the lowest time to 5* on each base. All of this data is already captured.
Enough said! But I think that also the troops need to be restricted to this as the team with most cards would usually win.

7) Allow each base to have a total of 10*. If you 5* a base, it opens up a second hit on the base that can deliver up to an additional 5*.
One of the most complicated but most interesting ideas. It would make war more complex for sure. Big deal for top hiting players.

8)Add any additional factor determining a winner.
E.g. least troops lost, lower avg number alliance wins etc (mine quick ideas)

9)BHG/Nexon should set back damage on all troops. 15-20%

That was my 0.02. I would be very glad if players who want this to be solved spoken with ideas so we can pass it to developers.
​​​​​​​Maximus

 

[SeeFive]

Max_imus - Great post! I think this one may have been said before in the past - but I think making it a race to perfect score would help resolve the issue and add a little more flare to the war. Simply put, the first alliance to reach the max score is awarded the win, the loot, and the glory. The effort from losing alliance should not be ignored and should be awarded 50% of the loot and glory but still register a loss. Anyway, as you said above, those are my two pennies. Thanks!

- SeeFive

 

[JuDomines]

I pick 1) and 3) and add 5) leagues with seasons. Problem solved.

 

[vincentdang4]

I think in your scenario, fewest attacks to reach perfect score would be better; otherwise, alliances who got caught in a war at nighttime or during working hours would be at a significant disadvantage.

 

[S_How]

I think the big problem with this one is that teams might discourage their bottom half from even participating because they would have a much lower chance to 5*. People would get yelled at for making war attempts, etc.

 

[S_How]

Hey Max great post and I totally agree with the problem. And its a really hard one to fix. To me, Sandbagging and Stalemates are very intertwined and you need to solve both of them if you want to solve one of them. Im not the biggest fan of limiting to one hit per person in war, but at this point I'd totally accept this because ANYTHING is better than the way war is right now. I also agree with limiting to 0-2 troop cards per war hit.

Two other ideas that Ive heard in the forums that I think are great:

1) Make a tiebreaker the sum of the lowest time to 5* on each base. All of this data is already captured.

2) Allow each base to have a total of 10*. If you 5* a base, it opens up a second hit on the base that can deliver up to an additional 5*.


I'll also just echo the sentiment max had. Your biggest competitors, who also most likely correlate to your biggest spenders, in alliances big and small...are having a universally miserable experience in war, the biggest team feature in this game. Its not as if its boring or not fun, its actually downright a terrible experience and significantly detracting from the fun in the game. Either you are facing constant stalemates, or you are forced to bring inactive iron age bases along with your team, or you are in a non sandbagging team and constantly face teams where they have 15 people stronger than your strongest. Its amazingly bad. People are quitting in droves. Its not only the lack of action by Nexon causing the problem, its the absolutely terrible job of communicating plans to fix this issue. I seriously cant believe that it took us 2-3 months for Nexon to even acknowledge the sandbagging/stalemate problem, and then the thread has just sat there with one minor update for another 3 months. They also promised a November state of the nations in that thread to update us on the issue, which they couldnt even take the time to write up a few paragraphs to update us on lol. Its truly a disgrace to the player base.

 

[vincentdang4]

Good point. Well played S_How

 

[IzEagle]

Great post Max_imus. I vote for 1 and below idea that I have already posted.
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...p-to-resolve-sandbagging-and-stalemate-issues

 

[sponge]

None of the above solutions solve the problem directly, and might leave players angry in the end. The solution to stalemate problem is very simple and there's no need to make it a complex one.

Add additional factors when determining a winner.

That's it. There's no need to limit troops, number of attacks, number of stars, etc. Keep it simple. Add avg time per battle and team with lower average wins. Add total number of attacks and reward more active alliance, team doing more attacks wins - this will help with sandbaggers too, as their iron age players simply don't attack in wars. And if all else fails, sandbaggers lose. And if both alliances sandbags, they can have their stalemate, they deserve it.

 

[Max_imus]

I pick 1) and 3) and add 5) leagues with seasons. Problem solved.

Can you elaborate on the last one Jju?

p.s added more ideas from you guys to O.P

 

[JuDomines]

Sure. Just look at what gaming companies that are serious with competitive multiplayer are doing: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Battle.net_Leagues

 

[JuDomines]

Beware, it's long and A bit complex (Kudos to those who are brave enough to read It till the end). But thats state of the art for any ladder-type competition.

 

[Max_imus]

I will read it tomorrow, late night here for that. But tbh Starcraft is a bit on another lvl organization wise ímo. But yeah... doesnt mean that BHG/Nexon can learn something from it.

 

[GailWho]

Max_imus thank you for your post. It is very on point. I hope Nexon takes it to heart. Here's my suggestion from last August https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexon...ld-war-problem ..... S_How already mentioned it above but here is the full idea. I really think this will make things more interesting for all involved and solve all of the problems of war.

 

[Blacknife686]

Firstly I'd like to say I do completly agree that something does need to be done about this for ALOT of players. It is too easy for paying players to have an extreme advantage over the rest of players and University and Coalition's help this as well.

However, this doesn't affect every alliance. My alliance sits around a comfortable 18k glory (Can never seem to get above that), but we've only had around 2-3 stalemates in ALL our war History let alone in Glory. Now I understand that's because we're not a group big enough to play in the big boy sand pit, and I'm sure no-one would even recognize our name in comparison to some of the oldest and most familiar faces on the forums; but it does seem that it's only those big alliances that really get affected with this issue.

​​​​​​There's what; over 50,000 allainces right? (Going from statistics posted a few months ago), so not all of them will be effected in the same way about the current state of war, even though it is very broken.

 

[Europeos]

All very good ideas IMO Max_imus except #3.

I don't think the idea of stalemates being rewarded is a good one because it would just reward quantity over quality. If a group of alliances get stalemates all the time and get rewarded for it, it just doesn't solve anything. Stalemates aren't rewarded in ELO rating systems (or only marginally when there's a big difference between opponents) and it should stay that way.

#7 Is the best option IMO, as it would solve both stalemates and sandbagging.
I think restricting extra troops is also very important. Pay to win is not a good business model in the long run and Nexon should be aware of it.

 

[Christopher-Outlaws!!]

9. If in the event of a stalemate, the total score is both available attacks for each player, no attack=no stars. Thus in a 10v 100 stars is a perfect score. This would discourage stacking as the irons don't attack, and couldn't start it they did likely.

​​​​

 

[Mountainking]

Christopher this would not solve the issue as what would it take for them to attack with the iron account just for the sake of it?

 

[Europeos]

That would make middle and lower weight alliances still vulnerable as they have little chance to achieve a perfect score when facing a large number of sandbags. Better implementing this system even when there's no stalemate. And that's proposal #7.

 

[jmemira]

thank you for this post max! i would love to see a 40% glory reward for perfect score stalemates, the same as loot. that way you aren't getting pushed further and further off the boards because you aren't gaining any glory, which is why a lot of alliances started sandbagging in the first place.