Stalemates - Consequences & Suggestions to BHG/Nexon

[S_How]

Hey Blacknife. My alliance is not a "big alliance", we do very well but are not in the top 100 glory, and we are effected by stalemates or sandbagging/stacking pretty much every single war. I agree with you that it will impact different alliances in different ways, but I would think most alliances have been hit by one of these two problems pretty frequently?

 

[Patrick Bardet]

I vote definitively for 7) and 5).

7) will address the current imbalance in wars where only the top half of the alliance matters for the victory. This will address the so-called sandbagging issue and will give an equal chance to all team members to contribute to the victory. Today with the current system if the first half of one alliance is stronger than the top of half of the other alliance, the second alliance has almost no chance of victory.

5) will solve easily the stalemates issues.

very good post max.

 

[Vixen]

We are pretty much an industrial alliance running 25 x wars and we are getting sandbagger opponents over half our wars and regular stalemates. I am guessing this is true for most.

 

[TitaniumNinja12]

I like everything addressing sandbagging over here. The only thing standing in the way is Nexon. Will they add this and possibly see a boom in profits and sales from happy players. Or will they not and so many people will quit this game they will go out of business and lose all of their money and go poor?

The answer is yours Nexon, you had your chance to become better than supercell. That opportunity is gone now

 

[Nb4powerup]

Hi! While Nexon is the publisher of the game, Big Huge Games is still the game developer. None of us wish to see players not having the best time possible in any of our games. We're always working to make the experience better. This can take some time but we are trying to address it.

 

[Max_imus]

Thanks Patrick. I agree on #7 being very good idea, altough it makes war a bit complicated (I like complicated tho haha)
... btw do we know each other from somewhere? (alliances, community chats)

 

[Max_imus]

Nb4powerup
I really like this game and love the community stuff behind it, so I really care about it, as much as they do... and I know your job is not to make a pressure on BHG, but those guys should hurry up (or ask for more money/employees or whaetever) because they are seriously running out of time (player's patience). IMHO since the big "crash month" (sometime in March iirc) this is the biggest problem why mainly spending players are leaving the game.

 

[Honda1000fj]

The current situation with dominations is nothing short of an absolute disgrace. Players from around the globe are buying black market crowns and Nexon are fully aware of this. Why is Nexon allowing this situation? Some buyers mix buying legitimate and black market crowns. Is this why it takes Nexon so long to identify some cheaters?
Basically the game is now fully corrupt and raises questions whether Nexon allows cheaters within the game just as long as they provide a steady revenue. Nexon has also now destroyed wars by selling armies and now gifts after buying crowns. All of the teams will mostly be playing a draw due to the size of the army attacking.

Cheaters have obviously black crowned the university to make them even stronger. We are all fully aware that the cheaters used black crowns to upgrade the walls. Nexon recently made it so we can upgrade the walls with either loot/food so that it helps the genuine players keep up while they make money.

The only answer to make this game an honest fight is for Nexon to respond to all the genuine honest teams/players and begin the process of banning all these cheaters from the game. Surely all the genuine teams/players would love to have a fair fight again with Nexon on our side.

 

[Brand Marrow]

this is an important post ---- Nb4powerup what do you say? We know you all can actually fix things quick, so why not let factor in time to finish battles to resolve stalemates, so simple! And also some great ideas about trying to further combat sandbagging, understanding that these will take more thinking about pros and cons...

However, there is one part of this post that is highly problematic...''Instead of complaining and doing sarcastic jokes''

No Sarcastic Jokes! How will that solve problem? Where would we be on forum without sarcastic jokes! How would idiots like me occupy our time while waiting for troops to train?

 

[dominations vin]

nice post!

i think the first (and absolutely necessary) step is to limit the number of cards you can use in a war battle. imo, this should be (1) card per war battle. a lot of these cards are already ridiculously overpowered. if the cards were made much weaker then maybe >1 per battle could be discussed.

 

[dominations vin]

good points, vincent & How. don't want to discourage less skilled or leveled players from attacking and don't want to punish a team for working or being asleep (haha).

 

[Max_imus]

nice post!

i think the first (and absolutely necessary) step is to limit the number of cards you can use in a war battle. imo, this should be (1) card per war battle. a lot of these cards are already ridiculously overpowered. if the cards were made much weaker then maybe >1 per battle could be discussed.

Agreed Vin. Due to difficult regulation I would suggest 1 troop card AND actual fix to stalemates with one of the ideas spoken here or amywehere else on forums.

jmemira Thank you. As I said in O.P I dont like this solution. For example Europeos made a good point about certain group of alliances to take huge glory advantage from it and separating them from others (lower on leaderboard)

 

[Equal]

Can you explain to me, how adding extra factors to determine a winner will stop sandbagging? I think the scoring system should be changed in i way, that stalemate would not be even possible. What is a use of factoring a fastest time, or fewest attacks or better each players average destruction rate, if an alliance like mine, cannot reach a maximum score on a strongly sandbagging alliance? we will never get a chance at these tiebreakers, because strongest alliances would sandbag even more to get even weaker opponents to avoid evenly strong matchups. i do not remember the exact numbers, but in my opinion, 1 (one extra troops card) should be included. And a winner should be determined by two attacks one each base. i think it was no 7 idea. but not in a case of a 5* but in general each base should have 10 defensive points and in this way, every players each attack would count. so max score for a 15 sized war would be 150, not 75 as it is now. so strongly sandbagging alliances would get only about 60-75% of available stars and this would stop them from taking iron-medieval age players together with global-atomic. at this point a ties should be so rare, that even after that, you can implement some extra tiebreakers. e.g. the existing avg destruction score, or fewest time used of each attack. and to reach a max score would be nearly impossible. as for now, i cannot think any loops this scoring method would create.

 

[S_How]

Can you explain to me, how adding extra factors to determine a winner will stop sandbagging? I think the scoring system should be changed in i way, that stalemate would not be even possible. What is a use of factoring a fastest time, or fewest attacks or better each players average destruction rate, if an alliance like mine, cannot reach a maximum score on a strongly sandbagging alliance? we will never get a chance at these tiebreakers, because strongest alliances would sandbag even more to get even weaker opponents to avoid evenly strong matchups. i do not remember the exact numbers, but in my opinion, 1 (one extra troops card) should be included. And a winner should be determined by two attacks one each base. i think it was no 7 idea. but not in a case of a 5* but in general each base should have 10 defensive points and in this way, every players each attack would count. so max score for a 15 sized war would be 150, not 75 as it is now. so strongly sandbagging alliances would get only about 60-75% of available stars and this would stop them from taking iron-medieval age players together with global-atomic. at this point a ties should be so rare, that even after that, you can implement some extra tiebreakers. e.g. the existing avg destruction score, or fewest time used of each attack. and to reach a max score would be nearly impossible. as for now, i cannot think any loops this scoring method would create.

This is why both Sandbagging and Stalemates must be solved, not just one or the other. Some of the suggested solutions (like Gail's excellent idea of having bases give up to 10*), would solve both. But even if sandbagging were solved now through other means, there would be so many teams that would do nothing but stalemate constantly. So, it needs to be discussed as part of the overall problem with glory.

 

[S_How]

This is the type of comment that would have been expected 4-5 months ago. The community really needs your help getting past this point of BHG/Nexon giving ambiguous statements that it is important and will take time.

 

[Patrick Bardet]

Hi Max, no we did not meet before, I am from a Belgium alliance

 

[Christopher-Outlaws!!]

That account is much less likely to star.

 

[Fable]

Great post Max_imus WW r mostly why a "few" of us still play this game. Stalemates not being addressed STILL when it was questioned repeatedly in the first Glory post is disgraceful! How can a company or companies implement something like WW, but have no solution to something as cancerous as a tie? The players EVEN BEFORE GLORY WAS PUT INTO EFFECT called u on this and yet, how many months later it's still a problem!

Countless suggestions have been posted all over this forum and BHG can't muster the ability/know how to figure this out? Wow, but anything generating more revenue is red lined and works flawless. Do u not c the humor in that, really?

To eliminate stalemates (or lessen it severely) u really have to (like S_How and others stated) fix sandbagging as well. Idea #7 should help both, but special troops used in war needs to have a limit as well. Imho I don't think troop cards will EVER be addressed (seeing how it's a way Nexon makes $) plus the new gifting content (works fabulous of course) doesn't help either. Keep the troop specials coming Nexon, but at least limit it in WW.

Reset the Glory lb (the true top teams will still rise to the top), but besides having "bragging rights" give an incentive (current war loot is horrible btw) for clans to b on the lb. Ik it's hard to understand "giving back" to the community, but it will b beneficial for all.

 

[poop_]

Obviously: Limit event/dock/bought troops to 1. AND, please store them all somewhere else besides the tray. The scrolling is absurd!

One thing that would help is that offense needs to be weighted more in war weight and war matches. If the game used more offensive strength to in war weight, more investment would be made in defense and bases would get more challenging.
If this would hurt the casual players by making bases too hard, then with age, increase the weight of offense and decrease the weight of defense.. I think we can all agree that the higher the age, the less casual.
The fact that offense is weighted less now, and each player has 2 freakin attacks is absurd. Offense should at least have twice the weight of defense.
Think about it.

I like GailWho pancake idea, but only in the event of a tie. You could also just count the 2 best attacks on each base.

Limiting it to 1 attack per player changes the game/strategy. And, with the number of crashes, you would have a lot of pissed players. So, I vote a big NO on that one.

I also like the concept of a "shootout." No idea how this would work, but I think it might add some excitement if someone came up with something clever.

Or, you could appoint a panel of judges to watch war replays (haha!) and decide which side had the prettier attacks.

If they had war records, the team with the least amount of troops lost could be declared winner. Aiming to keep your troops alive. Might disadvantage those weak brits with the mortars though or romans with throwaway troops. But, ultimately, the alliances that put more investment into the game are the ones stalemating, and so adding some creative solution that requires some more complex strategy might be fun and add a new element to the game.

Honestly, want to see the books, and see where most of the money comes from. I don't believe that these famous alliances provide all the cash flow. I get attacked a lot in mp with bought troops by unknowns (meaning not in these "famous" alliances). Unless people just really like attacking poop with $. I'm ok with that. Btw, I think you should get extra crowns if you kill bought troops on defense. I'm making you money NEXON!

 

[poop_]

The above suggestion "Or, you could appoint a panel of judges to watch war replays (haha!) and decide which side had the prettier attacks."
should be refered to as #32 section 3b.