Stalemates - Consequences & Suggestions to BHG/Nexon

[IzEagle]

Since some other options are added from my previous reply, I would like to add some more words. The stalemate is not supposed to be totally removed and I personally prefer a simple and easy implementable solution that reduces the possibility of stalemate. Also the idea should keep the current fun of war.

1) Limiting the card troops to 1 or 2 is a must and I think almost all veteran players agree with it.

4&7) are too complex and practically each player will have less than a whole day for doing the attacks. It needs more alliance coordination and it will cause many troubles for average alliances. Also the programming of this system is a little difficult (remember the food for walls which is a regular programming was disable less than a day after release). So my vote is disagreed.

5) “first to reach perfect score” is not fair! Consider the time zones. Sometimes an alliance just start attacks when the opponent has done more than half of attacks. So my vote is disagreed.

8) It is very important that which factor is selected. A big part of war fun is destroying stronger opponents and if you select a factor like survived troops, this fun will be destroyed.

I still believe that my own idea works well for now. It is just a simple modification in the way the Average Destruction is calculated. If we count all possible attacks in average destruction lots of stalemates will be kicked. It is easy to understand and easy to implement.

And finally as an extra option, this is the tie breaker system which is used in COD:Heroes it is working properly and almost all draw situations are kicked but I don’t like it due to personal reasons! lol
It defines Alliance Score. This parameter is calculated according to stars you get in each single attack. It is calculated in this way: (gained stars in an attack / 5 * reward from that attack) and the alliance score is the sum of alliance scores of all performed attacks.
For example consider the reward of a 5star attack as 1000 so if you made a 3star attack you get the alliance score of 600. By summing all gathered scored each alliance will have a final Alliance Score at the end of battle day and the winner will be the one with higher score in case of stalemate. This system is complex but it has two benefits: 1) the weaker alliance has more chance of winning in case of stalemate because they get more war reward from attacks. 2) all attacks will be important and sandbaggers will lost lots of stalemates.

 

[Jakob_888]

Hi all. I rather Nexon set back damage on all troops. 15-20%
I dont like all the other surgestions to be honest.

Then stalemate and perfect scores ends.

I have very high hopes for Atomic Age where defence are really good. In the beginning of an age people tend to focus on offence. A little later more defences will be boosted. Looking forward to this. Way fewer stalemates I expect.

But please stop the flow of extra troops!!!! Please!

 

[ccfoo]

Thanks for the post Max. Very spot on and accurate. I can see what ravenlord was talking about months ago when he questioned the purpose of war. What's the point of all the planning etc when you end up in a stalemate. This leads to more problem like sandbags. I am less active in wars nowadays and only participate once in a while.

 

[Max_imus]

Hi all. I rather Nexon set back damage on all troops. 15-20%
I dont like all the other surgestions to be honest.

Then stalemate and perfect scores ends.

I have very high hopes for Atomic Age where defence are really good. In the beginning of an age people tend to focus on offence. A little later more defences will be boosted. Looking forward to this. Way fewer stalemates I expect.

But please stop the flow of extra troops!!!! Please!

Very good point, Im looking forward to that too! Nexon did a good job as for this defensive boost
And nice general suggestion I will add it to o.p

 

[Kid G]

I don't have an opinion on stalemates as I'm part of an alliance that rarely wins wars, let alone ties them. However, we are always impacted by opponents that stack. So I ask, why can't war matches be based on glory points just like PVP is matched by medals?

Glory points are worthless unless you care about your place on a leader board. Truth be told, if we could drop below 12K glory points, my alliance would be near zero. If that were the case, within the current system, we'd still be targets of high glory bases that stack to get to us. Although, if we were matched based on glory alone, we would never meet those high glory bases because they wouldn't dare sacrifice their glory and their place on the boards. Meanwhile, my alliance would get to war against other zero-glory (read: terrible at war) alliances. Which, while pathetic, would be fair, probably fun, and maybe profitable.

 

[Equal]

but somehow every day i see a new offer of newest tanks of factory troops. wondering how long it will take, when nexon will start selling unique world war coalitions.

 

[Max_imus]

Since some other options are added from my previous reply, I would like to add some more words. The stalemate is not supposed to be totally removed and I personally prefer a simple and easy implementable solution that reduces the possibility of stalemate. Also the idea should keep the current fun of war.

1) Limiting the card troops to 1 or 2 is a must and I think almost all veteran players agree with it.

4&7) are too complex and practically each player will have less than a whole day for doing the attacks. It needs more alliance coordination and it will cause many troubles for average alliances. Also the programming of this system is a little difficult (remember the food for walls which is a regular programming was disable less than a day after release). So my vote is disagreed.

5) “first to reach perfect score” is not fair! Consider the time zones. Sometimes an alliance just start attacks when the opponent has done more than half of attacks. So my vote is disagreed.

8) It is very important that which factor is selected. A big part of war fun is destroying stronger opponents and if you select a factor like survived troops, this fun will be destroyed.

I still believe that my own idea works well for now. It is just a simple modification in the way the Average Destruction is calculated. If we count all possible attacks in average destruction lots of stalemates will be kicked. It is easy to understand and easy to implement.

And finally as an extra option, this is the tie breaker system which is used in COD:Heroes it is working properly and almost all draw situations are kicked but I don’t like it due to personal reasons! lol
It defines Alliance Score. This parameter is calculated according to stars you get in each single attack. It is calculated in this way: (gained stars in an attack / 5 * reward from that attack) and the alliance score is the sum of alliance scores of all performed attacks.
For example consider the reward of a 5star attack as 1000 so if you made a 3star attack you get the alliance score of 600. By summing all gathered scored each alliance will have a final Alliance Score at the end of battle day and the winner will be the one with higher score in case of stalemate. This system is complex but it has two benefits: 1) the weaker alliance has more chance of winning in case of stalemate because they get more war reward from attacks. 2) all attacks will be important and sandbaggers will lost lots of stalemates.

So this is basically the avg destriction which is calculated THRU the war, right? (not the end of war)

 

[Horsepower]

As it stands now, what is the purpose of war? War has become boring. The grind for preparation of war is no longer worth it. I'm personally enjoying MP more then war now. Honestly, the medal system was better then what we have now. I won't quit the game but may quit wars. The time limit for Nexon to fix the present war problems has ended in my mind. Enough already. Less wars for me from now on.

 

[S_How]

I am fine with this solution too, though it would leave sandbagging as still a massive problem, maybe even moreso as teams look for easier teams to match against.

 

[Equal]

but on that thru the war avg destruction, not used attacks are not counted in. iron age sandbags not attacking? no problem lol.

 

[IzEagle]

The proposed average destruction is calculated according to all possible attacks (it is 40 in a 20vs20 war) so it consider not used attacke as zero destruction. The correct value is the one which is calculated at the end of the war.

 

[Max_imus]

As it stands now, what is the purpose of war? War has become boring. The grind for preparation of war is no longer worth it. I'm personally enjoying MP more then war now. Honestly, the medal system was better then what we have now. I won't quit the game but may quit wars. The time limit for Nexon to fix the present war problems has ended in my mind. Enough already. Less wars for me from now on.

Interesting, I still enjoy wars a lot, so I think you either have to change alliance strategy or the alliance itself.

 

[Tenacious D]

Eliminate the bottom third of the alliance when establishing the war rating for setting up matches. This will prevent the most common forms of sandbagging.

 

[Equal]

IzEagle i think not. then how can you explain about 87% our wars current average destruction, but still 21 attack left not used out of 50? it should be no more than 60%

 

[Equal]

it will lead to even more sandbagging. 30 x 30 war with 15-18 global-atomic bases and the rest iron-classical. 3-5 bases out of 20 that counts is a 15-25%. i do not even speak about the rest, that does not count.

 

[Patrick Bardet]

You just acknowledge that with the current war mechanic only a part of the attacks counts: with the current system of 2 attacks but only one attack for each opponent base, only the top half of the alliance counts. The only real solution is either one attack per member or with 2 attacks then 2 different attacks are counted on the opponent bases.

 

[IzEagle]

Equal I am talking about my idea for NEW average destruction system not the current one. see below link
https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...p-to-resolve-sandbagging-and-stalemate-issues

 

[Wendy]

I think stalemate problem is a consequence of many people rushing ages. We often meet alliances with many AA/GA players with army only and no defenses.
Easy for them to 5 star all our bases, easier for us to stalemate.
maybe forcing people to upgrade some % of defenses before rushing age could help in that sense.

 

[Max_imus]

I think stalemate problem is a consequence of many people rushing ages. We often meet alliances with many AA/GA players with army only and no defenses.
Easy for them to 5 star all our bases, easier for us to stalemate.
maybe forcing people to upgrade some % of defenses before rushing age could help in that sense.

Im not really sure who exactly suggested this earlier in this thread but the solution for this is that offense should have even more weight in war rank/matchmaking algorhytm than it has now. It would shift a focus a bit, at least for alliances who upgrade selectively according to matchmaking system.

Opinions?
Maybe Im completely off lol

 

[Equal]

do you all realize, that adding extra rules in a case of stalemate is not a solution. every extra rule WILL be worked out to get easier opponents. people are very crative and fast learning. if i can think a solution in 10 minutes to each extra rule, why do you think other players can't? in my opinion, the scoring system should be changed in a way, that to reach a perfect score for both teams would be nearly impossible. and even if somehow two teams has a tie score, then all the existing tiebreakers should apply, with the addition of some new ones. if you are looking for a solution in a case of the existing scoring system, when stalemate happens, nothing is gonna change. average alliances would still loose to stacking alliances and will have no benefit from the 'new' extra tiebreakers. pointless wars will continue and all new rules in a case of stalemate will lead to even more sandbagging. looking for a solution to stalemate is like loking for a solution to consequences, and not the solution for a reason itself.