Stalemates v 2.0

[ColdestRage]

Out of 7 wars my alliance been in recently we stalemated in 5 .
And why's that?
Do we only meet strong attackers?
No, the reason is simpler than that.
Ability to take to war attack unlimited event/bought troops , and expedition troops.
I do understand that event troops , bought troops and expedition troops are gained/bought to be used , but please make it so, that there's a limit on how much you can take to one war attack.
War we ended today - #9 5 star our No1 where top 5 of theirs gain 2-3 stars on our #1.
Ok , that is managable if #9 of theirs is expierienced attacker.
Three wars ago #15 or something around that 5 stars our #1 where their top 5 can't even scratch our #1.
Maybe it wouldn't be strange at all, but considering our #1 is maxed Global , and theirs #15 (can be wrong with his number though) is EA something is wrong.
How was he able to gain 5 stars beeing EA where Global Age's gained 2 stars at max?
Answer is simple - event troops which of you can use unlimited ammount.
You can deploy 20 of those if you have them.
I really don't understand it .
How come when we gain event troops it says "tactics APC army recieved" , and using those doesn't make you unable to use all tactics.
If those are counted as tactics deploying one APC army should (at least in war attack) make you unable to use 1 tactic since it should take 1 tactics slot .
And those aquired through expeditions troops should be not availble in war attacks at all.
Look, there are players that have multi accs like me (4 of them) .
I play 1 at time, then switch once all workers are busy to another one.
On 3 that ain't used I do expeditions.
Going into war can I have many of expedition troops (and I have , but use them mostly in mp to gather loot easier) to use which makes the whole idea of wars nonsense since I can attack #1 and 5 star him even if I'm 2 Ages behind him.
Lastly bought troops - I do understand that players that bought them should have advantage since it's thanks to them , that this game is free to play and Nexon makes profit.
But please make them unable to use those in war attacks too.
I mean having a load of troops to use in multiplayer battles , that help you gather loot with minimal to none troops loss is already an advantage.
Please Nexon don't break only thing that makes your game addicting and fun to play - and that thing is wars (even if there are so many sandbaggers) .
Making players able to use all that they bought or aquired through event/expeditions in wars really takes away fun of participating in wars.
Our war participation already droped by 5-10 each war thanks to that.
In the long run noone will do wars since each war ending in a Stalemate ain't rewarding and fun at all.
Please reconsider and fix this ASAP.
Make ppl use max 2 armies bought/accuired for each attack.
Or make it so that you can take more that 2, but deployment of more than 2 bought/gained armies make you unable to use all atctics in war attack.
Or make it so, that each 2 deployed bought/aquired armies take away 1 tactics spot
I don't see a problem with using bought/gained troops in war attacks, but it really should have a limit.
It is laughable that when you recieve "tactics:APC army" it doesn't make you unable to use one less tactics in war attacks.
I mean we have tactics capacity for something do we not?

 

[Quovatis]

Yep, we identified stalemates as a big issue months ago. Nothing has been done to help. In fact, they have hurt the situation by introducing yet more extra troops.

 

[JNation]

What if after a stalemate you could have a sudden death. So if the war ends in a stalemate then a button would appear to the leaders/ co-leader to each alliance asking if they want to go to sudden death, if both alliance choose yes then the war will go into sudden death. Sudden death will allow only one attack from each member. and you can either have it so it adds to your current score or starts if over as if it was a new war but only one attack per player. Thoughts??

 

[Fable]

Every war my clan has been in (say last 20+ or so) a very low # has att. 5-15 roster spots higher successfully, def. realistic!
Bug Huge Games & Nexon can't even fix the simplest of things, highly doubt they do anything to address this "new" issue...they created!

 

[S_How]

Stalemates were brought up in the glory preview, before glory was even released, as a potential major issue. Its a shame.

I dont like all the unlimited troops either. Although, the flip side of it is we meet nearly 100% teams that are so far more advanced than us due to the problem of sandbagging (which IMO is even worse than troop cards), so its hard for me to see the impact troop cards make on its own. But, it certainly needs to be changed to preserve balance. Hopefully concurrent with other glory changes that are so badly needed.

 

[ColdestRage]

You don't see anything strange with EA player 5 staring max Global base?

 

[Europeos]

Great idea, only I would say it should be systematical when stalemates occur, no need for leaders to accept or refuse sudden death.

 

[S_How]

No I totally agree that shouldn't be possible! Just saying it's hard for us to see the broader impact on teams when such horrid mismatches are happening due to sandbagging.

Fwiw I'm totally for limiting troop cards!

 

[Ankara]

I think once you get to a certain point in the game you don't really need to purchase crowns for anything. My game is moving along quite nicely and I haven't dipped into crowns from my last purchase, which I think was the second last time they offered the % bonus crowns with the purchase of crowns.

So so I kind of see the troop cards as a way to build and maintain a revenue stream.

i have a tendency to voice a counterpoint rather than pile on when it comes to posting on a forum, but I, too, would prefer troop cards to be limited for war. For straight multiplayer, have at it, the more the merrier. But for the war feature, something has been lost since it was launched.

To be honest, the stalemate issue doesn't affect our alliance as we aren't good enough or committed enough to approach any top lists. So I don't really feel like I can speak on that . But I always have heaps of troops in the tray hoarded from the special events and now from the air drops. Others must have them as well. Personally I prefer to try a war attack and get beat by a better base fair and square than play my troop cards. But the cards are there, you can't take issue with anyone actually using them. That leaves a limit to the use of the cards in war attacks. I'd love to see that put into place. It would make war a special and unique game component again. With all the extras it's simply been brought closer to regular game play, which is repeditive enough after you have been in the game long enough.

thanks for listening.

 

[Bowmore]

No argument here - stalemates suck (sorry soccer fans). Dominations Wars should have a winner and a loser, and it would be very simple to make this happen. The current tiebreaker is % destruction, which is fine when the tie isn't two perfect scores. But for that situation, two perfects, why isn't there a further tiebreaker? What about using the total time it takes for the alliance to complete each battle ? Add up all those precious seconds, and the side that uses less time on its 5 star victories wins! Once the perfect score is attained, teams would still have meaningful battles to fight as they could continue improving their victory times on certain bases. Very little change would be needed to implement this - just record those times and add them to the war report, and to the final result calculation.

 

[Radzeer]

Written already into all threads upon stalemate or sandbagging, so sry if repetitive:
Introduce a stalemate or tie-brake rule:
If the application of the current rules define a stalemate (stars, destruction lvl), then the alliance with the lower XP points of the last ranked member loses. This will kill sandbagging and stalemates for ever. The rule shall be checked upon matchmaking and the result of the "tie break" rule shall be highlighted, that both sides know the tie-break result from the beginning.

 

[ColdestRage]

Another war, another nonsensical situation.
Theirs No21 5 stars our No9 where top ten attackers couldn't even gain more than 3 stars thanks to base's layout.
Wars tend to get more and more nonsensical , and participating in them is no longer fun at all.
Still waiting though for a time where at 35 vs war No30 of GPA 5 stars our No1 .
That'll be day I quit war participation