The Current War Environment

[S_How]

Last-Outlaws!! Has been a non sandbag alliance and taken very drastic measures to ensure all members have a good time. I don't agree with saying the bottom x don't count. Yes, this will severely punish sandbagging, but would likely have to exclude 50% of the alliance to be effective. Furthermore, it promotes straight alliances, aka putting your std dev as low as possible, inadvertently punishing alliances that have atomic,global,industrial, and Enlightened even.

I don't care if you want to sandbag, I really don't. But I do care that your alliance faces a team using the same strategy. That's a figurative you btw, just so no one gets their knickers in a twist.

a weighted average would be a milder approach withought the punishment.
aka.
atomic are weighted at 10x the war xp
global at 9x
industrial 8x
etc etc.

this is a more appropriate approach that allows for smart methodology and furthermore appropriate measurement of change.

Chris, having a weighted approach where lower ages count as less weight, is mathematically almost identical to excluding the bottom 20% or so of an alliance in the matchmaking equation. It lessens the influence they have on the match. If its done on an alliance that is somewhat mixed (EA-AA), its a nominal impact....not even a whole lot if there are real, developed GP bases. If its an alliance with several undeveloped bases at the bottom, its a huge impact in either your solution or what Clint mentioned. I cant think of a scenario where one is really different than the other. Like you, I would disagree with something as dramatic as 50%, but I dont think it needs to be like that to both solve the problem and still be fair in matching. There is already a glory penalty for above 30% of a sandbag, its why we rarely see sandbagging past 10%-20% now. Its the sweet spot for sandbagging because it dramatically alters a match while carrying no penalty.

If it were set closer to 20%ish...it really wouldnt change the weight of non sandbagging alliances much at all (no punishment), and you'd be matching people with equal scenarios. We watch levels in our matches. Our bottom 5 often drop our average level by 5 or less (we range from Atomic to Industrial, occasionally 1-2 high EA). Whereas we see 5 undeveloped bases often drop levels of sandbag alliances by 30-40.

Anyhow, just my thoughts. I think if they excluded 20%, and fixed the atomic glitch, it would improve matchmaking 1000%. And, if we want any solution, there will have to be some sort of compromise I think.

 

[Prodigal Clint]

En effet, votre équipe est très avancée et compétente, c'était une grande guerre! Cette publication n'était pas un commentaire sur l'équipe de Yor, plus sur la mauvaise efficacité résultant de tous les facteurs abordés. Bonne chance à votre nouvelle équipe, je pense que vous allez monter rapidement Osmevore : )

 

[Prodigal Clint]

I think this certainly works great, as do many other solutions other community members have posted. This wasn't really meant to be a discussion on sandbagging alone, or which solutions is best (I just go w 20% as it seems easiest to implement and would b effective imo). More of a discussion on how we as players, deserve a better experience, and shown from the perspective using this one war as an example. Disconnects, sandbagging, p2w, alliance chat... all of it is adding up to what across the community is a poor experience (I'm guessing all alliances are somehow tacitly effected by all these issues).

We, as players, deserve better.. from the most advanced alliance to the one that just got founded yesterday.

 

[Prodigal Clint]

A top 30 alliance we are friends with just lost a war due to 12 network disconnects.. yes that right 12!!! 20% of their attacks didnt show up or didnt register properly. Additionally, one 5* attack registered with a lower star count (3 or 4 iirc) and a 6 minute battle time. Yes, 6 minutes! With the new time tie breaker rules these two things, are quite frankly unacceptable. Especially when you set the game up to be p2w at this level, those players who support your game most financially, expect their attacks to be registered properly and delivered challenging yet even matchups.

I know this alliance put a lot of time, and more importantly for nexon/bhg, money into that matchup only to have it robbed by server and disconnect issues. This is happening everywhere in a devastating fashion. Not that anyone for nexon/bhg will read this, but if you were in their shoes, wouldn't you be very soured and reluctent to spend money in future big matchups after an experience like this? I know I certainly would feel that way.

 

[Quovatis]

We had an attack in a recent war that registered -6 seconds...yes NEGATIVE six seconds.

 

[LordJestix]

We had an attack in a recent war that registered -6 seconds...yes NEGATIVE six seconds.

Cheaters

 

[Nb4powerup]

Do you have a screenshot or the user name/alliance? If so, please PM me that.

 

[Quovatis]

PM sent. It was a 0% defense, so think he just crashed before the timer even started. But the game should know better than to allow a negative time.

 

[Christopher-Outlaws!!]

Most certainly a decision and action is better than not. As I've stated before, I've not dug my heels in regarding the specifics as I feel doing anything at this point is of benefit. Likely the solution would require a mixture of 3rd quartiles, std deviation, alongside activity (time logged in etc). Let's just hope for anything at this point and work from there