TinSoldier I challenge, dare and beg you to respond to this topic about stackers....

Lord P

Approved user
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
44
Firstly I know the topic of stacking/sandbagging has been done to death but it will continue to do so but until Nexon provides an honest explanation as to why they let it continue. We have been getting matched with stackers for as long as alliances have been stacking, I don’t know why today is the final straw, but it is, I’ve had enough.

We have just been matched against Polska Szlachta in a 20v20 war. Of their 20 war members 16 are Atomic or Global, 2 are IA and 2 are Iron Age bases. Of the 48 members in their alliance they have 3 Iron Age bases which, coincidentally, are the only 3 bases not to have logged in in the last 3+ days.

My questions that I implore you to answer honestly are;

- Give me/the rest of your loyal playing customer base a single viable reason why a team with over 25,000 glory and so many Atomic players would want 2 Iron Age players in their war line up other than to manipulate your war ranking system. Please dont suggest they are serious players or that the many alliances that sandbag are “equal opportunity employers” who are giving them a chance to grow - no alliance that purchases dozens of elephant archer cards every war, or crowns their silos to level 3 is leaving anything like that to chance. Seriously, just one viable reason and I’ll shut up on this topic forever.

- I’ve heard of players being banned for exploiting all kinds of bugs; hunting too many stags, opening too many victory chests in a row, exploiting free food from the University. How is this any different? Yes we could all create a few Iron Age bases and exploit the system but we choose not to, just like we choose not to exploit the many other glitches present in your game.

- Lastly, and most importantly why does Nexon persist in saying they have fixed the issue and that stacking does not happen? It does, every day. If Nexon is happy for stacking to happen please just be honest and say so. If it is some ploy to encourage players to purchase more troop cards just let us know. If you dont care that dozens of fair play alliances (who in many cases do spend money in game including our alliance) are getting fed up with warring and are leaving the game, just be honest and tell us. Surely people who have been playing this game for a long, long time deserve at least an honest response from someone in the company, surely?

I should point out that our alliance accepts lower level players and spends a lot of time helping them grow and get ready for war - this benefits the long term survivability of your game. It is truly pointless wasting their time and waiting to get them into a war only for them to face either a level 200+ atomic player or an Iron Age player.

To everyone on this forum, regardless of your view on stackers, sorry that this is another long rant about a much discussed topic. To TinSoldier I would love a response to this, I really would, because this level 217 Atomic player is starting to wonder what is the point of continuing to play a game where a basic issue like this gets ignored in favour of building new functionality like a university leader who makes it slightly quicker to pick fruit or shoot a deer....
 

Lord P

Approved user
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
44
Nope, not crying, just asking TinSoldier a few genuine questions.
Out of curiosity what is the prerequisite number of Iron Age bases that warrants ‘crying’ in your opinion? 4? 10? Or do you belong to an alliance that uses Iron Age bases and subscribe to the “youre free to use them too” arguement?
 

Manifesto

Approved user
Joined
Sep 26, 2016
Messages
1,920
I think Google defines ''crying about something'' as being 5 or more bases.
 

Htmk5

Approved user
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
34
My team reached the top 20 without sandbags, now (the last 10 days) we started using a lot of iron age to try to have a war against polska szlachta 😶
 

Lord P

Approved user
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
44
Thanks for clearing that up Manifesto I thought 2 bases seemed to be too low to be having a cry ;) It appears Htmk5 belongs/belonged to Poland United and fittingly they do have 5 Iron Age bases so its good to know if ever we match them I can have a legitimate cry about it!
 

Htmk5

Approved user
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
34
We are still experimenting with those sandbags but to be honest with you our last 3 wars have been extremely boring, we will give up on the idea of matching Polska Szlachta really soon and rid of our iron
 

Lord P

Approved user
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
44
Fair enough Htmk5 and dont get me wrong, I dont blame alliances that include Iron Age bases for whatever reason (I cant say I understand the desire to do it but that’s fine,) I blame Nexon for allowing it to continue to happen. It really annoys me that our lower players (mainly EA) who genuinely want to learn how to war get put up against alliances where the only bases they can defeat are level 10 irons!
 

Manifesto

Approved user
Joined
Sep 26, 2016
Messages
1,920
Htmk5 said:
It's sad but nexon will never fix this issue
In reality, it's not an issue Nexon needs to fix because it's not a fault in the game. Nexon want to make wars available fairly for all levels and that's understandeable.
But maybe war matchups should have 2 levels only per war and of course you can only matchup to the same on the other team:
Gunpowder and lower ages can only match the same (this can have more than 2 ages)
EA and IA can only match the same
Global and AA can only match the same.
This way your lowest may only be one age below the opponent's highest. The difference between your 1 and their 20 would be 'manageable'.
And no team can have more than 70% highest age?
 
Last edited:

Htmk5

Approved user
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
34
Interesting idea but some alliance like korea army can't match an opponent without using sandbags
 

Manifesto

Approved user
Joined
Sep 26, 2016
Messages
1,920
Htmk5 , yes, in the current matchmaking algorithm.
With my suggestion they would. It allows for a little 'sandbagging', but the lower levels are still powerful enough to scare the upper levels of the opponent, and at the same time still able to be defeated by the higher levels of the opponent.
Frankly, I doubt the usual sandbaggers would go for this suggestion. :D
 
Last edited:

Pepyto

Approved user
Joined
Sep 18, 2017
Messages
182
I disagree with comment about fighting same age players in war. Just in war with same level alliance, and the battle formation is: We got: 5 atom, 12 indust, 1 enlight, 2 gun, 3 iron... they got: 8 atom, 5 glob, 3 indust, 4 enlight, 4 iron... and we won!
Skilled industrial player can easily burn global 20-30 level above base for 5☆.
 

yemen

Approved user
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
680
The real issue is atomic matching atomic. In your example, 5 atomics can match 8 atomics. A strong industrial can kill a (non university maxed) global base. The main boost in global was to offense, with the howitzers - defense got very little improvement, and a strong industrial base can defend as well as a mid range global. The same is not true of a decent atomic base - that is a HUGE defensive boost, with dps for mortars and many other defensive buildings making a large jump. Now silos in both global and atomic are a nightmare.

So if the mismatch is just a few industrial / globals without silos, no big deal. If it is a bunch of 200+ atomics with white/gold walls, completely different story - those are out of reach for industrials and most globals. We see lots that involve 25+ atomics and some iron ages to pull there average down, 20 of them will have yellow walls and be well over 200. We faced Polska Szlachta a few wars back, with our 11 atomics, a number rushed during the recent event. It wasn't even interesting for either side.
 

Pepyto

Approved user
Joined
Sep 18, 2017
Messages
182
Yemen, as always you are right & completely agree with you 👍Honestly, I misunderstood Manifesto comment, apologies...🤐
 

Manifesto

Approved user
Joined
Sep 26, 2016
Messages
1,920
Pepyto , That's great for you, but how often does that happen? To you or others?
All too often I seen posts with people complaining (bitching) about the fact that they lost to sandbaggers or people who didn't even bother participating because it was hopeless.
It's good that you won, well done, but I would love to see these all-white-walls-lvl250+ go up against other all-white-walls-lvl 250+ teams. I seriously doubt they would be happy to do this because it would mean these cowards would have no advantages.
 

Manifesto

Approved user
Joined
Sep 26, 2016
Messages
1,920
yemen , ''those are out of reach for industrials''
Sorry but this comment is pointless. In my suggestion Industrials wouldn't be facing Atomics.
And the cap on the %age of the higher levels I suggested means 25AA wouldn't be facing 11AA.
 
Top