There is only one answer..sandbaggers who include low levels deliberately..should pay for it by the opposing team being allowed to hit their low levels twice. So the opposing team can get 10 rather than just 5 off each low level. We are currently against a team in a 20/20 who are 1 to 16 Atomic and global .. the 16th is Atomic The 17th is an EA and there are 2 gp plus a medieval. We have 8 Atomics and globals and from 9 to 19 they are IA plus one EA. We are getting this sort of match up all the time recently and are fed up. What a waste of 2 days and resources. It is pathetic that teams resort to this tactic and ruin it for others. It is not worth it to war if it remains the way it is currently.
I wouldn't class including Gunpower Age accounts as sandbagging. If they wanted to sandbag, they would have used Iron Age accounts. It's a 20 player matchup, the odds are they have lower age accounts in their alliance they could have included if they wanted to. It's just a bad matchup.
Also worth remembering age has no effect on the matchmaking. Most of the atomics i've come across in war have rushed their offense with their defenses several ages behind. Will be even more so when we've had 2 TC upgrade discounts back to back.
The alliance i'm up against has 22/25 inactive players, doesn't mean they are cheating. Including GP accounts doesn't show the intent behind it, they could have just included them so they could make the numbers up and do 20 player war. In my alliance we've often had people have the hump and quit because they weren't included in the war.
As for age being factored into the matchmaking, it's debatable. I'm IA and ranked above atomics in my alliance, so it would suit me as I feel i'm being penalized for upgrading my defences. But if they changed it so it was based on age, all those players who are intentionally skimping on defences to keep their rankings down will kick up such a fuss and threaten chargebacks etc. I'm sure it's no coincidence some of the top ranked Korean alliances have players with maxed atomic offence and walls but low defence.
I'd meet somewhere in the middle and base it on defence buildings and the level of war academy barracks/ fort/ armory/ library but ignore the what level upgrades are in the armory/ library. I'd change the weightings so it's more balanced between offence and defence. Then i'd allow alliances to link their chat to another alliance (ie a feeder/ training alliance) and change war so at most there can be a 4 age spread.
So in light of the "AMA" or "Q&A", or more accurately put "Lotta Q's".. I wanted go give a little update to this post with examples from our last two wars to illustrate exactly what I'm talking about when saying an "acceptable match" in war is waaaay to broad. in both examples one team Completely outclassed the other team, so much so that the war was basically decided by the search criteria matching the teams, not the players, strategies, or skill of those on either side (not to say that this doesn't exist, most assuredly it did for all teams involved, the odds are just too far stacked in one sides favor for it to matter)
For my first example, our last war with a Japanese team that we matched within 5 minutes. We had the advantage across the board from the top to the bottom. Our top was more advanced, our mids were more advanced and our lowers were more advanced. We perfected them in something like 26-27 hits in a 25v. It was a bloodbath and not very compelling tbh.
The second example is from our current war w K1, a top notch alliance for sure, without a doubt, and now the opposite is true. They aren't sandbagging to lower their average (nod of respect to them), but I truly cannot fathom how we were able to match with them. And for the anyone saying the search parameters increase with time, we matched instantly. So according to Nexon/BHG, this is a completely "even" match on paper. truly laughable.
What's going on with no fix to sandbagging and the broadening of matchmaking, it has essentially ruined the best function of the game for my team. 9 out of 10 wars are like this. Given our advancement as an alliance, unfortunately 8 out of 10 are like the second example, 1 like the first, and maybe 1 equal war if we are lucky. Something. Needs. To. Be. Done. Very. Soon!
With sandbagging, combined with the apparent glitch that treats max lvl bases like super lightweights in war weighting, combined with expanded matchmaking criteria....its an absolute mess. Very frustrating.
Ok so we are experiencing and interesting phenomena... up until now strange ranking has always occurred on the other team of a mismatch. Now our #1 is slowly slipping down our rank. Last war he was in he was #2. This war he is #3. level 228 Below 207 and 205. The current war is pretty evenly matched. We stalemated them in December. With upgrades our team has become quite bulky. Are we entering some sort of nexus or just getting too big for our britches? Is Hooo's white walls weighing him down? The plot thickens
Such a great point GailWho, we have had the exact same thing happen to us as well. Maximus was always somewhere in our 1-3 depending. Last war he was 6. Now this war he is 13. Like how. I'm sitting at number 8 w 178 exp (lol a bit deceiving i must admit), but am nowhere close to max in any regard who currently is at 202. Something is very off, and it Has to be contributing to the overall team matchmaking issues that we have been discussing.
So BHG claims that its difficult to solve the sandbagging problem without negatively affecting the matchmaking for the "rest of the population". However, after spending some time in various alliances, what I'm seeing is that even the mixed age alliances of lower strength (i.e. few Globals and fewer Atomics) are getting bad matches in war. Sometimes in their favor, sometimes not, but it is rare to see a competitive match. So what exactly are they trying to protect so carefully in this current system? The system appears to be complete garbage, across the board. And what you have described above is another significant problem with World War that is being ignored by BHG. They admitted there is a bug in the ranking system, but still no fix - and it keeps getting worse.
Totally agree - Im not sure any of the suggested solutions could actually make it worse for our team. Its really really bad. Concerns like matchmaking times even seem trivial compared to having to go into wars with a 30+ level disadvantage.
I'm just wondering if it's because the teams have grown and have passed a certain threshold or if it's something in particular The guys are upgrading that makes this happen. I think our average levels are pretty similar.
So my poor little alliance 13'600 glory points now face current 85th on the glory league Pyccknn ctnnb.
Our no1 is matched with their no12 and their 19 would be in our top 3.
The game is screaming out for alliance leagues.
Were now just discussing for the 1st time boycotting the war.
Such a shame.
I don't know if glory is mirrored but we would win 835 or lose 6.
We will lose 6 as we will not be attacking and most have changed war bases to be easy.
Should point out that it's not always the case of sandbagging but it this case it is.
Yes, the Glory is mirrored, and they will win a trivial 6 Glory (which is 6 too many, in my opinion). Clearly this is a matchup that never should happen. Of course BHG would say this is better than waiting hours for a closer match, but in reality you now have to wait at least 48 hours for a good match, so they would be wrong on that point.