Wars

[GailWho]

Well to be honest I was hopeful about the leaderboards at first. But the match making has proven to be so frustrating that it no longer interests me. As long as my peeps are having a good time that's all I care about. It stinks that our match ups have been with mostly high level Korean teams who get perfect scores but hey... It's a game. And our bases have given them a hard time (even thwarting one or two) so it wasn't a piece of cake for them either. We won our last war (finally drew a non-Korean team) with a perfect score and I'm telling ya it wouldn't have been as sweet had we not struggled in the previous ones. Seems like getting perfect scores every time especially if it ends up in a tie every time has got to be monotonous. Anyway, I'm proud of our team for its accomplishments even tho it's not reflected on the leaderboard. We are having fun and that's all you can ask from a game.

 

[GailWho]

Hunter Killer it's good to see you again Sorry things aren't going so well for your team. Come visit us again some time... our guard cat has run a way and there's nothing standing in the way of you and the beer fridge

Hi Eddie F1 *waves*

 

[Hunter Killer]

Has this forum been taken over by noobs? We have a leaderboard system that wants to follow an elo system like in chess but fails completely on the most common principles.

Basically, you are trying to tell the real #1 and #2 chess players, whose games always end up in a draw, to first learn how to beat each other otherwise they can't be sitting on the top of the chess ranking. Meanwhile, you're putting some weak chess players who can beat weaker chess players on top of that ranking and call them the best chess players in the world. The latter can never face the real #1 and #2 players because these two keep playing between themselves, because the system won't allow them to meet anyone else. And because they are of equal strength, the will always draw.

And you tell them that until they can beat each other, they are not worthy to be on the world ranking. Do you guys even think before you write?

Every single base in this game can be 5 starred, irrespective of the layout, the max global defense, max walls, max coalitions. You can prevent the weak players from 5 starring you. You can never prevent the good players from 5 starring you, whatever you do. You can make it harder but you cannot prevent it entirely. If you haven't understood that or don't know how to 5 star any base, you're a noob, irrespective of how long you have played this game. So yes I don't need advice from noobs on how to adapt to this mediocre system. The system needs to change.

 

[Ravenlord]

Can I draw your attention to the first sentence in my opening post ??!

 

[Hunter Killer]

Well the end game in itself is pretty boring, grind and wait 14 days for buildings to finish. 9 months after we ask for a leaderboard, they release one but it sucks. I played a couple of wars after they released it and then stop because there was no point. I got back into it to see how that leaderboard worked and will probably take another break.

I already expect the noobs to say, if you don't like it, stop playing. And I may stop playing altogether at some point. But just by saying that shows a lack of vision of how the game should be. The forum is open so people can tell the devs when something is flawed.

 

[GreekGod]

I think the leaderboard is fine as it is now. But the glory point multiplier for player level and team size needs to be changed. Maybe increase it by 200 or 300%. For example, the glory points awarded to a team with size 20 should be 1/4 or 1/5 than a team with size 40. Same with player ages, so that a team who wars with only lower age players(and cheats the system by doing it) needs to war 3 times to gain the same glory points that a team with all GBA players gets in one war against similar all GBA team.

Currently this multiplier seems to be very small, hence those lower level teams are able to cheat the system, and will forever do it.

If the matchmaking is based on players offense/defense level, then the glory points awarded should also be based on it, and not on their glory point stand.

 

[GailWho]

I suppose we have different outlook on things HK because my feeling is there shouldn't be any one player who can automatically 5 star ANY base ... If there is that is where the system is flawed. And in this game there are a great number of them. If I personally got to that point in the game I would quit out of boredom (kinda like playing tic tac toe, once I mastered it as a kid I moved on to other games that challenged me) I think that's why the devs have introduced the University and its myriad choice of how to specialize your game and have masked what the players have learned. Once players have gotten further up the reseach tree (provided they haven't cheated and have researched them all) it will be more difficult to determine what kind of attack will work on any given player. If it all plays out right what we chose in our research in combination with the tools we have at our disposal from building and troop upgrades will determine whether an attack is successful or not. Then it's a competition of mind over matter... Brute force will not be able to automatically beat every opponent into submission. They'll have to think about what tricks their opponent has up their sleeve first before choosing their troops and drop area and tactical path. This is what fascinates me... Not what alliance is the best. And if you want to believe I'm a noob for thinking that go right ahead. No offense but just because your alliance was up at the top of the flawed leaderboard for so long doesn't mean you know everything about this game and how it should be played. Now, take a drink of your favorite beverage and relax... let's just have fun and forget about who's number one shall we? Because I have a feeling it's not gonna be so static any more.

 

[Hugh Jazz]

A) this isn't chess
B) you are not the best player
C) your alliance is not the best alliance.
D) players outside your alliance are not all noobs
E) they way you are talking down to the thousands of players that are not in your alliance is not going to bring you any sympathy.
F) you
G) don't like the game, quit. and take all your other egomaniac crybabies with you.
H) I'm in the best alliance and I don't judge it on medals or glory. You are not there so your alliance no matter how amazing they are will never be better than number two .... unless I join.
I) am better than you
J) if you think the devs are reading the forums, maybe you are the noob .. the forums are more geared to sharing with other players. try customer service for your complaints.

I almost didn't post this because I was concerned that I may come across as a jerk or people might dislike me for some of the content .. then I realized I don't actually care what the vast majority of the internet world thinks of my opinion. I have always shared my opinion when I felt like it and you have asked for opinions by posting here. Enjoy

 

[BV123]

In my opinion.... Glory points does not translate as being the best alliance out there. It just means that you are active in wars. Ofc that is also very subjective.

-A lower level alliance will need to win more wars than those higher level ones.
-A high/low alliance need to win more 10vs10 wars than a high/low alliance who does 45vs45 wars.

Who deserves to be higher up in the glory ranks? A high level/strong alliance that only do 10vs10 wars or a low level/less than strong alliance that does 45vs45 wars?
Who deserves more glory? Which alliance is better? Imo.. I say the weeker team that can field 45 active players consistently. But that is just me.

The Glory league is far from perfect I have to admit. But after thinking long and hard, I have yet to come up with an idea to tweak the system for the better.

All the nay sayers have not come up with a good enough idea/suggestion that will not compromise the other aspects of the game.

The Glory system is based on the wins you get in wars rite? But the wars still need to abide to the #VS# and Attack/Defence ratio rules of the game.

If Nexon were to tweak the system so that any alliance can be matched up with any alliance as those few that have suggested, it will break the 2 'war match up' rules. (As much as I hate it, these 2 rules are important in maintaining law and order)

It will only open up a new can of worms.
-The bottom 90% alliances will start complaining about being unfairly matched up with a much too stronger team.
-The top 10% of alliances will start complainting about getting lesser glory points cause they are constantly being matched up with lower alliances.
The complaints will never stop.

My advise..... regard this Glory League as a side dish. (Which is what it is intended to be in the 1st place) And enjoy the main dish. That is growing a stronger attack, building a stronger base, destroying each other's bases and just have fun winning/loosing wars with friends you make on the other side of the planet.

Take a chill pill and just enjoy the game. Nexon do not need another guy to ram his car into any more of their main office buildings.

 

[Hugh Jazz]

More eloquent than I could have put it ...

 

[redprince]

Lol, that's fantastic^^^

 

[dannemare]

Has this forum been taken over by noobs? We have a leaderboard system that wants to follow an elo system like in chess but fails completely on the most common principles.

Basically, you are trying to tell the real #1 and #2 chess players, whose games always end up in a draw, to first learn how to beat each other otherwise they can't be sitting on the top of the chess ranking. Meanwhile, you're putting some weak chess players who can beat weaker chess players on top of that ranking and call them the best chess players in the world. The latter can never face the real #1 and #2 players because these two keep playing between themselves, because the system won't allow them to meet anyone else. And because they are of equal strength, the will always draw.

And you tell them that until they can beat each other, they are not worthy to be on the world ranking. Do you guys even think before you write?

Every single base in this game can be 5 starred, irrespective of the layout, the max global defense, max walls, max coalitions. You can prevent the weak players from 5 starring you. You can never prevent the good players from 5 starring you, whatever you do. You can make it harder but you cannot prevent it entirely. If you haven't understood that or don't know how to 5 star any base, you're a noob, irrespective of how long you have played this game. So yes I don't need advice from noobs on how to adapt to this mediocre system. The system needs to change.

Very well said, HK. The idea behind the new leaderboard is sound, but the current implementation is broken. It's fixable, though, and I have faith in Nexon fixing this seeing that not only does the new board in no way represent a proper war strength ranking, but it also discourages advancing in the game, including having loyal paying customers spend real money on speeding up upgrades. I'd be absolutely gob-smacked if I were a Nexon executive.

 

[Fable]

Well stated BV123, my big gripe was (by some logic) if an all global clan matches say a variety of ages clan, we all know who will win right? My point is...what's the point? I mean what does it prove, that a bigger clan/more advanced SHOULD beat a clan of lesser built nations? Duh.

Fact is several questions were raised during the original post that as far as ik went unanswered (sorry if I stand corrected). I think a majority of us just want more transparency/effort from the devs about things (but yes, Nb4 and Seraphine do a great job). Design spotlights r now delivered through Nb4 (no disrespect to Nb4) but why not through the original poster? Don't want to b bothered by ppl with questions? Same with the monthly state of nations post...answer some questions directly Nexon u won't implode, promise.

 

[ccfoo]

No Title

Recently, we encountered an alliance among the top of the leadership board which used this manipulation called "base stacking". Their no 1 to 20 are in global or IA, no 21 and 22 in EA, no 23 to 40 are all filler bases in classical and iron age. The level difference between their no 22 EA and 23 CA is around 90 levels (screenshot provided). They have no middle age players (no gunpowder and only 1 rushed medieval).

This lowers their war difficulty significantly, and they match against my alliance with only one lvl 130+ fresh GA, and the rest scattered throughout the ages with the average level in EA, and only 2 CA and 1 iron age bases . This allows them to stomp over all of our bases and it was a pretty one sided fight, with no way our players could scratch their level 160-190 global age players. A majority of their filler bases from no 23 to 40 did not put in any regular war attacks as shown in screenshots (they did not even attack for loot).

One of my clan mates said that this practice of base stacking is rampant in CoC, and it seems to be finding its way into Dominations now, especially with the new glory system which favors larger clan battles. We do add low age players into wars which inadvertently helps to lower our war difficulty, but our main motive is to give them exposure early as well as to help them to get loot to progress faster in game. They are real recruits or second account starting out which do level up in time, and form only a small proportion of our war lineup since our alliance has been around for some time. Whereas this particular alliance fills up close to half of their war lineup with filler accounts which do not attack just to lower their war difficulty. This allows them to be among the top of the leadership board without having to face other good clans with equally high age players.

I won't call this cheating, but to me it's a form of manipulation and poor sportsmanship. Do you guys think that this "base stacking" practice should be condone in Dominations?

 

[GailWho]

There should be a penalty exacted for players who don't use their attacks. That will stop this obvious manipulation of the system. We have lower level players in our wars as well but we ask them to try to TC snipe for rss. They play for the experience of attacking high level bases and the resources. Those bases are obviously created and abandoned with war button on just to play bigger wars making matches lopsided for more glory. The only way the devs can fight this is to penalize teams for no-shows somehow.

 

[Max_imus]

This is such a bad sportmenshio that I would forbid this alliance to play WW for weeks. Disgusting.

 

[Ravenlord]

What if you all just stuck to 15 or 20 player wars ??

 

[dannemare]

Recently, we encountered an alliance among the top of the leadership board which used this manipulation called "base stacking". Their no 1 to 20 are in global or IA, no 21 and 22 in EA, no 23 to 40 are all filler bases in classical and iron age. The level difference between their no 22 EA and 23 CA is around 90 levels (screenshot provided). They have no middle age players (no gunpowder and only 1 rushed medieval).

This lowers their war difficulty significantly, and they match against my alliance with only one lvl 130+ fresh GA, and the rest scattered throughout the ages with the average level in EA, and only 2 CA and 1 iron age bases . This allows them to stomp over all of our bases and it was a pretty one sided fight, with no way our players could scratch their level 160-190 global age players. A majority of their filler bases from no 23 to 40 did not put in any regular war attacks as shown in screenshots (they did not even attack for loot).

One of my clan mates said that this practice of base stacking is rampant in CoC, and it seems to be finding its way into Dominations now, especially with the new glory system which favors larger clan battles. We do add low age players into wars which inadvertently helps to lower our war difficulty, but our main motive is to give them exposure early as well as to help them to get loot to progress faster in game. They are real recruits or second account starting out which do level up in time, and form only a small proportion of our war lineup since our alliance has been around for some time. Whereas this particular alliance fills up close to half of their war lineup with filler accounts which do not attack just to lower their war difficulty. This allows them to be among the top of the leadership board without having to face other good clans with equally high age players.

I won't call this cheating, but to me it's a form of manipulation and poor sportsmanship. Do you guys think that this "base stacking" practice should be condone in Dominations?

I'm pretty sure those bases are from USA Dankness. They are the very reason why everybody else including us have been forced to adopt the same practice in an attempt to keep up with them. It is pretty discouraging that the new glory system has resulted in this, and I truly hope Nexon will fix the situation asap.

 

[ccfoo]

I don't encounter such base stacking in my previous clan which does war in smaller sizes, but I see that it can being exploited too. 10 GA/IA and 10 iron age will match one with a clan of EA/MA/CA, although there is less room for error like internet disconnect etc but you still do have a much higher chance of winning. If this manipulation becomes popular in Dominations, soon you will see it in 30, 25, 20, then 15 player wars too. You can max out their lower bases but can't touch 1/3 of their players except for TC sniping.

Anyway the new glory system rewards larger battles, so these clans which does base stacking will continue to do so in larger numbers (for now) and they will continue to rule the leadership board, all glory and pride to them.

 

[ccfoo]

If you can't beat them, join them? That's what many clans will start to do, and this trend will slowly spread down to entire Dominations. If CoC can't stop this, how much hope do we have in Nexon? It's up to the Dominations community then to decide if they want to accept this or to frown upon it.