Wars

[phil_dee]

They don't even need to do that; whether they actually play frequently or not is of no importance. All you need to remember is that they are no more or less a real player than you or me, and if they have opted into wars they can be included just like any other player.

 

[BV123]

Actually, there is no legal premise in wars. There isn't a checklist of rules you need to tick off other than names, and you just have to press the start search button! Like there isn't a wording on the pie, "Don't eat me!" You just stuff it into your mouth, yummy! Who cares if it belongs to others or not... and mummy didn't say anything either, why bother?

It's up to the Dominations community to decide if it should be condone or not, or walk down the path of other similar games like CoC. We can't stop these alliances have many iron age loving players actively collecting ciders for the best pies for months but can't be bothered with free food and gold, while their big brothers hungrily chomp down the pie of the little kid down the street.

Keep up the good work then!

When I said legal premise of the game, I meant that the said person is not using any cheat/hack or even the famed Konami Code to alter the game in their favor.

Is stacking an exploitation of the game system? Yes
Is it cheating? No
Do I condone it? No I do not.

I am trying to differentiate between what is game legal/illegal from my own personal opinions.

That is the problem I have with some of the comments I have read so far in this forum. Some feel that those who do not play the game the way they feel is the right way to play is considered cheating.

It's exploitation...... not cheating.

Then when people do not have the same option as them. They resort to calling other noobs.

Honestly I couldn't care less if someone calls me a Noob. It just show how immature they really are.
JUST DON'T BLOODY TOUCH MY PIE!!!

 

[Ravenlord]

Just to echo what BV said above - and what I said earlier - it's not cheating if it's playing within the system. In fact people are entitled to do it until a better or different system comes along.

Did we Aussies cheat when we designed a yacht with a winged keel to win the America's Cup? No - there was nothing in the rules that said you couldn't do it.
Did the guy in the 18th century cheat when he designed a cricket bat as wide as the stumps? No - there was nothing in the rules limiting the width of the bat!

You can gripe about people exploiting the game to their advantage or you can level the playing field - or you can stick to your principles and play as honourably as you see fit. I'm not advocating one over the other, I'm just pointing out the options .....

 

[Funks]

Did we Aussies cheat when we designed a yacht with a winged keel to win the America's Cup? No - there was nothing in the rules that said you couldn't do it.
Did the guy in the 18th century cheat when he designed a cricket bat as wide as the stumps? No - there was nothing in the rules limiting the width of the bat!

..

Did the US cheat when they had the weather on the water radioed to them in the last Americas Cup - Yes!

Did Aussie cheat when Greg Chappell directed his brother Trevor to do an underarm bowl? .. yes!

 

[Hunter Killer]

I think I have well explained why the matchmaking should be based on alliance glory for a glory leaderboard to make sense. Is anyone arguing that the matchmaking should not be based on medals for the medal leaderboard? I could keep repeating all the arguments differently, the clueless people will still not understand. The smart people already got it.

Then for some reason, it got personal. I'm criticizing the system, not the people playing with it or tweaking it. I'm not the best player but I know every base can be 5 starred. My alliance is not the best alliance. Yet I can recognize that the current leaderboard has no value. My alliance probably won't top it (very likely a korean alliance will), but I can still be objective and say that the current leaderboard is crap.

The previous alliance leaderboard with medals was crap as well after world war was released. Before that, they just had to have something and summing medals was one. The disconnect is that the alliance leaderboard should have been revamped at the same time world war was released.

So after all the clueless counter arguments, now people seem to agree that there is a problem. I'm raising an issue, I'm not a Nexon game developer to say how best it should be fixed (e.g. change multipliers). But arguing the current matchmaking and leaderboard shouldn't be enhanced is clearly a lack of vision. Both from a game point of view and a business model point of view. A leaderboard should favor people to develop their bases and not keep their accounts at a low level.

It's not the problem of USA Dankness if the system is flawed. Give that guy a break. It's the same as challenging the people on the medal leaderboard at the time for using force quit. It's for Nexon to fix, that alliance is playing with what's available to them. If you don't agree, do as they do or ask for the system to change.

Then I see posts about people saying they are unfairly matched. If the matchmaking was based on glory, you would know what to expect. If you raise high in glory, you'd expect to war against strong alliances, irrespective of the level of the players.

 

[UA Bidness]

I don't disagree with you HK, but I do think basing it entirely on glory is catering TOO much to the endgame players. There should be a balance there.

Also note, on the medal system you can only attack one age below and above you, so there are additional restrictions besides purely medals. So saying glory should dictate wars because that is how medals work isn't entirely accurate.

I will say tho, the most accurate leaderboard would be with war matchmaking based on glory, with separate leagues to account for low, middle and high level players

 

[Ravenlord]

oh fps !!! <face palm>

 

[phil_dee]

Is stacking an exploitation of the game system? Yes

With respect, I think calling this strategy exploitation is a bit of a mischaracterization--only because this sort of roster management MUST have been foreseeable to developers, who then chose to structure wars in this manner anyway. If this strategy was indeed known to developers, then our use of it cannot be exploitative (we can't help that others did not foresee its use).

 

[ccfoo]

When I said legal premise of the game, I meant that the said person is not using any cheat/hack or even the famed Konami Code to alter the game in their favor.

Is stacking an exploitation of the game system? Yes
Is it cheating? No
Do I condone it? No I do not.

I am trying to differentiate between what is game legal/illegal from my own personal opinions.

That is the problem I have with some of the comments I have read so far in this forum. Some feel that those who do not play the game the way they feel is the right way to play is considered cheating.

It's exploitation...... not cheating.

Then when people do not have the same option as them. They resort to calling other noobs.

Honestly I couldn't care less if someone calls me a Noob. It just show how immature they really are.
JUST DON'T BLOODY TOUCH MY PIE!!!

You are right. That's why I've been careful not use the word "cheating" from my very first post. To me, as I've mentioned in my very first post, it's manipulation and bad sportsmanship, whether anyone agrees to it or not. No one can stop clans filling their war lineup with half global/IA and half "actively collecting" but loot averse CA/Iron Age players. BV is right to say it's exploitation, to me it's exploitation, manipulation etc whatever word anyone choose to use.

Anyway, it's nothing new under the sun, other games have its fair share of this exploitation too, although it's kinda outdated from last I heard, where in those games clans don't even build walls or defences in their mini toons. Something to consider? Yet Kudos to that TOP alliance here using it since 9th January, and claiming it to be an "international strategy" and proud of it. They seriously do deserve an international best contribution award by nexon too for spearheading this global movement into dominations, being such a brilliant trend setter and inspiring many wannabes to adopt this wonderful international strategy too, leading dominations to a greater height of fun, fair play and success! That's why I said, good job and keep it up! Hooray!

 

[phil_dee]

Intentional, not international. Sigh

 

[BV123]

Thank you for including me in this Glory leadership discussion.

I feel that it has come to a point where this discussion has become pointless to the max. So I will be pulling myself out of it. All this while I was just giving my views and opinions on the subject. No harm no foul.

I don't really care about this Glory league. If you guys have not mentioned it, I wouldn't know who is at the #1 position.

I don't even bloody know what ranking and no. of points my alliance have at the moment. (Pls don't tell gail. )

I have dyslexia. I am slow and have very bad memory, so if I do return to this Glory system topic again, please remind me to butt out.....

Have fun.....

Oh.... and before I forget.

I have dyslexia. I am slow and have very bad memory, so if I do return to this Glory system topic again, please remind me to butt out.....

 

[Ravenlord]

Which brings me to my first post: what is it good for ??!!!!

 

[ccfoo]

Whether international or intentional or internal or infernal, I still think you guys deserve an award or some recognition for bringing the best out of people and the game. Hooray! Sorry, I ingested too much innocuously innocent looking Apple cider pies.

 

[Furyan]

yeah aussie do like to ...bend the rulz dont they

 

[ccfoo]

Well, the last time I check, we are playing dominations aren't we? Maybe it will be less stressful singing along with Barney. Some big boys like to slug it out with other big boys, others like to put their name on the board by taking on others half their size, but you are right, to each his own. To the former may the best man wins, and even if it's a draw, hopefully there is a fix in future and some recognition to your skills and effort. To the latter, maybe set up some charity foundation and donate those unclaimed loot by half of the clan who just like to actively collect other stuff to those poor and needy out there.

 

[GailWho]

I think it got personal when you said... And I quote.., ''Has this forum been taken over by noobs?'' when we didn't all wholeheartedly endorse your opinion. We all have a right to our opinion. And just because it differs from yours doesn't mean it's ill-informed.

We understand what you are saying and many agree the system is flawed. I suppose those sitting at the top don't totally agree but who blames them? It's a game and to many winning is everything. I admit winning feels good. But to be pitted with other alliances we have no way of beating is not fun. I agree with you HK there should be criteria in the matchmaking that pit you up against alliances around the same glory points. If this were the case the higher ranked ally's will be attacking each other instead of keeping the 12,000ish level alliances from making any progress while they move up the ladder. But I think other criteria like average % destruction should play into to match ups as well. I'd just like to be matched with another alliance equal to our own. Now that would be exciting. Since glory points were introduced it seems we only get either Korean alliances that whip our butts (and some of us have really big butts ) or alliances we can easily get perfect scores on. I don't like either feeling to be honest. I want a good fight where you don't know what the outcome will be until the fat lady sings. Now that would make war exciting and fun again.

 

[S_How]

No Title

Stacking of bases with Iron Age will ultimately be a huge problem. I was hoping that after seeing the majority of folks agree that USA Dankness was doing was fairly underhanded and cheesy, there would be some community policing or at least a general discouragement of most teams that do it. I guess that's not the case though, and I was too optimistic as usual lol.

I do wholeheartedly agree that it is within the current ruleset to do it, and that it is a Nexon problem. However, if its not fixed soon, its going to continue to create such horrid matchups it will ruin war for most everyone, especially the large amount of teams in the EA-IA range as it proliferates. The first time we were hit with it we squeaked out a two point win, this time though the disparity is far greater and manipulation of war rank far more severe lol.

United allies is without question one of the best alliances out there. But, I wasnt impressed when their first glory war was an arranged war between their 1&2 alliances (http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img923/6500/iFm9nr.jpg). So, I guess I cant be really surprised about our current matchup with their half iron age team.

But, I really think until Nexon can 1) Reward max score stalemates that are common in top teams, 2) Remove the glitch causing >100% destruction, 3) Somehow remove the lame tactic of stacking iron age bases to make competition ridiculously easy.....its going to keep happening and get worse.

We will give it 150% and have fun, but our team that is legitimately built is facing near max global defenses with an average IA offense, and we are putting up an average of EA defenses against Max global offenses in their top 20. In the long run, it probably wont be fun for either team to fight wars like this.

 

[phil_dee]

chuckling because those guys were moved to that alliance after I mentioned them in post #36.

 

[phil_dee]

Anyway, on the technique generally...I think you'll find that the glory formula will take care of it naturally. The glory available in each of our wars is very low.

 

[S_How]

The glory in each of your wars is very low, because of the glory of your opponents. The same reason people are high in medals only see mostly 1 medal rewards for wins, and -39 for losses. This is weighted in much more significantly than the modifiers for war size and war rank(the age correlation).