“The Road to Better World War Matchmaking” aka Sandbagging!

[SebQuattro]

You don't get it do you? Even now, war isn't profitable for Atomic Age players. Even Global Age players normally have to spend more than 7,000 oil per war. They aren't in war for the loot.

Reducing loot will have no effect what-so-ever.

If a player attacks an opponent two ages below, they already get less than half their normal loot. What effect does that have Sandbagging? None.

 

[Wendy]

No written or uwritten rules, you are of course entitled to play as you most like, even because at your war range i don't think a couple of iron age can affect your matchmaking as they do at higher level.
if you war for experience and growing players,with that roaster, anyway it's normal you get little glory as you probably face young teams without much glory.
that is what i was saying, you probably are in a range of wars that don't give a lot of glory!

 

[RottPhiler]

Well if I don't get it, then I wonder who does. You are entitled to your opinions.

 

[S_How]

Another week of BHG avoiding confronting the problem, another week of crappy experiences for their players. The below team has heavy atomics up through 19, and down to medieval and irons in the 20s that will never make a hit....and even if they did they exist for only one reason....because the absolute best way to gain glory is to manipulate your match to make sure you have a non-competitive matchup. Sandbagging circumvents the need to use $$ costly troop tactics, prevents people from having to farm NTGs for coalitions, and remains SIGNIFICANTLY more rewarded than filling your roster with talented, invested players.

The below team has a ~20% sandbag. When you remove those few, inconsequential bases, they have a 37 level advantage on average over us. An absolutely insurmountable advantage. And, they are receiving a tremendous reward for it....they are a top 20 team and can win over 200 glory by beating us (this is a ton of glory for a top 20 team).

Nb4powerup BFisher TheWise We have received no material update in 9 months on what is being done. The Q&A provided some interesting info, but left us without any real understanding of if Nexon cares enough to act on behalf of its customers anymore. The only claimed 'fix' to this issue was 4 months ago and has failed miserably. It is still the cornerstone of nearly all top 100 teams (there are a few, but rare, exceptions). When will action be taken? My team has gone from 40-45 player wars non stop, to barely having enough to queue a 20 person war because it is such a horrible experience meeting teams like this.

 

[dannemare]

No wonder we can't catch teams like KU1. We could add a ton of filler account as well, of course, but that's not going to happen. Imagine us trying to catch KU1 with 5-10 bags only to match KA with no or nearly no bags. Huge risk which is not worth taking. Unfortunately, this means we are often searching for 12-24 hours only to match the same five to ten teams. It's getting boring...

 

[Prodigal Clint]

dannemare , I think you raise a great point w your comment as to why this is such a big problem for all teams from a matchmaking standpoint. By so many teams sandbagging to such an extreme, it dilutes all teams viable matches downward, so it really has a big effect on the "pools" that teams r available to match in. Sandbagging lowers the teams in your pool significantly because they all bag their way down below great teams in their pool to face teams like mine in the one below. And so on and so on,.... so it really creates a crummy experience for all teams up and down the entire community.

 

[S_How]

dannemare I'd take 12-24 hour search times anyday, to avoid 37 level mismatches/sandbagging, wish we had that option. It is unfortunate everyone is in a bad situation now. Until they remove sandbagging, its going to be a mess. Hardly anyone will ever go in full weight, and weights themselves are completely messed up due to the weight bug which is being ignored.

 

[Funken_A]

this is the end result of a pay to win system. Do you really think they'll balance a game when the majority of moeny comes from players who demand and advantage for the money they spend.

In the end the developer will cater to the biggest spenders. Those biggest spenders also love to easily beat their opponents because they are use to getting what they want because they have the money.

If you are smart you walk away form this game and reward a different developer and keep moving on till you find the one that truly represents gamers and can have success doing it

 

[Bowmore]

But a key point from above was that a successful sandbagging strategy allows a team to ignore the pay-to-win mechanics. They can easily win without the extra troop cards, buildings, and coalitions.

 

[Vixen]

can't disagree with you but I love the game (and now the people who play the game)

 

[Stan - Scotsguards]

a long never ending road it seems like

 

[Master Contrail Program]

The road must be a figure 8, because I feel like we've seen and heard all of this before. Two months after that AMA and what has been done? Anything? Anything at all?

 

[Thebigtfish]

We have faced 4 consecutive sandbagging alliances. We have no chance to win and will lose over 1400 glory. We are well balanced and do well for the mat part. But we can't compete with 10 atomics 5 globals in a 25 person war against 4 atomics 5 globals 5 IA. Especially since tactics got nerfed. This was our equalizer allowing us to attack up. If you want to eliminate sandbagging go to single attack wars. Shorten the war time to 12-18 hours. Same for planning, this will surely fix your issue.

Come join Gamers in PJ's, fair play alliance always looking for active war members. HOWIES ARE LIKE CANDY IN OUR GROUP.......

 

[Thebigtfish]

Have you given thought to making wars single attacks. This would eliminate sandbagging all together. Shorten wars to 12-18 hours same as planning day. Also provide double ntgs for victory as you will need more coalitions. This will completely fix the issue. Please tell me your thoughts.

 

[Master Contrail Program]

I'd rather they just have 2 defenses on each base. A shorter time frame for wars is tricky to pull off for alliances in myriad time zones. They seem to have no intention of altering how the individual bases are weighted, either by not counting the bottom 25-50% at all in matchmaking, or a 40/30/20/10 setup. So either one attack or two defenses per base would seem to be the most efficient way to fix this issue, without introducing too many omnipresent and somehow unforeseen bugs.

 

[Equal]

everyone!!! i have two news. one good and one bad. THE Good one is that i finnaly found hope!!! The bad news is that she is dead after 8 months of starvation... For our alliance nothing changed. we still get sandbag alliances even more often than before, and have only few competetive wars from time to time. most of the times or super easy, or the ones, where we have no bussines of defeating our enemies because they have 2-3 sandbags in a 20-25 sized wars..

 

[S_How]

Yes we are facing our second in a row, and face them easily more than half the time. Because of BHGs changes to stronghold and tactics, Sandbagging is even more effective than it ever has been before. Its one of the ways to avoid having to use troop tactics on offense or defense, and still easily climb the leaderboard.

BHG - if you dont want to do anything complicated, why cant you just remove the bottom 20% of bases from the war matching calculation. It seems so easy and effective to do.

 

[yemen]

In conjunction with fixing the ranking for high atomic defenses. This war our top opponent is at level 20, two spots above their two classical fillers. That is like adding a super sandbag - no war weight, but awesome firepower and defense.

 

[Equal]

there is so many things to fix in this game.. the poor developers did not know where to start.. :-((

 

[Master Contrail Program]

I think Marco Polo took less time traveling the Silk Road than we have this one. He also had some idea where he was going.