Fixing the WW Matching and Sand Bagging Issues and be done with it.

[LordAnubis]

This is true. Even with the OPs formula taking into account glory and even checking to see last login or recent upgrades (aka sandbag checking which would permanently end bagging) groups that do not care about leaderboard position will always bag.

Perhaps if sandbag is detected by last login and no upgrading apply a penalty of -50 glory and +10% average level for every detected bag. So if glory to be gained is 150 and average level is 150 with 2 detected bags, glory gain is reduced to 50 and average level increased to 180 resulting in reduced rewards and a harder match.

 

[LordJestix]

Then you just force "me" as a sandbagger to log in and make sure i have an upgrade going all the time, then when my base becomes too "good" to be a sandbagger i remove it from the alliance and create a new one.

If its based only on glory then there could never be sandbagging and any team going into a war with weak bases is at a huge disadvantage if those weak bases arent the norm for the glory level.

 

[JNation]

I dont see how glory matchmaking would solve anything. What would stop the top alliances from just choosing different war sizes so that dont really match with one another.. not to mention is would be boring to always face the same alliance because there is no one else near your glory level. There has been other suggestions to fix sandbagging that i feel are largely overlooked. S_how mention taking out the bottom of the roster. A while back i pitch an idea of putting in a multipler to each age so that lower age player do not weigh as heavily as high age players. And lastly, there's simply just isnt enough atomic players, and every new ages is only thinning the heard of the higher players, unless they can create a how around the longer and longer upgrade times.
And if you are only facing off with opponents that are close to you in glory then wouldnt your glory win/loss be very little? it would take forever to climb that ladder..

 

[SiuYin]

LordJestix Here's the problem, another one, with matching on glory alone. A top alliance has mostly AA, GA, and some lower ages. What happens when several of there AA/GA opt out of war? They fill with lower levels to go to war and then are out matched. Why should they be penalized with a lopsided war and potential loss because high rank playsrs take a break from war?

Match on glory alone is fine for MP because you are matching single to single, but matching a group to group with many variables is tougher.

War matching needs to be a combination of defensive/offensive strength and glory. Adding glory to the matching will definately balance it out but glory alone matching in a game like this is bad.

no need to worry about top alliances, their number 25or even number35 will also be atomic.

 

[LordJestix]

I dont see how glory matchmaking would solve anything. What would stop the top alliances from just choosing different war sizes so that dont really match with one another.. not to mention is would be boring to always face the same alliance because there is no one else near your glory level. There has been other suggestions to fix sandbagging that i feel are largely overlooked. S_how mention taking out the bottom of the roster. A while back i pitch an idea of putting in a multipler to each age so that lower age player do not weigh as heavily as high age players. And lastly, there's simply just isnt enough atomic players, and every new ages is only thinning the heard of the higher players, unless they can create a how around the longer and longer upgrade times.
And if you are only facing off with opponents that are close to you in glory then wouldnt your glory win/loss be very little? it would take forever to climb that ladder..

the top alliances will only have atomic levels so changing the war size wont matter, they will only face other alliances with atomics. Please tell me, how is it fun to get an easy win that takes no strategic planning, as it is now with sandbagging.

Taking the bottom off the roster in the calc just means those alliances will use more sandbags to get the better matchup.

The current win/loss formula is horrible and would need to be adjusted to be similar to clash royale's formula. The standard is +30 for a win and -30 for a loss. That number varies based on your actual trophy count vs your opponent, so if you got a guy several hundred trophies above you, youd gain like 37 and only lose like 18. So using a similar formula would work just fine.

 

[SiuYin]

I'm totally against glory-based matchmaking for the simple fact that there aren't many advanced-age players in dominations. The top 20 teams would play each other over and over again. That would get really boring. There aren't enough players to support more alliances to diversify the matches.

Top 20 always facing each one now a days, it wont be worse.

 

[LordAnubis]

LordJestix Matching on glory alone will not solve sandbagging. Instead groups will simply dissolve and reform at 12k glory thereby being matched unfairly with others and we are back at square one of this discussion.

In our group we have already seen top alliances reforming at 12k. There just isnt a fool proof way really to eliminate bagging or tipping war matching to favor your group.

 

[(RAS)]

Imho the only way to finish sandbagging is to allow only one attack per player. It would change the game drastically though...

 

[Cajunking]

Apologies upfront but somewhat new to this, what do you all mean by sandbagging? In war if an alliance puts in 10 AA and 10 CA bases just to weight their avg low? And are they sandbagging just to climb the glory board? Cause war loot suuuuuuckssss

 

[Ypergamias]

There is a very simple solution to solve the problem. Ignore the last 10% of each team. In 20-20 war ,you will calculate the average from the first 18 bases. So if the last 2 bases from 1 team are 20lvl iron age and the other team 2 IA 100 lvl that means, 100*2- 2*20= 160 lvl will "lost" from the sandbagging team ,which in normal cases all these levels will "sprend" to their first numbers(for example 16 lvls more to the first 10 players,in order the average lvls to stay equal between teams,this is how the current system works) . It will fix the problem by a lot. Still could a team have more than 10% sandbagging members but it will reduce the distance between first 10 mirror players from 20-25lvs to 5-10lvs. 10% is a small number and will not create balance issues.

 

[alegs]

Due to the fact that you have double the amount of attacks available compared with the number of opponent bases to hit, why not leave the lower half out of the war weight calculation completely?
If the division by 2 was odd, just round up to be sure to also eliminate this one potential sandbag also.

 

[LordJestix]

There is a very simple solution to solve the problem. Ignore the last 10% of each team. In 20-20 war ,you will calculate the average from the first 18 bases. So if the last 2 bases from 1 team are 20lvl iron age and the other team 2 IA 100 lvl that means, 100*2- 2*20= 160 lvl will "lost" from the sandbagging team ,which in normal cases all these levels will "sprend" to their first numbers(for example 16 lvls more to the first 10 players,in order the average lvls to stay equal between teams,this is how the current system works) . It will fix the problem by a lot. Still could a team have more than 10% sandbagging members but it will reduce the distance between first 10 mirror players from 20-25lvs to 5-10lvs. 10% is a small number and will not create balance issues.

so ill add 4 sandbags to my lineup and still have the advantage. What ever the number is, alliances will still add enough to get past that number for sandbagging.

 

[alegs]

That's not correct. If it was half of participants you would hurt yourself by adding sandbags.

 

[LordJestix]

EAch player gets 2 attacks so a good alliance with high level atomics shouldnt have too much trouble.

 

[Drunken Master]

Might suck for those alliances that bottom 2 are actually good. Let's say in a 20v20 your bottom 2 are enlightenment and mine are global while our top 18 are matched evenly... Those 2 bottom basses might determine who wins the war.

 

[Drunken Master]

There will always be a way to skew match ups with the current war system. The ultimate way of skewing a war is pay2win. We all argue about sandbagging but what are you going to do when you face an Alliance with 8 elephant archers in the strongholds and bazooka towers spread through the ranks... Sandbag all you want, but those troop tactics need to go... Other than that, everyone gets 1 attack! That is where the real skilled alliances would shine. Everyone matters and you will only take your best to war! Planning day would really take some real planning because nobody would be there to cleanup mistakes. Ohhh... And also completely eliminates sandbagging and a bunch of unnecessary ties...