Hi all,
I have heard it suggested many times that reducing attacks to one each for WW will solve the issue of sandbagging. However, the way I see it this just punishes the active players by making it less fun. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the issue actually more to do with alliances that have members in a war that don't attack?
Having the top half of your alliance strong and the bottom weak doesn't matter when everyone gets two attacks, the top half can just wipe out everyone. If the alliance was penalized a star for each attack that remained unused then an alliance with 25 sang bag accounts that don't count for anything would lose 50 stars from the total, and alliances where every member is active during the war would have an advantage.
Sure, the sandbaggers can still wipe out every base in their enemies by relying on their top half to do it, however when the penalties are applied they wouldn't end up winning the war.
Yes, this would mean that alliance members would need to commit to making their attacks each war, but isn't that what we want anyway? You might see a drop off in 50 v 50 war, but a 25 v 25 war where everyone actually contributes and the team with more people participating has an advantage seems to me like it solves the problem.
There are probably things I am not taking into consideration but please let me know what you think.
I have heard it suggested many times that reducing attacks to one each for WW will solve the issue of sandbagging. However, the way I see it this just punishes the active players by making it less fun. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the issue actually more to do with alliances that have members in a war that don't attack?
Having the top half of your alliance strong and the bottom weak doesn't matter when everyone gets two attacks, the top half can just wipe out everyone. If the alliance was penalized a star for each attack that remained unused then an alliance with 25 sang bag accounts that don't count for anything would lose 50 stars from the total, and alliances where every member is active during the war would have an advantage.
Sure, the sandbaggers can still wipe out every base in their enemies by relying on their top half to do it, however when the penalties are applied they wouldn't end up winning the war.
Yes, this would mean that alliance members would need to commit to making their attacks each war, but isn't that what we want anyway? You might see a drop off in 50 v 50 war, but a 25 v 25 war where everyone actually contributes and the team with more people participating has an advantage seems to me like it solves the problem.
There are probably things I am not taking into consideration but please let me know what you think.
