Sandbagging - gallery of shame

[Cris 4321]

I tried to upload a picture of the latest sandbagging experience, a war base in our current war that is Level 12, from Iron Age....unfortunately the photo size is too large than what Nexon allows, I would have loved to share the details with the wider community. I really don't think anyone well intentioned plays in war to attack Level 12 bases....

On a related note, I would like to propose establishing a gallery of shame, where people post on the forum these sort of situations and with Nexon having a manual review system of such cases (on top of these algorithms, which clearly don't work/ can not capture these sort of situations where people are hell bent on cheating).

 

[Master Contrail Program]

I agree on the Hall of Shame. I doubt it will change anything on either the developers or sandbaggers end, but it's at least a bit of a middle finger to both.

​​​​The question still remains why the devs are so slow to do anything but blow smoke up our butts about the problem? There have been dozens of solutions from the players, not to mention games similar to this. Yet eight months after the first official thread about it, six weeks after that laughable AMA; not only have they done nothing, their last update actually does more to encourage it.

 

[frankletank]

Just to make something clear ... If we dont use sandbag, we face bigger alliance with sandbag so we dont have the choice to use it to have à chance of win

 

[Motaz Tarek]

u really wanna do this? many FairPlay alliances are sandbagging to avoid Original sandbaggers, when we didn't sand bag we were matched with korea army and by that time we were out of the top 100 now we r in the top 30 so we were forced to sandbag or else get wrecked every war
and I recommend u do the same too till it gets fixed, sure u will have some wars with weaker alliances but at least not the reverse

 

[Wynne D Fanchon]

Plot Twist: It will get so bad that Alliances will be forced to not sandbag since all the top alliances will be at the bottom.

 

[Wendy]

We are in top 100 without sandbagging. It is possible. we won't be there forever, we know that. No one ever forced anybody to sandbag. It's a choice.
If we search at 30 we have 90% chances to get a sandbagging heavy team, then what?we just learned not to care about glory.
Half or even more of the teams we know that sandbag is because they have no skills to play with the big guys.

 

[Spaceboy]

that's what I said one year ago...a long-time bug becomes a feature so more and more alliances will use it...

 

[nikki bella]

Nicely put Wendy. Where's the glory in victory without honour? And for all the fp alliances that refuse to lower themselves to sandbag in the name of 'Glory'... the practice of constantly fighting against the odds will see them win out in the end..

 

[Motaz Tarek]

Spaceboy yep and now many alliances are using alliance troop bug and extra tactics space bug in wars too, so wars full of bugs and corrupted system is everywhere not just sandbagging

 

[Ankara]

I recently had the honour of visiting Boss Level for two wars. This was my first experience with sandbagging, as both wars were against bags. It was wierd playing to tie instead of win, and much of the war experience was automatically removed for the duration of the wars, and of my stay with Boss Level.

I try and keep a balanced perspective when I post publicly, but the sandbag experience just sucked. I will say that Boss Level impressed me in the way they dealt with it. I could understand applying sandbags yourself in order to have a war be more like a war, but they refuse. Instead they get stronger and stronger, better and better, and tighter and tighter as a group of players. They are all better attackers than me and I have the utmost respect for them.

This is all new to me but clearly very old hat to so many who post here. The system is indeed broken, whether an alliance switches to sandbag strategy to survive or to try and enjoy the war experience again, it's just broken.

Despite this, (and I appreciate this is likely a minority opinion), I don't think a "wall of shame" is appropriate. The alliances that employ sandbags do so for various reasons, some of which i think is pretty understandable. But either way, the game allows the strategy. Nobody is breaking the rules, regardless of what one thinks about the strategy. It's allowed. Sandbagging is on the game design, not the alliances that employ it.

 

[Prodigal Clint]

Well stated. 100% agree with everything you just said.

 

[GailWho]

Perhaps instead of a wall of shame we should celebrate alliances who have stuck it out and refused to add sandbags to earn glory. There are numerous Fair Play alliances out there growing stronger with each passing war.

 

[FroggyKilla]

I'll be frank, I've been in Alliances that did this way before it got out of hand. Guess I'll just opt out of war then. Saw someone post a genius solution of only accounting for the top players in an alliance.

 

[Wendy]

Totally agree!!!

 

[Nb4powerup]

Wall of shame is a no go. Threads calling out others or insulting them are not allowed.