Alliance War SandBagging

I hope the developers do something about Alliances deliberately Sandbagging by only have 20 person team instead of 25. I understand that attrition happens and this is not cheating per se, but it’s manipulating the system instead of honoring the game as true sportsmanship.

If this was a Soccer match and you come into a game short handed, you play short handed against said competition. You should not get rewarded by playing against the lesser competition.

My suggestion for future war:
Instead of looking at the total Alliance power, look at average power of the top 10/15 players and pit people accordingly.

2 Likes

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Did I say anything about white, brown, yellow or black alliance?

Let’s try another analogy. Let’s say alliance A has 15 X 1 mil plus members and they get pitted against a team of 25 600-700k team members. How is that a fair match up when the lower team will most likely have zero chance of winning any battle.

I’m not here to call any one out. I’m only making suggestions to the Devs to improve on the game as this is only Season 2.

1 Like

So that’s how MXWAR did it! They kept their alliance numbers at 20/25?!?! Wow, that’s some legit nastiness. Sad. However, thanks to this topic, now more will only copy it. Thanks a lot, OP, lol.

I did the whole war [XPVPX] :joy:

haha is sad to see this kind of comments! We were in the beta of the war. We already have some experience in the war! You say that we play with 20 to 25 players, but for that I want 25 players if of the 25 we are only 20 who move defenses we coordinate attacks and we are aware of the attacks that they make us in the day or at dawn! That you and your alliance did not achieve a good top that will serve as your experience these seasons!

2 Likes

He’s got a point in the above statement. In other words, ‘git gud!’ At least, that’s what I got from Punisher’s post.

1 Like

Pilfer is right. A 15 man allaince all 1 million power vs a 25m allaince avg power around 700k none would have anything close to beating a 100k team. They can literally take every node trap them in and put 1 100k and call it a day. Very sad for all the allainces who did play right and really sad for the allainces who had to face them. If they didn’t quit they were surely discouraged that week and thought about it.

5 Likes

This isn’t that hard to do though. Someone who is at 500k can easily have a 100k top 5? It’s about priority and buidling your account up for war, we’re going into the 3rd season now maybe consider building up the top 5 toons such as Beck, Saph, Baron, Richter, Razor etc.

More people means more BP, we have faced teams of 1.2m with 110k top 5s who had less members but we still beat them out at first. Work together, get experience and power doesn’t matter at the end of the day as it’s equalled out either over more or less people in the alliance.

2 Likes

Not really. I mean it’s possible if they are 500k team power and only focus on those five heroes to get them to100k+, but then they sacrificing everything else. They won’t have a decent roster for PVP, bounty event’s, etc.

1 Like

Agree it is possible. But highly unlikely. They would be limiting their game experience. Doing it for war only when it new. And alot of us spreading out the love for bounties and different strats for PvP or campaign modes

i’ve seen an alliance purposely remove players and let them back in once they were locked to stay under 15 million. They do this for the first three wars. On the fourth war they have everybody in to get rewards. This allows them to get a lot of points in the first three. The fourth one don’t matter because only three count. Placing them very high in expert.

2 Likes

(mxwar ) aside from having few players, they make truce with 4 alliances, in order to maintain their score, it is a way to miss the fun of war, their score is based on truces and not on their own merits. It is practically like cheating because if they had 25 players, they will reach total alliance power from 22 to 24m, and that does not suit them because they would be paired, with strong alliances, and that does not like them. play with powerful rivals, then expel some players to stay with little power and thus face alliances of little power.

What does ‘Gringo’ mean?

Mate, there is problem with everything if you go around to look for it.

Sandbagging is issue but eventually it doesn’t pay out well if you 25 players of your team can go out against them in full blown. You still got about 100 BP more than them every day and if you got good team which utilizes BP then it won’t be issue.

You should understand that sandbaggers only purpose is to dominate in Wars. Every player is united to play this way. A regular alliance will have bunch of players who don’t play with that intent.

Still, if you got concerns, look out for Season 3 War Improvements. You can find lot of solutions there.

Guys, we need a new word.
I’m over sandbagging. Sandbag. Sandbaggers…
anyway, I think most of you are looking at it all wrong.
While I do concur that his tactic is both A. In play and B. Effective; there’s not going to be an easy way around this.

The best of the above suggestions is an updated form of power limits/requirements. But simply making it for the first X, Y or Z out of 25 is not removing the problem, it’s just recreating it with extra steps.
I think what will ultimately have to happen is some kind of grading system (think: raid level-based unlocks) combined with a heavy focus on top 20 heroes of each player , wherein the players top 20 determine their level ranking, not their overall team or alliance power.

Otherwise, just introduce team number caps at the very highest level so that when the tactic progresses to meta which it surely will, 25 man teams play 25 man teams, 10 vs 10, etc and lock the rosters for the whole season. If teams lose some of their original 10 nominees, too bad. No replacements from the alliance pool.

My team are under 10m, within the top 15 in our division and have a few inactive players at times. Although if our numbers grow to just over 10m due to individual progression and we decide to drop inactive players to retain or league status, does that make us sandbaggers? I think it’s the deserved choice, not the dodgy one. Why should all the hard work we’ve put into our AW techniques (ie levelling that top 20, better comms skills, teamwork, etc) push us into a league that we’d struggle in? That seems counterproductive to fairness.
But at top level? Why not - make it harder for them :rofl:

1 Like

I think this is a pretty easy fix. Don’t do seasons. Make each war an individual event, break up what would be season rewards into smaller rewards of equivalent value, and lock the rosters. Your alliance faces others of similar power over the course of whatever it is, 4 or 5 days, and that’s it. Players can come to your alliance, but not added till the next INDIVIDUAL war. Take a day break, do it again. Viola!, no more playing roster games.