Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: CWL - Set minimum thresholds to mitigate sandbagging

  1. #1

    CWL - Set minimum thresholds to mitigate sandbagging

    I realize the point of CWL is to have no algorithms for matchmaking, but with the sandbagging of clans to intentionally drop levels, as well as the number of high level bases in low-to-mid level leagues, it is sucking the enjoyment out of this aspect of the game ... 4+ TH12s in Gold Level 1? There should be some minimal expectation that the makeup of a lineup can go no lower than “whatever” tier, so sandbag to that tier if you want, but that is as far as you can drop ...

  2. #2
    Forum Contender
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Bad Newz, VA.
    Posts
    4,881
    This would be really hard on rushed bases, newly upgraded town halls and low skill attackers. Having a certain town hall doesn’t establish skill. I can agree that sandbagging sucks to deal with but this is not the solution. There are just too many different combinations of clan make up to make restrictions viable.

  3. #3
    Then treat sandbagging as a form of “cheating” and have consequences to discourage it from happening ... the premise was that over time CWL would shake out and be a “fair” form of ladders ... from our experience (we’ve been active in every CWL), sandbagging is getting worse each season ... so we believe it is going to take quite some time for CWL to reach its intended equilibrium unless something is done to mitigate the behavior ...

  4. #4
    I agree that something needs to be done, but not sure how to frame a solution. I think there are a couple things going on...one that's probably a natural migration of engineered bases that started very low in the ladder structure, and are now settling somewhere in the gold tiers. However, I also think that clans who have zero desire to chase the upper ladder tiers have realized (like the rest of us) that the medal differential is too big to risk moving up a tier.

    Let's use a move from Gold 2 to Gold 1 as an example (which happens to be where our clan is now). If your clan goes 5-2 at Gold 2, and you played every match, an average player probably scores about 16 stars and brings home 166 medals (ignore bonuses, but your clan would have 7 to hand out). You probably didn't move up with that record, so next CWL, you can do it again...play some of your lower villages for a couple matches to increase the likelihood that you lose (they try hard, but lose a match or two that you might have won if you played your "A team"). 166 medals every CWL.

    If you move to Gold 1, that same team likely goes 3-4 while average players have a tougher time scoring...maybe 12 stars. Result...117 medals (and only 5 bonuses to spread around). For playing hard and moving up, you were penalized 50 medals.

    If clans are using CWL rewards to grow their villages...which they SHOULD...there's really no incentive to move up. It's far more lucrative to stay put...make it hard on yourself to win once or twice (let your lower players pick up a few extra medals along the way), and collect bigger loot.

    The incentive to move up just isn't there. Even if you performed exactly the same from Gold 2 to Gold 1 (5-2 with 16 stars), your total medals only moves from 166 to 171. So...harder tier, tougher opponents for only +5 medals? No thanks, I'll stay here and play easier opponents for essentially the same loot.

    Until THAT problem is solved, we're gonna have to live with sandbagger clans. So far we haven't been one, but I'll admit...it sure looks like a good idea.
    Last edited by eghere; 1 Week Ago at 06:02 PM.

  5. #5
    Here's a random thought...

    Supercell knows the clan war weight (even though it's not used for ladder placement). How about using that info to seed the bracket 1-8, then awarding medals for finishing above seed, or penalizing medals for finishing below seed. That way it costs something for strong teams to sandbag and stay, vs presenting potential rewards for moving up as a low seed in the next bracket and finishing above seed.

  6. #6
    I like your seeding solution impacting the distribution of medals ... hopefully SUPERCELL is considering some tweaks for CWL ...

  7. #7
    rowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    On a lenghty sabbatical
    Posts
    9,264
    Quote Originally Posted by eghere View Post
    Here's a random thought...

    Supercell knows the clan war weight (even though it's not used for ladder placement). How about using that info to seed the bracket 1-8, then awarding medals for finishing above seed, or penalizing medals for finishing below seed. That way it costs something for strong teams to sandbag and stay, vs presenting potential rewards for moving up as a low seed in the next bracket and finishing above seed.
    Quote Originally Posted by DastardlyD View Post
    I like your seeding solution impacting the distribution of medals ... hopefully SUPERCELL is considering some tweaks for CWL ...
    My concern with using weight for any factoring ....

    My clan faces your clan. At the top I have a maxed out TH 12. Your clan has a TH 10 in the top spot. Because of that one superweight inclusion, my clan has an overall greater weight than yours. It overcompensates for the three 8s we have on the bottom, where you have two 9s, and a 10. Does my clan have a war advantage? No, we actually have a disadvantage. Yes, my 12 can beat up your 10, but in CWL each player gets one, and only one, attack. So while I get three stars at the top to your none, you get 9 at the bottom to our 2 to 6 stars total.

    Also, the fallicy with weighting, besides taking the team as a whole as opposed to "one on one" is that it only factors in defensive power, with no recognition of attacking power (which is difficult, if not impossible, to measure). That is why engineered bases exists today, it is possible to have someone who can throw a "heavyweight punch" weigh in as a "featherweight".
    Last edited by rowman; 6 Days Ago at 08:38 PM.
    Boom! Aimlessly adrift within the archapeligo
    Clash! ​Adult PuddleHop
    [#PR2P0R0C]
    And yes, that panda is indeed packing major heat! Visit my profile page
    /default photo album to see a larger image.


  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by eghere View Post
    I agree that something needs to be done, but not sure how to frame a solution. I think there are a couple things going on...one that's probably a natural migration of engineered bases that started very low in the ladder structure, and are now settling somewhere in the gold tiers. However, I also think that clans who have zero desire to chase the upper ladder tiers have realized (like the rest of us) that the medal differential is too big to risk moving up a tier.

    Let's use a move from Gold 2 to Gold 1 as an example (which happens to be where our clan is now). If your clan goes 5-2 at Gold 2, and you played every match, an average player probably scores about 16 stars and brings home 166 medals (ignore bonuses, but your clan would have 7 to hand out). You probably didn't move up with that record, so next CWL, you can do it again...play some of your lower villages for a couple matches to increase the likelihood that you lose (they try hard, but lose a match or two that you might have won if you played your "A team"). 166 medals every CWL.

    If you move to Gold 1, that same team likely goes 3-4 while average players have a tougher time scoring...maybe 12 stars. Result...117 medals (and only 5 bonuses to spread around). For playing hard and moving up, you were penalized 50 medals.

    If clans are using CWL rewards to grow their villages...which they SHOULD...there's really no incentive to move up. It's far more lucrative to stay put...make it hard on yourself to win once or twice (let your lower players pick up a few extra medals along the way), and collect bigger loot.

    The incentive to move up just isn't there. Even if you performed exactly the same from Gold 2 to Gold 1 (5-2 with 16 stars), your total medals only moves from 166 to 171. So...harder tier, tougher opponents for only +5 medals? No thanks, I'll stay here and play easier opponents for essentially the same loot.

    Until THAT problem is solved, we're gonna have to live with sandbagger clans. So far we haven't been one, but I'll admit...it sure looks like a good idea.
    They just need to make the levels more lucrative then the previous. Maybe make it so as long as you part you get a certain amount medals and not base anything off of stars. So in g3 you get 100 medals in g2 you get 120 in g1 you get 10 and so on.

    The only problem is no longer rewarding skill and is more of a participant trophy

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    93
    would supercell consider making the CWL war log permanently visible. Just like in sports your record is something you have to live with as the competition knows your history. Yes, some clans sandbag, but other clans like mine look like sandbaggers because I do a ton of recruiting to get a weight advantage. I would be more then willing to show my war log if other clans were required to show theirs. I want to know who the sandbaggers are so i can show them you don’t have to stay in the same leagues to get triples and good rewards!

  10. #10
    Agreed, weight is a tricky thing. I think it's also only worth talking about weight if it's done how originally seeded the ladder...according to the top 15 on your roster, not according to who is in for each match. It needs a static value for 1-8 seeding...can't be variable. Is there a better number to use for seeding (overall CWL win-loss % maybe?)? Obviously, the idea is to penalize teams that play consistently below their potential (over the course of 7 matches), and reward teams that play above their seeding. An argument could be made that the bonus for winning IS that reward, and giving up those medals by losing "on purpose" IS the penalty for sandbagging, but I don't think that's enough of a deterrent.
    Last edited by eghere; 5 Days Ago at 06:34 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •