Territory Wars: Add More Tier Levels

I’m sure this has been brought up before but can we get additional tier levels past 160 million and above instead of lumping it as one tier? We are going against a guild that is over 42 million GP stronger than us. I fail to see what algorithm could be used to pair us.

Replies

  • GP reward tier has 0 impact on the matching algorithm.

    You are paired off active GP.

    You have to look at the following.

    What is each guilds total membership and GP?

    What is your guilds active membership and GP in the TW.

    How many spots are available to place squadrons in each territory. (It should be half -rounded up - of the active number of players in the guild with the fewer active members. If you are facing a total guild strength of 42M higher, they are almost certainly playing with fewer members - wether that is due to people being busy with life, or them intentionally ‘sandbagging’ to draw an easier match, who can say.)

    For example in my current TW

    My guild is 50 members with 152M GP. Their guild is 50 Members with 161M GP.

    We have 47 active members in the TW, with an active GP of 142.2M GP. (So should have 24 squadron slots available based off of us).

    However, there are only 22 slots available per territory, which tells me that they have no more than twice that number (44) of active participants, and it could only be 43.

    If I multiply their average GP per player (3.2M) times the definite 6 missing members I get 19.2 million. Then I subtract that from their total GP, and I get 141.8M (approximate) active GP for their guild. That is only 0.4 million less than our active GP of 142.2, that is pretty close!

    Now, the do have an approximate 200,000 thousand per player (average) advantage, which works out to 8-10 12 zeta’d characters (or two more viable squads) so even though they have less players, they also level the field by having generally stronger squads, and dictating the number of defenses we can set (that they have to overcome) because it is based on their number of active players.
    (They have more sniper rifles, we have more shotguns).

    Hope that makes sense.
  • That makes sense but you mentioned something that should be addressed. How many times is a guild dropping that much GP because of “Real Life Issues”? If you are in a guild of over 200m GP, you definitely have a player base that is hard core players and not on the casual side.
  • My understanding is that the ‘sandbagging’ practice isn’t really something they can do much about - how do you prove that it wasn’t just 10 people who had other obligations?

    And you do have more people, but it can definitely become more of using wooden spears against a tank (although that kinda worked out for the murder bears, I suppose...) at that GP differential than the sniper rifle vs shotgun analogy I used previously.

    I hear through the grapevine that 10 is the magic number for a 200M guild too. They drop 10 people (rotating) every raid to just land above the 160 threshold, and now you are playing 40 rosters worth of people with an 800,000 GP Average advantage (their 4M to your 3.2M) per player, and only on a field sized for them. This means they have a significant G12, zeta, mod, and roster depth advantage, virtually guaranteeing a win (and since 4 wins is 12 ‘certain’ zetas, versus only 10 if they participate at full strength and lose all 5, they actually wind up with slightly better loot for less effort and stress).

    It’s dodgy, but from a tactical standpoint it makes sense (I brought the strategy to my guild’s attention several months ago and we voted on it as an entire guild and decided we weren’t going to game the system like that, as it isn’t really fair to other players...), it’s smart, it’s just slimy.

    But I don’t see it changing anytime soon, so just suck it up and muscle through until you grow past that max reward target threshold and it should smooth out a little as you find more guilds that are closer to your true level is the only advice I can give you... at least 2 zetas for a loss isn’t terrible until then.

    (I know ‘git gud’ isnt much consolation... but it’s the best I can offer in this situation - since I would clearly never suggest that “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” is another possible course of action, and your guild should consider rotating players out to drop down to just over the 120M/3 zeta win threshold yourselves to take advantage of the same ‘exploit’ in the pairing algorithm... ‘cuz that just wouldn’t be right... so just to be crystal clear, I’m definitely neither suggesting nor advocating any such activity, got it?)

    That does make me realize that if they increased the reward tiers as in your original post, the problem would only propagate higher and higher up the food chain until you hit the ‘saturation limit’ (probably someplace in the 4.5M average GP vicinity) where the most commonly used teams and their counters are in everybody’s inventory and maxed out, and you are then limited by the available space on the TW board (and it just becomes a giant Arena where everything comes down to mods).
  • However, out of those 5 battles they stand a chance to win at least one, and in the other scenario they stand a risk of losing at least one against someone who plays the SAME trick. So it evens out. 3 wins, 1 loss, 1 skipped if you game it versus 4 losses and 1 win if you do not game it.
  • Actually it is pretty easy to stop, X/X guilds go against each other with similar GP. Then it matches based on GP AND how many members did not sign up X-Y/X. So your guilds dropping five members will be going against other guilds that have dropped five members and similar GP.
Sign In or Register to comment.