Number of TW teams per zone needs to change

1373 posts Member
edited June 8
The number of TW teams per zone should be based on the guild with more players participating. Currently, each zone requires a number of teams equal to half the number of participating players for the guild with the lower number of players in the TW. For example, we had 49/50 join and have an active GP of approximately 164 mil. Our opponent has 48 players but there are only 20 teams per zone which means they only had 40 out of 48 join (they are an overall 196 mil GP guild to our 166 mil GP guild). Assuming the active GP is roughly the same, that's an average of 4.1 mil GP for them to 3.3 mil GP for us. They have 13 players in their guild with a higher GP than anyone in our guild...and presumably these players with the better rosters are not the ones sitting out the TW and so they have a huge edge in terms of DR, Malak, Padme, Han's Falcon, etc. Not only do they have a huge GP edge per player, but they now get a double advantage because there are less teams per zone which favors the guild with less players participating. If the zones required 24 or 25 teams per zone based upon our 49 participating players, they would have to place more teams on D and would need more teams on offense which would somewhat offset their big GP advantage per player.

If guilds can go into TWs leaner like this and drop their weaker rosters to get matched up with weaker guilds, they shouldn't get the advantage of a reduction in the number of battles.


  • All they need to do is change the rewards per tier more, make top tier 4 zeta for a win and 3 for loss and people would stop dropping a tier. Problem solved, not going to happen like that but we can wish.
  • Our guild goes into this TW with 41/50 signed up. Not every guild is doing this deliberately. TW is optional in our guild and many choose to sit out, usually due to RL commitments. Especially for the weekend TWs.

    Sounds a bit unfair that the rest of us have to suffer under your proposal.
  • Kisakee
    640 posts Member
    Your logic is just wrong. In fact the weaker guild would get better chances as the defense teams needed decrease as this means they have more to attack with. That means the stronger guild can't deploy much so their big roster will become unused and they lose their advantage of being developed better.

    If the number of defense teams needed would increase the weaker guild has to spare more units there and have less to attack with and the stronger guild just don't care as they have enough to deploy.
    You haven't thought this through.
    Never make the mistake of believing forbearance equates to acceptance, or that all positions are equally valid.
Sign In or Register to comment.