When guilds with 10-15 alts have those 10-15 alts sit out a TW.... That isnt a 'tw optional' guild. This is a guild that uses the alts for GP when it is useful, and doesnt use them when it is not useful. So they reap the rewards on TB's from having 50 members. They also reap the rewards on raids by having the alts sit out and thus increase the % of players getting good rewards on raids, no one wants to be a whale and then finish in the bottom 10% on a raid and by buffering with alts you 'solve' this problem while still using the advantage of their daily raid tickets. Then they reap the rewards on TW's from having 35-40 accounts of equal GP to 50 accounts which is ALWAYS an advantage. Hence the title, TW matchmaking needs a total overhaul. IE if a guild goes in with 35-40 accounts they need to be matched vs another guild with 35-40 accounts in the TW or as close to that as possible.
That seems like a pretty baseless assumption here. The guild here only has 2 low GP accounts which appear to be for raid tickets and those are like 700k GP combined so no real impact on matchmaking either way. You're suggesting that the game is rampant with guilds who have 10-15 people spending the time and effort to run alt accounts (and possibly money too) but the alts have to sit out TWs and raids? Lol, what would be the point of running an alt account if you lose out on all raid and TW rewards? That seems like a highly suspect claim with no real evidence to back it up. Here, the guild has only 2 players below 3.67 mil GP so if any of the other accounts are alts, that's a lot of effort to put into an alt account that isn't getting any raid or TW rewards, lol. There are several guilds that advertise as being TW optional and that's a much more likely scenario.
That seems like a pretty baseless assumption here. The guild here only has 2 low GP accounts which appear to be for raid tickets and those are like 700k GP combined so no real impact on matchmaking either way. You're suggesting that the game is rampant with guilds who have 10-15 people spending the time and effort to run alt accounts (and possibly money too) but the alts have to sit out TWs and raids? Lol, what would be the point of running an alt account if you lose out on all raid and TW rewards? That seems like a highly suspect claim with no real evidence to back it up. Here, the guild has only 2 players below 3.67 mil GP so if any of the other accounts are alts, that's a lot of effort to put into an alt account that isn't getting any raid or TW rewards, lol. There are several guilds that advertise as being TW optional and that's a much more likely scenario.
As already stated, I am not making a case vs 1 guild, it is a case vs the matchmaking system itself.
Also, most alts I know of are players who quit and gave their account to the guild to do whatever they want with.
If the point of a 2nd account is to have a 2nd main then its not an alt, its a 2nd main. An alt is there to either test things out with or feed a main at the expense of the alt.
The point that seems to be willfully ignored is that 40 players with a 4.5 mil GP average, will always beat 50 players with a 3.6 mil average and yet the matchmaking system is set up in a way that deliberately pairs those two together.
That seems like a pretty baseless assumption here. The guild here only has 2 low GP accounts which appear to be for raid tickets and those are like 700k GP combined so no real impact on matchmaking either way. You're suggesting that the game is rampant with guilds who have 10-15 people spending the time and effort to run alt accounts (and possibly money too) but the alts have to sit out TWs and raids? Lol, what would be the point of running an alt account if you lose out on all raid and TW rewards? That seems like a highly suspect claim with no real evidence to back it up. Here, the guild has only 2 players below 3.67 mil GP so if any of the other accounts are alts, that's a lot of effort to put into an alt account that isn't getting any raid or TW rewards, lol. There are several guilds that advertise as being TW optional and that's a much more likely scenario.
I really dont get why people keep getting hung up on this one guild, I am not making a case vs this one guild, I am making a case against the matchmaking system.
Alts are quite often, if not the majority of the time, players who quit and give away their account to someone else to play around on.... They are not some sacred object that years of time was put into by the person who is now controlling the account and using it to feed their main at the expense of their alt.
The point that is being willfully ignored is that 40 players with a 4.5 mil average will always beat 50 players with a 3.6 average and the current matchmaking system deliberately pairs these two together.
Why does it even matter if a guild deliberately games the system or not when the outcome is an unfair matchup in both cases? The entire "is sandbagging a real thing, Y/N" tangent is utterly pointless. Match guilds by total GP, problem solved. If officers can't whip their members into joining, the guild doesn't deserve a win against a better organized one.
Why does it even matter if a guild deliberately games the system or not when the outcome is an unfair matchup in both cases? The entire "is sandbagging a real thing, Y/N" tangent is utterly pointless. Match guilds by total GP, problem solved. If officers can't whip their members into joining, the guild doesn't deserve a win against a better organized one.
Guild member 1: I’m on a long-haul flight during next TW, so I won’t signup.
Guild member 2: It’s my wedding this weekend, so I’m not going to signup for TW.
Guild member 3: I’m running an Ultra Marathon at the weekend so I won’t signup for TW.
Guild member 4: My grandmother is really sick. Me and the family are keeping a bedside vigil so I won’t signup for TW.
Guild member 5: I have a really important exam on Monday, and I need to study all weekend so I’m not going to signup for TW.
Officers: man we are SO disorganised! Let’s whip those guys into shape!
The match guilds by total GP argument is short-sighted.
Yes, matchmaking should be taking account of how many signup as well as active GP. But matching on total GP does not solve the problem. It creates a new one.
If you truly are in a guild with 49 other people who have never had something crop up in real life that means signing up for TW makes them a deadweight @Darth_DeVito , then hats off to you.
I wonder though, how often your guild’s officers are disappointed with a handful of members who contribute little or nothing at all?
Making people signup when their ability to check TW regularly is limited is NOT good leadership. Changing the matchmaking to account only for total GP would be a backward step.
Why does it even matter if a guild deliberately games the system or not when the outcome is an unfair matchup in both cases? The entire "is sandbagging a real thing, Y/N" tangent is utterly pointless. Match guilds by total GP, problem solved. If officers can't whip their members into joining, the guild doesn't deserve a win against a better organized one.
Guild member 1: I’m on a long-haul flight during next TW, so I won’t signup.
Guild member 2: It’s my wedding this weekend, so I’m not going to signup for TW.
Guild member 3: I’m running an Ultra Marathon at the weekend so I won’t signup for TW.
Guild member 4: My grandmother is really sick. Me and the family are keeping a bedside vigil so I won’t signup for TW.
Guild member 5: I have a really important exam on Monday, and I need to study all weekend so I’m not going to signup for TW.
Officers: man we are SO disorganised! Let’s whip those guys into shape!
The match guilds by total GP argument is short-sighted.
Yes, matchmaking should be taking account of how many signup as well as active GP. But matching on total GP does not solve the problem. It creates a new one.
If you truly are in a guild with 49 other people who have never had something crop up in real life that means signing up for TW makes them a deadweight @Darth_DeVito , then hats off to you.
I wonder though, how often your guild’s officers are disappointed with a handful of members who contribute little or nothing at all?
Making people signup when their ability to check TW regularly is limited is NOT good leadership. Changing the matchmaking to account only for total GP would be a backward step.
If this is what happens in the vast majority of guilds, matchmaking by total GP shouldn't be a problem. Why shouldn't guilds who are less casual and more involved have an advantage?
Why does it even matter if a guild deliberately games the system or not when the outcome is an unfair matchup in both cases? The entire "is sandbagging a real thing, Y/N" tangent is utterly pointless. Match guilds by total GP, problem solved. If officers can't whip their members into joining, the guild doesn't deserve a win against a better organized one.
Guild member 1: I’m on a long-haul flight during next TW, so I won’t signup.
Guild member 2: It’s my wedding this weekend, so I’m not going to signup for TW.
Guild member 3: I’m running an Ultra Marathon at the weekend so I won’t signup for TW.
Guild member 4: My grandmother is really sick. Me and the family are keeping a bedside vigil so I won’t signup for TW.
Guild member 5: I have a really important exam on Monday, and I need to study all weekend so I’m not going to signup for TW.
Officers: man we are SO disorganised! Let’s whip those guys into shape!
The match guilds by total GP argument is short-sighted.
Yes, matchmaking should be taking account of how many signup as well as active GP. But matching on total GP does not solve the problem. It creates a new one.
If you truly are in a guild with 49 other people who have never had something crop up in real life that means signing up for TW makes them a deadweight @Darth_DeVito , then hats off to you.
I wonder though, how often your guild’s officers are disappointed with a handful of members who contribute little or nothing at all?
Making people signup when their ability to check TW regularly is limited is NOT good leadership. Changing the matchmaking to account only for total GP would be a backward step.
If this is what happens in the vast majority of guilds, matchmaking by total GP shouldn't be a problem. Why shouldn't guilds who are less casual and more involved have an advantage?
My guild is 49/50 with 217M GP. We’re gettinf 28* in GeoTB. Does that sound casual?
Why does it even matter if a guild deliberately games the system or not when the outcome is an unfair matchup in both cases? The entire "is sandbagging a real thing, Y/N" tangent is utterly pointless. Match guilds by total GP, problem solved. If officers can't whip their members into joining, the guild doesn't deserve a win against a better organized one.
Guild member 1: I’m on a long-haul flight during next TW, so I won’t signup.
Guild member 2: It’s my wedding this weekend, so I’m not going to signup for TW.
Guild member 3: I’m running an Ultra Marathon at the weekend so I won’t signup for TW.
Guild member 4: My grandmother is really sick. Me and the family are keeping a bedside vigil so I won’t signup for TW.
Guild member 5: I have a really important exam on Monday, and I need to study all weekend so I’m not going to signup for TW.
Officers: man we are SO disorganised! Let’s whip those guys into shape!
The match guilds by total GP argument is short-sighted.
Yes, matchmaking should be taking account of how many signup as well as active GP. But matching on total GP does not solve the problem. It creates a new one.
If you truly are in a guild with 49 other people who have never had something crop up in real life that means signing up for TW makes them a deadweight @Darth_DeVito , then hats off to you.
I wonder though, how often your guild’s officers are disappointed with a handful of members who contribute little or nothing at all?
Making people signup when their ability to check TW regularly is limited is NOT good leadership. Changing the matchmaking to account only for total GP would be a backward step.
If this is what happens in the vast majority of guilds, matchmaking by total GP shouldn't be a problem. Why shouldn't guilds who are less casual and more involved have an advantage?
My guild is 49/50 with 217M GP. We’re gettinf 28* in GeoTB. Does that sound casual?
TW is optional. This time 47/49 signed up.
Matching on total GP is NOT the solution.
If you go into TW with 47 members, I still don't see the problem. Like you said yourself, we currently have people who join for the rewards and fail to contribute, so there's dead weight either way and guild officers will eventually have to kick regular slackers in either scenario.
Besides, if someone can't find the time to participate in the attack phase, why not have them put their entire roster on defense? Placing defense takes 10 minutes. Someone who can't log in for 10 mins during their business or holiday trip or whatever can't make tickets either and has no place in any but the most casual of guilds. Guilds that shouldn't expect the same chance at TW rewards than achievement oriented guilds for the same reason a casual player cannot expect to beat a disciplined player with a highly focused roster in GAC, as this forum never tires to point out to people who complain about matchmaking.
If you go into TW with 47 members, I still don't see the problem. Like you said yourself, we currently have people who join for the rewards and fail to contribute, so there's dead weight either way and guild officers will eventually have to kick regular slackers in either scenario.
Besides, if someone can't find the time to participate in the attack phase, why not have them put their entire roster on defense? Placing defense takes 10 minutes. Someone who can't log in for 10 mins during their business or holiday trip or whatever can't make tickets either and has no place in any but the most casual of guilds. Guilds that shouldn't expect the same chance at TW rewards than achievement oriented guilds for the same reason a casual player cannot expect to beat a disciplined player with a highly focused roster in GAC, as this forum never tires to point out to people who complain about matchmaking.
In what way is there dead weight for us when 47/49 signup? All 47 set defensive teams, and 43 scored offensive banners. The reason the other 4 didn’t is that we cleared the board in <10 hours. In virtually every TW we run all players score offensive banners. Obliterating the enemy is the only reason we sometimes have members on 0. The 2 that didn’t sign up are absolutely not dead weight. When TB is on these guys score heavily in combats, complete specials and deploy when and where they’re supposed to. And it’s not every TW they skip. And they never miss tickets.
I’m surprised you can’t see the solution to your problem of having people signup for TW then not contribute. If they’re not going to be around for attack phase, they shouldn’t be signing up at all. If 50/50 sign up but a handful are not around for attack phase, it’s like you’re going into battle with one hand tied behind your back.
As for why not allow people to place everything on defence? That would lead to weaker than desirable defensive zones, and there would be far too many volunteers for that role. Our plan is simple: if you sign up, then your top line teams should 100% be available for clearing an enemy team, whether it’s needed or not.
You said earlier that guilds going into TW with <50 don’t deserve a win against a better organised guild. But then you’ve just admitted you have people signing up for TW but not contributing - something that never happens in my guild. I think I know which one is better organised.
You also imply that our guys that don’t sign up have no place in anything but a casual guild, yet we’ve won all bar 2 of our TWs since the start of February, and are earning top 200 guild rewards in TB.
Seriously - you should give it a try. Make the next TW optional, only letting people sign up if they’re going to be able to contribute to attack phase regularly. It might lower your stress levels and increase your success rate.
A simple fix would be to adapt the GAC matchmaking style to the TW matchmaking. GAC matchmaking has gotten much closer to even and difficult fights. So why not start a new invisible counter that counts guild TW wins and win margin. Then try to match guilds based on GP, and those stats?
That way as guilds win more TW they get more difficult matches with others who have won more TW. Those who lose more will eventually be matched with other guilds who also lose more. Eventually these numbers will balance out. At high end 160M GP + this will result in a lot more repeat battles, but that's because those guilds at the very top are few, and it's more fair for them to fight each other than to stomp lower guilds.
Also need a way to make it less appealing for guilds to drop a few members to match into an easier bracket.
A simple fix would be to adapt the GAC matchmaking style to the TW matchmaking. GAC matchmaking has gotten much closer to even and difficult fights. So why not start a new invisible counter that counts guild TW wins and win margin. Then try to match guilds based on GP, and those stats?
That way as guilds win more TW they get more difficult matches with others who have won more TW. Those who lose more will eventually be matched with other guilds who also lose more. Eventually these numbers will balance out. At high end 160M GP + this will result in a lot more repeat battles, but that's because those guilds at the very top are few, and it's more fair for them to fight each other than to stomp lower guilds.
Also need a way to make it less appealing for guilds to drop a few members to match into an easier bracket.
You assume those guilds want tough fights. Everyone wants the rewards but only some really want to earn them. We lost by 100 because they cleared negotiators cleaner then we did. Stuff happens.
Why does it even matter if a guild deliberately games the system or not when the outcome is an unfair matchup in both cases? The entire "is sandbagging a real thing, Y/N" tangent is utterly pointless. Match guilds by total GP, problem solved. If officers can't whip their members into joining, the guild doesn't deserve a win against a better organized one.
Guild member 1: I’m on a long-haul flight during next TW, so I won’t signup.
Guild member 2: It’s my wedding this weekend, so I’m not going to signup for TW.
Guild member 3: I’m running an Ultra Marathon at the weekend so I won’t signup for TW.
Guild member 4: My grandmother is really sick. Me and the family are keeping a bedside vigil so I won’t signup for TW.
Guild member 5: I have a really important exam on Monday, and I need to study all weekend so I’m not going to signup for TW.
Officers: man we are SO disorganised! Let’s whip those guys into shape!
The match guilds by total GP argument is short-sighted.
Yes, matchmaking should be taking account of how many signup as well as active GP. But matching on total GP does not solve the problem. It creates a new one.
If you truly are in a guild with 49 other people who have never had something crop up in real life that means signing up for TW makes them a deadweight @Darth_DeVito , then hats off to you.
I wonder though, how often your guild’s officers are disappointed with a handful of members who contribute little or nothing at all?
Making people signup when their ability to check TW regularly is limited is NOT good leadership. Changing the matchmaking to account only for total GP would be a backward step.
If this is what happens in the vast majority of guilds, matchmaking by total GP shouldn't be a problem. Why shouldn't guilds who are less casual and more involved have an advantage?
My guild is 49/50 with 217M GP. We’re gettinf 28* in GeoTB. Does that sound casual?
TW is optional. This time 47/49 signed up.
Matching on total GP is NOT the solution.
If you go into TW with 47 members, I still don't see the problem. Like you said yourself, we currently have people who join for the rewards and fail to contribute, so there's dead weight either way and guild officers will eventually have to kick regular slackers in either scenario.
Besides, if someone can't find the time to participate in the attack phase, why not have them put their entire roster on defense? Placing defense takes 10 minutes. Someone who can't log in for 10 mins during their business or holiday trip or whatever can't make tickets either and has no place in any but the most casual of guilds.
The point is, that many guilds made TW optional, and that works for them.
Also, I believe more guilds do this than sandbag with the sole purpose of gaining an advantage (yes, that's only an assumption)
Why does it even matter if a guild deliberately games the system or not when the outcome is an unfair matchup in both cases? The entire "is sandbagging a real thing, Y/N" tangent is utterly pointless. Match guilds by total GP, problem solved. If officers can't whip their members into joining, the guild doesn't deserve a win against a better organized one.
Guild member 1: I’m on a long-haul flight during next TW, so I won’t signup.
Guild member 2: It’s my wedding this weekend, so I’m not going to signup for TW.
Guild member 3: I’m running an Ultra Marathon at the weekend so I won’t signup for TW.
Guild member 4: My grandmother is really sick. Me and the family are keeping a bedside vigil so I won’t signup for TW.
Guild member 5: I have a really important exam on Monday, and I need to study all weekend so I’m not going to signup for TW.
Officers: man we are SO disorganised! Let’s whip those guys into shape!
The match guilds by total GP argument is short-sighted.
Yes, matchmaking should be taking account of how many signup as well as active GP. But matching on total GP does not solve the problem. It creates a new one.
If you truly are in a guild with 49 other people who have never had something crop up in real life that means signing up for TW makes them a deadweight @Darth_DeVito , then hats off to you.
I wonder though, how often your guild’s officers are disappointed with a handful of members who contribute little or nothing at all?
Making people signup when their ability to check TW regularly is limited is NOT good leadership. Changing the matchmaking to account only for total GP would be a backward step.
If this is what happens in the vast majority of guilds, matchmaking by total GP shouldn't be a problem. Why shouldn't guilds who are less casual and more involved have an advantage?
My guild is 49/50 with 217M GP. We’re gettinf 28* in GeoTB. Does that sound casual?
TW is optional. This time 47/49 signed up.
Matching on total GP is NOT the solution.
If you go into TW with 47 members, I still don't see the problem. Like you said yourself, we currently have people who join for the rewards and fail to contribute, so there's dead weight either way and guild officers will eventually have to kick regular slackers in either scenario.
Besides, if someone can't find the time to participate in the attack phase, why not have them put their entire roster on defense? Placing defense takes 10 minutes. Someone who can't log in for 10 mins during their business or holiday trip or whatever can't make tickets either and has no place in any but the most casual of guilds. Guilds that shouldn't expect the same chance at TW rewards than achievement oriented guilds for the same reason a casual player cannot expect to beat a disciplined player with a highly focused roster in GAC, as this forum never tires to point out to people who complain about matchmaking.
This. If I know I'm not going to be able to make the attack phase of a TW. I let the guild leader know and place everything I can on defense. This allows the guild as a whole to hold back more squads for offense since I can only contribute to the defense for that TW.
So.... 2 people give a response that would indicate they think I am somehow naive.... Do I then give a response that assumes that they are naive for thinking I am naive? How deep down the naive inception rabbit hole should we go?
When guilds with 10-15 alts have those 10-15 alts sit out a TW.... That isnt a 'tw optional' guild. This is a guild that uses the alts for GP when it is useful, and doesnt use them when it is not useful. So they reap the rewards on TB's from having 50 members. They also reap the rewards on raids by having the alts sit out and thus increase the % of players getting good rewards on raids, no one wants to be a whale and then finish in the bottom 10% on a raid and by buffering with alts you 'solve' this problem while still using the advantage of their daily raid tickets. Then they reap the rewards on TW's from having 35-40 accounts of equal GP to 50 accounts which is ALWAYS an advantage. Hence the title, TW matchmaking needs a total overhaul. IE if a guild goes in with 35-40 accounts they need to be matched vs another guild with 35-40 accounts in the TW or as close to that as possible.
Another way to look at it: When div 1 players who use 16 squads for GAC, go in with 40 members to a TW, they at most only need 10 of those 16 GAC squads for the tw (4-5 on D 4-5 on O not counting fleets). And when div 1 players with 40 members goes against div 3 players with 50..... They shockingly always win vs the div 3 players.
Just because there is an 'explanation' as to 'how' we got matched doesnt mean there is ANYTHING OK with this match up. Even then, I think you are giving way too much credit to the match making system. We have had many guilds with way more total GP than us and then when it starts all 50 members are attacking us. You are assuming a lot to think that it is impossible to get absurd GP imbalances. If there was just an easy fix it would of been to add more tiers, so after 160m there would be 180m, 200m, 220m etc. But again, I said it needs a complete overhaul as that isnt the only issue.
If nothing else, have the algorithm look at the % of active TW participants who are in div 1 and match them to another guild with a similar % in div 1 in the 160m+ bracket.
I’ve been saying this forever. To me it’s a form of cheating if your guild is that bad you start dropping players to get a favorable matchup.
Anymore than 2 people missing from a TW is a guild taking advantage of the system.
So.... 2 people give a response that would indicate they think I am somehow naive.... Do I then give a response that assumes that they are naive for thinking I am naive? How deep down the naive inception rabbit hole should we go?
When guilds with 10-15 alts have those 10-15 alts sit out a TW.... That isnt a 'tw optional' guild. This is a guild that uses the alts for GP when it is useful, and doesnt use them when it is not useful. So they reap the rewards on TB's from having 50 members. They also reap the rewards on raids by having the alts sit out and thus increase the % of players getting good rewards on raids, no one wants to be a whale and then finish in the bottom 10% on a raid and by buffering with alts you 'solve' this problem while still using the advantage of their daily raid tickets. Then they reap the rewards on TW's from having 35-40 accounts of equal GP to 50 accounts which is ALWAYS an advantage. Hence the title, TW matchmaking needs a total overhaul. IE if a guild goes in with 35-40 accounts they need to be matched vs another guild with 35-40 accounts in the TW or as close to that as possible.
Another way to look at it: When div 1 players who use 16 squads for GAC, go in with 40 members to a TW, they at most only need 10 of those 16 GAC squads for the tw (4-5 on D 4-5 on O not counting fleets). And when div 1 players with 40 members goes against div 3 players with 50..... They shockingly always win vs the div 3 players.
Just because there is an 'explanation' as to 'how' we got matched doesnt mean there is ANYTHING OK with this match up. Even then, I think you are giving way too much credit to the match making system. We have had many guilds with way more total GP than us and then when it starts all 50 members are attacking us. You are assuming a lot to think that it is impossible to get absurd GP imbalances. If there was just an easy fix it would of been to add more tiers, so after 160m there would be 180m, 200m, 220m etc. But again, I said it needs a complete overhaul as that isnt the only issue.
If nothing else, have the algorithm look at the % of active TW participants who are in div 1 and match them to another guild with a similar % in div 1 in the 160m+ bracket.
I’ve been saying this forever. To me it’s a form of cheating if your guild is that bad you start dropping players to get a favorable matchup.
Anymore than 2 people missing from a TW is a guild taking advantage of the system.
So.... 2 people give a response that would indicate they think I am somehow naive.... Do I then give a response that assumes that they are naive for thinking I am naive? How deep down the naive inception rabbit hole should we go?
When guilds with 10-15 alts have those 10-15 alts sit out a TW.... That isnt a 'tw optional' guild. This is a guild that uses the alts for GP when it is useful, and doesnt use them when it is not useful. So they reap the rewards on TB's from having 50 members. They also reap the rewards on raids by having the alts sit out and thus increase the % of players getting good rewards on raids, no one wants to be a whale and then finish in the bottom 10% on a raid and by buffering with alts you 'solve' this problem while still using the advantage of their daily raid tickets. Then they reap the rewards on TW's from having 35-40 accounts of equal GP to 50 accounts which is ALWAYS an advantage. Hence the title, TW matchmaking needs a total overhaul. IE if a guild goes in with 35-40 accounts they need to be matched vs another guild with 35-40 accounts in the TW or as close to that as possible.
Another way to look at it: When div 1 players who use 16 squads for GAC, go in with 40 members to a TW, they at most only need 10 of those 16 GAC squads for the tw (4-5 on D 4-5 on O not counting fleets). And when div 1 players with 40 members goes against div 3 players with 50..... They shockingly always win vs the div 3 players.
Just because there is an 'explanation' as to 'how' we got matched doesnt mean there is ANYTHING OK with this match up. Even then, I think you are giving way too much credit to the match making system. We have had many guilds with way more total GP than us and then when it starts all 50 members are attacking us. You are assuming a lot to think that it is impossible to get absurd GP imbalances. If there was just an easy fix it would of been to add more tiers, so after 160m there would be 180m, 200m, 220m etc. But again, I said it needs a complete overhaul as that isnt the only issue.
If nothing else, have the algorithm look at the % of active TW participants who are in div 1 and match them to another guild with a similar % in div 1 in the 160m+ bracket.
I’ve been saying this forever. To me it’s a form of cheating if your guild is that bad you start dropping players to get a favorable matchup.
Anymore than 2 people missing from a TW is a guild taking advantage of the system.
I’ll take “spurious made up accusations” for $100
Naww you have no clue what you are talking about. I have had numerous people tell me their guilds do that so they good rewards. As well as many of the guys that consistently post in the forums.
I’ll take Salas doesn’t get out much in the community for $200, Alex.
So.... 2 people give a response that would indicate they think I am somehow naive.... Do I then give a response that assumes that they are naive for thinking I am naive? How deep down the naive inception rabbit hole should we go?
When guilds with 10-15 alts have those 10-15 alts sit out a TW.... That isnt a 'tw optional' guild. This is a guild that uses the alts for GP when it is useful, and doesnt use them when it is not useful. So they reap the rewards on TB's from having 50 members. They also reap the rewards on raids by having the alts sit out and thus increase the % of players getting good rewards on raids, no one wants to be a whale and then finish in the bottom 10% on a raid and by buffering with alts you 'solve' this problem while still using the advantage of their daily raid tickets. Then they reap the rewards on TW's from having 35-40 accounts of equal GP to 50 accounts which is ALWAYS an advantage. Hence the title, TW matchmaking needs a total overhaul. IE if a guild goes in with 35-40 accounts they need to be matched vs another guild with 35-40 accounts in the TW or as close to that as possible.
Another way to look at it: When div 1 players who use 16 squads for GAC, go in with 40 members to a TW, they at most only need 10 of those 16 GAC squads for the tw (4-5 on D 4-5 on O not counting fleets). And when div 1 players with 40 members goes against div 3 players with 50..... They shockingly always win vs the div 3 players.
Just because there is an 'explanation' as to 'how' we got matched doesnt mean there is ANYTHING OK with this match up. Even then, I think you are giving way too much credit to the match making system. We have had many guilds with way more total GP than us and then when it starts all 50 members are attacking us. You are assuming a lot to think that it is impossible to get absurd GP imbalances. If there was just an easy fix it would of been to add more tiers, so after 160m there would be 180m, 200m, 220m etc. But again, I said it needs a complete overhaul as that isnt the only issue.
If nothing else, have the algorithm look at the % of active TW participants who are in div 1 and match them to another guild with a similar % in div 1 in the 160m+ bracket.
I’ve been saying this forever. To me it’s a form of cheating if your guild is that bad you start dropping players to get a favorable matchup.
Anymore than 2 people missing from a TW is a guild taking advantage of the system.
I’ll take “spurious made up accusations” for $100
Naww you have no clue what you are talking about. I have had numerous people tell me their guilds do that so they good rewards.
And I tell you that many guilds made joining TW voluntary for their members and that many guilds accept members being absent from TW for whatever reason.
So.... 2 people give a response that would indicate they think I am somehow naive.... Do I then give a response that assumes that they are naive for thinking I am naive? How deep down the naive inception rabbit hole should we go?
When guilds with 10-15 alts have those 10-15 alts sit out a TW.... That isnt a 'tw optional' guild. This is a guild that uses the alts for GP when it is useful, and doesnt use them when it is not useful. So they reap the rewards on TB's from having 50 members. They also reap the rewards on raids by having the alts sit out and thus increase the % of players getting good rewards on raids, no one wants to be a whale and then finish in the bottom 10% on a raid and by buffering with alts you 'solve' this problem while still using the advantage of their daily raid tickets. Then they reap the rewards on TW's from having 35-40 accounts of equal GP to 50 accounts which is ALWAYS an advantage. Hence the title, TW matchmaking needs a total overhaul. IE if a guild goes in with 35-40 accounts they need to be matched vs another guild with 35-40 accounts in the TW or as close to that as possible.
Another way to look at it: When div 1 players who use 16 squads for GAC, go in with 40 members to a TW, they at most only need 10 of those 16 GAC squads for the tw (4-5 on D 4-5 on O not counting fleets). And when div 1 players with 40 members goes against div 3 players with 50..... They shockingly always win vs the div 3 players.
Just because there is an 'explanation' as to 'how' we got matched doesnt mean there is ANYTHING OK with this match up. Even then, I think you are giving way too much credit to the match making system. We have had many guilds with way more total GP than us and then when it starts all 50 members are attacking us. You are assuming a lot to think that it is impossible to get absurd GP imbalances. If there was just an easy fix it would of been to add more tiers, so after 160m there would be 180m, 200m, 220m etc. But again, I said it needs a complete overhaul as that isnt the only issue.
If nothing else, have the algorithm look at the % of active TW participants who are in div 1 and match them to another guild with a similar % in div 1 in the 160m+ bracket.
I’ve been saying this forever. To me it’s a form of cheating if your guild is that bad you start dropping players to get a favorable matchup.
Anymore than 2 people missing from a TW is a guild taking advantage of the system.
I’ll take “spurious made up accusations” for $100
Naww you have no clue what you are talking about. I have had numerous people tell me their guilds do that so they good rewards. As well as many of the guys that consistently post in the forums.
I’ll take Salas doesn’t get out much in the community for $200, Alex.
Thanks for the personal attack @AndySCovell - always nice when someone stoops to that.
You are claiming that there are no set of circumstances ever that sees 3+ guild members who have a RL “thing” going on that means signing up for TW isn’t wise.
At the same time, you’re mocking me saying I have no clue, and need to get out more.
The irony in your position is making my head hurt. Not everyone eats sleeps and breathes this game.
Some people have to take long-haul flights, attend a wedding (maybe even their own), study for an important exam, go into hospital to have an operation, attend a funeral, care for a sick relative, go camping in the wilderness...
So numerous people have told you their guilds deliberately sandbag to get good rewards? Great. Here is one person telling you that TW is optional in their guild, and any time we go in with 3+ members missing there is absolutely nothing deliberate about it.
The discussion why players don't attend to a TW is completely unnecessary. It doesn't matter. What matters ist the fact, that the matchups of fewer players with a certain GM against more players with an equal amount of total GM are very much in favor of the guild with fewer participants. So if that problem, which is now adressed for many months, would be solved, sandbaggers could play in their sandbox as long as they wanted and voluntary signup would still be fine, as it should be.
My favorite solution would simply be to add or priorize the number of participants together with the active GM to find even matchups.
If you go into TW with 47 members, I still don't see the problem. Like you said yourself, we currently have people who join for the rewards and fail to contribute, so there's dead weight either way and guild officers will eventually have to kick regular slackers in either scenario.
Besides, if someone can't find the time to participate in the attack phase, why not have them put their entire roster on defense? Placing defense takes 10 minutes. Someone who can't log in for 10 mins during their business or holiday trip or whatever can't make tickets either and has no place in any but the most casual of guilds. Guilds that shouldn't expect the same chance at TW rewards than achievement oriented guilds for the same reason a casual player cannot expect to beat a disciplined player with a highly focused roster in GAC, as this forum never tires to point out to people who complain about matchmaking.
In what way is there dead weight for us when 47/49 signup? All 47 set defensive teams, and 43 scored offensive banners. The reason the other 4 didn’t is that we cleared the board in <10 hours. In virtually every TW we run all players score offensive banners. Obliterating the enemy is the only reason we sometimes have members on 0. The 2 that didn’t sign up are absolutely not dead weight. When TB is on these guys score heavily in combats, complete specials and deploy when and where they’re supposed to. And it’s not every TW they skip. And they never miss tickets.
I’m surprised you can’t see the solution to your problem of having people signup for TW then not contribute. If they’re not going to be around for attack phase, they shouldn’t be signing up at all. If 50/50 sign up but a handful are not around for attack phase, it’s like you’re going into battle with one hand tied behind your back.
As for why not allow people to place everything on defence? That would lead to weaker than desirable defensive zones, and there would be far too many volunteers for that role. Our plan is simple: if you sign up, then your top line teams should 100% be available for clearing an enemy team, whether it’s needed or not.
You said earlier that guilds going into TW with <50 don’t deserve a win against a better organised guild. But then you’ve just admitted you have people signing up for TW but not contributing - something that never happens in my guild. I think I know which one is better organised.
You also imply that our guys that don’t sign up have no place in anything but a casual guild, yet we’ve won all bar 2 of our TWs since the start of February, and are earning top 200 guild rewards in TB.
Seriously - you should give it a try. Make the next TW optional, only letting people sign up if they’re going to be able to contribute to attack phase regularly. It might lower your stress levels and increase your success rate.
I'm not sure what point you're even arguing anymore except against whatever I say out of principle with personal attacks on top. If your guild is well-organized and slacker-free, that's great! Props to you guys. Means you should have absolutely no problem winning TW matches based on total guild GP. I never said it would benefit my guild, only that guilds with a bunch of slackers have no reason to expect to win.
Why does it even matter if a guild deliberately games the system or not when the outcome is an unfair matchup in both cases? The entire "is sandbagging a real thing, Y/N" tangent is utterly pointless. Match guilds by total GP, problem solved. If officers can't whip their members into joining, the guild doesn't deserve a win against a better organized one.
Guild member 1: I’m on a long-haul flight during next TW, so I won’t signup.
Guild member 2: It’s my wedding this weekend, so I’m not going to signup for TW.
Guild member 3: I’m running an Ultra Marathon at the weekend so I won’t signup for TW.
Guild member 4: My grandmother is really sick. Me and the family are keeping a bedside vigil so I won’t signup for TW.
Guild member 5: I have a really important exam on Monday, and I need to study all weekend so I’m not going to signup for TW.
Officers: man we are SO disorganised! Let’s whip those guys into shape!
The match guilds by total GP argument is short-sighted.
Yes, matchmaking should be taking account of how many signup as well as active GP. But matching on total GP does not solve the problem. It creates a new one.
If you truly are in a guild with 49 other people who have never had something crop up in real life that means signing up for TW makes them a deadweight @Darth_DeVito , then hats off to you.
I wonder though, how often your guild’s officers are disappointed with a handful of members who contribute little or nothing at all?
Making people signup when their ability to check TW regularly is limited is NOT good leadership. Changing the matchmaking to account only for total GP would be a backward step.
If this is what happens in the vast majority of guilds, matchmaking by total GP shouldn't be a problem. Why shouldn't guilds who are less casual and more involved have an advantage?
My guild is 49/50 with 217M GP. We’re gettinf 28* in GeoTB. Does that sound casual?
TW is optional. This time 47/49 signed up.
Matching on total GP is NOT the solution.
If you go into TW with 47 members, I still don't see the problem. Like you said yourself, we currently have people who join for the rewards and fail to contribute, so there's dead weight either way and guild officers will eventually have to kick regular slackers in either scenario.
Besides, if someone can't find the time to participate in the attack phase, why not have them put their entire roster on defense? Placing defense takes 10 minutes. Someone who can't log in for 10 mins during their business or holiday trip or whatever can't make tickets either and has no place in any but the most casual of guilds.
The point is, that many guilds made TW optional, and that works for them.
Also, I believe more guilds do this than sandbag with the sole purpose of gaining an advantage (yes, that's only an assumption)
And my point is that guilds shouldn't be rewarded for having less participation. It's irrelevant if they're deliberately sandbagging or not, the fact remains that the current system rewards guilds with heavy hitters who always sign up for TW and a bunch of slackers or alt accounts who never do with easy matches. And that's not fair to the lower-GP guilds with high participation rates who are doomed to be those easy matches.
If you go into TW with 47 members, I still don't see the problem. Like you said yourself, we currently have people who join for the rewards and fail to contribute, so there's dead weight either way and guild officers will eventually have to kick regular slackers in either scenario.
Besides, if someone can't find the time to participate in the attack phase, why not have them put their entire roster on defense? Placing defense takes 10 minutes. Someone who can't log in for 10 mins during their business or holiday trip or whatever can't make tickets either and has no place in any but the most casual of guilds. Guilds that shouldn't expect the same chance at TW rewards than achievement oriented guilds for the same reason a casual player cannot expect to beat a disciplined player with a highly focused roster in GAC, as this forum never tires to point out to people who complain about matchmaking.
In what way is there dead weight for us when 47/49 signup? All 47 set defensive teams, and 43 scored offensive banners. The reason the other 4 didn’t is that we cleared the board in <10 hours. In virtually every TW we run all players score offensive banners. Obliterating the enemy is the only reason we sometimes have members on 0. The 2 that didn’t sign up are absolutely not dead weight. When TB is on these guys score heavily in combats, complete specials and deploy when and where they’re supposed to. And it’s not every TW they skip. And they never miss tickets.
I’m surprised you can’t see the solution to your problem of having people signup for TW then not contribute. If they’re not going to be around for attack phase, they shouldn’t be signing up at all. If 50/50 sign up but a handful are not around for attack phase, it’s like you’re going into battle with one hand tied behind your back.
As for why not allow people to place everything on defence? That would lead to weaker than desirable defensive zones, and there would be far too many volunteers for that role. Our plan is simple: if you sign up, then your top line teams should 100% be available for clearing an enemy team, whether it’s needed or not.
You said earlier that guilds going into TW with <50 don’t deserve a win against a better organised guild. But then you’ve just admitted you have people signing up for TW but not contributing - something that never happens in my guild. I think I know which one is better organised.
You also imply that our guys that don’t sign up have no place in anything but a casual guild, yet we’ve won all bar 2 of our TWs since the start of February, and are earning top 200 guild rewards in TB.
Seriously - you should give it a try. Make the next TW optional, only letting people sign up if they’re going to be able to contribute to attack phase regularly. It might lower your stress levels and increase your success rate.
I'm not sure what point you're even arguing anymore except against whatever I say out of principle with personal attacks on top. If your guild is well-organized and slacker-free, that's great! Props to you guys. Means you should have absolutely no problem winning TW matches based on total guild GP. I never said it would benefit my guild, only that guilds with a bunch of slackers have no reason to expect to win.
You’ll need to point out the “personal attacks” to me. I certainly didn’t intend to, and having re-read it many times I’m sure I haven’t - but please accept an apology if I’m misreading this @Darth_DeVito
We have a difference of opinion here.
I think it is unfair for the rest of the guild to be “punished” when 2 or 3 are not going to be available to contribute to TW. I just don’t think it’s right that their GP is included in matchmaking.
You think it is unfair for a guild with 50 signing up to be “punished” by facing a stronger guild who are going in a few members down.
I actually agree with you on that. But I don’t agree that the solution is to match on total GP. It should be matched on GP of signed up members AND number of signed up members. That solves the unfairness for both sides of this.
And as a fringe benefit, it also prevents the deliberate sandbaggers - who I’m quite sure do exist - from continuing to get easy match ups.
Another wonderful draw. 196M GP vs 225M GP
So why are we trying to develop purposefully so that a much bigger team will come and skip a few members just to say they have won again? Is that really okay?
Replies
That seems like a pretty baseless assumption here. The guild here only has 2 low GP accounts which appear to be for raid tickets and those are like 700k GP combined so no real impact on matchmaking either way. You're suggesting that the game is rampant with guilds who have 10-15 people spending the time and effort to run alt accounts (and possibly money too) but the alts have to sit out TWs and raids? Lol, what would be the point of running an alt account if you lose out on all raid and TW rewards? That seems like a highly suspect claim with no real evidence to back it up. Here, the guild has only 2 players below 3.67 mil GP so if any of the other accounts are alts, that's a lot of effort to put into an alt account that isn't getting any raid or TW rewards, lol. There are several guilds that advertise as being TW optional and that's a much more likely scenario.
As already stated, I am not making a case vs 1 guild, it is a case vs the matchmaking system itself.
Also, most alts I know of are players who quit and gave their account to the guild to do whatever they want with.
If the point of a 2nd account is to have a 2nd main then its not an alt, its a 2nd main. An alt is there to either test things out with or feed a main at the expense of the alt.
The point that seems to be willfully ignored is that 40 players with a 4.5 mil GP average, will always beat 50 players with a 3.6 mil average and yet the matchmaking system is set up in a way that deliberately pairs those two together.
I really dont get why people keep getting hung up on this one guild, I am not making a case vs this one guild, I am making a case against the matchmaking system.
Alts are quite often, if not the majority of the time, players who quit and give away their account to someone else to play around on.... They are not some sacred object that years of time was put into by the person who is now controlling the account and using it to feed their main at the expense of their alt.
The point that is being willfully ignored is that 40 players with a 4.5 mil average will always beat 50 players with a 3.6 average and the current matchmaking system deliberately pairs these two together.
Guild member 1: I’m on a long-haul flight during next TW, so I won’t signup.
Guild member 2: It’s my wedding this weekend, so I’m not going to signup for TW.
Guild member 3: I’m running an Ultra Marathon at the weekend so I won’t signup for TW.
Guild member 4: My grandmother is really sick. Me and the family are keeping a bedside vigil so I won’t signup for TW.
Guild member 5: I have a really important exam on Monday, and I need to study all weekend so I’m not going to signup for TW.
Officers: man we are SO disorganised! Let’s whip those guys into shape!
The match guilds by total GP argument is short-sighted.
Yes, matchmaking should be taking account of how many signup as well as active GP. But matching on total GP does not solve the problem. It creates a new one.
If you truly are in a guild with 49 other people who have never had something crop up in real life that means signing up for TW makes them a deadweight @Darth_DeVito , then hats off to you.
I wonder though, how often your guild’s officers are disappointed with a handful of members who contribute little or nothing at all?
Making people signup when their ability to check TW regularly is limited is NOT good leadership. Changing the matchmaking to account only for total GP would be a backward step.
If this is what happens in the vast majority of guilds, matchmaking by total GP shouldn't be a problem. Why shouldn't guilds who are less casual and more involved have an advantage?
My guild is 49/50 with 217M GP. We’re gettinf 28* in GeoTB. Does that sound casual?
TW is optional. This time 47/49 signed up.
Matching on total GP is NOT the solution.
If you go into TW with 47 members, I still don't see the problem. Like you said yourself, we currently have people who join for the rewards and fail to contribute, so there's dead weight either way and guild officers will eventually have to kick regular slackers in either scenario.
Besides, if someone can't find the time to participate in the attack phase, why not have them put their entire roster on defense? Placing defense takes 10 minutes. Someone who can't log in for 10 mins during their business or holiday trip or whatever can't make tickets either and has no place in any but the most casual of guilds. Guilds that shouldn't expect the same chance at TW rewards than achievement oriented guilds for the same reason a casual player cannot expect to beat a disciplined player with a highly focused roster in GAC, as this forum never tires to point out to people who complain about matchmaking.
I’m surprised you can’t see the solution to your problem of having people signup for TW then not contribute. If they’re not going to be around for attack phase, they shouldn’t be signing up at all. If 50/50 sign up but a handful are not around for attack phase, it’s like you’re going into battle with one hand tied behind your back.
As for why not allow people to place everything on defence? That would lead to weaker than desirable defensive zones, and there would be far too many volunteers for that role. Our plan is simple: if you sign up, then your top line teams should 100% be available for clearing an enemy team, whether it’s needed or not.
You said earlier that guilds going into TW with <50 don’t deserve a win against a better organised guild. But then you’ve just admitted you have people signing up for TW but not contributing - something that never happens in my guild. I think I know which one is better organised.
You also imply that our guys that don’t sign up have no place in anything but a casual guild, yet we’ve won all bar 2 of our TWs since the start of February, and are earning top 200 guild rewards in TB.
Seriously - you should give it a try. Make the next TW optional, only letting people sign up if they’re going to be able to contribute to attack phase regularly. It might lower your stress levels and increase your success rate.
That way as guilds win more TW they get more difficult matches with others who have won more TW. Those who lose more will eventually be matched with other guilds who also lose more. Eventually these numbers will balance out. At high end 160M GP + this will result in a lot more repeat battles, but that's because those guilds at the very top are few, and it's more fair for them to fight each other than to stomp lower guilds.
Also need a way to make it less appealing for guilds to drop a few members to match into an easier bracket.
You assume those guilds want tough fights. Everyone wants the rewards but only some really want to earn them. We lost by 100 because they cleared negotiators cleaner then we did. Stuff happens.
The point is, that many guilds made TW optional, and that works for them.
Also, I believe more guilds do this than sandbag with the sole purpose of gaining an advantage (yes, that's only an assumption)
This. If I know I'm not going to be able to make the attack phase of a TW. I let the guild leader know and place everything I can on defense. This allows the guild as a whole to hold back more squads for offense since I can only contribute to the defense for that TW.
I’ve been saying this forever. To me it’s a form of cheating if your guild is that bad you start dropping players to get a favorable matchup.
Anymore than 2 people missing from a TW is a guild taking advantage of the system.
I’ll take “spurious made up accusations” for $100
Naww you have no clue what you are talking about. I have had numerous people tell me their guilds do that so they good rewards. As well as many of the guys that consistently post in the forums.
I’ll take Salas doesn’t get out much in the community for $200, Alex.
It’s sad guilds do this too. I agree with the OP to match up based on number of players first and then GP. That’s would be better.
Or it's just 3+ guild members not joining the TW for whatever other reason than taking advantage of the system.
And I tell you that many guilds made joining TW voluntary for their members and that many guilds accept members being absent from TW for whatever reason.
You are claiming that there are no set of circumstances ever that sees 3+ guild members who have a RL “thing” going on that means signing up for TW isn’t wise.
At the same time, you’re mocking me saying I have no clue, and need to get out more.
The irony in your position is making my head hurt. Not everyone eats sleeps and breathes this game.
Some people have to take long-haul flights, attend a wedding (maybe even their own), study for an important exam, go into hospital to have an operation, attend a funeral, care for a sick relative, go camping in the wilderness...
So numerous people have told you their guilds deliberately sandbag to get good rewards? Great. Here is one person telling you that TW is optional in their guild, and any time we go in with 3+ members missing there is absolutely nothing deliberate about it.
My favorite solution would simply be to add or priorize the number of participants together with the active GM to find even matchups.
So you will have 45, 42 or even 39 in TW, and the opponent will be weaker.
I'm not sure what point you're even arguing anymore except against whatever I say out of principle with personal attacks on top. If your guild is well-organized and slacker-free, that's great! Props to you guys. Means you should have absolutely no problem winning TW matches based on total guild GP. I never said it would benefit my guild, only that guilds with a bunch of slackers have no reason to expect to win.
And my point is that guilds shouldn't be rewarded for having less participation. It's irrelevant if they're deliberately sandbagging or not, the fact remains that the current system rewards guilds with heavy hitters who always sign up for TW and a bunch of slackers or alt accounts who never do with easy matches. And that's not fair to the lower-GP guilds with high participation rates who are doomed to be those easy matches.
We have a difference of opinion here.
I think it is unfair for the rest of the guild to be “punished” when 2 or 3 are not going to be available to contribute to TW. I just don’t think it’s right that their GP is included in matchmaking.
You think it is unfair for a guild with 50 signing up to be “punished” by facing a stronger guild who are going in a few members down.
I actually agree with you on that. But I don’t agree that the solution is to match on total GP. It should be matched on GP of signed up members AND number of signed up members. That solves the unfairness for both sides of this.
And as a fringe benefit, it also prevents the deliberate sandbaggers - who I’m quite sure do exist - from continuing to get easy match ups.
What bot are you using for the matchmaking comparison?
So why are we trying to develop purposefully so that a much bigger team will come and skip a few members just to say they have won again? Is that really okay?