Also just to be clear more average GP is a advantage yes absolutely but there is no way to control it...
As soon as they announce a change to match based on average GP that will open up the ability to actually exploit the system and I will immediately start 10 alts and joining our guild at level 23 because that will be the most effective way... maybe split to 2 guilds of 25 people with 25 alts at level 23. Think about that.
A change to the ToS because of this? I wouldn't hold my breath. Also, as already pointed out earlier in this discussion, how would they distinguish between deliberate sandbagging and a simple "no join" for other reasons?
Judging by the official responses so far, I don't believe the developers are all that much against sandbagging.
You may have seen more than me, but last I saw they weren't particularly convinced it helped I don't think, though it was long enough ago that I'd have no chance of finding the thread. Still my question stands though, where is the proof that this helps if there are stories to suggest it doesn't?
I believe there are far more stories/reports/posts to suggest that it can be an advantage. I can add my own experience:
Last summer in a guild that struggled recruiting and only had about 42 members and 2 ticket bot alts we usually went in 36-38 in TW for several months. We steam rolled every TW with no struggle at all and met near full opponent guilds. That same guild has been full for months now with near full participation. We've had a loooong winning streak (which we make an effort to achieve) only broken by a loss to a far higher total GP guild (RF Niman), that went in shorthanded (for whatever reason) and beat us. Yes, I'm convinced that having a significantly higher average GP is an advantage.
Scientific proof? I haven't seen any, so repeating your question is pointless.
Is it really worth the effort to have a chance at a possible advantage that often doesn't pan out if a set of criteria that are outside of your control also happen to be met? Certainly doesn't suggest the resounding guaranteed losses some people do claim, whether you want to admit it or not. Makes me wonder how many of these actual examples of guilds doing it are a tail-wags-dog scenario.
Whether it's worth it for those guilds is irrelevant to me. I'll leave it for those guilds to decide.
The reason you are stuck on this is because a long winning streak (props on that) ended due to one instance of a guild with higher avg GP happened to match with you. You think (and it may be true) that in a vacuum this is helpful to guilds.... Personally I would leave a guild that asked me to sit out... I think that it is detrimental to the guild's long-term health. Think about being forced to sit out, then your guild losing... Now you just threw away rewards for no reason.
Who cares what the intention of the 'sandbagging' guild is. Whether they sit players out on purpose or if it's because people forgot, or they just don't have a full guild is irrelevant.
From a matchmaking point of view the intent is irrelevant, yes. From a "cheating / gaming the system" point of view it's not.
Fix the system so it can't be gamed then.
What would you propose? even the idea of matching on average GP can fail. The guild that intentionally sandbags could just bring in 40 actual members with 200m gp, and 10 alts with a combined few million GP. Effectively they would have 5m GP per member, but the algorithm would show them having like 4m.
I 100% agree with you on this. I was going to mention in my other post but didn't want to get too long winded.
This is what makes this a complicated issue and I don't have all the answers. Let's take a scenario where you have 2 guilds at 250m gp and both join TW at full strength. One guild has 25 members at 6m gp and 25 members at 25 at 4m gp. The second guild has 50 members at 5m gp. Which guild has the advantage? The one first one will win every time assuming equal levels of participation. How do we fix this scenario? No idea Some sort of weighting would have be done based on relics/mods/meta characters. It goes beyond just GP and I understand why CG hasn't done much about it. It's much easier to to deal with GAC which is comparing single rosters. This is still something that needs to be addressed though.
The first one will not win every time. a 5 mil account should still have good teams to counter the 6s. Plus the advantage the 5 mil has on the 4 mil accounts should come into play. If you have 50 people at 5 million but can't break through walls then those accounts do not have enough meta teams. All the current meta teams can be fit within a few million gp, not 5-6.
I believe there are far more stories/reports/posts to suggest that it can be an advantage. I can add my own experience:
Last summer in a guild that struggled recruiting and only had about 42 members and 2 ticket bot alts we usually went in 36-38 in TW for several months. We steam rolled every TW with no struggle at all and met near full opponent guilds. That same guild has been full for months now with near full participation. We've had a loooong winning streak (which we make an effort to achieve) only broken by a loss to a far higher total GP guild (RF Niman), that went in shorthanded (for whatever reason) and beat us. Yes, I'm convinced that having a significantly higher average GP is an advantage.
Scientific proof? I haven't seen any, so repeating your question is pointless.
Whether it's worth it for those guilds is irrelevant to me. I'll leave it for those guilds to decide.
I'd agree there are more posts, but in the same way there are more posts complaining about anything than defending it. Someone who has either a genuine or perceived problem is more likely to complain about it than someone without one comment about how fair it is, hence the forums are such a toxic place so often, my experience suggests it makes no difference, but that doesn't mean that's true, it just means the more extreme someone else's opinion (most more than yours), the more likely it is to be false.
Thank you for actually answering about the proof though, until now it's just been brushed off as far as I've seen, hence it was worth repeating.
Also that was kind of a rhetorical question to get the rest of the point across that you didn't comment on funnily enough, but that's very accepting of you. Well done.
- We had 47/50, they had 43/50 or 44/50 (22 defence slots per zone)
- Total GP we have 239M, they have 255M
- we won 19004 v 18938
My queries are as follows:
- we "sandbagged", by going in with <50. How come we didn't get matched with a smaller GP guild? Did we not "sandbag" enough? If not, how would we know in advance how many members should not signup so that we do get matched with a lower GP guild?
- they "sandbagged", by going in with <50. They did get matched with a smaller GP guild, but it obviously wasn't an easier match, as they lost. Did they not "sandbag" enough? Or did they "sandbag" too much? What should they do next time in order to get an easy match?
I am of course being obtuse. People in this threads deal in absolutes, I'm just trying to point out that they are wrong to do so
and no disrespect intended toward our opponent. It was a great match and they set a very tough defence, we just beat them on efficiency
Who claims you're guaranteed a win, when you sandbag (or go in shorthanded or whatever)? Who claims that you're guaranteed to get matched with a non-sandbagging guild? Yes, you increase your chances to have an advantage but where do you see this claim of a guarantee?
We all know that nothing is guaranteed (other than being matched on active GP). All we need now is for you to understand, that everyone knows, and hopefully stop flooding these threads with this nonsense.
You should read the spoilers, and the rest of the thread @Waqui - sorry if the subtle nuance was too much for you.
I know full well these things aren't guaranteed. But many others in this thread make these claims:
- "if a guild has <50 signup they get a lower GP guild so they get an easier matchup"
My post is simply to highlight that nothing is guaranteed.
And everybody knows, that nothing is guaranteed. Knowing this, they can still aim to have an easier / different match-up - which apparently is too difficult for you to understand.
So the argument is that people are demanding guild members do not register for TW and forfeit their rewards all so other guild members can aim to maybe get a easier matchup?
If you quit your job you increase your chances to win the lotto.
The point is people not signing up (sandbagging) doesn't give an advantage to a guild just like quitting you job doesnt effect you shot at winning lotto.
Tw matching is a lottery and guilds have 0 control over who they are matched with. Guilds can not control if their opponent guild is more or less gp than their guild... ever ... in any situation.
We all know, that there's no guaranteed advantage when sandbagging. There's no need to go all DarjeloSalas on this. We all know this. Yet sandbagging increases the chance of having a higher average GP than your opponent.
Whether some players accept being asked to not join is their own personal choice and completely irrelevant to this discussion.
We just have to disagree on this then.
If you go in with 40 (sandbagging) you have a 50% chance to draw a guild with higher average gp and a 50% chance to draw a guild with lower average gp.
Maybe you face a 35 man guild... maybe you face a 45 man guild...
I do not see how you can say Yet sandbagging increases the chance of having a higher average GP than your opponent. and expect people to beleive it without showing proof.
Also... proof is not only looking at one side of the equation. Please dont say if your 40 people and 200m and fight a 45 person 200m that's proof of an advantage because it is NOT. It's a one sided analysis that totally ignores the possibility your matched against a 35 man 200m gp guild.
But when they use math, the end result shows they need a better strategy in TW. They want to get reinforcement that they are perfect and "gaming the system" is the only way they could be beat, because how could someone possibly out-think or out-play them?
If you go in with 40 (sandbagging) you have a 50% chance to draw a guild with higher average gp and a 50% chance to draw a guild with lower average gp.
Being a bit pedantic, but this is almost certainly untrue. The chances will at the simplest level be based on the proportion of guilds with more or less participation, which is unlikely to be 50% for any given participation level and GP, and it's quite possible there are matchmaking factors we don't know about that would further skew or balance those results. Sort of reinforces the point though as you can't even toss a coin to suggest better matchups, you have literally no clue what might happen.
If you go in with 40 (sandbagging) you have a 50% chance to draw a guild with higher average gp and a 50% chance to draw a guild with lower average gp.
Being a bit pedantic, but this is almost certainly untrue. The chances will at the simplest level be based on the proportion of guilds with more or less participation, which is unlikely to be 50% for any given participation level and GP, and it's quite possible there are matchmaking factors we don't know about that would further skew or balance those results. Sort of reinforces the point though as you can't even toss a coin to suggest better matchups, you have literally no clue what might happen.
Yes it's only 50/50 if the proportion of guilds with more gp is the same as the proportion of guild with less GP.
I think your missing my point arguing technicalities on the accuracy of me saying it is 50% it could be 52/48 or 60/40 or 30/70 based on the entire universe of all guilds registered and how many signed up in each.
My point is that you cant control if you have more or less average GP than opponent guild.
Just forget I said its 50/50 for a minute and let's think about it another way without any numbers.... having less members doesnt increase or decrease your chances at getting matched against a guild with more or less average GP.
If you have more or less average GP is something that can not be controlled by guilds even if they are foolishly restricting the number of people who sign up and openly telling others this is why they are doing it dont get trolled and triggered by them. They are not manipulating their matchups to give them a GP advantage.
What's happening is whenever there is a gp discrepancy or a blowout people run here to blame it on sandbagging.
On the other hand - When there is a close match or a even match people are much less likely to come to forums and broadcast what happened to everyone.
What's ironic is the fix - using average GP - is actually a method that can be controlled and manipulated to ensure a GP advantage so what's really going on is all these people are just sick of losing and hoping CG makes a change that will allow them to game the system for their benefit.
If a guild goes in at 50/50, they have absolutely no chance of being matched with a lower total GP guild than them. They could be matched with a short handed higher GP guild, or a similar full guild - but a lower total GP guild is off the table.
As soon as you go in <50, the chance of being matched with a smaller total GP guild becomes an option. Sure, a similar GP guild and a larger GP guild are still possible, but the only way a guild has any chance of facing a lower GP guild is to go in with < 50 signed up.
If a guild goes in at 50/50, they have absolutely no chance of being matched with a lower total GP guild than them. .
Not totally true when you get to the very high GP guilds. Otherwise the top 2 GP guilds would always face off against each other every TW. But I am pretty sure that's not the case. But for many lower to mid class GP levels, you are likely correct.
- We had 47/50, they had 43/50 or 44/50 (22 defence slots per zone)
- Total GP we have 239M, they have 255M
- we won 19004 v 18938
My queries are as follows:
- we "sandbagged", by going in with <50. How come we didn't get matched with a smaller GP guild? Did we not "sandbag" enough? If not, how would we know in advance how many members should not signup so that we do get matched with a lower GP guild?
- they "sandbagged", by going in with <50. They did get matched with a smaller GP guild, but it obviously wasn't an easier match, as they lost. Did they not "sandbag" enough? Or did they "sandbag" too much? What should they do next time in order to get an easy match?
I am of course being obtuse. People in this threads deal in absolutes, I'm just trying to point out that they are wrong to do so
and no disrespect intended toward our opponent. It was a great match and they set a very tough defence, we just beat them on efficiency
Who claims you're guaranteed a win, when you sandbag (or go in shorthanded or whatever)? Who claims that you're guaranteed to get matched with a non-sandbagging guild? Yes, you increase your chances to have an advantage but where do you see this claim of a guarantee?
We all know that nothing is guaranteed (other than being matched on active GP). All we need now is for you to understand, that everyone knows, and hopefully stop flooding these threads with this nonsense.
You should read the spoilers, and the rest of the thread @Waqui - sorry if the subtle nuance was too much for you.
I know full well these things aren't guaranteed. But many others in this thread make these claims:
- "if a guild has <50 signup they get a lower GP guild so they get an easier matchup"
My post is simply to highlight that nothing is guaranteed.
And everybody knows, that nothing is guaranteed. Knowing this, they can still aim to have an easier / different match-up - which apparently is too difficult for you to understand.
So the argument is that people are demanding guild members do not register for TW and forfeit their rewards all so other guild members can aim to maybe get a easier matchup?
If you quit your job you increase your chances to win the lotto.
The point is people not signing up (sandbagging) doesn't give an advantage to a guild just like quitting you job doesnt effect you shot at winning lotto.
Tw matching is a lottery and guilds have 0 control over who they are matched with. Guilds can not control if their opponent guild is more or less gp than their guild... ever ... in any situation.
We all know, that there's no guaranteed advantage when sandbagging. There's no need to go all DarjeloSalas on this. We all know this. Yet sandbagging increases the chance of having a higher average GP than your opponent.
Whether some players accept being asked to not join is their own personal choice and completely irrelevant to this discussion.
We just have to disagree on this then.
If you go in with 40 (sandbagging) you have a 50% chance to draw a guild with higher average gp and a 50% chance to draw a guild with lower average gp.
50/50? That depends on the relative sizes of the three pools of guilds participating in TW:
A. Matching active GP - lower average GP
B. Matching active GP - higher average GP
C. Matching active GP and average GP.
It's not as simple as a 50/50 chance. However, if you have full participation (50 members) you have 0% chance of being matched with a guild of lower average GP. That's for sure.
Maybe you face a 35 man guild... maybe you face a 45 man guild...
I do not see how you can say Yet sandbagging increases the chance of having a higher average GP than your opponent. and expect people to beleive it without showing proof.
Of course, I can - because it's true and quite simple logic. As stated above, the chance is 0% if your guild has 50 members joining and if your guild has less members joining, you will at least have some chance of having higher average GP than your opponent.
Also... proof is not only looking at one side of the equation.
A change to the ToS because of this? I wouldn't hold my breath. Also, as already pointed out earlier in this discussion, how would they distinguish between deliberate sandbagging and a simple "no join" for other reasons?
Judging by the official responses so far, I don't believe the developers are all that much against sandbagging.
You may have seen more than me, but last I saw they weren't particularly convinced it helped I don't think, though it was long enough ago that I'd have no chance of finding the thread. Still my question stands though, where is the proof that this helps if there are stories to suggest it doesn't?
I believe there are far more stories/reports/posts to suggest that it can be an advantage. I can add my own experience:
Last summer in a guild that struggled recruiting and only had about 42 members and 2 ticket bot alts we usually went in 36-38 in TW for several months. We steam rolled every TW with no struggle at all and met near full opponent guilds. That same guild has been full for months now with near full participation. We've had a loooong winning streak (which we make an effort to achieve) only broken by a loss to a far higher total GP guild (RF Niman), that went in shorthanded (for whatever reason) and beat us. Yes, I'm convinced that having a significantly higher average GP is an advantage.
Scientific proof? I haven't seen any, so repeating your question is pointless.
Is it really worth the effort to have a chance at a possible advantage that often doesn't pan out if a set of criteria that are outside of your control also happen to be met? Certainly doesn't suggest the resounding guaranteed losses some people do claim, whether you want to admit it or not. Makes me wonder how many of these actual examples of guilds doing it are a tail-wags-dog scenario.
Whether it's worth it for those guilds is irrelevant to me. I'll leave it for those guilds to decide.
The reason you are stuck on this is because a long winning streak (props on that) ended due to one instance of a guild with higher avg GP happened to match with you.
You're forgetting our long string of effortless victories when playing shorthanded (yes, completely effortless, even if sometimes 10 of us didn't even attack a single enemy). I have experience from both ends of the stick. My belief is based on both.
But ok, I can't prove I'm right - but neither can you, so here we are.
The only fact is, that I'm convinced.
You think (and it may be true) that in a vacuum this is helpful to guilds.... Personally I would leave a guild that asked me to sit out... I think that it is detrimental to the guild's long-term health. Think about being forced to sit out, then your guild losing... Now you just threw away rewards for no reason.
I've never been in a guild that forced members to sit out. If a guild do this, it's their choice.
I believe there are far more stories/reports/posts to suggest that it can be an advantage. I can add my own experience:
Last summer in a guild that struggled recruiting and only had about 42 members and 2 ticket bot alts we usually went in 36-38 in TW for several months. We steam rolled every TW with no struggle at all and met near full opponent guilds. That same guild has been full for months now with near full participation. We've had a loooong winning streak (which we make an effort to achieve) only broken by a loss to a far higher total GP guild (RF Niman), that went in shorthanded (for whatever reason) and beat us. Yes, I'm convinced that having a significantly higher average GP is an advantage.
Scientific proof? I haven't seen any, so repeating your question is pointless.
Whether it's worth it for those guilds is irrelevant to me. I'll leave it for those guilds to decide.
I'd agree there are more posts, but in the same way there are more posts complaining about anything than defending it. Someone who has either a genuine or perceived problem is more likely to complain about it than someone without one comment about how fair it is, hence the forums are such a toxic place so often, my experience suggests it makes no difference, but that doesn't mean that's true just means the more extreme someone else's opinion (most more than yours), the more likely it is to be false.
Thank you for actually answering about the proof though, until now it's just been brushed off as far as I've seen, hence it was worth repeating.
Perhaps it was brushed off because the answer was trivial?
But you're welcome anyway.
- We had 47/50, they had 43/50 or 44/50 (22 defence slots per zone)
- Total GP we have 239M, they have 255M
- we won 19004 v 18938
My queries are as follows:
- we "sandbagged", by going in with <50. How come we didn't get matched with a smaller GP guild? Did we not "sandbag" enough? If not, how would we know in advance how many members should not signup so that we do get matched with a lower GP guild?
- they "sandbagged", by going in with <50. They did get matched with a smaller GP guild, but it obviously wasn't an easier match, as they lost. Did they not "sandbag" enough? Or did they "sandbag" too much? What should they do next time in order to get an easy match?
I am of course being obtuse. People in this threads deal in absolutes, I'm just trying to point out that they are wrong to do so
and no disrespect intended toward our opponent. It was a great match and they set a very tough defence, we just beat them on efficiency
Who claims you're guaranteed a win, when you sandbag (or go in shorthanded or whatever)? Who claims that you're guaranteed to get matched with a non-sandbagging guild? Yes, you increase your chances to have an advantage but where do you see this claim of a guarantee?
We all know that nothing is guaranteed (other than being matched on active GP). All we need now is for you to understand, that everyone knows, and hopefully stop flooding these threads with this nonsense.
You should read the spoilers, and the rest of the thread @Waqui - sorry if the subtle nuance was too much for you.
I know full well these things aren't guaranteed. But many others in this thread make these claims:
- "if a guild has <50 signup they get a lower GP guild so they get an easier matchup"
My post is simply to highlight that nothing is guaranteed.
And everybody knows, that nothing is guaranteed. Knowing this, they can still aim to have an easier / different match-up - which apparently is too difficult for you to understand.
So the argument is that people are demanding guild members do not register for TW and forfeit their rewards all so other guild members can aim to maybe get a easier matchup?
If you quit your job you increase your chances to win the lotto.
The point is people not signing up (sandbagging) doesn't give an advantage to a guild just like quitting you job doesnt effect you shot at winning lotto.
Tw matching is a lottery and guilds have 0 control over who they are matched with. Guilds can not control if their opponent guild is more or less gp than their guild... ever ... in any situation.
We all know, that there's no guaranteed advantage when sandbagging. There's no need to go all DarjeloSalas on this. We all know this. Yet sandbagging increases the chance of having a higher average GP than your opponent.
Whether some players accept being asked to not join is their own personal choice and completely irrelevant to this discussion.
We just have to disagree on this then.
If you go in with 40 (sandbagging) you have a 50% chance to draw a guild with higher average gp and a 50% chance to draw a guild with lower average gp.
50/50? That depends on the relative sizes of the three pools of guilds participating in TW:
A. Matching active GP - lower average GP
B. Matching active GP - higher average GP
C. Matching active GP and average GP.
It's not as simple as a 50/50 chance. However, if you have full participation (50 members) you have 0% chance of being matched with a guild of lower average GP. That's for sure.
Maybe you face a 35 man guild... maybe you face a 45 man guild...
I do not see how you can say Yet sandbagging increases the chance of having a higher average GP than your opponent. and expect people to beleive it without showing proof.
Of course, I can - because it's true and quite simple logic. As stated above, the chance is 0% if your guild has 50 members joining and if your guild has less members joining, you will at least have some chance of having higher average GP than your opponent.
Also... proof is not only looking at one side of the equation.
And nor have I claimed to provide scientific proof.
So your saying it's impossible for a guild with 50/50 to get matched vs a guild with lower average GP?
You said However, if you have full participation (50 members) you have 0% chance of being matched with a guild of lower average GP. That's for sure.
I will prove this wrong 2 ways just consider this...
1.
If your 50/50 and 250m gp and you get matched against a guild with a guild that 49/50 and has 239m gp who has more average GP? The 50 man guild or the 49 man guild?
It can and does happen. The average GP is close enough to call even in this case but I'm not done...
2.
Another scenario
what if a guild of 25 people all with 4m gp accounts all start alt account and add them to the guild at level 23. The guild has 100m gp maybe 101m with the 25 alts but essentially they are 4m average GP since the alts wont place any D or kill anything the alts are just there to add to the # of registered to hopefully draw another guild with near 50 people registered.
If this guild has 50/50 they will get placed vs other guilds with around 100m active gp also if they have 50 registered they will likely draw a guild with 40 plus members (it's rare to have a 50 vs 30 matchup) but let's consider this 50 person guild meets a sandbagging guild of 40 registered.
Who has the advantage the guild with 25 4m players and 25 alts... or the guild with 40 registered players and a average GP of 2.25?
The guild with 40 players who sandbagged is at a tremendous average GP disadvantage... the guild who went in at 50/50 has a 1.75 million average GP advantage when considering the actual accounts that will place D and fight on offense.
Some people refuse to see it but its crystal clear to me going in at 50 registered doesnt guarantee you will be at a disadvantage or guarantee that you will have an advantage.
All these people only looking at it one way. Think outside the box and dont be a lemming.
Perhaps it was brushed off because the answer was trivial?
But you're welcome anyway.
Still selective then. It was trivial in that I could be fairly confident of your response, doesn't mean it's not worth having it said. Good that you said it outright though over calling your personal experience proof, it's an easy mistake for us to make.
- We had 47/50, they had 43/50 or 44/50 (22 defence slots per zone)
- Total GP we have 239M, they have 255M
- we won 19004 v 18938
My queries are as follows:
- we "sandbagged", by going in with <50. How come we didn't get matched with a smaller GP guild? Did we not "sandbag" enough? If not, how would we know in advance how many members should not signup so that we do get matched with a lower GP guild?
- they "sandbagged", by going in with <50. They did get matched with a smaller GP guild, but it obviously wasn't an easier match, as they lost. Did they not "sandbag" enough? Or did they "sandbag" too much? What should they do next time in order to get an easy match?
I am of course being obtuse. People in this threads deal in absolutes, I'm just trying to point out that they are wrong to do so
and no disrespect intended toward our opponent. It was a great match and they set a very tough defence, we just beat them on efficiency
Who claims you're guaranteed a win, when you sandbag (or go in shorthanded or whatever)? Who claims that you're guaranteed to get matched with a non-sandbagging guild? Yes, you increase your chances to have an advantage but where do you see this claim of a guarantee?
We all know that nothing is guaranteed (other than being matched on active GP). All we need now is for you to understand, that everyone knows, and hopefully stop flooding these threads with this nonsense.
You should read the spoilers, and the rest of the thread @Waqui - sorry if the subtle nuance was too much for you.
I know full well these things aren't guaranteed. But many others in this thread make these claims:
- "if a guild has <50 signup they get a lower GP guild so they get an easier matchup"
My post is simply to highlight that nothing is guaranteed.
And everybody knows, that nothing is guaranteed. Knowing this, they can still aim to have an easier / different match-up - which apparently is too difficult for you to understand.
So the argument is that people are demanding guild members do not register for TW and forfeit their rewards all so other guild members can aim to maybe get a easier matchup?
If you quit your job you increase your chances to win the lotto.
The point is people not signing up (sandbagging) doesn't give an advantage to a guild just like quitting you job doesnt effect you shot at winning lotto.
Tw matching is a lottery and guilds have 0 control over who they are matched with. Guilds can not control if their opponent guild is more or less gp than their guild... ever ... in any situation.
We all know, that there's no guaranteed advantage when sandbagging. There's no need to go all DarjeloSalas on this. We all know this. Yet sandbagging increases the chance of having a higher average GP than your opponent.
Whether some players accept being asked to not join is their own personal choice and completely irrelevant to this discussion.
We just have to disagree on this then.
If you go in with 40 (sandbagging) you have a 50% chance to draw a guild with higher average gp and a 50% chance to draw a guild with lower average gp.
50/50? That depends on the relative sizes of the three pools of guilds participating in TW:
A. Matching active GP - lower average GP
B. Matching active GP - higher average GP
C. Matching active GP and average GP.
It's not as simple as a 50/50 chance. However, if you have full participation (50 members) you have 0% chance of being matched with a guild of lower average GP. That's for sure.
Maybe you face a 35 man guild... maybe you face a 45 man guild...
I do not see how you can say Yet sandbagging increases the chance of having a higher average GP than your opponent. and expect people to beleive it without showing proof.
Of course, I can - because it's true and quite simple logic. As stated above, the chance is 0% if your guild has 50 members joining and if your guild has less members joining, you will at least have some chance of having higher average GP than your opponent.
Also... proof is not only looking at one side of the equation.
And nor have I claimed to provide scientific proof.
So your saying it's impossible for a guild with 50/50 to get matched vs a guild with lower average GP?
You said However, if you have full participation (50 members) you have 0% chance of being matched with a guild of lower average GP. That's for sure.
I will prove this wrong 2 ways just consider this...
1.
If your 50/50 and 250m gp and you get matched against a guild with a guild that 49/50 and has 239m gp who has more average GP? The 50 man guild or the 49 man guild?
It can and does happen. The average GP is close enough to call even in this case but I'm not done...
Guilds are matched by active GP. 250 million active GP guilds will not be matched with 239 million active GP guilds. I'm sure there will be better / more even matches for both guilds. Feel free to prove this wrong.
The 49 participants will have higher average GP than the 50 participants since their total active GP match. Quite simple.
(no, don't introduce total GP into this discussion, since it's irrelevant for matchmaking. Stick to active GP)
Some people refuse to see it but its crystal clear to me going in at 50 registered doesnt guarantee you will be at a disadvantage or guarantee that you will have an advantage.
- We had 47/50, they had 43/50 or 44/50 (22 defence slots per zone)
- Total GP we have 239M, they have 255M
- we won 19004 v 18938
My queries are as follows:
- we "sandbagged", by going in with <50. How come we didn't get matched with a smaller GP guild? Did we not "sandbag" enough? If not, how would we know in advance how many members should not signup so that we do get matched with a lower GP guild?
- they "sandbagged", by going in with <50. They did get matched with a smaller GP guild, but it obviously wasn't an easier match, as they lost. Did they not "sandbag" enough? Or did they "sandbag" too much? What should they do next time in order to get an easy match?
I am of course being obtuse. People in this threads deal in absolutes, I'm just trying to point out that they are wrong to do so
and no disrespect intended toward our opponent. It was a great match and they set a very tough defence, we just beat them on efficiency
Who claims you're guaranteed a win, when you sandbag (or go in shorthanded or whatever)? Who claims that you're guaranteed to get matched with a non-sandbagging guild? Yes, you increase your chances to have an advantage but where do you see this claim of a guarantee?
We all know that nothing is guaranteed (other than being matched on active GP). All we need now is for you to understand, that everyone knows, and hopefully stop flooding these threads with this nonsense.
You should read the spoilers, and the rest of the thread @Waqui - sorry if the subtle nuance was too much for you.
I know full well these things aren't guaranteed. But many others in this thread make these claims:
- "if a guild has <50 signup they get a lower GP guild so they get an easier matchup"
My post is simply to highlight that nothing is guaranteed.
And everybody knows, that nothing is guaranteed. Knowing this, they can still aim to have an easier / different match-up - which apparently is too difficult for you to understand.
So the argument is that people are demanding guild members do not register for TW and forfeit their rewards all so other guild members can aim to maybe get a easier matchup?
If you quit your job you increase your chances to win the lotto.
The point is people not signing up (sandbagging) doesn't give an advantage to a guild just like quitting you job doesnt effect you shot at winning lotto.
Tw matching is a lottery and guilds have 0 control over who they are matched with. Guilds can not control if their opponent guild is more or less gp than their guild... ever ... in any situation.
We all know, that there's no guaranteed advantage when sandbagging. There's no need to go all DarjeloSalas on this. We all know this. Yet sandbagging increases the chance of having a higher average GP than your opponent.
Whether some players accept being asked to not join is their own personal choice and completely irrelevant to this discussion.
We just have to disagree on this then.
If you go in with 40 (sandbagging) you have a 50% chance to draw a guild with higher average gp and a 50% chance to draw a guild with lower average gp.
50/50? That depends on the relative sizes of the three pools of guilds participating in TW:
A. Matching active GP - lower average GP
B. Matching active GP - higher average GP
C. Matching active GP and average GP.
It's not as simple as a 50/50 chance. However, if you have full participation (50 members) you have 0% chance of being matched with a guild of lower average GP. That's for sure.
Maybe you face a 35 man guild... maybe you face a 45 man guild...
I do not see how you can say Yet sandbagging increases the chance of having a higher average GP than your opponent. and expect people to beleive it without showing proof.
Of course, I can - because it's true and quite simple logic. As stated above, the chance is 0% if your guild has 50 members joining and if your guild has less members joining, you will at least have some chance of having higher average GP than your opponent.
Also... proof is not only looking at one side of the equation.
And nor have I claimed to provide scientific proof.
So your saying it's impossible for a guild with 50/50 to get matched vs a guild with lower average GP?
You said However, if you have full participation (50 members) you have 0% chance of being matched with a guild of lower average GP. That's for sure.
I will prove this wrong 2 ways just consider this...
1.
If your 50/50 and 250m gp and you get matched against a guild with a guild that 49/50 and has 239m gp who has more average GP? The 50 man guild or the 49 man guild?
It can and does happen. The average GP is close enough to call even in this case but I'm not done...
Guilds are matched by active GP. 250 million active GP guilds will not be matched with 239 million active GP guilds. I'm sure there will be better / more even matches for both guilds. Feel free to prove this wrong.
The 49 participants will have higher average GP than the 50 participants since their total active GP match. Quite simple.
(no, don't introduce total GP into this discussion, since it's irrelevant for matchmaking. Stick to active GP)
Prove u wrong? Did you read my whole post? If you read my point #2 i clearly explain how a guild of 50 can have a 1.75m average GP advantage against a guild of 40 members.
That proves you wrong.
But u knew that right? That's why you cropped that part of my post out before quoting what I said...
[first quote deleted to no get caught by spam filter]
Who claims you're guaranteed a win, when you sandbag (or go in shorthanded or whatever)? Who claims that you're guaranteed to get matched with a non-sandbagging guild? Yes, you increase your chances to have an advantage but where do you see this claim of a guarantee?
We all know that nothing is guaranteed (other than being matched on active GP). All we need now is for you to understand, that everyone knows, and hopefully stop flooding these threads with this nonsense.
You should read the spoilers, and the rest of the thread @Waqui - sorry if the subtle nuance was too much for you.
I know full well these things aren't guaranteed. But many others in this thread make these claims:
- "if a guild has <50 signup they get a lower GP guild so they get an easier matchup"
My post is simply to highlight that nothing is guaranteed.
And everybody knows, that nothing is guaranteed. Knowing this, they can still aim to have an easier / different match-up - which apparently is too difficult for you to understand.
So the argument is that people are demanding guild members do not register for TW and forfeit their rewards all so other guild members can aim to maybe get a easier matchup?
If you quit your job you increase your chances to win the lotto.
The point is people not signing up (sandbagging) doesn't give an advantage to a guild just like quitting you job doesnt effect you shot at winning lotto.
Tw matching is a lottery and guilds have 0 control over who they are matched with. Guilds can not control if their opponent guild is more or less gp than their guild... ever ... in any situation.
We all know, that there's no guaranteed advantage when sandbagging. There's no need to go all DarjeloSalas on this. We all know this. Yet sandbagging increases the chance of having a higher average GP than your opponent.
Whether some players accept being asked to not join is their own personal choice and completely irrelevant to this discussion.
We just have to disagree on this then.
If you go in with 40 (sandbagging) you have a 50% chance to draw a guild with higher average gp and a 50% chance to draw a guild with lower average gp.
50/50? That depends on the relative sizes of the three pools of guilds participating in TW:
A. Matching active GP - lower average GP
B. Matching active GP - higher average GP
C. Matching active GP and average GP.
It's not as simple as a 50/50 chance. However, if you have full participation (50 members) you have 0% chance of being matched with a guild of lower average GP. That's for sure.
Maybe you face a 35 man guild... maybe you face a 45 man guild...
I do not see how you can say Yet sandbagging increases the chance of having a higher average GP than your opponent. and expect people to beleive it without showing proof.
Of course, I can - because it's true and quite simple logic. As stated above, the chance is 0% if your guild has 50 members joining and if your guild has less members joining, you will at least have some chance of having higher average GP than your opponent.
Also... proof is not only looking at one side of the equation.
And nor have I claimed to provide scientific proof.
So your saying it's impossible for a guild with 50/50 to get matched vs a guild with lower average GP?
You said However, if you have full participation (50 members) you have 0% chance of being matched with a guild of lower average GP. That's for sure.
I will prove this wrong 2 ways just consider this...
1.
If your 50/50 and 250m gp and you get matched against a guild with a guild that 49/50 and has 239m gp who has more average GP? The 50 man guild or the 49 man guild?
It can and does happen. The average GP is close enough to call even in this case but I'm not done...
Guilds are matched by active GP. 250 million active GP guilds will not be matched with 239 million active GP guilds. I'm sure there will be better / more even matches for both guilds. Feel free to prove this wrong.
The 49 participants will have higher average GP than the 50 participants since their total active GP match. Quite simple.
(no, don't introduce total GP into this discussion, since it's irrelevant for matchmaking. Stick to active GP)
Prove u wrong? Did you read my whole post? If you read my point #2 i clearly explain how a guild of 50 can have a 1.75m average GP advantage against a guild of 40 members.
That proves you wrong.
Not at all. Your example is 50 players of 100-101 million GP vs. 40 players of 100 million GP - and you claim that the 50 players have higher average GP? For real? The 40 players have HIGHER average active GP.
But u knew that right?
I understood what you wrote, and I am still right. Let's try this again. This is what you said, you would prove wrong:
However, if you have full participation (50 members) you have 0% chance of being matched with a guild of lower average GP. That's for sure.
Replies
As soon as they announce a change to match based on average GP that will open up the ability to actually exploit the system and I will immediately start 10 alts and joining our guild at level 23 because that will be the most effective way... maybe split to 2 guilds of 25 people with 25 alts at level 23. Think about that.
The reason you are stuck on this is because a long winning streak (props on that) ended due to one instance of a guild with higher avg GP happened to match with you. You think (and it may be true) that in a vacuum this is helpful to guilds.... Personally I would leave a guild that asked me to sit out... I think that it is detrimental to the guild's long-term health. Think about being forced to sit out, then your guild losing... Now you just threw away rewards for no reason.
The first one will not win every time. a 5 mil account should still have good teams to counter the 6s. Plus the advantage the 5 mil has on the 4 mil accounts should come into play. If you have 50 people at 5 million but can't break through walls then those accounts do not have enough meta teams. All the current meta teams can be fit within a few million gp, not 5-6.
I'd agree there are more posts, but in the same way there are more posts complaining about anything than defending it. Someone who has either a genuine or perceived problem is more likely to complain about it than someone without one comment about how fair it is, hence the forums are such a toxic place so often, my experience suggests it makes no difference, but that doesn't mean that's true, it just means the more extreme someone else's opinion (most more than yours), the more likely it is to be false.
Thank you for actually answering about the proof though, until now it's just been brushed off as far as I've seen, hence it was worth repeating.
Also that was kind of a rhetorical question to get the rest of the point across that you didn't comment on funnily enough, but that's very accepting of you. Well done.
But when they use math, the end result shows they need a better strategy in TW. They want to get reinforcement that they are perfect and "gaming the system" is the only way they could be beat, because how could someone possibly out-think or out-play them?
And where/how did they admit this?
Being a bit pedantic, but this is almost certainly untrue. The chances will at the simplest level be based on the proportion of guilds with more or less participation, which is unlikely to be 50% for any given participation level and GP, and it's quite possible there are matchmaking factors we don't know about that would further skew or balance those results. Sort of reinforces the point though as you can't even toss a coin to suggest better matchups, you have literally no clue what might happen.
How did you do?
@thecarterologist958 we lost in spectacular fashion
Fair enough, unlucky.
Yes it's only 50/50 if the proportion of guilds with more gp is the same as the proportion of guild with less GP.
I think your missing my point arguing technicalities on the accuracy of me saying it is 50% it could be 52/48 or 60/40 or 30/70 based on the entire universe of all guilds registered and how many signed up in each.
My point is that you cant control if you have more or less average GP than opponent guild.
Just forget I said its 50/50 for a minute and let's think about it another way without any numbers.... having less members doesnt increase or decrease your chances at getting matched against a guild with more or less average GP.
If you have more or less average GP is something that can not be controlled by guilds even if they are foolishly restricting the number of people who sign up and openly telling others this is why they are doing it dont get trolled and triggered by them. They are not manipulating their matchups to give them a GP advantage.
What's happening is whenever there is a gp discrepancy or a blowout people run here to blame it on sandbagging.
On the other hand - When there is a close match or a even match people are much less likely to come to forums and broadcast what happened to everyone.
What's ironic is the fix - using average GP - is actually a method that can be controlled and manipulated to ensure a GP advantage so what's really going on is all these people are just sick of losing and hoping CG makes a change that will allow them to game the system for their benefit.
If a guild goes in at 50/50, they have absolutely no chance of being matched with a lower total GP guild than them. They could be matched with a short handed higher GP guild, or a similar full guild - but a lower total GP guild is off the table.
As soon as you go in <50, the chance of being matched with a smaller total GP guild becomes an option. Sure, a similar GP guild and a larger GP guild are still possible, but the only way a guild has any chance of facing a lower GP guild is to go in with < 50 signed up.
Not totally true when you get to the very high GP guilds. Otherwise the top 2 GP guilds would always face off against each other every TW. But I am pretty sure that's not the case. But for many lower to mid class GP levels, you are likely correct.
50/50? That depends on the relative sizes of the three pools of guilds participating in TW:
A. Matching active GP - lower average GP
B. Matching active GP - higher average GP
C. Matching active GP and average GP.
It's not as simple as a 50/50 chance. However, if you have full participation (50 members) you have 0% chance of being matched with a guild of lower average GP. That's for sure.
Of course, I can - because it's true and quite simple logic. As stated above, the chance is 0% if your guild has 50 members joining and if your guild has less members joining, you will at least have some chance of having higher average GP than your opponent.
Please read this:
And nor have I claimed to provide scientific proof.
You're forgetting our long string of effortless victories when playing shorthanded (yes, completely effortless, even if sometimes 10 of us didn't even attack a single enemy). I have experience from both ends of the stick. My belief is based on both.
But ok, I can't prove I'm right - but neither can you, so here we are.
The only fact is, that I'm convinced.
I've never been in a guild that forced members to sit out. If a guild do this, it's their choice.
Perhaps it was brushed off because the answer was trivial?
But you're welcome anyway.
So your saying it's impossible for a guild with 50/50 to get matched vs a guild with lower average GP?
You said However, if you have full participation (50 members) you have 0% chance of being matched with a guild of lower average GP. That's for sure.
I will prove this wrong 2 ways just consider this...
1.
If your 50/50 and 250m gp and you get matched against a guild with a guild that 49/50 and has 239m gp who has more average GP? The 50 man guild or the 49 man guild?
It can and does happen. The average GP is close enough to call even in this case but I'm not done...
2.
Another scenario
what if a guild of 25 people all with 4m gp accounts all start alt account and add them to the guild at level 23. The guild has 100m gp maybe 101m with the 25 alts but essentially they are 4m average GP since the alts wont place any D or kill anything the alts are just there to add to the # of registered to hopefully draw another guild with near 50 people registered.
If this guild has 50/50 they will get placed vs other guilds with around 100m active gp also if they have 50 registered they will likely draw a guild with 40 plus members (it's rare to have a 50 vs 30 matchup) but let's consider this 50 person guild meets a sandbagging guild of 40 registered.
Who has the advantage the guild with 25 4m players and 25 alts... or the guild with 40 registered players and a average GP of 2.25?
The guild with 40 players who sandbagged is at a tremendous average GP disadvantage... the guild who went in at 50/50 has a 1.75 million average GP advantage when considering the actual accounts that will place D and fight on offense.
Some people refuse to see it but its crystal clear to me going in at 50 registered doesnt guarantee you will be at a disadvantage or guarantee that you will have an advantage.
All these people only looking at it one way. Think outside the box and dont be a lemming.
Still selective then. It was trivial in that I could be fairly confident of your response, doesn't mean it's not worth having it said. Good that you said it outright though over calling your personal experience proof, it's an easy mistake for us to make.
Guilds are matched by active GP. 250 million active GP guilds will not be matched with 239 million active GP guilds. I'm sure there will be better / more even matches for both guilds. Feel free to prove this wrong.
The 49 participants will have higher average GP than the 50 participants since their total active GP match. Quite simple.
(no, don't introduce total GP into this discussion, since it's irrelevant for matchmaking. Stick to active GP)
Now we just need you to understand that people know that nothing is guaranteed.
Most people.
Fine with me.
Prove u wrong? Did you read my whole post? If you read my point #2 i clearly explain how a guild of 50 can have a 1.75m average GP advantage against a guild of 40 members.
That proves you wrong.
But u knew that right? That's why you cropped that part of my post out before quoting what I said...
Checkmake.
It proves something.
Also:
Not at all. Your example is 50 players of 100-101 million GP vs. 40 players of 100 million GP - and you claim that the 50 players have higher average GP? For real? The 40 players have HIGHER average active GP.
I understood what you wrote, and I am still right. Let's try this again. This is what you said, you would prove wrong:
However, if you have full participation (50 members) you have 0% chance of being matched with a guild of lower average GP. That's for sure.
Go!
Yes, it proves that 50 players 100-101 million GP have lower average GP than 40 players at 100 million GP. What's your point?
Stop playing pigeon chess.
Does that make you the pigeon I'm playing?