Well, if you're the one claiming a false checkmate, guess what that makes you.
I feel like this would have landed harder if I had actually been claiming a checkmate. Or talking to you. Or been making a serious post. But do tell, what exactly am I?
I see we have reached page 8 of arguing about who won the argument about whether a non-problem is even a problem in theory. Better go make some more popcorn for this.
I see we have reached page 8 of arguing about who won the argument about whether a non-problem is even a problem in theory. Better go make some more popcorn for this.
Can we just skip to digging the hole and setting up the lowering device? This is starting to remind me of Keith Richards.
Well, if you're the one claiming a false checkmate, guess what that makes you.
I feel like this would have landed harder if I had actually been claiming a checkmate. Or talking to you. Or been making a serious post. But do tell, what exactly am I?
The beauty of it is, nobody has claimed a checkmate.
Well, if you're the one claiming a false checkmate, guess what that makes you.
I feel like this would have landed harder if I had actually been claiming a checkmate. Or talking to you. Or been making a serious post. But do tell, what exactly am I?
The beauty of it is, nobody has claimed a checkmate.
Well, if you're the one claiming a false checkmate, guess what that makes you.
I feel like this would have landed harder if I had actually been claiming a checkmate. Or talking to you. Or been making a serious post. But do tell, what exactly am I?
The beauty of it is, nobody has claimed a checkmate.
Well, if you're the one claiming a false checkmate, guess what that makes you.
I feel like this would have landed harder if I had actually been claiming a checkmate. Or talking to you. Or been making a serious post. But do tell, what exactly am I?
The beauty of it is, nobody has claimed a checkmate.
Well, if you're the one claiming a false checkmate, guess what that makes you.
I feel like this would have landed harder if I had actually been claiming a checkmate. Or talking to you. Or been making a serious post. But do tell, what exactly am I?
Well, if you're the one claiming a false checkmate, guess what that makes you.
I feel like this would have landed harder if I had actually been claiming a checkmate. Or talking to you. Or been making a serious post. But do tell, what exactly am I?
So ... In the TW that started today, my guild entered with 49/50 participants. We can only place 23 teams on defense which means our opponent entered with 45-46 participants.
This means our opponent has an average GP advantage and we should just quit now. Am I doing this right?
So ... In the TW that started today, my guild entered with 49/50 participants. We can only place 23 teams on defense which means our opponent entered with 45-46 participants.
This means our opponent has an average GP advantage and we should just quit now. Am I doing this right?
Add a dash more conspiracy, but pretty much, congratulations! And commiserations of course.
So ... In the TW that started today, my guild entered with 49/50 participants. We can only place 23 teams on defense which means our opponent entered with 45-46 participants.
This means our opponent has an average GP advantage and we should just quit now. Am I doing this right?
Add a dash more conspiracy, but pretty much, congratulations! And commiserations of course.
Well good, because I have things that need to get done this weekend!
I missed that point. He started his post by quoting me, so I interpreted it as directed at me.
Because the actual content of the post is never what matters.
Of course not. Did u see how he skipped over my example of 25 people with 25 alts manipulating the matchmaking system to always maintain a higher average GP even if they go in with 50 registered. 25 of those would be level 23 alts so here is where the break in logic happens.
I would say a 100m gp guild with 25 real accounts and 25 level 23 alts has an effective average gp of 4m since there will be 25 players participating and they all have 4m gp. None of the alts actually participate at all. They are only there to ensure your matched against a guild of near 50 players.
Say they are matched against a guild of 40 players with 100m gp...
@Waqui would say that the guild of 40 members has a higher average GP because 100/40 is 2.5m each member compared to 100/50 which is only 2m each for the guild with the alts. I disagree with his logic. This logic fails to address that there are only 25 players who completely make up the 100m gp in the second guild. 100/25 is 4m gp each player.
Spreading the active GP across dead alt accounts tricks the matchmaking system to give you a favorable match up even with 50 registered. Apparently it also tricks @Waqui too since he cant seem to figure this out but most people are bad at math and logic so I get it.
The issue that they are all trying to tell you bobcat is that no one does what you are saying with alt accounts , and if they do , and put in that much effort , screw it they deserve to win.
I think Waqui gets it. He's quite clever, you know ... for a human being. So are you, Bobcat. If fact, most of those in this here thread are quite clever.
Still don't understand why even a full-on whale guild would want to try to exploit the system to gain an average GP advantage since the benchwarmers would miss out on zetas, and you can't buy those. Unless of course, they don't actually WANT any more zetas because they already have a sufficient hoard and are just playing for the W.
Is that really something a whale-only guild would do? If collecting zeta mats were not a concern, would a guild composed of players that spend fat stacks of cash for the sole purpose of beating the other guy willingly sit out of a TW for the sole purpose of increasing their odds of a favorable matchup so that they could proudly say they were a member of guild that "never" loses in TW?
Yes, yes I think they would.
The monkey wrench in that whole theory though: The TW leaderboard is based on "Total GP Defeated". If you sit players, you get matched up against lower GP guilds. Yeah you might get the win, but you lose ground on the leaderboard. If you were really a member of an ELITE WORLD CLASS GUILD, then wouldn't you want to be on top of the TW leaderboard?
Ranked by GP, Team Instinct currently has guilds ranked #1 and #5. MΔW has guilds ranked at #2, #4, and #6. Caw Patrol is #3.
On the TW leaderboard, Caw Patrol is #1, MΔW owns ranks #2 and #3, and the highest ranked Team Instinct guild is #191.
Either TI loses a lot of their TW, or they do a lot of sitting out to fight lower powered guilds. If I were a betting human, I would say that once TI lost their grip on the top5, they decided to go for win percentage by sitting players.
I would be surprised if that's a common guild strategy, though. I'm not willing to give up 2 zetas so that everyone else has a possibly-but-not-guaranteed-better chance of getting 1 extra zeta.
If your guild wants you to do that, send me a DM because my guild currently has a vacancy ... I think.
So perhaps this is a semantic debate, or a matter of perspective, but as a guild leader I have absolutely used the threat of benching people for TW to motivate some of our more recalcitrant guild members when it comes to gear and mod priority, TM loading, lack of successful attacks, etc.
While I don't *want* to sit people, it's not fair to 45 of my guild members if 5 people are dead GP and not contributing to TWs in a meaningful way. At the same time, I'd rather help under-performing guild members to improve before I resort to booting them. It's hard to recruit, particularly finding players with mod and zeta depth, and new players can't really catch up in those areas very easily.
The end result is that occasionally we do ask people to take a seat while they rectify under-geared or improperly modded characters. I always give them the choice to jump to another guild to participate in TW (to at least get losers rewards).
Between these occasional benchings and players voluntarily sitting out (due to vacation, forgetting to sign up, stress IRL, etc.) we do occasionally get TWs where we only have 43-45 players. I've found these TWs to be immensely easier, with our opponents having far lower average arena ranks than when we are at 49-50.
Is this sandbagging? I'm not sure...but I can see why our opponent might think it is.
The issue that they are all trying to tell you bobcat is that no one does what you are saying with alt accounts , and if they do , and put in that much effort , screw it they deserve to win.
I agree it's rare if it happens at all... but im using an extreme situation to make a point that its possible to do. It can happen with less maybe 15 alts or even 5 or 10 alts...
If you really think about it there is a bigger advantage given to guilds who have alts register just to get to 50 Members than any advantage given to guilds who simply go in with 40 members and have 10 sit out to sandbag. The guild going in with 40 could draw a guild of 33 members or 46 members as an opponent so they could have a gp advantage or gp disadvantage. It's out of their control... whereas the guild with alts registering will have 50 members and is much less likely to be matched against a guild of equal gp yet with only 33 or 40 members - it's more likely they match against a guild of equal gp who has 45 or 50 signed up since they do not have any alts.
If and this is a big if... if sandbagging is an issue devs wanna address they should first address alts being able to sign up because that is a bigger exploit and one you can actually control whereas sandbagging by not registering doesnt allow you to control if you have a gp advantage or disadvantage.
So perhaps this is a semantic debate, or a matter of perspective, but as a guild leader I have absolutely used the threat of benching people for TW to motivate some of our more recalcitrant guild members when it comes to gear and mod priority, TM loading, lack of successful attacks, etc.
While I don't *want* to sit people, it's not fair to 45 of my guild members if 5 people are dead GP and not contributing to TWs in a meaningful way. At the same time, I'd rather help under-performing guild members to improve before I resort to booting them. It's hard to recruit, particularly finding players with mod and zeta depth, and new players can't really catch up in those areas very easily.
The end result is that occasionally we do ask people to take a seat while they rectify under-geared or improperly modded characters. I always give them the choice to jump to another guild to participate in TW (to at least get losers rewards).
Between these occasional benchings and players voluntarily sitting out (due to vacation, forgetting to sign up, stress IRL, etc.) we do occasionally get TWs where we only have 43-45 players. I've found these TWs to be immensely easier, with our opponents having far lower average arena ranks than when we are at 49-50.
Is this sandbagging? I'm not sure...but I can see why our opponent might think it is.
Hold on. Sitting people because they wont play is not the issue. That is how a guild should be run. The conspiracy here is that guilds rotate who they "bench" in order to have easy matchups. In reality that isn't impossible, until you realize you have no idea who you are gonna match up with.
I missed that point. He started his post by quoting me, so I interpreted it as directed at me.
Because the actual content of the post is never what matters.
Of course not. Did u see how he skipped over my example of 25 people with 25 alts manipulating the matchmaking system to always maintain a higher average GP even if they go in with 50 registered. 25 of those would be level 23 alts so here is where the break in logic happens.
Yes, I skipped that part of your "proof" originally, because it was so obvious, that you didn't prove, what you set out to prove. You were wrong. Refer to my previous answer to you for the explanation. Yet, here you are still claiming, that you were right.
Secondly, I skipped it, because I never saw any reports of any guilds doing what you described in your example. I didn't find your example relevant or worth a comment. I can't imagine any guild doing what you described with the current matchmaking system. A few might, if mm is changed according to OP's suggestion, but I don't believe, it will become "a thing".
I would say a 100m gp guild with 25 real accounts and 25 level 23 alts has an effective average gp of 4m since there will be 25 players participating and they all have 4m gp. None of the alts actually participate at all. They are only there to ensure your matched against a guild of near 50 players.
Say they are matched against a guild of 40 players with 100m gp...
@Waqui would say that the guild of 40 members has a higher average GP because 100/40 is 2.5m each member compared to 100/50 which is only 2m each for the guild with the alts. I disagree with his logic.
[...]
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
Where do you see any mention of favourable matchups?
So perhaps this is a semantic debate, or a matter of perspective, but as a guild leader I have absolutely used the threat of benching people for TW to motivate some of our more recalcitrant guild members when it comes to gear and mod priority, TM loading, lack of successful attacks, etc.
While I don't *want* to sit people, it's not fair to 45 of my guild members if 5 people are dead GP and not contributing to TWs in a meaningful way. At the same time, I'd rather help under-performing guild members to improve before I resort to booting them. It's hard to recruit, particularly finding players with mod and zeta depth, and new players can't really catch up in those areas very easily.
The end result is that occasionally we do ask people to take a seat while they rectify under-geared or improperly modded characters. I always give them the choice to jump to another guild to participate in TW (to at least get losers rewards).
Between these occasional benchings and players voluntarily sitting out (due to vacation, forgetting to sign up, stress IRL, etc.) we do occasionally get TWs where we only have 43-45 players. I've found these TWs to be immensely easier, with our opponents having far lower average arena ranks than when we are at 49-50.
Is this sandbagging? I'm not sure...but I can see why our opponent might think it is.
Hold on. Sitting people because they wont play is not the issue. That is how a guild should be run. The conspiracy here is that guilds rotate who they "bench" in order to have easy matchups. In reality that isn't impossible, until you realize you have no idea who you are gonna match up with.
There's proof earlier in this thread of (few) guilds deliberately sandbagging to get easier match ups. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy.
I missed that point. He started his post by quoting me, so I interpreted it as directed at me.
Because the actual content of the post is never what matters.
Of course not. Did u see how he skipped over my example of 25 people with 25 alts manipulating the matchmaking system to always maintain a higher average GP even if they go in with 50 registered. 25 of those would be level 23 alts so here is where the break in logic happens.
Yes, I skipped that part of your "proof" originally, because it was so obvious, that you didn't prove, what you set out to prove. You were wrong. Refer to my previous answer to you for the explanation. Yet, here you are still claiming, that you were right.
Secondly, I skipped it, because I never saw any reports of any guilds doing what you described in your example. I didn't find your example relevant or worth a comment. I can't imagine any guild doing what you described with the current matchmaking system. A few might, if mm is changed according to OP's suggestion, but I don't believe, it will become "a thing".
I would say a 100m gp guild with 25 real accounts and 25 level 23 alts has an effective average gp of 4m since there will be 25 players participating and they all have 4m gp. None of the alts actually participate at all. They are only there to ensure your matched against a guild of near 50 players.
Say they are matched against a guild of 40 players with 100m gp...
@Waqui would say that the guild of 40 members has a higher average GP because 100/40 is 2.5m each member compared to 100/50 which is only 2m each for the guild with the alts. I disagree with his logic.
[...]
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
Where do you see any mention of favourable matchups?
There's proof earlier in this thread of (few) guilds deliberately sandbagging to get easier match ups. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy.
So people doing this is proof that it works? Also you dismissed Bobcat's idea because you hadn't heard of a guild doing it, had you heard about guilds "sandbagging" before this thread?
So perhaps this is a semantic debate, or a matter of perspective, but as a guild leader I have absolutely used the threat of benching people for TW to motivate some of our more recalcitrant guild members when it comes to gear and mod priority, TM loading, lack of successful attacks, etc.
While I don't *want* to sit people, it's not fair to 45 of my guild members if 5 people are dead GP and not contributing to TWs in a meaningful way. At the same time, I'd rather help under-performing guild members to improve before I resort to booting them. It's hard to recruit, particularly finding players with mod and zeta depth, and new players can't really catch up in those areas very easily.
The end result is that occasionally we do ask people to take a seat while they rectify under-geared or improperly modded characters. I always give them the choice to jump to another guild to participate in TW (to at least get losers rewards).
Between these occasional benchings and players voluntarily sitting out (due to vacation, forgetting to sign up, stress IRL, etc.) we do occasionally get TWs where we only have 43-45 players. I've found these TWs to be immensely easier, with our opponents having far lower average arena ranks than when we are at 49-50.
Is this sandbagging? I'm not sure...but I can see why our opponent might think it is.
If they are in your guild, they should get to TW if they want to. If you don't want them in your TW, boot them. It isn't fair to them that you are just milking them for raid tickets. I would not stay in a guild like that.
But to your question: Is this "sandbagging?"
You are benching "dead GP" players to improve your chance of winning. You are cutting GP for better matchups. I think that fits the description of the situation under discussion.
I missed that point. He started his post by quoting me, so I interpreted it as directed at me.
Because the actual content of the post is never what matters.
Of course not. Did u see how he skipped over my example of 25 people with 25 alts manipulating the matchmaking system to always maintain a higher average GP even if they go in with 50 registered. 25 of those would be level 23 alts so here is where the break in logic happens.
Yes, I skipped that part of your "proof" originally, because it was so obvious, that you didn't prove, what you set out to prove. You were wrong. Refer to my previous answer to you for the explanation. Yet, here you are still claiming, that you were right.
Secondly, I skipped it, because I never saw any reports of any guilds doing what you described in your example. I didn't find your example relevant or worth a comment. I can't imagine any guild doing what you described with the current matchmaking system. A few might, if mm is changed according to OP's suggestion, but I don't believe, it will become "a thing".
I would say a 100m gp guild with 25 real accounts and 25 level 23 alts has an effective average gp of 4m since there will be 25 players participating and they all have 4m gp. None of the alts actually participate at all. They are only there to ensure your matched against a guild of near 50 players.
Say they are matched against a guild of 40 players with 100m gp...
@Waqui would say that the guild of 40 members has a higher average GP because 100/40 is 2.5m each member compared to 100/50 which is only 2m each for the guild with the alts. I disagree with his logic.
[...]
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
Where do you see any mention of favourable matchups?
[...]
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
Only the bolded part are my words. The rest are yours. You don't see it, do? Yeah, I'm glad my logic is different than yours.
I missed that point. He started his post by quoting me, so I interpreted it as directed at me.
Because the actual content of the post is never what matters.
Of course not. Did u see how he skipped over my example of 25 people with 25 alts manipulating the matchmaking system to always maintain a higher average GP even if they go in with 50 registered. 25 of those would be level 23 alts so here is where the break in logic happens.
Yes, I skipped that part of your "proof" originally, because it was so obvious, that you didn't prove, what you set out to prove. You were wrong. Refer to my previous answer to you for the explanation. Yet, here you are still claiming, that you were right.
Secondly, I skipped it, because I never saw any reports of any guilds doing what you described in your example. I didn't find your example relevant or worth a comment. I can't imagine any guild doing what you described with the current matchmaking system. A few might, if mm is changed according to OP's suggestion, but I don't believe, it will become "a thing".
I would say a 100m gp guild with 25 real accounts and 25 level 23 alts has an effective average gp of 4m since there will be 25 players participating and they all have 4m gp. None of the alts actually participate at all. They are only there to ensure your matched against a guild of near 50 players.
Say they are matched against a guild of 40 players with 100m gp...
@Waqui would say that the guild of 40 members has a higher average GP because 100/40 is 2.5m each member compared to 100/50 which is only 2m each for the guild with the alts. I disagree with his logic.
[...]
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
Where do you see any mention of favourable matchups?
[...]
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
Only the bolded part are my words. The rest are yours. You don't see it, do? Yeah, I'm glad my logic is different than yours.
So if you have 50 members and 100m gp you think it's impossible to get matched against a guild with 50 members and 99m gp? Interesting
Replies
Well, if you're the one claiming a false checkmate, guess what that makes you.
I feel like this would have landed harder if I had actually been claiming a checkmate. Or talking to you. Or been making a serious post. But do tell, what exactly am I?
Can we just skip to digging the hole and setting up the lowering device? This is starting to remind me of Keith Richards.
The beauty of it is, nobody has claimed a checkmate.
BOOM, checkmate!
Checkmale!
Even if that post had worked better, you still would have only proven both mine and Darjelo's point. Oh well.
Of course you knew all of this, as you always do.
I missed that point. He started his post by quoting me, so I interpreted it as directed at me.
Because the actual content of the post is never what matters.
This means our opponent has an average GP advantage and we should just quit now. Am I doing this right?
Add a dash more conspiracy, but pretty much, congratulations! And commiserations of course.
Well good, because I have things that need to get done this weekend!
Of course not. Did u see how he skipped over my example of 25 people with 25 alts manipulating the matchmaking system to always maintain a higher average GP even if they go in with 50 registered. 25 of those would be level 23 alts so here is where the break in logic happens.
I would say a 100m gp guild with 25 real accounts and 25 level 23 alts has an effective average gp of 4m since there will be 25 players participating and they all have 4m gp. None of the alts actually participate at all. They are only there to ensure your matched against a guild of near 50 players.
Say they are matched against a guild of 40 players with 100m gp...
@Waqui would say that the guild of 40 members has a higher average GP because 100/40 is 2.5m each member compared to 100/50 which is only 2m each for the guild with the alts. I disagree with his logic. This logic fails to address that there are only 25 players who completely make up the 100m gp in the second guild. 100/25 is 4m gp each player.
Spreading the active GP across dead alt accounts tricks the matchmaking system to give you a favorable match up even with 50 registered. Apparently it also tricks @Waqui too since he cant seem to figure this out but most people are bad at math and logic so I get it.
Still don't understand why even a full-on whale guild would want to try to exploit the system to gain an average GP advantage since the benchwarmers would miss out on zetas, and you can't buy those. Unless of course, they don't actually WANT any more zetas because they already have a sufficient hoard and are just playing for the W.
Is that really something a whale-only guild would do? If collecting zeta mats were not a concern, would a guild composed of players that spend fat stacks of cash for the sole purpose of beating the other guy willingly sit out of a TW for the sole purpose of increasing their odds of a favorable matchup so that they could proudly say they were a member of guild that "never" loses in TW?
Yes, yes I think they would.
Ranked by GP, Team Instinct currently has guilds ranked #1 and #5. MΔW has guilds ranked at #2, #4, and #6. Caw Patrol is #3.
On the TW leaderboard, Caw Patrol is #1, MΔW owns ranks #2 and #3, and the highest ranked Team Instinct guild is #191.
Either TI loses a lot of their TW, or they do a lot of sitting out to fight lower powered guilds. If I were a betting human, I would say that once TI lost their grip on the top5, they decided to go for win percentage by sitting players.
If your guild wants you to do that, send me a DM because my guild currently has a vacancy ... I think.
While I don't *want* to sit people, it's not fair to 45 of my guild members if 5 people are dead GP and not contributing to TWs in a meaningful way. At the same time, I'd rather help under-performing guild members to improve before I resort to booting them. It's hard to recruit, particularly finding players with mod and zeta depth, and new players can't really catch up in those areas very easily.
The end result is that occasionally we do ask people to take a seat while they rectify under-geared or improperly modded characters. I always give them the choice to jump to another guild to participate in TW (to at least get losers rewards).
Between these occasional benchings and players voluntarily sitting out (due to vacation, forgetting to sign up, stress IRL, etc.) we do occasionally get TWs where we only have 43-45 players. I've found these TWs to be immensely easier, with our opponents having far lower average arena ranks than when we are at 49-50.
Is this sandbagging? I'm not sure...but I can see why our opponent might think it is.
I agree it's rare if it happens at all... but im using an extreme situation to make a point that its possible to do. It can happen with less maybe 15 alts or even 5 or 10 alts...
If you really think about it there is a bigger advantage given to guilds who have alts register just to get to 50 Members than any advantage given to guilds who simply go in with 40 members and have 10 sit out to sandbag. The guild going in with 40 could draw a guild of 33 members or 46 members as an opponent so they could have a gp advantage or gp disadvantage. It's out of their control... whereas the guild with alts registering will have 50 members and is much less likely to be matched against a guild of equal gp yet with only 33 or 40 members - it's more likely they match against a guild of equal gp who has 45 or 50 signed up since they do not have any alts.
If and this is a big if... if sandbagging is an issue devs wanna address they should first address alts being able to sign up because that is a bigger exploit and one you can actually control whereas sandbagging by not registering doesnt allow you to control if you have a gp advantage or disadvantage.
Some food for thought for anyone who's interested
Hold on. Sitting people because they wont play is not the issue. That is how a guild should be run. The conspiracy here is that guilds rotate who they "bench" in order to have easy matchups. In reality that isn't impossible, until you realize you have no idea who you are gonna match up with.
Yes, I skipped that part of your "proof" originally, because it was so obvious, that you didn't prove, what you set out to prove. You were wrong. Refer to my previous answer to you for the explanation. Yet, here you are still claiming, that you were right.
Secondly, I skipped it, because I never saw any reports of any guilds doing what you described in your example. I didn't find your example relevant or worth a comment. I can't imagine any guild doing what you described with the current matchmaking system. A few might, if mm is changed according to OP's suggestion, but I don't believe, it will become "a thing".
Math disagrees with yours.
How is this even relevant for what you set out to prove?
This is what you set out to prove:
Where do you see any mention of favourable matchups?
I'm happy my math skills and logic are different than yours.
There's proof earlier in this thread of (few) guilds deliberately sandbagging to get easier match ups. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy.
Sad your using me quoting you saying that was what im trying to prove... your so lost lol
So people doing this is proof that it works? Also you dismissed Bobcat's idea because you hadn't heard of a guild doing it, had you heard about guilds "sandbagging" before this thread?
If they are in your guild, they should get to TW if they want to. If you don't want them in your TW, boot them. It isn't fair to them that you are just milking them for raid tickets. I would not stay in a guild like that.
But to your question: Is this "sandbagging?"
You are benching "dead GP" players to improve your chance of winning. You are cutting GP for better matchups. I think that fits the description of the situation under discussion.
There's proof that they are doing it for that purpose - not that it works. Where did I claim there's proof that it works? Read again.
Yes. I'm sure you had too. I hadn't seen proof that any guild did It strategicaly before this discussion, though.
This?:
Only the bolded part are my words. The rest are yours. You don't see it, do? Yeah, I'm glad my logic is different than yours.
So if you have 50 members and 100m gp you think it's impossible to get matched against a guild with 50 members and 99m gp? Interesting