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
LOL. You're grasping straws now. I would call that even average GP - and so would you, I'm sure - even if there's a 20k difference. This whole discussion is not about those neglectible differences.
But ok, mathematically you're right of course. I give you that.
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?
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.
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?
Yes. I'm sure you had too. I hadn't seen proof that any guild did It strategicaly before this discussion, though.
I never said you claimed that, but if there's a load of people doing something stupid for a potentially non-existent minor benefit, conspiracy isn't an awful choice of phrase, no?
Hearing people say they lost because the other guild must have been sandbagging isn't hearing about sandbagging, that's the ravings of a bad loser. If you had no knowledge of it being done, you hadn't heard about it, yet believed it.
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?
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.
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?
Yes. I'm sure you had too. I hadn't seen proof that any guild did It strategicaly before this discussion, though.
I never said you claimed that, but if there's a load of people doing something stupid for a potentially non-existent minor benefit, conspiracy isn't an awful choice of phrase, no?
I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, when there's proof of them doing it, no. Maybe you would. It's fine.
Sandbagging doesn't guarantee a win, but I've definitely noticed the quality of defence is a lot higher when we face sandbaggers than guilds who go in 50/50. Higher relics, better mods on average.
CG should at least force 25 defences per zone regardless of how many players a guild takes in.
I just wished that the guilds, we face, put up some competition and take it seriously.
We have a win rate around 90%. We have a sign up of between 36-42 players and around 5-6 of those don’t participate and still we keep on walking over them.
Guild GP around 105 million and we almost always face guilds with 15-30 million overall gp higher. We are not a focused guild and we have very loose requirements. I like TW more than any other aspect of the game but it is getting a drag on having little competition. Wish we had leagues similar to GAC.
Come on low 100 million+ guilds, give us some competition. We prefer to loose and have a good game than ones that cannot take down one section of ours.
I finally saw this in effect, Our guild can finally reach the 180 million GP threshold, during a recent TWar we had 48 players and about 182 mil GP. our opposition fielded 40 players, and had a complete wall of GA$. But not 5 star versions they were all 7 star relic versions. Needless to say we stood no chance. And I know the other 10 players in the guild just happened to have RL commitments that kept them out of the battle. Just happen they were the only ones without GA$ to. Hey in the end we all got our extra GET2 so it was a win by losing.
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 think "milking them for raid tickets" is a bit harsh. Some of these weaker members would not catch on to a guild that does anywhere near as well in TBs, nor would they necessarily get the same level of support elsewhere in improving their rosters (donations, mod advice, guild-developed resoures). My end goal is for everyone to participate, but there's no reason for 45 people to suffer in the short term while 5 people get their act together.
But yes, we absolutely cut "dead GP" to improve our chances of winning. I don't coerce anyone; I merely state that if you can't field 4 competitive defensive squad while still doing some damage on offense, either don't sign up or go TW somewhere else. There's no scheduled rotations - like I said, some wars we have 50, some we have 43.
I finally saw this in effect, Our guild can finally reach the 180 million GP threshold, during a recent TWar we had 48 players and about 182 mil GP. our opposition fielded 40 players, and had a complete wall of GA$. But not 5 star versions they were all 7 star relic versions. Needless to say we stood no chance. And I know the other 10 players in the guild just happened to have RL commitments that kept them out of the battle. Just happen they were the only ones without GA$ to. Hey in the end we all got our extra GET2 so it was a win by losing.
We went in with 33 of 50 and got matched against a guild of 30 of 50 and they had a Gas wall too... we couldnt kill it... totally unfair that going in with less than 50 allows a wall of 7 star gas. We sandbagged and should have got a guild of 50 with no gas and no traya and no revans ... isnt this how it works?
Replies
LOL. You're grasping straws now. I would call that even average GP - and so would you, I'm sure - even if there's a 20k difference. This whole discussion is not about those neglectible differences.
But ok, mathematically you're right of course. I give you that.
I never said you claimed that, but if there's a load of people doing something stupid for a potentially non-existent minor benefit, conspiracy isn't an awful choice of phrase, no?
Hearing people say they lost because the other guild must have been sandbagging isn't hearing about sandbagging, that's the ravings of a bad loser. If you had no knowledge of it being done, you hadn't heard about it, yet believed it.
I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, when there's proof of them doing it, no. Maybe you would. It's fine.
Still missing the mark, but sure.
CG should at least force 25 defences per zone regardless of how many players a guild takes in.
There's proof that "some guilds do A to achieve B". Since there's proof, I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, no.
Your question, whether there's proof that "guilds achieve B because they do A", is a completely different matter, which somehow you don't see.
I can't help you any more than this.
We have a win rate around 90%. We have a sign up of between 36-42 players and around 5-6 of those don’t participate and still we keep on walking over them.
Guild GP around 105 million and we almost always face guilds with 15-30 million overall gp higher. We are not a focused guild and we have very loose requirements. I like TW more than any other aspect of the game but it is getting a drag on having little competition. Wish we had leagues similar to GAC.
Come on low 100 million+ guilds, give us some competition. We prefer to loose and have a good game than ones that cannot take down one section of ours.
Because there's a Tailor in it?
As I said, missed the mark.
I think "milking them for raid tickets" is a bit harsh. Some of these weaker members would not catch on to a guild that does anywhere near as well in TBs, nor would they necessarily get the same level of support elsewhere in improving their rosters (donations, mod advice, guild-developed resoures). My end goal is for everyone to participate, but there's no reason for 45 people to suffer in the short term while 5 people get their act together.
But yes, we absolutely cut "dead GP" to improve our chances of winning. I don't coerce anyone; I merely state that if you can't field 4 competitive defensive squad while still doing some damage on offense, either don't sign up or go TW somewhere else. There's no scheduled rotations - like I said, some wars we have 50, some we have 43.
Hot topic
I like your argumentation.
"Did you consider the possibility, that you don't understand my posts?"
I have and I concluded that he didnt understand a single word you wrote
We went in with 33 of 50 and got matched against a guild of 30 of 50 and they had a Gas wall too... we couldnt kill it... totally unfair that going in with less than 50 allows a wall of 7 star gas. We sandbagged and should have got a guild of 50 with no gas and no traya and no revans ... isnt this how it works?