TW matchmaking still needs work

Likos
14 posts Member
edited March 26
@CG_SBCrumb Could you please clarify the specific criteria used to match guilds for TW? One would think, given the reward system (active member GP) that you would be matched up with a guild going after the same rewards. That however does not seem to be the case.

For example, in today's TW we have 158 million GP out of a possible 171 million. The guild we are paired against could potentially enter 194 million GP into the competition. Let's say, 92% of their guild joined the TW, they would still be 20 million GP larger than us.

This is not an isolated incident, and needs to be addressed. The difference of 20+ million GP and potentially hundreds of zeta'ed abilities is too great for the smaller guild to overcome.

Thank you for your response in advance.

Replies

  • Waqui
    6879 posts Member
    Likos wrote: »
    For example, in today's TW we have 158 million GP out of a possible 171 million. The guild we are paired against could potentially enter 194 million GP into the competition. Let's say, 92% of their guild joined the TW, they would still be 20 million GP larger than us.

    Which means they entered with less than 92% since they entered with approximately 158 million GP like you did.
    This is not an isolated incident, and needs to be addressed. The difference of 20+ million GP and potentially hundreds of zeta'ed abilities is too great for the smaller guild to overcome.

    What 20 million GP difference?
  • Likos
    14 posts Member
    My 92% example matches the percentage of our guild that joined the event. I understand your point - they could have sandbagged for easier competition, that doesn't make the behavior right.

    20 million difference refers to the complete total difference in size. It may as well refer to time or money invested into the game, as those are the two ways to increase GP. At that 194 mil level, more time most certainly correlates to better mods, zeta'ed / omega'ed abilities and in this case more wins (or easier wins to your point).
  • Waqui
    6879 posts Member
    Likos wrote: »
    My 92% example matches the percentage of our guild that joined the event.

    And it's completely irrelevant. Guilds are matched by active GP - not active percentages.
    I understand your point - they could have sandbagged for easier competition, that doesn't make the behavior right.

    How is your opponents' behavior unacceptable while yours is acceptable? You went in shorthanded by 13 million GP. How is that any different?
    20 million difference refers to the complete total difference in size.

    You are matched by active GP - not total GP. There is no 20 million GP difference. Your 92% activity is all made up.

    But yes, if they have significantly higher average active GP than you, they most likely have more of the latest META team(s).
  • Your opponent can't enter 194 mil. Do you not understand the concept of brackets? Your in the 140 to 159.9 mil bracket. Since you are at 158 mil and the top of the bracket is only 159.9 there is an excellent chance you have up to an 18 mil gp advantage.

    The sole decider in how good or bad a TW matchup is based on the number and quality of top meta teams. As the top meta teams have gotten stronger and have so much built in recovery they make or break TW/GA matchups as they generally can't be worn down. Which is the point that people worried about matchups should be focusing on.
  • Likos
    14 posts Member
    Then lets stop discussing size as the determining factor. They should have developed a wins and losses ELO system like chess. If we're simply being out played then we should be matched up with guilds who have also lost. And the same goes for guilds that advertise high win percentages in the recruitment forums. If you continue to win you should play guilds at your level.

    I asked for the criteria - thanks for letting me know that teams sandbag.
  • Interesting viewpoint as you yourself are a sandbagger (as defined by the people who think that is a thing)
  • Likos
    14 posts Member
    I’m just trying to point out that winning and or quality of play is far more important than size alone.

    It’s really easy to antagonize someone. We asked everyone to join the TW, 5 people didn’t join, that’s not sandbagging.

    In my opinion an ELO type system would be best. Equal skill level guilds get matched with each other. If there are other criteria, I’d like to know.
  • Waqui
    6879 posts Member
    Likos wrote: »
    Then lets stop discussing size as the determining factor. They should have developed a wins and losses ELO system like chess. If we're simply being out played then we should be matched up with guilds who have also lost. And the same goes for guilds that advertise high win percentages in the recruitment forums. If you continue to win you should play guilds at your level.

    I asked for the criteria - thanks for letting me know that teams sandbag.

    How would you handle when guilds lose/gain members? If you use the previous performances of a guild in the matchmaking as a measure of that guild's strength it can be misleading when guilds
    gain or lose multiple players.
    Likos wrote: »
    It’s really easy to antagonize someone. We asked everyone to join the TW, 5 people didn’t join, that’s not sandbagging.

    Whether you did it on purpose or not is irrelevant from a matchmaking point of view.
    Likos wrote: »
    In my opinion an ELO type system would be best. Equal skill level guilds get matched with each other. If there are other criteria, I’d like to know.

    En ELO system is not very dynamic. A guild's strength can change significantly between two TWs. Their ELO score/rank could be very misleading as a measure of their strength.

  • Likos
    14 posts Member
    That’s a great point. It’s not dynamic enough.
Sign In or Register to comment.