Latest Match they have 27,811,468 higher GP 26%
34 of us have joined = 85892193 our average 2526241 GP
There's 14 spots per territory so by what people have said the number of members joined on their Guild is either 28 or 29 so their average if matched on joined GP is:
85892193 / 28 = 3067578
85892193 / 29 = 2961800
So is it based upon Guild GP, 47 us are active in last 24 hours 102054613 GP
Or GP of Joined as per above
I just want to know. Or I am missing something???
GP joined. Your active GP (85.9M) will be very similar to theirs.
But as you point out, yours is made up of 34 players, theirs is 28 or 29.
You’re certainly at a disadvantage, but I wouldn’t say it’s a write off.
& Kyno
So the match is based upon Joined GP if based upon the 85.9m not Active Guild at the time TW starts (102m). So by the time everyone Joins and the time we see who we are up against it has matched us based upon total GP of everyone Joined, why don't we have just allow more time to analyse anything else 30Minutes between Join Window Closes and The Matching would be better???
I really don't know if the matching time is really an issue or that it has anything to do with the current issues.
If they do make changes to the algorithm and it requires more time for matchmaking to complete I'm sure they will add it.
Latest Match they have 27,811,468 higher GP 26%
34 of us have joined = 85892193 our average 2526241 GP
There's 14 spots per territory so by what people have said the number of members joined on their Guild is either 28 or 29 so their average if matched on joined GP is:
85892193 / 28 = 3067578
85892193 / 29 = 2961800
So is it based upon Guild GP, 47 us are active in last 24 hours 102054613 GP
Or GP of Joined as per above
I just want to know. Or I am missing something???
GP joined. Your active GP (85.9M) will be very similar to theirs.
But as you point out, yours is made up of 34 players, theirs is 28 or 29.
You’re certainly at a disadvantage, but I wouldn’t say it’s a write off.
& @Kyno
So the match is based upon Joined GP if based upon the 85.9m not Active Guild at the time TW starts (102m). So by the time everyone Joins and the time we see who we are up against it has matched us based upon total GP of everyone Joined, why don't we have just allow more time to analyse anything else 30Minutes between Join Window Closes and The Matching would be better???
Why extend the window if there's enough time for the designed matchmaking? Are you assuming CG intend to match guild rosters more evenly on more parameters?
Even matching on both active GP and number of active players shouldn't require much time.
C'mon man. Drop the CG defense for a second and pretend you have integrity.
Run 50/50 vs 46/50...everyone that actually plays this game knows what the result will be before you even look at the rosters. We've all seen plenty of data - on both sides of that equation. TW matchmaking is poor when one side has a fully active guild and the other doesn't.
You should maybe read the rest of my posts in this thread...
No thank you.
Good to see you keep an open mind.
I’ll save you the bother, since it’s obviously too much for you.
I agree, matchmaking should be fixed to match signed up GP AND number of signed up players.
I think some “mismatches” are much closer than some people make out, but the system is definitely flawed and needs changed.
Latest Match they have 27,811,468 higher GP 26%
34 of us have joined = 85892193 our average 2526241 GP
There's 14 spots per territory so by what people have said the number of members joined on their Guild is either 28 or 29 so their average if matched on joined GP is:
85892193 / 28 = 3067578
85892193 / 29 = 2961800
So is it based upon Guild GP, 47 us are active in last 24 hours 102054613 GP
Or GP of Joined as per above
I just want to know. Or I am missing something???
GP joined. Your active GP (85.9M) will be very similar to theirs.
But as you point out, yours is made up of 34 players, theirs is 28 or 29.
You’re certainly at a disadvantage, but I wouldn’t say it’s a write off.
& @Kyno
So the match is based upon Joined GP if based upon the 85.9m not Active Guild at the time TW starts (102m). So by the time everyone Joins and the time we see who we are up against it has matched us based upon total GP of everyone Joined, why don't we have just allow more time to analyse anything else 30Minutes between Join Window Closes and The Matching would be better???
I don’t know why 30 minutes would make any difference? When signup finishes, your guild are at a certain figure for active GP, and many other guilds will be at a similar figure. 30 minutes later nothing will have changed
C'mon man. Drop the CG defense for a second and pretend you have integrity.
Run 50/50 vs 46/50...everyone that actually plays this game knows what the result will be before you even look at the rosters. We've all seen plenty of data - on both sides of that equation. TW matchmaking is poor when one side has a fully active guild and the other doesn't.
You should maybe read the rest of my posts in this thread...
No thank you.
Good to see you keep an open mind.
I’ll save you the bother, since it’s obviously too much for you.
I agree, matchmaking should be fixed to match signed up GP AND number of signed up players.
I think some “mismatches” are much closer than some people make out, but the system is definitely flawed and needs changed.
That enough integrity for you?
Yes, thank you.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
Would be good if they extended the matchmaking process and added another comparison other than signed up GP.
An amount of players signed up comparison could potentially end a lot of matchmaking problems
Well, that and the fact that using GP as a measure of anything having to do with actual effectiveness is pointless. A zeta on QGJ's leadership counts the same GP as one on GSky's leadership. Part of the problem with any GP-based algorithm is that those algorithms were implemented before relics and GSky/GLs were even in the game. GP is not a good indicator of anything relevant at high levels - yet it is the central piece of matchmaking.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie
In game guild: TNR Uprising I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
Would be good if they extended the matchmaking process and added another comparison other than signed up GP.
An amount of players signed up comparison could potentially end a lot of matchmaking problems
Well, that and the fact that using GP as a measure of anything having to do with actual effectiveness is pointless. A zeta on QGJ's leadership counts the same GP as one on GSky's leadership. Part of the problem with any GP-based algorithm is that those algorithms were implemented before relics and GSky/GLs were even in the game. GP is not a good indicator of anything relevant at high levels - yet it is the central piece of matchmaking.
Would be good if they extended the matchmaking process and added another comparison other than signed up GP.
An amount of players signed up comparison could potentially end a lot of matchmaking problems
Well, that and the fact that using GP as a measure of anything having to do with actual effectiveness is pointless. A zeta on QGJ's leadership counts the same GP as one on GSky's leadership. Part of the problem with any GP-based algorithm is that those algorithms were implemented before relics and GSky/GLs were even in the game. GP is not a good indicator of anything relevant at high levels - yet it is the central piece of matchmaking.
Especially since GL toons were released. We were just matched up with 0 GL Reys on our side vs 8 on the opponent side. I think each guild had 3 GL Kylo's. Even if our GP's are equal, this is a mismatch.
Would be good if they extended the matchmaking process and added another comparison other than signed up GP.
An amount of players signed up comparison could potentially end a lot of matchmaking problems
Well, that and the fact that using GP as a measure of anything having to do with actual effectiveness is pointless. A zeta on QGJ's leadership counts the same GP as one on GSky's leadership. Part of the problem with any GP-based algorithm is that those algorithms were implemented before relics and GSky/GLs were even in the game. GP is not a good indicator of anything relevant at high levels - yet it is the central piece of matchmaking.
GP is not a measure of effectiveness.
Which was his point.
The point is GP was never meant to be a measure of effectiveness but investment though. If the tw algo is updated to match # of players at similar GP point, that's that. It's fixed.
The point is GP was never meant to be a measure of effectiveness but investment though. If the tw algo is updated to match # of players at similar GP point, that's that. It's fixed.[/quote]
Think it would be the simplest calculation to implement. Would probably get over complicated trying to compare 6E mods, Relics etc
Especially since GL toons were released. We were just matched up with 0 GL Reys on our side vs 8 on the opponent side. I think each guild had 3 GL Kylo's. Even if our GP's are equal, this is a mismatch.
It's not an even match regarding that parameter but I see no problem here (regarding you have similar active GP and number of participants). Guilds that develop stronger rosters should benefit.
They need to implement some kind of multiplicative factor for harder to get characters. Heroes journey charactets have their gp's count twice as much, and gl's count 10 times as much. Also if you have 48 active members it should find an opponent within a narrow band or your guilds gp that also has 48 members.
They need to implement some kind of multiplicative factor for harder to get characters. Heroes journey charactets have their gp's count twice as much, and gl's count 10 times as much. Also if you have 48 active members it should find an opponent within a narrow band or your guilds gp that also has 48 members.
The last sentence is enough. No need for the first bit.
Bear in mind that to unlock either GL, there’s a pile of GP gained that is totally wasted. So, in a way, their GP is already inflated in the algorithm.
Latest Match they have 27,811,468 higher GP 26%
34 of us have joined = 85892193 our average 2526241 GP
There's 14 spots per territory so by what people have said the number of members joined on their Guild is either 28 or 29 so their average if matched on joined GP is:
85892193 / 28 = 3067578
85892193 / 29 = 2961800
So is it based upon Guild GP, 47 us are active in last 24 hours 102054613 GP
Or GP of Joined as per above
I just want to know. Or I am missing something???
GP joined. Your active GP (85.9M) will be very similar to theirs.
But as you point out, yours is made up of 34 players, theirs is 28 or 29.
You’re certainly at a disadvantage, but I wouldn’t say it’s a write off.
& @Kyno
So the match is based upon Joined GP if based upon the 85.9m not Active Guild at the time TW starts (102m). So by the time everyone Joins and the time we see who we are up against it has matched us based upon total GP of everyone Joined, why don't we have just allow more time to analyse anything else 30Minutes between Join Window Closes and The Matching would be better???
We won by a mile, again...
I guess I have to accept it's flawed, sometimes we win, sometimes we lose, and even less sometimes there's an accurate and fair match up!
Thank you for everyone that has commented. If the Devs are interested then maybe one or more of us will hear from them!
We went in on 43/50 (226M). We have several guild members on vacation / travelling this weekend. I guess opponents went in on 45/50.
Here’s the board after 2hrs 45 mins
We’re quite TW focused, but the margin of victory can’t just be down to us having 2 less players than them, surely?
Yes, which is exactly what I (and others) have been saying for over a year. Even being 2 players off is enough to throw the MM out of whack to get matches exactly like what you showed.
Although, margin of victory... did they eventually clear? Lots of guilds just can't be that active in the first 3 hours.
We went in on 43/50 (226M). We have several guild members on vacation / travelling this weekend. I guess opponents went in on 45/50.
Here’s the board after 2hrs 45 mins
We’re quite TW focused, but the margin of victory can’t just be down to us having 2 less players than them, surely?
Yes, which is exactly what I (and others) have been saying for over a year. Even being 2 players off is enough to throw the MM out of whack to get matches exactly like what you showed.
Although, margin of victory... did they eventually clear? Lots of guilds just can't be that active in the first 3 hours.
They did eventually, but the winning margin was ~400 points.
We dropped 9 battles total. They dropped 79.
I don’t think a 2 player difference was the cause here. We are PvP focused (we’ve had fewer than 9 drops on several occasions) and our opponents obviously aren’t.
I mean, they dropped more than 9 clearing a zone of Bossk led Bounty Hunters - that’s surely got nothing to do with one guild having 2 more members? They dropped 7 clearing a Carth lead OR team zone.
You have to remember that matchups analysed on paper don’t tell the whole story. If you’ve got one guild who have a problem with TM-loading Geos and Nightsisters facing another who know their counters, the result is pretty clear regardless of the stats.
Simple solution: do exactly what they do now but only match guilds with the same record in their last 10 TWs. Perhaps give higher rewards for wins in 10-0 vs 10-0 matches than in 2-8 vs 2-8 matches. At least matches will be more competitive.
We went in on 43/50 (226M). We have several guild members on vacation / travelling this weekend. I guess opponents went in on 45/50.
Here’s the board after 2hrs 45 mins
We’re quite TW focused, but the margin of victory can’t just be down to us having 2 less players than them, surely?
Yes, which is exactly what I (and others) have been saying for over a year. Even being 2 players off is enough to throw the MM out of whack to get matches exactly like what you showed.
Although, margin of victory... did they eventually clear? Lots of guilds just can't be that active in the first 3 hours.
They did eventually, but the winning margin was ~400 points.
We dropped 9 battles total. They dropped 79.
I don’t think a 2 player difference was the cause here. We are PvP focused (we’ve had fewer than 9 drops on several occasions) and our opponents obviously aren’t.
I mean, they dropped more than 9 clearing a zone of Bossk led Bounty Hunters - that’s surely got nothing to do with one guild having 2 more members? They dropped 7 clearing a Carth lead OR team zone.
You have to remember that matchups analysed on paper don’t tell the whole story. If you’ve got one guild who have a problem with TM-loading Geos and Nightsisters facing another who know their counters, the result is pretty clear regardless of the stats.
C'mon, everybody simply KNOWS: whoever enter with signifcant less players will win (2~3+). If you want make a point, bring a TW when your guild had 5+ more members than the adversary and got a win. Then, you goint a point.
P.S.: We do use that, we limit players to 42. Still unbeaten this year this way. When we relax and accept 45 to 47 members max, we have a winning rate of 66%. The last one we got sandbagged, 45 players against 40. No need to try.
P.S.2: Easy fix for Cg, just add to the code to pair guilds with 1+, 1- players assigned to TW. If you enter with 48, you'll be assigned against a guild with 47, 48 or 49. The prizes are not so good, so keep it funny at least.
Simple solution: do exactly what they do now but only match guilds with the same record in their last 10 TWs. Perhaps give higher rewards for wins in 10-0 vs 10-0 matches than in 2-8 vs 2-8 matches. At least matches will be more competitive.
Lots of simple options. But based on Kyno's responses, it's pretty clear that CG still doesn't even see this as a problem, so it's not going to change.
We went in on 43/50 (226M). We have several guild members on vacation / travelling this weekend. I guess opponents went in on 45/50.
Here’s the board after 2hrs 45 mins
We’re quite TW focused, but the margin of victory can’t just be down to us having 2 less players than them, surely?
Yes, which is exactly what I (and others) have been saying for over a year. Even being 2 players off is enough to throw the MM out of whack to get matches exactly like what you showed.
Although, margin of victory... did they eventually clear? Lots of guilds just can't be that active in the first 3 hours.
They did eventually, but the winning margin was ~400 points.
We dropped 9 battles total. They dropped 79.
I don’t think a 2 player difference was the cause here. We are PvP focused (we’ve had fewer than 9 drops on several occasions) and our opponents obviously aren’t.
I mean, they dropped more than 9 clearing a zone of Bossk led Bounty Hunters - that’s surely got nothing to do with one guild having 2 more members? They dropped 7 clearing a Carth lead OR team zone.
You have to remember that matchups analysed on paper don’t tell the whole story. If you’ve got one guild who have a problem with TM-loading Geos and Nightsisters facing another who know their counters, the result is pretty clear regardless of the stats.
C'mon, everybody simply KNOWS: whoever enter with signifcant less players will win (2~3+). If you want make a point, bring a TW when your guild had 5+ more members than the adversary and got a win. Then, you goint a point.
P.S.: We do use that, we limit players to 42. Still unbeaten this year this way. When we relax and accept 45 to 47 members max, we have a winning rate of 66%. The last one we got sandbagged, 45 players against 40. No need to try.
P.S.2: Easy fix for Cg, just add to the code to pair guilds with 1+, 1- players assigned to TW. If you enter with 48, you'll be assigned against a guild with 47, 48 or 49. The prizes are not so good, so keep it funny at least.
No idea why they haven't dunnit to this day. One problem with it though; scarcity of guild at high gp. When the equation involves mm with actives only, it becomes harder to solve. And CG may be specifically wary of this since their highest paying customers are there.
We went in on 43/50 (226M). We have several guild members on vacation / travelling this weekend. I guess opponents went in on 45/50.
Here’s the board after 2hrs 45 mins
We’re quite TW focused, but the margin of victory can’t just be down to us having 2 less players than them, surely?
Yes, which is exactly what I (and others) have been saying for over a year. Even being 2 players off is enough to throw the MM out of whack to get matches exactly like what you showed.
Although, margin of victory... did they eventually clear? Lots of guilds just can't be that active in the first 3 hours.
They did eventually, but the winning margin was ~400 points.
We dropped 9 battles total. They dropped 79.
I don’t think a 2 player difference was the cause here. We are PvP focused (we’ve had fewer than 9 drops on several occasions) and our opponents obviously aren’t.
I mean, they dropped more than 9 clearing a zone of Bossk led Bounty Hunters - that’s surely got nothing to do with one guild having 2 more members? They dropped 7 clearing a Carth lead OR team zone.
You have to remember that matchups analysed on paper don’t tell the whole story. If you’ve got one guild who have a problem with TM-loading Geos and Nightsisters facing another who know their counters, the result is pretty clear regardless of the stats.
C'mon, everybody simply KNOWS: whoever enter with signifcant less players will win (2~3+). If you want make a point, bring a TW when your guild had 5+ more members than the adversary and got a win. Then, you goint a point.
P.S.: We do use that, we limit players to 42. Still unbeaten this year this way. When we relax and accept 45 to 47 members max, we have a winning rate of 66%. The last one we got sandbagged, 45 players against 40. No need to try.
P.S.2: Easy fix for Cg, just add to the code to pair guilds with 1+, 1- players assigned to TW. If you enter with 48, you'll be assigned against a guild with 47, 48 or 49. The prizes are not so good, so keep it funny at least.
No idea why they haven't dunnit to this day. One problem with it though; scarcity of guild at high gp. When the equation involves mm with actives only, it becomes harder to solve. And CG may be specifically wary of this since their highest paying customers are there.
True, but they really bother about "Tw's prizes"? Not much, tw is about fun, not about prizes
"I used 6m GP vs two 3m GP to make the point of the active GP argument. While I agree, and didn't intend, that this isn't the normal matchup...what is normal is seeing 38-40 vs 50, of the same "active" guild GP."
The quote above was made on June 10, earlier in the 2nd page where I said that it was an EXAMPLE of an active GP issue, but also stated that I didn't intend or say that this is the normal TW mismatch ...YOU were the only person in this thread that believes I specifically claimed two 3m GP players vs a 6m GP ...everyone else understood it as the example I used regarding the issue of the "active GP" claim.
StarSon posted a screen of an actual TW mismatch, not only showing a 20m GP difference, but a major difference in rosters ...
now you need to digest it all and figure it out, and I'll move along..
"I used 6m GP vs two 3m GP to make the point of the active GP argument. While I agree, and didn't intend, that this isn't the normal matchup...what is normal is seeing 38-40 vs 50, of the same "active" guild GP."
The quote above was made on June 10, earlier in the 2nd page where I said that it was an EXAMPLE of an active GP issue, but also stated that I didn't intend or say that this is the normal TW mismatch ...YOU were the only person in this thread that believes I specifically claimed two 3m GP players vs a 6m GP ...everyone else understood it as the example I used regarding the issue of the "active GP" claim.
StarSon posted a screen of an actual TW mismatch, not only showing a 20m GP difference, but a major difference in rosters ...
now you need to digest it all and figure it out, and I'll move along..
Not going to bother, as it’s clear you haven’t read all of my posts in the thread either.
Do mismatches happen? Yes. I have never denied that. My beef is and always is when people suggest that guilds going in with <50 are doing it deliberately to scam the system. Some are, for sure, but most aren’t.
Is every screenshot posted in one of these threads a mismatch? No. Starson’s WAS a mismatch, no doubt, but there are several people post matchup screenshots that look perfectly fair.
Will changing matchmaking to factor in number of signed up people put an end to these complaint threads? Absolutely not. Whiners gonna whine.
We went in on 43/50 (226M). We have several guild members on vacation / travelling this weekend. I guess opponents went in on 45/50.
Here’s the board after 2hrs 45 mins
We’re quite TW focused, but the margin of victory can’t just be down to us having 2 less players than them, surely?
"Margin of victory 21h hours" BEFORE TW ends.... yeah yeah,
Sorry - I should have been clearer. At that point the opponents had already dropped 18 battles to our 9 total. So whilst I didn’t know the eventual margin of victory, I knew it was a victory already.
And I say again, if you look at the discord bot screen I included, there’s no way the matchup was as unfair as that. We had a slight edge, but when you’re facing guilds that load TM on multiple NS teams, the marginal disadvantage isn’t the reason they’re losing.
Simple solution: do exactly what they do now but only match guilds with the same record in their last 10 TWs. Perhaps give higher rewards for wins in 10-0 vs 10-0 matches than in 2-8 vs 2-8 matches. At least matches will be more competitive.
The only problem with win records, is that guilds can be fluid and a system like that could be manipulated too.
Replies
I really don't know if the matching time is really an issue or that it has anything to do with the current issues.
If they do make changes to the algorithm and it requires more time for matchmaking to complete I'm sure they will add it.
Why extend the window if there's enough time for the designed matchmaking? Are you assuming CG intend to match guild rosters more evenly on more parameters?
Even matching on both active GP and number of active players shouldn't require much time.
I’ll save you the bother, since it’s obviously too much for you.
I agree, matchmaking should be fixed to match signed up GP AND number of signed up players.
I think some “mismatches” are much closer than some people make out, but the system is definitely flawed and needs changed.
That enough integrity for you?
Yes, thank you.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
We went in on 43/50 (226M). We have several guild members on vacation / travelling this weekend. I guess opponents went in on 45/50.
Here’s the board after 2hrs 45 mins
We’re quite TW focused, but the margin of victory can’t just be down to us having 2 less players than them, surely?
An amount of players signed up comparison could potentially end a lot of matchmaking problems
Well, that and the fact that using GP as a measure of anything having to do with actual effectiveness is pointless. A zeta on QGJ's leadership counts the same GP as one on GSky's leadership. Part of the problem with any GP-based algorithm is that those algorithms were implemented before relics and GSky/GLs were even in the game. GP is not a good indicator of anything relevant at high levels - yet it is the central piece of matchmaking.
In game guild: TNR Uprising
I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
*This space left intentionally blank*
GP is not a measure of effectiveness.
Which was his point.
Especially since GL toons were released. We were just matched up with 0 GL Reys on our side vs 8 on the opponent side. I think each guild had 3 GL Kylo's. Even if our GP's are equal, this is a mismatch.
The point is GP was never meant to be a measure of effectiveness but investment though. If the tw algo is updated to match # of players at similar GP point, that's that. It's fixed.
Think it would be the simplest calculation to implement. Would probably get over complicated trying to compare 6E mods, Relics etc
It's not an even match regarding that parameter but I see no problem here (regarding you have similar active GP and number of participants). Guilds that develop stronger rosters should benefit.
Bear in mind that to unlock either GL, there’s a pile of GP gained that is totally wasted. So, in a way, their GP is already inflated in the algorithm.
We won by a mile, again...
I guess I have to accept it's flawed, sometimes we win, sometimes we lose, and even less sometimes there's an accurate and fair match up!
Thank you for everyone that has commented. If the Devs are interested then maybe one or more of us will hear from them!
IF
Yes, which is exactly what I (and others) have been saying for over a year. Even being 2 players off is enough to throw the MM out of whack to get matches exactly like what you showed.
Although, margin of victory... did they eventually clear? Lots of guilds just can't be that active in the first 3 hours.
We dropped 9 battles total. They dropped 79.
I don’t think a 2 player difference was the cause here. We are PvP focused (we’ve had fewer than 9 drops on several occasions) and our opponents obviously aren’t.
I mean, they dropped more than 9 clearing a zone of Bossk led Bounty Hunters - that’s surely got nothing to do with one guild having 2 more members? They dropped 7 clearing a Carth lead OR team zone.
You have to remember that matchups analysed on paper don’t tell the whole story. If you’ve got one guild who have a problem with TM-loading Geos and Nightsisters facing another who know their counters, the result is pretty clear regardless of the stats.
"Margin of victory 21h hours" BEFORE TW ends.... yeah yeah,
C'mon, everybody simply KNOWS: whoever enter with signifcant less players will win (2~3+). If you want make a point, bring a TW when your guild had 5+ more members than the adversary and got a win. Then, you goint a point.
P.S.: We do use that, we limit players to 42. Still unbeaten this year this way. When we relax and accept 45 to 47 members max, we have a winning rate of 66%. The last one we got sandbagged, 45 players against 40. No need to try.
P.S.2: Easy fix for Cg, just add to the code to pair guilds with 1+, 1- players assigned to TW. If you enter with 48, you'll be assigned against a guild with 47, 48 or 49. The prizes are not so good, so keep it funny at least.
Lots of simple options. But based on Kyno's responses, it's pretty clear that CG still doesn't even see this as a problem, so it's not going to change.
No idea why they haven't dunnit to this day. One problem with it though; scarcity of guild at high gp. When the equation involves mm with actives only, it becomes harder to solve. And CG may be specifically wary of this since their highest paying customers are there.
True, but they really bother about "Tw's prizes"? Not much, tw is about fun, not about prizes
The quote above was made on June 10, earlier in the 2nd page where I said that it was an EXAMPLE of an active GP issue, but also stated that I didn't intend or say that this is the normal TW mismatch ...YOU were the only person in this thread that believes I specifically claimed two 3m GP players vs a 6m GP ...everyone else understood it as the example I used regarding the issue of the "active GP" claim.
StarSon posted a screen of an actual TW mismatch, not only showing a 20m GP difference, but a major difference in rosters ...
now you need to digest it all and figure it out, and I'll move along..
Do mismatches happen? Yes. I have never denied that. My beef is and always is when people suggest that guilds going in with <50 are doing it deliberately to scam the system. Some are, for sure, but most aren’t.
Is every screenshot posted in one of these threads a mismatch? No. Starson’s WAS a mismatch, no doubt, but there are several people post matchup screenshots that look perfectly fair.
Will changing matchmaking to factor in number of signed up people put an end to these complaint threads? Absolutely not. Whiners gonna whine.
Sorry - I should have been clearer. At that point the opponents had already dropped 18 battles to our 9 total. So whilst I didn’t know the eventual margin of victory, I knew it was a victory already.
And I say again, if you look at the discord bot screen I included, there’s no way the matchup was as unfair as that. We had a slight edge, but when you’re facing guilds that load TM on multiple NS teams, the marginal disadvantage isn’t the reason they’re losing.
The only problem with win records, is that guilds can be fluid and a system like that could be manipulated too.