TW Sand Bagging/Match making system seriously broken

Replies

  • Gorgus
    122 posts Member
    Wargoat wrote: »
    I agree, there should be no join option. The entire guild should be placed in tw.
    Hard disagree.

    People have lives outside of this game.

    A guild shouldn’t be punished if members have work commitments / vacation / family events / ill health.

    I agree that guilds shouldn’t be “punished” for members needing to sit out wars. However, the current system punishes guilds for having full participation in TWs, which seems like a very perverse incentive structure. If the system has to favor one type of guild over another, it should favor the guild that gets 50 people signed up, IMO.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Gorgus wrote: »
    Wargoat wrote: »
    I agree, there should be no join option. The entire guild should be placed in tw.
    Hard disagree.

    People have lives outside of this game.

    A guild shouldn’t be punished if members have work commitments / vacation / family events / ill health.

    I agree that guilds shouldn’t be “punished” for members needing to sit out wars. However, the current system punishes guilds for having full participation in TWs, which seems like a very perverse incentive structure. If the system has to favor one type of guild over another, it should favor the guild that gets 50 people signed up, IMO.

    That's not true, many guilds dont face this issue, when going in full, based on the number of complaints about this.

    Many of the times this comes up, it's often not a full guild either.

    It is or is not favoring guilds has nothing to do with thier count of the guild on the "losing side" of the mismatch.
  • UdalCuain wrote: »
    UdalCuain wrote: »
    Zedstar wrote: »
    UdalCuain wrote: »
    It's not always sandbagging.

    How many defence slots you having to set? And have you definitely got the right guild? There's a few alliances out there that make tiny adjustments to the guild names.

    Defence slots is 22 and we went in with a full guild so they 100% sand bagged

    Again, it's not necessarily sandbagging. People have real lives. Everyone is really quick to accuse people of trying to cheat the system. I shouldn't have signed up for this TW as I have assignments due, but I did. We still are only going into TW with 40 as lots of guildies have stuff on this week.

    Looks balanced on the GP front, going of average GP they have 316.8m GP signed up.

    To the other guild does it matter whether the egregious imbalance is intentional or not. They are no less screwed because jears were in the right place. The fact it can happen unintentionally is a direct and immediate path to abuse as is the case with all exploits.

    Why dont they just go straight across guild GP ?? Then we wont have this problem and if you lose then its your fault for having a crappy quality GP. Lets put the responsibilty back on the players to conduct quality competition not some kind of regulation that produces the opposite of the desired result.

    Whole guild GP doesn't work. Then you end up with the same problem. If two guilds both with 300m GP face each other, one with 40 signed up and the other with 50, it's still a massive imbalance.

    The most reasonable solution is to keep signed up GP, and incorporate the numbers signed up into matchmaking too. That way the average player GP will be equal for both guilds.

    Those are all valid points, I'm suggesting that maybe the first algorithm period is total guild GP. After you get a close match on that, then let the sign up dynamic work itself out. There isn't a scenario where a 164m GP like mine will beat a 200m GP guild like the one we're hopelessly fighting today. 10 GL's to our 3. Do people really believe that the 200m guild is going to be nice and send its worst 30 to fight our 35?

    This is the issue. Guilds that are in totally different realities are being matched.

  • DarjeloSalas
    9944 posts Member
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Wargoat wrote: »
    I agree, there should be no join option. The entire guild should be placed in tw.
    Hard disagree.

    People have lives outside of this game.

    A guild shouldn’t be punished if members have work commitments / vacation / family events / ill health.

    The guild shouldn't be rewarded with an easier match up for it either.

    There are two different debates here :

    1) Guilds "intentionally" sandbagging.
    2) Matchmaking guilds with differing number of active participants.

    Trying to argue point 1 is a waste of time and largely irrelevant if point 2 were corrected.

    Incidentally, point 2 does need to be addressed. In almost every case where guilds have different number of participants, the result is a forgone conclusion.
    Expertly summarised. This is the issue in a nutshell
  • DarjeloSalas
    9944 posts Member
    Gorgus wrote: »
    Wargoat wrote: »
    I agree, there should be no join option. The entire guild should be placed in tw.
    Hard disagree.

    People have lives outside of this game.

    A guild shouldn’t be punished if members have work commitments / vacation / family events / ill health.

    I agree that guilds shouldn’t be “punished” for members needing to sit out wars. However, the current system punishes guilds for having full participation in TWs, which seems like a very perverse incentive structure. If the system has to favor one type of guild over another, it should favor the guild that gets 50 people signed up, IMO.

    But we can’t propose to solve one matchmaking problem with a system that just creates another, surely?
  • avihas
    247 posts Member
    We too got the harper end of possuble sandbagging and bad matchmaking this TW- 96GLs against ours 26.
    Even if we lower their number of GLs by the same factor of getting their gp to be compare to ours, we're taking about 77 GLs against our 23...
  • Gorgus
    122 posts Member
    Gorgus wrote: »
    Wargoat wrote: »
    I agree, there should be no join option. The entire guild should be placed in tw.
    Hard disagree.

    People have lives outside of this game.

    A guild shouldn’t be punished if members have work commitments / vacation / family events / ill health.

    I agree that guilds shouldn’t be “punished” for members needing to sit out wars. However, the current system punishes guilds for having full participation in TWs, which seems like a very perverse incentive structure. If the system has to favor one type of guild over another, it should favor the guild that gets 50 people signed up, IMO.

    But we can’t propose to solve one matchmaking problem with a system that just creates another, surely?

    Ideally, a new matchmaking system would be fair to all guilds. If such a system was feasible, that would obviously be the best solution. My point is that, if such a system is not feasible, any “matchmaking preference” should go to guilds that get high participation, since the point of guilds is cooperative participation. The current system incentives precisely the opposite and, in my view, is therefore the worst alternative.
  • Artumas
    324 posts Member
    My guild is generally hovering around 49-50 players, and yet we very rarely break 40 people joining, and have never asked anyone to sit out other than because they won't be available.
    We also have wildly high GP variance between the top and bottom of our guild's members' GP.

    In nearly every one of our wins our opponent has: not set proper defenses (either not full or not good team positioning), has TM loaded teams they really shouldn't (My GL Rey team gets TM loaded nearly every single TW without losing a single member of the team, for example...) or they just... don't even attack. Further, most of these guilds have terrible mods on their teams, and the individual rosters aren't even remotely competitive. (I've seen a 6M guy in a recent TW that had no GL, no GAS, no JKL and a non-reliced DR...)

    Meanwhile my guild has proper defenses, we split our GLs between defense and offense, almost the entire guild has extremely competitive rosters, and various members are often sitting on the top 100 for various characters on .gg. We also very, very, VERY rarely TM load any team that's excessively dangerous, like GLs or DR, without doing significant damage to it, with most of those teams being 1/1 fights.

    And half of our TW matches are us facing guilds with even less members signing up than we do. Our average is 38 but the average defenses are 16.

    We've only been matched with a guild that notably outmatched us twice. Once was very shortly after the GLs released and we got matched against a guild that had a whale that carried pretty much their entire defense, yet both sides couldn't break the front wall, and once was a match we still won despite them having like 3x the GLs of us because for some reason they barely set any on defense and performed horribly against most of our other teams.

    In my experience and opinion? Consistent lopsided TW matchmaking is a sign that your guild isn't competitive and aren't pursuing meta teams enough.
    It's the same experience I have in GAC. I've STILL only been matched with 3 people that had a GL. I have a 95% GAC win rate for the past 7 months because of that. I'm in Div 1 It's not my fault none of my opponents have farmed up GLs. I did mine 100% F2P. That decision is squarely on them.

    The solution?
    Well, I have 2.
    1, the easier but less effective method that can still be somewhat cheesed.
    Top 10 GP vs Top 10 GP as an additional matchmaking step. Easy, simple, will likely do wonders to improve matchmaking to be more competitive. But it's still pretty easy to "cheese" so to speak, so lopsided matches would still occasionally happen.

    2. Separate roster GPs into 3 categories. GLs, GAS and JKL as group 1. All other legendary/high-power characters as group 2. (DR, JKR, CLS, etc.) and all other characters as group 3. This is... a lot more involved, and would likely be a lot harder to properly implement, BUT... it would likely result in the closest matchmaking if done properly.

    If you were to combine both of those? You'd probably get extremely consistent matches. The main problem being that this would make the matchmaking algorithm a LOT more complex, and also likely a lot more flawed in various areas. And you'd likely have to figure out some sort of approximate conversion rate for each category for the more niche, less common, GP ranges, which functionally would actually probably have to be on a scale as a single GL in super low GP is a lot stronger than it is at the super high GP range.
  • Gorgus wrote: »
    Gorgus wrote: »
    Wargoat wrote: »
    I agree, there should be no join option. The entire guild should be placed in tw.
    Hard disagree.

    People have lives outside of this game.

    A guild shouldn’t be punished if members have work commitments / vacation / family events / ill health.

    I agree that guilds shouldn’t be “punished” for members needing to sit out wars. However, the current system punishes guilds for having full participation in TWs, which seems like a very perverse incentive structure. If the system has to favor one type of guild over another, it should favor the guild that gets 50 people signed up, IMO.

    But we can’t propose to solve one matchmaking problem with a system that just creates another, surely?

    Ideally, a new matchmaking system would be fair to all guilds. If such a system was feasible, that would obviously be the best solution. My point is that, if such a system is not feasible, any “matchmaking preference” should go to guilds that get high participation, since the point of guilds is cooperative participation. The current system incentives precisely the opposite and, in my view, is therefore the worst alternative.

    Yep. They seem to be able to match up GAC pretty well. Thats because players are sorted by total GP. Someone in Div 1 won''t draw someone in Div 3 and get to set two GL's up front and gg. TW should be the same
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Gorgus wrote: »
    Gorgus wrote: »
    Wargoat wrote: »
    I agree, there should be no join option. The entire guild should be placed in tw.
    Hard disagree.

    People have lives outside of this game.

    A guild shouldn’t be punished if members have work commitments / vacation / family events / ill health.

    I agree that guilds shouldn’t be “punished” for members needing to sit out wars. However, the current system punishes guilds for having full participation in TWs, which seems like a very perverse incentive structure. If the system has to favor one type of guild over another, it should favor the guild that gets 50 people signed up, IMO.

    But we can’t propose to solve one matchmaking problem with a system that just creates another, surely?

    Ideally, a new matchmaking system would be fair to all guilds. If such a system was feasible, that would obviously be the best solution. My point is that, if such a system is not feasible, any “matchmaking preference” should go to guilds that get high participation, since the point of guilds is cooperative participation. The current system incentives precisely the opposite and, in my view, is therefore the worst alternative.

    In theory, no. If the system can not be fair for all, it should not have any sort of "preference" as that can be isolated and manipulated by the players.

    The current system has issues, but in no way incentivize lower participation, as not everyone sees the same "mismatches", when not going in full, and some guilds dont go in full and still see the "mismatch".

    I'm not saying they shouldn't look into it, but just pointing out that there is not as much of a direct bias as many seem to give it.
  • Gorgus
    122 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Gorgus wrote: »
    Gorgus wrote: »
    Wargoat wrote: »
    I agree, there should be no join option. The entire guild should be placed in tw.
    Hard disagree.

    People have lives outside of this game.

    A guild shouldn’t be punished if members have work commitments / vacation / family events / ill health.

    I agree that guilds shouldn’t be “punished” for members needing to sit out wars. However, the current system punishes guilds for having full participation in TWs, which seems like a very perverse incentive structure. If the system has to favor one type of guild over another, it should favor the guild that gets 50 people signed up, IMO.

    But we can’t propose to solve one matchmaking problem with a system that just creates another, surely?

    Ideally, a new matchmaking system would be fair to all guilds. If such a system was feasible, that would obviously be the best solution. My point is that, if such a system is not feasible, any “matchmaking preference” should go to guilds that get high participation, since the point of guilds is cooperative participation. The current system incentives precisely the opposite and, in my view, is therefore the worst alternative.

    In theory, no. If the system can not be fair for all, it should not have any sort of "preference" as that can be isolated and manipulated by the players.

    The current system has issues, but in no way incentivize lower participation, as not everyone sees the same "mismatches", when not going in full, and some guilds dont go in full and still see the "mismatch".

    I'm not saying they shouldn't look into it, but just pointing out that there is not as much of a direct bias as many seem to give it.

    A 250M GP guild with 38 players participating will, on average, have a sizable advantage over a 200M guild with 49 participating. Will they always? Naturally, of course not. But I really think it’s beyond debate that they first guild will usually have an advantage.
  • I don’t think that’s what Kyno is talking about.

    I think he means that guilds who go in with, say, 43 signed up are not guaranteed to get a weaker guild with 50 signed up. It’s perfectly possible they get a similarly powered guild who also have 43 signed up, or a more powerful guild with 38 signed up.
  • Gorgus
    122 posts Member
    I don’t think that’s what Kyno is talking about.

    I think he means that guilds who go in with, say, 43 signed up are not guaranteed to get a weaker guild with 50 signed up. It’s perfectly possible they get a similarly powered guild who also have 43 signed up, or a more powerful guild with 38 signed up.

    Agreed. That’s possible. It remains my view that going in with 50/50 is, on average, a disadvantage. Here’s why. Let’s stipulate that there are three possibilities for any guild in their matchup:

    1. The other guild has more participants, which is usually an advantage
    2. The other guild has the same or very similar number of participants, which will tend to create the most even matchups
    3. The other guild has fewer participants, which is usually a disadvantage

    If my guild goes in with 37 participants, options 1, 2, or 3 are possible. If my guild goes in with 50 participants, only 2 and 3 are possible.
  • CCyrilS
    6732 posts Member
    Gorgus wrote: »
    I don’t think that’s what Kyno is talking about.

    I think he means that guilds who go in with, say, 43 signed up are not guaranteed to get a weaker guild with 50 signed up. It’s perfectly possible they get a similarly powered guild who also have 43 signed up, or a more powerful guild with 38 signed up.

    Agreed. That’s possible. It remains my view that going in with 50/50 is, on average, a disadvantage. Here’s why. Let’s stipulate that there are three possibilities for any guild in their matchup:

    1. The other guild has more participants, which is usually an advantage
    2. The other guild has the same or very similar number of participants, which will tend to create the most even matchups
    3. The other guild has fewer participants, which is usually a disadvantage

    If my guild goes in with 37 participants, options 1, 2, or 3 are possible. If my guild goes in with 50 participants, only 2 and 3 are possible.

    we just won our 6th in a row with 48 signed up this last time (46+ is typical).

    We found it helps to get good.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Gorgus wrote: »
    I don’t think that’s what Kyno is talking about.

    I think he means that guilds who go in with, say, 43 signed up are not guaranteed to get a weaker guild with 50 signed up. It’s perfectly possible they get a similarly powered guild who also have 43 signed up, or a more powerful guild with 38 signed up.

    Agreed. That’s possible. It remains my view that going in with 50/50 is, on average, a disadvantage. Here’s why. Let’s stipulate that there are three possibilities for any guild in their matchup:

    1. The other guild has more participants, which is usually an advantage
    2. The other guild has the same or very similar number of participants, which will tend to create the most even matchups
    3. The other guild has fewer participants, which is usually a disadvantage

    If my guild goes in with 37 participants, options 1, 2, or 3 are possible. If my guild goes in with 50 participants, only 2 and 3 are possible.

    but that assumption is incorrect. it was looked into early on by the dev team and they found this to not be true.

    Its an assumption that that is the case, but we have seen people come here without going in 50/50 and get a mismatch where they were on the losing side and neither guild went in 50/50. also if you just look at the number of posts here and elsewhere about this issue, the relatively low number would indicate that of the possible 8000 guilds this is a very low occurrence issue. (not that this is fully accurate way to look at the problem) if this was happening around 5% of the time we would have 400 guilds seeing this issue, and we would see a lot more complaints from those possible 2000 players.

    It can stink to be in this situation, but its not as wide spread as many seem to give it credit for, and its not a 100% guarantee like many seem to think it is. We have brought this up and I am still waiting to hear back about my last ping on this topic.

    in your simplified example there are more ranges where those limited possibilities don't fit. if you go in with 49, 1,2,3 are possible because there will be no real advantage disadvantage.

    at no point am I saying this should not be looked into, just that we all have to keep perspective on this issue.
  • Gorgus
    122 posts Member
    edited May 2021
    Kyno wrote: »
    Gorgus wrote: »
    I don’t think that’s what Kyno is talking about.

    I think he means that guilds who go in with, say, 43 signed up are not guaranteed to get a weaker guild with 50 signed up. It’s perfectly possible they get a similarly powered guild who also have 43 signed up, or a more powerful guild with 38 signed up.

    Agreed. That’s possible. It remains my view that going in with 50/50 is, on average, a disadvantage. Here’s why. Let’s stipulate that there are three possibilities for any guild in their matchup:

    1. The other guild has more participants, which is usually an advantage
    2. The other guild has the same or very similar number of participants, which will tend to create the most even matchups
    3. The other guild has fewer participants, which is usually a disadvantage

    If my guild goes in with 37 participants, options 1, 2, or 3 are possible. If my guild goes in with 50 participants, only 2 and 3 are possible.

    but that assumption is incorrect. it was looked into early on by the dev team and they found this to not be true.

    Its an assumption that that is the case, but we have seen people come here without going in 50/50 and get a mismatch where they were on the losing side and neither guild went in 50/50. also if you just look at the number of posts here and elsewhere about this issue, the relatively low number would indicate that of the possible 8000 guilds this is a very low occurrence issue. (not that this is fully accurate way to look at the problem) if this was happening around 5% of the time we would have 400 guilds seeing this issue, and we would see a lot more complaints from those possible 2000 players.

    It can stink to be in this situation, but its not as wide spread as many seem to give it credit for, and its not a 100% guarantee like many seem to think it is. We have brought this up and I am still waiting to hear back about my last ping on this topic.

    in your simplified example there are more ranges where those limited possibilities don't fit. if you go in with 49, 1,2,3 are possible because there will be no real advantage disadvantage.

    at no point am I saying this should not be looked into, just that we all have to keep perspective on this issue.

    I’m glad that the devs looked at data on this early on. I’m curious if they’ve re-examined the data on this in more recent times. It might help inform and create perspective since many players see the current system as highly flawed. I don’t know that I agree with using the number of players talking about it here as a metric. I suspect that many, many players never post here at all. Also, I don’t think I’ve ever said that anything was a guarantee or that it’s not possible to win with a numbers mismatch.
    Post edited by Gorgus on
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Gorgus wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Gorgus wrote: »
    I don’t think that’s what Kyno is talking about.

    I think he means that guilds who go in with, say, 43 signed up are not guaranteed to get a weaker guild with 50 signed up. It’s perfectly possible they get a similarly powered guild who also have 43 signed up, or a more powerful guild with 38 signed up.

    Agreed. That’s possible. It remains my view that going in with 50/50 is, on average, a disadvantage. Here’s why. Let’s stipulate that there are three possibilities for any guild in their matchup:

    1. The other guild has more participants, which is usually an advantage
    2. The other guild has the same or very similar number of participants, which will tend to create the most even matchups
    3. The other guild has fewer participants, which is usually a disadvantage

    If my guild goes in with 37 participants, options 1, 2, or 3 are possible. If my guild goes in with 50 participants, only 2 and 3 are possible.

    but that assumption is incorrect. it was looked into early on by the dev team and they found this to not be true.

    Its an assumption that that is the case, but we have seen people come here without going in 50/50 and get a mismatch where they were on the losing side and neither guild went in 50/50. also if you just look at the number of posts here and elsewhere about this issue, the relatively low number would indicate that of the possible 8000 guilds this is a very low occurrence issue. (not that this is fully accurate way to look at the problem) if this was happening around 5% of the time we would have 400 guilds seeing this issue, and we would see a lot more complaints from those possible 2000 players.

    It can stink to be in this situation, but its not as wide spread as many seem to give it credit for, and its not a 100% guarantee like many seem to think it is. We have brought this up and I am still waiting to hear back about my last ping on this topic.

    in your simplified example there are more ranges where those limited possibilities don't fit. if you go in with 49, 1,2,3 are possible because there will be no real advantage disadvantage.

    at no point am I saying this should not be looked into, just that we all have to keep perspective on this issue.

    I’m glad that the devs looked at data on this early on. I’m curious if they’ve re-examined the data on this in more recent times. It might help inform and create perspective since many players see the current system as highly flawed. I don’t know that I agree with using the number of players talking about it here as a metric. I suspect that many, many players never post here at all.

    That is why I didn't say here. There are many places to see players discussing many topics, and many of us (including some of the devs) are everywhere.
  • Gorgus
    122 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Gorgus wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Gorgus wrote: »
    I don’t think that’s what Kyno is talking about.

    I think he means that guilds who go in with, say, 43 signed up are not guaranteed to get a weaker guild with 50 signed up. It’s perfectly possible they get a similarly powered guild who also have 43 signed up, or a more powerful guild with 38 signed up.

    Agreed. That’s possible. It remains my view that going in with 50/50 is, on average, a disadvantage. Here’s why. Let’s stipulate that there are three possibilities for any guild in their matchup:

    1. The other guild has more participants, which is usually an advantage
    2. The other guild has the same or very similar number of participants, which will tend to create the most even matchups
    3. The other guild has fewer participants, which is usually a disadvantage

    If my guild goes in with 37 participants, options 1, 2, or 3 are possible. If my guild goes in with 50 participants, only 2 and 3 are possible.

    but that assumption is incorrect. it was looked into early on by the dev team and they found this to not be true.

    Its an assumption that that is the case, but we have seen people come here without going in 50/50 and get a mismatch where they were on the losing side and neither guild went in 50/50. also if you just look at the number of posts here and elsewhere about this issue, the relatively low number would indicate that of the possible 8000 guilds this is a very low occurrence issue. (not that this is fully accurate way to look at the problem) if this was happening around 5% of the time we would have 400 guilds seeing this issue, and we would see a lot more complaints from those possible 2000 players.

    It can stink to be in this situation, but its not as wide spread as many seem to give it credit for, and its not a 100% guarantee like many seem to think it is. We have brought this up and I am still waiting to hear back about my last ping on this topic.

    in your simplified example there are more ranges where those limited possibilities don't fit. if you go in with 49, 1,2,3 are possible because there will be no real advantage disadvantage.

    at no point am I saying this should not be looked into, just that we all have to keep perspective on this issue.

    I’m glad that the devs looked at data on this early on. I’m curious if they’ve re-examined the data on this in more recent times. It might help inform and create perspective since many players see the current system as highly flawed. I don’t know that I agree with using the number of players talking about it here as a metric. I suspect that many, many players never post here at all.

    That is why I didn't say here. There are many places to see players discussing many topics, and many of us (including some of the devs) are everywhere.

    Fair point. I appreciate your comments that the devs are aware of the concern and that the issue is being looked into. I know no system is or can be perfect in the eyes of all players. I love TW despite what seem like flaws in the matchmaking system.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Gorgus wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Gorgus wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Gorgus wrote: »
    I don’t think that’s what Kyno is talking about.

    I think he means that guilds who go in with, say, 43 signed up are not guaranteed to get a weaker guild with 50 signed up. It’s perfectly possible they get a similarly powered guild who also have 43 signed up, or a more powerful guild with 38 signed up.

    Agreed. That’s possible. It remains my view that going in with 50/50 is, on average, a disadvantage. Here’s why. Let’s stipulate that there are three possibilities for any guild in their matchup:

    1. The other guild has more participants, which is usually an advantage
    2. The other guild has the same or very similar number of participants, which will tend to create the most even matchups
    3. The other guild has fewer participants, which is usually a disadvantage

    If my guild goes in with 37 participants, options 1, 2, or 3 are possible. If my guild goes in with 50 participants, only 2 and 3 are possible.

    but that assumption is incorrect. it was looked into early on by the dev team and they found this to not be true.

    Its an assumption that that is the case, but we have seen people come here without going in 50/50 and get a mismatch where they were on the losing side and neither guild went in 50/50. also if you just look at the number of posts here and elsewhere about this issue, the relatively low number would indicate that of the possible 8000 guilds this is a very low occurrence issue. (not that this is fully accurate way to look at the problem) if this was happening around 5% of the time we would have 400 guilds seeing this issue, and we would see a lot more complaints from those possible 2000 players.

    It can stink to be in this situation, but its not as wide spread as many seem to give it credit for, and its not a 100% guarantee like many seem to think it is. We have brought this up and I am still waiting to hear back about my last ping on this topic.

    in your simplified example there are more ranges where those limited possibilities don't fit. if you go in with 49, 1,2,3 are possible because there will be no real advantage disadvantage.

    at no point am I saying this should not be looked into, just that we all have to keep perspective on this issue.

    I’m glad that the devs looked at data on this early on. I’m curious if they’ve re-examined the data on this in more recent times. It might help inform and create perspective since many players see the current system as highly flawed. I don’t know that I agree with using the number of players talking about it here as a metric. I suspect that many, many players never post here at all.

    That is why I didn't say here. There are many places to see players discussing many topics, and many of us (including some of the devs) are everywhere.

    Fair point. I appreciate your comments that the devs are aware of the concern and that the issue is being looked into. I know no system is or can be perfect in the eyes of all players. I love TW despite what seem like flaws in the matchmaking system.

    a quick search on my chats and I see they said its still on the list, but no direct timeline or anything on when that may percolate up to the top.
  • The solution is simple. Matchmake first on the number of people joined, THEN by GP.
  • The solution is simple. Matchmake first on the number of people joined, THEN by GP.

    It really seems like the first most important thing is to establish guilds by total GP. They are in the same "league". Then, after that we have properly sorted that out then move onto who will participate out of those guilds.
  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    The solution is simple. Matchmake first on the number of people joined, THEN by GP.

    It really seems like the first most important thing is to establish guilds by total GP. They are in the same "league". Then, after that we have properly sorted that out then move onto who will participate out of those guilds.

    Total guild GP is completely irrelevant. It has no effect on the outcome of the TW whatsoever. Active GP matters - inactive GP doesn't.
  • Gorgus
    122 posts Member
    As a possible simple tweak - why not make the number of defenses per zone based on the guild with more participants rather than the one with fewer?
  • Kisakee
    1648 posts Member
    Gorgus wrote: »
    As a possible simple tweak - why not make the number of defenses per zone based on the guild with more participants rather than the one with fewer?

    To make it even harder for those with more participants as they have to set more on defense and have even less to attack the already stronger opponents?
    "Never make the mistake of believing forbearance equates to acceptance, or that all positions are equally valid."
    - Grand Admiral Thrawn
  • Gorgus
    122 posts Member
    Fair point. This may or may not be advantageous to the guild with more participants
  • Vendi1983
    5017 posts Member
    Our current TW:

    OPP - 228m, 36 joined (18 per zone)

    Us - 165m, 45 joined

    We're in the 140-159.9m prize bracket, so if we assume we're more or less equal in joined GP then that means they have 4.25m average per player, and we're at 3.4m. I guarantee that 800k worth of rosters isn't blue/purple gear fluff.

    There isn't another guild out there that was around 43-47 joined with 150m GP? I doubt that.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    The solution is simple. Matchmake first on the number of people joined, THEN by GP.

    It really seems like the first most important thing is to establish guilds by total GP. They are in the same "league". Then, after that we have properly sorted that out then move onto who will participate out of those guilds.

    Total guild GP is completely irrelevant. It has no effect on the outcome of the TW whatsoever. Active GP matters - inactive GP doesn't.

    So you think that a 160m GP guild going against a 200m guild is "irrelevant" and it's more or less even simply because the same number of players sign up? You're kidding, right?
  • Waqui wrote: »
    The solution is simple. Matchmake first on the number of people joined, THEN by GP.

    It really seems like the first most important thing is to establish guilds by total GP. They are in the same "league". Then, after that we have properly sorted that out then move onto who will participate out of those guilds.

    Total guild GP is completely irrelevant. It has no effect on the outcome of the TW whatsoever. Active GP matters - inactive GP doesn't.

    So you think that a 160m GP guild going against a 200m guild is "irrelevant" and it's more or less even simply because the same number of players sign up? You're kidding, right?
    That isn’t how it works.

    If the same number of players sign up, then obviously a 160M guild shouldn’t be facing a 200M guild. But that doesn’t happen.

    What does happen is a 160M guild at 50/50 gets matched with a 200M guild at 40/50.

    And no, I don’t think it’s right or fair and yes I think it should be changed.

  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    The solution is simple. Matchmake first on the number of people joined, THEN by GP.

    It really seems like the first most important thing is to establish guilds by total GP. They are in the same "league". Then, after that we have properly sorted that out then move onto who will participate out of those guilds.

    Total guild GP is completely irrelevant. It has no effect on the outcome of the TW whatsoever. Active GP matters - inactive GP doesn't.

    So you think that a 160m GP guild going against a 200m guild is "irrelevant" and it's more or less even simply because the same number of players sign up? You're kidding, right?

    Guilds are matched by active GP - not total guild GP. If the two guilds in a TW have the same number af active players (as well as same amount of active GP) it doesn't get more fair than that.

    Again:
    Total guild GP is completely irrelevant. It has no effect on the outcome of the TW whatsoever. Active GP matters - inactive GP doesn't.

    If you believe inactive GP has any impact on the outcome of the TW you don't understand the most basic thing about TW and guilds.


  • Vendi1983
    5017 posts Member
    Another solid matchup:

    Us: 163m joined GP, 48 members, 11 GL

    Them: assumed 163m+/- GP, only 34 joined, 20 GL.

    This will be a fun one.

    Only have an average GP of 4.8m to our. 3.4m
Sign In or Register to comment.