Why do we always get such crap TW matchups?!?!? (With proof!!!)

petersphilo
67 posts Member
edited June 8
Seriously, this is insane..
Here are a few of our recent matchups..
We’re usually outmatched 3:1 to 4:1 on every single GL..
Our win rate is probably around 25%-30%..
What can we do to turn the tables??
Seriously.. this is driving me insane!!
GuildImage-29318.png
GuildImage-28786.png
GuildImage-19949.png
GuildImage-6382.png
GuildImage-90106.png

I could go on..
Post edited by petersphilo on

Replies

  • petersphilo
    67 posts Member
    edited June 7
    Why is it that we never face a weaker Guild than ours??
    Why is GC’s matchmaking so terrible??

    Edit:
    I mean.. At least, if it were like GAC, and we were winning 50%-75% of the time, I could see that we would get the occasional overmatched Guild to put us back in our place..
    However, we have been getting these terrible matchups for nearly a year, and our record is probably no more than 25% win rate..
    We used to do much, much better.. But that was until about a year ago..
    Then we started getting these terrible matchups.. probably right around the time that GC increased the number of defensive squads we had to place (though I could be wrong about that)..
    Post edited by petersphilo on
  • Clearly you don't have a winning streak, so that can't be the reason for tougher matchups...
  • BubbaFett
    3311 posts Member
    What you are looking at in terms of "data" there is meaningless....

    If you look at Guild GP vs Guild GP the guilds you are facing should be in a different rewards bracket than you are and you wouldn't have to face them.. This tells me that they are missing members, so comparing total GL etc guild vs. guild is somewhat meaningless since every member didn't join...

    Now, are those guilds sandbagging? That's a whole other topic....
  • petersphilo
    67 posts Member
    edited June 11
    Meaningless?
    I don’t know, man.. it’s pretty convincing to me that something’s very wrong in the matching algorithm..
    If it is sandbagging, and they’re dropping 30% of their members, they still retain a vast GL advantage because they started off at 3:1 or even 4:1

    So.. Not meaningless!

    The mention sandbagging is what’s meaningless..

    Invoking a word like some ritualistic incantation in order to dismiss data: meaningless..

    Let’s be conservative and say they start off with a 3:1 GL advantage - not to mention Omicrons, since larger accounts are sure to have superiority there too..
    Even if they lose 30% of their members, they’re still at a 2:1 advantage..
    Also, why would we keep getting matched with these ‘sandbagged’ guilds?

    There’s something very wrong with the matchmaking algorithm, and dogmatically dismissing my concerns doesn’t change that!
    Post edited by petersphilo on
  • petersphilo
    67 posts Member
    edited June 11
    Why is my above post only visible to me?

    Are my posts being censored?
    If so, why?

    Edit: all fixed now.. thank you admins!
    Post edited by petersphilo on
  • BubbaFett
    3311 posts Member
    It's meaningless in the sense that it isn't an apples for apples comparison of what you are actually going up against... If you want to talk "data" then you need to present realistic data, not just our opponent's full guild has "X" GL vs our "Y" GL.....

    Mentioning sandbagging is absolutely not meaningless nor is it dismissive of data because that is literally what the sandbagging guilds use to ensure they get a favorable matchup... FWIW, I agree with you and it should be stopped...

    That being said though, if your guild wants to be successful in TW then you need to farm more GL's than what you have... The onus is not on CG to make sure you guys get a pillowfight just because you haven't taken the time or effort to farm the right things...
  • I understand what you mean, but I still disagree..
    Our guild may not be super-mega-efficient, but we’re no dud either..

    And we’re not asking for ‘pillow fights’ either.. just a somewhat fair fight..
    I definitely have my issues with GAC, but if you lose enough battles, you end up matched with weaker adversaries..

    My main point, I guess, is that this doesn’t seem to happen in TW..

    It feels like something happened last year, when we started having to place way more defenses than before..
    Of course, that’s just a subjective feeling, but it feels like the matchups were more balanced overall..

    Of course, it’s ironic that I started this topic before this last TW started, and it turns out that we just crushed our last opponent because, for the first time in at least the last 6 TW, we were numerically superior..
    So of course, the skeptics will point to that and say that all is well, but it’s really not, and my prior arguments still stand..

    Yes, sandbagging plays a role..
    But it doesn’t explain the overwhelming one-sided nature, and the mind-numbing consistency, of our prior matchups..

    Also, sandbagging doesn’t have to be a thing..
    The fact that it even exists is a choice made by CG..

    Why not have guilds matched according to their total gp?
    Why reward the guilds that deny a portion of their own members participation in TW??

    CG’s efforts in Krayt were partly to ensure that all guild members would share in at least some of the ‘prize’ from guild activities..

    TW is a guild activity, so guilds whose members don’t all participate should be negatively impacted, not given an advantage!!

    The matchmaking should happen at the moment TW is launched, and it should include all eligible guild members, not just the ones who sign up..
  • No comment..
    GuildImage-5963.png
  • Because CG long ago gave up trying to make this game fun or balanced in any way - and the game now exists solely as a joyless cash grab.
  • So.. Here's where @BubbaFett may have had a point..

    We've been paying very close attention to our matchups (remember, this is in TW), and a few of us Officers have found a trend..
    It seems like, in the Territory Wars where we had more than 2 or 3 of our members who failed to join, we had terrible matches..
    Conversely, in the Territory Wars where we had only 1 or 2 members who failed to join, we got more decent matchups..

    So, basically, the closer we are to full signup, the more likely we are to get a fair matchup..

    However, there's a big problem with that..

    It looks like the algorithm doesn't look at how many people are in your Guild, just how close you are to 50..
    We've had a few retirements lately, and we've been at 46 for a few turns..
    If we have so much as 1 member fail to join, the algorithm thinks we're sandbagging 5 people, and we get a crap matchup..
Sign In or Register to comment.