Q&A: Sandbagging Response

"BobcatSkywalker;c-2024430" wrote:

"BeralCator;c-2024426" wrote:
I think the question was perhaps not phrased as well as it could be, as it does imply intention to the mismatches.

The following might have been more effective:
"The community has noticed that TW matches with a large delta in active guild members are very noncompetitive and have only grown more so as GP scales while the map size remains static.

With only n*5 spots available on defense (where n is the smaller guild size), a 40-person guild that has an average GP of 5 million has a massive advantage over a 50-person guild with an average GP of 4 million, as their top 160 squads and 40 fleets will be significantly more developed.

Has any thought been put into either a) limiting match-ups to guilds with near-identical active players or b) expanding the map size so that n is the size of the larger guild (or larger)?"

The guild with 50 can have 50 meta malaak, 50trayas, 50 of everything,
Guild with 40 has only 40 meta malaak, 40 trayas, 40 of everything.

There are advantages to both sides

With the regards to the Q&A, I don’t think it matters whether it’s always an advantage or not. I don’t think it matters if it’s intentional or not. My concern is that despite numerous complaints and discussions on the topic across various outlets since TW was implemented they seem to have no clue about what’s even going on.

If they had said they understand the potential advantage but don’t have an alternative they like better or don’t see it as a priority to work on or something like that I wouldn’t have cared. But not even understanding how an advantage could possibly be created is very concerning to me. It’s just another example of where CG seems to relate more to the casual players and doesn’t seem to understand what goes on with the more dedicated player base.