Q&A: Sandbagging Response

"BobcatSkywalker;c-2024483" wrote:

"BeralCator;c-2024448" wrote:

"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

For the GP to match, the guild with 40 players will have 40 Relic 7 Malaks while the guild with 50 players will have 50 G12+3 Malaks, etc.

In a game mode where winning on the first attempt grants additional points, there is no advantage to having more teams that are all slightly worse unless the map is so large that full clears aren't certain. Currently the map is so small that both sides inevitably get full clears, but the smaller guild gets more points because their teams are so much better.

When TW started we had significantly less characters and ships than we do now. We used to stock the back rows with trash like Rogue One and Maul as we didn't have enough teams available for both offense and defense. Currently, the worst teams we are putting on defense are Relic KRUs or insanely fast Jango/Bossks, often with Nest or Wat Tambor.

If you think 40v50 match-ups are a good idea (which I personally don't agree with), the map needs to be a lot bigger so that the 50-person team can actually make use of their extra squads in an attempt to offset the 40-person team's better squads.

Having 40 r7 malaak vs 50 g13 malaak isnt the only way they can match, surely both guilds could have all malaak at r7 and the difference in gp can be elsewhere. But ok I'll go with your example in your case the guild with 40 r7 malaak has much superior teams so they should win, even if they had 10 alts with 200k each just farming coins that joined they would still win with 40 sanbagged or 50 full strength

I guess my existential question is WHY should a team of 40 players with R7 Malaks always beat a team of 50 players with G12 Malaks? If the outcome is predetermined, why bother having a TW at all? If a match isn't competitive, the matchmaking algorithm shouldn't be spitting it out, as it's not fun for anyone; it's just a waste of time for all involved.

If the goal is to have more competitive matches, either
a) get rid of this scenario (by only allowing similar numbers of players) or,
b) change the map layout so that there is a disadvantage to going in undersized that balances out having the more developed rosters.

Other solutions could include:

• Incorporating some of the GAC matchmaking algorithm and using "effective GP" instead of actual GP.
  
• Scaling the minimum GP for a character to be included in TW as you move up in Division. Currently it is 6,000 for everyone, but realistically, anything below 12,000 is going to be pretty useless for guilds over 200 million GP.
  
• Some level of partial rewards for clearing zones, so that there is still a point to playing out bad match-ups.
  

There's always going to be a winner and loser in TW, but if you can easily tell who it will be before the match starts, that's lazy game design.