Stop the TW mismatches

"Natetiffer;c-2125291" wrote:

"DarjeloSalas;c-2124216" wrote:

"Natetiffer;c-2124212" wrote:


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.

"DarjeloSalas;c-2125487" wrote:

"Nikoms565;c-2125214" wrote:

"DarjeloSalas;c-2125069" wrote:

"Nikoms565;c-2124612" wrote:

"DarjeloSalas;c-2119604" wrote:
Any data to explain your point Natetiffer

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.

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

The main "issue" with sandbaging is that usually a more organized and veteran guild is the one that does the sandbaging. The combination of better strategy and mods make it so that those matches appear to be unfair.

While the guild that goes with all members in cant do much about the mods difference, they can certainly change they deploy strategy to better suit the situation.

What CG can do is to force full deploy teams base on the number of players in the guild BUT this means that even if you take a vacation you would be forced to play/leave the guild/leave your guild in a disadvantage.

My guild has faced sandbaging like 10-15 times. We have lost twice to such which doesn't sound like a lot... Well for the past 13 months I am at that guild we have had 52 TWs give or take. Out of those we had 3 defeats. So defeats vs sandbaging guilds are quite high % wise compared to "normal" TWs.

There is definitely something that can be done to improve the matchmaking but first you have to stop and think what could/may go wrong by doing so and is it worth the 1-2 battles difference in comparison to the 48 you have in a year.

"MorganFreeman;c-2125778" wrote:
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.

"MaruMaru;c-2126045" wrote:

"Nikoms565;c-2126031" wrote:

"MorganFreeman;c-2125778" wrote:
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.

Think it would be the simplest calculation to implement. Would probably get over complicated trying to compare 6E mods, Relics etc

"Brizzle22;c-2126074" wrote:

GP is not a measure of effectiveness.

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.

"Natetiffer;c-2125291" wrote:

"DarjeloSalas;c-2124216" wrote:

"Natetiffer;c-2124212" wrote:


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!

IF