Forum Discussion

6 years ago

TW matchmaking

The last I saw on this, CG never acknowledged it's an issue. They didn't think there was an advantage to only joining with 40 players. After getting heavily sandbagged three TW in a row, I thought I'd...

Chilichimp

6 years ago

"Sewpot;c-2183256" wrote:
I know that guild. They have 40 members and 10 alts for tickets.
I’m just kidding! But anything is possibles
Couldn’t see making members sit out would make your guild stronger as a whole.

20% better rewards from winning every war with 80% of your guild is the same rewards you'd get if you lost every war with all 50 players. Any additional (40+1, 40+2, etc) is cherry as long as you're winning. Most sandbagger guilds only hold out 6 people. A 30m GP swing is usually enough for a near guaranteed W. Plus zeta mats. If 40 players win every war, that's 120 zeta mats. If 50 players lose every war, that's only 100, so there's a clear edge there.

You can't guarantee you'll win every war with 50 players, because the match-making would be competitive, so sandbagging is the obvious choice, and anyone NOT doing it is losing out.

At the higher end this practice has become so common that about half of your match-ups are sandbagging, and you're probably only winning half of your competitive games, so that's like a 25% win-rate for a guild that's NOT doing this.

"Nikoms565;c-2183348" wrote:
It's not sandbagging - just a poor matchmaking algorithm when it comes to matching guilds of different numbers of participants.

That's where you're wrong. They are intentionally trimming their war participation in order to get favorable match-up and guarantee wins.

If they prioritized player count in the matchmaking algorithm, this would even things out, but just because their algorithm is broken doesn't mean this isn't an exploitative behavior.