"Kyno;c-2257447" wrote:
"Gorgus;c-2257348" wrote:
"DarjeloSalas;c-2257277" wrote:
"Gorgus;c-2257212" wrote:
"DarjeloSalas;c-2256947" wrote:
"Wargoat;c-2256938" wrote:
I agree, there should be no join option. The entire guild should be placed in tw.
Hard disagree.
People have lives outside of this game.
A guild shouldn’t be punished if members have work commitments / vacation / family events / ill health.
I agree that guilds shouldn’t be “punished” for members needing to sit out wars. However, the current system punishes guilds for having full participation in TWs, which seems like a very perverse incentive structure. If the system has to favor one type of guild over another, it should favor the guild that gets 50 people signed up, IMO.
But we can’t propose to solve one matchmaking problem with a system that just creates another, surely?
Ideally, a new matchmaking system would be fair to all guilds. If such a system was feasible, that would obviously be the best solution. My point is that, if such a system is not feasible, any “matchmaking preference” should go to guilds that get high participation, since the point of guilds is cooperative participation. The current system incentives precisely the opposite and, in my view, is therefore the worst alternative.
In theory, no. If the system can not be fair for all, it should not have any sort of "preference" as that can be isolated and manipulated by the players.
The current system has issues, but in no way incentivize lower participation, as not everyone sees the same "mismatches", when not going in full, and some guilds dont go in full and still see the "mismatch".
I'm not saying they shouldn't look into it, but just pointing out that there is not as much of a direct bias as many seem to give it.
A 250M GP guild with 38 players participating will, on average, have a sizable advantage over a 200M guild with 49 participating. Will they always? Naturally, of course not. But I really think it’s beyond debate that they first guild will usually have an advantage.
