How can this be a fair way for TW battles...? Allowing guilds that have 50m+ more GP to sandbag so they get an easier battle. Our match up this time means my 316m guild is facing a 360m guild that have 68 more GL's than us. I fail to see how this is a good match making system CG. Absolutely ridiculousEven if we put all our GL's on defence they would still have well over half of all the ones we have Stupid stupid stupid

"DarjeloSalas;c-2256931" wrote:"Zedstar;c-2256929" wrote:"UdalCuain;c-2256928" wrote:"Zedstar;c-2256926" wrote:"UdalCuain;c-2256921" wrote:It's not always sandbagging.How many defence slots you having to set? And have you definitely got the right guild? There's a few alliances out there that make tiny adjustments to the guild names. Defence slots is 22 and we went in with a full guild so they 100% sand bagged Again, it's not necessarily sandbagging. People have real lives. Everyone is really quick to accuse people of trying to cheat the system. I shouldn't have signed up for this TW as I have assignments due, but I did. We still are only going into TW with 40 as lots of guildies have stuff on this week. ok ok yes maybe there is a chance its not sand bagging but all routes point to it is, but yes i agree there is a very slim chance that it might not be.... but lets face it we all know it is No we don’t. Please stop with your “100% sandbagged” drivel.My guild (320M GP) are fighting this war with 41/50 signed up. There is nothing deliberate about it. In lots of high end guilds TW is optional, because people who sign up but can’t commit to being available to attack are a liability. Yes, the matchmaking sucks and needs addressed, but spouting blandishments about deliberate sandbagging when you know nothing of the sort is not helping the discussion.I just said it might not be sandbagging, but all fingers point to it.... if the match making system was changed to Guild GP and not signed up GP it would solve all the problems But yes it might not be sand bagging.... but sorry in this case i think it is but there is no proof either way so you might be right and so might i

"Zedstar;c-2256935" wrote:"DarjeloSalas;c-2256931" wrote:"Zedstar;c-2256929" wrote:"UdalCuain;c-2256928" wrote:"Zedstar;c-2256926" wrote:"UdalCuain;c-2256921" wrote:It's not always sandbagging.How many defence slots you having to set? And have you definitely got the right guild? There's a few alliances out there that make tiny adjustments to the guild names. Defence slots is 22 and we went in with a full guild so they 100% sand bagged Again, it's not necessarily sandbagging. People have real lives. Everyone is really quick to accuse people of trying to cheat the system. I shouldn't have signed up for this TW as I have assignments due, but I did. We still are only going into TW with 40 as lots of guildies have stuff on this week. ok ok yes maybe there is a chance its not sand bagging but all routes point to it is, but yes i agree there is a very slim chance that it might not be.... but lets face it we all know it is No we don’t. Please stop with your “100% sandbagged” drivel.My guild (320M GP) are fighting this war with 41/50 signed up. There is nothing deliberate about it. In lots of high end guilds TW is optional, because people who sign up but can’t commit to being available to attack are a liability. Yes, the matchmaking sucks and needs addressed, but spouting blandishments about deliberate sandbagging when you know nothing of the sort is not helping the discussion.I just said it might not be sandbagging, but all fingers point to it.... if the match making system was changed to Guild GP and not signed up GP it would solve all the problems But yes it might not be sand bagging.... but sorry in this case i think it is but there is no proof either way so you might be right and so might i What this comes down to is, do you want to discuss how they got there so you can try to bash another guild and keep calling it sandbagging or "all fingers point to" anything, or would you rather have a fruitful constructive conversation about ways to change things?------No it should not be guild GP, that punishes guilds that do not want to force players to join or kick someone out who just had a kid and may not eb able to play at a moment's notice for a while. Players have lives and this was a great addition to the game mode.

Me and my guild mates couldn't be more happy! What an absurd matchmaking!

"Zedstar;c-2256972" wrote:"Kyno;c-2256939" wrote:"Zedstar;c-2256935" wrote:"DarjeloSalas;c-2256931" wrote:"Zedstar;c-2256929" wrote:"UdalCuain;c-2256928" wrote:"Zedstar;c-2256926" wrote:"UdalCuain;c-2256921" wrote:It's not always sandbagging.How many defence slots you having to set? And have you definitely got the right guild? There's a few alliances out there that make tiny adjustments to the guild names. Defence slots is 22 and we went in with a full guild so they 100% sand bagged Again, it's not necessarily sandbagging. People have real lives. Everyone is really quick to accuse people of trying to cheat the system. I shouldn't have signed up for this TW as I have assignments due, but I did. We still are only going into TW with 40 as lots of guildies have stuff on this week. ok ok yes maybe there is a chance its not sand bagging but all routes point to it is, but yes i agree there is a very slim chance that it might not be.... but lets face it we all know it is No we don’t. Please stop with your “100% sandbagged” drivel.My guild (320M GP) are fighting this war with 41/50 signed up. There is nothing deliberate about it. In lots of high end guilds TW is optional, because people who sign up but can’t commit to being available to attack are a liability. Yes, the matchmaking sucks and needs addressed, but spouting blandishments about deliberate sandbagging when you know nothing of the sort is not helping the discussion.I just said it might not be sandbagging, but all fingers point to it.... if the match making system was changed to Guild GP and not signed up GP it would solve all the problems But yes it might not be sand bagging.... but sorry in this case i think it is but there is no proof either way so you might be right and so might i What this comes down to is, do you want to discuss how they got there so you can try to bash another guild and keep calling it sandbagging or "all fingers point to" anything, or would you rather have a fruitful constructive conversation about ways to change things?------No, it should not be guild GP, that punishes guilds that do not want to force players to join or kick someone out who just had a kid and may not eb able to play at a moment's notice for a while. Players have lives and this was a great addition to the game mode.We are all entitled to an opinion mate, i personally believe the match making system is ridiculously flawed and a lot of guilds do sand bag now whether the one we are facing are or whether lucky for them they had a lot of illness or players working etc etc who knows I have looked at the records and stats and its funny how nearly all of their last 7 TW; s there has only been 22 defence slots... seems strange that a guild of 360m would acceptable around 6/7 player who regularly sit out of tw battles, but hey I have no proof they are sand bagging or not the same as you have no evidence to say they are or not..... that’s why in my opinion they are sand bagging But the bottom line is the match making and CG need to fix it so that sand bagging isn't an option guilds can use to cheat as everyone knows that this does happen in the game and that is fact.And yes im very happy to dissus with anyone on how we can make TW match making better for all guilds, looking at how many posts there are just this year on the subject says that it is something CG should be looking to fix asap Ok, so you want to talk about how they get there... ok, sounds good.They dint sand bag, some people have lives and other things that they feel are more important than a game, and luckily they are in an understanding guild that doesnt require them to be there. It is a wonderful part of the game mode and I am more than happy that it exists and it should continue to be there.You have absolutely no proof that any guild you face does anything nefarious, so why try to call them out? Did you lose each of those matches?It's not strange at all that any guild let's people sit out, personally in my 330M GP guild we rarely go into TW with more than 46 players. We had one of our hardest matches when we went in at 40. We regularly have good matches with much back and forth each time. Is it possible your guild is just not built to handle TW?

"Zedstar;c-2256935" wrote:"DarjeloSalas;c-2256931" wrote:"Zedstar;c-2256929" wrote:"UdalCuain;c-2256928" wrote:"Zedstar;c-2256926" wrote:"UdalCuain;c-2256921" wrote:It's not always sandbagging.How many defence slots you having to set? And have you definitely got the right guild? There's a few alliances out there that make tiny adjustments to the guild names. Defence slots is 22 and we went in with a full guild so they 100% sand bagged Again, it's not necessarily sandbagging. People have real lives. Everyone is really quick to accuse people of trying to cheat the system. I shouldn't have signed up for this TW as I have assignments due, but I did. We still are only going into TW with 40 as lots of guildies have stuff on this week. ok ok yes maybe there is a chance its not sand bagging but all routes point to it is, but yes i agree there is a very slim chance that it might not be.... but lets face it we all know it is No we don’t. Please stop with your “100% sandbagged” drivel.My guild (320M GP) are fighting this war with 41/50 signed up. There is nothing deliberate about it. In lots of high end guilds TW is optional, because people who sign up but can’t commit to being available to attack are a liability. Yes, the matchmaking sucks and needs addressed, but spouting blandishments about deliberate sandbagging when you know nothing of the sort is not helping the discussion.I just said it might not be sandbagging, but all fingers point to it.... No, they don't. I've experienced three 310+ Million GP guilds and in all of them participation was voluntary but once you joined you were required to do your best to win. We often only have 42-45 members join. Your opponents most likely have similar rules and often go in short handed. if the match making system was changed to Guild GP and not signed up GP it would solve all the problemsNo, it won't. In the early days guilds were matched by total GP. It was changed for a reason.

TW Sand Bagging/Match making system seriously broken

NyKynoe
4 years ago
"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.
David64742
4 years ago
"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.
David64742
4 years ago
"DarjeloSalas;c-2257809" wrote:
I don’t think that’s what Kyno is talking about.

I think he means that guilds who go in with, say, 43 signed up are not guaranteed to get a weaker guild with 50 signed up. It’s perfectly possible they get a similarly powered guild who also have 43 signed up, or a more powerful guild with 38 signed up.

Agreed. That’s possible. It remains my view that going in with 50/50 is, on average, a disadvantage. Here’s why. Let’s stipulate that there are three possibilities for any guild in their matchup:

1. The other guild has more participants, which is usually an advantage
2. The other guild has the same or very similar number of participants, which will tend to create the most even matchups
3. The other guild has fewer participants, which is usually a disadvantage

If my guild goes in with 37 participants, options 1, 2, or 3 are possible. If my guild goes in with 50 participants, only 2 and 3 are possible.
btaedter13
New Spectator
4 years ago
The solution is simple. Matchmake first on the number of people joined, THEN by GP.
Waquira
4 years ago
"Julian_Sixty_Six;c-2259606" wrote:
"Maverick1213;c-2258161" wrote:
The solution is simple. Matchmake first on the number of people joined, THEN by GP.

It really seems like the first most important thing is to establish guilds by total GP. They are in the same "league". Then, after that we have properly sorted that out then move onto who will participate out of those guilds.

Total guild GP is completely irrelevant. It has no effect on the outcome of the TW whatsoever. Active GP matters - inactive GP doesn't.
David64742
4 years ago
As a possible simple tweak - why not make the number of defenses per zone based on the guild with more participants rather than the one with fewer?
Kisakee
4 years ago
"Gorgus;c-2259903" wrote:
As a possible simple tweak - why not make the number of defenses per zone based on the guild with more participants rather than the one with fewer?

To make it even harder for those with more participants as they have to set more on defense and have even less to attack the already stronger opponents?
Da_Bauers
New Spectator
4 years ago
Our current TW:

OPP - 228m, 36 joined (18 per zone)

Us - 165m, 45 joined

We're in the 140-159.9m prize bracket, so if we assume we're more or less equal in joined GP then that means they have 4.25m average per player, and we're at 3.4m. I guarantee that 800k worth of rosters isn't blue/purple gear fluff.

There isn't another guild out there that was around 43-47 joined with 150m GP? I doubt that.
JediRooster77
4 years ago
"Maverick1213;c-2258161" wrote:
The solution is simple. Matchmake first on the number of people joined, THEN by GP.

Yep. This has been suggested before, as this topic has been repeatedly brought up, yet I can't see how the devs can't implement something like this. Surely not a huge task???

Agree the result is largely based on numbers signing up, but the sandbagging thing I don't agree with. We only have 46 members, and usually a few away, and some don't like the TW concept, so lately we've had 36-42 sign up, and winning most. Go back a few months and we were 44-50 entering and getting spanked against lower numbers. Enjoy neither. Those few times we've had similar numbers signed up, it's been great fun (even when we lost by couple hundred points)!

Sadly I don't think the devs care much for TW, as there has been no apparent change for a long, long time, yet this issue has been kicked around on the boards for ages. I would just accept second placeed rewards, think of it as a bonus. If you're outmatched badly, just wait for payout and don't bother.
ChristophIV
Hero+
4 years ago
It's not always sandbagging.

How many defence slots you having to set? And have you definitely got the right guild? There's a few alliances out there that make tiny adjustments to the guild names.