Guild war disparity of levels?

Okay, so sometimes we win and sometimes we don't.. But yesterday left all of us wondering what was going on.  Bronze I  We have not seen such high scores for the opponent.  They were 6846 to our 4571.  Their lowest score beat our highest score.   I just started playing in the Guild wars and did not play in this game yesterday.  We have not seen such high numbers before this war.  Is this to be expected.  We had 10 players as they did.  Don't mind the losing but just expect it to be fair and something seemed off.  I'm playing today and it looks like we will probably lose.  They are just better players.  Yesterday seemed ridiculous.  
Any enlightenment would be appreciated.
wms
NerfZone187

Comments

  • TransmuteJunTransmuteJun Member Posts: 2,155
    Higher scores are to be expected because most players have increased the levels of their survivors and gear, and so should be playing 1-2 levels higher in missions. This will get even worse if unlimited replays of missions are allowed (which was intended, but apparently the system is broken, so it is offline right now).
    KarajocaTCBRITO
  • IcePeterIcePeter Member Posts: 311
    Everyone resets to Bronze 1. There will be many uncompetitive battles this week, after which we’ll get properly sorted.
    zombieornottobeATLAS-ZTCBRITOKarajoca
  • GovernatorGovernator Member Posts: 4,262
    I also think the first matchup is pretty random. Everyone is in the same tier (Bronze I) and the system doesn't take into account player level. It starts to even out the deeper the GW battles progress, but it sucks when you are matched against a killer guild on the first or second day. Still not 100% sure the the matchmaking is fair. We are Bronze II today and matched against a Bronze I. It's not a close match, But, we have been on the receiving end of a butt kicking by a superior guild with all max players. Our guild is casual and we got several Player Levels ranging between 35 and 52 in the current war. I'd like to compete against a similar guild.
    ATLAS-ZDeathwish19
  • brucewayne007brucewayne007 Member Posts: 373
    This must be a post every new GW Week 1. 

    We are all at the same level. Until it shakes out. Enjoy getting whooped 😜
    haha
    Nah man, just play as a team and enjoy the ride. I understand what you are saying. But GW is a completely different format to challenge mode so it’s impossible for NG to balance the matches. And past performances can’t be to go by. 
    Players change guilds all the time. 
    Pardus
  • JayZJayZ Member Posts: 3,650
    Higher scores are to be expected because most players have increased the levels of their survivors and gear, and so should be playing 1-2 levels higher in missions. This will get even worse if unlimited replays of missions are allowed (which was intended, but apparently the system is broken, so it is offline right now).
    GW missions are scaled relative to your survivors. Your survivors go up, so do the missions.
    KarajocaPasteTCBRITO
  • brucewayne007brucewayne007 Member Posts: 373
    Pardus said:
    This must be a post every new GW Week 1. 

    We are all at the same level. Until it shakes out. Enjoy getting whooped 😜
    haha
    Nah man, just play as a team and enjoy the ride. I understand what you are saying. But GW is a completely different format to challenge mode so it’s impossible for NG to balance the matches. And past performances can’t be to go by. 
    Players change guilds all the time. 
    You sure make a lot of excuses on NG's behalf 
    Must be that side payment they give my account each week. 

    wmsShadowWalkerATLAS-ZDeathwish19
  • NerfZone187NerfZone187 Member Posts: 777
    wms said:
    Okay, so sometimes we win and sometimes we don't.. But yesterday left all of us wondering what was going on.  Bronze I  We have not seen such high scores for the opponent.  They were 6846 to our 4571.  Their lowest score beat our highest score.   I just started playing in the Guild wars and did not play in this game yesterday.  We have not seen such high numbers before this war.  Is this to be expected.  We had 10 players as they did.  Don't mind the losing but just expect it to be fair and something seemed off.  I'm playing today and it looks like we will probably lose.  They are just better players.  Yesterday seemed ridiculous.  
    Any enlightenment would be appreciated.
    wms
    Sorry noob, I will fix the matchmaking to your liking ok? 


    -Fury Ballzonya (community manager)
    wmsShadowWalker
  • wmswms Member Posts: 57
    Thanks for the information.  Appreciate it.  Even enjoyed the sarcastic one.  Gave me a laugh.  I been playing for a while -Level 72 but just joined an active guild so newbie there.  Governator -our group sounds like yours. Just wanted to understand what was different. Wish I had left the inactive guild I was assigned to a long time ago.  Having a great time.

    JayZ  Have really benefitted from the mass amount of info you have shared with your guild.  Thank you. 
    wms


    TCBRITODeathwish19JayZGovernator
  • WellyLugaWellyLuga Member Posts: 2,749
    edited October 2020
    Until NG accounts for the previous seasons finishes this will always be a problem. How do you address it though? Matchmaking could take into account previous season VP counts as part of the algorythm for the first week or two maybe? Or perhaps camp level/pink star count could be considered.

    As it stands it is just pot luck I'm afraid since the main 2 parameters are tier and number of players and there is nothing to separate that until after the first week. Our first two battles so far have been mismatches with us getting 8800-9000 and the opponent getting 2-3k, can't be fun for either side really.
    NerfZone187ThunderstormGovernator
  • brucewayne007brucewayne007 Member Posts: 373
    @WellyLuga don’t you have some walkers to kill? 😜
    WellyLuga
  • NerfZone187NerfZone187 Member Posts: 777
    WellyLuga said:
    @WellyLuga don’t you have some walkers to kill? 😜
    Waiting for 6G to open to I can fill my boots on any KAW maps that are there :trollface:
    Carry the team on your back until I return for GW season XXV bro. 🧐🤧
    WellyLuga
  • brucewayne007brucewayne007 Member Posts: 373
    Old Wes is packing some serious shoulders carrying that team haha

  • ATLAS-ZATLAS-Z Member Posts: 4,674
    There is nothing broken here and it should not change

    There are lots of things that can be fixed but this is not one of them

    Move on



    Are you Lost? Alone? Looking for a killer team to have your back?
    Join ZOMBREX! We have a tiered guild structure so players of every level and ambition can find a home they fit in.
    Remember, search ZOMBREX SATISFIES. Check us out HERE
    EMAIL US --> [email protected]"
    brucewayne007wms
  • TransmuteJunTransmuteJun Member Posts: 2,155
    JayZ said:
    Higher scores are to be expected because most players have increased the levels of their survivors and gear, and so should be playing 1-2 levels higher in missions. This will get even worse if unlimited replays of missions are allowed (which was intended, but apparently the system is broken, so it is offline right now).
    GW missions are scaled relative to your survivors. Your survivors go up, so do the missions.
    Do they really? I had no idea! You learn something new every day. 
    JayZ
  • GovernatorGovernator Member Posts: 4,262
    edited October 2020
    Yesterday, my guidlies ran against a high-powered team in GW where they got smoked pretty bad. The top player on the other side scored 600 VPs which was about double the best person on our team. Ouch.

    I saw the other team only went with 6 players and was in the same tier as my guild (Bronze III). It then occurred to me that some higher powered teams might be going with smaller teams to keep their tier low and allow them to beat up on lower-powered guilds. If this is the case, that's a flaw in the matchmaking.

    I then thought that matchmaking could also be based on the average VPs per player. If you have a powerhouse team scoring 500 VPs per player per battle, but using fewer players per battle, they won't get matched up against a team averaging 300 VPs per player per battle. By having teams in the same tier with the same average VPs per player would make it more fair.

    Just an idea for making matchmaking a bit more fair. @Fluxxx

    Edit: Added @Fluxxx
    brucewayne007wms
  • EngAamieEngAamie Member Posts: 77
    there would be alot of cases like that @Governator. eg. we also faced a powerful guild like that, we had 6 member team averaging 300/player faced against a team of 6 players averaging 600/player, and we lost desperately.... 
    Governator
  • SteeboonSteeboon Member Posts: 635
    Yesterday, my guidlies ran against a high-powered team in GW where they got smoked pretty bad. The top player on the other side scored 600 VPs which was about double the best person on our team. Ouch.

    I saw the other team only went with 6 players and was in the same tier as my guild (Bronze III). It then occurred to me that some higher powered teams might be going with smaller teams to keep their tier low and allow them to beat up on lower-powered guilds. If this is the case, that's a flaw in the matchmaking.

    I then thought that matchmaking could also be based on the average VPs per player. If you have a powerhouse team scoring 500 VPs per player per battle, but using fewer players per battle, they won't get matched up against a team averaging 300 VPs per player per battle. By having teams in the same tier with the same average VPs per player would make it more fair.

    Just an idea for making matchmaking a bit more fair. @Fluxxx

    Edit: Added @Fluxxx
    Isn't playing with smaller teams is to maximize the available VP? 
    TimboskiATLAS-Z
  • GovernatorGovernator Member Posts: 4,262
    Steeboon said:
    Yesterday, my guidlies ran against a high-powered team in GW where they got smoked pretty bad. The top player on the other side scored 600 VPs which was about double the best person on our team. Ouch.

    I saw the other team only went with 6 players and was in the same tier as my guild (Bronze III). It then occurred to me that some higher powered teams might be going with smaller teams to keep their tier low and allow them to beat up on lower-powered guilds. If this is the case, that's a flaw in the matchmaking.

    I then thought that matchmaking could also be based on the average VPs per player. If you have a powerhouse team scoring 500 VPs per player per battle, but using fewer players per battle, they won't get matched up against a team averaging 300 VPs per player per battle. By having teams in the same tier with the same average VPs per player would make it more fair.

    Just an idea for making matchmaking a bit more fair. @Fluxxx

    Edit: Added @Fluxxx
    Isn't playing with smaller teams is to maximize the available VP? 

    Maximizing VPs is not necessarily possible for guilds with various player levels. We have folks who can barely do 1-A and 2-A. Maybe if everyone was max level, we could all run the F and G tracks to maximize VPs, but our maximization of VPs is a lot lower against guilds who have all Player Level 75 people.
  • rogueDSrogueDS Member Posts: 604
    Have to wait for 1st week of war to go on. Many are at same tier. Also if go against higher tier by 2 plus or player number is 8vs9 send a ticket 
  • brucewayne007brucewayne007 Member Posts: 373
    @Governator

    Wrong on many accounts. 
    It’s actually more beneficial for teams to play all 6 days compared to 4 days team of 10. 
    You get more points overall as a team. Why is this you might ask? Not sure. 
    But teams are doing this to maximise that.
    Our team is going 10x4 which is no secret. Just for convenience and to make it an easier process. Teams also spread the numbers around to try not match with the Top5 teams. Cause they don’t want to lose the win bonus. 
    But your way of thinking that teams are doing a smaller number to try beat up the easier opponent is completely off. Top guilds definitely don’t take joy in whipping a lower team by double. It’s boring! 
    The arm wrestle with an equal opponent creates more joy. 
    TCBRITOGovernatorwmsPasteDeathwish19zeeblack
  • WellyLugaWellyLuga Member Posts: 2,749
    It's because the elite guilds can do the max level missions possible with 6-8 players, when you play with 10 there isn't enough of them so some of the sectors you spend your remaining attacks on are much lower. So the average level mission per attack is lower with 10 and so is VP. 

    However since a bit contributor to your RP is sector clearance points the less players you have, the less you get. Playing 6 battles is much more time consuming than playing 4 so that's the trade off. 

    If you're a more casual guild it is better to fight with 10. You'll earn more RP for the shop and will avoid many of the top guilds.
    TCBRITOThunderstorm
  • wmswms Member Posts: 57
    we are going to try smaller teams.  Occasionally, when we actually had 10, we are outclassed tremendously.  I'm thinking that guilds that can pull together 10 people consistently and who actually show up for the war, are probably well established and have played together longer.  We are happy when our people gets over 300 VP.  Our better players are in the 400s.   Of course, we are all working to improve these stats.  I am not complaining.  If I was that unhappy,  I would quit playing.  I'm trying to improve and help the team. win or lose you still get to play your game.
    GovernatorDeathwish19
  • ATLAS-ZATLAS-Z Member Posts: 4,674
    A few of the strongest guilds may be going 6-8 to maximize VP at the top of the leaderboard , but most guilds beneath them, that are still reasonably strong, like mine , are still running 10v10.

    So 10v10 is quite competitive since there are quite a few strong guilds that still run this

    I would wager that the top guilds running 6 to 8 even though it is to maximize VP they probably do run into quite a few weaker guilds since the pool of guilds in this category is quite large



    Are you Lost? Alone? Looking for a killer team to have your back?
    Join ZOMBREX! We have a tiered guild structure so players of every level and ambition can find a home they fit in.
    Remember, search ZOMBREX SATISFIES. Check us out HERE
    EMAIL US --> [email protected]"
  • brucewayne007brucewayne007 Member Posts: 373
    @Governator

    You disagree with me. 
    But you are wrong. Do you not like the fact that better guilds aren’t picking on the smaller ones as you say. 
    Is that what you want me to say???
    Ohhhhh yes you are completely right. How wrong could I be 🤷🏻‍♂️
    I love spanking a team by double for easy points 🙄
    GovernatorATLAS-ZTCBRITOzeeblack
  • PastePaste Member Posts: 709
    wms said:
    we are going to try smaller teams.  Occasionally, when we actually had 10, we are outclassed tremendously.  I'm thinking that guilds that can pull together 10 people consistently and who actually show up for the war, are probably well established and have played together longer.
    Top guilds are playing as teams of 10, 8 or 6-7 depending on their goals and strategies... So maybe try to play as 9?
    If you want to get better at this game, join Discord and learn badge crafting and much more: https://discord.gg/cDhgv3AJ89
  • ATLAS-ZATLAS-Z Member Posts: 4,674
    Paste said:
    wms said:
    we are going to try smaller teams.  Occasionally, when we actually had 10, we are outclassed tremendously.  I'm thinking that guilds that can pull together 10 people consistently and who actually show up for the war, are probably well established and have played together longer.
    Top guilds are playing as teams of 10, 8 or 6-7 depending on their goals and strategies... So maybe try to play as 9?


    Agreed teams of 9 would be unlikely to face top teams often



    Are you Lost? Alone? Looking for a killer team to have your back?
    Join ZOMBREX! We have a tiered guild structure so players of every level and ambition can find a home they fit in.
    Remember, search ZOMBREX SATISFIES. Check us out HERE
    EMAIL US --> [email protected]"
    brucewayne007
  • brucewayne007brucewayne007 Member Posts: 373
    ATLAS-Z said:
    Paste said:
    wms said:
    we are going to try smaller teams.  Occasionally, when we actually had 10, we are outclassed tremendously.  I'm thinking that guilds that can pull together 10 people consistently and who actually show up for the war, are probably well established and have played together longer.
    Top guilds are playing as teams of 10, 8 or 6-7 depending on their goals and strategies... So maybe try to play as 9?


    Agreed teams of 9 would be unlikely to face top teams often
    Only until someone doesn’t sign in and you are stuck with 9 🤣🤣🤣
    fearofthedark
Sign In or Register to comment.