# Guild Wars - Sneak Peek V

**URL:** <https://community.gemsofwar.com/t/guild-wars-sneak-peek-v/21203>\
**Category:** Official News\
**Created:** [March 13, 2017, 6:44am UTC](https://community.gemsofwar.com/t/guild-wars-sneak-peek-v/21203 "2017-03-13T06:44:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 127

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![beanie42](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/community.gemsofwar.com/beanie42/32/19802_2.png) [@beanie42](https://community.gemsofwar.com/u/beanie42)\
**Post date:** [March 14, 2017, 6:09pm UTC](https://community.gemsofwar.com/t/guild-wars-sneak-peek-v/21203/127 "2017-03-14T18:09:56Z")

</div>

> [@Jainus](#):
>
> My point was that the core ‘nearest peers’ group of guilds should be wide enough (say 20+ guilds) based on ratings etc, so that each week _isn’t_ against the same 5 guilds over and over again.

Cool, sounds like we are very close @Jainus. I guess the fundamental difference I was noting is that you indicated a seemingly top-heavy weighting for your matchups, while I’m suggesting a more random/open matchup across the group. But I thin our concerns and goals sound the same, just different ways to achieve them 😉

> [@Jainus](#):
>
> They’re important details, mind. 20 sounds fine. 50 may be too wide. 200 creates the non-competition you are rightfully against.

I agree, was just using it more to illustrate that the model could be easily (and significantly) tweaked just by changing that one variable (group size). Looking at the actual data available ([Top 50 Guild League Table History](http://community.gemsofwar.com/t/top-50-guild-league-table-history/2648) , from @actreal), I’d make the group size 30, but that’s only based on that incomplete data (there are likely a bunch of very active guilds that simply haven’t been around long enough to make the top 50 yet).

But again, I’d be interested in hearing the official view 🙂

---

_[View the full topic](https://community.gemsofwar.com/t/guild-wars-sneak-peek-v/21203)._