How would you fix TW matchmaking?
I know most of us agree that TW matchmaking is a terrible joke. Very rarely, maybe 1/10 TW do we actually get a match that feels even, a close win or loss. Much more often we get destroyed, and very rarely we destroy the other guild.
We sit in the 180-200m range depending on who signs up. What is your guild GP and results with TW?
The main question is how would YOU fix TW matchmaking?
For me it would be a series of checks to narrow down the field to a match.
1: (Currently) Active GP (GP signed up for TW)
once that narrowed the pool it would further narrow by the following:
2: Avg TW wins (Add up all player TW wins and divide by number of active players in TW)
3: Number of players signed up for TW
At this point I feel it would match a bit closer to even. However if matchups are still being a blowout more often then not, then add in top % GP like they do for GAC. Since the avg is 8 teams and 2 fleets to set defense and clear their defense it would match based on top 40 characters and top 16 ships.
How would YOU fix it? Because most know it's broken.
We sit in the 180-200m range depending on who signs up. What is your guild GP and results with TW?
The main question is how would YOU fix TW matchmaking?
For me it would be a series of checks to narrow down the field to a match.
1: (Currently) Active GP (GP signed up for TW)
once that narrowed the pool it would further narrow by the following:
2: Avg TW wins (Add up all player TW wins and divide by number of active players in TW)
3: Number of players signed up for TW
At this point I feel it would match a bit closer to even. However if matchups are still being a blowout more often then not, then add in top % GP like they do for GAC. Since the avg is 8 teams and 2 fleets to set defense and clear their defense it would match based on top 40 characters and top 16 ships.
How would YOU fix it? Because most know it's broken.
1
- 60.9K General Discussion
- 9 Developer Q&A Archive
- 2.6K New Players
- 30.5K Arena and Character Strategy
- 4K Individual Events
- 4.6K Guild Events
- 4.6K PVP and Rivalry
- 50.1K Guild Recruitment
- 731 Art and Media
- 4.1K Off Topic
Howdy, Stranger!
Replies
1: Guilds add multiple level 1 alts that lowers their avg TW wins and GP avg while keeping player count high so they can match vs a guild with much weaker avg players.
How to prevent that?
You toss out anyone from the calculation that is high outside the guild avg in GP and TW wins.
I think they should just stick to factors that are present in that matchup.
My $0.02.
you can consider avg gp after sign up, so 1 guild that play with only 44/46 player go with a simir guild
@Kyno
That's why it wouldn't be the history of the guild itself but the avg history of the players in the guild. Because yes, guilds change but generally a guild full of players with high TW win counts will still be strong in TW, meanwhile low TW win counts will suffer vs players with higher win counts.
With it running off player avg and dismissing outliers it means a player with a high win count joining a guild with a low win count will be dismissed from calculations until the avg wins for the rest get within a set %. Same with a low win count joining a group with a high win rate.
I think that last part is important, but that will need to be tight enough to not make a new recruit a liability. which in a way will negate it, or at least open up loopholes.
if you have 10 high win players join your guild, you are "immune" to that effect, but for how long? since all the wins are added to all players, there are many cases where the average will not gain on a high score fast enough to ever take that score into play.
or
it does take into account high scores which could then raise the average high enough to then push out lower scores which raises the average higher. this would make taking on a high win player a liability for a lower guild.
sorry, not trying to be negative, i just see the average as opening up more issues (or exploits) than it is solving.
This could be because it's actually bad, or alternatively because those guilds are bad at TW.
There’s no need for a convoluted system to match guilds in order to get around the inherent flaw of using GP. Just change how GP is calculated so that it reflects how strong a guild really is.
This shows where you are in game play. I think there needs to be a new bracket for 220M+ guilds that might increase teams needed per active player. But for most 160M and below it's already difficult to put 4 meaningful teams on defense and still have 4 effective teams for offense, and 2 fleets.
If we look at GAC as an example, the players with strong rosters move up in promotion and are matched with others who have won enough to promote. Leading to fairer matches as the month progresses. I think GAC was the closest most difficult matches by halfway thru the month last GAC compared to any fights before. If they would apply a similar style of matchmaking to TW you wouldnt have guilds that ALWAYS lose, as eventually they would be matched with similar performing guilds and have closer fights.
I don't know how I would fix TW matchmaking, if only because I haven't really had a problem with it in awhile. The latest flavor of "TW matchmaking is broken, fix it" seems like it's mostly affecting the uppermost tier of guilds (which also seems to be where most of the complaints about sandbagging originate; still not convinced that deliberate sandbagging is a thing btw), which my bunch just doesn't fit in (we're ~125mil at 49/50). If we get outmatched--and on a surface level, we do, regularly; the first TW of this cycle we were matched with a guild with 30+ mil on us and still wiped the floor with them (they didn't even crack our first territory!)--there's a solid chance that we'll win anyway; it really suggests to me, at least, that the primary problem here is guild strategy (just because I'm not seeing what everyone else is apparently seeing). It's gotten to the point where we prefer to fight these much stronger guilds because those around our own surface-level strength just aren't fun (like the second TW of this cycle, against a 136mil guild who sent in 42 against our 45; we won pretty decisively and were laughing at the way they set their defense the entire time).
The last time I really had a problem with TW was a long time ago probably around the time when we recruited our first 4 mil player--at the time I think they had double our average GP and approximately a mil on our next strongest player--and we had a bunch of losses in a row (hence why I'm pretty sure matchmaking accounts for the strongest squad(s?) in each guild) until we tweaked our strategy and closed the power gap some. Considering averages--be it in GP, win/loss ratio, or average squad strength--and dismissing major outliers, largely as OP suggests, might help deal with guilds who are having problems because of something along those lines.
I'll leave the [WikiHow Guide to Establishing Statistical Outliers] here for those of us that aren't staticians.
Unfortunately that is an escalating scale, because each new wave of toons and reworks will need to be a higher value and this will keep increasing, which means it again becomes a value that doesnt represent strength, just a weighted value determined by the dev team.
The system needs to be sustainable and little to no input from the dev team.
Do you mean a system that would account for the power creep in the game?
I agree with the comment about the system needing to have minimal input from devs, but power creep is what has made the current GP system inadequate for matching.
A middle ground, however, would be adjusting GP from gear to be much more significant as gear levels get higher. It wouldn’t account for a max CLS team having nearly the same GP as a max DR/Malak team, but it would keep the heaving weighting away from 7* and move more towards gear.
i agree that G12 pieces and up should all have more effect on GP
Why should players, who don'participate, have any influence whatsoever on the matchmaking? Their roster strength and skills have no influence on the outcome of the TW, so why should they have any influence on matchmaking?
- Match guilds similar GM AND similar amount of players AND similar TOP XX-XX chars (depending on their roster size)
- Arena avg remove last 5 persons in the square
Done
Each Joined member must assign 4 squads and 1 fleet designated Offense, then assign 4 squads and 1 fleet designated Defense. (based on 50 player join)
MM now has this info to create a similar matchup taking into account squads used, avg. squad / fleet GP, abilities, zetas, and mod GP of the locked players.
Adds more coin flip, strategy, randomness, will they put NS on D, Padme for D, keep DR/Malak wall or keep for offense? Who knows? It would mirror GA effectively.