TW - MM and Teams needed [MERGE]

Replies

  • We had a close match, won by under 100 banners. The closest for a long time, so I guess the MM worked for us.

    I didn't check the opponent guild out because they have letters from another language in their name. So no idea what the GL count or gp totals were like.

    Biggest problem I see is that the increased number of teams is a problem for international guilds again.

    A coordinated defence with single types of teams in each area means that you really need every player to sign in many times per day, and start doing that from very early in the attack phase. That way each player can use their particular counter team on a territory.

    With people in different time zones, the start of attack phase can be the middle of the night for some, middle of the work day for others, family bed time or whatever, life gets in the way. This means that a guild across many time zones cannot effectively get every player to attack each territory.

    With the old max of 25 this was manageable, but with the increase it is not at all. Adding more and more time required to the game is not good.

    If you want to force different team usage to encourage deeper rosters then find another way. The old different bonuses in different territories thing? Maybe limit the number of times a leader can be used by the guild? Force only certain factions in a zone? Please not just more and more time required.
  • SemiGod
    3001 posts Member
    hunchew wrote: »
    I completely agree. While this is probably the most fun I've had in TW for a while now, the amount of coordination and time this game now requires is unsustainable. Yes, we fought in the top bracket. And yes we had to double the numbers of offensive and defensive teams. That's great and is actually a good challenge. What does NOT work at all is requiring to clear 400 teams and 100 fleets in 24 hrs. On a weekend, we still had personal conflicts and people not being able to dedicate enough time to it.
    I can't imagine how this would go a weekend where people have to balance work, life and TW obligations.
    I am unsure even if 36 hrs for attack phase would be sufficient.

    Yeah it’s hard to say but the time definitely needs a change, I had guild officers staying up til 4-6 am for this one and that’s just absurd.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nothing they saw from what we produced raised any immediate red flags about how the system works.

    Well, that seems concerning!

    There is a difference between the algorithm working right and parameters needing to be dialed in.

    They have said parameters need to be dialed in, so no this is not that concerning, it is a living system that now has an easier way for them to dial it in and adjust the parameters.

    No, there is not. If something needs to be"dialed in" i.e. adjusted it is not working right.

    A red flag (your phrase) is usually a sign of some kind of problem, so if none of the data provided in this thread alone "did not raise any red flags" (your words), then they seem to think that it's WAI and that there are no problems to look at.
  • TargetEadu wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TargetEadu wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TargetEadu wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Our guild has an active TW gp of 288mil. We are matched with a guild with over 340mil. They have 60 more GLs than our entire guild. They are showing their last 8 TWs have all been wins. We have won 3 of our last 8 and the latest was a loss so we are not even on a winning streak. Now sure how the matching system would allow this. Based off GP, GLs, wins whatever the other guild out matches us in all categories. Its an easy R9 mats for this guild as we could only clear 2 zones. Meanwhile we don't even have enough members or GP to get us in the bracket for R9 rewards even if we could have won.

    How many defensive placements?

    30 defensive placements

    Not that this makes the situation good, so please understand that I am not defending anything. 30 placements didnt have everyone join.

    They are not at 340 GP and getting matched with you, the active GP is lower, and unless it is above 300M GP they are not going to get r9, which with those records and the numbers we see, it is possible they are not. This also means that while the full guilds is over you by 60 GLs, that is not likely not the case within the match.

    This is just information and not an excuse or defense.

    Isn’t this also the definition of sandbagging?

    No, sandbagging implies an intent behind going in with reduced numbers to produce better results. Some guilds just dont require everyone to join.

    No offense, but I doubt the current matchmaking system can tell the difference.

    Sandbagging’s a difficult problem, I’ll give CG that, but there’s got to be some way to adjust for it. Give more weight to the average player GP and less to the total?

    The system should not even try to tell the difference, and it most certainly should deal with mismatch in numbers no matter the cause.

    The new system does have a way to deal with it and it will be adjusted as needed, just like the other parameters.

    That’s fair, I guess. I just seems to need a lot of adjusting.
    EldelSable wrote: »
    TargetEadu wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, for high-level guilds what makes the management so difficult? My guild is relatively small, but all the management we really do is “place X or Y team here” or “attack this zone”. More teams would make that harder to some degree, but I doubt it would change our overall strategy.

    High GP guilds suddenly have to place double amount of teams. Walls of 46, 48, 50. Same time of play. Exhausting and boring. Specially for tw officers. Simply stupid

    I guess what I’m asking, is the strain from suddenly having to switch to a new strategy or actually implementing that strategy?

    Problem is no one knew we had to double teams till defense phase started. It’s not like gac that teams rise from 7 to 9 or 11. And everyone had that info. Tw officers had to figure out what teams we use and where. We had to place some meh teams and other guild had some Phoenix (reliced xd). And it’s not same to kill 25 reys than 46. Matchmaking was not specially bad for us. But that level of compromise this tw required makes game not funny
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    We have been shuffling info to the team. There are too many factors for this information to provide direct answer for each person. They will keep looking at the data.

    They will be monitoring the situation and they will be doing balance changes, as needed.

    What do they need to monitor? They said matchups will be within divisions of the same GP. We are seeing tons of matchups several divisions apart. That’s either not WAI or they lied in the SoG

    They said cross division was possible.
    You might also notice that cross-divisional matchups can now occur to help smooth the transition between Divisions.

    Cross division like a division next to each other. Several apart is possible? So a 240mil GP guild playing one with 325mil GP is considered a fair transition? That’s not disingenuous at all

    Sorry, but where did they specify that?

    It's not disingenuous when they do not follow your definition, that's not how that works. Cross division does not have any such limitations to its definition.

    They may be something that is adjusted as they dial things in, but still it fits exactly what they stated.

    So a normal person would think it would mean that you play a division up or down from yourself. Especially after their Q&A videos with content creators like CFH. If you bleed in a division over in either direction then that’s understandable. However you mean to tell me that after they implemented R9 into TW that cross division matchups with several divisions apart from each other and as anywhere from 60-120milGP gap is fair? Oh ok.

    My bad for thinking like a reasonable person that a fair matchup or cross divisions would be the next one over; not several apart with a massive power and GL gap.
    I’m not saying the matchmaking is good - but I don’t think it’s reasonable to state that “cross divisional” would be restricted to one above or below, and I for one did not assume that was what they meant when they used that phrase.

    A reasonable person would say that. An apologist wouldn’t. You even looked at the outrage going on. You are clearly in the 1% that think it’s alright. Try looking on other places like Discord. This TW is universally panned.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nothing they saw from what we produced raised any immediate red flags about how the system works.

    Well, that seems concerning!

    There is a difference between the algorithm working right and parameters needing to be dialed in.

    They have said parameters need to be dialed in, so no this is not that concerning, it is a living system that now has an easier way for them to dial it in and adjust the parameters.

    No, there is not. If something needs to be"dialed in" i.e. adjusted it is not working right.

    A red flag (your phrase) is usually a sign of some kind of problem, so if none of the data provided in this thread alone "did not raise any red flags" (your words), then they seem to think that it's WAI and that there are no problems to look at.

    If the algorithm was wrong or not working, it cant be dialed in, its broken.

    So no red flags, from the incomplete data we could provide, as each case without all the information looked like it could be explained due to parameters that exist.

    No, they have clearly stated there are things to look at, but nothing that cant be done by adjusting the parameters they have placed to manage this.
  • Player "engagement"
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nothing they saw from what we produced raised any immediate red flags about how the system works.

    Well, that seems concerning!

    There is a difference between the algorithm working right and parameters needing to be dialed in.

    They have said parameters need to be dialed in, so no this is not that concerning, it is a living system that now has an easier way for them to dial it in and adjust the parameters.

    No, there is not. If something needs to be"dialed in" i.e. adjusted it is not working right.

    A red flag (your phrase) is usually a sign of some kind of problem, so if none of the data provided in this thread alone "did not raise any red flags" (your words), then they seem to think that it's WAI and that there are no problems to look at.

    If the algorithm was wrong or not working, it cant be dialed in, its broken.

    So no red flags, from the incomplete data we could provide, as each case without all the information looked like it could be explained due to parameters that exist.

    No, they have clearly stated there are things to look at, but nothing that cant be done by adjusting the parameters they have placed to manage this.

    That's pretty incoherent in my opinion.

    So there were no problems/red flags with the matchups in the data you provided them? Ok - I find that somewhat concerning, but whatever.

    But there are problems/red flags(just not from the data you provided) so the algorithm is not working right. Gotcha.
  • Maybe have one TW instead of two and double the rewards.

    Orrrrrr… make it PVE. Have the game populate the walls based on the guild’s strength.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nothing they saw from what we produced raised any immediate red flags about how the system works.

    Well, that seems concerning!

    There is a difference between the algorithm working right and parameters needing to be dialed in.

    They have said parameters need to be dialed in, so no this is not that concerning, it is a living system that now has an easier way for them to dial it in and adjust the parameters.

    No, there is not. If something needs to be"dialed in" i.e. adjusted it is not working right.

    A red flag (your phrase) is usually a sign of some kind of problem, so if none of the data provided in this thread alone "did not raise any red flags" (your words), then they seem to think that it's WAI and that there are no problems to look at.

    If the algorithm was wrong or not working, it cant be dialed in, its broken.

    So no red flags, from the incomplete data we could provide, as each case without all the information looked like it could be explained due to parameters that exist.

    No, they have clearly stated there are things to look at, but nothing that cant be done by adjusting the parameters they have placed to manage this.

    That's pretty incoherent in my opinion.

    So there were no problems/red flags with the matchups in the data you provided them? Ok - I find that somewhat concerning, but whatever.

    But there are problems/red flags(just not from the data you provided) so the algorithm is not working right. Gotcha.

    Let's try this, do you understand the difference between working as designed, and working as intended?

    We can only provide so much information, bots only provide whole guild data, and not joined data. And in many cases we have nothing other than the guild GP from "the other side". So when we shuffle them the info in this thread, its incomplete and can be explained through the various other points we cannot provide. Seems to be working as designed.

    There are elements that need to be adjusted and they acknowledged that, because they can see things that are not where they want them to be, but are not red flags, as in that's wrong and we should stop the whole thing. Nothing was so out of sorts that it requires that the algorithm not be used. Seems to not be working as intended, but still within the design.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nothing they saw from what we produced raised any immediate red flags about how the system works.

    Well, that seems concerning!

    There is a difference between the algorithm working right and parameters needing to be dialed in.

    They have said parameters need to be dialed in, so no this is not that concerning, it is a living system that now has an easier way for them to dial it in and adjust the parameters.

    No, there is not. If something needs to be"dialed in" i.e. adjusted it is not working right.

    A red flag (your phrase) is usually a sign of some kind of problem, so if none of the data provided in this thread alone "did not raise any red flags" (your words), then they seem to think that it's WAI and that there are no problems to look at.

    If the algorithm was wrong or not working, it cant be dialed in, its broken.

    So no red flags, from the incomplete data we could provide, as each case without all the information looked like it could be explained due to parameters that exist.

    No, they have clearly stated there are things to look at, but nothing that cant be done by adjusting the parameters they have placed to manage this.

    That's pretty incoherent in my opinion.

    So there were no problems/red flags with the matchups in the data you provided them? Ok - I find that somewhat concerning, but whatever.

    But there are problems/red flags(just not from the data you provided) so the algorithm is not working right. Gotcha.

    Let's try this, do you understand the difference between working as designed, and working as intended?

    We can only provide so much information, bots only provide whole guild data, and not joined data. And in many cases we have nothing other than the guild GP from "the other side". So when we shuffle them the info in this thread, its incomplete and can be explained through the various other points we cannot provide. Seems to be working as designed.

    There are elements that need to be adjusted and they acknowledged that, because they can see things that are not where they want them to be, but are not red flags, as in that's wrong and we should stop the whole thing. Nothing was so out of sorts that it requires that the algorithm not be used. Seems to not be working as intended, but still within the design.

    CG would have all that data they need. They have the guild names and GPs, they can go find these matches to find the details of each. Or does CG need 3rd party bots to give them info on their own game?
  • Andyjd93
    32 posts Member
    edited October 2021
    I wish they would increase the guild cap from 50 to 75
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nothing they saw from what we produced raised any immediate red flags about how the system works.

    Well, that seems concerning!

    There is a difference between the algorithm working right and parameters needing to be dialed in.

    They have said parameters need to be dialed in, so no this is not that concerning, it is a living system that now has an easier way for them to dial it in and adjust the parameters.

    No, there is not. If something needs to be"dialed in" i.e. adjusted it is not working right.

    A red flag (your phrase) is usually a sign of some kind of problem, so if none of the data provided in this thread alone "did not raise any red flags" (your words), then they seem to think that it's WAI and that there are no problems to look at.

    If the algorithm was wrong or not working, it cant be dialed in, its broken.

    So no red flags, from the incomplete data we could provide, as each case without all the information looked like it could be explained due to parameters that exist.

    No, they have clearly stated there are things to look at, but nothing that cant be done by adjusting the parameters they have placed to manage this.

    That's pretty incoherent in my opinion.

    So there were no problems/red flags with the matchups in the data you provided them? Ok - I find that somewhat concerning, but whatever.

    But there are problems/red flags(just not from the data you provided) so the algorithm is not working right. Gotcha.

    Let's try this, do you understand the difference between working as designed, and working as intended?

    We can only provide so much information, bots only provide whole guild data, and not joined data. And in many cases we have nothing other than the guild GP from "the other side". So when we shuffle them the info in this thread, its incomplete and can be explained through the various other points we cannot provide. Seems to be working as designed.

    There are elements that need to be adjusted and they acknowledged that, because they can see things that are not where they want them to be, but are not red flags, as in that's wrong and we should stop the whole thing. Nothing was so out of sorts that it requires that the algorithm not be used. Seems to not be working as intended, but still within the design.

    There is no need to be condescending, but ok.

    I never said the algorithm was SO broken that it should not be used - you said that I said it was broken. I didn't.

    You said the algorithm is working right but needs adjustments. I merely pointed out that something working RIGHT does not need adjustments.

    "...they can see things that are not where they want them to be, but are not red flags..." Something not being where you want it to be IS exactly that. A red flag. It doesn't necessarily mean that the system should be taken offline, simply that there is something to take a look at because it's not where you want it to be. If something is working as designed but not (quite) as intended, that's a red flag.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    If their system is to only look at data provided by a moderator on their forums, then their system is concerning.

    We were doing our best to get some of this visible when people were posting to have some feedback to the player base. They are not going to look at the data to give each person who posts a confirmation on their situation. They looked at it from end to make sure it was working, but that's at a very high level. They will look at this further to make adjustments as needed.

    We were just trying to help.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nothing they saw from what we produced raised any immediate red flags about how the system works.

    Well, that seems concerning!

    There is a difference between the algorithm working right and parameters needing to be dialed in.

    They have said parameters need to be dialed in, so no this is not that concerning, it is a living system that now has an easier way for them to dial it in and adjust the parameters.

    No, there is not. If something needs to be"dialed in" i.e. adjusted it is not working right.

    A red flag (your phrase) is usually a sign of some kind of problem, so if none of the data provided in this thread alone "did not raise any red flags" (your words), then they seem to think that it's WAI and that there are no problems to look at.

    If the algorithm was wrong or not working, it cant be dialed in, its broken.

    So no red flags, from the incomplete data we could provide, as each case without all the information looked like it could be explained due to parameters that exist.

    No, they have clearly stated there are things to look at, but nothing that cant be done by adjusting the parameters they have placed to manage this.

    That's pretty incoherent in my opinion.

    So there were no problems/red flags with the matchups in the data you provided them? Ok - I find that somewhat concerning, but whatever.

    But there are problems/red flags(just not from the data you provided) so the algorithm is not working right. Gotcha.

    Let's try this, do you understand the difference between working as designed, and working as intended?

    We can only provide so much information, bots only provide whole guild data, and not joined data. And in many cases we have nothing other than the guild GP from "the other side". So when we shuffle them the info in this thread, its incomplete and can be explained through the various other points we cannot provide. Seems to be working as designed.

    There are elements that need to be adjusted and they acknowledged that, because they can see things that are not where they want them to be, but are not red flags, as in that's wrong and we should stop the whole thing. Nothing was so out of sorts that it requires that the algorithm not be used. Seems to not be working as intended, but still within the design.

    There is no need to be condescending, but ok.

    I never said the algorithm was SO broken that it should not be used - you said that I said it was broken. I didn't.

    You said the algorithm is working right but needs adjustments. I merely pointed out that something working RIGHT does not need adjustments.

    "...they can see things that are not where they want them to be, but are not red flags..." Something not being where you want it to be IS exactly that. A red flag. It doesn't necessarily mean that the system should be taken offline, simply that there is something to take a look at because it's not where you want it to be. If something is working as designed but not (quite) as intended, that's a red flag.

    Ok.

    In this case that is not what a red flag means, a red flag is a situation that would require immediate action. That was not the case.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nothing they saw from what we produced raised any immediate red flags about how the system works.

    Well, that seems concerning!

    There is a difference between the algorithm working right and parameters needing to be dialed in.

    They have said parameters need to be dialed in, so no this is not that concerning, it is a living system that now has an easier way for them to dial it in and adjust the parameters.

    No, there is not. If something needs to be"dialed in" i.e. adjusted it is not working right.

    A red flag (your phrase) is usually a sign of some kind of problem, so if none of the data provided in this thread alone "did not raise any red flags" (your words), then they seem to think that it's WAI and that there are no problems to look at.

    If the algorithm was wrong or not working, it cant be dialed in, its broken.

    So no red flags, from the incomplete data we could provide, as each case without all the information looked like it could be explained due to parameters that exist.

    No, they have clearly stated there are things to look at, but nothing that cant be done by adjusting the parameters they have placed to manage this.

    That's pretty incoherent in my opinion.

    So there were no problems/red flags with the matchups in the data you provided them? Ok - I find that somewhat concerning, but whatever.

    But there are problems/red flags(just not from the data you provided) so the algorithm is not working right. Gotcha.

    Let's try this, do you understand the difference between working as designed, and working as intended?

    We can only provide so much information, bots only provide whole guild data, and not joined data. And in many cases we have nothing other than the guild GP from "the other side". So when we shuffle them the info in this thread, its incomplete and can be explained through the various other points we cannot provide. Seems to be working as designed.

    There are elements that need to be adjusted and they acknowledged that, because they can see things that are not where they want them to be, but are not red flags, as in that's wrong and we should stop the whole thing. Nothing was so out of sorts that it requires that the algorithm not be used. Seems to not be working as intended, but still within the design.

    There is no need to be condescending, but ok.

    I never said the algorithm was SO broken that it should not be used - you said that I said it was broken. I didn't.

    You said the algorithm is working right but needs adjustments. I merely pointed out that something working RIGHT does not need adjustments.

    "...they can see things that are not where they want them to be, but are not red flags..." Something not being where you want it to be IS exactly that. A red flag. It doesn't necessarily mean that the system should be taken offline, simply that there is something to take a look at because it's not where you want it to be. If something is working as designed but not (quite) as intended, that's a red flag.

    Ok.

    In this case that is not what a red flag means, a red flag is a situation that would require immediate action. That was not the case.

    All right, if you guys operate with different definitions of terms than the rest of us, it will of course be difficult to discuss anything.

    CG saying they care about player feedback obviously means something else to them than it does to the community, as well, so that actually makes some things make a bit more sense...
  • We lost, but it was close until the end and got away from us. The increased number of teams on defense meant I put more out there, but it also meant that I had more effective offensive teams. Before this, I basically had my two Galactic Legend teams as viable for offense, but now I got good use out of my non-Rey Resistance and a handful of other teams that I've already forgotten about.

    As a result I had more fun with this one than the ones before it. So far I'm still only tentatively optimistic, but I'm being won over.

    I know folks are busily arguing the numbers and theoretical possibilities. But none of that matters to me as much as whether I enjoyed the experience or not. We'll see if I still enjoy it three, four Wars from now, but after just one so far so good.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • BeralCator wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    If their system is to only look at data provided by a moderator on their forums, then their system is concerning.

    We were doing our best to get some of this visible when people were posting to have some feedback to the player base. They are not going to look at the data to give each person who posts a confirmation on their situation. They looked at it from end to make sure it was working, but that's at a very high level. They will look at this further to make adjustments as needed.

    We were just trying to help.

    You aren't helping though. The mindset of someone who comes to the forum is one of frustration and anger. They want their negative experience to be validated and to feel like it is heard by someone who can make the necessary adjustments.

    Rather than argue with people or throw semantics and technical gobbledygook back at them, perhaps start by empathizing with their bad experiences.

    No one wants to be questioned about whether they have the right guild. They want someone to say, "wow that matchup looks really unfair and I imagine it isn't a very fun experience to get blown out by such a strong guild. I am going to pass on this match to the team to look at and get you some answers".

    Your constant responses are just making people angrier.

    Let’s also give them a participation trophy for posting in the forums
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nothing they saw from what we produced raised any immediate red flags about how the system works.

    Well, that seems concerning!

    There is a difference between the algorithm working right and parameters needing to be dialed in.

    They have said parameters need to be dialed in, so no this is not that concerning, it is a living system that now has an easier way for them to dial it in and adjust the parameters.

    No, there is not. If something needs to be"dialed in" i.e. adjusted it is not working right.

    A red flag (your phrase) is usually a sign of some kind of problem, so if none of the data provided in this thread alone "did not raise any red flags" (your words), then they seem to think that it's WAI and that there are no problems to look at.

    If the algorithm was wrong or not working, it cant be dialed in, its broken.

    So no red flags, from the incomplete data we could provide, as each case without all the information looked like it could be explained due to parameters that exist.

    No, they have clearly stated there are things to look at, but nothing that cant be done by adjusting the parameters they have placed to manage this.

    That's pretty incoherent in my opinion.

    So there were no problems/red flags with the matchups in the data you provided them? Ok - I find that somewhat concerning, but whatever.

    But there are problems/red flags(just not from the data you provided) so the algorithm is not working right. Gotcha.

    Let's try this, do you understand the difference between working as designed, and working as intended?

    We can only provide so much information, bots only provide whole guild data, and not joined data. And in many cases we have nothing other than the guild GP from "the other side". So when we shuffle them the info in this thread, its incomplete and can be explained through the various other points we cannot provide. Seems to be working as designed.

    There are elements that need to be adjusted and they acknowledged that, because they can see things that are not where they want them to be, but are not red flags, as in that's wrong and we should stop the whole thing. Nothing was so out of sorts that it requires that the algorithm not be used. Seems to not be working as intended, but still within the design.

    There is no need to be condescending, but ok.

    I never said the algorithm was SO broken that it should not be used - you said that I said it was broken. I didn't.

    You said the algorithm is working right but needs adjustments. I merely pointed out that something working RIGHT does not need adjustments.

    "...they can see things that are not where they want them to be, but are not red flags..." Something not being where you want it to be IS exactly that. A red flag. It doesn't necessarily mean that the system should be taken offline, simply that there is something to take a look at because it's not where you want it to be. If something is working as designed but not (quite) as intended, that's a red flag.

    Ok.

    In this case that is not what a red flag means, a red flag is a situation that would require immediate action. That was not the case.

    All right, if you guys operate with different definitions of terms than the rest of us, it will of course be difficult to discuss anything.

    CG saying they care about player feedback obviously means something else to them than it does to the community, as well, so that actually makes some things make a bit more sense...

    I have never heard a red flag not being something that requires immediate action, but maybe that just me.

    Ok.
  • BeralCator wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    If their system is to only look at data provided by a moderator on their forums, then their system is concerning.

    We were doing our best to get some of this visible when people were posting to have some feedback to the player base. They are not going to look at the data to give each person who posts a confirmation on their situation. They looked at it from end to make sure it was working, but that's at a very high level. They will look at this further to make adjustments as needed.

    We were just trying to help.

    You aren't helping though. The mindset of someone who comes to the forum is one of frustration and anger. They want their negative experience to be validated and to feel like it is heard by someone who can make the necessary adjustments.

    Rather than argue with people or throw semantics and technical gobbledygook back at them, perhaps start by empathizing with their bad experiences.

    No one wants to be questioned about whether they have the right guild. They want someone to say, "wow that matchup looks really unfair and I imagine it isn't a very fun experience to get blown out by such a strong guild. I am going to pass on this match to the team to look at and get you some answers".

    Your constant responses are just making people angrier.

    Let’s also give them a participation trophy for posting in the forums

    Yours is in the mail.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    BeralCator wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    If their system is to only look at data provided by a moderator on their forums, then their system is concerning.

    We were doing our best to get some of this visible when people were posting to have some feedback to the player base. They are not going to look at the data to give each person who posts a confirmation on their situation. They looked at it from end to make sure it was working, but that's at a very high level. They will look at this further to make adjustments as needed.

    We were just trying to help.

    You aren't helping though. The mindset of someone who comes to the forum is one of frustration and anger. They want their negative experience to be validated and to feel like it is heard by someone who can make the necessary adjustments.

    Rather than argue with people or throw semantics and technical gobbledygook back at them, perhaps start by empathizing with their bad experiences.

    No one wants to be questioned about whether they have the right guild. They want someone to say, "wow that matchup looks really unfair and I imagine it isn't a very fun experience to get blown out by such a strong guild. I am going to pass on this match to the team to look at and get you some answers".

    Your constant responses are just making people angrier.

    People coming here with a negative experience and us taking that information to the source to make sure that this is nothing that is going to require immediate action, is not helpful?

    That's interesting, because most times when anything is wrong or seems wrong everyone wants any information one way or the other, we were trying to provide that.

    I share information, and when I have it some perspective on what or why things were done. I cannot change things to make people happy, but I can provide information or perspective.

    Take a look at the TW sub, we have many people who need to enter the guild name into the bot, and enter the wrong on and have insane matchup, it is helpful to check for this before hand, because carrying misinformation to the dev team to check, or even just perpetuating misinformation can be very unhelpful, and waste time.

    I do empathize, which is why I am here as a volunteer trying to help. No I do not say it every time, and yes I will question and discuss points further. We are all players here, and this is something I am both passionate about and interested in. It is also helpful to discuss things further to get more information or understanding on where people are coming from.

    TBH, I do not care if people like me, I am not in that point in my life. I do as much as they let me behind the scenes to help get information and sentiment to the people who need to hear it, which goes both ways. I try to get Doja eyes on everything we see that he may not be aware of.

    I hope you can understand if I didnt care about other players, i wouldnt be here.
  • We are a 335 million GP guild and 170 GL, we joined in 46 for a total of 309 million… and we were matched against a 391 million GP guild with more than 250 GL.. and they joined in 48 (2 more than us).
    26 executor to 44.
    How would you call it? Unfair? I would call it totally broken.
  • Looooki
    1030 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nothing they saw from what we produced raised any immediate red flags about how the system works.

    Well, that seems concerning!

    There is a difference between the algorithm working right and parameters needing to be dialed in.

    They have said parameters need to be dialed in, so no this is not that concerning, it is a living system that now has an easier way for them to dial it in and adjust the parameters.

    No, there is not. If something needs to be"dialed in" i.e. adjusted it is not working right.

    A red flag (your phrase) is usually a sign of some kind of problem, so if none of the data provided in this thread alone "did not raise any red flags" (your words), then they seem to think that it's WAI and that there are no problems to look at.

    If the algorithm was wrong or not working, it cant be dialed in, its broken.

    So no red flags, from the incomplete data we could provide, as each case without all the information looked like it could be explained due to parameters that exist.

    No, they have clearly stated there are things to look at, but nothing that cant be done by adjusting the parameters they have placed to manage this.

    That's pretty incoherent in my opinion.

    So there were no problems/red flags with the matchups in the data you provided them? Ok - I find that somewhat concerning, but whatever.

    But there are problems/red flags(just not from the data you provided) so the algorithm is not working right. Gotcha.

    Let's try this, do you understand the difference between working as designed, and working as intended?

    We can only provide so much information, bots only provide whole guild data, and not joined data. And in many cases we have nothing other than the guild GP from "the other side". So when we shuffle them the info in this thread, its incomplete and can be explained through the various other points we cannot provide. Seems to be working as designed.

    There are elements that need to be adjusted and they acknowledged that, because they can see things that are not where they want them to be, but are not red flags, as in that's wrong and we should stop the whole thing. Nothing was so out of sorts that it requires that the algorithm not be used. Seems to not be working as intended, but still within the design.

    I think u identified the problem ... Just get the bot to measure the GP to the sign up ...

    Yes I'm not a programmer. It probably is not something easy to do. But how long has TW been ? How long has this been flagged up ? With all the known sand bagging issues

    Change the programming for goodness sake. This is for R9 Mats. The new things that CG is bringing to the table. At least make it as fair as possible.
  • BeralCator wrote: »
    BeralCator wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    If their system is to only look at data provided by a moderator on their forums, then their system is concerning.

    We were doing our best to get some of this visible when people were posting to have some feedback to the player base. They are not going to look at the data to give each person who posts a confirmation on their situation. They looked at it from end to make sure it was working, but that's at a very high level. They will look at this further to make adjustments as needed.

    We were just trying to help.

    You aren't helping though. The mindset of someone who comes to the forum is one of frustration and anger. They want their negative experience to be validated and to feel like it is heard by someone who can make the necessary adjustments.

    Rather than argue with people or throw semantics and technical gobbledygook back at them, perhaps start by empathizing with their bad experiences.

    No one wants to be questioned about whether they have the right guild. They want someone to say, "wow that matchup looks really unfair and I imagine it isn't a very fun experience to get blown out by such a strong guild. I am going to pass on this match to the team to look at and get you some answers".

    Your constant responses are just making people angrier.

    Let’s also give them a participation trophy for posting in the forums

    Yours is in the mail.

    Thanks for validating me.

  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Looooki wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nothing they saw from what we produced raised any immediate red flags about how the system works.

    Well, that seems concerning!

    There is a difference between the algorithm working right and parameters needing to be dialed in.

    They have said parameters need to be dialed in, so no this is not that concerning, it is a living system that now has an easier way for them to dial it in and adjust the parameters.

    No, there is not. If something needs to be"dialed in" i.e. adjusted it is not working right.

    A red flag (your phrase) is usually a sign of some kind of problem, so if none of the data provided in this thread alone "did not raise any red flags" (your words), then they seem to think that it's WAI and that there are no problems to look at.

    If the algorithm was wrong or not working, it cant be dialed in, its broken.

    So no red flags, from the incomplete data we could provide, as each case without all the information looked like it could be explained due to parameters that exist.

    No, they have clearly stated there are things to look at, but nothing that cant be done by adjusting the parameters they have placed to manage this.

    That's pretty incoherent in my opinion.

    So there were no problems/red flags with the matchups in the data you provided them? Ok - I find that somewhat concerning, but whatever.

    But there are problems/red flags(just not from the data you provided) so the algorithm is not working right. Gotcha.

    Let's try this, do you understand the difference between working as designed, and working as intended?

    We can only provide so much information, bots only provide whole guild data, and not joined data. And in many cases we have nothing other than the guild GP from "the other side". So when we shuffle them the info in this thread, its incomplete and can be explained through the various other points we cannot provide. Seems to be working as designed.

    There are elements that need to be adjusted and they acknowledged that, because they can see things that are not where they want them to be, but are not red flags, as in that's wrong and we should stop the whole thing. Nothing was so out of sorts that it requires that the algorithm not be used. Seems to not be working as intended, but still within the design.

    I think u identified the problem ... Just get the bot to measure the GP to the sign up ...

    Yes I'm not a programmer. It probably is not something easy to do. But how long has TW been ? How long has this been flagged up ? With all the known sand bagging issues

    Change the programming for goodness sake. This is for R9 Mats. The new things that CG is bringing to the table. At least make it as fair as possible.

    Bots are programs written by players to provide info that is supplies bybthe API, I know not everything is available, but did raise a point about TW info like this. Not sure what if anything can be/will be provided.

    It is something they can easily adjust now, and it will be. This was added to help make this something they can truly focus in on.
  • Moonside wrote: »
    With this first TW behind us I have a couple comments.
    My 360M GP vs 370M GP match looked fair at first glance. Except they had 25% more GLs.
    But Im not here to speak of fairness. Im here to note the level of work and stress that is placed on players and officers alike to manage and coordinate a 49 placement per zone match.

    Its too much and way over the top. Its just resource management all over again. Immediately after the match ended, we had 2 top end players step down and retire. CG, I hope you are reading this. This change along with the multitude of recent ones has created a ball busting no fun environment.

    The trouble isnt the IP or even the basic game premise. Its too much. Youve squeezed so much from your base... Im not excited as I once was. Your development choices are going the wrong way. The result is an exodus of unhappy clients.

    Moonside- we are losing 7 total today
  • Kyno wrote: »
    BeralCator wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    If their system is to only look at data provided by a moderator on their forums, then their system is concerning.

    We were doing our best to get some of this visible when people were posting to have some feedback to the player base. They are not going to look at the data to give each person who posts a confirmation on their situation. They looked at it from end to make sure it was working, but that's at a very high level. They will look at this further to make adjustments as needed.

    We were just trying to help.

    You aren't helping though. The mindset of someone who comes to the forum is one of frustration and anger. They want their negative experience to be validated and to feel like it is heard by someone who can make the necessary adjustments.

    Rather than argue with people or throw semantics and technical gobbledygook back at them, perhaps start by empathizing with their bad experiences.

    No one wants to be questioned about whether they have the right guild. They want someone to say, "wow that matchup looks really unfair and I imagine it isn't a very fun experience to get blown out by such a strong guild. I am going to pass on this match to the team to look at and get you some answers".

    Your constant responses are just making people angrier.

    People coming here with a negative experience and us taking that information to the source to make sure that this is nothing that is going to require immediate action, is not helpful?

    That's interesting, because most times when anything is wrong or seems wrong everyone wants any information one way or the other, we were trying to provide that.

    I share information, and when I have it some perspective on what or why things were done. I cannot change things to make people happy, but I can provide information or perspective.

    Take a look at the TW sub, we have many people who need to enter the guild name into the bot, and enter the wrong on and have insane matchup, it is helpful to check for this before hand, because carrying misinformation to the dev team to check, or even just perpetuating misinformation can be very unhelpful, and waste time.

    I do empathize, which is why I am here as a volunteer trying to help. No I do not say it every time, and yes I will question and discuss points further. We are all players here, and this is something I am both passionate about and interested in. It is also helpful to discuss things further to get more information or understanding on where people are coming from.

    TBH, I do not care if people like me, I am not in that point in my life. I do as much as they let me behind the scenes to help get information and sentiment to the people who need to hear it, which goes both ways. I try to get Doja eyes on everything we see that he may not be aware of.

    I hope you can understand if I didnt care about other players, i wouldnt be here.

    PM sent. Better as a direct conversation.
This discussion has been closed.