TW - MM and Teams needed [MERGE]

Replies

  • Andyjd93 wrote: »
    I wish they would increase the guild cap from 50 to 75

    You want to see officers running for the hills? 🤣🤣
    I can't imagine wrangling 75 people during TW/TB.
  • Xcien
    2249 posts Member
    Andyjd93 wrote: »
    I wish they would increase the guild cap from 50 to 75

    I’d feel sorry for the guild officers. Imagine having to deal with 75 people during TB/TW. Doubt the officers would enjoy it.
    One may learn a great deal about a people by the stories they tell of others.

    Thank you for evaluating. Your feedback has been noted.
  • Ultra
    8548 posts Moderator
    Andyjd93 wrote: »
    I wish they would increase the guild cap from 50 to 75

    Guild events aren’t scaled for 75 players
  • Ultra
    8548 posts Moderator
    Xcien wrote: »
    Andyjd93 wrote: »
    I wish they would increase the guild cap from 50 to 75

    I’d feel sorry for the guild officers. Imagine having to deal with 75 people during TB/TW. Doubt the officers would enjoy it.

    1. If nothing is changed other than total number of players in guild, it would be a lot easier for guilds since they need only 50 people at the minimum to participate in TW so they don’t have to chase as much players

    2. No need to chase players for getting their daily 600s since only 50 out of 75 need to do 600 tickets worth

    In fact you can do 300 tickets per member or so on

    Lots of leeway

    3. Crancor would be easier but reward pool would need to be scaled

    4. TB will be a lot easier to max stars just from GP deployment and combat - don’t need all 75 to participate

    Game isn’t designed for it and would make every guild event redundant and skippable
  • If they changed guilds from 50 to 75, they would just increase the zone deploys from 50 to 75 for territory wars🤮
  • Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    I think the main concern is very simple:
    TW MM does not work (since years)
    R9 Mat is the only what matters in the whole reward system (win 5 - yay, loose 1 - nay so you pray for a good MM but this rng dislikes you as guild get a huge negative impact)

    It was simply a terrible idea to put the best mat in any guild pvp place - just foreseeable bad idea if your devs ever played any good pvp games they would know this in advance.
  • Putting the R9 material in straight away was a dumb move on CGs part. Try out the new matchmaking first, identify any issues, then implement. We had a 30 million difference 48 joined our side 49 their side after talking to them. The sudden changes and lack of information on anticipated number of teams to set for defence also further angered many. An increased time to attack would also be appreciated by many ~36/48h. For now the time investment versus rewards game are very disproportionate.

    I know of 1 whale quitting on my ship shard and a few in my arena over TW changes and the MM. We have a number of officers and a number of high end accounts in our alliance quitting over R9 only being obtainable by TW.

    The last 3 months have been an absolute cluster of poor rushed implementations with a plethora of bugs introduced each update. Slow down, quell the visible anger of the community and work to rebuild the trust that has been lost.
  • So our match went like this. Opponent sets two front zones with 39 gls each zone. We only have 58 in our entire guild. Nice work guys. Thank the intern who programmed this.
  • Kyno
    32056 posts Moderator
    XKurareX wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    I think the main concern is very simple:
    TW MM does not work (since years)
    R9 Mat is the only what matters in the whole reward system (win 5 - yay, loose 1 - nay so you pray for a good MM but this rng dislikes you as guild get a huge negative impact)

    It was simply a terrible idea to put the best mat in any guild pvp place - just foreseeable bad idea if your devs ever played any good pvp games they would know this in advance.

    Yes, and they changed it now to make it easier for them to adjust, to be able to effect how it works and dial it in to work better.

    I agree, that it matters a lot, and the rewards are designed to push competitiveness, by making a fairly drastic difference between a W or an L.

    I would disagree that it's a bad idea to put it there, many players like this game mode, and many players play competitively. I feel it may have been too many changes all at once, but still not a bad revamp to the game mode.

    Judging the new MM system by one match and the past version isnt going to gove an accurate picture of the new system.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Judging the new MM system by one match and the past version isnt going to gove an accurate picture of the new system.

    How may ridiculous matches should we wait before judging?
  • Decay
    96 posts Member
    Our Match was competitive - the increase in teams was unsuspected and not known fully - maybe on us

    What is troubling is the timing of matches - When you are fighting a zone with a homogeneous composition, there is a META team to beat that zone- you meed your whole guild to attack that zone - if you are international, that is really difficult to coordinate - and then you need to do it 10 times to complete the War - getting a war complete in 24 hours and clearing 10 zones is a disadvantage for diverse Guilds - I am not sure what the answer is, but this will create angst going forward.
  • Kyno
    32056 posts Moderator
    Joebo720 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Judging the new MM system by one match and the past version isnt going to gove an accurate picture of the new system.

    How may ridiculous matches should we wait before judging?

    It depends how aggressively they adjust things. Being that this was the first one, I would think that the next 2 will be more telling on how much control they have, then this initial roll out.

    So far anyone has only had one. Safe bet in my head is 3-5, but I expect them to get less "ridiculous" each time.
  • Hi friends,

    I wanted to provide some honest TW feedback from my guilds perspective, which is a top 10 guild, who will face the top guilds in the game.

    We are a 380m+ guild, top 10 in GP, who were required to place 50 teams per zone.

    First off, the entire alliance I am in was excited to see new rewards as well as more teams for TW. We are a TW alliance and love when it gets updated. It was AMAZING to be able to use some of our older, never used teams once again. There is so many more ideas now floating around for defense and offense and its fantastic. Very fresh!

    The major issue we have moving forward, is the time allotted to kill a 50 team zone. At the top, you see many GL zones. In most cases, when the enemy is showing SLKR, we can really only afford to send in one team. We then have to wait for EVERY SINGLE guild member to be able to attack one zone to move on. This is a huge issue when the guild has members all over the world.

    I can think of two solutions that would help tremendously.

    The most interesting, but probably the hardest to add, is a new map that opens with 3 different lanes with less than 50 teams per zone but still calls for the same total teams overall. This enables us to be able to hit 3 zones simultaneously. It also shakes things up for strategy!

    The easier route, which can likely be added fast, is to make the attack phase 36 hours. 24 hours is just not enough for an international guild to be able to reliably kill 50 team zones without making everyone's life a headache. Officers are tagging people all day and I foresee that leading to burnout, which is an issue right now due to increased playtime demands.

    Thanks for reading and thanks for giving TW some love!

  • Sewpot
    1790 posts Member
    And up the rewards a little more. Looking at you relic material
  • Andyjd93 wrote: »
    I wish they would increase the guild cap from 50 to 75

    NO PLEASE GOD NO. 50 people is bad enough!
  • Fanatic
    409 posts Member
    edited October 4
    Sewpot wrote: »
    And up the rewards a little more. Looking at you relic material

    You don't think that being able to take 1 character to R9 every month (assuming you are winning all your TW's) is enough relic mats? Or 1 R9 every 5 months if you lose all your TW's.
  • Drim
    286 posts Member
    edited October 4
    24hrs is fine if we open to more attack time it removes a lot of strategy. Your going to have to blitz some times not everything can be slowly calculated
  • Drim
    286 posts Member
    We don’t need more time.
  • OmegaIV wrote: »
    Maybe have one TW instead of two and double the rewards.

    This. TWs are schedule in between TBs. So they can't increase the TW time without creating a bigger gap between TBs. They aren't going to have them overlap as that's just too much time demanded to run them concurrently. Changing it up to 1 TW with double the rewards would allow for more time to run the extra battles.
  • Matchmaking is fix #1 that needs to be made. Our guild got matched up against another guild that had around 68 mil GP more in terms of participating members. Not a sandbag either....we had 49 join, they had 50 join.
  • Matchmaking is fix #1 that needs to be made. Our guild got matched up against another guild that had around 68 mil GP more in terms of participating members. Not a sandbag either....we had 49 join, they had 50 join.

    If they don’t want 50% of the guilds just hitting join and doing nothing else they better fix it. Otherwise they destroyed one more section of the game that was actually liked by a lot of people. Some guilds obviously didn’t care about TW but many did. They are going to turn this into another GAC.
  • I'm currently in a 312m GP guild, we had to put 40 squads in each sector. The guild we were against was 370m GP. That is completely skewed if you ask me. I get that you have a large range for each division, but the guild GP should be pretty close to start. Fist step in matchmaking should be that.
  • Drim wrote: »
    24hrs is fine if we open to more attack time it removes a lot of strategy. Your going to have to blitz some times not everything can be slowly calculated

    Not from where we are. Theres no extra strategy just waiting for players to wake up.

  • Vos_Landeck
    1592 posts Member
    edited October 4
    Mostrillo wrote: »
    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.

    That's similar to what ours was. We were 356 mil GP and 49 joined. Opponent was 417 mil GP and 50 joined. That's beyond broken....it's flat-out absurd. No way these match-ups should occur....ever. Previously, sandbagging would happen and there would be mismatches based upon average GP of participating players even though the total GP of participating players was similar. Now, even the total GP of participating players seems to be irrelevant.

    This shouldn't be that complicated. Guilds should not be matched up outside of divisions...period. Within divisions, rank all guilds by the average GP of participating players. Select the first X number of guilds from that list and randomly pair them and so on and so forth. Using the average GP of participating players will prevent sandbagging and ensure more balanced match-ups. If you have an odd number of guilds in a division, then the last guild in the match-up process gets an automatic win and 1st place rewards...just like the byes that happen in GAC rounds due to an odd number of players in a division. Given what a slog TW has been turned into, nobody is going to be mad about an automatic win.
  • you should be aware that this will never happen for a good reason: the best guild in the group would have all the rewards and the worst would never have anything. The system is designed in such a way that your w / l rate is 50% except for the best guild in the game because no one will be able to beat them.
    You should also know that they have a long-prepared release schedule and that when something comes out late it is not to please the players like a moderator has tried to say it. Watch FIFA22. If they don't tell you anything, it's because for them it's Wai, They just ask you for feedback to calm you down and come to terms with the system.They don't need your comments, they have enough data.
  • raybron99 wrote: »
    Drim wrote: »
    24hrs is fine if we open to more attack time it removes a lot of strategy. Your going to have to blitz some times not everything can be slowly calculated

    Not from where we are. Theres no extra strategy just waiting for players to wake up.

    I think what he’s saying is that instead of each player using 1 GL team to beat 1 SLKR, each available player would use 2 or 3 GL teams to beat multiple SLKR teams.
  • OmegaIV wrote: »
    Maybe have one TW instead of two and double the rewards.

    This. TWs are schedule in between TBs. So they can't increase the TW time without creating a bigger gap between TBs. They aren't going to have them overlap as that's just too much time demanded to run them concurrently. Changing it up to 1 TW with double the rewards would allow for more time to run the extra battles.
    Simply increasing event duration doesn't address the problem of doing twice as much work but doubling the duration and rewards, to match the doubled effort, and halving the event frequency could work.
This discussion has been closed.