TW - MM and Teams needed [MERGE]

1789101113Next

Replies

  • Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    Fair enough but why put R9 in a competitive game mode that hasn’t been fine tuned yet. It’s a shambolic decision and one that is causing whales and guild officers to straight up throw in the towel.
  • Kyno
    32056 posts Moderator
    Calbion wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    Fair enough but why put R9 in a competitive game mode that hasn’t been fine tuned yet. It’s a shambolic decision and one that is causing whales and guild officers to straight up throw in the towel.

    How do you fine tune to a situation you haven't moved into yet? And I think it would have been just as bad if not worse to introduce the changed structure and rewards with the old MM system.

    From their end too, this is a big move and probably one best done all at once, from a work load perspective. But that's just me thinking.
  • 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.

    Thats not possible in the top 10-20.

  • Kyno wrote: »
    Calbion wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    Fair enough but why put R9 in a competitive game mode that hasn’t been fine tuned yet. It’s a shambolic decision and one that is causing whales and guild officers to straight up throw in the towel.

    How do you fine tune to a situation you haven't moved into yet? And I think it would have been just as bad if not worse to introduce the changed structure and rewards with the old MM system.

    From their end too, this is a big move and probably one best done all at once, from a work load perspective. But that's just me thinking.

    You fine turn over time then introduce the new material, that’s the definition of fine tuning a system. Anyone from the community consulted before this would have predicted the current fall out from this decision.

    The reason people are quitting is over a clearly untuned system rewarding a vital material for competitive play.

    What is best for them may not be what is best for the community. Especially from evidence I am seeing of £50k+ whales quitting over this.
  • Calbion wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Calbion wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    Fair enough but why put R9 in a competitive game mode that hasn’t been fine tuned yet. It’s a shambolic decision and one that is causing whales and guild officers to straight up throw in the towel.

    How do you fine tune to a situation you haven't moved into yet? And I think it would have been just as bad if not worse to introduce the changed structure and rewards with the old MM system.

    From their end too, this is a big move and probably one best done all at once, from a work load perspective. But that's just me thinking.

    You fine turn over time then introduce the new material, that’s the definition of fine tuning a system. Anyone from the community consulted before this would have predicted the current fall out from this decision.

    The reason people are quitting is over a clearly untuned system rewarding a vital material for competitive play.

    What is best for them may not be what is best for the community. Especially from evidence I am seeing of £50k+ whales quitting over this.

    Yeah, the changes here screamed for an "Exhibition Season" to fine-tune the matchmaking algorithm before adding the new gear pieces.

    If it was essential to get the R9 pieces in at the same time, then perhaps the right play would be to award 1st place rewards to both sides until you've satisfied whatever internal metrics show the MM is functioning as intended. I believe there is precedent for this, but it's probably from the Carrie days. They're definitely stingier with compensation since she left.
  • CG probably needed a set timeframe to release R9 so they can release the next set of GLs that require it as fast as possible, while still leaving the GLs “possible” to get FTP.
  • MaricSkywalker
    146 posts Member
    edited October 4
    Kyno 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 I do not understand.

    CG said in their TW a post- they were trying to prevent sandbagging. So why in the world would this still be a thing.

    Punish the sandbaggers- make it guild gp vs guild gp +/- 20%. It’s so easy….

    Why give sandbaggers the option to sandbag?! You can’t do that in TB. Make them play the gamemode (TW) or punish them for not.

    The goal is not to force the situation where members have to join, leaving a window for player agency. That is why that is not used.

    You absolutely can not play TB.

    This is a process and I don't think anyone expected this to be 100% on the first go. They will monitor things and adjust parameters over time.

    Correct you DONT have to play TB or TW. But any decent guild makes its members do TB, and now with TW Being the only ftp source of r9 mats…

    Why not set the parameters to discourage sandbagging- and MAKE people EARN their rewards in TW, rather than sitting people to get a matchup where they out number the opponent’s GLs by 2-3 times?

    The system now is REWARDING the very behavior they mentioned they were trying to fix.

    That’s why I’m surprised to see even worse sandbags than we’ve seen before the changes. I understand they are going to tweak it (hasn’t been mentioned by them, but a fool can see this is not working as intended).

    There should never be a scenario where you sit people and get a cake matchup with more GLs. Period. Reward the guild that gets its members to join and earn them. Those guilds that drop now and have a 2/3 gl advantage just set walls on the front zones- there is literally nothing the guild that did everything right, by having its members all join and participate in a gamemode for r9 mats.

    Pls tell me you see this? That’s all? It just sounded like you were defending the fact that people sitting and getting easier matchups should be a thing. While I cannot think of one reason why it should be so. If a guild can’t or won’t make its members join and participate- then sorry; they shouldn’t be getting cake rewards and a cake match where they don’t even have to do anything but set 120 GLs. Why give them the best rewards if they are manipulating a system and taking advantage of lower gp guilds?
  • Kyno
    32056 posts Moderator
    Kyno 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 I do not understand.

    CG said in their TW a post- they were trying to prevent sandbagging. So why in the world would this still be a thing.

    Punish the sandbaggers- make it guild gp vs guild gp +/- 20%. It’s so easy….

    Why give sandbaggers the option to sandbag?! You can’t do that in TB. Make them play the gamemode (TW) or punish them for not.

    The goal is not to force the situation where members have to join, leaving a window for player agency. That is why that is not used.

    You absolutely can not play TB.

    This is a process and I don't think anyone expected this to be 100% on the first go. They will monitor things and adjust parameters over time.

    Correct you DONT have to play TB or TW. But any decent guild makes its members do TB, and now with TW Being the only ftp source of r9 mats…

    Why not set the parameters to discourage sandbagging- and MAKE people EARN their rewards in TW, rather than sitting people to get a matchup where they out number the opponent’s GLs by 2-3 times?

    The system now is REWARDING the very behavior they mentioned they were trying to fix.

    That’s why I’m surprised to see even worse sandbags than we’ve seen before the changes. I understand they are going to tweak it (hasn’t been mentioned by them, but a fool can see this is not working as intended).

    There should never be a scenario where you sit people and get a cake matchup with more GLs. Period. Reward the guild that gets its members to join and earn them. Those guilds that drop now and have a 2/3 gl advantage just set walls on the front zones- there is literally nothing the guild that did everything right, by having its members all join and participate in a gamemode for r9 mats.

    Pls tell me you see this? That’s all? It just sounded like you were defending the fact that people sitting and getting easier matchups should be a thing. While I cannot think of one reason why it should be so. If a guild can’t or won’t make its members join and participate- then sorry; they shouldn’t be getting cake rewards and a cake match where they don’t even have to do anything but set 120 GLs. Why give them the best rewards if they are manipulating a system and taking advantage of lower gp guilds?

    Drawing conclusions about how the system is rewarding players with this limited view we have is not going to paint an accurate picture.

    Correct, they said they are going to adjust it.

    Sandbagging implies intent, which I think you are placing in more matches than was actually there. Not everyone requires players to join.

    Correct they should account for different numbers of players and they can now and make adjustments around this.

    I am explaining what we see and have discussed on the other side of this. Please tell me.you understand that much of what you said in this post is drawing conclusions based on your bias and not actual information. Have you spoken to each guild not going in at 50, and they said they did it intentionally, and that every guild in a match without full participation won, or a few other things you are insisting.

    No one has said this was not going to need some adjustments.

    When did I ever say that anyone should get an easier match by having less people? No one has said what you are saying.
  • 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?

    Well more than one would be a good start.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • scuba
    12836 posts Member
    edited October 5
    Ultra wrote: »
    lukeb74 wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    lukeb74 wrote: »
    Well done. 360M with 49 subscribed and 39 teams req here. My TW officers got a heart attack and we're warming up jawas, ewoks and tuskens from the bench.
    Your opponents are in the same boat as you are

    Yeah indeed. Besides the unbalanced GL number plus a consistent GP gap in their favour...

    GL ratio 1:1 is unreasonable to expect

    Is it really? I get there will be some outliners but it is very easy to math, instead they what to use GP which doesn't mean as much as the weight it is given.

    I have my doubts the mm is any better, they still haven't fully fixed executor, still has a bug.
  • @Kyno would you happen to know if CG are turning any of the knobs and dials already for this 2nd TW under the new system? or if we should expect no changes to matchmaking this early?
    I would expect no changes, but seeing some of your comments here about it being much easier for them to tune in, one could be hopefull.
  • NicWester wrote: »
    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?

    Well more than one would be a good start.

    Testing would be a good start imo. Rolling out garbage to your customers to test is not the most sound business practice.
  • Kyno
    32056 posts Moderator
    edited October 5
    Morgoth01 wrote: »
    Kyno would you happen to know if CG are turning any of the knobs and dials already for this 2nd TW under the new system? or if we should expect no changes to matchmaking this early?
    I would expect no changes, but seeing some of your comments here about it being much easier for them to tune in, one could be hopefull.

    I am hopeful, but as I have said in another post, how much we see is dependent on how aggressive they are, and I suspect it will take a few to get things "right". I also suspect they are not going to adjust many of them at the same time, so certain elements may persist through some rounds of adjustment.

    I have not asked what to expect this round.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Morgoth01 wrote: »
    Kyno would you happen to know if CG are turning any of the knobs and dials already for this 2nd TW under the new system? or if we should expect no changes to matchmaking this early?
    I would expect no changes, but seeing some of your comments here about it being much easier for them to tune in, one could be hopefull.

    I am hopeful, but as I have said in another post, how much we see is dependent on how aggressive they are, and I suspect it will take a few to get things "right". I also suspect they are not going to adjust many of them at the same time, so certain elements may persist through some rounds of adjustment.

    I have not asked what to expect this round.

    If they indeed have a system for easy tuning (not the same as getting the tuning right being easy) I would expect them to try and bring it closer to target in a controlled fashion.
    I'm just curious how fast they are moving on this since there's no real word out. Would be great both to know if anything has been changed for this matchup, and even more so some indicaiton on when they think we will be more settled with the new MM system.
  • Kyno
    32056 posts Moderator
    Morgoth01 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Morgoth01 wrote: »
    Kyno would you happen to know if CG are turning any of the knobs and dials already for this 2nd TW under the new system? or if we should expect no changes to matchmaking this early?
    I would expect no changes, but seeing some of your comments here about it being much easier for them to tune in, one could be hopefull.

    I am hopeful, but as I have said in another post, how much we see is dependent on how aggressive they are, and I suspect it will take a few to get things "right". I also suspect they are not going to adjust many of them at the same time, so certain elements may persist through some rounds of adjustment.

    I have not asked what to expect this round.

    If they indeed have a system for easy tuning (not the same as getting the tuning right being easy) I would expect them to try and bring it closer to target in a controlled fashion.
    I'm just curious how fast they are moving on this since there's no real word out. Would be great both to know if anything has been changed for this matchup, and even more so some indicaiton on when they think we will be more settled with the new MM system.

    TBF, any direct statement about them making adjustments would likely fuel the fire, since this is a process and not a single action. I dont think many make the distinction you just made, about it being easy to change vs easy to get it right. I could be wrong, but that is my personal feeling on that topic.

    They are likely to make adjustments every round, but the question of will we see these in the examples that will be posted will be "the question". There is also the question of who is more likely to post the matchup, players who are upset, or players who are not. That is not to say we dont have both camps involved, but that it is more likely the majority will be the ones that are not happy, so its unclear if we end up with a representative sample here.
  • How about this for a timing change to TW?

    12 hrs to sign up. 18 hrs to set defense. 42 hrs for Attacking.
  • Kyno
    32056 posts Moderator
    edited October 5
    I am going to close this one and open a new one for some separation between the events.

    https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/250128/tw-mm-and-defensive-placements-merge-10-5-21#latest
This discussion has been closed.