TW - MM and Teams needed [MERGE]

Replies

  • Options
    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.

    Seriously? Everyone would have gathered from that post that cross division means the one next to your own. So what, let's say a 400m guild has only 25 members sign up. They should battle a 200m guild then? They would have 125 GL at least vs 20 to 25. Sorry that is ridiculous.
  • Options
    XKurareX wrote: »
    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.

    Whats the point on cross division at all? In certain cases looser gets more than the winner, even the winner has done a lot more effort. Who even thinks this is okay? Its like open racism basically - the low GM guild basically being less worth for the match and getting simply less. And why do the prime guilds did not match eachanother? Is it really rng or do some get a "bonus"? This system is basically from 1950's and not worth to be in 2000's at all.
    Again, I’m not saying I like it.

    But I wouldn’t compare it to racism. That’s messed up, dude.

    It's not a bad analogy if you unpack the systemic racism that underlies colonial capitalism relative to SWGoH's place as a product that is designed to maximize shareholder profits, but I'd agree that it is sort of inappropriate for the current discussion.

    I think what he's trying to get at is the following underlying motivation. This is entirely speculation here, but I think it fits the observable data.

    1) TW has sort of been a lame duck mode that wasn't terribly monetized. Prior to this, the delta between winner and loser rewards was very minor and people participated out of competitiveness rather than necessity. This doesn't really drive spending in the same way as arena metas, Conquest, etc. and some bean counter at corporate was like "Hey, add some exclusive rewards to this so we can sell more stuff".

    2) The team looked at the mode and realized that the biggest spending players and guilds have massive GPs and that the current matchmaking algorithm inevitably pairs them with one another. Not good; your core clientele is going to be frustrated that they aren't getting exclusive rewards at the same rate as low and non-spenders downline are.

    3) In order to "solve" this problem, the new algorithm is heavily influenced by W-L recency and serves up easy cross-division matches to ensure that perennial losers at the top are thrown a bone every so often. With the reward structure at the top (5 pieces for a win, 1 for a loss), this ensures a (high-spending) guild with over 380mil GP that go 1-3 gets the same rewards as a lower spending 320mil GP guild that goes 4-0.

    4) This process cascades downline to the bottom, where bad guilds in the lowest GP tier will presumably never get served up easier matches (because they don't exist). But new players will come in and push everyone else up, thus solving the problem and perpetuating the pyramid.

    Under close scrutiny, it becomes immediately obvious that the whole game mode is a sham that deals out R9 pieces to the highest spenders under the illusion of competition. Most match results are determined algorithmically rather than by skill and effort; as of yet I have not seen anyone share a match that does not have an obvious predetermined winner. I'd like to be proved wrong, but as of yet no one has taken me up on the offer.

    I'm saying this without judgment here; it all makes complete business sense to cater to your core clientele and make them feel valued. My criticism is instead leveled at how crassly transparent it is; there are far more subtle ways to do this sort of stuff that doesn't make the other customers feel totally unvalued.


  • Options
    The factors Guild Officers use to determine thier chances in a match aren't factoring the win loss record of a significantly more/less powerful opponent.

    Guild leader - "Hey guys we got a really bad matchup they have 5x our Executors, over 2x the GLs, 6Es, G13s and a significantly higher GP, so don't take this one very seriously it's a write off for us"

    Me - "but we've won three matches in a row"


    "The Chigaco Bulls are a losing streak so the commissionar arranged for them to play a WNBA team next week"
  • Options
    thedrjojo 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.
    dlrr86kqfv2t.jpeg

    This bot is automated.... :anguished:

    Hey which bot is this? We use the DSR bot but this one you posted looks interesting, might like to try it out.
  • Options
    Circle of Sin. 2 Teams. This is the way! cos.rocks
  • EdSolo
    427 posts Member
    Options
    Does CG even think when they make these changes. We are about 280M GP, had 43/50 participate and needed 25 teams per zone. We went down to the wire just trying to fill our zones. This is just nuts. Saying that everyone has more teams doesn't mean everyone has viable teams. Are we supposed to use our G9 phoenix teams. Are we actually supposed to have teams left for offense? I don't think it matters what we face on offense at this point, I doubt a full clear will be possible for us.
  • Options
    My guild is 340 million GP, our opponent is 308 GP
    We had all 50 members sign up and we are placing 36 squads per sector on defense. I don’t know why our opponent was matched against us.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    We're facing a 60 mil GP difference...seeing reports all over discord of similar match-ups. They actually made sandbagging even easier, somehow, and also gave incentive to sandbag with the way they set up the R9 mats.

    Unfortunately that number is not as helpful when discussing matchmaking as a thing, (yes sit matters in the match)

    Some better information to provide is the number of players that signed up and the each guilds GP.

    Sure, how about I give you their guild name and you can track someone down in that guild because none of us happen to know anyone in that other guild. Here's another number for you....their average player GP is over 1.2 million higher than ours. That should not happen....ever.
  • Options
    I’m tentatively optimistic, actually. I think the intent behind this change is to reduce the number of full clears so that the highest tiers don’t result in being a matter of whose meta teams can clear the opponent’s meta defenses most efficiently. Now it should (theoretically) be which guilds have the deeper B-team rosters.

    We all have enough A- and S-tier teams. Largely the same ones, even. Now there’s room at the top for more depth.

    As I said—tentatively optimistic. We’ll see how it plays out.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • Options
    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.



  • Options
    Thorozar11 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.

    Seriously? Everyone would have gathered from that post that cross division means the one next to your own. So what, let's say a 400m guild has only 25 members sign up. They should battle a 200m guild then? They would have 125 GL at least vs 20 to 25. Sorry that is ridiculous.

    I didn’t, I took it to mean you may face guilds outside your division. I didn’t make any further assumptions
  • Options
    Thorozar11 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.

    Seriously? Everyone would have gathered from that post that cross division means the one next to your own. So what, let's say a 400m guild has only 25 members sign up. They should battle a 200m guild then? They would have 125 GL at least vs 20 to 25. Sorry that is ridiculous.
    I did not make that assumption.
  • Options
    My guild is 340 million GP, our opponent is 308 GP
    We had all 50 members sign up and we are placing 36 squads per sector on defense. I don’t know why our opponent was matched against us.
    Darn dirty unintentional sandbaggers! :D
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Options
    capsular wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I would think a reasonable person would thing cross division matching to mean across division lines...... which is what we are seeing.

    What we are seeing is sandbagging on a gross scale that not even the shadiest guilds could have attempted in the past.

    Stop trying to defend them when they're gonna come out and say it's broken anyways, just because you have the "dialogue" to justify your ridiculous statements.

    What most are calling sandbagging and seeing what look like off matches has more to do with the record of the guilds involved than the number of players.

    They are not saying this is entirely the way it should be, they are saying they will monitor it and adjust the parameters to tighten things up over time.
  • Options
    Thorozar11 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.

    Seriously? Everyone would have gathered from that post that cross division means the one next to your own. So what, let's say a 400m guild has only 25 members sign up. They should battle a 200m guild then? They would have 125 GL at least vs 20 to 25. Sorry that is ridiculous.
    I didn’t assume the division next to your own.

    This is CG, after all.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Options
    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.
  • JakeD
    17 posts Member
    edited October 2021
    Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    capsular wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I would think a reasonable person would thing cross division matching to mean across division lines...... which is what we are seeing.

    What we are seeing is sandbagging on a gross scale that not even the shadiest guilds could have attempted in the past.

    Stop trying to defend them when they're gonna come out and say it's broken anyways, just because you have the "dialogue" to justify your ridiculous statements.

    What most are calling sandbagging and seeing what look like off matches has more to do with the record of the guilds involved than the number of players.

    They are not saying this is entirely the way it should be, they are saying they will monitor it and adjust the parameters to tighten things up over time.

    I am in the guild that has the most lopsided matchup we've seen in this thread. 351M with opponent at 287M. Our TW record since August is 5-3 and we were 2-2 in September. I grant we are on a 2 loss streak currently due to severe underdog status in the most recent two wars.

    None of that excuses the matchup CG created for us this war
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Options
    JakeD wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    capsular wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I would think a reasonable person would thing cross division matching to mean across division lines...... which is what we are seeing.

    What we are seeing is sandbagging on a gross scale that not even the shadiest guilds could have attempted in the past.

    Stop trying to defend them when they're gonna come out and say it's broken anyways, just because you have the "dialogue" to justify your ridiculous statements.

    What most are calling sandbagging and seeing what look like off matches has more to do with the record of the guilds involved than the number of players.

    They are not saying this is entirely the way it should be, they are saying they will monitor it and adjust the parameters to tighten things up over time.

    I am in the guild that has the most lopsided matchup we've seen in this thread. 351M with opponent at 287M. Our TW record since August is 5-3 and we were 2-2 in September. I grant we are on a 2 loss streak currently due to severe underdog status in the most recent two wars.

    None of that excuses the matchup CG created for us this war

    It's a new system that needs to be adjusted. The whole point of the new system wasnt that it was going to be 100%, right out of the gate. The point was that it's easier for them to adjust it in many ways to account for and counter elements we have seen throughout TW.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    JakeD wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    capsular wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I would think a reasonable person would thing cross division matching to mean across division lines...... which is what we are seeing.

    What we are seeing is sandbagging on a gross scale that not even the shadiest guilds could have attempted in the past.

    Stop trying to defend them when they're gonna come out and say it's broken anyways, just because you have the "dialogue" to justify your ridiculous statements.

    What most are calling sandbagging and seeing what look like off matches has more to do with the record of the guilds involved than the number of players.

    They are not saying this is entirely the way it should be, they are saying they will monitor it and adjust the parameters to tighten things up over time.

    I am in the guild that has the most lopsided matchup we've seen in this thread. 351M with opponent at 287M. Our TW record since August is 5-3 and we were 2-2 in September. I grant we are on a 2 loss streak currently due to severe underdog status in the most recent two wars.

    None of that excuses the matchup CG created for us this war

    It's a new system that needs to be adjusted. The whole point of the new system wasnt that it was going to be 100%, right out of the gate. The point was that it's easier for them to adjust it in many ways to account for and counter elements we have seen throughout TW.

    I'd like to report this post for toxic positivity.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    JakeD wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    capsular wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I would think a reasonable person would thing cross division matching to mean across division lines...... which is what we are seeing.

    What we are seeing is sandbagging on a gross scale that not even the shadiest guilds could have attempted in the past.

    Stop trying to defend them when they're gonna come out and say it's broken anyways, just because you have the "dialogue" to justify your ridiculous statements.

    What most are calling sandbagging and seeing what look like off matches has more to do with the record of the guilds involved than the number of players.

    They are not saying this is entirely the way it should be, they are saying they will monitor it and adjust the parameters to tighten things up over time.

    I am in the guild that has the most lopsided matchup we've seen in this thread. 351M with opponent at 287M. Our TW record since August is 5-3 and we were 2-2 in September. I grant we are on a 2 loss streak currently due to severe underdog status in the most recent two wars.

    None of that excuses the matchup CG created for us this war

    It's a new system that needs to be adjusted. The whole point of the new system wasnt that it was going to be 100%, right out of the gate. The point was that it's easier for them to adjust it in many ways to account for and counter elements we have seen throughout TW.

    The point Kyno is that they never, ever, ever test anything. If they cannot run simulations against the data with the amount of money they have made from this game, then I am sorry, they need to be fired. Any organization with the wealth of data they have been able to collect over the years should be able to do modeling and understand how proposed changes would work and what the results look like. If you are going to suggest thats exactly what they have done, then they should be ashamed of themselves with the results.

    Communication is terrible. Apologists on this forum make excuses for them time and time again.

    The community saying this doesnt not make it true. Yes they do test things.

    Im sure they can and do, but I'm also sure that they realize that changes to the event and reward structure would also change the player side input variables.

    The first company that can predict things like this based solely on data will never have to work again. It's never as simple as "just look at the data".
  • Options
    Thorozar11 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.

    Seriously? Everyone would have gathered from that post that cross division means the one next to your own. So what, let's say a 400m guild has only 25 members sign up. They should battle a 200m guild then? They would have 125 GL at least vs 20 to 25. Sorry that is ridiculous.
    I didn’t assume the division next to your own.

    This is CG, after all.

    This is CG, you’re right. So shame on me for thinking that the matchmaking changes would produce fair pairings now that R9 is tied to it
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    JakeD wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    capsular wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I would think a reasonable person would thing cross division matching to mean across division lines...... which is what we are seeing.

    What we are seeing is sandbagging on a gross scale that not even the shadiest guilds could have attempted in the past.

    Stop trying to defend them when they're gonna come out and say it's broken anyways, just because you have the "dialogue" to justify your ridiculous statements.

    What most are calling sandbagging and seeing what look like off matches has more to do with the record of the guilds involved than the number of players.

    They are not saying this is entirely the way it should be, they are saying they will monitor it and adjust the parameters to tighten things up over time.

    I am in the guild that has the most lopsided matchup we've seen in this thread. 351M with opponent at 287M. Our TW record since August is 5-3 and we were 2-2 in September. I grant we are on a 2 loss streak currently due to severe underdog status in the most recent two wars.

    None of that excuses the matchup CG created for us this war

    It's a new system that needs to be adjusted. The whole point of the new system wasnt that it was going to be 100%, right out of the gate. The point was that it's easier for them to adjust it in many ways to account for and counter elements we have seen throughout TW.

    The point Kyno is that they never, ever, ever test anything. If they cannot run simulations against the data with the amount of money they have made from this game, then I am sorry, they need to be fired. Any organization with the wealth of data they have been able to collect over the years should be able to do modeling and understand how proposed changes would work and what the results look like. If you are going to suggest thats exactly what they have done, then they should be ashamed of themselves with the results.

    Communication is terrible. Apologists on this forum make excuses for them time and time again.

    The community saying this doesnt not make it true. Yes they do test things.

    Im sure they can and do, but I'm also sure that they realize that changes to the event and reward structure would also change the player side input variables.

    The first company that can predict things like this based solely on data will never have to work again. It's never as simple as "just look at the data".

    You saying this also doesn't make it true.

    If you have evidence that they tested things, please present it. Otherwise, you opinion is as equally valid as everyone else's (which is to say, not very).
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Options
    BeralCator wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    JakeD wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    capsular wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I would think a reasonable person would thing cross division matching to mean across division lines...... which is what we are seeing.

    What we are seeing is sandbagging on a gross scale that not even the shadiest guilds could have attempted in the past.

    Stop trying to defend them when they're gonna come out and say it's broken anyways, just because you have the "dialogue" to justify your ridiculous statements.

    What most are calling sandbagging and seeing what look like off matches has more to do with the record of the guilds involved than the number of players.

    They are not saying this is entirely the way it should be, they are saying they will monitor it and adjust the parameters to tighten things up over time.

    I am in the guild that has the most lopsided matchup we've seen in this thread. 351M with opponent at 287M. Our TW record since August is 5-3 and we were 2-2 in September. I grant we are on a 2 loss streak currently due to severe underdog status in the most recent two wars.

    None of that excuses the matchup CG created for us this war

    It's a new system that needs to be adjusted. The whole point of the new system wasnt that it was going to be 100%, right out of the gate. The point was that it's easier for them to adjust it in many ways to account for and counter elements we have seen throughout TW.

    The point Kyno is that they never, ever, ever test anything. If they cannot run simulations against the data with the amount of money they have made from this game, then I am sorry, they need to be fired. Any organization with the wealth of data they have been able to collect over the years should be able to do modeling and understand how proposed changes would work and what the results look like. If you are going to suggest thats exactly what they have done, then they should be ashamed of themselves with the results.

    Communication is terrible. Apologists on this forum make excuses for them time and time again.

    The community saying this doesnt not make it true. Yes they do test things.

    Im sure they can and do, but I'm also sure that they realize that changes to the event and reward structure would also change the player side input variables.

    The first company that can predict things like this based solely on data will never have to work again. It's never as simple as "just look at the data".

    You saying this also doesn't make it true.

    If you have evidence that they tested things, please present it. Otherwise, you opinion is as equally valid as everyone else's (which is to say, not very).

    Please feel free to message CG_Doja_Fett and ask about the beta group. They had an open call for that a while back.

    Not to mention they do testing internally. For large scale elements like this, nothing will ever match the real thing.

    You misunderstand, I am not stating an opinion, I am stating a fact. Sorry for the confusion. Due to the agreement we have as mods, I cannot discuss some details.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    BeralCator wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    JakeD wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    capsular wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I would think a reasonable person would thing cross division matching to mean across division lines...... which is what we are seeing.

    What we are seeing is sandbagging on a gross scale that not even the shadiest guilds could have attempted in the past.

    Stop trying to defend them when they're gonna come out and say it's broken anyways, just because you have the "dialogue" to justify your ridiculous statements.

    What most are calling sandbagging and seeing what look like off matches has more to do with the record of the guilds involved than the number of players.

    They are not saying this is entirely the way it should be, they are saying they will monitor it and adjust the parameters to tighten things up over time.

    I am in the guild that has the most lopsided matchup we've seen in this thread. 351M with opponent at 287M. Our TW record since August is 5-3 and we were 2-2 in September. I grant we are on a 2 loss streak currently due to severe underdog status in the most recent two wars.

    None of that excuses the matchup CG created for us this war

    It's a new system that needs to be adjusted. The whole point of the new system wasnt that it was going to be 100%, right out of the gate. The point was that it's easier for them to adjust it in many ways to account for and counter elements we have seen throughout TW.

    The point Kyno is that they never, ever, ever test anything. If they cannot run simulations against the data with the amount of money they have made from this game, then I am sorry, they need to be fired. Any organization with the wealth of data they have been able to collect over the years should be able to do modeling and understand how proposed changes would work and what the results look like. If you are going to suggest thats exactly what they have done, then they should be ashamed of themselves with the results.

    Communication is terrible. Apologists on this forum make excuses for them time and time again.

    The community saying this doesnt not make it true. Yes they do test things.

    Im sure they can and do, but I'm also sure that they realize that changes to the event and reward structure would also change the player side input variables.

    The first company that can predict things like this based solely on data will never have to work again. It's never as simple as "just look at the data".

    You saying this also doesn't make it true.

    If you have evidence that they tested things, please present it. Otherwise, you opinion is as equally valid as everyone else's (which is to say, not very).

    Please feel free to message CG_Doja_Fett and ask about the beta group. They had an open call for that a while back.

    Not to mention they do testing internally. For large scale elements like this, nothing will ever match the real thing.

    You misunderstand, I am not stating an opinion, I am stating a fact. Sorry for the confusion. Due to the agreement we have as mods, I cannot discuss some details.

    It is often very unclear when you are communicating factual information from CG and when you are rendering your personal opinion. I'm also not sure that either really falls under your mandate as moderator, but I will keep my opinion to myself on that topic, as criticizing the moderation is against forum rules.

    In future it would greatly aid discussion if you could more readily parse out things that we can verify by DMing the dev team versus your own personal speculation/opinions.

    "Fact: There is a beta team that tested the new matchmaking and TW format.

    Opinion: The beta team is never going to adequately capture player behavior in the wild for the following reasons..."
  • Options
    [
    BeralCator wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    BeralCator wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    JakeD wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    capsular wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    I would think a reasonable person would thing cross division matching to mean across division lines...... which is what we are seeing.

    What we are seeing is sandbagging on a gross scale that not even the shadiest guilds could have attempted in the past.

    Stop trying to defend them when they're gonna come out and say it's broken anyways, just because you have the "dialogue" to justify your ridiculous statements.

    What most are calling sandbagging and seeing what look like off matches has more to do with the record of the guilds involved than the number of players.

    They are not saying this is entirely the way it should be, they are saying they will monitor it and adjust the parameters to tighten things up over time.

    I am in the guild that has the most lopsided matchup we've seen in this thread. 351M with opponent at 287M. Our TW record since August is 5-3 and we were 2-2 in September. I grant we are on a 2 loss streak currently due to severe underdog status in the most recent two wars.

    None of that excuses the matchup CG created for us this war

    It's a new system that needs to be adjusted. The whole point of the new system wasnt that it was going to be 100%, right out of the gate. The point was that it's easier for them to adjust it in many ways to account for and counter elements we have seen throughout TW.

    The point Kyno is that they never, ever, ever test anything. If they cannot run simulations against the data with the amount of money they have made from this game, then I am sorry, they need to be fired. Any organization with the wealth of data they have been able to collect over the years should be able to do modeling and understand how proposed changes would work and what the results look like. If you are going to suggest thats exactly what they have done, then they should be ashamed of themselves with the results.

    Communication is terrible. Apologists on this forum make excuses for them time and time again.

    The community saying this doesnt not make it true. Yes they do test things.

    Im sure they can and do, but I'm also sure that they realize that changes to the event and reward structure would also change the player side input variables.

    The first company that can predict things like this based solely on data will never have to work again. It's never as simple as "just look at the data".

    You saying this also doesn't make it true.

    If you have evidence that they tested things, please present it. Otherwise, you opinion is as equally valid as everyone else's (which is to say, not very).

    Please feel free to message CG_Doja_Fett and ask about the beta group. They had an open call for that a while back.

    Not to mention they do testing internally. For large scale elements like this, nothing will ever match the real thing.

    You misunderstand, I am not stating an opinion, I am stating a fact. Sorry for the confusion. Due to the agreement we have as mods, I cannot discuss some details.

    It is often very unclear when you are communicating factual information from CG and when you are rendering your personal opinion. I'm also not sure that either really falls under your mandate as moderator, but I will keep my opinion to myself on that topic, as criticizing the moderation is against forum rules.

    In future it would greatly aid discussion if you could more readily parse out things that we can verify by DMing the dev team versus your own personal speculation/opinions.

    "Fact: There is a beta team that tested the new matchmaking and TW format.

    Opinion: The beta team is never going to adequately capture player behavior in the wild for the following reasons..."

    Moderator? Out of all the game forums I have ever been to, this is the first one I have seen where the moderators are openly antagonistic and condescending to the player base. Not to mention continually argues with the player base. No other game forum allows that, that I know of.

    The moderator is supposed to do just that. Moderate. But I'll stop there cause if I type what I really think the "moderators" are, I would get another forum ban. So......yeah.

    As far as this TW. How anybody thinks allowing a 350 mil GP guild to be matched with a 200 mil GP guild because the devs said that cross divisions can happen is a good thing is beyond me. If the devs didn't add limits to prevent that from happening and think that is totally fair, then there is nothing else to be said. You got your answer on where their mindset is.

    And no. I don't need months worth of data to see how jacked up that is. It's common sense.
This discussion has been closed.