TW MM and defensive placements [MERGE] 10-5-21

Prev134
System
225 posts EA Administrator
This discussion was created from comments split from: TW - MM and Teams needed [MERGE].

Replies

  • when does the Ranking system start to kick in? Cus.... These matchups are the stupid old-school rankings so far.

    Is it 2 TWS? 4? 6?
  • Well, our second match is less competitive than our first. We had 50 sign up, and we got matched with a guild that has 20mil LESS GP (based on the 36 defenses per zone, it looks like they had less than full sign-up too).

    We're setting a pretty janky defense just so they have something to do, but stomping these guys isn't really going to be a lot of fun.
  • Ally
    39 posts Member
    44 GL's Vs our 19 GLs in this Round -- matchmaking changes really have made it nice and even - are CG trying to drive people away from the game?
  • Well the apathy for tw is growing in my guild. We have never required tw. The only requirement is you participate in both defense and offense or don’t sign up. This typically has put us in the 40-45 sign ups and unintentional Sand baggers. Today we had 38 sign up for 233 active gp. I feel bad for our opponents. 235 million guild with a total of 29 gls. Not sure how many of our 72 gls didn’t signup, but it won’t matter.

    I though these changes were specifically designed to discourage sand bagging unintentional or not? My guild will get an easy victory with less work (23 squads per zone vs 35 last time) while losing minimal rewards because we aren’t 300 plus. Actually we will gain rewards because we will win instead of losing at 265 active gp vs a guild with 50 % more gls than us.
  • EldelSable
    31 posts Member
    edited October 5
    Much better today. Last tw territories were only 46 teams. 49 this one. I think I am going to try to find an sponsor so I can pay guild members and they leave their job as a hobby and dedicate profesionally to the game
  • For the record: in our first TW under new matchmaking, we dominated the other guild so much it wasn't fun for either of us (we had 40% better mods and more GLs). In our 2nd TW under new matchmaking, the other guild dominates us so much it won't be fun for either of us (they have ~40% more GLs, and nearly double top mods and relic levels).

    41 sign-ups, 25 squads per zone. We historically range 214-242m gp entered, the other guild historically averages 270-307m GP entered. They have a 2 war loss streak.

    Please give the feedback that whatever is going on for smaller guilds, they need to tweak the formula. If there is some reason that the devs expect the first wars under new formula will suck for everyone but will somehow correct, please at least let us know that there will be an adjustment period. This is not fun, and is demotivating.
  • zatho
    183 posts Member
    Our last tw was an easy win:
    Raìders of the Outer Rím (47) vs TheDailyHunters (49)
    GP Total : 262,608,979 vs 250,183,903
    • Rey (5 vs 2)
    • Supreme Leader Kylo Ren (13 vs 6)
    • Jedi Master Luke Skywalker (13 vs 7)
    • Sith Eternal Emperor (5 vs 7)
    • Jedi Master Kenobi (3 vs 0)
    • Malevolence (37 vs 10)
    • Negotiator (45 vs 35)
    • Executor (1 vs 0)

    Our current matchup is the quite opposite:
    Raìders of the Outer Rím (49) vs Dreaded Empire (50)
    GP Total : 270,018,454 vs 282,106,153
    • Rey (5 vs 12)
    • Supreme Leader Kylo Ren (14 vs 18)
    • Jedi Master Luke Skywalker (13 vs 21)
    • Sith Eternal Emperor (6 vs 11)
    • Jedi Master Kenobi (3 vs 11)
    • Malevolence (36 vs 40)
    • Negotiator (47 vs 47)
    • Executor (1 vs 6)

    Almost impossible to win this one, the winner was decided by CG's matchmaking algorithm. No need to actually play it.
  • zatho wrote: »
    Our last tw was an easy win:
    Raìders of the Outer Rím (47) vs TheDailyHunters (49)
    GP Total : 262,608,979 vs 250,183,903
    • Rey (5 vs 2)
    • Supreme Leader Kylo Ren (13 vs 6)
    • Jedi Master Luke Skywalker (13 vs 7)
    • Sith Eternal Emperor (5 vs 7)
    • Jedi Master Kenobi (3 vs 0)
    • Malevolence (37 vs 10)
    • Negotiator (45 vs 35)
    • Executor (1 vs 0)

    Our current matchup is the quite opposite:
    Raìders of the Outer Rím (49) vs Dreaded Empire (50)
    GP Total : 270,018,454 vs 282,106,153
    • Rey (5 vs 12)
    • Supreme Leader Kylo Ren (14 vs 18)
    • Jedi Master Luke Skywalker (13 vs 21)
    • Sith Eternal Emperor (6 vs 11)
    • Jedi Master Kenobi (3 vs 11)
    • Malevolence (36 vs 40)
    • Negotiator (47 vs 47)
    • Executor (1 vs 6)

    Almost impossible to win this one, the winner was decided by CG's matchmaking algorithm. No need to actually play it.

    Sounds like fun…
  • Our guild had all 49 members show up so that we fielded 300m GP. Our opponent total GP is 361m GP, and has more of everything than we do. Algorithm has indeed decided this one.
  • Our current TW match has my guild with 49/50 members signed up for the TW with a total of 302mil GP enrolled in the match against a guild that has 257mil GP total. We are placing 30 squads per zone.

    Not sure how this type of match should even happen. If they have all 50 members signed up we still have over 40mil GP extra in the match. With deploying 30 per zone instead of 40 like the chart shows for over 250mil matches, does that mean our opponents have less than 250mil GP signed up for the battle? Because that makes it even worse

  • zatho
    183 posts Member
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Our current TW match has my guild with 49/50 members signed up for the TW with a total of 302mil GP enrolled in the match against a guild that has 257mil GP total. We are placing 30 squads per zone.

    Not sure how this type of match should even happen. If they have all 50 members signed up we still have over 40mil GP extra in the match. With deploying 30 per zone instead of 40 like the chart shows for over 250mil matches, does that mean our opponents have less than 250mil GP signed up for the battle? Because that makes it even worse

    This means you were granted a victory.
  • Kyno
    32056 posts Moderator
    Taliana wrote: »
    For the record: in our first TW under new matchmaking, we dominated the other guild so much it wasn't fun for either of us (we had 40% better mods and more GLs). In our 2nd TW under new matchmaking, the other guild dominates us so much it won't be fun for either of us (they have ~40% more GLs, and nearly double top mods and relic levels).

    41 sign-ups, 25 squads per zone. We historically range 214-242m gp entered, the other guild historically averages 270-307m GP entered. They have a 2 war loss streak.

    Please give the feedback that whatever is going on for smaller guilds, they need to tweak the formula. If there is some reason that the devs expect the first wars under new formula will suck for everyone but will somehow correct, please at least let us know that there will be an adjustment period. This is not fun, and is demotivating.

    They will be monitoring and adjusting the new MM parameters.
  • Ersij_Vox wrote: »
    Our guild had all 49 members show up so that we fielded 300m GP. Our opponent total GP is 361m GP, and has more of everything than we do. Algorithm has indeed decided this one.

    And we lost our last TW, too (due to member inactivity, it was totally winnable). So going from an even match that we lost to a totally lopsided match we have no chance of winning makes a lot of sense.
  • Coming off a loss in which my guild had a heavy GL disadvantage, we face a guild who has 55 more GL’s and more GP than us?

    Seems like that proprietary fix is designed to squash certain guilds, no?
  • zatchy
    27 posts Member
    edited October 5
    I’m sure they will be ‘monitoring’…
  • Obi1PhoneHome
    4 posts Member
    edited October 5
    Us: 293mil GP for full guild but only 48 signed up for 282mil GP. Them: 288mil GP with 49-50 actives with 40 more ults and 400 more relics. We need to fill 39 squads per territory. What the…? How are guilds with 380mil active GP need less squads than we do? Is it just a crapshoot roll to see how many squads we'll need each TW? Last time we had 28 with 45 actives... Get your stuff together CG. "It's not working as intended" is not cute or an excuse anymore. Get your act together and do some real testing
  • Our 290m GP guild had 28 teams to deploy per zone last time. 2 extra people joined TW this time and how we have 39 teams to deploy per zone. I didn’t realize 2 additional people would necessitate 11 additional teams per zone.

    @CG_SBCrumb_MINI @CG_Doja_Fett_MINI surely this ludicrous increase isn’t intentional? Because if it is it’s laughably obtuse for you to expect guilds to be able to do TW with any sense of fun
  • zatchy wrote: »
    Coming off a loss in which my guild had a heavy GL disadvantage, we face a guild who has 55 more GL’s and more GP than us?

    Seems like that proprietary fix is designed to squash certain guilds, no?

    We're GL outnumbered 188 to 97. Totally fair matchup.
  • zatho
    183 posts Member
    Our 290m GP guild had 28 teams to deploy per zone last time. 2 extra people joined TW this time and how we have 39 teams to deploy per zone. I didn’t realize 2 additional people would necessitate 11 additional teams per zone.

    @CG_SBCrumb_MINI @CG_Doja_Fett_MINI surely this ludicrous increase isn’t intentional? Because if it is it’s laughably obtuse for you to expect guilds to be able to do TW with any sense of fun

    We observed the same. It would be really good IMHO to move the fleet to the front and have two troop fields locked behind them. Because right now it is difficult to fill all fields with good teams without missing too much for offense
  • PapaBurgandy
    6 posts Member
    edited October 5
    According to the information that I've found online, it appears that previously the required number of squads per TW zone was based on half the lower number of the two participating guilds active members. So... if Guild A had 50 active but Guild B had 40 active, each zone would have a requirement of 20 squads per zone. This certainly isn't the case now. So...How is it calculated now?

    The reason I'm asking is last TW, we were required to have 17 squads per zone and on this one two days later we were required to have 26 squads per zone. We are one bracket higher and have two more members active than the last time. Seems like an extreme shift which makes it difficult to plan around.

    f9kd2ztnjtdt.png

    Please don't answer if you are not sure. No information is better than bad information. @CG_SBCrumb_MINI @CG_Doja_Fett_MINI
    Post edited by PapaBurgandy on
  • Our current war:

    Our guild is division 16 but theirs is division 18 (if all were to join)

    Prize breakdown:
    -Division 18 (with a loss) gets 1 aero, no core box and no R1-R7 mats. If they know they suck in division 18 why wouldn't they try to sandbag?

    -Division 16 (with a win) gets 1 aero, 1 core box and R1-R7 mats.

    Absolutely division 18 should sandbag if they can't win in their own bracket.

    Yes, we normally win, please keep you "get better" comments to yourself.
  • I didn't see this posted anywhere but I'm sure others have commented on. Why have the squad counts been raised by almost 10 in each war?
  • Kyno
    32056 posts Moderator
    Our 290m GP guild had 28 teams to deploy per zone last time. 2 extra people joined TW this time and how we have 39 teams to deploy per zone. I didn’t realize 2 additional people would necessitate 11 additional teams per zone.

    CG_SBCrumb_MINI CG_Doja_Fett_MINI surely this ludicrous increase isn’t intentional? Because if it is it’s laughably obtuse for you to expect guilds to be able to do TW with any sense of fun

    @Salatious_Scrum according to the chart we saw posted in the other thread 290M GP should be in the 40 per zone range. You being below that in either battle was a reduction from that maximum number based on how many joined, last time you probably faced a guild with a lower sign up then this time. That is what is causing that change.
  • Eldorian wrote: »
    We had 41 ppl requiring 25 per zone last TW; now we have 46 ppl and require 23 per zone… gp obviously increased from 1 to 2… what gives?

    I imagine that you are in the 150M - 250M GP range, which means your coefficient is 0.6. Last time, you went with 41 people, so 41*0.6= 25 teams/zone. Therefore the other guild went with at least 41 members (probably more).

    This time you went with 46 people so 46*0.6=28. It means that the other guild came with fewer members than you because the smallest number defines how many teams you place. How many? Well, 23/0.6 = 38 members. The other guild has low participation, this is why you have fewer teams to place. Enjoy the number advantage, because it means they have a higher GP per member.

    FYI the coefficient changes like so:
    0-150M: 0.5
    150M-250M: 0.6
    250M - 350M: 0.8
    350M+: 1
  • Salatious_Scrum
    1099 posts Member
    edited October 5
    @Kyno So based on a few million GP difference CG has decided that suddenly we must come up with 88 additional character teams and 22 additional fleets to set on defense? It’s ridiculous that either guild would need to do so based on a few million GP difference.

    Aside from that CG has also failed to consider GL balance, as having one guild have double the GLs the other has really isn’t much fun for either side.

    If TW wasn’t already boring beforehand, now it’s simply just an incredibly divisive game mode. Congrats CG, really. I didn’t think TW could get much worse, but you’ve proved me wrong.
  • Kyno
    32056 posts Moderator
    Kyno So based on a few million GP difference CG has decided that suddenly we must come up with 88 additional character teams and 22 additional fleets to set on defense? It’s ridiculous that either guild would need to do so based on a few million GP difference.

    If TW wasn’t already boring beforehand, now it’s simply just an incredibly divisive game mode. Congrats CG, really. I didn’t think TW could get much worse, but you’ve proved me wrong.

    The max number is based on the active GP of who joins. Then it goes down from that max, based on the number of players who joined.

    The max didnt change that much, if at all based on GP, but it did change based in the number, which last time was probably due to who you faced.
Sign In or Register to comment.