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

Replies

  • @Kyno asqw3ny9fp30.jpeg

    Matchmaking really doesn't know what to do with my guild. 120mil gp swing from last match to this match. At least we will be 1-1
  • zatho
    183 posts Member
    You might also notice that cross-divisional matchups can now occur to help smooth the transition between Divisions. (Note that the number of Defenses needed is determined by the lower Division’s Guild but each Guild’s prize pool is determined by its own specific Division.)
    So when we (278 Mio GP) are matched against a smaller guild with factor 0.6, we need 50*0.6=30 teams per field. For an equal enemy we need 50*0.8=40 teams per field. Since there are 10 fields, this means an increase of 100 additional teams or two more per player (in fact four, since they also need to attack these teams in the enemy's field).
    I think this is not a smooth transition, going from 30 to 40 Teams per field.
  • That’s a complete non answer, no offense Kyno. I get that there should be a change when more people join or if the GP of active players changes, but if the difference is just based on a couple of players there shouldn’t be such a drastic change of defensive teams. 11 additional teams per zone is ludicrous based on that.

    Plus GL disparity is even worse now on top of that
  • Salatious_Scrum
    1099 posts Member
    edited October 5
    zatho wrote: »
    So when we (278 Mio GP) are matched against a smaller guild with factor 0.6, we need 50*0.6=30 teams per field. For an equal enemy we need 50*0.8=40 teams per field. Since there are 10 fields, this means an increase of 100 additional teams or two more per player (in fact four, since they also need to attack these teams in the enemy's field).
    I think this is not a smooth transition, going from 30 to 40 Teams per field.

    Precisely. The transition to needing more/less teams is incredibly abrupt and it’s like CG gave very little thought to this case.
  • PapaBurgandy
    6 posts Member
    edited October 5
    Roombya wrote: »
    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

    Are these numbers something you are hypothesizing or is there something to back them up? @Kyno can you confirm the information below regarding coefficients? This would mean that our opponent last round had 28 active members to our 44 active members which would be an issue in itself.
  • zatho
    183 posts Member
    Ultra wrote: »
    tw71wchvfuha.png
    there you go
  • Kyno
    32056 posts Moderator
    That’s a complete non answer, no offense Kyno. I get that there should be a change when more people join or if the GP of active players changes, but if the difference is just based on a couple of players there shouldn’t be such a drastic change of defensive teams. 11 additional teams per zone is ludicrous based on that.

    Plus GL disparity is even worse now on top of that

    It's based on both guilds, so you may only changed by 2 people and a few mil GP, but your opponent has more people, so the count didnt go down as much from the GO defined max.
  • zatho
    183 posts Member
    edited October 5
    Kyno wrote: »
    That’s a complete non answer, no offense Kyno. I get that there should be a change when more people join or if the GP of active players changes, but if the difference is just based on a couple of players there shouldn’t be such a drastic change of defensive teams. 11 additional teams per zone is ludicrous based on that.

    Plus GL disparity is even worse now on top of that

    It's based on both guilds, so you may only changed by 2 people and a few mil GP, but your opponent has more people, so the count didnt go down as much from the GO defined max.

    But in the end one player can make the difference. And whether his participation exceeds the treshold, in an instant about 100 additional teams will be needed
  • So if you believe that slight change warrants 11 additional teams per zone? 48/50 (I believe same number has last time) people in my guild joined TW, so our active GP is at 280m.

    At most the other guild can only have 2 more people, so your answer still doesn’t answer why those 2 people would necessitate 11 additional teams per zone. None of your answers have answered why those changes aren’t smooth whatsoever. 28 to 39 is jarring not smooth.
  • Kyno
    32056 posts Moderator
    So if you believe that slight change warrants 11 additional teams per zone? 48/50 (I believe same number has last time) people in my guild joined TW, so our active GP is at 280m.

    At most the other guild can only have 2 more people, so your answer still doesn’t answer why those 2 people would necessitate 11 additional teams per zone. None of your answers have answered why those changes aren’t smooth whatsoever. 28 to 39 is jarring not smooth.

    Again, you are attributing this to the 2 player difference on your side, when it was likely based on your opponent. Do you know that for sure, did you get info from your last opponent?

    I am asking for a more clear breakdown of the chart we saw, because there is no stated inflection point around your GP, so the change would be based on players joined, unless that is more of a formula, than the chart suggests.
  • Assuming the chart posted is correct:

    It sounds like Salatious' guild was over 250mm GP in both wars, so the 2 player difference was irrelevant.

    In war 1, they must have fought against a guild with under 250mm GP participating, triggering the 0.6x level (30 teams/territory if they bring 50).

    In war 2, they must be fighting against a guild with over 250mm GP participating, triggering the 0.8x level (40 teams/territory if they bring 50).

    In both cases, the opponent team is probably in a "lower" division, so that the opponent's GP determines the number of teams placed. It's not clear to me what is supposed to happen if both are in division 16, and one team is at 248mm and one at 251mm.

    The cliff is absurd, as one person participating can indeed trigger needing 100 extra teams.
  • zatho
    183 posts Member
    edited October 5
    Elisa0077 wrote: »
    Assuming the chart posted is correct:

    It sounds like Salatious' guild was over 250mm GP in both wars, so the 2 player difference was irrelevant.

    In war 1, they must have fought against a guild with under 250mm GP participating, triggering the 0.6x level (30 teams/territory if they bring 50).

    In war 2, they must be fighting against a guild with over 250mm GP participating, triggering the 0.8x level (40 teams/territory if they bring 50).

    In both cases, the opponent team is probably in a "lower" division, so that the opponent's GP determines the number of teams placed. It's not clear to me what is supposed to happen if both are in division 16, and one team is at 248mm and one at 251mm.

    The cliff is absurd, as one person participating can indeed trigger needing 100 extra teams.
    This!
    @Kyno what is your point? If one guild is always greater than 250M and the other is very close to that border. Then one player more or less can determine wheter the opponent guild is below 250M or also above. So then one player more or less decides if you need to place about 30 or 40 teams per field
  • These are our two match-ups.

    nha7ljgk8xdc.jpeg
    fank2kkw1v76.jpeg
    The Republic is recruiting! Say hi, and find yourself a new home in one of our 17 guilds: https://discord.me/joinrepublic
  • PapaBurgandy
    6 posts Member
    edited October 5
    zatho wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    tw71wchvfuha.png
    there you go

    This is correct. I acquired a list of the enemy members that placed defense on TW1 and it was 28 which matches what it should be based on the table if everyone put up a defense. 28*0.6 = 17 so that tracks. Unfortunately for them it means we had a huge advantage over them having 16 more active members and 60 million more active GP. Hardly seems like a fair fight for them and explains why they got steam rolled. Any thoughts on why a matchup like that would occur?

    c0kbyczp1t45.png
  • Love the increased slot counts.. the more the merrier as it forces deeper roster play. But squad slots should be a static amount regardless of guild participation. They would still change depending on the division of course.

    Any guild that has reduced participation should be matched with other guilds with reduced participation but everyone should stay within their bracket based on guild gp, not joined gp.

    Logic takes the hill.

  • Kyno
    32056 posts Moderator
    Elisa0077 wrote: »
    Assuming the chart posted is correct:

    It sounds like Salatious' guild was over 250mm GP in both wars, so the 2 player difference was irrelevant.

    In war 1, they must have fought against a guild with under 250mm GP participating, triggering the 0.6x level (30 teams/territory if they bring 50).

    In war 2, they must be fighting against a guild with over 250mm GP participating, triggering the 0.8x level (40 teams/territory if they bring 50).

    In both cases, the opponent team is probably in a "lower" division, so that the opponent's GP determines the number of teams placed. It's not clear to me what is supposed to happen if both are in division 16, and one team is at 248mm and one at 251mm.

    The cliff is absurd, as one person participating can indeed trigger needing 100 extra teams.

    Sorry, I am still wrapping my head around the large active GP gaps. Yes, I understand that this is possible, sorry for the confusion.
  • Goldane wrote: »
    Love the increased slot counts.. the more the merrier as it forces deeper roster play. But squad slots should be a static amount regardless of guild participation. They would still change depending on the division of course.

    Any guild that has reduced participation should be matched with other guilds with reduced participation but everyone should stay within their bracket based on guild gp, not joined gp.

    Logic takes the hill.

    100%. Not fair my guild with 44 active people challenges another guild with 28 active people and 60 million less GP. Use active GP to place the bracket, then match by closest number of active members, then filter down by W/L ratio in that order. Why argue this point, you won? Yes, but we'll be the guy impossibly down in GP on the next one.
  • Goldane
    71 posts Member
    edited October 5
    Goldane wrote: »
    Love the increased slot counts.. the more the merrier as it forces deeper roster play. But squad slots should be a static amount regardless of guild participation. They would still change depending on the division of course.

    Any guild that has reduced participation should be matched with other guilds with reduced participation but everyone should stay within their bracket based on guild gp, not joined gp.

    Logic takes the hill.

    100%. Not fair my guild with 44 active people challenges another guild with 28 active people and 60 million less GP. Use active GP to place the bracket, then match by closest number of active members, then filter down by W/L ratio in that order. Why argue this point, you won? Yes, but we'll be the guy impossibly down in GP on the next one.

    I agree in principle but the division should be determined by total guild gp, not active gp. It's absolutely fair if the guilds with absenses are matched with others that have absenses.

    I don't understand why this is so complicated....

    Matchmaking order:
    1. Div to same div by tot guild gp, always.
    2. Active joined count to same active joined count
    3. W/L record
  • Mawuascht
    56 posts Member
    edited October 6
    Edit: my guildmate already posted our matchup
    Post edited by Mawuascht on
  • PapaBurgandy
    6 posts Member
    edited October 6
    I agree in principle but the division should be determined by total guild gp, not active gp. It's absolutely fair if the guilds with absenses are matched with others that have absences.

    That isn't entirely true....Its more fair doing active GP, then join count, then W/L record and I'll prove it with an example below.

    Example:
    Let All Guilds have 50/50 total members.
    Let Guild A have 20 members with an average of 5 mil and 30 with an average of 3 for a total of 190 mil.
    Let Guild B have 20 members with an average of 3 mil and 30 with an average of 4.33 for a total of 190 mil.
    Let Guild C have 50 members with an average of 3 mil for a total of 150 mil.

    Let Guild A have just the 20 members with an average of 5 mil signup. Active GP is 100 mil.
    Let Guild B have just the 20 members with an average of 3 mil signup. Active GP is 60 mil.
    Let Guild C have just the 20 members with an average of 3 mil signup. Active GP is 60 mil.

    As instructed by your method, Guild A and Guild B have been matched first by Total GP which is 190 million. Then they have then been matched by active joined count which is 20 members. W/L is irrelevant for this example.

    The result would be 20 v 20. Guild A would have an Active GP of 100 mil and Guild B would have an active GP of 60 mil. Guild A would have a 40 mil advantage over Guild B.

    Compare that to Active GP....

    Example:
    Let Both Guilds have 50/50 total members.
    Let Guild A have 20 members with an average of 5 mil and 30 with an average of 3 for a total of 190 mil.
    Let Guild B have 20 members with an average of 3 mil and 30 with an average of 4.33 for a total of 190 mil.
    Let Guild C have 50 members with an average of 3 mil for a total of 150 mil.

    Let Guild A have just the 20 members with an average of 5 mil signup. Active GP is 100 mil.
    Let Guild B have just the 20 members with an average of 3 mil signup. Active GP is 60 mil.
    Let Guild C have just the 20 members with an average of 3 mil signup. Active GP is 60 mil.

    Guild B would be matched to Guild C as both have equal Active GP, then by member number, then by W/L record. No advantage either team.

  • Goldane
    71 posts Member
    edited October 6
    Guild B would be matched to Guild C as both have equal Active GP, then by member number, then by W/L record. No advantage either team.

    I think we're splitting hairs...my solution assumes the guilds are both using some quality members in the war. Your second example is highly unlikely as the power players are on average more likely to participate. This I've witnessed over and over and over.

    Both solutions would drastically reduce sandbagging due to the member joined variable so I would be in favor of either.

    So we solved it 🤪.. is CG reading this? 🤔
  • tile
    17 posts Member
    edited October 6
    The matchmaking for us is absolutely unbelievable. Our join GP is 339.6M GP. Their join is 412M GP...an over 70M GP difference. We chatted with them...nice dudes btw...and they lost their last one and we won. Compared notes with other high end guilds. Essentially the same. On paper this is a ridiculous mismatch...akin to a college basketball team playing a pro team. The only explainer is that the last win/loss result is a massive weight on the match making algorithm. This won't even be close and we are seriously discussing not putting any effort into this which ruins the event for BOTH guilds.
  • JakeD
    16 posts Member
    edited October 6
    In contrast to our previous match, this war has resulted in a solid one. On paper, due mainly to mods, I would say we are the favorite again but at least this match is reasonable on the other measures. Both matchups posted here to show the insane difference:

    4p6uzpvt46pr.jpeg
    79iphc5twv7r.png
  • JakeD
    16 posts Member
    Recent TW record for another data point. Not sure how far back in record this new algorithm tracks back.

    cgtpin7c3h3c.png
  • I think the only solution to this is 5 KAM shards and a full aero set, eh?
  • EmperorPickleRick89
    5 posts Member
    edited October 6
    We had 49 sign up this round bringing in 97 GLs....our opponent has 60 mil more GP and they have 188 GLs....39 placements....what the
    Post edited by Kyno on
  • Git gud and fine tune your roster with a credit card!
  • We are a 200M guild, with an excellent record, an avg of 85% win rate… but we are probably going to lose our 2nd war in a row, something exceptionally rare for us, and that’s because the new MM algorithm doesn’t work. It seems to put too much weight on the winning streak, and incidentally seems to favour sandbagging rather than reduce it.
    We faced a 230M guild last time and facing a 220M guild this time, but fighting within the 170-199M bracket. While we have had 40+ participants on our side, both in this and last TW our opponents have joined in lower numbers, with an avg GP x member of 4.8-5M while for us is about 4M avg x member. Add to it the fact the opposing guilds have almost double the number of GLs compared to us, it makes it virtually impossible to compete.
    We are at a loss really, why is it that CG always says we are delivering ’A’ (e.g. fairer MM) and we end up with ‘B’ (usually something totally different from what was promised)? The algorithm needs to be rebalanced, and CG needs to run tests!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.