Territorial War and the amazingly BAD Matchmaking

Prev1
Shezzofreen
47 posts Member
edited April 2021
Heya...

Its getting worse and worse. I know, it's not easy to make a Matchmaking System with such many players and such many variables within a "split-second decision" so that everybody gets a fair chance. Especially when there are guilds who really try to game the system. The funny Sandbaggers.

Sure there is not much difference between Place 1 and 2 in case of rewards, but my Guild-Mates really would like a shot for a Head-on-Head Battle. We have recorded every War we had since the beginning of Territorial War, we are an "Old Guild" (June 2016) but no elitest. We led everybody play if they want to, but managing the moral of our crew is hard to master with Opponents like:

SEE: 8 VS 25
JML: 14 VS 34
JKL: 27 VS 45
SLK: 13 VS 31
REY: 15 VS 31

We succeeded to have 2 more Boba Fetts then our counterpart. Guess what, Boba was not tough enough to beat em all.

Problem? They ditched 10 of there players (everybody under an Arena Rang of 50) and came out with 40 Players vs our 49.

There is no way in Hell how we could beat em, only if there where highly incompetent - but, well, yeah, Arena Rang Players ranking 1-50 in most part aren't. Not to mention that there are 4 Fields filled with Legends from Top to Bottom.

Please, for the love of God, do something. Its ridiculous.

A simple change would work wonders: Stop calculating how many fields have to filled by checking there participating members. Let it be always 25. Period. So when there are some "sandbaggers", they have to stretch themself thin to protect everything. But so? 40 Players equals 20 Troops. That kind of calculation is from the stone-age of TW, where guilds could not bring up 50 Players.

Ofcourse the whole Matchmaking-System needs an overhaul, but that would take just 5 seconds coding, ok, 2 hours, i guess you have to search for the variables... ;)

Its sad enough that you never rework anything anymore. 5 Vaders Shards for 10k Arena Battles? (I'm halfway there with 5.4k ... seems i need another 5 Years!) But thats another story.

PLEASE FIX YOUR MATCHMAKING

Thanks
Shezzofreen,
Guild Leader of FFM, 200+ Members.
http://www.ffm-heroes.com



Post edited by Kyno on

Replies

  • My guild (mid game, 49 member) doesnt have mandatory join rule for TW, and quite often we have about 30 ish players sign up. My concern is I feel that locking it at a fixed number would be more detrimental to guilds like ours, and doesnt scale with guilds not at that level
  • The best way to fix this would be to add a GL count to the matchmaking system. Try to put you against guilds that have similar GL counts to your own based on all players. Then, regardless of who joins, the guilds will be close to evenly matched.
  • Magruffin wrote: »
    My guild (mid game, 49 member) doesnt have mandatory join rule for TW, and quite often we have about 30 ish players sign up. My concern is I feel that locking it at a fixed number would be more detrimental to guilds like ours, and doesnt scale with guilds not at that level

    I see, but you could still easly deploy 25 Troops per field. Sure, you had to decide what sector will be protected better, but the opponent have the same struggle.

    Our last competitor had 56 Million GM more then our guild. 279 vs 335.

    GM doesn't mean anything in SWGOH, thats true, but 77 Legends VS 166 Legends tells a different story.

    The Matchmaking is broken at this point.

    Its not that we want to have a "I Win!" Button, but at least we would like a shot at winning. Besides: I despise all guilds who make themself smaller to trick the system. Thats bad sportsmanship to say it nicely.

    /salute
  • The best way to fix this would be to add a GL count to the matchmaking system. Try to put you against guilds that have similar GL counts to your own based on all players. Then, regardless of who joins, the guilds will be close to evenly matched.

    I fully agree with this
  • TVF
    36524 posts Member
    That has been requested for every single meta in both TW and GAC.

    Figure out something better.
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • The dev's literally created a meta level of toon when they released GLs. They're targeted for mid to end game players, and possession counts should factor into matchmaking. You can see in the Op about the counts being way off in ratio, and this imbalance does occur frequently with the current matchmaking.
    As far suggestions, you have any of your own to solve the matchmaking issue?
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Magruffin wrote: »
    My guild (mid game, 49 member) doesnt have mandatory join rule for TW, and quite often we have about 30 ish players sign up. My concern is I feel that locking it at a fixed number would be more detrimental to guilds like ours, and doesnt scale with guilds not at that level

    ...

    Our last competitor had 56 Million GM more then our guild. 279 vs 335.

    GM doesn't mean anything in SWGOH, thats true, but 77 Legends VS 166 Legends tells a different story.
    ...

    Just to be clear, these numbers dont accurately represent what happened.

    The GP of the players playing were much closer, and unless you counted only the active players the number of Legends is also inaccurate.

    This is not to say they shouldn't look into changes for the system to figure out a way to make better matches, but we should also strive to express an understanding of the current system when discussing it.
  • UdalCuain
    4996 posts Member
    What does your website mean when it says about your Bothan Spies infiltrating the troops?
  • Artumas
    324 posts Member
    Personally, the only real change I think they need to make is top x player GP vs top x player GP - Top 5 or 10 of each guild should be somewhat similar. Possibly even effective GP, y'know, the same value used for grand arena.

    I feel like older accounts that straight up ignore the meta are really the main people that I see complain about TW mismatching, and honestly, I think you SHOULD be getting punished for that.

    My account's younger than likely most of your guild members, and yet could've easily had 2 GLs if I'd cared more about getting a second than I currently do, and at least 1 person in my guild DOES have 2.

    You're sitting at a solid 50, which is 1/person. That's better than a lot of guilds, but that still shows, to me, that at least 22 members of your guild ignored GLs until the second batch, and there's still people ignoring them if even a single person has 2 or more. - And as I've said to both my guild and several times in youtube comments and I think at least once around here: If you have JKL, you should realistically have JML. The actual requirements for getting JML after qualifying for JKL and taking the meta team comps for those characters into account is... extremely small. Yet there's 13 people there with JKL and no JML.

    While sure, this is likely a case of a heavily F2P guild going up against a whale guild, as it's very difficult to have 3-4 GLs as a F2P player at this point (possible, but unlikely), the simple fact still remains that your guild still isn't meta chasing to the best of their ability. And 2 vs 2.4 average IS very doable if you know your GL matchups and counters. My guild wins and loses matchups in that range all the time.

    Also at 6M+ GP, it's not even exactly "sandbagging" so much as it is just much better average rosters - a 9 member difference isn't likely to make a 1.4 GL difference so much as a much more top heavy roster is. - I mean, I'm still sitting over here in GAC having only been matched with 3 other players that even HAD a GL in the 7 months it's been I've had Rey. And GAC matchmaking is significantly better than TW matchmaking as far as I'm aware, and as far as I've experienced both.

    Also... non-GL counter teams for the most part (SLKR aside) aren't exactly the most common teams to use on defense at that level, and if every member of your guild actually knew how to use them properly, stuff like the SEEs and whatnot legitimately shouldn't even count as a number - They're almost as consistent as stuff like GAS and DR counters. (and some are even more consistent, honestly, since mods play a much smaller role in GL hard counter battles - There's no "your DR counter doesn't work because the opponent DR has 350 speed instead of 330" type scenarios really. Yes, they still play a role, but it's much less... variable. If it works against one GL team, it's likely going to work against most with the same character lineup.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Just to be clear, these numbers dont accurately represent what happened.

    The GP of the players playing were much closer, and unless you counted only the active players the number of Legends is also inaccurate.

    This is not to say they shouldn't look into changes for the system to figure out a way to make better matches, but we should also strive to express an understanding of the current system when discussing it.

    Sure i know that, that means our competitor had to ditch 10 of his players to come closer on our GM, thats called "sandbagging". And there would be an easy "fix" to make that a little bit harder for those.

    You are welcome to take a look at our war-table or the prevoius ones... The Matchmaking is broken at this point. Sorry to say that.

    /salute
  • UdalCuain
    4996 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Just to be clear, these numbers dont accurately represent what happened.

    The GP of the players playing were much closer, and unless you counted only the active players the number of Legends is also inaccurate.

    This is not to say they shouldn't look into changes for the system to figure out a way to make better matches, but we should also strive to express an understanding of the current system when discussing it.

    Sure i know that, that means our competitor had to ditch 10 of his players to come closer on our GM, thats called "sandbagging". And there would be an easy "fix" to make that a little bit harder for those.

    You are welcome to take a look at our war-table or the prevoius ones... The Matchmaking is broken at this point. Sorry to say that.

    /salute

    How do you know the are sandbagging? My guild only has 38 signed up this TW, people have stuff on.
  • UdalCuain wrote: »
    What does your website mean when it says about your Bothan Spies infiltrating the troops?
    Haha, thats only a movie-reference, the data is a simple check from our guild to our opponent based on SWGOH.GG Data. Of course it always mirrors the whole Guild so the Data is of course not accurate to a 100%, it can't be - not with my methods.

    Funny tho, all War predictions of all our wars came true - when there where a sandbagger on the other side. You will die in war, when the opposite have 40 Millions more GM and make em smaller for easier battles.

    /salute
  • UdalCuain wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Just to be clear, these numbers dont accurately represent what happened.

    The GP of the players playing were much closer, and unless you counted only the active players the number of Legends is also inaccurate.

    This is not to say they shouldn't look into changes for the system to figure out a way to make better matches, but we should also strive to express an understanding of the current system when discussing it.

    Sure i know that, that means our competitor had to ditch 10 of his players to come closer on our GM, thats called "sandbagging". And there would be an easy "fix" to make that a little bit harder for those.

    You are welcome to take a look at our war-table or the prevoius ones... The Matchmaking is broken at this point. Sorry to say that.

    /salute

    How do you know the are sandbagging? My guild only has 38 signed up this TW, people have stuff on.

    Well, if you check our enemy, you will see, that there are players with an average arena rank over 50 - to my "suprise" those 10 players don't participate, what results in a 40 Player match (and 20 Troops to fill).

    Also, when you play this game so long as we do, you get how things work.

    /salute
  • TVF
    36524 posts Member
    Magruffin wrote: »
    As far suggestions, you have any of your own to solve the matchmaking issue?

    Nope, don't care. Rewards are nearly identical and I've seen tons of even matches and lopsided matches in both directions across two accounts to not care even if rewards weren't the same.

    I just get tired of the whining about GLs. Just like I was tired of complaints about any other meta toon. Remember CLS?
    December 14, 2017 7:59AM
    Our guild with 80M (50/50 player) match 91M guild (50/50 player). All person assigned.
    They have 19 more CLS than us (14 vs 33).
    And our average arena rank is 82 vs 76 (opponent). Collection score (37 vs 46).
    We capable of 33 stars in LSTB vs They 35 stars in LSTB
    Will you call this a fair match?
    Actually, I will not to tell my guild members about this, cause it will make them feels disappointed. :s
    If this continue in further TW, we will just wait for free zetas.
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • The best way to fix this would be to add a GL count to the matchmaking system. Try to put you against guilds that have similar GL counts to your own based on all players. Then, regardless of who joins, the guilds will be close to evenly matched.

    Second try to answer ... seems i hit a nerve here, so:

    Yeah, that would be another way. But it doesn't stop there. A GL without relict VS relice 7 (or 8) would then be the next problem, not mentioning zetas or gear in general - don't get me started with mods. ;)

    I'm a coder myself and i manage our 4 guilds data - and there are million entrys in my database, fiddling a "Math" to make a perfect "Match" gets my head spinning, its hard. Now multiply that by some billion data and you have around 60 seconds to find a perfect match. That won't happen, ever. But there is a difference between trying or giving up.

    /salute
  • CCyrilS
    6732 posts Member
    UdalCuain wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Just to be clear, these numbers dont accurately represent what happened.

    The GP of the players playing were much closer, and unless you counted only the active players the number of Legends is also inaccurate.

    This is not to say they shouldn't look into changes for the system to figure out a way to make better matches, but we should also strive to express an understanding of the current system when discussing it.

    Sure i know that, that means our competitor had to ditch 10 of his players to come closer on our GM, thats called "sandbagging". And there would be an easy "fix" to make that a little bit harder for those.

    You are welcome to take a look at our war-table or the prevoius ones... The Matchmaking is broken at this point. Sorry to say that.

    /salute

    How do you know the are sandbagging? My guild only has 38 signed up this TW, people have stuff on.

    Well, if you check our enemy, you will see, that there are players with an average arena rank over 50 - to my "suprise" those 10 players don't participate, what results in a 40 Player match (and 20 Troops to fill).

    Also, when you play this game so long as we do, you get how things work.

    /salute

    So the 10 or so who don't play often/well enough to break top 50 on arena are also the same missing out on TW and it's rewards. Nope, no correlation there.
  • Gorgus
    122 posts Member
    I concur what with what’s been said in acknowledging that it can’t be easy to design a matchmaking system that’s “fair” in every way players can think of. Having said that, I am not a fan of the fact that the current system actually penalizes guilds for a high participation rate, which should be a positive thing in the game. It’s perversely rewarding guilds that either don’t have a high engagement level or intentionally sandbag.
  • Wimma
    152 posts Member
    We were getting annihilated in most TW matches going back a couple months, as we had 44-48 sign up (always a few that are away or forget, or perhaps just don't want to do it), and thus copped bigger guilds with less players singing up.
    But becuase of local holidy periods and a few of our guild away, our last 3 we've had only 38 signed up, and we blitzed all of them.
    None of these matches were much fun, as there was clearly a big advantage to one team (who had less players sign up).
    Why can't match making first match on player numbers, then on GP?
    Surely that would be an improvement, and simple to implement?
  • Wimma wrote: »
    Why can't match making first match on player numbers, then on GP?
    Surely that would be an improvement, and simple to implement?

    That number should be with in the mix, yeah, but i guess only as a small part.

    Lets say you have 1 Opponent with 3 Legends and the supporting act for that and you have 10 People without any legends. Its like throwing wool at a brickwall. Sure, there are Legend Counter without Legends, but that doesn't mean this will works all the time - you still need very decent Toons with gear, zeta, relict or speed that match the opponent.

    Or as Gorgus is stating. "Having said that, I am not a fan of the fact that the current system actually penalizes guilds for a high participation rate, which should be a positive thing in the game." ... i sign that one.

    /salute

  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    Wimma wrote: »
    Why can't match making first match on player numbers, then on GP?
    Surely that would be an improvement, and simple to implement?

    That number should be with in the mix, yeah, but i guess only as a small part.

    Number of galactic legends (or whatever the newest META characters are) should not be in the mix at all. Matching by both active GP and number of participants is all that's needed.
  • I don't think it makes sense to include the number of GLs in the matchmaking, often people ask the same for GAC and I don't think it's ever going to happen. But, the only real problem about matchmaking imho is the opportunity to game the system with sandbagging. So, why not just include the number of active members to the overall GP, so that guilds who join with only 40 people, will rather get matched with guilds who also go into the battle undersized?
  • waxweazle01
    32 posts Member
    edited April 2021
    Here are our last matchups:
    click me

    and @Shezzofreen we are about the same size gp - wise then your guild. It seems like all those 300+ mio GP guilds have established their own rotation model to always join with 40 players. I am therefore not really surprised that you facing the same imbalance which we saw in some of our last matchups.
  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    Here are our last matchups:
    click me

    and @Shezzofreen we are about the same size gp - wise then your guild. It seems like all those 300+ mio GP guilds have established their own rotation model to always join with 40 players. I am therefore not really surprised that you facing the same imbalance which we saw in some of our last matchups.

    "... all those 300+ mio GP guilds"? Did you ever consider that maybe most of them simply made participation voluntary? That's how it is in my 300+ mio GP guilds - and in many others as well. But ok, your theory is more exciting and dramatic than the more likely explanation.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    CadoaBane wrote: »
    I don't think it makes sense to include the number of GLs in the matchmaking, often people ask the same for GAC and I don't think it's ever going to happen. But, the only real problem about matchmaking imho is the opportunity to game the system with sandbagging. So, why not just include the number of active members to the overall GP, so that guilds who join with only 40 people, will rather get matched with guilds who also go into the battle undersized?

    The biggest issue that comes up here is which is the priority and how much variance does each factor have.

    Not to say it cant be done.

    You are unlikely to be able to match ever guild with another of the same number who joined and the same variance in GP we have now.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    Wimma wrote: »
    Why can't match making first match on player numbers, then on GP?
    Surely that would be an improvement, and simple to implement?

    That number should be with in the mix, yeah, but i guess only as a small part.

    Number of galactic legends (or whatever the newest META characters are) should not be in the mix at all. Matching by both active GP and number of participants is all that's needed.

    Who said something about the numbers of GL? He asked for number of total players. But, GL also needs to be counted, for sure but not in an easy "He has one SLK, they have one SLK". Because a 7* R0 G8 SLK is no match for a 7* R8 G13 SLK. ;)

    And GP, as we all know, doesn't mean anything. 4 Mil GP Progress-Player will always beat a 6 Mill GP Collector.

    If you still go the route "Take two numbers and then match em!" you will never fix Matchmaking.

    I know that finding a formula is a huge task, but i would rather face a Mirror-Match of my own Guild (as a temporary carbon-copy with Bots or a temporary created team with bots), then having to face a guild that either is just so big we can't win or so small it doesnt is a challenge at all.

    /salute
  • TVF
    36524 posts Member
    edited April 2021
    But, GL also needs to be counted

    disagree
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    Waqui wrote: »
    Wimma wrote: »
    Why can't match making first match on player numbers, then on GP?
    Surely that would be an improvement, and simple to implement?

    That number should be with in the mix, yeah, but i guess only as a small part.

    Number of galactic legends (or whatever the newest META characters are) should not be in the mix at all. Matching by both active GP and number of participants is all that's needed.

    Who said something about the numbers of GL?

    Check the discussion. It's there.
    He asked for number of total players.

    And I agree(d).
    But, GL also needs to be counted, for sure but not in an easy "He has one SLK, they have one SLK". Because a 7* R0 G8 SLK is no match for a 7* R8 G13 SLK. ;)

    And GP, as we all know, doesn't mean anything. 4 Mil GP Progress-Player will always beat a 6 Mill GP Collector.

    Number of galactic legends (or whatever the newest META characters are) should not be in the mix at all.

    Yes, how you build your roster matters. A guild with strong rosters deserve their advantage over the guild with weaker rosters (matching active GP and players).
    If you still go the route "Take two numbers and then match em!" you will never fix Matchmaking.

    That depends on how you define "fix". I believe we define it in different ways. IMO a system that creates even matches only and eliminates the incentive to build your roster well is flawed.
    I know that finding a formula is a huge task, but i would rather face a Mirror-Match of my own Guild (as a temporary carbon-copy with Bots or a temporary created team with bots), then having to face a guild that either is just so big we can't win or so small it doesnt is a challenge at all.

    /salute

    You'd avoid those types of mismatches by matching both active GP and number of participants.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    methuselah wrote: »
    The simplest fix for matchmaking is to increase the number of thresholds so that 350M guilds don't get matched with 225M guilds. Adding a factor for # of GLz and win-percentage would place similar guilds in battles with each other. i know this would offend the pre-paid entitlement of kraken/whale guilds but it would make TW relevant again.

    Not sure how you resolve win ratio of a guild where players can come and go as they wish. Keeping a record the same just based on guild name is open to abuse or can punish players for staying in a Guild going through a rough patch.

    GLs and other meta changes should not be a factor, as others have said. That has nothing to do with P2P in any level, many F2P have them and get them pretty quick too.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    Check the discussion. It's there.

    Well, maybe then you should post it directly into this thread and not wild-quoting. But ok, lets put GL's on the table. ;)
    Waqui wrote: »
    Number of galactic legends (or whatever the newest META characters are) should not be in the mix at all.
    Yes, how you build your roster matters. A guild with strong rosters deserve their advantage over the guild with weaker rosters (matching active GP and players).

    I would go and agree with the "META" Characters-Part because that can change quite fast and often, but Legends flip the table. Easy.
    With such impact, yes, i think they should be in the formula.

    I have to say, i don't understand you... On a mental level. Isn't a Matchmaking-System in place to have a fair and balanced fight?
    Wouldn't you say that Legends are a gamechanger? And you want to ignore them?

    Waqui wrote: »
    That depends on how you define "fix". I believe we define it in different ways. IMO a system that creates even matches only and eliminates the incentive to build your roster well is flawed.

    Seems we have a different mindset here. I see it like in sports. You don't let Boys play against Men. You have weight-classes. You've got performance classes.
    Waqui wrote: »
    You'd avoid those types of mismatches by matching both active GP and number of participants.


    Ah 2 Numbers, yeah, won't work. ;)
    The game started out as a "collect & fight", no pressure in what direction. Some people found out soon enough, that concentrating is the key for greater success and SWGOH changed the playfield even more in this direction. But there are still players here and there who enjoy the game with collecting and leveling the stuff they like and not what is the best and they also want to participate in all events. You do know, that you screw them hard?

    Your way is more of an "survial of the fittest", i'm more a "live and let live".

    /Salute
Sign In or Register to comment.