TW - MM and Teams needed [MERGE]

Replies

  • Zouss57 wrote: »
    does not put anything in defense and those who will have posed 0 defense will not have any rewards 😂
    Untrue - those who have 0 banners AND didn’t attack a team get no rewards.

    Even an unsuccessful attack is enough to get rewards.
  • Zouss57 wrote: »
    does not put anything in defense and those who will have posed 0 defense will not have any rewards 😂
    Untrue - those who have 0 banners AND didn’t attack a team get no rewards.

    Even an unsuccessful attack is enough to get rewards.

    That's what I'm saying, do not pose anything in defense (sorry not my native language)
  • Zouss57 wrote: »
    does not put anything in defense and those who will have posed 0 defense will not have any rewards 😂
    Untrue - those who have 0 banners AND didn’t attack a team get no rewards.

    Even an unsuccessful attack is enough to get rewards.

    He meant denying rewards from your opponents who did not place any teams on defense.

    I already consulted about this with people from the bird culture.
  • SerWulfgar wrote: »
    Zouss57 wrote: »
    does not put anything in defense and those who will have posed 0 defense will not have any rewards 😂
    Untrue - those who have 0 banners AND didn’t attack a team get no rewards.

    Even an unsuccessful attack is enough to get rewards.

    He meant denying rewards from your opponents who did not place any teams on defense.

    I already consulted about this with people from the bird culture.

    Oh I understand my mistake thank for clarification
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    pbchillin wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    GP on both sides, number of players, and defensive spots needed

    Are you sure you have the right guild?
    I respect you're trying to help and likely had as much idea this mess was coming as the playbase did, but just deflecting with 'are you sure it's the right guild' is up there with 'try turning it off and on again'.

    All of these screenshots are from Discord bots. They're 100% right.

    You do realize that players have put the wrong guild into discord bots before, right?

    I am not deflecting I am asking for information.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    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.
  • 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:
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    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:

    How many placements and how many joined (on your end, unless you know both)
  • Kyno wrote: »
    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:

    How many placements and how many joined (on your end, unless you know both)

    We have 40 placements and 49 signed up (I'm with Doombringer).
  • OK, reposting here as I was perhaps a bit harsh in my previous comments.

    I think the consensus is that these matchups people are sharing are objectively...bad.
    They aren't competitive or fun for either guild. I asked earlier if anyone has a match that seems like it go either way and no one has taken me up on it. I know happy people don't rush to the forums to post about how fair their TW match-up is, but surely someone must have a competitive match they want want to share?

    I guess my big question is whether this is WAI?

    If it is, I have some pretty severe criticism about how poorly conceived this plan was and what a negative experience it will be for many players.

    If it isn't WAI I'd really like to know ASAP so that I can wait until it is fixed before offering up feedback. I would instead have some pretty severe criticism about the poor QA and general bugginess of the game instead.
  • JakeD
    17 posts Member
    edited October 2021
    Joebo720 wrote: »
    ZaKent wrote: »
    This is definitely a bug, I refuse to believe your TW matchmaking was correct.

    It's not a bug, it's the way it always has worked. Opponent probably had 11 not join the TW be it sandbagging or disinterest. Regardless of the reasoning matched GP does not equal good matches. For ease of math the 11 that didn't join from opponent had all the GL's, so remove 66, they still have 60 something more than us.

    It's a joke. Nothing was fixed. Sand was kicked in the face is all that happened.

    i6xxfjta7vrm.png
    t111qgz1d8yv.png

    Just for the record, we didn't sandbag. I need to correct my previous post as we had 48, not 47 sign-ups.

    This match is absolutely insane and ridiculously unfair.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Yes this is working as designed.

    No it is "not as intended", there will be changes to the MM values to dial this all in over time.
  • it shouldn't have been this bad of MM in the first place.

    WAI is the wrong statement.

    Just say "we screwed up and give us time to adjust."


  • Ultra
    9760 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    Yes this is working as designed.

    No it is "not as intended", there will be changes to the MM values to dial this all in over time.

    Good thing all us are the BETA testers, since CG apparently does not test anything before it’s release.

    Sometimes you need production data (large scale) to perfect some issues
  • Ultra wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Yes this is working as designed.

    No it is "not as intended", there will be changes to the MM values to dial this all in over time.

    Good thing all us are the BETA testers, since CG apparently does not test anything before it’s release.

    Sometimes you need production data (large scale) to perfect some issues

    Cmon ultra, you mean to tell me that they couldn’t tell that after the nerfs against GL’s? They shouldn’t have made it that extensive.

    Also, if they say matchups will be within divisions, then people that get matched up 3 or 4 divisions apart isn’t WAI. This wasn’t tested properly
  • Ultra
    9760 posts Moderator
    Ultra wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Yes this is working as designed.

    No it is "not as intended", there will be changes to the MM values to dial this all in over time.

    Good thing all us are the BETA testers, since CG apparently does not test anything before it’s release.

    Sometimes you need production data (large scale) to perfect some issues

    How about a simple survey. Pretty sure you could have had ample feedback on how no one wants to have to have 30-50 deploys per zone for territory wars.

    Im talking about matchmaking itself, not the changes they've made

    Personally, I think the increased defensive zones is good move
  • Ultra
    9760 posts Moderator
    Thorozar11 wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Yes this is working as designed.

    No it is "not as intended", there will be changes to the MM values to dial this all in over time.

    Good thing all us are the BETA testers, since CG apparently does not test anything before it’s release.

    Sometimes you need production data (large scale) to perfect some issues

    Like several of the conquest bugs that would have taken 1 battle to discover?

    Those bugs they should've taken care of internally, for sure
  • JibberJabber
    89 posts Member
    edited October 2021
    Can’t wait for the guild message Padme wall down, next wall 39 GG……….
  • Asifab
    128 posts Member
    After listening to "The Escape Pod.....Cast"

    They point out a really good point with this current mess of match making.

    In the match-ups where one guild has even 1.5x the amount of GL's that the other guild has, and everyone signs up the guild with the higher amount of GL's has an easy win.

    Given that CG has made it so GL's can only be countered by GL's ( Yes I get there are a few squads that might still defy this but not like it was before )

    If they place all those GL's in the front 2 zones on defense the team with fewer GL's will not stand a chance to win. This could still leave the guild with more GL's enough GL's for offense that they could earn more banners than the lower GL team.

    This would make for an easy win if they do their research each time and the number of GL's is quite different.
  • EmperorPickleRick89
    5 posts Member
    edited October 2021
    49/50 members joined TW and 298 mil GP after joining vs a 295 mil gp guild.....40 teams per zone req......wth CG
  • LynxVJ wrote: »
    CG: It has come to our attention that some guilds have cleared TW in less than 24 hours and then have nothing to do after that. So we've adjusted the number of defensive teams to increase player engagement in this game mode. Enjoy!!!

    🤣🤣🤣🤣
  • EmperorPickleRick89
    5 posts Member
    edited October 2021
    BeralCator wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Yes this is working as designed.

    No it is "not as intended", there will be changes to the MM values to dial this all in over time.

    Would it be so hard for someone on the team to apologize for wasting people's time with these terrible matches?

    Exactly!!! When they're precious little GL JML had complications it took them less than a par sec to address....1 GL ......but when TW has a problem that affects everyone they will take their sweet time and "monitor" the situation. Lmao
  • Since this is apparently working correctly, here is my list of questions and concerns that I think we need answered.

    1) What was intended by the non-linear calculation of teams per zone? We are seeing guilds with high 200s setting 40+ and guilds with high 300s setting 35 and this is incredibly confusing.
    While I understand why we have more teams in general (keeping pace with roster growth, more variety, etc.) I don't understand why we couldn't just have linear scaling?

    2) It appears there is a recency consideration that looks at W-L and serves up an easier match if you have lost a lot. I understand that long losing streaks tend to build player apathy, but this overlooks the fact that for each "stomper" there is also a "stompee". By artificially assuaging one guild's losing skid, you are passing that negativity on to a smaller/weaker guild that is served up for slaughter.

    3) Related to point 2, blow-out wins are only mildly more engaging than blow-out losses. Often the board is clear before half the guild can contribute. Perpetuating a cycle of alternating easy wins and brutal losses is still bad matchmaking, even if guilds tend to regress towards a 50% win percentage.

    4) How does CG define good matchmaking? What is the current data and what is the target of the changes? From my personal experience, the most compelling TW action is when the match goes down to the wire and the winner is not determined until the last zones are cleared. Both teams had an opportunity to win, and skill, teamwork, coordination (and a bit of luck) determined the victor. I would define a good match as one that is decided by <X, where X is the number of teams place. To me, this is far more important than overall W-L. What percentage of matches are currently close, and is it a priority to increase that number? What values correlate most highly with competitive matches? Top 80 speed? G13 characters? 6E mods?

    In light of the recent changes making things seemingly worse, it would be nice if someone on the team could answer these questions in at least a broad manner. I realize that you don't want to spill the guts of the algorithm to avoid abuse, but currently the player base is very ****?
  • Ultra
    9760 posts Moderator
    BeralCator wrote: »
    4) How does CG define good matchmaking? What is the current data and what is the target of the changes?
    I think this is a good question

    Haven't spoken to CG about TW matchmaking and/what their intended goals are so this is my speculation based on the SOTG post,

    I think the goal is that guilds have a 50% average win rate (unless they are strategically better to have more)

    As in you go 2/2 each month, this would end up with equal reward distribution for every guild at all levels, but this is my inference with them accounting for win/loss records and pitting you against guilds of similar caliber
This discussion has been closed.