TW - MM and Teams needed [MERGE]

Replies

  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    BeralCator wrote: »
    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 ****?

    It's not really working as intended, it needs to be dialed in and they will monitor and do that.

    1) its max is based on the GP, and then reduced based on how many join. It has always been this way. I think it's hard to see exactly what's going on since each side only has some of the information. I have not seen anything that doesnt follow this scheme. Please let me know of you do.

    2) the goal is to help push the averaging effect, and while yes this does seem to line up the way you are saying, the fact is they are matching someone in a losing streak, with a guild on a winning streak. That is not a bad thing, but this is likely a factor they will try to dial in also.

    3) as they fial things in this will hopefully be reduced in occurence.

    4) I'm sure that is a goal, but I dont think they are going to look that in depth on the player as they dial this in.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    BeralCator wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    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

    Right, but that isn't necessarily "fun". If the matches are generally blowouts in either direction, it's basically just like simming a node for rewards. They will eventually average out as we go through a pedantic exercise of beating up on weaker guilds and getting our lunch money taken by stronger ones.

    As I said earlier in the thread, if the outcome is 90% obvious immediately after matchmaking then that is a failure to me, regardless of how the W-Ls average out.

    As they dial in the factors for MM, they can keep an "ideal" win ratio and not have it be blow outs.

    They are also discussing future plans that will add in more stuff to individual game modes that should make things more interesting (possible fun, if players are inclined to look at it that way)
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Artumas wrote: »
    Just going to say, this is why I really never actually complained about TW matchmaking.
    GAC probably needed it more, in many ways, but just from experience in so many different games, TW matchmaking had very little to gain, and so much to lose by changing it.

    I don't think I've seen a MM algorithm in ANY game that was based on more than 1 person that actually worked to consistently provide remotely even matchups outside of the actual top 0.00001%. ...and even then I've had some hilariously bad matchups in other games due to "expanding search" being a nearly required part of automated matchmaking (and arguably even manual matchmaking...)

    Matchmaking differences with logic behind it (old system) was definitely better than matchmaking differences for zero reason (if these 50/50 vs 50/50 with 60M GP gaps are true)

    Also, this is going to sound weird, but... is the win/loss streak matchmaking actually based off of guild, not members? Because if so THAT is ridiculously exploitable, even more-so than sandbagging was, as all you'd need is like 10 sets of 25 alt accounts that exist to do nothing but sign up for TW and lose, and then rotate between guilds with your mains every TW. ....Just saying.

    They have many factors they can adjust to "punish" exploits.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    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.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    XKurareX wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 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

    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

    Hence the monitor and adjustment stance of the MM parameters.

    Do you seriously believe in this? Isnt it more like someone selling magic stones to some fools believing in his/her words? Its just business in the end for them. MM is proven to not work by thousands of examples and now dishing out the high end material in a pvp mode will have a huge negative impact.

    TW must be won now or you get basically either nothing or a carrot on a stick.

    TW specialised guilds will faceroll soon everyone (all GLs r9 + piett vs 1-2 r9 that match will be superb)
    TW will get a huge amount of sandbagging for x2-x4 reward
    TW will get a huge increase in cheating
    TW will get a huge amount of drama and pressure on the organising teams due to the extreme win/loose reward
    TW will fail with every bad MM and people will be extremely unhappy not getting the good stuff (Raid & TBs didnt had all of those issues...now its literally rng if you can win or will instantly loose determined by your code - people will be happy *irony*)

    MM previous to this was done differently, so the correlation you are making is not accurate to the situation now that we have new MM and the high end rewards.

    Many factors can now be adjusted to dial in what's going on and this will happen over time.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    capsular wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    As they dial in the factors for MM, they can keep an "ideal" win ratio and not have it be blow outs.

    nope. all guilds have to do is have each member have an alt, let the alt guild lose while their main win, then jump their main accounts into the alt guild in order to get easier matchups and keep the rewards coming in.

    Nope, there are factors in place to counter this, as this was discussed.
  • Saada 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

    fxydvsqq3pwv.jpg

    Cross divisional like one division apart. Not several apart with a 60+million GP gap
  • one of the examples is a 170+ GLs vs 50+ GLs. Is CG really saying that is "cross-divisional?"


    one division up or down is understandable..

    Not what is currently happening.

    Testing this MM algorithm should have happened first before releasing to the public..


    This is just another black mark on CG's reputation..

    The Great Nerf
    The Grindquest changes
    and now this TW debacle..


    It's embarrassing...
  • oh!

    I forgot about how GEO TB are now bugged and ruining the opportunity to get more stars.

    another Black Mark on CG...



  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Are we gonna get some kind of update on this from the devs?

    😄
  • Sewpot
    2010 posts Member
    3eyf17dvnfg7.jpeg

    Highest score and I haven’t even battled yet.
    This is what playing looks like lol!
    I think I still have something left for offence lol
  • Kyno wrote: »
    BeralCator wrote: »
    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 ****?

    It's not really working as intended, it needs to be dialed in and they will monitor and do that.

    1) its max is based on the GP, and then reduced based on how many join. It has always been this way. I think it's hard to see exactly what's going on since each side only has some of the information. I have not seen anything that doesnt follow this scheme. Please let me know of you do.

    2) the goal is to help push the averaging effect, and while yes this does seem to line up the way you are saying, the fact is they are matching someone in a losing streak, with a guild on a winning streak. That is not a bad thing, but this is likely a factor they will try to dial in also.

    3) as they fial things in this will hopefully be reduced in occurence.

    4) I'm sure that is a goal, but I dont think they are going to look that in depth on the player as they dial this in.

    Do you speak for CG here or is this just your opinion?
  • Kyno wrote: »
    XKurareX wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Ravens1113 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

    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

    Hence the monitor and adjustment stance of the MM parameters.

    Do you seriously believe in this? Isnt it more like someone selling magic stones to some fools believing in his/her words? Its just business in the end for them. MM is proven to not work by thousands of examples and now dishing out the high end material in a pvp mode will have a huge negative impact.

    TW must be won now or you get basically either nothing or a carrot on a stick.

    TW specialised guilds will faceroll soon everyone (all GLs r9 + piett vs 1-2 r9 that match will be superb)
    TW will get a huge amount of sandbagging for x2-x4 reward
    TW will get a huge increase in cheating
    TW will get a huge amount of drama and pressure on the organising teams due to the extreme win/loose reward
    TW will fail with every bad MM and people will be extremely unhappy not getting the good stuff (Raid & TBs didnt had all of those issues...now its literally rng if you can win or will instantly loose determined by your code - people will be happy *irony*)

    MM previous to this was done differently, so the correlation you are making is not accurate to the situation now that we have new MM and the high end rewards.

    Many factors can now be adjusted to dial in what's going on and this will happen over time.

    Noted. Have you seen newest posts of MM? Its instant loss for one team in many cases. They love the shaft of 1 mat by rng - believe me.

    For the devs: a pvp game never should get any ultra high end item. its never good and never will be good - it will in time make certain players/groups being unbeatable. R9 is fine, but tw to dish out r9 isnt. If you wanted to fix tw - than fix tw, but dont add to your mm another huge issue.

    For better MM you should consider to add automatically the omega skills at 7s and the zeta skills at g13. This will help to reduce impact of cannied down "zombie" gac/tw rosters. Maybe even consider to automatically level a character and/or automatically unlock if you played a certain event/reached a certain star for this character.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    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.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    BeralCator wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    BeralCator wrote: »
    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 ****?

    It's not really working as intended, it needs to be dialed in and they will monitor and do that.

    1) its max is based on the GP, and then reduced based on how many join. It has always been this way. I think it's hard to see exactly what's going on since each side only has some of the information. I have not seen anything that doesnt follow this scheme. Please let me know of you do.

    2) the goal is to help push the averaging effect, and while yes this does seem to line up the way you are saying, the fact is they are matching someone in a losing streak, with a guild on a winning streak. That is not a bad thing, but this is likely a factor they will try to dial in also.

    3) as they fial things in this will hopefully be reduced in occurence.

    4) I'm sure that is a goal, but I dont think they are going to look that in depth on the player as they dial this in.

    Do you speak for CG here or is this just your opinion?

    This is based on the knowledge I have on this topic from multiple sources.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    capsular wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    "WAI"

    Actually there are no quotes needed. They explained the actions we are seeing very clearly in the post.
  • Ravens1113
    4745 posts Member
    edited October 2021
    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.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    capsular wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    "WAI"

    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 would think a reasonable person would thing cross division matching to mean across division lines...... which is what we are seeing.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    capsular wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    "WAI"

    Actually there are no quotes needed. They explained the actions we are seeing very clearly in the post.

    OK, well, I'd give them a D- on this effort at this stage.
    It's not an F because it hasn't actively caused the game to crash or damaged my phone.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • XKurareX
    478 posts Member
    edited October 2021
    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.

    Its messed up system. It allows the winner getting less than the looser. Its only fair for CG, not for anyone else. Imagine in tennis the winner getting less than the looser. It is not grey zone, it is simply just really bad.
This discussion has been closed.