TW - MM and Teams needed [MERGE]

Replies

  • Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Our guild has an active TW gp of 288mil. We are matched with a guild with over 340mil. They have 60 more GLs than our entire guild. They are showing their last 8 TWs have all been wins. We have won 3 of our last 8 and the latest was a loss so we are not even on a winning streak. Now sure how the matching system would allow this. Based off GP, GLs, wins whatever the other guild out matches us in all categories. Its an easy R9 mats for this guild as we could only clear 2 zones. Meanwhile we don't even have enough members or GP to get us in the bracket for R9 rewards even if we could have won.

    How many defensive placements?

    30 defensive placements

    Not that this makes the situation good, so please understand that I am not defending anything. 30 placements didnt have everyone join.

    They are not at 340 GP and getting matched with you, the active GP is lower, and unless it is above 300M GP they are not going to get r9, which with those records and the numbers we see, it is possible they are not. This also means that while the full guilds is over you by 60 GLs, that is not likely not the case within the match.

    This is just information and not an excuse or defense.

    This is not how the new MM system works. When you go in with fewer members and lower GP you get matched with guilds with MORE active members and MORE active GP. There are a ton of instances of this.

    My guild is 380m and we went in with 48.
    Opponent is 440 and went in with all 50.

    If you don’t go in with full 50 the matchmaking works the opposite of what it should be.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Nothing they saw from what we produced raised any immediate red flags about how the system works.

    Well, that seems concerning!

    Is anyone here even remotely surprised by that statement though?

    I'm not. Not at all.
  • I might also add that we had 2 guild members quit mid-TW because they don't feel like they have the time to fight this many battles in 24 hours.

    Current score is 20,538-24,156 with max effort from my guys.
  • 335m active GP, and 36 teams per zone.
    This is tough, more fails than ever.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Our guild has an active TW gp of 288mil. We are matched with a guild with over 340mil. They have 60 more GLs than our entire guild. They are showing their last 8 TWs have all been wins. We have won 3 of our last 8 and the latest was a loss so we are not even on a winning streak. Now sure how the matching system would allow this. Based off GP, GLs, wins whatever the other guild out matches us in all categories. Its an easy R9 mats for this guild as we could only clear 2 zones. Meanwhile we don't even have enough members or GP to get us in the bracket for R9 rewards even if we could have won.

    How many defensive placements?

    30 defensive placements

    Not that this makes the situation good, so please understand that I am not defending anything. 30 placements didnt have everyone join.

    They are not at 340 GP and getting matched with you, the active GP is lower, and unless it is above 300M GP they are not going to get r9, which with those records and the numbers we see, it is possible they are not. This also means that while the full guilds is over you by 60 GLs, that is not likely not the case within the match.

    This is just information and not an excuse or defense.

    This is not how the new MM system works. When you go in with fewer members and lower GP you get matched with guilds with MORE active members and MORE active GP. There are a ton of instances of this.

    My guild is 380m and we went in with 48.
    Opponent is 440 and went in with all 50.

    If you don’t go in with full 50 the matchmaking works the opposite of what it should be.

    That is not necessarily accurate, there are more factors at play, and in this case with no losses to push the match one way or the other, it will fall more towards the other factors like GP.

    In this case it is not likely that the 440 went in with all 50, you can see this by the 30 defensive placements, which is below where it should be for the 388 GP of the other guild.

    The times where what you are saying happens is when the larger guild has a loss streak that pushes them "down".

    Please let me know if you have direct info about this.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nothing they saw from what we produced raised any immediate red flags about how the system works.

    Well, that seems concerning!

    There is a difference between the algorithm working right and parameters needing to be dialed in.

    They have said parameters need to be dialed in, so no this is not that concerning, it is a living system that now has an easier way for them to dial it in and adjust the parameters.
  • sc25wmvqhhwh.jpg


    Guess how this one turned out?
    Kudos to our opponents for thier efforts but we won by over 12000 banners.

    If this isn't working 100% yet give us all 1st place rewards until it is.
    What % right is this working by the way?
    Can you adjust wrong? Because this MM system seems like it isn't designed to make fair matchups it's designed to create balanced win/loss rates over time. If that's the case it won't make fair matchups because it has to create unfair matches to accomplish that goal. Whatever, just going by vauge comments seen in defense/explanation of the MM. However it works the day one results were terrible and your customers deserve better feedback during launches, maybe even work weekends during them.

  • SemiGod
    3001 posts Member
    Considering there’s a lot more fighting to do it TW now (nearly double) the time for each phase should get a little touch up as well.

    Changing TW from 24 hours per phase to 36 hours per phase would greatly help deal with the much larger workload for guilds.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Our guild has an active TW gp of 288mil. We are matched with a guild with over 340mil. They have 60 more GLs than our entire guild. They are showing their last 8 TWs have all been wins. We have won 3 of our last 8 and the latest was a loss so we are not even on a winning streak. Now sure how the matching system would allow this. Based off GP, GLs, wins whatever the other guild out matches us in all categories. Its an easy R9 mats for this guild as we could only clear 2 zones. Meanwhile we don't even have enough members or GP to get us in the bracket for R9 rewards even if we could have won.

    How many defensive placements?

    30 defensive placements

    Not that this makes the situation good, so please understand that I am not defending anything. 30 placements didnt have everyone join.

    They are not at 340 GP and getting matched with you, the active GP is lower, and unless it is above 300M GP they are not going to get r9, which with those records and the numbers we see, it is possible they are not. This also means that while the full guilds is over you by 60 GLs, that is not likely not the case within the match.

    This is just information and not an excuse or defense.

    This is not how the new MM system works. When you go in with fewer members and lower GP you get matched with guilds with MORE active members and MORE active GP. There are a ton of instances of this.

    My guild is 380m and we went in with 48.
    Opponent is 440 and went in with all 50.

    If you don’t go in with full 50 the matchmaking works the opposite of what it should be.

    That is not necessarily accurate, there are more factors at play, and in this case with no losses to push the match one way or the other, it will fall more towards the other factors like GP.

    In this case it is not likely that the 440 went in with all 50, you can see this by the 30 defensive placements, which is below where it should be for the 388 GP of the other guild.

    The times where what you are saying happens is when the larger guild has a loss streak that pushes them "down".

    Please let me know if you have direct info about this.

    Yes the 440m guild went in with all 50. There are only a handful of guilds at this level and they talk in the TW discord server.

    48 active 380m total (so obviously less active GP than 380)
    Vs
    50 active 440m total (all 440 active)
    We ended up setting 48 teams per zone

    This simply should never happen. Over a 1 million GP difference per player is insurmountable.
  • I completely agree. While this is probably the most fun I've had in TW for a while now, the amount of coordination and time this game now requires is unsustainable. Yes, we fought in the top bracket. And yes we had to double the numbers of offensive and defensive teams. That's great and is actually a good challenge. What does NOT work at all is requiring to clear 400 teams and 100 fleets in 24 hrs. On a weekend, we still had personal conflicts and people not being able to dedicate enough time to it.
    I can't imagine how this would go a weekend where people have to balance work, life and TW obligations.
    I am unsure even if 36 hrs for attack phase would be sufficient.
  • Legend91
    2290 posts Member
    c41jr3pzir16.png
    Didn't even check the reward boxes before so I had no idea..was kinda expecting some signal data to be there with these new rewards. Oh well...
    Legend#6873 | YouTube | swgoh.gg
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Our guild has an active TW gp of 288mil. We are matched with a guild with over 340mil. They have 60 more GLs than our entire guild. They are showing their last 8 TWs have all been wins. We have won 3 of our last 8 and the latest was a loss so we are not even on a winning streak. Now sure how the matching system would allow this. Based off GP, GLs, wins whatever the other guild out matches us in all categories. Its an easy R9 mats for this guild as we could only clear 2 zones. Meanwhile we don't even have enough members or GP to get us in the bracket for R9 rewards even if we could have won.

    How many defensive placements?

    30 defensive placements

    Not that this makes the situation good, so please understand that I am not defending anything. 30 placements didnt have everyone join.

    They are not at 340 GP and getting matched with you, the active GP is lower, and unless it is above 300M GP they are not going to get r9, which with those records and the numbers we see, it is possible they are not. This also means that while the full guilds is over you by 60 GLs, that is not likely not the case within the match.

    This is just information and not an excuse or defense.

    Isn’t this also the definition of sandbagging?
  • Ultra
    10040 posts Moderator
    Legend91 wrote: »
    was kinda expecting some signal data to be there with these new rewards. Oh well...
    Definitely disappointed by lack of signal data
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Our guild has an active TW gp of 288mil. We are matched with a guild with over 340mil. They have 60 more GLs than our entire guild. They are showing their last 8 TWs have all been wins. We have won 3 of our last 8 and the latest was a loss so we are not even on a winning streak. Now sure how the matching system would allow this. Based off GP, GLs, wins whatever the other guild out matches us in all categories. Its an easy R9 mats for this guild as we could only clear 2 zones. Meanwhile we don't even have enough members or GP to get us in the bracket for R9 rewards even if we could have won.

    How many defensive placements?

    30 defensive placements

    Not that this makes the situation good, so please understand that I am not defending anything. 30 placements didnt have everyone join.

    They are not at 340 GP and getting matched with you, the active GP is lower, and unless it is above 300M GP they are not going to get r9, which with those records and the numbers we see, it is possible they are not. This also means that while the full guilds is over you by 60 GLs, that is not likely not the case within the match.

    This is just information and not an excuse or defense.

    This is not how the new MM system works. When you go in with fewer members and lower GP you get matched with guilds with MORE active members and MORE active GP. There are a ton of instances of this.

    My guild is 380m and we went in with 48.
    Opponent is 440 and went in with all 50.

    If you don’t go in with full 50 the matchmaking works the opposite of what it should be.

    That is not necessarily accurate, there are more factors at play, and in this case with no losses to push the match one way or the other, it will fall more towards the other factors like GP.

    In this case it is not likely that the 440 went in with all 50, you can see this by the 30 defensive placements, which is below where it should be for the 388 GP of the other guild.

    The times where what you are saying happens is when the larger guild has a loss streak that pushes them "down".

    Please let me know if you have direct info about this.

    Yes the 440m guild went in with all 50. There are only a handful of guilds at this level and they talk in the TW discord server.

    48 active 380m total (so obviously less active GP than 380)
    Vs
    50 active 440m total (all 440 active)
    We ended up setting 48 teams per zone

    This simply should never happen. Over a 1 million GP difference per player is insurmountable.

    I will pass this along, I didnt realize you were talking about a different matchup than they one I was discussing. Yes this shouldn't happen, and in your case that could be related to the loss tracking.

    Got the guild info, or a bot screenshot?
  • With this first TW behind us I have a couple comments.
    My 360M GP vs 370M GP match looked fair at first glance. Except they had 25% more GLs.
    But Im not here to speak of fairness. Im here to note the level of work and stress that is placed on players and officers alike to manage and coordinate a 49 placement per zone match.

    Its too much and way over the top. Its just resource management all over again. Immediately after the match ended, we had 2 top end players step down and retire. CG, I hope you are reading this. This change along with the multitude of recent ones has created a ball busting no fun environment.

    The trouble isnt the IP or even the basic game premise. Its too much. Youve squeezed so much from your base... Im not excited as I once was. Your development choices are going the wrong way. The result is an exodus of unhappy clients.
  • Dear CG, I just want to say that I am a TW officer and in 2 days I have slept a total of 10h, 5 hours on the day of the defense due to the surprise of the number of sets to place and 5 hours on the day of the attack.
    My guild has European and American players, it is impossible for all of them to attack at the same time and it forces me to stay up late at night and the territories take many hours to be cleaned.
    Change this please.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    TargetEadu wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Our guild has an active TW gp of 288mil. We are matched with a guild with over 340mil. They have 60 more GLs than our entire guild. They are showing their last 8 TWs have all been wins. We have won 3 of our last 8 and the latest was a loss so we are not even on a winning streak. Now sure how the matching system would allow this. Based off GP, GLs, wins whatever the other guild out matches us in all categories. Its an easy R9 mats for this guild as we could only clear 2 zones. Meanwhile we don't even have enough members or GP to get us in the bracket for R9 rewards even if we could have won.

    How many defensive placements?

    30 defensive placements

    Not that this makes the situation good, so please understand that I am not defending anything. 30 placements didnt have everyone join.

    They are not at 340 GP and getting matched with you, the active GP is lower, and unless it is above 300M GP they are not going to get r9, which with those records and the numbers we see, it is possible they are not. This also means that while the full guilds is over you by 60 GLs, that is not likely not the case within the match.

    This is just information and not an excuse or defense.

    Isn’t this also the definition of sandbagging?

    No, sandbagging implies an intent behind going in with reduced numbers to produce better results. Some guilds just dont require everyone to join.
  • Out of curiosity, for high-level guilds what makes the management so difficult? My guild is relatively small, but all the management we really do is “place X or Y team here” or “attack this zone”. More teams would make that harder to some degree, but I doubt it would change our overall strategy.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Our guild has an active TW gp of 288mil. We are matched with a guild with over 340mil. They have 60 more GLs than our entire guild. They are showing their last 8 TWs have all been wins. We have won 3 of our last 8 and the latest was a loss so we are not even on a winning streak. Now sure how the matching system would allow this. Based off GP, GLs, wins whatever the other guild out matches us in all categories. Its an easy R9 mats for this guild as we could only clear 2 zones. Meanwhile we don't even have enough members or GP to get us in the bracket for R9 rewards even if we could have won.

    How many defensive placements?

    30 defensive placements

    Not that this makes the situation good, so please understand that I am not defending anything. 30 placements didnt have everyone join.

    They are not at 340 GP and getting matched with you, the active GP is lower, and unless it is above 300M GP they are not going to get r9, which with those records and the numbers we see, it is possible they are not. This also means that while the full guilds is over you by 60 GLs, that is not likely not the case within the match.

    This is just information and not an excuse or defense.

    This is not how the new MM system works. When you go in with fewer members and lower GP you get matched with guilds with MORE active members and MORE active GP. There are a ton of instances of this.

    My guild is 380m and we went in with 48.
    Opponent is 440 and went in with all 50.

    If you don’t go in with full 50 the matchmaking works the opposite of what it should be.

    That is not necessarily accurate, there are more factors at play, and in this case with no losses to push the match one way or the other, it will fall more towards the other factors like GP.

    In this case it is not likely that the 440 went in with all 50, you can see this by the 30 defensive placements, which is below where it should be for the 388 GP of the other guild.

    The times where what you are saying happens is when the larger guild has a loss streak that pushes them "down".

    Please let me know if you have direct info about this.

    Yes the 440m guild went in with all 50. There are only a handful of guilds at this level and they talk in the TW discord server.

    48 active 380m total (so obviously less active GP than 380)
    Vs
    50 active 440m total (all 440 active)
    We ended up setting 48 teams per zone

    This simply should never happen. Over a 1 million GP difference per player is insurmountable.

    I will pass this along, I didnt realize you were talking about a different matchup than they one I was discussing. Yes this shouldn't happen, and in your case that could be related to the loss tracking.

    Got the guild info, or a bot screenshot?

    What about the GSF Omega vs MAW Kyber I sent a screenshot of? 49 joined from GSF Omega at 370M GP. MAW had 50 join at 435M GP.

    Each one of their players had, on average, 1.3M more than each one of ours.
  • Moonside wrote: »
    Its too much and way over the top. Its just resource management all over again. Immediately after the match ended, we had 2 top end players step down and retire. CG, I hope you are reading this. This change along with the multitude of recent ones has created a ball busting no fun environment.

    The result is an exodus of unhappy clients.

    Update: we've lost 4 today.....

  • Kyno wrote: »
    TargetEadu wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Our guild has an active TW gp of 288mil. We are matched with a guild with over 340mil. They have 60 more GLs than our entire guild. They are showing their last 8 TWs have all been wins. We have won 3 of our last 8 and the latest was a loss so we are not even on a winning streak. Now sure how the matching system would allow this. Based off GP, GLs, wins whatever the other guild out matches us in all categories. Its an easy R9 mats for this guild as we could only clear 2 zones. Meanwhile we don't even have enough members or GP to get us in the bracket for R9 rewards even if we could have won.

    How many defensive placements?

    30 defensive placements

    Not that this makes the situation good, so please understand that I am not defending anything. 30 placements didnt have everyone join.

    They are not at 340 GP and getting matched with you, the active GP is lower, and unless it is above 300M GP they are not going to get r9, which with those records and the numbers we see, it is possible they are not. This also means that while the full guilds is over you by 60 GLs, that is not likely not the case within the match.

    This is just information and not an excuse or defense.

    Isn’t this also the definition of sandbagging?

    No, sandbagging implies an intent behind going in with reduced numbers to produce better results. Some guilds just dont require everyone to join.

    No offense, but I doubt the current matchmaking system can tell the difference.

    Sandbagging’s a difficult problem, I’ll give CG that, but there’s got to be some way to adjust for it. Give more weight to the average player GP and less to the total?
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    TargetEadu wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TargetEadu wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Our guild has an active TW gp of 288mil. We are matched with a guild with over 340mil. They have 60 more GLs than our entire guild. They are showing their last 8 TWs have all been wins. We have won 3 of our last 8 and the latest was a loss so we are not even on a winning streak. Now sure how the matching system would allow this. Based off GP, GLs, wins whatever the other guild out matches us in all categories. Its an easy R9 mats for this guild as we could only clear 2 zones. Meanwhile we don't even have enough members or GP to get us in the bracket for R9 rewards even if we could have won.

    How many defensive placements?

    30 defensive placements

    Not that this makes the situation good, so please understand that I am not defending anything. 30 placements didnt have everyone join.

    They are not at 340 GP and getting matched with you, the active GP is lower, and unless it is above 300M GP they are not going to get r9, which with those records and the numbers we see, it is possible they are not. This also means that while the full guilds is over you by 60 GLs, that is not likely not the case within the match.

    This is just information and not an excuse or defense.

    Isn’t this also the definition of sandbagging?

    No, sandbagging implies an intent behind going in with reduced numbers to produce better results. Some guilds just dont require everyone to join.

    No offense, but I doubt the current matchmaking system can tell the difference.

    Sandbagging’s a difficult problem, I’ll give CG that, but there’s got to be some way to adjust for it. Give more weight to the average player GP and less to the total?

    The system should not even try to tell the difference, and it most certainly should deal with mismatch in numbers no matter the cause.

    The new system does have a way to deal with it and it will be adjusted as needed, just like the other parameters.
  • TargetEadu wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, for high-level guilds what makes the management so difficult? My guild is relatively small, but all the management we really do is “place X or Y team here” or “attack this zone”. More teams would make that harder to some degree, but I doubt it would change our overall strategy.

    High GP guilds suddenly have to place double amount of teams. Walls of 46, 48, 50. Same time of play. Exhausting and boring. Specially for tw officers. Simply stupid

  • Kyno wrote: »
    TargetEadu wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TargetEadu wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Garou_24 wrote: »
    Our guild has an active TW gp of 288mil. We are matched with a guild with over 340mil. They have 60 more GLs than our entire guild. They are showing their last 8 TWs have all been wins. We have won 3 of our last 8 and the latest was a loss so we are not even on a winning streak. Now sure how the matching system would allow this. Based off GP, GLs, wins whatever the other guild out matches us in all categories. Its an easy R9 mats for this guild as we could only clear 2 zones. Meanwhile we don't even have enough members or GP to get us in the bracket for R9 rewards even if we could have won.

    How many defensive placements?

    30 defensive placements

    Not that this makes the situation good, so please understand that I am not defending anything. 30 placements didnt have everyone join.

    They are not at 340 GP and getting matched with you, the active GP is lower, and unless it is above 300M GP they are not going to get r9, which with those records and the numbers we see, it is possible they are not. This also means that while the full guilds is over you by 60 GLs, that is not likely not the case within the match.

    This is just information and not an excuse or defense.

    Isn’t this also the definition of sandbagging?

    No, sandbagging implies an intent behind going in with reduced numbers to produce better results. Some guilds just dont require everyone to join.

    No offense, but I doubt the current matchmaking system can tell the difference.

    Sandbagging’s a difficult problem, I’ll give CG that, but there’s got to be some way to adjust for it. Give more weight to the average player GP and less to the total?

    The system should not even try to tell the difference, and it most certainly should deal with mismatch in numbers no matter the cause.

    The new system does have a way to deal with it and it will be adjusted as needed, just like the other parameters.

    That’s fair, I guess. I just seems to need a lot of adjusting.
    EldelSable wrote: »
    TargetEadu wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, for high-level guilds what makes the management so difficult? My guild is relatively small, but all the management we really do is “place X or Y team here” or “attack this zone”. More teams would make that harder to some degree, but I doubt it would change our overall strategy.

    High GP guilds suddenly have to place double amount of teams. Walls of 46, 48, 50. Same time of play. Exhausting and boring. Specially for tw officers. Simply stupid

    I guess what I’m asking, is the strain from suddenly having to switch to a new strategy or actually implementing that strategy?
This discussion has been closed.