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 25JML: 14 VS 34JKL: 27 VS 45SLK: 13 VS 31REY: 15 VS 31We 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 MATCHMAKINGThanksShezzofreen,Guild Leader of FFM, 200+ Members.http://www.ffm-heroes.com

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;c-2248443" 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 levelI 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

"Shezzofreen;c-2248450" wrote:"Magruffin;c-2248443" 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.

"Shezzofreen;c-2248461" wrote:"Kyno;c-2248457" 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. /saluteHow do you know the are sandbagging? My guild only has 38 signed up this TW, people have stuff on.

Territorial War and the amazingly BAD Matchmaking

CadoaBane
4 years ago
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?
Waquira
4 years ago
"waxweazle01;c-2248877" wrote:
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.
NyKynoe
4 years ago
"CadoaBane;c-2248874" 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.
jamisonwolf
4 years ago
"Waqui;c-2248868" wrote:
"Shezzofreen;c-2248862" wrote:
"Wimma;c-2248739" 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
Waquira
4 years ago
"Shezzofreen;c-2249033" wrote:
"Waqui;c-2248868" wrote:
"Shezzofreen;c-2248862" wrote:
"Wimma;c-2248739" 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.

"Shezzofreen;c-2249033" wrote:

He asked for number of total players.

And I agree(d).

"Shezzofreen;c-2249033" wrote:
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).

"Shezzofreen;c-2249033" wrote:

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.

"Shezzofreen;c-2249033" wrote:
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.
Methuselah666
Seasoned Novice
4 years ago
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.
NyKynoe
4 years ago
"methuselah;c-2249146" 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.
jamisonwolf
4 years ago
"Waqui;c-2249111" 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;c-2249111" 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;c-2249111" 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;c-2249111" 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
jamisonwolf
4 years ago
"Kyno;c-2249161" wrote:

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.

It doesn't matter who can get what and when, we are talking about one Team has X to offer and the other Y.

X & Y shouldn't be so far apart that resistance is futile. Thats all. To be honest, i don't care how the numbers come together. if Pepsi + Coke - Cookies = Fair Match, i'm fine with that.

But currently, it doesn't match. So maybe there has to be a change. Maaaaybe we are the only guild who faces such funny Sandbagges and we are really unlucky in that regard and everybody else is fine with it - well, then bad for us. But, i doubt that.

/salute
Waquira
4 years ago
"Shezzofreen;c-2249789" wrote:
"Waqui;c-2249111" 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. ;)

I responded to what I quoted. Maybe you should understand - and not just read.