TW - MM and Teams needed [MERGE]

"Kyno;c-2303415" wrote:

"thedrjojo;c-2303414" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2303411" 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.

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.

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!!!

"JibberJabber;c-2303438" wrote:

"Ultra;c-2303437" wrote:

"JibberJabber;c-2303434" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2303432" 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;c-2303437" wrote:

"JibberJabber;c-2303434" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2303432" 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?

"Kyno;c-2303432" 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?

"LynxVJ;c-2303424" 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!!!

????

"BeralCator;c-2303447" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2303432" 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
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 WTF?

"Ultra;c-2303455" wrote:

"BeralCator;c-2303454" 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.