Without further clarification there is no way to know. SG really needs to hire a good tech writer or something, they phrase things in such vague and unclear waysā¦
As usual we will have to play it, compare notes and then we may start to understand it. I donāt really find figuring out game mechanics a fun part of the game, especially for something like thisā¦
So everyone will be matched against opponents similar to the defense team they set up, but itās not clear whether players will start finding different strength teams based on their performance. I would expect players to face stronger teams if they perform well and worse teams if they perform poorly. Otherwise players will effectively be segmented into different tiers based on their defense strength. I worry that players could abuse this by intentionally setting weak defensive team so they face weaker opponents and have a better win rate. This would be problematic in measuring real player performance unless there is some innate point difference based on defensive team strength.
At least the way Iām reading it, I think weāre still going to have a lot of matchmaking issues. I made similar comments in the reduced loot thread that Iām sure got lost in that mayhem, but I think team power (while an imperfect metric) needs to be factored in. If we have a war where we can use 4* or lower heroes, the way Iām reading the updated matchmaking is that a 3* team with a 75% defensive win percentage (which is not unlikely if they are being attached by mostly 3* teams at the beginning of the tournament) will have a higher defensive bonus than a 4* team that has a 25% defensive win percentage.
Iād like to see the defensive bonus first set based on the TP of the defensive team and then adjusted from there based on results.
In terms of more general matchmaking, for the tournament to be fair, I think that across the 5 flags per day, the total TP of the 5 defense teams someone faces should be similar in aggregate and the available points (including defense bonus) should be similar.
Granted, that might be an ideal that is impossible to program, but if, for example, the average defensive team power across the tourney is 3,000, I think the total TP of defenses faced should be as close to 15,000 in aggregate each day for everyone. And the available points really should be similar. Iād like to see a āself-correctingā matchmaking system that gives you a match worth 400 points if you just got a match worth 200 points, so we donāt have the situation where my 5 attacks were worth 200 points each, but someone else had 5 worth 400 points each.
The difficulty of enemies that the players face at the beginning of the Tournament is now determined by the strength of their Tournament Defense Team.
equal with defense strength? lower? higher?
Improvements to matchmaking to more evenly distribute attacks among all players.
The amount of Difficulty Bonus is increased and has more emphasis on the performance of the opponents Tournament Defense Team.
but question remains how balanced this is coroborated with the above?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
which aproach is better (higher scoring):
low def with low opponents and 20 winsOR
high def with high opponents and lower wins, maybe even 10???
BUST for me. Iām not participating. The reason is the complete lack of effort at customer satisfaction on the part of SG. I currently play other games that handle mess ups rightāThey give compensation and they donāt nerf the loot. Heck, they bend over backwards to make things right. Iām surprised at the number of people who arenāt used to better treatment and are OK with how this was handled. The nerfing of loot is an insult. There is zero incentive for me to play.
@What I appreciate your feedback, but it doesnāt appear to be related to the new matchmaking system ā I think you want this thread: Reduction in Raid Tournament Loot
maybe the real problem is the scoring.
Unless this is based on the final performance of the defense team, itās just going to be another crapshoot, with no rhyme nor reason to the results.
As stated, one player that barely squeaks out a win over a given defensive team will get a better āDifficulty Bonusā than another player that completely dominates that same team, but happens to do so later.
Iām going to do my best, put my best team I can come up with for defense and see how it goes. If we donāt give it a good shot how will it improve?
Hmmm sandbagging as in I put a weaker defence team to get weaker easier opponents all depends on defence score if it has significant impact to make sandbagging worthless !!
But I also will put the best possible defence !!
I donāt like sandbagging itās not good sportsmanship
Ohh and to matchmaking simply take into account players top X heroās / troops according to rules of the specific tournament that should be possible ?
I still feel way too much is being read into this. Most posters seem to be interpreting this as, āyou will face defenses at or near the same team power as your defense.ā You could write the algorithm to match people up with a defense 1,000 points below their own defense team power and your opponent would still be determined by the strength of your defense. Itāll probably be something in between.
And we still donāt have any idea how long āthe beginningā is.
If ppl sandbag, then their defense teams will face similar teams attacking them. This means that their defense team will have the same difficulty as putting in their best defense. This would only not be the case if lots and lots of ppl decide to sandbag.
So basically their defense team see no penality in sandbagging, but their offense teams will face easier teams. Is this really a good design?
Based on the matching design, it looks like SG is trying to make is so even a new player with a bunch of 2* can win first place, again is this really a good design?
I think its fine. Even playing field is a good thing IMO. In fact I think thatās what they are shooting for by making the restrictionsā¦otherwise it would just be challenge events 2.0.
So I have been thinking that match making and scoring are the problem. Its a combination of the two things. This whole difficulty bonus is ambiguous and has made no sense so fa. It also is somewhat subjective to a point.
SO I have a proposal.
Day 1
Rules are announced and defenses set.
End of the dayā¦
All defenses are locked and can not be improved or changed in any way.
all defenses are ranked from highest to lowest in TP
The defenses are placed in 10 groups based on TP.
Group 1 is the lowest 10% of the teams based on TP
Group 2 is the next 10%
etc etc etc
Group 10 is the top 10% of teams based on TP
DAY 2
Everyone is given 12 flags to use
The first flag you attack group 1.
If you win you get 100 points
if you lose you try again until you win or are out of flags
After you beat someone is Group 1 you move on to Group 2.
You win in group 2 you get 200 points. you lose you try again until you win or run out of flags
etc etc etc
with each successive group awarding 100 more points then the previous
Any unused flags give you a 100 point bonus so an extra 200 points if you go 10/10
DEFENSE SCORING
Your defense can only be attacked once until everyone else in the same group as you gets attacked. This insures everyone gets attacked about equally. after being attacked twice you canāt get attacked again until everyone else is attacked twice in your group.
Your defense scores you 50 points for every hero they kill. thatās it nothing else. Revived heroes only count once.
Day 3
Just an extra day to use your 12 flags
End of the day rewards are given out
You ran out of flagsā¦ OH NO! Pay 100 gems get 3 more flags. Oh NO ran out of those pay 150 gems for 3 moreā¦ Have a bad day and ran out of those pay 200 gems for 3 more flags. Having a really bad day pay 250 gems for 3 more. Ran out again - TOO BAD SO SAD You are done.
Now of course you can only Win once in Each group and you canāt buy more flags once you have a win in all 10 groups.
Now everyone has to face the same quality of teams to get the top scores. I am not positive if my idea about defense will work out but I think it will average out to afford everyone the same opportunities to earn defense points without making it randomly allowing some weaker teams to out score more powerful teams.
Tournament takes 3 days not 5. Now we can do 2 tournaments a week with a day off in between, so more opportunities overall for everyone.
A very simple solution to what seemed like a massive issue to everyone. Nothing complicated.No mysterious bonus points, no mysterious matchmaking system.
Iām wondering how much useful the gathered data with the changes will be.
I suspect that some players will not participate this time around, and some others will not be giving their best. If due to this, the data becomes unreliable, it will quite possibly go unnoticed, and when they tune the rewards back up, a new wave of unpredicted bugs will appear.
I suggested the same before. There should be algorithm which makes sure that everyone can make more or less same amount of points if they win all attacks in that day. Unless there is control mechanism which maintains this I donāt believe the tournament can be fair, it will always stay just lottery, how worthy opponents you get.
Hopefully they actually have already something like this included. We will see.
But if I sand bag my defense team, only my defense team has a āfair fight.ā My attacking team will have an advantage, no? Just like checker indicated.
I know people complained about the loot reduction, but until they get it right, I approve - weāre all living in raid tourney beta at the moment!
We donāt know; this is a good opportunity to test it, given that the loot is so low this round.