LOGIN
Register
Reply
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 13
- Posts: 310
- PraiseLuka On 2017-06-03 02:55:20
-
Can we stop throwing the word "matchmaking" around Xserver sage problem?
First, the root of the problem is the size of the sage. Because regardless of "matchmaking", fact of the matter is that there will be only a small portion of each battle field that is likely to win, and the rest of the player, whoever them might be, will almost never get anything. This is a bigger problem especially when there is no fluidity between the battlefield so people do not move from one to another often enough to be the cream of the crop some of the time. Bigger field reduce fluidity because of law of large numbers, as sampling size increase, the % variance decrease. And for the "highest" grouping, there is even less as it is independent of other influence (whereas second grouping is influenced by the randomness of the first and so on)
Second, while the "matchmaking" as you people call it is badly thought out in that group 1 of each server cluster is hell, fact of the matter is that NO ONE have provided any actual EVIDENCE of there is a problem with it. And what sort of evidence you might ask? Well, simply enough, given 3 players that should be ordered 1,2,3, they are sorted into sage battles such that 1 and 3 are in the same sage while 2 is in another. For example, 3 lv 90s with power 80k, 70k and 60k, and the 80k and 60k are in one sage while the 70k is in another. As it stands, it is possible that the "matchmaking" is actually working as it is designed and that all our concerns gets dismissed as the result when people's point of complaint is that the "matchmaking" is not working right.
And finally, "working as intended" does not mean good. The current "matchmaking" scheme is flawed. Players should not be rewarded for not leveling, at least not as a sudden introduction of new mechanic. It should either be always that way or never that way, changing the rule of the game midway is not ok. Then, grouping 1 of each server cluster is hell. I understand that sacrificial lambs will be needed as the top ptws will always take up the winner slots. But the sacrificial lambs should not always be the same batch of people (or, more exactly, no one should always be stuck as a sacrificial lamb). Given the current "matchmaking", even reducing sage field size would not help, it would reduce the number of sacrificial lambs, but some players will still be stuck being one indefinitely. We need mechanics that "shake things up". For example, if a player won top 3 in the last sage that he entered, he is put into a special group (say 4 sage field in a server cluster means 36 winners total) and they fight in one sage. This would at least give the "next strongest" players of each original grouping some breathing room. With group size reduction, potentially the top 25 of say 45 will have a decent chance of winning eventually. It will also introduce more volatility to the groupings so there is more fluidity.
here is the exemple you wanted : achroma is in the top 10 in UK power ranking wise while sunami is rank 1 i think , why are they in different sage world clusters ? -
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 13
- Posts: 310
- Dym On 2017-06-03 03:35:23
-
Because it sorts by levels before it sorts by power, which is extremely dumb. Basically it will take 300~ lvl 88-90s that fit to be top bracket and split them randomly into 3 sage worlds and only then it will sort each of those sage worlds into 3 teams by power to try make 3 even teams.
That's why you can get easy-ish top bracket were 60k f2p can place top 3 or you can get one were each team has 5+ 70k+ people that have Sonic lvl refines and it's about as fun as detention camp in North Korea. This post was last edited by Dym at 2017-6-3 03:36
they are both lvl90 since day 1 of the cap increase , that shouldn't prevent them from being in the same sage world , idk how the clusters are working but there are quite a few clusters with 8-9 80k+ power guys instead of having 80k+ together like a balanced match making would do , for exemple achroma is fighting 42k power people -
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 13
- Posts: 310
- Garv On 2017-06-03 03:44:17
-
Because this is how it works:
When you click on 'register' for sage you got teleported to a neutral server together with whoever else clicked on 'register' (that's the reason why you can't chat in group anymore, because there's no group in the neutral server, and why you can talk in world chat with people that won't be in your battlefield).
At that point starts an SWB with all the people there exactly like it would start in a server with more than 75 people that registered there.
Lets say there are 300 people registered. This mean the number of sage world battlefield that start at the same time will be 4.
How are people divided there?
1-3 go in 1st field, 4-6 go in 2nd field, 7-9 go in 1st field, 10-12 go in 2nd field, 13-15 go in 1st field, 16-18 go in 2nd field and so on until top 150 fills the two battlefields. 151-300th get split in the same way in field 3 and 4, with the difference that for 'top' placement they mean first level 90s are selected, then after the weakest level 90 is placed that way the strongest 89 follows and so on until weakest level 30 that registered.
About the thread starter, none here understood why they couldn't add the option that if an SWB could start by itself then that server didn't go in the cross server circuit. They did things in a * way like always.
i don't understand why they didn't put the top 75 registered players in the same sage world
top 1 in field top 2 in second and top 3 in 3rd field 4 in 3rd too 5 in 2 second 6 in first and so on . that would make more sense to me. this way the top players have their competition and fight against each other and its balanced and you don't see 105k power vs 44k as you see now -
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 13
- Posts: 310
- Eplox On 2017-06-03 07:32:18
-
You can find Achroma on S60
This bracket is from S57 to S306 (used to be 291). With the exception of some servers like 89, 93, 98.
I'd love to know why.
This post was last edited by Eplox at 2017-6-3 07:37
its actually 38-169 that doesn't have 57-73 and 57-73 was added to 172-306(used to be 291) i wonder why 57-73 was moved to 172-306 .... -
-
-
- Registered: 2017-07-24
- Topics: 13
- Posts: 310
- PraiseLuka On 2017-06-03 06:48:19
-
I said EVIDENCE, you made a CLAIM, those are two different things.
What server is Achroma on? I can find Sunami is on 98 on a certain post (top 25 in ANY server) but not achroma. I also don't know what the UK server clusters are, and unfortunately a new char, I believe, can't even view the space time thing to see the cluster.
So as far as evidence goes:
Screenshot of the Space time point ranking, to show that they are in the same server cluster.
Screenshot of the sage field participant list (of any one SAME field, so either both mountain or both cave etc) to show that it's two different SWB and evidence that the specific player is in each of the two SWB.
Note that to properly show the participant list, if you do it at the start, you have to go through all the pages as I have no confidence in them having a stable ordering, or you can get it near the end where it is sorted by points so pretty stable (but that would mean time away from fighting in the SWB)
Now, I'm not saying that what you said isn't happening, all I'm saying that I have yet to see any evidence to back up such claims. What 988....@uf16 said could be true, and I would agree with you that the way he describes makes no sense. Either way, at the current moment evidence is lacking.
didn't know it took the space time clusters into consideration , that makes it even worse because of how bad the UK space time is structured
17-35 is one of them
38-169 is another whoever 57-73 are missing here
172-306 (used to be 291) is another but they have 57-73 added to it for idk what reason it was never explained
309- ... is the last one
the people from 57-73 ruined space time for our cluster and if its the same for sage world it ruins out sage world too. -
Reply
Quicky Post
Reply
Log in in order to Post. LOGIN | Register