How is the matching working atm??? 1 vs 1 with the old rule +-25??? Not looking at all are the guilds equal with rumble averages? And what about the rewards? Are they totally random too?? @Lynsey [Midoki]
Matchmaking is similar to the old matchmaking - it looks at the size of the guild, and the Pirate Hall level distribution. It tries to get as an accurate match as possible, but as time goes on, it broadens the parameters. Rewards aren't random, they're also based on the size PH level distribution of the guilds. As with the old system, if a higher tier guild is matched with a lower tier one, the rewards will be lower (but always enough to cover the cost of starting the Rumble).
No gems for second doesn’t cover rumble start cost... and 50bp for second seems odd for our matchup, a lot less than others posted here.
No-one seems concerned about the quality of the match-up so am wondering if we got the only unfair match-up or not. I was hoping this new system would give a fair match leading to a competetive rumble for all.
Oh, I thought they were changing them to the guilds average (last 7 rumbles) as the main parameter. If that’s not the case I hope they change it soon
Could the new system have been a bit screwy with matches at the start with more guilds in the rumble que at the same time when the system went live? Just a thought. Maybe the next few won’t be as badly mismatched for some folks. Let’s hope anyway!
Second rumble under the new system and we are paired against Cannabai (average score 921!) what’s the point. Only good thing for us is a incredibly easy win, but it’s a pointless competition.
It would be interesting to hear why the gem rewards are in some rumbles so ridiculous low? 15-20 gems?? But only for the guild who wins and second gets nothing. So the answer that its always enough gems to cover starting the rumble is a bit lame . Who or what guild spends a couple of hundred gems for winning to get 15-20 back???? The gem rewards should be the same then before and higher. And for second place a little compensation in gems to cover their starting costs too . @Lynsey [Midoki]
Rumble tiers and rewards haven't changed much, apart from to be boosted in the gold and grog stakes for the higher level players. Nothing has been decreased. We've also never given gems for anything other than first place, and this isn't going to change. There are other options though - we may remove the gem cost, and the rewards for second place. EDIT: Posted too early, then lost my edited post. I'm on fire today! Matchmaking places each guild in a tier according to the size of their membership, and the Pirate Hall levels of their members. Each tier has a reward table. The matchmaking tries to match guilds in the same tier, but after a certain amount of time has passed, it gradually increases the tier difference until it makes a match. When there's guilds of two different tiers, it picks the rewards from the tier between the two. So two 50 member guilds with exclusively PH12 members will get the highest rewards, but if a 50 member PH12 guild is matched with a 50 member guild that has a more diverse membership, with lower PH levels, then the reward is reduced as the guilds are of different tiers. The lower tier guild has the chance at a higher reward but a tougher fight, the higher tier guild has an easy matchup but lower rewards. As I mentioned previously, we're monitoring it to see if any further changes are needed. It's too early to get any meaningful numbers after only 3 days though.
Remove rewards for second is being considered?? Wow, that would definitely decrease rumble interest for some (a lot?) of guilds
Only if we remove the gem cost for starting a Rumble! The reason for the gem starting cost is so that guilds don't start a Rumble with no intention of participating (or minimal participation) just for the sub-first place rewards, getting stuff for nothing. That issue would be exacerbated with the new 1v1 format - even as it stands currently, 10 gems from one person is an excellent investment when the entire guild is guaranteed a substantial amount of gold and grog even for second place (especially when you compare it to the cost of restocking gold/grog in the market). If there was no cost to start a Rumble, it'd be very quickly exploited for the free rewards. We can't even set it that no rewards get assigned if no points are scored, but even if we could, you'd just get people doing a single battle, or two, then we'd have to start setting arbitrary targets in order to qualify, etc.
There definitely are other avenues we could look at as far as cost of starting a rumble. Use of materials perhaps? Or the accumulation of the guild’s BP or some sort of means. Like when I said use the four main statues to individually fund perks, EP and BP can go towards starting a rumble as a group instead.
5 gems is not a big deal to spend to start a rumble. Having the cost or removing it only affects a small population - leaders and QMs. Removing gem rewards affects the whole guild....
Hi Lynsey, I hope you'll make a tuning on the parameters of rumble's matchmaking ASAP. Aranciameccanica had the first 4 rumbles (if thoose can be called rumble) so easy that they could be won by a single player of Arancia. The game lost the most fun and enjoyble aspect since the last update :-( Byeeee
