We need to be able to opt into regattas as per difficulty

[Kesstrel Fitz]

How about pitting teams by global ranking? We are currently racing teams from all over the leaderboard. This wouldn't solve every problem, but at least it sounds fair.

[Bessville]

...
The problem with allowing a team to declare their racing intention, competitive, moderately, relaxed, etc. is one of "enforcement". How are you sure that the other teams in your group are honest in their declaration?

How could you enforce a "racing style"?

You couldn't. And I wouldn't even suggest trying.

Match teams by size only, first. Then sort them further either by the time of taking their first task or by their regional time zone (which as I previously suggested is dictated by their formal region selection and can't be changed during the race). And this matching should be done with absolutely no reference to previous results, so that competitive teams don't get hideous match-ups again and again while teams who routinely do less cruise to better results again and again. Because that's obviously just all wrong, and doesn't incentivise anybody.

If it turns out teams want to put themselves into what they perceive to be the 'easiest' region even though it isn't technically their own, so be it. The price they pay is having to be awake to start in the middle of their local night time. Fine with me. If enough of them to upset the applecart did it, it wouldn't stay the easiest region for very long, at which point they'd either go away again or the regions would end up all equal in difficulty. Still fine with me.

Then the remaining issue is the access to decos. Either make sure everybody can get them, removing one big reason for the pressure to stay in Gold (and so easing the logjam in there), OR create a Platinum League with extra non-deco incentives so that the pure racers go there instead, making it easier for deco hunters to stay in Gold. Or possibly both wouldn't hurt.

As for those who want the best of both worlds, i.e. to sit at the top table without earning their seat, the above helps you too. You have a much better chance of having a major effort week and getting your Golden Sail without Gold being cluttered up by those who already have it and don't care any more, but just want decos or competition. But, imo, you are going to have to do rather better than 65% of the available points if you want to deserve it.

[Lousy]

As far as my recent experience goes, Lousy, matching by previous results is exactly what appears to be happening, at least to the most consistently competitive of us, ...

Anyway, matching aside, if a team does 10-12 tasks out of 16, then even assuming they're all at 135, that's about 65% of the possible points, right? So that team might expect to be ranked in about the same area, i.e. around the top of steel/bottom of silver. So where is this expectation of Gold League wins coming from?

Bessville, thanks for your kind reply and your patience with this never-ending story.

As far as my experience goes, rules for matching of extremely competitive and average teams seem to be different. I didn't want to criticize that, only to learn about a possible explanation.

And there is no expectation of gold league wins. Gold is where we regularly end up with our performance. Which is not so much our decision, but more a result of the matching of the groups (I suppose). We simply want a proper race where we are rewarded for good and punished for bad performances.

The central element of a race is obviously competition. If the competitive character is minimized by a matching, which lets you race against teams who will defeat you by default, it doesn't make sense any more. I maybe should have mentioned, that a matching allowing us to stay in gold week by week, seems equally senseless to me.

If there was a consistent policy of letting only the best performers into gold, I wouldn't say a word. It would be clear you have to deliver certain results to get there. If you fail to do that, you haven't 'earned' it. Fair enough.

But that's not what's happening. I regularly see teams even worse than average, which allows us to stay in gold. And we're constantly racing against teams, who beat us in a few hours.

I'm fully aware that the numerous problems regarding group matching make it difficult or maybe even impossible to find a good overall solution for everybody involved.

I was just wondering why Playrix would
(more or less) ignore the competitive character of a competition they introduced themselves. I doubt they're too stupid or lazy to see these contradictions; there must be a reason for them to do it the way they do. And it would be easier for us to bear our dramatic fate if he had a clue what's going on.

That's about it.

[Bessville]

Lousy, I understand you better now, not least because my own frustration with things has cooled down a bit - thanks for the reply. Seems like we're just seeing different sides of the same coin here.. we sits, we waits, we hopes! All the best to you and your team.

[Jdelacr]

I was just wondering why Playrix would
(more or less) ignore the competitive character of a competition they introduced themselves. I doubt they're too stupid or lazy to see these contradictions; there must be a reason for them to do it the way they do. And it would be easier for us to bear our dramatic fate if he had a clue what's going on.

That's about it.

Lousy,

I don’t think Playrix ignores these “contradictions” but my logical guess it rather employs methods that will please the max number of people. Of course when it does this, some people will not be happy.

This regatta situation reminds of the US financial aid system to pay college/university. People with no or little money benefit the most as they get ton of aid. Wealthy people have the means and will not quality for aid. Then there is the upper middle class are hurt the most because while these people have some means, they still need help with some and will not get it. I feel like the people complaining (and some rightfully so) is that small pocket of upper middle class if that makes any sense.

I just doubt the perfect regatta system exist.. Sometimes I feel like the dissenting voice but I don’t do it for the sake of arguing but rather to express what I think is the reasoning behind playrix’s decisions. I explained in another Thread why regardless of the current system drawbacks, the regattas can be a rewarding activity for all players. Playrix is not some small operation and must employ some professional statician. After all the regattas can be summarized to just data and statistics manipulation.

[Lousy]

Thanks for your take on this, jdelacr.

Sorry, but I'm hearing here basically: they know what they're doing and there will be a reason for it. That doesn't help me much.

I simply don't see anyone profiting from the matching policy. I can see the reason for the grouping of the extremely competitive teams. When they are forced into tight races, they will probably spend more cash. Which is the point of everything happening; the game is a means of earning money, not to please anyone. If anyone is unhappy with this, he may choose to spend his time and/or money elsewhere.

I still cannot see the reason for eliminating competition by grouping some perfect score teams with opponents who barely manage to complete 1 or 2 tasks per member. It doesn't make sense for players and it doesn't make sense for Playrix - as far as I can tell so far. I get that no-one outside the company might be able to explain that and Playrix won't do it anyways.

So I might as well continue to earn the money for my last factories, and finally move on if nothing has changed until I'm done with town growth. If everything is built and upgraded, only events and regatta can give motivation to continue. (Unless you're into collecting decor, which I am not.) Currently I'm doing events for the second time and I'm already bored with each one of them. So it boils down to regattas.

Someone wrote they don't spend that much resources in long term players, because after a few years of playing (at the latest) most players will be bored somehow anyways and leave eventually, so it's seems more lucrative to concentrate on the ones that are in the midst of the game's life cycle. To me that's the best explanation I found so far.

Which would mean no happy ending, but no-one ever promised that. They have built a game which is playable for a long time and delivering fun and satisfaction without even having to spend a dime, this is worth a lot. But I can see the moment coming now when it's time to let go.

So finally, thanks again you two, you seem to have helped me, though I wasn't very satisfied with your answers at first thought.