Q&A: Sandbagging Response

"Nikoms565;c-2023789" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2023763" wrote:

"Nikoms565;c-2023739" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2023695" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2023687" wrote:
Sandbagging is not losing to a stronger opponent. Sandbagging is an intentional act to try and force a favorable match.

What you are talking about is an issue with matchmaking that should be addressed.

What he was asking for is information to look at a guild to see if they did this intentionally.

These are 2 different things.

Disagree here. His response clearly indicates he doesn't think intentionally sandbagging is possible. We know that it is. And we know that it's not always intentional.

Just to be clear - by definition, there is no such thing as "unintentional sandbagging". If it's unintentional (i.e. players are busy IRL so choose not to sign up, people forgot to sign up, people have left the guild, etc.) that's not sandbagging.

I only make that differentiation because I think guilds are shorthanded unintentionally much more often than they are sandbagging. Think about it. If you were in a 200+ million GP guild and you were asked/forced to sit out of TW and not got any rewards, how long would you stay in that guild?

The end result is the same, so I use the term regardless. I understand not everyone does.

"Kyno;c-2023734" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2023695" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2023687" wrote:
Sandbagging is not losing to a stronger opponent. Sandbagging is an intentional act to try and force a favorable match.

What you are talking about is an issue with matchmaking that should be addressed.

What he was asking for is information to look at a guild to see if they did this intentionally.

These are 2 different things.

Disagree here. His response clearly indicates he doesn't think intentionally sandbagging is possible. We know that it is. And we know that it's not always intentional.

I understand that his response does say that, but to the OPs point there is a difference between having an opponent who doesnt have a guild full of players who want to play TW, and guilds that try to force a situation. They are not one in the same, as many seem to think, regardless of relics,zetas or GP, and other factors.

They are functionally the same. If you force the issue by telling 2-4 people to sit out a TW you get the same match as you would if 2-4 people just didn't sign up for any other reason. Making a distinction between doing it on purpose or not is 100% meaningless, especially in this context, where CG doesn't think it's even possible to get a favorable matchup with fewer than 50 members.

The distinction is not meaningless, as guilds have been reported as "cheaters" when an opponent thinks they're sandbagging, when it's possible that players simply sat out due to RL commitments, left the guild, etc. Distinguishing between intentional manipulation of the matchups and real-life obstacles to participation is necessary because integrity matters. Both in the play and in the way matchmaking deals with guilds of 50 that only have 42-46 participants in a TW.

Yes, matchmaking needs to account for player number differences better - but not in a way that "punishes" guilds with less than 50 players participating. That wouldn't be fair to smaller guilds, casual guilds, guilds that have players that travel for work or are on vacation, etc.

Why does being accused of cheating matter? Even sandbagging on purpose is not against the rules or the TOS.

And I agree, matchmaking should be fixed so it properly accounts for this situation.