Q&A: Sandbagging Response

It's got nothing to do with "my narrative." Sure, they might have that many, but in in my experience they don't.

Here are two examples (one from August and one from September). In the first one, we got sandbagged and lost, in the second we sandbagged and won.

Your guild asks its weakest members to sit out on a TW and miss rewards because the leadership expects to be matched with a fluffier guild? What if the gambit doesn't pay off and you get matched with an equally lean guild?

Even if 10 member disparities exist in TW MM, they should occur much more infrequently than 0-4 member disparities. Rare enough that it would be quite foolish to bet on it every TW.

If a guild is organized enough to run such a complicated and risky rotation scheme, one would think they'd be organized enough to win without asking players to sit out on a TW.

1) Guilds with leadership that require players to sit out on TWs on rotation are nonexistent or rare.
2) Even if they do, it does not violate existing rules.
3) Even if you classify that as cheating (I don't think it is), the only way to prove it happened is by accessing private internal communication of the accused guilds.
4) If you lose to a leaner guild on TW, it is more likely that you were bested by your opponent than them running an elaborate rotation scheme.

I think the devs can always improve on MM algorithms, but they also shouldn't waste effort chasing phantom menaces.