Q&A: Sandbagging Response

"maraexibil;c-2024343" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2024317" wrote:

"maraexibil;c-2024297" wrote:

It's got nothing to do with "my narrative." Sure, they might have that many, but in

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.

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

No. If you see my above comments, I do not differentiate between forcing people to sit out and people just not joining.

We ask only that if you join, you set your assigned defense and participate on offense. Because we know going in light will benefit us, we do not try very hard to get everyone to sign up.

Then it's NOT sandbagging. Many of us have responsibilities in real life and can not participate during the attack and defense phase.

If you call missing a TW "sandbagging", then every guild with signups less than the total number of members is "sandbagging." That's nearly every casual, semi-casual, active guild out there.

I don't remember if my guild ever had a 100% signup for TW.

Whether you do it on purpose or not, the end result is the same. This is why I use the term regardless. Not sure why everyone gets so hung up on the terminology, when the issue is not whether a guild does it on purpose, but that the system works that way to begin with.