Q&A: Sandbagging Response

"Synaptic;c-2024595" wrote:

This was our last TW:

Members :: 50 vs 48
GP :: 133.1M vs 184.5M
Avg Arena Rank :: 449.58 vs 281.71
Avg Fleet Rank :: 105.88 vs 159.02
Zetas :: 1539 vs 2378

We had full participation. We had to set 17 defenses per territory. That's not possible without them not fielding significantly less than their full 48.

Assuming a perfectly average distribution of GP on their side (3.85m GP per account), they would have had to sign up with only 34 people, give or take. Their lowest listed GP on swgoh is 2 million. So it most certainly happens.

Whether it's intentional or not doesn't change the fact that matchmaking is **** poor at dealing with that scenario.

Agreed, looks like your situation is 50 vs 34. News to me that this can happen. Consider me more informed.

What this all boils down to is that people are dissatisfied with the matchmaking process and that the devs claim they don't see a problem with it. The sandbagging complaint is just the current form of the pitchforks and torches I predicted back in 2017 after TW beta testing.

IF sandbagging provides an advantage (big IF), it's because of matchmaking.

People would be happier if the matchmaking metric were avg GP/player; this is what I think it should be and end it there. But then people would just complain louder about other metrics like speed mods, meta characters, etc. Bah, that's exactly what TW is meant to ferret out: which guild has the stronger roster?