Q&A: Sandbagging Response

"Nikoms565;c-2028965" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2028913" wrote:

"7AnimalMother;c-2028912" 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.

It's not sandbagging if it people are not doing it (entering TW with less than 50) intentionally. Quite frankly, I'd bet for every 1 guild that actually does this on purpose, there are 20 guilds who just don't require TW participation and have people not join out of apathy.

I really don't know how many times I have to say this, but the term is meaningless, and I use it without intent. "Sandbagging" is merely going in light. Doesn't matter if you told 4 people to sit out or 4 people decided not to join for whatever reason. The end result is the same, so I use the same term.

Except, by definition, the term implies intent.

And what difference does it make? If Guild A makes 4 people sit out and Guild b has 4 people miss the signup, all things being equal, which guild gets a better matchup?

Neither, they get the same advantage, because they are both at 46/50 instead of 50/50.

I have stated dozens of times (here, reddit, discord) that the term is irrelevant. When I used it, I imply no intent. If you imply intent, that's not really my problem. Though i do keep responding to you people.