Q&A: Sandbagging Response
So @CG_Cyanides you don't understand how 40 players with 5.5M GP can overrun a guild of 50 with 4.4M GP in TW?
Forum Discussion
"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."EventineElessedil;c-2023770" wrote:
"TVF;c-2023767" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2023762" wrote:
None of this is proof."Balthasar666;c-2023743" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2023732" wrote:
"StoemKnight;c-2023719" wrote:
"trevyclause;c-2023712" wrote:
sorry for my lack of knowledge, but can someone briefly explain how sandbagging works? It seems likes it’s not possible for it to give you an advantage, but I would assume I just don’t know how it works.
To me it just seems that the matchmaking system just does a not-so-great job at taking into account the varying rosters across the board.
A group of 40 players, with 5.5M GP (mostly relic'd) takes on a guild of 50 players, mostly 4.4M (barely relic'd), both are 220M guilds...
Who do you think wins easily?
Except this never happens ... because the number of players registered for the TW is part of the matching process. You don't get group of 40 competing against a group of 50.
You have any proof of this? It would interest me. People love to claim this but I've never seen any proof.
If you register with 50 people and the other guild has 40 million more gp in total
What do you think happens if you get matched with the same active gp? Of course they are less than 50 then
This is by far the easiest point to check
You have ignored the fact that the number of guild members registered for the TW is part of matchmaking. You don't get a 40 vs 50 match. You might get a 48-49 vs 50 match, but not 40 vs 50."AnnerDoon;c-2023744" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2023732" wrote:
"StoemKnight;c-2023719" wrote:
"trevyclause;c-2023712" wrote:
sorry for my lack of knowledge, but can someone briefly explain how sandbagging works? It seems likes it’s not possible for it to give you an advantage, but I would assume I just don’t know how it works.
To me it just seems that the matchmaking system just does a not-so-great job at taking into account the varying rosters across the board.
A group of 40 players, with 5.5M GP (mostly relic'd) takes on a guild of 50 players, mostly 4.4M (barely relic'd), both are 220M guilds...
Who do you think wins easily?
Except this never happens ... because the number of players registered for the TW is part of the matching process. You don't get group of 40 competing against a group of 50.
That's simply not true.
I would love to be proven wrong. Show me the money."Waqui;c-2023749" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2023714" wrote:
I have never seen a TW that matched 40 players against 50. You guys sure you aren't on glue?
I've seen it in my alt's guild. We were a handful of players short (42-43 active players) and made sign up to TW voluntary, since some players disliked the game mode. Back then we often had only about 36-38 sign-ups for TW and most of our matches were VERY easy victories. I assume, we were often matched with full guilds of less average GP than ours. We have since become a full guild of 50 active members, with almost everyone joining TW. Matches are now far more even.
Your guild had 43 players, the opposing guild had 50 players. You had 38 players register for TW, but you don't know how many players were registered in the other guild. There is a big assumption in there.
@EventineElessedil I noticed you responded to everyone but me.
I didn't see yours. You have proof?
You're are wrong. How do you sign up with 50 players and only able to post 20 squads/fleets?"StarSon;c-2023695" wrote:
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.
Go back and re-read his post...he didn't say that. He said he didn't see how reducing the participating GP of a guild would give them an advantage in matchmaking but just because couldn't think of a way doing that would give a guild an advantage that doesn't mean it's not possible. If "sandbagging" is supposedly telling players in a guild to sit out a TW to attempt to game the matchmaking system, that wasn't what he was saying is possible or not possible. He was simply saying that he didn't think doing so would give an actual advantage the way the matchmaking is set up....and he even said there may possibly be a way to get an advantage by doing that which he hadn't thought of.
Frankly, the question, which isn't posted above didn't make much sense because the poster reference alt accounts being used to generate tickets and for TB but supposedly being forced to sit out of TW. I've never seen anyone in any of my guilds "sit out" TW with their alts if they were otherwise available to participate...they want those rewards, particularly the zeta mats, as much as anyone else. If it's a just a low GP "ticket" alt then their GP wouldn't add much to the match-up anyway and wouldn't be much use in TB. If it's a higher GP alt, then that person isn't going to handicap their roster by skipping out on TW rewards. However, let's say they had 10 alt accounts for only raid tickets that just sit out TW. They could have a 40 person guild without those 10 alt accounts in the guild and you'd STILL get the exact same TW match-up because you'd still have the same 40 participating members whether their guild had 40 or 50 members.
There are some things though that can be done as far as including average GP per participating member in the matchmaking and basing the number of squads per zone on the guild with the higher number of participating members (instead of the lower number of participating members) which would help even out some things.- Yep. The idea of having to opt in to play is the cause. Just auto join the entire guild and match make based on that....
Or if you want a heartless approach match make based on gp of the guild at event start regardless of how many join "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."EventineElessedil;c-2023785" wrote:
"StoemKnight;c-2023775" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2023770" wrote:
"TVF;c-2023767" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2023762" wrote:
None of this is proof."Balthasar666;c-2023743" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2023732" wrote:
"StoemKnight;c-2023719" wrote:
"trevyclause;c-2023712" wrote:
sorry for my lack of knowledge, but can someone briefly explain how sandbagging works? It seems likes it’s not possible for it to give you an advantage, but I would assume I just don’t know how it works.
To me it just seems that the matchmaking system just does a not-so-great job at taking into account the varying rosters across the board.
A group of 40 players, with 5.5M GP (mostly relic'd) takes on a guild of 50 players, mostly 4.4M (barely relic'd), both are 220M guilds...
Who do you think wins easily?
Except this never happens ... because the number of players registered for the TW is part of the matching process. You don't get group of 40 competing against a group of 50.
You have any proof of this? It would interest me. People love to claim this but I've never seen any proof.
If you register with 50 people and the other guild has 40 million more gp in total
What do you think happens if you get matched with the same active gp? Of course they are less than 50 then
This is by far the easiest point to check
You have ignored the fact that the number of guild members registered for the TW is part of matchmaking. You don't get a 40 vs 50 match. You might get a 48-49 vs 50 match, but not 40 vs 50."AnnerDoon;c-2023744" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2023732" wrote:
"StoemKnight;c-2023719" wrote:
"trevyclause;c-2023712" wrote:
sorry for my lack of knowledge, but can someone briefly explain how sandbagging works? It seems likes it’s not possible for it to give you an advantage, but I would assume I just don’t know how it works.
To me it just seems that the matchmaking system just does a not-so-great job at taking into account the varying rosters across the board.
A group of 40 players, with 5.5M GP (mostly relic'd) takes on a guild of 50 players, mostly 4.4M (barely relic'd), both are 220M guilds...
Who do you think wins easily?
Except this never happens ... because the number of players registered for the TW is part of the matching process. You don't get group of 40 competing against a group of 50.
That's simply not true.
I would love to be proven wrong. Show me the money."Waqui;c-2023749" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2023714" wrote:
I have never seen a TW that matched 40 players against 50. You guys sure you aren't on glue?
I've seen it in my alt's guild. We were a handful of players short (42-43 active players) and made sign up to TW voluntary, since some players disliked the game mode. Back then we often had only about 36-38 sign-ups for TW and most of our matches were VERY easy victories. I assume, we were often matched with full guilds of less average GP than ours. We have since become a full guild of 50 active members, with almost everyone joining TW. Matches are now far more even.
Your guild had 43 players, the opposing guild had 50 players. You had 38 players register for TW, but you don't know how many players were registered in the other guild. There is a big assumption in there.
@EventineElessedil I noticed you responded to everyone but me.
I didn't see yours. You have proof?
You're are wrong. How do you sign up with 50 players and only able to post 20 squads/fleets?
Me? I don't, because I've never seen it happen. In this scenario you paint here, if you can only place 20 squads on D per territory but you have 50 players registered in your guild, then that would mean the opposing guild only has 40 registered players. I have never seen a situation this extreme.
I have seen 49 vs 42, as stated. Who is right, me or you?"TVF;c-2023792" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2023785" wrote:
"StoemKnight;c-2023775" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2023770" wrote:
"TVF;c-2023767" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2023762" wrote:
None of this is proof."Balthasar666;c-2023743" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2023732" wrote:
"StoemKnight;c-2023719" wrote:
"trevyclause;c-2023712" wrote:
sorry for my lack of knowledge, but can someone briefly explain how sandbagging works? It seems likes it’s not possible for it to give you an advantage, but I would assume I just don’t know how it works.
To me it just seems that the matchmaking system just does a not-so-great job at taking into account the varying rosters across the board.
A group of 40 players, with 5.5M GP (mostly relic'd) takes on a guild of 50 players, mostly 4.4M (barely relic'd), both are 220M guilds...
Who do you think wins easily?
Except this never happens ... because the number of players registered for the TW is part of the matching process. You don't get group of 40 competing against a group of 50.
You have any proof of this? It would interest me. People love to claim this but I've never seen any proof.
If you register with 50 people and the other guild has 40 million more gp in total
What do you think happens if you get matched with the same active gp? Of course they are less than 50 then
This is by far the easiest point to check
You have ignored the fact that the number of guild members registered for the TW is part of matchmaking. You don't get a 40 vs 50 match. You might get a 48-49 vs 50 match, but not 40 vs 50."AnnerDoon;c-2023744" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2023732" wrote:
"StoemKnight;c-2023719" wrote:
"trevyclause;c-2023712" wrote:
sorry for my lack of knowledge, but can someone briefly explain how sandbagging works? It seems likes it’s not possible for it to give you an advantage, but I would assume I just don’t know how it works.
To me it just seems that the matchmaking system just does a not-so-great job at taking into account the varying rosters across the board.
A group of 40 players, with 5.5M GP (mostly relic'd) takes on a guild of 50 players, mostly 4.4M (barely relic'd), both are 220M guilds...
Who do you think wins easily?
Except this never happens ... because the number of players registered for the TW is part of the matching process. You don't get group of 40 competing against a group of 50.
That's simply not true.
I would love to be proven wrong. Show me the money."Waqui;c-2023749" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2023714" wrote:
I have never seen a TW that matched 40 players against 50. You guys sure you aren't on glue?
I've seen it in my alt's guild. We were a handful of players short (42-43 active players) and made sign up to TW voluntary, since some players disliked the game mode. Back then we often had only about 36-38 sign-ups for TW and most of our matches were VERY easy victories. I assume, we were often matched with full guilds of less average GP than ours. We have since become a full guild of 50 active members, with almost everyone joining TW. Matches are now far more even.
Your guild had 43 players, the opposing guild had 50 players. You had 38 players register for TW, but you don't know how many players were registered in the other guild. There is a big assumption in there.
@EventineElessedil I noticed you responded to everyone but me.
I didn't see yours. You have proof?
You're are wrong. How do you sign up with 50 players and only able to post 20 squads/fleets?
Me? I don't, because I've never seen it happen. In this scenario you paint here, if you can only place 20 squads on D per territory but you have 50 players registered in your guild, then that would mean the opposing guild only has 40 registered players. I have never seen a situation this extreme.
I have seen 49 vs 42, as stated. Who is right, me or you?
The better question is "why does it matter?" ;)"DarjeloSalas;c-2023801" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2023798" wrote:
"DarjeloSalas;c-2023779" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2023770" wrote:
"TVF;c-2023767" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2023762" wrote:
None of this is proof."Balthasar666;c-2023743" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2023732" wrote:
"StoemKnight;c-2023719" wrote:
"trevyclause;c-2023712" wrote:
sorry for my lack of knowledge, but can someone briefly explain how sandbagging works? It seems likes it’s not possible for it to give you an advantage, but I would assume I just don’t know how it works.
To me it just seems that the matchmaking system just does a not-so-great job at taking into account the varying rosters across the board.
A group of 40 players, with 5.5M GP (mostly relic'd) takes on a guild of 50 players, mostly 4.4M (barely relic'd), both are 220M guilds...
Who do you think wins easily?
Except this never happens ... because the number of players registered for the TW is part of the matching process. You don't get group of 40 competing against a group of 50.
You have any proof of this? It would interest me. People love to claim this but I've never seen any proof.
If you register with 50 people and the other guild has 40 million more gp in total
What do you think happens if you get matched with the same active gp? Of course they are less than 50 then
This is by far the easiest point to check
You have ignored the fact that the number of guild members registered for the TW is part of matchmaking. You don't get a 40 vs 50 match. You might get a 48-49 vs 50 match, but not 40 vs 50."AnnerDoon;c-2023744" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2023732" wrote:
"StoemKnight;c-2023719" wrote:
"trevyclause;c-2023712" wrote:
sorry for my lack of knowledge, but can someone briefly explain how sandbagging works? It seems likes it’s not possible for it to give you an advantage, but I would assume I just don’t know how it works.
To me it just seems that the matchmaking system just does a not-so-great job at taking into account the varying rosters across the board.
A group of 40 players, with 5.5M GP (mostly relic'd) takes on a guild of 50 players, mostly 4.4M (barely relic'd), both are 220M guilds...
Who do you think wins easily?
Except this never happens ... because the number of players registered for the TW is part of the matching process. You don't get group of 40 competing against a group of 50.
That's simply not true.
I would love to be proven wrong. Show me the money."Waqui;c-2023749" wrote:
"EventineElessedil;c-2023714" wrote:
I have never seen a TW that matched 40 players against 50. You guys sure you aren't on glue?
I've seen it in my alt's guild. We were a handful of players short (42-43 active players) and made sign up to TW voluntary, since some players disliked the game mode. Back then we often had only about 36-38 sign-ups for TW and most of our matches were VERY easy victories. I assume, we were often matched with full guilds of less average GP than ours. We have since become a full guild of 50 active members, with almost everyone joining TW. Matches are now far more even.
Your guild had 43 players, the opposing guild had 50 players. You had 38 players register for TW, but you don't know how many players were registered in the other guild. There is a big assumption in there.
@EventineElessedil I noticed you responded to everyone but me.
I didn't see yours. You have proof?
I can give you proof too. We usually go into TW with 47 or 48 signed up. Sometimes we’re setting 24 teams per zone, but several times we’ve set 23 or even 22 teams per zone.
The number of teams per zone is dictated by the smaller number signed up between the 2 guilds. These can be different.
Tbh, I’m surprised you weren’t aware of this.
I am aware of how the number of teams per zone is determined. What isn't clear is that the matching algorithm ignores the number of guild members registered for the TW. I find it hard to believe that total registered GP is the sole contributing factor.
If you have 48 signed up on both sides, you get 24 per zone. You know this, I know this, we all do. If you have 48 signed up and only get to place 23, that means the other guild registered either 47 or 46. If you can only place 22, then the other guild registered 45 or 44. At most the difference was your guild had 4 more players registered. That's far less than 10.
Again, not saying it doesn't happen, I've just never seen proof.
Most of the time people come in here claiming this happens but have no real proof, just some big assumptions.
Can you not read TVF’s post?
Not usually, no."EventineElessedil;c-2023811" wrote:
"StoemKnight;c-2023803" wrote:
50% of these negative responses probably ARE the sandbagging guilds. Haha..
Posts like this are what escalate the nature of the discussion. I haven't seen any negative responses here.
You've been nothing but negative here.- 2 equal guilds get matched. > 49 vs 42 ( the 42 person guild is “sandbagging” and their 8 alts don’t join.) - The sandbagging top 42 are probably stronger than the other guilds top 42.
BUT...Doest the weaker guild (49) have an advantage of having the potential for 7 more of each meta team? And they are required to place less on Def than they would have if it was an equal 49v49 fight... which seems like it could also help with strat.
@TVF Did you guys win or lose that lopsided TW?
