Q&A: Sandbagging Response

"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.

"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?

"TVF;c-2023737" 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.

We had 49 people sign up last TW. They had no more than 42, which we know because there were 21 D slots per territory.

It happens plenty. Now, that doesn't mean they sandbagged, but the disparity in number of players registered absolutely happens.

Ah. More to do with slots available that anything.

My first question was as the Q&A response.
How do they NOT know this?

Sandbagging is usually where they have average accounts of extras that no longer play that they have then sit out for rewards from easier matchups. Nerfherders Elite Force is a common sandbagging guild. Not bad players but it is a guild that utilizes that to get easier matchups yes.

"AnnerDoon;c-2023752" 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?

And if there are some alt accounts or ticket mules in the guild that are there to keep their mouths shut and simply collect Traya shards? They could easily be asked/forced to sit out, could they not?

Most guilds that have players with alts only do so because they can't find enough real players to fill up the guild. Most have their alts go elsewhere if they can find real players at higher levels. I don't consider 1 or 2 weak alts not signing up for TW as "sandbagging". Again, the range between "possible" and "actual" is much bigger than I think people presume.

"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.

Whether it's done intentionally or not, does not influence matchmaking. If there's a problem with matchmaking, it's a problem disregarding whether the sandbagging is intentional or not.

No, Cyanides doesn't just wish to investigate whether some guilds sandbag intentionally or not. He clearly states that he doesn't see how sandbagging can be an advantage, and that he wants to investigate what advantage is gained.

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.

"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.

"Waqui;c-2023760" 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.

Whether it's done intentionally or not, does not influence matchmaking. If there's a problem with matchmaking, it's a problem disregarding whether the sandbagging is intentional or not.

No, Cyanides doesn't just wish to investigate whether some guilds sandbag intentionally or not. He clearly states that he doesn't see how sandbagging can be an advantage, and that he wants to investigate what advantage is gained.

As I said in my response, matchmaking should be changed to adjust for bad matches where you have what the OP described. By average GP or other factors.

But not every match that this is seen in is intentional as many seem to think it always is. Some guilds just dont force people to play if they dont want to.

"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.