Q&A: Sandbagging Response

"ShaggyB;c-2023778" wrote:
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

This is a horrible idea. What if you have a handful of members who are unavailable due to work, travel, vacation, holiday, hospital visit, etc.

It's this kind of punitive "solution" that should be avoided at all costs. All it does is punish guilds with players who might be busy IRL.

"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.

"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?

Bingo!!!!

"EventineElessedil;c-2023807" wrote:

"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.

And yet you read a different one.

@DarjeloSalas apparently this poster wants a screenshot. I have none because I don't screenshot everything and then wait for someone to be wrong. I already spend too much of my life on this game. But I don't care at this point since this poster just wants to stick fingers in ears and drown everyone else out.

@EventineElessedil

If you do a forums search on "sandbagging" it will take you less than a minute to find reports of what you (wrongly) claim never happens.

"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.

"Nikoms565;c-2023808" wrote:

"ShaggyB;c-2023778" wrote:
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

This is a horrible idea. What if you have a handful of members who are unavailable due to work, travel, vacation, holiday, hospital visit, etc.

It's this kind of punitive "solution" that should be avoided at all costs. All it does is punish guilds with players who might be busy IRL.

Agree 100%, not only would this lead to much worse wars by including gp for inactive accounts that didnt even register but it will also reward those inactive accounts for doing nothing resulting is more rewards being distributed overall (cg would obviously be opposed to giving our rewards for no activity).

We're trying to figure out why CG doesn't know how sandbagging occurs.

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?

I got bored after about 5 messages, there is a case for sandbagging (stupid name) its far down the table on issues with game compared to how (alliances) with use of 3rd party communication apps (will use the stupid sandbag again) sandbag, and ruthlessly and hatred order "death kills" on any player who wont join there club!

That said if you look at guild rosta, mange your guild with your guild, sandbaging on TW makes little differance, we are not a whale guild, we have a plan, we havnt lost to a mismatch, or a sandbag in well i forget the last time we lost,

stop blaming something you cant control, as it will happen, no AI matchmaking can ever fix it!