Q&A: Sandbagging Response

"thecarterologist958;c-2024505" wrote:
Just because the solution to a problem is the same whether it is intentional or not doesn't mean the difference is irrelevant. To say in one sentence that guilds that sandbag are underhand and deserve to have people leave, then in another say it doesn't matter why it happens is the same as just insulting every guild with non-mandatory participation in TW, which isn't a reasonable way of going about things.

It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is in no way insulting to guilds who don't enforce particiation.
There's no difference in terms of gameplay between facing a guild that sandbags intentionally and a guild with non-mandatory participation (assuming they signup with the same amount of players).
On top of that it's also irrelevant what you, i or anyone else thinks about guilds who intentionally sandbag since it's not against the rules. It's not like putting a halt to intentional sandbagging stops the problem either.

"thecarterologist958;c-2024505" wrote:
Just because the solution to a problem is the same whether it is intentional or not doesn't mean the difference is irrelevant.

When discussing possible solutions the difference is irrelevant. The solution is the same. The algorithm would not be able to distinguish between the two. It's irrelevant. Distinguishing between the two is only good for pointing fingers

"Waqui;c-2024552" wrote:

"Nikoms565;c-2024310" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2024284" wrote:

"Nikoms565;c-2024273" wrote:

"leef;c-2024189" wrote:
I wish people would just stop arguing about unintentional and intentional sandbagging, the end result is the same regardless. The sollution (fixing matchmaking) is also the same for intentional ánd unintentional sandbagging.
As for the dev inquiring about sandbagging, they're the ones with all the data. Just check all the matches between guilds that have a 3 or more player difference in participation and check if the guild with less players signed up wins more often. Should be easy enough, they could even check different GP regions and/or participant differences, check the w/l ratio of guilds with full participation etc. etc. to see if there's anything there.
Speaking for my guild only, our w/l ratio with full participation is lower than our w/l ratio without full participation. This could be a coincidence ofcourse.
Even if guilds with a lower number of participants win more often it doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem with matchmaking. It could also be caused by something simple like guilds that sign up with less players have less players that actually don't participate eventhough they did sign up which would hurt the chances of their guild winning.
I'm no data analyst, but i'm sure someone who gets paid to do that job can figure it out.

The only reason I make the distinction is that the solution (better matchmaking) needs to be fair and not "punitive" against the smaller guild or guild with less participants than normal. In other words, it shouldn't "presume" sandbagging.

The solution will not be punitive to anyone, if all matches are even (50/50 chance to win when considering the active rosters) disregarding how many players enter on either side.

100% agree that that should be the goal. Of course, the devil is in the details. As with all matchmaking, finding an algorithm that actually makes even matchups is the issue

The hardest thing would be to find an algorithm that makes even matches while maintaining the incentive to develop your roster. I guess it's two mutually exclusive goals.

Absolutely. That's why TW and GAC don't do that - they're focused on even matchups. Roster development incentive is what arena (both), TB, raids, and every other gqme mode is for. Glad we agree. ;)

"leef;c-2024562" wrote:

It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is in no way insulting to guilds who don't enforce particiation.
There's no difference in terms of gameplay between facing a guild that sandbags intentionally and a guild with non-mandatory participation (assuming they signup with the same amount of players).
On top of that it's also irrelevant what you, i or anyone else thinks about guilds who intentionally sandbag since it's not against the rules. It's not like putting a halt to intentional sandbagging stops the problem either.

I never said there was a difference in gameplay, and I explicitly stated that there was no difference with regards to a fair matchmaking solution. But given the original point was them wanting to see evidence of a guild doing this to try and gain an advantage, CG's issue is with intent. Also when people are complaining about people sandbagging and saying its "Gaming the system", or even ruining the game, then I would be hesitant to paint the vast majority of the playerbase with that brush without being willing to defend the people who do it intentionally. I don't see much benefit to the idea, I don't think it's that prevalent, but I do know guilds with low signup rates are rare and don't necessarily win more often, admittedly from largely anecdotal experience. It may not solve the problem, but I hope you can at least see where I'm coming from.

Going by some of the criteria for sand aging outlined in this post our guild would be accused of it.

Our policy is basically not more than 30 days inactive or get the boot and play nice with others

That works for us. I like it myself (not an officer or leader here either just a voice).

However, as a result our turn out for a guild war is usually 30-35 out of 46-50 players.
This is usually our most active/strongest players and a handful of new accounts plus a few of those who've been around awhile and are getting tough.

Thusly it has to look bad. Our lower 3rd and 4th quarters of our member base are the ones that dont make the /join.

We blow out alot of our matchups lately especially (most of the time we've been 1 to 1 w/l rates but lately we've been pretty much undefeated.

Is this unintentional sandbagging or would you expect this to be labeled as such by the ignorant? This is just the game being played in the vast majority of these cases I d suspect. Only the tip of the wiener guild's should even be worried about this underhanded malarky.

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 piss poor at dealing with that scenario.

"BobcatSkywalker;c-2024483" wrote:

"BeralCator;c-2024448" wrote:

"BobcatSkywalker;c-2024430" wrote:

"BeralCator;c-2024426" wrote:
I think the question was perhaps not phrased as well as it could be, as it does imply intention to the mismatches.

The following might have been more effective:
"The community has noticed that TW matches with a large delta in active guild members are very noncompetitive and have only grown more so as GP scales while the map size remains static.

With only n*5 spots available on defense (where n is the smaller guild size), a 40-person guild that has an average GP of 5 million has a massive advantage over a 50-person guild with an average GP of 4 million, as their top 160 squads and 40 fleets will be significantly more developed.

Has any thought been put into either a) limiting match-ups to guilds with near-identical active players or b) expanding the map size so that n is the size of the larger guild (or larger)?"

The guild with 50 can have 50 meta malaak, 50trayas, 50 of everything,
Guild with 40 has only 40 meta malaak, 40 trayas, 40 of everything.

There are advantages to both sides

For the GP to match, the guild with 40 players will have 40 Relic 7 Malaks while the guild with 50 players will have 50 G12+3 Malaks, etc.

In a game mode where winning on the first attempt grants additional points, there is no advantage to having more teams that are all slightly worse unless the map is so large that full clears aren't certain. Currently the map is so small that both sides inevitably get full clears, but the smaller guild gets more points because their teams are so much better.

When TW started we had significantly less characters and ships than we do now. We used to stock the back rows with trash like Rogue One and Maul as we didn't have enough teams available for both offense and defense. Currently, the worst teams we are putting on defense are Relic KRUs or insanely fast Jango/Bossks, often with Nest or Wat Tambor.

If you think 40v50 match-ups are a good idea (which I personally don't agree with), the map needs to be a lot bigger so that the 50-person team can actually make use of their extra squads in an attempt to offset the 40-person team's better squads.

Having 40 r7 malaak vs 50 g13 malaak isnt the only way they can match, surely both guilds could have all malaak at r7 and the difference in gp can be elsewhere. But ok I'll go with your example in your case the guild with 40 r7 malaak has much superior teams so they should win, even if they had 10 alts with 200k each just farming coins that joined they would still win with 40 sanbagged or 50 full strength

I guess my existential question is WHY should a team of 40 players with R7 Malaks always beat a team of 50 players with G12 Malaks? If the outcome is predetermined, why bother having a TW at all? If a match isn't competitive, the matchmaking algorithm shouldn't be spitting it out, as it's not fun for anyone; it's just a waste of time for all involved.

If the goal is to have more competitive matches, either
a) get rid of this scenario (by only allowing similar numbers of players) or,
b) change the map layout so that there is a disadvantage to going in undersized that balances out having the more developed rosters.

Other solutions could include:

• Incorporating some of the GAC matchmaking algorithm and using "effective GP" instead of actual GP.
  
• Scaling the minimum GP for a character to be included in TW as you move up in Division. Currently it is 6,000 for everyone, but realistically, anything below 12,000 is going to be pretty useless for guilds over 200 million GP.
  
• Some level of partial rewards for clearing zones, so that there is still a point to playing out bad match-ups.
  

There's always going to be a winner and loser in TW, but if you can easily tell who it will be before the match starts, that's lazy game design.

"Waqui;c-2024554" wrote:

"BobcatSkywalker;c-2024430" wrote:

"BeralCator;c-2024426" wrote:
I think the question was perhaps not phrased as well as it could be, as it does imply intention to the mismatches.

The following might have been more effective:
"The community has noticed that TW matches with a large delta in active guild members are very noncompetitive and have only grown more so as GP scales while the map size remains static.

With only n*5 spots available on defense (where n is the smaller guild size), a 40-person guild that has an average GP of 5 million has a massive advantage over a 50-person guild with an average GP of 4 million, as their top 160 squads and 40 fleets will be significantly more developed.

Has any thought been put into either a) limiting match-ups to guilds with near-identical active players or b) expanding the map size so that n is the size of the larger guild (or larger)?"

The guild with 50 can have 50 meta malaak, 50trayas, 50 of everything,
Guild with 40 has only 40 meta malaak, 40 trayas, 40 of everything.

In theory, yes, but the members of the 50 participants guild only have 80% roster GP on average, compared to their opponents, and will be less likely to have the same amount of META teams or counters to the newest META teams.

Again assuming that the 80% difference in average gp all comes from meta teams is not true.

it can be true in some cases but there are other explanations that are more likely such as the 80% difference in roster gp comes from the 150 or so non meta characters in their respective depth of rosters... like the guild of 40 having an average gear of g10 and the guild of 50 having an average gear of g7 on the majority of their rosters or vice versa.

Assuming the 20% difference in gp all comes from malak relics or even all comes from meta teams is based purely on speculation and it is a very very unrealistic theory that one guild would have all malaak at g12 and another would have them all at r7. Even so if that was the case the guild with more r7 should win the war BECAUSE they DO have better squads.

"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.

Are you suggesting they should be matched against another 185m gp guild that may have all 50 members signed up? Even if this makes a 130 vs 185 active gp matchup...?

Or are you suggesting you should be matched against other 130m hp guilds that may only have 30 of 50 members signed up? I'm sure you would like a 130 vs 75m match but the other guild may think this is unfair, dont u think?

Either solution would create a much more imbalanced war system, I hope you can see that because to me and many others it is clear as day.

"thecarterologist958;c-2024588" wrote:

"leef;c-2024562" wrote:

It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is in no way insulting to guilds who don't enforce particiation.
There's no difference in terms of gameplay between facing a guild that sandbags intentionally and a guild with non-mandatory participation (assuming they signup with the same amount of players).
On top of that it's also irrelevant what you, i or anyone else thinks about guilds who intentionally sandbag since it's not against the rules. It's not like putting a halt to intentional sandbagging stops the problem either.

I never said there was a difference in gameplay, and I explicitly stated that there was no difference with regards to a fair matchmaking solution. But given the original point was them wanting to see evidence of a guild doing this to try and gain an advantage, CG's issue is with intent. Also when people are complaining about people sandbagging and saying its "Gaming the system", or even ruining the game, then I would be hesitant to paint the vast majority of the playerbase with that brush without being willing to defend the people who do it intentionally. I don't see much benefit to the idea, I don't think it's that prevalent, but I do know guilds with low signup rates are rare and don't necessarily win more often, admittedly from largely anecdotal experience. It may not solve the problem, but I hope you can at least see where I'm coming from.

I didn't interpret the dev quote in the OP as having issues with intent. Even if their only issue is intent, they don't understand the (percieved) problem which also occurs when there's no (evil) intent whatsoever.
fwiw, i'm preaching the same thing to players on the other side of the intent argument. It's irrelevant either way. To me it doesn't matter what they say, at the end of the day it's not against the rules and it's practically impossible to enforce a rule for which you have to prove intent. I personally don't like to assume/accuse the opposing guild is/of intentionally sandbagging, but i'm still at a (percieved) disadvantage when they have less players signup due to circumstances out of their controll.
I can only speak to the higher GP regions and from what i can see it works. Small side note, the signup rates aren't low. 46 participants could easily be considered (un)intentional sandbagging.
I can't be 100% sure it does work, that's why i wrote "(percieved)". I have my own biases and there are more variables that come into play than just the number of participants. Like i said earlier in this thread, the devs should be able to analyze the data and conclude with relative certainty whether it works or not. All we can do is share our experiences and make the devs aware of what we think is a problem, the rest is up to them.