Q&A: Sandbagging Response

"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.

Agreed, looks like your situation is 50 vs 34. News to me that this can happen. Consider me more informed.

What this all boils down to is that people are dissatisfied with the matchmaking process and that the devs claim they don't see a problem with it. The sandbagging complaint is just the current form of the pitchforks and torches I predicted back in 2017 after TW beta testing.

IF sandbagging provides an advantage (big IF), it's because of matchmaking.

People would be happier if the matchmaking metric were avg GP/player; this is what I think it should be and end it there. But then people would just complain louder about other metrics like speed mods, meta characters, etc. Bah, that's exactly what TW is meant to ferret out: which guild has the stronger roster?

"Nikoms565;c-2024572" wrote:

"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.

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.

That's where you are wrong. TW and GAC are not focused on even matchups with regard to actual roster strength. GP is not a measure of actual roster strength.

Roster development incentive is what arena (both), TB, raids, and every other gqme mode is for. Glad we agree. ;)

We previously agreed, that there is some incentive in TW and GAC, though there might be more in other game modes.

"EventineElessedil;c-2024704" wrote:

"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.

People would be happier if the matchmaking metric were avg GP/player; this is what I think it should be and end it there.

Avg. GP/player as the only metric would be a disaster.

"BobcatSkywalker;c-2024631" wrote:

"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.

If the rosters have been developed equally well or in the same manner the higher average GP guild would have the advantage.

Yes, the lower average GP guild could have an advantage, if they had developed their rosters significantly better than the high average GP guild, but that's got nothing to do with sandbagging.

"Waqui;c-2024732" wrote:

"EventineElessedil;c-2024704" wrote:


People would be happier if the matchmaking metric were avg GP/player; this is what I think it should be and end it there.

Avg. GP/player as the only metric would be a disaster.

Of course, but better than it currently is!

"EventineElessedil;c-2024704" wrote:
But then people would just complain louder about other metrics like speed mods, meta characters, etc.

My opinion, we go all out, or bend over and take it like a champ until CG figures out a solution

"EventineElessedil;c-2024757" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2024732" wrote:

"EventineElessedil;c-2024704" wrote:


People would be happier if the matchmaking metric were avg GP/player; this is what I think it should be and end it there.

Avg. GP/player as the only metric would be a disaster.

Of course, but better than it currently is!

In my opinion it would be far worse.

I'm sure, you can imagine why, but ok:

Being outnumbered would be a severe disadvantage. Much more severe than the advantage it is today.

"Waqui;c-2024992" wrote:

"EventineElessedil;c-2024757" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2024732" wrote:

"EventineElessedil;c-2024704" wrote:


People would be happier if the matchmaking metric were avg GP/player; this is what I think it should be and end it there.

Avg. GP/player as the only metric would be a disaster.

Of course, but better than it currently is!

In my opinion it would be far worse.

I'm sure, you can imagine why, but ok:

Being outnumbered would be a severe disadvantage. Much more severe than the advantage it is today.

I think you misunderstood my intent. I was suggesting adding avg GP/player in addition to total registered GP. If course there would be problems with that as well ... the rabbit hole goes deep but you have to draw the line somewhere, and more dimensions is not necessarily better because somebody will always be at a disadvantage and complain about it.

"EventineElessedil;c-2025102" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2024992" wrote:

"EventineElessedil;c-2024757" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2024732" wrote:

"EventineElessedil;c-2024704" wrote:


People would be happier if the matchmaking metric were avg GP/player; this is what I think it should be and end it there.

Avg. GP/player as the only metric would be a disaster.

Of course, but better than it currently is!

In my opinion it would be far worse.

I'm sure, you can imagine why, but ok:

Being outnumbered would be a severe disadvantage. Much more severe than the advantage it is today.

I think you misunderstood my intent. I was suggesting adding avg GP/player in addition to total registered GP.

No, you were not. You may have intended to, but you didn't. I can only respond to what you actually write - not to your thoughts.

But OK, now you've cleared it up.

Why can’t the matchmaking be changed to this: You’re guild joins TW in a 10 mil bracket range ( by total guild GP) and then the matchmaking is done by the count of players joined. That eliminates the sandbagging and more evenly matches opponents. It’s that simple. @CG_SBCrumb