Q&A: Sandbagging Response

"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.

It's not sandbagging if it people are not doing it (entering TW with less than 50) intentionally. Quite frankly, I'd bet for every 1 guild that actually does this on purpose, there are 20 guilds who just don't require TW participation and have people not join out of apathy.

"7AnimalMother;c-2028912" 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.

It's not sandbagging if it people are not doing it (entering TW with less than 50) intentionally. Quite frankly, I'd bet for every 1 guild that actually does this on purpose, there are 20 guilds who just don't require TW participation and have people not join out of apathy.

I really don't know how many times I have to say this, but the term is meaningless, and I use it without intent. "Sandbagging" is merely going in light. Doesn't matter if you told 4 people to sit out or 4 people decided not to join for whatever reason. The end result is the same, so I use the same term.

"StarSon;c-2028913" wrote:

"7AnimalMother;c-2028912" 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.

It's not sandbagging if it people are not doing it (entering TW with less than 50) intentionally. Quite frankly, I'd bet for every 1 guild that actually does this on purpose, there are 20 guilds who just don't require TW participation and have people not join out of apathy.

I really don't know how many times I have to say this, but the term is meaningless, and I use it without intent. "Sandbagging" is merely going in light. Doesn't matter if you told 4 people to sit out or 4 people decided not to join for whatever reason. The end result is the same, so I use the same term.

Except, by definition, the term implies intent.

"Nikoms565;c-2028965" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2028913" wrote:

"7AnimalMother;c-2028912" 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.

It's not sandbagging if it people are not doing it (entering TW with less than 50) intentionally. Quite frankly, I'd bet for every 1 guild that actually does this on purpose, there are 20 guilds who just don't require TW participation and have people not join out of apathy.

I really don't know how many times I have to say this, but the term is meaningless, and I use it without intent. "Sandbagging" is merely going in light. Doesn't matter if you told 4 people to sit out or 4 people decided not to join for whatever reason. The end result is the same, so I use the same term.

Except, by definition, the term implies intent.

And what difference does it make? If Guild A makes 4 people sit out and Guild b has 4 people miss the signup, all things being equal, which guild gets a better matchup?

Neither, they get the same advantage, because they are both at 46/50 instead of 50/50.

I have stated dozens of times (here, reddit, discord) that the term is irrelevant. When I used it, I imply no intent. If you imply intent, that's not really my problem. Though i do keep responding to you people.

Since there is no advantage to entering TW with fewer members, intent makes all the difference when discussing "sandbagging."
What do you mean "you people?!?"

"EventineElessedil;c-2028985" wrote:
Since there is no advantage to entering TW with fewer members, intent makes all the difference when discussing "sandbagging."

It definitely does provide an advantage.

"Nikoms565;c-2028965" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2028913" wrote:

"7AnimalMother;c-2028912" 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.

It's not sandbagging if it people are not doing it (entering TW with less than 50) intentionally. Quite frankly, I'd bet for every 1 guild that actually does this on purpose, there are 20 guilds who just don't require TW participation and have people not join out of apathy.

I really don't know how many times I have to say this, but the term is meaningless, and I use it without intent. "Sandbagging" is merely going in light. Doesn't matter if you told 4 people to sit out or 4 people decided not to join for whatever reason. The end result is the same, so I use the same term.

Except, by definition, the term implies intent.

can you please just provide a term that includes both sandbagging and whatever you call it when a guild enters TW with fewer members without the express purpose of getting easier matches so that we can put this whole discussion to bed.

"StarSon;c-2028991" wrote:

"EventineElessedil;c-2028985" wrote:
Since there is no advantage to entering TW with fewer members, intent makes all the difference when discussing "sandbagging."

It definitely does provide an advantage.

No it doesn't

"EventineElessedil;c-2029034" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2028991" wrote:

"EventineElessedil;c-2028985" wrote:
Since there is no advantage to entering TW with fewer members, intent makes all the difference when discussing "sandbagging."

It definitely does provide an advantage.

No it doesn't

Except it does. The active GP numbers will be the same, but for some reason it will almost always result in a favorable matchup for the guild going in without all 50 members.

"Nikoms565;c-2028965" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2028913" wrote:

"7AnimalMother;c-2028912" 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.

It's not sandbagging if it people are not doing it (entering TW with less than 50) intentionally. Quite frankly, I'd bet for every 1 guild that actually does this on purpose, there are 20 guilds who just don't require TW participation and have people not join out of apathy.

I really don't know how many times I have to say this, but the term is meaningless, and I use it without intent. "Sandbagging" is merely going in light. Doesn't matter if you told 4 people to sit out or 4 people decided not to join for whatever reason. The end result is the same, so I use the same term.

Except, by definition, the term implies intent.

And it's loaded with negative connotation. Since it literally means "deliberately underperform in a race or competition to gain an unfair advantage."