Q&A: Sandbagging Response

"DarjeloSalas;c-2039856" wrote:
I try to be reasonable. Short handed often gives easier matchups - but not always (though it’s worth pointing out that our opponents going in short handed worked for them!)

Maybe if you had more members join you could have had more teams to kill them and make up the 200 points... u managed to clear the board imagine of you had those 4 players all save for offense you might have won.

Seems like going short handed hurt you because u could have used that extra firepower.

The match up came down to 200 points and both guilds cleared so it was close... which is the point of matchmaking to make things close and random which the current system seems like it's doing a decent job considering how everything else in this game works everyone should be happy matchmaking is as good as it is and pray the devs dont touch it.

If the update to a new matchmaking algorithm we could end up with another malaak event or undying loyalty bug or a broken calendar or extreme lag or traya gaining buffs in p3 sith or a silly little typo in text that breaks gp again game wide....who knows what they could throw out of balance trying to fix something that's not even broke.

Meanwhile the bug list is growing like Mario after a mushroom and there are much better ways they can spend their dev time imo.

"BobcatSkywalker;c-2039861" wrote:

Maybe if you had more members join you could have had more teams to kill them and make up the 200 points... u managed to clear the board imagine of you had those 4 players all save for offense you might have won.

Seems like going short handed hurt you because u could have used that extra firepower.

The match up came down to 200 points and both guilds cleared so it was close... which is the point of matchmaking to make things close and random which the current system seems like it's doing a decent job considering how everything else in this game works everyone should be happy matchmaking is as good as it is and pray the devs dont touch it.

If the update to a new matchmaking algorithm we could end up with another malaak event or undying loyalty bug or a broken calendar or extreme lag or traya gaining buffs in p3 sith or a silly little typo in text that breaks gp again game wide....who knows what they could throw out of balance trying to fix something that's not even broke.

Meanwhile the bug list is growing like Mario after a mushroom and there are much better ways they can spend their dev time imo.

Yet if they had had more people sign up they potentially would have been matched differently, then may have won or lost that match as well as it possibly having more or fewer opponents take part, its always a coin toss with what happens.

1. Maybe yes maybe no
2. True but people signing up and attacking is better than them getting no rewards and falling behind.
3. It's not a blowout either I've seem people lose by 6k u lost by 200
4. Ok
5. They wouldn't get it right I'm pretty confident in that. They mess up even text written in a message box.... and the bug rate for new characters is 98%... we saw how territories open in LS geo... Kennobi ship been bugged since release and still not fixed.

Plus the whole concern is are guilds exploiting this to get an advantage and the answer is clearly no there is no way to ensure you have an advantage.

Cant ensure u go shorthanded
Cant ensure you have the higher player average gp which usually means your guild has higher better top end teams
Cant ensure you win

that's the point to match up and see who's teams are better. In a fight there is always a favorite and underdog you cant ensure your always the favorite so nothing to see here but a bunch of complaining about mm

"BobcatSkywalker;c-2039743" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2039561" wrote:

"BobcatSkywalker;c-2039548" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2039544" wrote:

"DarjeloSalas;c-2039536" wrote:

"thecarterologist958;c-2038782" wrote:

"StarSon;c-2038674" wrote:


Shorthanded it is.

Shorthanding a TW will almost always give you an advantage, as has been shown many times in this thread.

Bar all the clearly irrelevant examples I've given each territory war this conversation has been active for. There is no way to guarantee an advantage is given, just as my examples are not proof that having the bigger guild is an advantage, there are other factors.

"StarSon;c-2038674" wrote:

"EventineElessedil;c-2030328" wrote:
"Shorthanded"
Fits the situation better. No intent.
Then we can focus on the real issue: whether the matching provides an advantage to the shorthanded team.

Shorthanded it is.

Shorthanding a TW will almost always give you an advantage, as has been shown many times in this thread.

@thecarterologist958 @StarSon here’s one for you:

TW is optional in our guild. People don’t sign up if they can’t commit to regularly checking the board to attack.

The Christmas TW we had our lowest ever sign up total of 44/50. Yay! Advantage us, right?

No. We faced a guild who were in the top 150 total GP (247M) against our 226M. 20 slots per zone so only 39/40 of them signed up. We were well beaten. Not annihilated, but a good 200 points behind them. They cleared our board in 3 hours, we cleared their’s in 23 hours.

Going in short handed doesn’t always give an advantage, because there’s nothing you can do to prevent being matched with a better guild who are going in even more short handed!

So, you're saying that going in more shorthanded (shorter handed?) than your opponent is an advantage, right? So, you're supporting StarSon's "almost always" statement, right? (assuming that at your GP level most guilds are going in with 50 or almost 50 members).

Just trying to get things straight. It seems like you're trying to argue against StarSon while your comment actually supports his statemen.

Assuming that most guilds go in with 50 members is where the logic falls apart... for example probally less than 5% go in with all 50 active, think about it. It's rare to have a tw with 25 zones. it's usually like 17 to 23 zones so 34 to 46 people is realistic as what "most guilds do".

For some reason my TWs seem to play differently than yours. I haven't seen less than 23 slots per zone for ages.

Or like you even have any control if you are more shorter handed than your opponent...

I don't believe anyone here claimed to be able to control match making.

My point is all your doing is getting less rewards making 5 sit out, 15 sit out, even if u go shortest possible handded and make 25 sit out your just getting less rewards as a guild big picture. And good luck finding those people to sit out in hopes of better rewards...

The reason for sitting out is completely irrelevant here.

If you dont recall seeing less than 23 slots for ages then all your matchups are with guilds having 46 to 50 members sign up and that would mean that matchmaking is functioning as even as possibly possible...

If you feel matchmaking is unfair and you have 50 they have 47 then your issue is matchmaking in general, not sandbagging.

Where did you read, that I have problems with sandbagging and think that matchmaking is unfair? That's.... "interesting".

I simply don't see the "usually 17 to 23 defensive slots per zone", which you claim to see. I'm not complaining.

I hope this is more clear to you now.

Additionally:
Yes, I believe that having significantly less participants than your opponent (same active GP) is an advantage. No, it doesn't eliminate other factors.