Is there any indication that CG will eventually address TW sand bagging? We (480m GP) just got annihilated by a 521m GP guild. The problem? When looking at their last 20 battles...they never put up more than 460m GP. Doing this has given them an 18-2 record during that period. Obviously sand-bagging has been a problem for YEARS.....and I'm wondering if CG at least acknowledges its a problem they want to fix. My guess is they don't give a bleep.

What you call sandbagging is what we call TW being optional. Out of our 50 members, usually around 36-38 join because they want to. As a GL, I'd much rather play with people who WANT to participate in a game mode rather than force people to do something they don't like and end up not showing up, costing us the match.

For a guild to sandbag intentionally, its members would have to all sign up to some sort of rotation system where a portion of them don't sign up for each TW. Let's say that portion is 20%. Assuming they then go on to win every time, everyone over a period of time gets 80% of the winner's rewards. On the other hand, if everyone plays, and for some odd reason they just lose every war, so everyone over the same period of time would get 100% of the loser's rewards. Is there enough difference between the two to make sandbagging worth while?

"VicMackey;d-269251" wrote:Is there any indication that CG will eventually address TW sand bagging? We (480m GP) just got annihilated by a 521m GP guild. The problem? When looking at their last 20 battles...they never put up more than 460m GP. Doing this has given them an 18-2 record during that period. Obviously sand-bagging has been a problem for YEARS.....and I'm wondering if CG at least acknowledges its a problem they want to fix. My guess is they don't give a bleep. not everyone in the guild has time or likes TW

"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2462790" wrote:For a guild to sandbag intentionally, its members would have to all sign up to some sort of rotation system where a portion of them don't sign up for each TW. Let's say that portion is 20%. Assuming they then go on to win every time, everyone over a period of time gets 80% of the winner's rewards. On the other hand, if everyone plays, and for some odd reason they just lose every war, so everyone over the same period of time would get 100% of the loser's rewards. Is there enough difference between the two to make sandbagging worth while?Yes, since the rewards for a win at 5x higher for droid brains, 3x higher for MK3 reroll mats, 80% of that is still betterIt's also probably not an even rotation, as the officers aren't likely rotating out. There needs to be a wholesale change to tw, including matchmaking in a GAC style skill rating honestly

Intentional sandbagging is bad. There are guilds that don't allow their weaker members to join.There could be an easy quick fix, by just adding additional reward tiers. Currently it goes only to 380m and there are guilds that will soon be at 700m. This would encourage guilds to join with more GP, because they would get better rewards.

TW Sand-Bagging - will it EVER be addressed by CG?

Mahl_Jhong
Rising Traveler
8 months ago
What you call sandbagging is what we call TW being optional.

Out of our 50 members, usually around 36-38 join because they want to. As a GL, I'd much rather play with people who WANT to participate in a game mode rather than force people to do something they don't like and end up not showing up, costing us the match.
M0st1yHarm1ess
New Spectator
8 months ago
For a guild to sandbag intentionally, its members would have to all sign up to some sort of rotation system where a portion of them don't sign up for each TW. Let's say that portion is 20%. Assuming they then go on to win every time, everyone over a period of time gets 80% of the winner's rewards. On the other hand, if everyone plays, and for some odd reason they just lose every war, so everyone over the same period of time would get 100% of the loser's rewards. Is there enough difference between the two to make sandbagging worth while?
NotRealUltra
Seasoned Newcomer
8 months ago
"VicMackey;d-269251" wrote:
Is there any indication that CG will eventually address TW sand bagging? We (480m GP) just got annihilated by a 521m GP guild. The problem? When looking at their last 20 battles...they never put up more than 460m GP. Doing this has given them an 18-2 record during that period. Obviously sand-bagging has been a problem for YEARS.....and I'm wondering if CG at least acknowledges its a problem they want to fix. My guess is they don't give a bleep.

not everyone in the guild has time or likes TW
thedrjojo
Seasoned Newcomer
8 months ago
"PeachyPeachSWGOH;c-2462790" wrote:
For a guild to sandbag intentionally, its members would have to all sign up to some sort of rotation system where a portion of them don't sign up for each TW. Let's say that portion is 20%. Assuming they then go on to win every time, everyone over a period of time gets 80% of the winner's rewards. On the other hand, if everyone plays, and for some odd reason they just lose every war, so everyone over the same period of time would get 100% of the loser's rewards. Is there enough difference between the two to make sandbagging worth while?

Yes, since the rewards for a win at 5x higher for droid brains, 3x higher for MK3 reroll mats, 80% of that is still better

It's also probably not an even rotation, as the officers aren't likely rotating out.

There needs to be a wholesale change to tw, including matchmaking in a GAC style skill rating honestly
- nottenst
  Seasoned Traveler
  4 months ago
  Our guild is 395 GP and in the last 10 TWs we have ranged from 305M active GP to 361M active GP (going 6-4). It is discouraging to not get as many participants as we want, but life happens. We are not "sandbagging." The TW algorithm doesn't even match active GP anyway, so I can't see how you can go in planning to "sandbag".
  In any case, they definitely need to change matchmaking. I agree that some skill rating would be preferable. The statistics are out there for win-loss record, they could use them.
19ulysses76
Rising Novice
4 months ago
Intentional sandbagging is bad. There are guilds that don't allow their weaker members to join.
There could be an easy quick fix, by just adding additional reward tiers. Currently it goes only to 380m and there are guilds that will soon be at 700m. This would encourage guilds to join with more GP, because they would get better rewards.
Persimius
New Scout
8 months ago
Sandbagging isn't a problem, so why should they care?
- GHILLIEMAN32
  Rising Rookie
  5 months ago
  It rewards being afk. Being afk means they are playing the game less, and spending money less.
  
  Also the less rewarding TW feels, the less likely people are to spend money on Omis.
  - dogwelder79
    New Traveler
    4 months ago
    People who don't play don't get anything. How is that a reward?
- ALLSBROS22
  New Rookie
  4 months ago
  Yes it is! It's a major problem! Your probably in a guild that sandbags with that statement.
  Sandbaging significantly reduces the chances of having a chance to win. The fight should be relatively fair based on win to loss ration. My guild fights sandbaging guilds about 80% of the time. We win 1 fight then immediately go back to being sandbaged. This makes it to where our guild won't spend any money on TWs because it's not worth it and CG losses out on it. I'm sure my guild isn't the only guild that feels this way.
VicMackey321
8 months ago
Because it kills the motivation to try (and ultimately spend time & $$ to upgrade characters...etc...etc.)
Persimius
New Scout
8 months ago
"VicMackey;c-2462744" wrote:
Because it kills the motivation to try (and ultimately spend time & $$ to upgrade characters...etc...etc.)

Well, CG knows how to make money, so I imagine if it was really doing anything to their revenue they would change it.
fenn93
New Rookie
8 months ago
"VicMackey;c-2462744" wrote:
Because it kills the motivation to try (and ultimately spend time & $$ to upgrade characters...etc...etc.)

Hate to be devils advocate but I don’t think anyone has thought about not spending money due to the gp difference in TW.
It’s an issue where I’m in exactly the same boat as you, in a 460m guild and just get steamrolled by bigger guilds only putting up some of they’re roster
Joebo720
8 months ago
"Ultra;c-2462754" wrote:
not everyone in the guild has time or likes TW

That is a fine excuse, guilds should do whatever they want. Put them up against similar GP guilds then, don't reward them by being matched up with lower GP guilds. Problem solved, their problem their members don't want to join, not the lower GP guilds fault.
- scuba75
  Seasoned Rookie
  4 months ago
  Spend more boost your GP. Not higher GP guilds fault you don't want to spend. See can go either way.
  Yes the match making in tw sucks. Completely agree it would be better going to a skill rating system like GAC.
  Sincerely a guild that does optional TW and many times is the higher GP guild.
  - Pulsipher
    New Scout
    4 months ago
    Agreed- when we get matched with a guild that has 40-60 mil GP advantage I attribute it to the algorithm and recent records. Whatever sandbagging concerns people may have now pale in comparison to the lean rosters that would only gear the top characters - and the guilds that didn’t want you if you GP was bloated on ineffective characters.