Is Sandbagging now the ultimate power in the universe?

Prev1
It seems so...

Anyway, why not make guilds with high recent win counts fight other guilds with high recent win counts? Then sandbaggers would have to go toe to toe with other sandbaggers. Kind of like a sandbagger Thunderdome.

Replies

  • TVF
    18918 posts Member
    Nope.
    TVF's guild is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • A TW grand arena? Do it!
  • TVF wrote: »
    Nope.

    Name one thing unfair about guilds who win in their GP group having to fight other guilds who win in the same group.
  • Waqui
    6472 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    Nope.

    Name one thing unfair about guilds who win in their GP group having to fight other guilds who win in the same group.

    Weaker guilds would have an easier path to ranking higher than stronger guilds, which would render the ranking worthless.
  • TVF wrote: »
    Nope.

    Name one thing unfair about guilds who win in their GP group having to fight other guilds who win in the same group.

    Since there is no global TW rating which gives better rewards for guilds which are higher in the ladder, such matchmaking would be unfair for stronger guilds - they essentially will be punished by receiving stronger opponent (and lesser win change) just for being good.
  • TVF
    18918 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    Nope.

    Name one thing unfair about guilds who win in their GP group having to fight other guilds who win in the same group.

    This topic has been beaten to death, resurrected, and beaten to death again, over and over again. So nope.
    TVF's guild is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Kyno
    22218 posts Moderator
    TVF wrote: »
    Nope.

    Name one thing unfair about guilds who win in their GP group having to fight other guilds who win in the same group.

    Any use of "history" in TW, leads to issues, this is especially true when a guild is TW casual and doesnt always have the same people signing up.

    How does it work if a guild has 45 sign up and win, then a different group of 45 sign up, but have a different win record? How would you propose the count is saved? An average of all players involved? (What if they bring in 1 new player who had a great history, or one new player with no history) or Just a guild record? ( what if players leave, is that guild stuck fighting harder opponents?)

    All of those have their own issues that can lead to a guild being punished for having a history, that is not fair.

    Matchmaking should be fair, and probably should get some tweaks, the problem is a history doesnt do that.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Nope.

    Name one thing unfair about guilds who win in their GP group having to fight other guilds who win in the same group.

    Any use of "history" in TW, leads to issues, this is especially true when a guild is TW casual and doesnt always have the same people signing up.

    How does it work if a guild has 45 sign up and win, then a different group of 45 sign up, but have a different win record? How would you propose the count is saved? An average of all players involved? (What if they bring in 1 new player who had a great history, or one new player with no history) or Just a guild record? ( what if players leave, is that guild stuck fighting harder opponents?)

    All of those have their own issues that can lead to a guild being punished for having a history, that is not fair.

    Matchmaking should be fair, and probably should get some tweaks, the problem is a history doesnt do that.

    I think it's even simpler than that. Matching up "winning" guilds takes away some of the advantages that TW focused guilds work hard to obtain. Instead of getting a random sample of casual, PvE, and PvP focused guilds they would slowly start facing more and more PvP/TW focused guilds. What's the point in working to get better if matchmaking is trying to set odds for most matches at 50/50? This type of matchmaking works better in GA where it's a lot easier to shift strategy and tactics based on opponent analysis. We'd need a lot more officer tools to replicate that kind of planning in TW.

  • Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Nope.

    Name one thing unfair about guilds who win in their GP group having to fight other guilds who win in the same group.

    Any use of "history" in TW, leads to issues, this is especially true when a guild is TW casual and doesnt always have the same people signing up.

    How does it work if a guild has 45 sign up and win, then a different group of 45 sign up, but have a different win record? How would you propose the count is saved? An average of all players involved? (What if they bring in 1 new player who had a great history, or one new player with no history) or Just a guild record? ( what if players leave, is that guild stuck fighting harder opponents?)

    All of those have their own issues that can lead to a guild being punished for having a history, that is not fair.

    Matchmaking should be fair, and probably should get some tweaks, the problem is a history doesnt do that.

    Sorry, but there is little to no logic in your counter argument.

    First of all, I said "recent" history should factor in. Recent history would capture a generally current status of the guild. This would have the exact opposite effect on a casual guild that you used as a case for a victim of the use of history. A casual guild who doesn't always have the same people showing up will have a very average win/loss record from recent history. They would be moved towards the average history segment of their GP grouping.

    Secondly, the use of 45 members joining a guild in between TW is an extreme edge case, which may not be technically impossible, but is highly unlikely and counterproductive to the players if done on purpose since players have lockout periods on raids and lose reward opportunities from previous guild raids if they leave suddenly to join a TW guild on purpose to game the recent history system.

    Thirdly, you mention individual player history when I am quite clearly talking about guild history. There should be no relationship between individual history and collective guild history.

    Finally, my idea of TW is that every war should have closely matched guilds to create an exciting and engaging experience for all players. Sandbagging is not a skill technique is the game. It is a form of laziness. Why would TW purposefully reward a guild that is only interested in beating on weaker opponents?

  • How exactly do you sandbag a TW?
  • You don't. It is just an excuse some people use to explain why they don't win 100% of the time.
  • Anariodin wrote: »
    How exactly do you sandbag a TW?
    BlackBart wrote: »
    You don't. It is just an excuse some people use to explain why they don't win 100% of the time.

    This. Most guilds that are "accused of sandbagging" are actually usually in one of three situations:
    1) A guild that has had 50, but due to people quitting/moving to more casual guilds, etc.) end up with less than 50 at the start of TW.
    2) A guild that has 50, but a few of them have real life commitments/conflicts during that TW, so rather than be "dead weight" (i.e. defense only), some of those members just don't join the TW as it's better for the guild to have everyone active on offense as well.
    3) A guild that has 50 but some people simply forgot to join (yes, it's happened. Even in high end guilds).

    And what TVF said about this topic being beaten to do death.

    Think about it for a second - if you were in a guild and they asked you (or told you) to sit out for a TW (and not get ANY rewards), so they could all have a chance at one extra zeta, how long would you stay in that guild? How long would that guild stay together? Yeah - that's why sandbagging isn't a real thing.
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

    In game guild: TNR Uprising
    I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
    *This space left intentionally blank*
  • Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Nope.

    Name one thing unfair about guilds who win in their GP group having to fight other guilds who win in the same group.

    Any use of "history" in TW, leads to issues, this is especially true when a guild is TW casual and doesnt always have the same people signing up.

    How does it work if a guild has 45 sign up and win, then a different group of 45 sign up, but have a different win record? How would you propose the count is saved? An average of all players involved? (What if they bring in 1 new player who had a great history, or one new player with no history) or Just a guild record? ( what if players leave, is that guild stuck fighting harder opponents?)

    All of those have their own issues that can lead to a guild being punished for having a history, that is not fair.

    Matchmaking should be fair, and probably should get some tweaks, the problem is a history doesnt do that.

    Sorry, but there is little to no logic in your counter argument.

    .................

    A casual guild who doesn't always have the same people showing up will have a very average win/loss record from recent history. They would be moved towards the average history segment of their GP grouping.
    ...................

    Hello there from low-GP casual guild which doesn't force players to participate in TW (although encourages them in the guild chat by saying "Hey people, please join TW!" :)) . Your own logic is based on false assumptions. Our win/loss is something like 35/1 for now, and that single loss was because joined people become lazy and forgot to fill all def spots available (we still were better in combat). So please don't do any claims about how different type of guilds can perform without having some real info.
  • Hortus wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Nope.

    Name one thing unfair about guilds who win in their GP group having to fight other guilds who win in the same group.

    Any use of "history" in TW, leads to issues, this is especially true when a guild is TW casual and doesnt always have the same people signing up.

    How does it work if a guild has 45 sign up and win, then a different group of 45 sign up, but have a different win record? How would you propose the count is saved? An average of all players involved? (What if they bring in 1 new player who had a great history, or one new player with no history) or Just a guild record? ( what if players leave, is that guild stuck fighting harder opponents?)

    All of those have their own issues that can lead to a guild being punished for having a history, that is not fair.

    Matchmaking should be fair, and probably should get some tweaks, the problem is a history doesnt do that.

    Sorry, but there is little to no logic in your counter argument.

    .................

    A casual guild who doesn't always have the same people showing up will have a very average win/loss record from recent history. They would be moved towards the average history segment of their GP grouping.
    ...................

    Hello there from low-GP casual guild which doesn't force players to participate in TW (although encourages them in the guild chat by saying "Hey people, please join TW!" :)) . Your own logic is based on false assumptions. Our win/loss is something like 35/1 for now, and that single loss was because joined people become lazy and forgot to fill all def spots available (we still were better in combat). So please don't do any claims about how different type of guilds can perform without having some real info.

    But he's been doing that the entire thread!! :D
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

    In game guild: TNR Uprising
    I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
    *This space left intentionally blank*
  • Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Hortus wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Nope.

    Name one thing unfair about guilds who win in their GP group having to fight other guilds who win in the same group.

    Any use of "history" in TW, leads to issues, this is especially true when a guild is TW casual and doesnt always have the same people signing up.

    How does it work if a guild has 45 sign up and win, then a different group of 45 sign up, but have a different win record? How would you propose the count is saved? An average of all players involved? (What if they bring in 1 new player who had a great history, or one new player with no history) or Just a guild record? ( what if players leave, is that guild stuck fighting harder opponents?)

    All of those have their own issues that can lead to a guild being punished for having a history, that is not fair.

    Matchmaking should be fair, and probably should get some tweaks, the problem is a history doesnt do that.

    Sorry, but there is little to no logic in your counter argument.

    .................

    A casual guild who doesn't always have the same people showing up will have a very average win/loss record from recent history. They would be moved towards the average history segment of their GP grouping.
    ...................

    Hello there from low-GP casual guild which doesn't force players to participate in TW (although encourages them in the guild chat by saying "Hey people, please join TW!" :)) . Your own logic is based on false assumptions. Our win/loss is something like 35/1 for now, and that single loss was because joined people become lazy and forgot to fill all def spots available (we still were better in combat). So please don't do any claims about how different type of guilds can perform without having some real info.

    But he's been doing that the entire thread!! :D

    My thread. I'll do what I please. Thank you!
  • I say it over and over... they already record number of TW wins per player (in achievements). So you create an average from the number of wins per player signed up for TW. It would require 6+ outliers to significantly sway an average. If the average was 45, and one member left and was replaced by someone with 0 wins, the average would drop to 44.1. Since it would only count members signed up for TW they'd also put themselves at a disadvantage since likely an alt with 0 TW wins would also lack the roster to participate and so would dilute other rosters to cover the offense and defense from that 0 win account.
  • Waqui
    6472 posts Member
    @Daishi

    OK, I'll repeat it here for you aswell:
    Waqui wrote: »
    And what if the guild has a lot of relatively low GP players, with a high amount of TW wins, while their high GP players have a low amount of wins? The average amount of wins would not reflect the actual strength of the guild in TW.

  • leef
    13358 posts Member
    "sandbagging" (either intentional or unintentional) sucks and matchmaking should be adjusted to resolve this long lasting issue.
    However, including recent match results is not the way to go imo.
  • This current TW we have 3 of 50 players away who have not signed up. I have spoken to our opposition who had 40 of 50 sign up, they even have a 600 E getting account with a GP of 20900.

    They have 7* G13 R7 Wat Tamobor, they have 29 GAS leading G13 clones at varying relic levels (my guild has 5 GAS total none over 6*). There are walls of fully paid up G13R7 toons of other denominations.

    If we even manage to clear their board it will be a miracle. Let alone trying to actually beat them. If this is not a prime example of sandbagging at its finest I don't know what is? How the matchmaking can not be made to check individual units especially ones like GAS who are mini raids in themselves (I have cleared three of them so far but I'm all out on attacking toons).

    Something needs to be done.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    @Daishi

    OK, I'll repeat it here for you aswell:
    Waqui wrote: »
    And what if the guild has a lot of relatively low GP players, with a high amount of TW wins, while their high GP players have a low amount of wins? The average amount of wins would not reflect the actual strength of the guild in TW.

    This is why matchmaking would still be GP based but further matchmade by avg wins. So in your scenario they would be matchmade based on GP as it currently is, and then from that pool of potential matches they would match based on avg TW wins. It would allow a better filtering of matchmaking to put more casual guilds with low wins against similar guilds. Meanwhile guilds would fight other guilds with similar TW experience and have a better close match. How does that make anything worse @Waqui
  • Waqui
    6472 posts Member
    Daishi wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    @Daishi

    OK, I'll repeat it here for you aswell:
    Waqui wrote: »
    And what if the guild has a lot of relatively low GP players, with a high amount of TW wins, while their high GP players have a low amount of wins? The average amount of wins would not reflect the actual strength of the guild in TW.

    This is why matchmaking would still be GP based but further matchmade by avg wins. So in your scenario they would be matchmade based on GP as it currently is, and then from that pool of potential matches they would match based on avg TW wins.

    Yes, I understood that from your first post. Let me explain it differently:

    2 guilds, of same total guild GP and same avrg. wins.

    Guild A : The highest GP players are the least successful in TW either due to their weakly built rosters, inferior skill or whatever.
    Guild B : The highest GP players are the most successful in TW due to their strong roster, superior skills etc.

    The identical average number of wins, doesn't reflect the actual strength of the two guilds in TW.


  • Daishi
    534 posts Member
    edited November 2019
    That's why an average works. Highest or lowest it doesnt matter. It will all average out! Let's take your 2 examples:

    [/quote]


    2 guilds, of same total guild GP and same avrg. wins.

    Guild A : The highest GP players are the least successful in TW either due to their weakly built rosters, inferior skill or whatever.

    [/quote]
    So this player will boost the guild GP (as is currently the matchmaking) moving the entire guild into a stronger GP based conflict. Their low TW score will mean it balances out the higher GP match by lowering the guild avg wins by a small amount to get a slightly less competitive match, since their roster doesnt actually help them compete at a higher level

    [/quote]
    Guild B : The highest GP players are the most successful in TW due to their strong roster, superior skills etc.
    [/quote]
    Moves the guild into a higher GP and TW win match by a small amount t but balances that by having the roster to help the guild compete..

    In both of these examples matching based on a TW average after getting into a pool of matches based on GP means a better result.

    The only ones who dont want TW matchmaking to change are those who are TW focused guilds who keep tight rosters and eliminate low performers so they have the tightest and lowest fluff rosters so they can stomp 90% of guilds they face in TW.
  • Waqui
    6472 posts Member
    @Daishi you misunderstood my example. There"s no changes (/moving up or down). Both guilds have the same GP and average TW wins. According to your suggestion, they could be matched in a TW. However, guild B would clearly be the stronger guild of the two.
  • I think you have to be really careful about how you define sandbagging. There are times where guilds have people on vacation or unable to play so a couple people sit out. There are guilds that say you don't have to join TW, but if you do, you must participate. There are times where a guild is down a couple people and they are recruiting and thus have a couple alts in their guild just to get tickets. Those guilds aren't sandbagging when they go in with less than 50. I also don't consider going in with 48 people sandbagging. Going in with 46 or fewer I would say constitutes sandbagging.

    Sandbagging is when a guild intentionally joins TW with fewer people with the express intent to get an easier matchup. It's usually not 48 people either. It's usually something like 40-42 people. When that happens, I do agree it's really lame. It's gaming the system for what basically amounts to one more zeta. I honestly don't understand why some guilds do it. There can't be any satisfaction in winning. It would be like going into a race and getting a 5 second head start. Sure, you won, but do you really get any satisfaction knowing you had to cheat to win?
  • leef
    13358 posts Member
    Ikky2win wrote: »
    I think you have to be really careful about how you define sandbagging. There are times where guilds have people on vacation or unable to play so a couple people sit out. There are guilds that say you don't have to join TW, but if you do, you must participate. There are times where a guild is down a couple people and they are recruiting and thus have a couple alts in their guild just to get tickets. Those guilds aren't sandbagging when they go in with less than 50. I also don't consider going in with 48 people sandbagging. Going in with 46 or fewer I would say constitutes sandbagging.

    Sandbagging is when a guild intentionally joins TW with fewer people with the express intent to get an easier matchup. It's usually not 48 people either. It's usually something like 40-42 people. When that happens, I do agree it's really lame. It's gaming the system for what basically amounts to one more zeta. I honestly don't understand why some guilds do it. There can't be any satisfaction in winning. It would be like going into a race and getting a 5 second head start. Sure, you won, but do you really get any satisfaction knowing you had to cheat to win?

    it doesn't matter if it's intentional or not, it has the same effect on matchmaking regardless. You can argue all day about how you define sandbagging, but it's completely irrelevant.
  • Waqui wrote: »
    @Daishi you misunderstood my example. There"s no changes (/moving up or down). Both guilds have the same GP and average TW wins. According to your suggestion, they could be matched in a TW. However, guild B would clearly be the stronger guild of the two.

    They could already currently be matched in a TW... if their GP matches they can be matched. All I'm suggesting is a second filtering to match average TW wins. I'm not suggesting that this will become a perfect matchmaking, that doesn't exist. What I am suggesting is that using avg wins as a second filter it would eventually create better close matches. Filtering guilds into tiers based on their competence in TW so that there are at least closer matches instead of one blowout with one barely breaking the front wall.
  • Ikky2win wrote: »
    Going in with 46 or fewer I would say constitutes sandbagging.

    Any thought behind that number? Or is it as arbitrary as it sounds?

    If guilds can be short a few members or have a few members on vacation, who’s to say they can’t have 4 or more missing?
  • Ikky2win
    870 posts Member
    edited November 2019
    Ikky2win wrote: »
    Going in with 46 or fewer I would say constitutes sandbagging.

    Any thought behind that number? Or is it as arbitrary as it sounds?

    If guilds can be short a few members or have a few members on vacation, who’s to say they can’t have 4 or more missing?

    They can, it just seems less likely is all. I guess it also depends what level your guild is at. Lower GP guilds I can definitely see that happen. I’m in a 240m+ guild so I’m looking at it from that perspective. Not too common to see 4+ people sitting out unless it’s an intentional sandbag.
  • Waqui
    6472 posts Member
    Daishi wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    @Daishi you misunderstood my example. There"s no changes (/moving up or down). Both guilds have the same GP and average TW wins. According to your suggestion, they could be matched in a TW. However, guild B would clearly be the stronger guild of the two.

    They could already currently be matched in a TW... if their GP matches they can be matched. All I'm suggesting is a second filtering to match average TW wins. I'm not suggesting that this will become a perfect matchmaking, that doesn't exist. What I am suggesting is that using avg wins as a second filter it would eventually create better close matches.

    That would only be the case, if the average number of wins actually reflected the strength of the guild in TW.
  • Ikky2win wrote: »
    Ikky2win wrote: »
    Going in with 46 or fewer I would say constitutes sandbagging.

    Any thought behind that number? Or is it as arbitrary as it sounds?

    If guilds can be short a few members or have a few members on vacation, who’s to say they can’t have 4 or more missing?

    They can, it just seems less likely is all. I guess it also depends what level your guild is at. Lower GP guilds I can definitely see that happen. I’m in a 240m+ guild so I’m looking at it from that perspective. Not too common to see 4+ people sitting out unless it’s an intentional sandbag.

    This seems accurate
Sign In or Register to comment.