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.
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.
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.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"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*
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?!?"
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.
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.
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."
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."
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.
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.
So for some unknown reason it gives an advantage to the guild with less members even though the power is the same and guilds with more members win frequently.
We need to just trust your right?
My GAC opponents sandbag because for some reason the game gives then an advantage.
My arena group sandbags because for some reason the game gives them an advantage.
My raid scores are being sandbagged because for some reason game gives my guildmates an advantage because other people score more than me.
Anyone can say it's an advantage but in reality we win and lose in tw. Sometimes we have more sometimes less members but we have won and lost in both cases.
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.
So for some unknown reason it gives an advantage to the guild with less members even though the power is the same and guilds with more members win frequently.
We need to just trust your right?
No. I have given multiple guild-level roster comparisons to prove my point, and have many more I could share.
My GAC opponents sandbag because for some reason the game gives then an advantage.
TW and GAC matchmaking are very different, so the comparison doesn't really mean anything here.
My arena group sandbags because for some reason the game gives them an advantage.
Now I think you're just ragging on my use of the term?
My raid scores are being sandbagged because for some reason game gives my guildmates an advantage because other people score more than me.
Anyone can say it's an advantage but in reality we win and lose in tw. Sometimes we have more sometimes less members but we have won and lost in both cases.
I can say it's an advantage because I have not had a match in which both sides were at full capacity in over a year. Each time, the side not at 50 has the advantage in meta characters, zetas, gear, and mods. This does not always equate to a win, but that's why you still play.
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.
So for some unknown reason it gives an advantage to the guild with less members even though the power is the same and guilds with more members win frequently.
We need to just trust your right?
No. I have given multiple guild-level roster comparisons to prove my point, and have many more I could share.
My GAC opponents sandbag because for some reason the game gives then an advantage.
TW and GAC matchmaking are very different, so the comparison doesn't really mean anything here.
My arena group sandbags because for some reason the game gives them an advantage.
Now I think you're just ragging on my use of the term?
My raid scores are being sandbagged because for some reason game gives my guildmates an advantage because other people score more than me.
Anyone can say it's an advantage but in reality we win and lose in tw. Sometimes we have more sometimes less members but we have won and lost in both cases.
I can say it's an advantage because I have not had a match in which both sides were at full capacity in over a year. Each time, the side not at 50 has the advantage in meta characters, zetas, gear, and mods. This does not always equate to a win, but that's why you still play.
So your argument that sandbagging (having less members) provides an advantage isnt based on wins and losses instead its rooted in your perception of what guild is "favored" at the start of tw.
I'm glad you at least admit that sandbagging doesn't equate to a win or a loss, that's a good start.
Next consider if your perception of which guild has the advantage could just be wrong and were making progress. Once you admit that your perception could be incorrect then you can understand that sandbagging (having less members) is already adjusted for in matchmaking and the proof of it is what you said, "this does always equate to a win but that's why you play."
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.
So for some unknown reason it gives an advantage to the guild with less members even though the power is the same and guilds with more members win frequently.
We need to just trust your right?
No. I have given multiple guild-level roster comparisons to prove my point, and have many more I could share.
My GAC opponents sandbag because for some reason the game gives then an advantage.
TW and GAC matchmaking are very different, so the comparison doesn't really mean anything here.
My arena group sandbags because for some reason the game gives them an advantage.
Now I think you're just ragging on my use of the term?
My raid scores are being sandbagged because for some reason game gives my guildmates an advantage because other people score more than me.
Anyone can say it's an advantage but in reality we win and lose in tw. Sometimes we have more sometimes less members but we have won and lost in both cases.
I can say it's an advantage because I have not had a match in which both sides were at full capacity in over a year. Each time, the side not at 50 has the advantage in meta characters, zetas, gear, and mods. This does not always equate to a win, but that's why you still play.
So your argument that sandbagging (having less members) provides an advantage isnt based on wins and losses instead its rooted in your perception of what guild is "favored" at the start of tw.
I'm glad you at least admit that sandbagging doesn't equate to a win or a loss, that's a good start.
Next consider if your perception of which guild has the advantage could just be wrong and were making progress. Once you admit that your perception could be incorrect then you can understand that sandbagging (having less members) is already adjusted for in matchmaking and the proof of it is what you said, "this does always equate to a win but that's why you play."
My perception of an advantage is based on a breakdown of both guilds' rosters. It is easy to see which side has an advantage, and it is easy to see that sandbagging (going in with fewer than 50 members) almost always provides a tangible roster advantage.
We always do a comparison of my guild and our opponent guild, and both methods we use compare mostly the same things: gear levels, zetas, mods (speed and offense values, and 6* numbers), and specific characters often used in TW. By looking at these comparisons from a sandbagged (here meaning simply that one of the guilds went into TW matchimaking with fewer than 50 members [do we see now how cumbersome it is to not use the same term regardless of intent?]), you can easily see that having sandbagged (you know what I mean) one of the guilds has a clear cut advantage.
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.
So for some unknown reason it gives an advantage to the guild with less members even though the power is the same and guilds with more members win frequently.
We need to just trust your right?
No. I have given multiple guild-level roster comparisons to prove my point, and have many more I could share.
My GAC opponents sandbag because for some reason the game gives then an advantage.
TW and GAC matchmaking are very different, so the comparison doesn't really mean anything here.
My arena group sandbags because for some reason the game gives them an advantage.
Now I think you're just ragging on my use of the term?
My raid scores are being sandbagged because for some reason game gives my guildmates an advantage because other people score more than me.
Anyone can say it's an advantage but in reality we win and lose in tw. Sometimes we have more sometimes less members but we have won and lost in both cases.
I can say it's an advantage because I have not had a match in which both sides were at full capacity in over a year. Each time, the side not at 50 has the advantage in meta characters, zetas, gear, and mods. This does not always equate to a win, but that's why you still play.
So your argument that sandbagging (having less members) provides an advantage isnt based on wins and losses instead its rooted in your perception of what guild is "favored" at the start of tw.
I'm glad you at least admit that sandbagging doesn't equate to a win or a loss, that's a good start.
Next consider if your perception of which guild has the advantage could just be wrong and were making progress. Once you admit that your perception could be incorrect then you can understand that sandbagging (having less members) is already adjusted for in matchmaking and the proof of it is what you said, "this does always equate to a win but that's why you play."
What makes you so sure that sandbagging doesn't work? You can talk a big game about perception and what not, but that applies to both you and StarSon equally. Have you considered that you may be wrong?
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.
So for some unknown reason it gives an advantage to the guild with less members even though the power is the same and guilds with more members win frequently.
We need to just trust your right?
No. I have given multiple guild-level roster comparisons to prove my point, and have many more I could share.
My GAC opponents sandbag because for some reason the game gives then an advantage.
TW and GAC matchmaking are very different, so the comparison doesn't really mean anything here.
My arena group sandbags because for some reason the game gives them an advantage.
Now I think you're just ragging on my use of the term?
My raid scores are being sandbagged because for some reason game gives my guildmates an advantage because other people score more than me.
Anyone can say it's an advantage but in reality we win and lose in tw. Sometimes we have more sometimes less members but we have won and lost in both cases.
I can say it's an advantage because I have not had a match in which both sides were at full capacity in over a year. Each time, the side not at 50 has the advantage in meta characters, zetas, gear, and mods. This does not always equate to a win, but that's why you still play.
So your argument that sandbagging (having less members) provides an advantage isnt based on wins and losses instead its rooted in your perception of what guild is "favored" at the start of tw.
I'm glad you at least admit that sandbagging doesn't equate to a win or a loss, that's a good start.
Next consider if your perception of which guild has the advantage could just be wrong and were making progress. Once you admit that your perception could be incorrect then you can understand that sandbagging (having less members) is already adjusted for in matchmaking and the proof of it is what you said, "this does always equate to a win but that's why you play."
My perception of an advantage is based on a breakdown of both guilds' rosters. It is easy to see which side has an advantage, and it is easy to see that sandbagging (going in with fewer than 50 members) almost always provides a tangible roster advantage.
We always do a comparison of my guild and our opponent guild, and both methods we use compare mostly the same things: gear levels, zetas, mods (speed and offense values, and 6* numbers), and specific characters often used in TW. By looking at these comparisons from a sandbagged (here meaning simply that one of the guilds went into TW matchimaking with fewer than 50 members [do we see now how cumbersome it is to not use the same term regardless of intent?]), you can easily see that having sandbagged (you know what I mean) one of the guilds has a clear cut advantage.
Having more g12 or more zetas or higher gear overall are meaningless stats what really matters is the number of meta teams and meta counters, do you track those?
Very often our enemies can not pass our front wall so them having 100 more zetas and 100 more g12 and 100 more 6e mods than us doesn't matter.
My point is the criteria your using to qualify what you beleive is an advantage is actually bad criteria and a more reasonable assessment would be how many meta teams do they have how many counter meta options do they have because that's what really matters. When a dr team get 17 wins that eats up the whole g12 or mod advantage your seeing in the comparison of the guilds.
@leef
I may be wrong but empirical evidence (win some lose some) sometimes we have more sometimes less members. This suggests I'm correct and matchmaking is fair.
I think this is more reasonable than saying sandbagging gives an advantage and the proof is you win some and lose some. That doesn't even make sense even if you follow it up with well the guild I thought would win didnt so it's because sandbagging, that also makes no sense and I have pointed out his errors in coming to the conclusion of which guild he feels is favored (looking at who has more g12, zetas, gear, but not meta teams and meta counters).
I will admit there is an advantage to getting matched against a guild with less members because on average the bigger guild has better top end teams but this is offset somewhat by the smaller guild which will have more teams available so if they can beat the top end teams from the bigger guild then they have more to throw at the rest of the "sandbagging" guilds roster.
At the end of the day it boils down to what guild has the best teams as it should.
Going to be honest, given sandbagging is an actual term, something I didn't realise until I literally just googled it, it doesn't exactly apply here anyway, so for people asking for a catch all phrase, what's wrong with under participation? Yes it's long, but I don't care.
Also when you are saying both sides could be wrong, it is true, but as ever it is with the side suggesting something does happen to provide evidence. If you really want evidence to the contrary, my old guild would enter usually 25 people max to territory war, we missed a few because not enough people would join. Initially we lost a lot until we improved organisation and focused our rosters, then we started to win. Was it because we had fewer people join? Or did the merger we went through followed by a continuation of majority wins with a fuller guild suggest it was something else? We win more than we lose, and we are often the larger guild, for instance this most recent one we had 49 people join and placed 21 teams, suggesting a 7 player difference. We won. We do have less than 50 join every time, but we regularly have to place fewer teams, complain about anecdotal if you like, but there isn't much bias to be had as I've not been looking for either result. There's some evidence, does that mean it isn't a thing now?
The ironic part is that I think we all agree...Whatever it is in the matchmaking algorithm that gives an advantage to a guild with fewer numbers facing a slightly larger (or full 50) guild, needs to be corrected. Period. Whether it is intentional ("sandbagging") or not (real life).
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"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*
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.
Just to be clear - please reread my quote. I didn't accuse you of implying anything. The term itself implies by it's definition. Google it. Or look it up. As 7AnimalMother correctly pointed out above, every definition of "sangbagging" in the connotation we are talking about starts with the word "deliberately". By literal definition, there is no such thing as "unintentional sandbagging".
Moving on.
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"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*
this is how it looks like, 243M GP guild against 193M GP, we got full participation, facing approx. 42 boys from guild in completely other potential, still there is a bug with GP calculating so maybe they are less but still this is completely other league, so maybe you will all smart-**** will explain what chances we have to win ? we got similar matchmaking 3/5 from last TW, when we got a guild of our potential we got a nice fight, here we just wait to be beaten, maybe somebody will explain me how should we keep morale in our guild high ? tell people to farm PVP teams, go after LS geo TB, farm meta teams, if we meet a team that we cannot win ? any idea for tactics that we have a chance to win if they got 22 malaks G13 and we got 10, if they have 48 HMF and we got 29, this is completely out of our league !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I mean in a guild with Wat Tambor and Negotiator numbers like that, you only have yourselves to blame for guild members not bothering to work on HMF or Malak yet, especially since HMF is literally put into the journey guide full time before this TW started. The main difference I would suggest would be in the consistently higher speed, but since that isn't GP based, I would say the fault still lies with you. There's no guarantee of loss, all those things have counters, but don't fail to get something then complain its not fair that other people did, that's not a higher GP, that's a smarter farming process. Also don't say you've lost before you've even set up your defense, it's an important factor sometimes. Get on with it, see what the outcome is, then whinge.
I mean in a guild with Wat Tambor and Negotiator numbers like that, you only have yourselves to blame for guild members not bothering to work on HMF or Malak yet, especially since HMF is literally put into the journey guide full time before this TW started. The main difference I would suggest would be in the consistently higher speed, but since that isn't GP based, I would say the fault still lies with you. There's no guarantee of loss, all those things have counters, but don't fail to get something then complain its not fair that other people did, that's not a higher GP, that's a smarter farming process. Also don't say you've lost before you've even set up your defense, it's an important factor sometimes. Get on with it, see what the outcome is, then whinge.
It's the equivalent of the Yankees playing a little league team. They're out classed in every statistical category that matters. It's not even remotely even. People have a right to complain when matchmaking is absurd.
Just like naYR said, we are a Small fish and want to fight with other Small fish in our league. Dividing guilds into brackets according to Total GP and make matchmaking afterwards inside the bracket according to active GP would solve the problem.
Our latest matchup. They have 8 not signed up. The meta count is significantly higher and the arena ranks show the guild is fully active.
There must be a way to improve matchmaking or a better way to deter sandbagging like the above.
The guild GP figures are around 9mill higher than they should be on both sides due to the recent bug. They've just kept themselves within the kyrotech bracket
"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.
They cleared us in around 3 hours.
I assume intent here, so sandbagging.
Nothing points towards "shorthanded" in our instance.
We've had 4 or 5 matchups this year that I'd consider shorthanded.
I'm sure they could implement the same stuff they have in GAC like top 60 character GP and also look at cross referencing total GP vs active GP, to determine a fairer matchup.
They cleared us in around 3 hours.
I assume intent here, so sandbagging.
Nothing points towards "shorthanded" in our instance.
We've had 4 or 5 matchups this year that I'd consider shorthanded.
I'm sure they could implement the same stuff they have in GAC like top 60 character GP and also look at cross referencing total GP vs active GP, to determine a fairer matchup.
I can't help but wonder if the GP bug is messing up TW match-ups even more this go. Our guild has 18 of us over 5 million GP. Our opponents have 29 at 5+ million including 6 over 6 million (we have none over 6 million). It's an absolute rout. Oh....and they're "shorthanded".
Post edited by Nikoms565 on
In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"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*
Replies
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.
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*
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.
What do you mean "you people?!?"
It definitely does provide an advantage.
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.
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.
And it's loaded with negative connotation. Since it literally means "deliberately underperform in a race or competition to gain an unfair advantage."
So for some unknown reason it gives an advantage to the guild with less members even though the power is the same and guilds with more members win frequently.
We need to just trust your right?
My GAC opponents sandbag because for some reason the game gives then an advantage.
My arena group sandbags because for some reason the game gives them an advantage.
My raid scores are being sandbagged because for some reason game gives my guildmates an advantage because other people score more than me.
Anyone can say it's an advantage but in reality we win and lose in tw. Sometimes we have more sometimes less members but we have won and lost in both cases.
No. I have given multiple guild-level roster comparisons to prove my point, and have many more I could share.
TW and GAC matchmaking are very different, so the comparison doesn't really mean anything here.
Now I think you're just ragging on my use of the term?
I can say it's an advantage because I have not had a match in which both sides were at full capacity in over a year. Each time, the side not at 50 has the advantage in meta characters, zetas, gear, and mods. This does not always equate to a win, but that's why you still play.
So your argument that sandbagging (having less members) provides an advantage isnt based on wins and losses instead its rooted in your perception of what guild is "favored" at the start of tw.
I'm glad you at least admit that sandbagging doesn't equate to a win or a loss, that's a good start.
Next consider if your perception of which guild has the advantage could just be wrong and were making progress. Once you admit that your perception could be incorrect then you can understand that sandbagging (having less members) is already adjusted for in matchmaking and the proof of it is what you said, "this does always equate to a win but that's why you play."
My perception of an advantage is based on a breakdown of both guilds' rosters. It is easy to see which side has an advantage, and it is easy to see that sandbagging (going in with fewer than 50 members) almost always provides a tangible roster advantage.
We always do a comparison of my guild and our opponent guild, and both methods we use compare mostly the same things: gear levels, zetas, mods (speed and offense values, and 6* numbers), and specific characters often used in TW. By looking at these comparisons from a sandbagged (here meaning simply that one of the guilds went into TW matchimaking with fewer than 50 members [do we see now how cumbersome it is to not use the same term regardless of intent?]), you can easily see that having sandbagged (you know what I mean) one of the guilds has a clear cut advantage.
What makes you so sure that sandbagging doesn't work? You can talk a big game about perception and what not, but that applies to both you and StarSon equally. Have you considered that you may be wrong?
Having more g12 or more zetas or higher gear overall are meaningless stats what really matters is the number of meta teams and meta counters, do you track those?
Very often our enemies can not pass our front wall so them having 100 more zetas and 100 more g12 and 100 more 6e mods than us doesn't matter.
My point is the criteria your using to qualify what you beleive is an advantage is actually bad criteria and a more reasonable assessment would be how many meta teams do they have how many counter meta options do they have because that's what really matters. When a dr team get 17 wins that eats up the whole g12 or mod advantage your seeing in the comparison of the guilds.
@leef
I may be wrong but empirical evidence (win some lose some) sometimes we have more sometimes less members. This suggests I'm correct and matchmaking is fair.
I think this is more reasonable than saying sandbagging gives an advantage and the proof is you win some and lose some. That doesn't even make sense even if you follow it up with well the guild I thought would win didnt so it's because sandbagging, that also makes no sense and I have pointed out his errors in coming to the conclusion of which guild he feels is favored (looking at who has more g12, zetas, gear, but not meta teams and meta counters).
I will admit there is an advantage to getting matched against a guild with less members because on average the bigger guild has better top end teams but this is offset somewhat by the smaller guild which will have more teams available so if they can beat the top end teams from the bigger guild then they have more to throw at the rest of the "sandbagging" guilds roster.
At the end of the day it boils down to what guild has the best teams as it should.
Also when you are saying both sides could be wrong, it is true, but as ever it is with the side suggesting something does happen to provide evidence. If you really want evidence to the contrary, my old guild would enter usually 25 people max to territory war, we missed a few because not enough people would join. Initially we lost a lot until we improved organisation and focused our rosters, then we started to win. Was it because we had fewer people join? Or did the merger we went through followed by a continuation of majority wins with a fuller guild suggest it was something else? We win more than we lose, and we are often the larger guild, for instance this most recent one we had 49 people join and placed 21 teams, suggesting a 7 player difference. We won. We do have less than 50 join every time, but we regularly have to place fewer teams, complain about anecdotal if you like, but there isn't much bias to be had as I've not been looking for either result. There's some evidence, does that mean it isn't a thing now?
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*
Just to be clear - please reread my quote. I didn't accuse you of implying anything. The term itself implies by it's definition. Google it. Or look it up. As 7AnimalMother correctly pointed out above, every definition of "sangbagging" in the connotation we are talking about starts with the word "deliberately". By literal definition, there is no such thing as "unintentional sandbagging".
Moving on.
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*
It's the equivalent of the Yankees playing a little league team. They're out classed in every statistical category that matters. It's not even remotely even. People have a right to complain when matchmaking is absurd.
Our latest matchup. They have 8 not signed up. The meta count is significantly higher and the arena ranks show the guild is fully active.
There must be a way to improve matchmaking or a better way to deter sandbagging like the above.
The guild GP figures are around 9mill higher than they should be on both sides due to the recent bug. They've just kept themselves within the kyrotech bracket
Fits the situation better. No intent.
Then we can focus on the real issue: whether the matching provides an advantage to the shorthanded team.
I assume intent here, so sandbagging.
Nothing points towards "shorthanded" in our instance.
We've had 4 or 5 matchups this year that I'd consider shorthanded.
I'm sure they could implement the same stuff they have in GAC like top 60 character GP and also look at cross referencing total GP vs active GP, to determine a fairer matchup.
Key word: Assume.
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*