- We had 47/50, they had 43/50 or 44/50 (22 defence slots per zone)
- Total GP we have 239M, they have 255M
- we won 19004 v 18938
My queries are as follows:
- we "sandbagged", by going in with <50. How come we didn't get matched with a smaller GP guild? Did we not "sandbag" enough? If not, how would we know in advance how many members should not signup so that we do get matched with a lower GP guild?
- they "sandbagged", by going in with <50. They did get matched with a smaller GP guild, but it obviously wasn't an easier match, as they lost. Did they not "sandbag" enough? Or did they "sandbag" too much? What should they do next time in order to get an easy match?
I am of course being obtuse. People in this threads deal in absolutes, I'm just trying to point out that they are wrong to do so
and no disrespect intended toward our opponent. It was a great match and they set a very tough defence, we just beat them on efficiency
Who claims you're guaranteed a win, when you sandbag (or go in shorthanded or whatever)? Who claims that you're guaranteed to get matched with a non-sandbagging guild? Yes, you increase your chances to have an advantage but where do you see this claim of a guarantee?
We all know that nothing is guaranteed (other than being matched on active GP). All we need now is for you to understand, that everyone knows, and hopefully stop flooding these threads with this nonsense.
You should read the spoilers, and the rest of the thread @Waqui - sorry if the subtle nuance was too much for you.
I know full well these things aren't guaranteed. But many others in this thread make these claims:
- "if a guild has <50 signup they get a lower GP guild so they get an easier matchup"
My post is simply to highlight that nothing is guaranteed.
And everybody knows, that nothing is guaranteed. Knowing this, they can still aim to have an easier / different match-up - which apparently is too difficult for you to understand.
So the argument is that people are demanding guild members do not register for TW and forfeit their rewards all so other guild members can aim to maybe get a easier matchup?
If you quit your job you increase your chances to win the lotto.
The point is people not signing up (sandbagging) doesn't give an advantage to a guild just like quitting you job doesnt effect you shot at winning lotto.
Tw matching is a lottery and guilds have 0 control over who they are matched with. Guilds can not control if their opponent guild is more or less gp than their guild... ever ... in any situation.
We all know, that there's no guaranteed advantage when sandbagging. There's no need to go all DarjeloSalas on this. We all know this. Yet sandbagging increases the chance of having a higher average GP than your opponent.
Whether some players accept being asked to not join is their own personal choice and completely irrelevant to this discussion.
I understand the concept and know it exists as I was in a guild that discussed implementing a rotation, but thankfully enough of us didn't like the idea.
Here is where I am confused. Guild A only has 45 members and have 100% participation. Guild B has 49 players and designate 4 members to sit out.
So, both guilds have put forth 45 members. Their total gp of the participating members are roughly the same. How is guild B at an advantage?
I seriously don't understand how sand bagging would be advantageous.
I understand the concept and know it exists as I was in a guild that discussed implementing a rotation, but thankfully enough of us didn't like the idea.
Here is where I am confused. Guild A only has 45 members and have 100% participation. Guild B has 49 players and designate 4 members to sit out.
So, both guilds have put forth 45 members. Their total gp of the participating members are roughly the same. How is guild B at an advantage?
I seriously don't understand how sand bagging would be advantageous.
Matching number of participants as well as matching active GP is exactly what the OP wishes to achieve with his suggestion. Where did you see anyone claiming that one guild would have any advantage over the other in that scenario?
I understand the concept and know it exists as I was in a guild that discussed implementing a rotation, but thankfully enough of us didn't like the idea.
Here is where I am confused. Guild A only has 45 members and have 100% participation. Guild B has 49 players and designate 4 members to sit out.
So, both guilds have put forth 45 members. Their total gp of the participating members are roughly the same. How is guild B at an advantage?
I seriously don't understand how sand bagging would be advantageous.
Matching number of participants as well as matching active GP is exactly what the OP wishes to achieve with his suggestion. Where did you see anyone claiming that one guild would have any advantage over the other in that scenario?
Thanks for your reply, but isn't matchmaking based on who joins? In which case my explanation is sound and the OP is saying that sandbagging gives an advantage.
I understand the concept and know it exists as I was in a guild that discussed implementing a rotation, but thankfully enough of us didn't like the idea.
Here is where I am confused. Guild A only has 45 members and have 100% participation. Guild B has 49 players and designate 4 members to sit out.
So, both guilds have put forth 45 members. Their total gp of the participating members are roughly the same. How is guild B at an advantage?
I seriously don't understand how sand bagging would be advantageous.
Matching number of participants as well as matching active GP is exactly what the OP wishes to achieve with his suggestion. Where did you see anyone claiming that one guild would have any advantage over the other in that scenario?
Thanks for your reply, but isn't matchmaking based on who joins? In which case my explanation is sound and the OP is saying that sandbagging gives an advantage.
Yes, matchmaking is based on who joins. Where did anybody dispute this? What's your point? Do you even have one?
We all know, that there's no guaranteed advantage when sandbagging. There's no need to go all DarjeloSalas on this. We all know this. Yet sandbagging increases the chance of having a higher average GP than your opponent.
I understand the concept and know it exists as I was in a guild that discussed implementing a rotation, but thankfully enough of us didn't like the idea.
Here is where I am confused. Guild A only has 45 members and have 100% participation. Guild B has 49 players and designate 4 members to sit out.
So, both guilds have put forth 45 members. Their total gp of the participating members are roughly the same. How is guild B at an advantage?
I seriously don't understand how sand bagging would be advantageous.
Matching number of participants as well as matching active GP is exactly what the OP wishes to achieve with his suggestion. Where did you see anyone claiming that one guild would have any advantage over the other in that scenario?
Thanks for your reply, but isn't matchmaking based on who joins? In which case my explanation is sound and the OP is saying that sandbagging gives an advantage.
Higher GP guilds sit out members to reduce their matchmaking GP, they get matched with a lesser GP guild, and have an easier time winning because of the average higher GP per player.
In his scenario one guild has higher average GP than the other. In your scenario the two guilds have matching average GP.
Sandbagging is easy:
250m+ guild plays with 42 or less...highly doubt its natural number
If you play with lets say a 250m guild with 40 people vs 200m guild with 50 you have the effective same GM
However in reality you got about double as much 20+ speed mods, double the g13 and most likely double the critical meta chars (atm gas/malak on relic 7) + 7s prime fleet + full prime secondary fleet in defense (not genosian garbage)
This is a huge advantage in reality. However if guilds play with 45-49 thats a natural "afk" sort of thing and not a sandbagging. The system should however more care for similar number strength.
Another factor is mercing - i.e. letting very skilled and high gp people join you before and dragging your team through by a giant well sorted defense (i.e. ultra fast padme/drevan/gg r7 wat etc)...this happens too. But this to eliminate is rather difficult. Would need a weighting system for all troops and making gearing decisions very difficult and their analysis as well.
Has anyone posted proof of a guild sandbagging, and if not, would doing so violate the terms of service?
Further up this thread there's pretty conclusive proof that at least 1 guild does it. It doesn't violate ToS though, as there is absolutely nothing that says you must join TW. Indeed, about half the members of my guild have completely forgotten at least once in their time with us.
Impossible for the devs to distinguish between guilds deliberately engineering fewer members signing up and guilds just letting members choose whether or not they want to participate.
Has anyone posted proof of a guild sandbagging, and if not, would doing so violate the terms of service?
Further up this thread there's pretty conclusive proof that at least 1 guild does it. It doesn't violate ToS though, as there is absolutely nothing that says you must join TW. Indeed, about half the members of my guild have completely forgotten at least once in their time with us.
Impossible for the devs to distinguish between guilds deliberately engineering fewer members signing up and guilds just letting members choose whether or not they want to participate.
Has anyone posted proof of a guild sandbagging, and if not, would doing so violate the terms of service?
Further up this thread there's pretty conclusive proof that at least 1 guild does it. It doesn't violate ToS though, as there is absolutely nothing that says you must join TW. Indeed, about half the members of my guild have completely forgotten at least once in their time with us.
Impossible for the devs to distinguish between guilds deliberately engineering fewer members signing up and guilds just letting members choose whether or not they want to participate.
Would posting visual evidence have an effect?
I doubt it. The people not joining are not joining by choice, even if their guild leader is telling them not to join.
Hmm. Well if anyone is interested in pursuing this is directly with the devs, I'm willing to provide a message instructing the members of a top guild to stop joining tw once a specific threshold is met. All the accompanying information to pursue it.
Hmm. Well if anyone is interested in pursuing this is directly with the devs, I'm willing to provide a message instructing the members of a top guild to stop joining tw once a specific threshold is met. All the accompanying information to pursue it.
Something similar was already posted earlier in this discussion. There already is evidence that some (probably only few) guilds do this. What would the purpose of pursuing it be? Sandbagging is not against the ToS. The option to sandbag is part of the game.
Hmm. Well if anyone is interested in pursuing this is directly with the devs, I'm willing to provide a message instructing the members of a top guild to stop joining tw once a specific threshold is met. All the accompanying information to pursue it.
Something similar was already posted earlier in this discussion. There already is evidence that some (probably only few) guilds do this. What would the purpose of pursuing it be? Sandbagging is not against the ToS. The option to sandbag is part of the game.
Regardless of whether its currently against the ToS or not, it's clear that there is intent to cheat the system and undermine the spirit of the game (at least in my situation).
If the devs see enough cases of this with evidence, it could potentially prompt a change in the ToS.
At least you'd think that the developers would be against it. Guess they have always allowed shard mafia's, which is, at its heart the same.
Hmm. Well if anyone is interested in pursuing this is directly with the devs, I'm willing to provide a message instructing the members of a top guild to stop joining tw once a specific threshold is met. All the accompanying information to pursue it.
Something similar was already posted earlier in this discussion. There already is evidence that some (probably only few) guilds do this. What would the purpose of pursuing it be? Sandbagging is not against the ToS. The option to sandbag is part of the game.
Regardless of whether its currently against the ToS or not, it's clear that there is intent to cheat the system and undermine the spirit of the game (at least in my situation).
If the devs see enough cases of this with evidence, it could potentially prompt a change in the ToS.
At least you'd think that the developers would be against it. Guess they have always allowed shard mafia's, which is, at its heart the same.
Then the problem becomes "what do the devs do about it?" There is no good way to determine who is intentional and who is TW optional without concrete proof from chat apps. The only way to fairly punish guilds that intentionally do this would be for current/former members to self-report.
I understand the concept and know it exists as I was in a guild that discussed implementing a rotation, but thankfully enough of us didn't like the idea.
Here is where I am confused. Guild A only has 45 members and have 100% participation. Guild B has 49 players and designate 4 members to sit out.
So, both guilds have put forth 45 members. Their total gp of the participating members are roughly the same. How is guild B at an advantage?
I seriously don't understand how sand bagging would be advantageous.
So my own example, we had 48 members and a guild GP of 180 mil, Guild B had 50 players and a total GP of 205-206 mil but only had 40 players in the fight, total active GP 180, This guild had 30+ Ga$ and we had a total of 0. they easily won by holding on Defense. A guild that fields only its best players against a lower GP guild has a better chance of winning.
Hmm. Well if anyone is interested in pursuing this is directly with the devs, I'm willing to provide a message instructing the members of a top guild to stop joining tw once a specific threshold is met. All the accompanying information to pursue it.
Something similar was already posted earlier in this discussion. There already is evidence that some (probably only few) guilds do this. What would the purpose of pursuing it be? Sandbagging is not against the ToS. The option to sandbag is part of the game.
Regardless of whether its currently against the ToS or not, it's clear that there is intent to cheat the system and undermine the spirit of the game (at least in my situation).
If the devs see enough cases of this with evidence, it could potentially prompt a change in the ToS.
At least you'd think that the developers would be against it. Guess they have always allowed shard mafia's, which is, at its heart the same.
A change to the ToS because of this? I wouldn't hold my breath. Also, as already pointed out earlier in this discussion, how would they distinguish between deliberate sandbagging and a simple "no join" for other reasons?
Judging by the official responses so far, I don't believe the developers are all that much against sandbagging.
Hmm. Well if anyone is interested in pursuing this is directly with the devs, I'm willing to provide a message instructing the members of a top guild to stop joining tw once a specific threshold is met. All the accompanying information to pursue it.
Something similar was already posted earlier in this discussion. There already is evidence that some (probably only few) guilds do this. What would the purpose of pursuing it be? Sandbagging is not against the ToS. The option to sandbag is part of the game.
Regardless of whether its currently against the ToS or not, it's clear that there is intent to cheat the system and undermine the spirit of the game (at least in my situation).
If the devs see enough cases of this with evidence, it could potentially prompt a change in the ToS.
At least you'd think that the developers would be against it. Guess they have always allowed shard mafia's, which is, at its heart the same.
You could argue that an intent to “cheat the system” could also be defined as strategy. If there are no rules against it, going into a battle with a strategic advantage can’t be called cheating. Additionally, there’s still no guarantee sandbagging will give a guild an advantage. That being said, my guild doesn’t do it and I would vote against it because I don’t think it’s fair to those forced to sit out.
A change to the ToS because of this? I wouldn't hold my breath. Also, as already pointed out earlier in this discussion, how would they distinguish between deliberate sandbagging and a simple "no join" for other reasons?
Judging by the official responses so far, I don't believe the developers are all that much against sandbagging.
You may have seen more than me, but last I saw they weren't particularly convinced it helped I don't think, though it was long enough ago that I'd have no chance of finding the thread. Still my question stands though, where is the proof that this helps if there are stories to suggest it doesn't? Is it really worth the effort to have a chance at a possible advantage that often doesn't pan out if a set of criteria that are outside of your control also happen to be met? Certainly doesn't suggest the resounding guaranteed losses some people do claim, whether you want to admit it or not. Makes me wonder how many of these actual examples of guilds doing it are a tail-wags-dog scenario.
Who cares what the intention of the 'sandbagging' guild is. Whether they sit players out on purpose or if it's because people forgot, or they just don't have a full guild is irrelevant. The point it IS an advantage to have a higher average GP than your opponent. It gets more noticeable as you go up in GP. I'm sure a lot of the people saying there's no advantage are in <200m gp guilds and you're probably right as you will need to sit more players to have a big impact. When you start to get to 250m+ gp simply sitting 2 players will reduce your GP by about 10m gp and that will be quite impactful vs a 240m gp guild. Relics will be higher, mods will be better on average, etc. Don't blame the guilds for taking advantage of the current matchmaking algorithms whether it's on purpose or accident. Blame CG for an outdated match-making system. CG has done a fairly good job of GAC matchmaking. Please incorporate some of these techniques into TW matchmaking and then running short will not even be an issue. It should be based average GP of the people who joined. Perhaps average GP of the top 80 or a number that makes sense for TW.
Who cares what the intention of the 'sandbagging' guild is. Whether they sit players out on purpose or if it's because people forgot, or they just don't have a full guild is irrelevant.
From a matchmaking point of view the intent is irrelevant, yes. From a "cheating / gaming the system" point of view it's not.
Who cares what the intention of the 'sandbagging' guild is. Whether they sit players out on purpose or if it's because people forgot, or they just don't have a full guild is irrelevant.
From a matchmaking point of view the intent is irrelevant, yes. From a "cheating / gaming the system" point of view it's not.
Who cares what the intention of the 'sandbagging' guild is. Whether they sit players out on purpose or if it's because people forgot, or they just don't have a full guild is irrelevant.
From a matchmaking point of view the intent is irrelevant, yes. From a "cheating / gaming the system" point of view it's not.
Fix the system so it can't be gamed then.
What would you propose? even the idea of matching on average GP can fail. The guild that intentionally sandbags could just bring in 40 actual members with 200m gp, and 10 alts with a combined few million GP. Effectively they would have 5m GP per member, but the algorithm would show them having like 4m.
Sandbagging is easy:
250m+ guild plays with 42 or less...highly doubt its natural number
If you play with lets say a 250m guild with 40 people vs 200m guild with 50 you have the effective same GM
However in reality you got about double as much 20+ speed mods, double the g13 and most likely double the critical meta chars (atm gas/malak on relic 7) + 7s prime fleet + full prime secondary fleet in defense (not genosian garbage)
That is NOT how it works. Total GP is total GP, not GP x # of members.
I understand the concept and know it exists as I was in a guild that discussed implementing a rotation, but thankfully enough of us didn't like the idea.
Here is where I am confused. Guild A only has 45 members and have 100% participation. Guild B has 49 players and designate 4 members to sit out.
So, both guilds have put forth 45 members. Their total gp of the participating members are roughly the same. How is guild B at an advantage?
I seriously don't understand how sand bagging would be advantageous.
So my own example, we had 48 members and a guild GP of 180 mil, Guild B had 50 players and a total GP of 205-206 mil but only had 40 players in the fight, total active GP 180, This guild had 30+ Ga$ and we had a total of 0. they easily won by holding on Defense. A guild that fields only its best players against a lower GP guild has a better chance of winning.
God forbid 10 people thought they would be busy and unhelpful to the guild.....
A change to the ToS because of this? I wouldn't hold my breath. Also, as already pointed out earlier in this discussion, how would they distinguish between deliberate sandbagging and a simple "no join" for other reasons?
Judging by the official responses so far, I don't believe the developers are all that much against sandbagging.
You may have seen more than me, but last I saw they weren't particularly convinced it helped I don't think, though it was long enough ago that I'd have no chance of finding the thread. Still my question stands though, where is the proof that this helps if there are stories to suggest it doesn't?
I believe there are far more stories/reports/posts to suggest that it can be an advantage. I can add my own experience:
Last summer in a guild that struggled recruiting and only had about 42 members and 2 ticket bot alts we usually went in 36-38 in TW for several months. We steam rolled every TW with no struggle at all and met near full opponent guilds. That same guild has been full for months now with near full participation. We've had a loooong winning streak (which we make an effort to achieve) only broken by a loss to a far higher total GP guild (RF Niman), that went in shorthanded (for whatever reason) and beat us. Yes, I'm convinced that having a significantly higher average GP is an advantage.
Scientific proof? I haven't seen any, so repeating your question is pointless.
Is it really worth the effort to have a chance at a possible advantage that often doesn't pan out if a set of criteria that are outside of your control also happen to be met? Certainly doesn't suggest the resounding guaranteed losses some people do claim, whether you want to admit it or not. Makes me wonder how many of these actual examples of guilds doing it are a tail-wags-dog scenario.
Whether it's worth it for those guilds is irrelevant to me. I'll leave it for those guilds to decide.
Who cares what the intention of the 'sandbagging' guild is. Whether they sit players out on purpose or if it's because people forgot, or they just don't have a full guild is irrelevant.
From a matchmaking point of view the intent is irrelevant, yes. From a "cheating / gaming the system" point of view it's not.
Fix the system so it can't be gamed then.
What would you propose? even the idea of matching on average GP can fail. The guild that intentionally sandbags could just bring in 40 actual members with 200m gp, and 10 alts with a combined few million GP. Effectively they would have 5m GP per member, but the algorithm would show them having like 4m.
I 100% agree with you on this. I was going to mention in my other post but didn't want to get too long winded.
This is what makes this a complicated issue and I don't have all the answers. Let's take a scenario where you have 2 guilds at 250m gp and both join TW at full strength. One guild has 25 members at 6m gp and 25 members at 25 at 4m gp. The second guild has 50 members at 5m gp. Which guild has the advantage? The one first one will win every time assuming equal levels of participation. How do we fix this scenario? No idea Some sort of weighting would have be done based on relics/mods/meta characters. It goes beyond just GP and I understand why CG hasn't done much about it. It's much easier to to deal with GAC which is comparing single rosters. This is still something that needs to be addressed though.
- We had 47/50, they had 43/50 or 44/50 (22 defence slots per zone)
- Total GP we have 239M, they have 255M
- we won 19004 v 18938
My queries are as follows:
- we "sandbagged", by going in with <50. How come we didn't get matched with a smaller GP guild? Did we not "sandbag" enough? If not, how would we know in advance how many members should not signup so that we do get matched with a lower GP guild?
- they "sandbagged", by going in with <50. They did get matched with a smaller GP guild, but it obviously wasn't an easier match, as they lost. Did they not "sandbag" enough? Or did they "sandbag" too much? What should they do next time in order to get an easy match?
I am of course being obtuse. People in this threads deal in absolutes, I'm just trying to point out that they are wrong to do so
and no disrespect intended toward our opponent. It was a great match and they set a very tough defence, we just beat them on efficiency
Who claims you're guaranteed a win, when you sandbag (or go in shorthanded or whatever)? Who claims that you're guaranteed to get matched with a non-sandbagging guild? Yes, you increase your chances to have an advantage but where do you see this claim of a guarantee?
We all know that nothing is guaranteed (other than being matched on active GP). All we need now is for you to understand, that everyone knows, and hopefully stop flooding these threads with this nonsense.
You should read the spoilers, and the rest of the thread @Waqui - sorry if the subtle nuance was too much for you.
I know full well these things aren't guaranteed. But many others in this thread make these claims:
- "if a guild has <50 signup they get a lower GP guild so they get an easier matchup"
My post is simply to highlight that nothing is guaranteed.
And everybody knows, that nothing is guaranteed. Knowing this, they can still aim to have an easier / different match-up - which apparently is too difficult for you to understand.
So the argument is that people are demanding guild members do not register for TW and forfeit their rewards all so other guild members can aim to maybe get a easier matchup?
If you quit your job you increase your chances to win the lotto.
The point is people not signing up (sandbagging) doesn't give an advantage to a guild just like quitting you job doesnt effect you shot at winning lotto.
Tw matching is a lottery and guilds have 0 control over who they are matched with. Guilds can not control if their opponent guild is more or less gp than their guild... ever ... in any situation.
We all know, that there's no guaranteed advantage when sandbagging. There's no need to go all DarjeloSalas on this. We all know this. Yet sandbagging increases the chance of having a higher average GP than your opponent.
Whether some players accept being asked to not join is their own personal choice and completely irrelevant to this discussion.
We just have to disagree on this then.
If you go in with 40 (sandbagging) you have a 50% chance to draw a guild with higher average gp and a 50% chance to draw a guild with lower average gp.
Maybe you face a 35 man guild... maybe you face a 45 man guild...
I do not see how you can say Yet sandbagging increases the chance of having a higher average GP than your opponent. and expect people to beleive it without showing proof.
Also... proof is not only looking at one side of the equation. Please dont say if your 40 people and 200m and fight a 45 person 200m that's proof of an advantage because it is NOT. It's a one sided analysis that totally ignores the possibility your matched against a 35 man 200m gp guild.
Replies
We all know, that there's no guaranteed advantage when sandbagging. There's no need to go all DarjeloSalas on this. We all know this. Yet sandbagging increases the chance of having a higher average GP than your opponent.
Whether some players accept being asked to not join is their own personal choice and completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Here is where I am confused. Guild A only has 45 members and have 100% participation. Guild B has 49 players and designate 4 members to sit out.
So, both guilds have put forth 45 members. Their total gp of the participating members are roughly the same. How is guild B at an advantage?
I seriously don't understand how sand bagging would be advantageous.
Matching number of participants as well as matching active GP is exactly what the OP wishes to achieve with his suggestion. Where did you see anyone claiming that one guild would have any advantage over the other in that scenario?
Thanks for your reply, but isn't matchmaking based on who joins? In which case my explanation is sound and the OP is saying that sandbagging gives an advantage.
Yes, matchmaking is based on who joins. Where did anybody dispute this? What's your point? Do you even have one?
Again:
I'm sure that OP also knows, this.
Here's what OP is saying:
In his scenario one guild has higher average GP than the other. In your scenario the two guilds have matching average GP.
250m+ guild plays with 42 or less...highly doubt its natural number
If you play with lets say a 250m guild with 40 people vs 200m guild with 50 you have the effective same GM
However in reality you got about double as much 20+ speed mods, double the g13 and most likely double the critical meta chars (atm gas/malak on relic 7) + 7s prime fleet + full prime secondary fleet in defense (not genosian garbage)
This is a huge advantage in reality. However if guilds play with 45-49 thats a natural "afk" sort of thing and not a sandbagging. The system should however more care for similar number strength.
Another factor is mercing - i.e. letting very skilled and high gp people join you before and dragging your team through by a giant well sorted defense (i.e. ultra fast padme/drevan/gg r7 wat etc)...this happens too. But this to eliminate is rather difficult. Would need a weighting system for all troops and making gearing decisions very difficult and their analysis as well.
Further up this thread there's pretty conclusive proof that at least 1 guild does it. It doesn't violate ToS though, as there is absolutely nothing that says you must join TW. Indeed, about half the members of my guild have completely forgotten at least once in their time with us.
Impossible for the devs to distinguish between guilds deliberately engineering fewer members signing up and guilds just letting members choose whether or not they want to participate.
Would posting visual evidence have an effect?
I doubt it. The people not joining are not joining by choice, even if their guild leader is telling them not to join.
Something similar was already posted earlier in this discussion. There already is evidence that some (probably only few) guilds do this. What would the purpose of pursuing it be? Sandbagging is not against the ToS. The option to sandbag is part of the game.
Regardless of whether its currently against the ToS or not, it's clear that there is intent to cheat the system and undermine the spirit of the game (at least in my situation).
If the devs see enough cases of this with evidence, it could potentially prompt a change in the ToS.
At least you'd think that the developers would be against it. Guess they have always allowed shard mafia's, which is, at its heart the same.
Then the problem becomes "what do the devs do about it?" There is no good way to determine who is intentional and who is TW optional without concrete proof from chat apps. The only way to fairly punish guilds that intentionally do this would be for current/former members to self-report.
So my own example, we had 48 members and a guild GP of 180 mil, Guild B had 50 players and a total GP of 205-206 mil but only had 40 players in the fight, total active GP 180, This guild had 30+ Ga$ and we had a total of 0. they easily won by holding on Defense. A guild that fields only its best players against a lower GP guild has a better chance of winning.
A change to the ToS because of this? I wouldn't hold my breath. Also, as already pointed out earlier in this discussion, how would they distinguish between deliberate sandbagging and a simple "no join" for other reasons?
Judging by the official responses so far, I don't believe the developers are all that much against sandbagging.
You could argue that an intent to “cheat the system” could also be defined as strategy. If there are no rules against it, going into a battle with a strategic advantage can’t be called cheating. Additionally, there’s still no guarantee sandbagging will give a guild an advantage. That being said, my guild doesn’t do it and I would vote against it because I don’t think it’s fair to those forced to sit out.
You may have seen more than me, but last I saw they weren't particularly convinced it helped I don't think, though it was long enough ago that I'd have no chance of finding the thread. Still my question stands though, where is the proof that this helps if there are stories to suggest it doesn't? Is it really worth the effort to have a chance at a possible advantage that often doesn't pan out if a set of criteria that are outside of your control also happen to be met? Certainly doesn't suggest the resounding guaranteed losses some people do claim, whether you want to admit it or not. Makes me wonder how many of these actual examples of guilds doing it are a tail-wags-dog scenario.
From a matchmaking point of view the intent is irrelevant, yes. From a "cheating / gaming the system" point of view it's not.
Fix the system so it can't be gamed then.
What would you propose? even the idea of matching on average GP can fail. The guild that intentionally sandbags could just bring in 40 actual members with 200m gp, and 10 alts with a combined few million GP. Effectively they would have 5m GP per member, but the algorithm would show them having like 4m.
That is NOT how it works. Total GP is total GP, not GP x # of members.
God forbid 10 people thought they would be busy and unhelpful to the guild.....
I believe there are far more stories/reports/posts to suggest that it can be an advantage. I can add my own experience:
Last summer in a guild that struggled recruiting and only had about 42 members and 2 ticket bot alts we usually went in 36-38 in TW for several months. We steam rolled every TW with no struggle at all and met near full opponent guilds. That same guild has been full for months now with near full participation. We've had a loooong winning streak (which we make an effort to achieve) only broken by a loss to a far higher total GP guild (RF Niman), that went in shorthanded (for whatever reason) and beat us. Yes, I'm convinced that having a significantly higher average GP is an advantage.
Scientific proof? I haven't seen any, so repeating your question is pointless.
Whether it's worth it for those guilds is irrelevant to me. I'll leave it for those guilds to decide.
I 100% agree with you on this. I was going to mention in my other post but didn't want to get too long winded.
This is what makes this a complicated issue and I don't have all the answers. Let's take a scenario where you have 2 guilds at 250m gp and both join TW at full strength. One guild has 25 members at 6m gp and 25 members at 25 at 4m gp. The second guild has 50 members at 5m gp. Which guild has the advantage? The one first one will win every time assuming equal levels of participation. How do we fix this scenario? No idea
We just have to disagree on this then.
If you go in with 40 (sandbagging) you have a 50% chance to draw a guild with higher average gp and a 50% chance to draw a guild with lower average gp.
Maybe you face a 35 man guild... maybe you face a 45 man guild...
I do not see how you can say Yet sandbagging increases the chance of having a higher average GP than your opponent. and expect people to beleive it without showing proof.
Also... proof is not only looking at one side of the equation. Please dont say if your 40 people and 200m and fight a 45 person 200m that's proof of an advantage because it is NOT. It's a one sided analysis that totally ignores the possibility your matched against a 35 man 200m gp guild.