While sandbagging in general is an issue, this particular case has been explained well enough. TI presented a legit reason as to why they could not go in full and I'm more inclined to trust the list of past 18 TWs posted by Nebulous than "proof" of a track record of sandbagging pulled out of thin air by OP.
(Especially since we faced TI at full strength 4 TWs ago and their fallout, that was also explained, only affected the past 2 TWs).
It's not sandbagging - just a poor matchmaking algorithm when it comes to matching guilds of different numbers of participants.
This.
As has been said in other posts, it doesnt matter at all how you get to less than 50 on one side. There needs to be other factors to make things a more fair match up.
It's not like it's a difficult problem to fix. Simply add average active GP to matchmaking and sandbaggers will be equally matched with other sandbaggers. And they'll quit making 10 players sit out every TW.
I dont think it's that simple.
You still cant match 40 vs 50 just because they have the same average GP.
No one should be forced to play if they do not want to, also some people have RL issues. The addition to this game mode of being optional is one of the best things they added to the game, at that time.
It's not like it's a difficult problem to fix. Simply add average active GP to matchmaking and sandbaggers will be equally matched with other sandbaggers. And they'll quit making 10 players sit out every TW.
I dont think it's that simple.
You still cant match 40 vs 50 just because they have the same average GP.
No one should be forced to play if they do not want to, also some people have RL issues. The addition to this game mode of being optional is one of the best things they added to the game, at that time.
I agree that noone should be forced to play if they dont want to.
Also if you add avg member GP of those that joined it should (hopefully) not be possible to match 40 vs 50 because the total active GP would be to big of a difference. So if you take into account total active GP joined + avg GP of the members that joined and make it so that ideally both these numbers are within like 5% of eachother I think it would prevent the more lopsided matches.
It's not like it's a difficult problem to fix. Simply add average active GP to matchmaking and sandbaggers will be equally matched with other sandbaggers. And they'll quit making 10 players sit out every TW.
I dont think it's that simple.
You still cant match 40 vs 50 just because they have the same average GP.
No one should be forced to play if they do not want to, also some people have RL issues. The addition to this game mode of being optional is one of the best things they added to the game, at that time.
I said add average GP to matchmaking, not use it to replace matchmaking. So match guilds whose active GP and average active GP are reasonably close.
Another way to look at it would be to use what they have now and match guilds within one or two participants.
Ok I got to, but again it's not that simple, because now you have multiple factors that need to be weighted, and adjusted to accommodate the parameters.
I.e. - if there is not guild that has similar GP within X number of player difference.
I'm not saying they shouldnt look at it and make changes, just that sayings its not that difficult or it's simple, is not accurate.
It's not like it's a difficult problem to fix. Simply add average active GP to matchmaking and sandbaggers will be equally matched with other sandbaggers. And they'll quit making 10 players sit out every TW.
I dont think it's that simple.
You still cant match 40 vs 50 just because they have the same average GP.
No one should be forced to play if they do not want to, also some people have RL issues. The addition to this game mode of being optional is one of the best things they added to the game, at that time.
I said add average GP to matchmaking, not use it to replace matchmaking. So match guilds whose active GP and average active GP are reasonably close.
Another way to look at it would be to use what they have now and match guilds within one or two participants.
Ok I got to, but again it's not that simple, because now you have multiple factors that need to be weighted, and adjusted to accommodate the parameters.
I.e. - if there is not guild that has similar GP within X number of player difference.
I'm not saying they shouldnt look at it and make changes, just that sayings its not that difficult or it's simple, is not accurate.
That would only be an issue for the largest guilds. In the case that a guild doesn’t have a match within two players, they should be matched with the next highest guild -same average GP but more players. If we have to choose between making it an advantage or disadvantage to go in short, it should be a disadvantage.
Again, how many is ok for that match to be made within? Floating parameters are never a good thing to give to a program, the results will end up being undesirable as much as desired..... that is not a good goal to have.
That's an interesting stand point, I'm not sure how this would only limited to any particular section of guilds.
It's also interesting that you would make a blanket statement that it should be a disadvantage, seems like you have a bias you would like built into the system. Normally this would be considered a systemic problem, which is something people usually try to avoid.
It's not like it's a difficult problem to fix. Simply add average active GP to matchmaking and sandbaggers will be equally matched with other sandbaggers. And they'll quit making 10 players sit out every TW.
I dont think it's that simple.
You still cant match 40 vs 50 just because they have the same average GP.
No one should be forced to play if they do not want to, also some people have RL issues. The addition to this game mode of being optional is one of the best things they added to the game, at that time.
I said add average GP to matchmaking, not use it to replace matchmaking. So match guilds whose active GP and average active GP are reasonably close.
Another way to look at it would be to use what they have now and match guilds within one or two participants.
Ok I got to, but again it's not that simple, because now you have multiple factors that need to be weighted, and adjusted to accommodate the parameters.
I.e. - if there is not guild that has similar GP within X number of player difference.
I'm not saying they shouldnt look at it and make changes, just that sayings its not that difficult or it's simple, is not accurate.
That would only be an issue for the largest guilds. In the case that a guild doesn’t have a match within two players, they should be matched with the next highest guild -same average GP but more players. If we have to choose between making it an advantage or disadvantage to go in short, it should be a disadvantage.
It's also interesting that you would make a blanket statement that it should be a disadvantage, seems like you have a bias you would like built into the system.
Shouldn't a game mode designed for guilds encourage players to actually play than to (more often than not) provide an advantage for joining with fewer members?
Edit: Before somebody points out the rewards, there are many guilds who couldn't care less about an extra zeta. There are other layers to aiming for a better TW track record, such as recruiting for example (which is admittedly difficult for many guilds as it is).
It's not like it's a difficult problem to fix. Simply add average active GP to matchmaking and sandbaggers will be equally matched with other sandbaggers. And they'll quit making 10 players sit out every TW.
I dont think it's that simple.
You still cant match 40 vs 50 just because they have the same average GP.
No one should be forced to play if they do not want to, also some people have RL issues. The addition to this game mode of being optional is one of the best things they added to the game, at that time.
I said add average GP to matchmaking, not use it to replace matchmaking. So match guilds whose active GP and average active GP are reasonably close.
Another way to look at it would be to use what they have now and match guilds within one or two participants.
Ok I got to, but again it's not that simple, because now you have multiple factors that need to be weighted, and adjusted to accommodate the parameters.
I.e. - if there is not guild that has similar GP within X number of player difference.
I'm not saying they shouldnt look at it and make changes, just that sayings its not that difficult or it's simple, is not accurate.
That would only be an issue for the largest guilds. In the case that a guild doesn’t have a match within two players, they should be matched with the next highest guild -same average GP but more players. If we have to choose between making it an advantage or disadvantage to go in short, it should be a disadvantage.
It's also interesting that you would make a blanket statement that it should be a disadvantage, seems like you have a bias you would like built into the system.
Shouldn't a game mode designed for guilds encourage players to actually play than to (more often than not) provide an advantage for joining with fewer members?
Edit: Before somebody points out the rewards, there are many guilds who couldn't care less about an extra zeta. There are other layers to aiming for a better TW track record, such as recruiting for example (which is admittedly difficult for many guilds as it is).
It should strive to be equal and fair, not one way or the other.
To make it a disadvantage just negates the point of matching on active GP. If they wanted it to be a disadvantage they would have just made it base on Guild GP, and be done with it.
It's not like it's a difficult problem to fix. Simply add average active GP to matchmaking and sandbaggers will be equally matched with other sandbaggers. And they'll quit making 10 players sit out every TW.
I dont think it's that simple.
You still cant match 40 vs 50 just because they have the same average GP.
No one should be forced to play if they do not want to, also some people have RL issues. The addition to this game mode of being optional is one of the best things they added to the game, at that time.
I said add average GP to matchmaking, not use it to replace matchmaking. So match guilds whose active GP and average active GP are reasonably close.
Another way to look at it would be to use what they have now and match guilds within one or two participants.
Ok I got to, but again it's not that simple, because now you have multiple factors that need to be weighted, and adjusted to accommodate the parameters.
I.e. - if there is not guild that has similar GP within X number of player difference.
I'm not saying they shouldnt look at it and make changes, just that sayings its not that difficult or it's simple, is not accurate.
That would only be an issue for the largest guilds. In the case that a guild doesn’t have a match within two players, they should be matched with the next highest guild -same average GP but more players. If we have to choose between making it an advantage or disadvantage to go in short, it should be a disadvantage.
It's also interesting that you would make a blanket statement that it should be a disadvantage, seems like you have a bias you would like built into the system.
Shouldn't a game mode designed for guilds encourage players to actually play than to (more often than not) provide an advantage for joining with fewer members?
Edit: Before somebody points out the rewards, there are many guilds who couldn't care less about an extra zeta. There are other layers to aiming for a better TW track record, such as recruiting for example (which is admittedly difficult for many guilds as it is).
It should strive to be equal and fair, not one way or the other.
To make it a disadvantage just negates the point of matching on active GP. If they wanted it to be a disadvantage they would have just made it base on Guild GP, and be done with it.
That’s the whole point. It should be fair. I would guess 99% of guilds are under 320M GP and will have no problem being matched on active GP and average active GP. On the rare occasion that’s not possible with one of the largest guilds going in short, they should have to punch up, not down.
What happens if THE largest guild goes in short, but not short enough to be have any potential “punch up” matches?
It's not like it's a difficult problem to fix. Simply add average active GP to matchmaking and sandbaggers will be equally matched with other sandbaggers. And they'll quit making 10 players sit out every TW.
I dont think it's that simple.
You still cant match 40 vs 50 just because they have the same average GP.
No one should be forced to play if they do not want to, also some people have RL issues. The addition to this game mode of being optional is one of the best things they added to the game, at that time.
I said add average GP to matchmaking, not use it to replace matchmaking. So match guilds whose active GP and average active GP are reasonably close.
Another way to look at it would be to use what they have now and match guilds within one or two participants.
Ok I got to, but again it's not that simple, because now you have multiple factors that need to be weighted, and adjusted to accommodate the parameters.
I.e. - if there is not guild that has similar GP within X number of player difference.
I'm not saying they shouldnt look at it and make changes, just that sayings its not that difficult or it's simple, is not accurate.
That would only be an issue for the largest guilds. In the case that a guild doesn’t have a match within two players, they should be matched with the next highest guild -same average GP but more players. If we have to choose between making it an advantage or disadvantage to go in short, it should be a disadvantage.
It's also interesting that you would make a blanket statement that it should be a disadvantage, seems like you have a bias you would like built into the system.
Shouldn't a game mode designed for guilds encourage players to actually play than to (more often than not) provide an advantage for joining with fewer members?
Edit: Before somebody points out the rewards, there are many guilds who couldn't care less about an extra zeta. There are other layers to aiming for a better TW track record, such as recruiting for example (which is admittedly difficult for many guilds as it is).
It should strive to be equal and fair, not one way or the other.
To make it a disadvantage just negates the point of matching on active GP. If they wanted it to be a disadvantage they would have just made it base on Guild GP, and be done with it.
That’s the whole point. It should be fair. I would guess 99% of guilds are under 320M GP and will have no problem being matched on active GP and average active GP. On the rare occasion that’s not possible with one of the largest guilds going in short, they should have to punch up, not down.
I wish that was your whole point, if it was we wouldnt have gone down the path you started before.
I agree it should be fair, and at no point is fair, "do this, and those over there can just suffer". I agree they should look at different ways to match, there is no simple solution and when they do look at this, I hope they will work out a solution if one is needed*.
* there is a chance that the data shows that within a reasonable margin error that guilds who go in with less dont always win.
It's not like it's a difficult problem to fix. Simply add average active GP to matchmaking and sandbaggers will be equally matched with other sandbaggers. And they'll quit making 10 players sit out every TW.
I dont think it's that simple.
You still cant match 40 vs 50 just because they have the same average GP.
No one should be forced to play if they do not want to, also some people have RL issues. The addition to this game mode of being optional is one of the best things they added to the game, at that time.
I said add average GP to matchmaking, not use it to replace matchmaking. So match guilds whose active GP and average active GP are reasonably close.
Another way to look at it would be to use what they have now and match guilds within one or two participants.
Ok I got to, but again it's not that simple, because now you have multiple factors that need to be weighted, and adjusted to accommodate the parameters.
I.e. - if there is not guild that has similar GP within X number of player difference.
I'm not saying they shouldnt look at it and make changes, just that sayings its not that difficult or it's simple, is not accurate.
That would only be an issue for the largest guilds. In the case that a guild doesn’t have a match within two players, they should be matched with the next highest guild -same average GP but more players. If we have to choose between making it an advantage or disadvantage to go in short, it should be a disadvantage.
It's also interesting that you would make a blanket statement that it should be a disadvantage, seems like you have a bias you would like built into the system.
Shouldn't a game mode designed for guilds encourage players to actually play than to (more often than not) provide an advantage for joining with fewer members?
Edit: Before somebody points out the rewards, there are many guilds who couldn't care less about an extra zeta. There are other layers to aiming for a better TW track record, such as recruiting for example (which is admittedly difficult for many guilds as it is).
It should strive to be equal and fair, not one way or the other.
To make it a disadvantage just negates the point of matching on active GP. If they wanted it to be a disadvantage they would have just made it base on Guild GP, and be done with it.
That’s the whole point. It should be fair. I would guess 99% of guilds are under 320M GP and will have no problem being matched on active GP and average active GP. On the rare occasion that’s not possible with one of the largest guilds going in short, they should have to punch up, not down.
What happens if THE largest guild goes in short, but not short enough to be have any potential “punch up” matches?
In that scenario they’ll get the same match whether they go in short or at full strength. So there’s no benefit to going in short.
But why shouldnt they get a more fair match, i.e. -someone more equal, instead of being put at a disadvantage?
Seems like a built in bias against a certain segment of players, possibly that you have a gripe with.
I know that guild. They have 40 members and 10 alts for tickets.
I’m just kidding! But anything is possibles
Couldn’t see making members sit out would make your guild stronger as a whole.
20% better rewards from winning every war with 80% of your guild is the same rewards you'd get if you lost every war with all 50 players. Any additional (40+1, 40+2, etc) is cherry as long as you're winning. Most sandbagger guilds only hold out 6 people. A 30m GP swing is usually enough for a near guaranteed W. Plus zeta mats. If 40 players win every war, that's 120 zeta mats. If 50 players lose every war, that's only 100, so there's a clear edge there.
You can't guarantee you'll win every war with 50 players, because the match-making would be competitive, so sandbagging is the obvious choice, and anyone NOT doing it is losing out.
At the higher end this practice has become so common that about half of your match-ups are sandbagging, and you're probably only winning half of your competitive games, so that's like a 25% win-rate for a guild that's NOT doing this.
It's not sandbagging - just a poor matchmaking algorithm when it comes to matching guilds of different numbers of participants.
That's where you're wrong. They are intentionally trimming their war participation in order to get favorable match-up and guarantee wins.
If they prioritized player count in the matchmaking algorithm, this would even things out, but just because their algorithm is broken doesn't mean this isn't an exploitative behavior.
I know that guild. They have 40 members and 10 alts for tickets.
I’m just kidding! But anything is possibles
Couldn’t see making members sit out would make your guild stronger as a whole.
20% better rewards from winning every war with 80% of your guild is the same rewards you'd get if you lost every war with all 50 players. Any additional (40+1, 40+2, etc) is cherry as long as you're winning. Most sandbagger guilds only hold out 6 people. A 30m GP swing is usually enough for a near guaranteed W. Plus zeta mats. If 40 players win every war, that's 120 zeta mats. If 50 players lose every war, that's only 100, so there's a clear edge there.
You can't guarantee you'll win every war with 50 players, because the match-making would be competitive, so sandbagging is the obvious choice, and anyone NOT doing it is losing out.
At the higher end this practice has become so common that about half of your match-ups are sandbagging, and you're probably only winning half of your competitive games, so that's like a 25% win-rate for a guild that's NOT doing this.
It's not sandbagging - just a poor matchmaking algorithm when it comes to matching guilds of different numbers of participants.
That's where you're wrong. They are intentionally trimming their war participation in order to get favorable match-up and guarantee wins.
If they prioritized player count in the matchmaking algorithm, this would even things out, but just because their algorithm is broken doesn't mean this isn't an exploitative behavior.
Before you jump down my throat, I absolutely agree with what needs to be done with the matchmaking.
But...
1) Our guild (280M GP) just entered a war with 42 signed up. TW is optional and 7 people chose not to participate. Absolutely nothing deliberate or engineered about it. This happens WAY more than people think. Neither you or I know whether there's more apathy or nefarious plotting behind guilds entering TW shorthanded, but I can assure you that not every guild going in shorthanded is intentionally trimming participation.
2) In our TW optional lifespan, we have had some really poor matchups in our favour. Those wars were not fun. We've had several brilliant wars where the winning margin was <50 banners (including one where we lost by 2 and one where we won by 3) and we've had about half a dozen horrendous matchups against an even bigger guild who wiped the floor with us.
TL;DR:
Not every guild goes in short handed intentionally, and going in short handed absolutely does not guarantee you an easier matchup.
Before you jump down my throat, I absolutely agree with what needs to be done with the matchmaking.
But...
1) Our guild (280M GP) just entered a war with 42 signed up. TW is optional and 7 people chose not to participate. Absolutely nothing deliberate or engineered about it. This happens WAY more than people think. Neither you or I know whether there's more apathy or nefarious plotting behind guilds entering TW shorthanded, but I can assure you that not every guild going in shorthanded is intentionally trimming participation.
2) In our TW optional lifespan, we have had some really poor matchups in our favour. Those wars were not fun. We've had several brilliant wars where the winning margin was <50 banners (including one where we lost by 2 and one where we won by 3) and we've had about half a dozen horrendous matchups against an even bigger guild who wiped the floor with us.
TL;DR:
Not every guild goes in short handed intentionally, and going in short handed absolutely does not guarantee you an easier matchup.
I wouldn't jump down your throat about this. My guild has had low participation before, it happens, especially around the holidays.
But when history reports show that a guild is ALWAYS short 8-9 people that's dubious, imo.
Before you jump down my throat, I absolutely agree with what needs to be done with the matchmaking.
But...
1) Our guild (280M GP) just entered a war with 42 signed up. TW is optional and 7 people chose not to participate. Absolutely nothing deliberate or engineered about it. This happens WAY more than people think. Neither you or I know whether there's more apathy or nefarious plotting behind guilds entering TW shorthanded, but I can assure you that not every guild going in shorthanded is intentionally trimming participation.
2) In our TW optional lifespan, we have had some really poor matchups in our favour. Those wars were not fun. We've had several brilliant wars where the winning margin was <50 banners (including one where we lost by 2 and one where we won by 3) and we've had about half a dozen horrendous matchups against an even bigger guild who wiped the floor with us.
TL;DR:
Not every guild goes in short handed intentionally, and going in short handed absolutely does not guarantee you an easier matchup.
I wouldn't jump down your throat about this. My guild has had low participation before, it happens, especially around the holidays.
But when history reports show that a guild is ALWAYS short 8-9 people that's dubious, imo.
Our guild is always short, maybe not 8-9 every time, but never full TW participation, usual 4-6 short.
It's not dubious at all, it's just the way it works out.
I have also been in a guild where a handful of players are known mercs to go out and help sister guilds or just other guilds play TWs. They enjoyed playing that way, even though they didnt always win, they felt like it gave them more play time overall.
Regardless if intentional or not, based on the current TW matchmaking going in with fewer members the majority of the time leads to more favorable matchups.
Replies
(Especially since we faced TI at full strength 4 TWs ago and their fallout, that was also explained, only affected the past 2 TWs).
This.
As has been said in other posts, it doesnt matter at all how you get to less than 50 on one side. There needs to be other factors to make things a more fair match up.
If you 2 want to have that conversation please do it in a direct message. We are not going to have the back and forth in an thread on the open forum.
Removed a bunch of posts, please stay on topic.
I dont think it's that simple.
You still cant match 40 vs 50 just because they have the same average GP.
No one should be forced to play if they do not want to, also some people have RL issues. The addition to this game mode of being optional is one of the best things they added to the game, at that time.
I agree that noone should be forced to play if they dont want to.
Also if you add avg member GP of those that joined it should (hopefully) not be possible to match 40 vs 50 because the total active GP would be to big of a difference. So if you take into account total active GP joined + avg GP of the members that joined and make it so that ideally both these numbers are within like 5% of eachother I think it would prevent the more lopsided matches.
Ok I got to, but again it's not that simple, because now you have multiple factors that need to be weighted, and adjusted to accommodate the parameters.
I.e. - if there is not guild that has similar GP within X number of player difference.
I'm not saying they shouldnt look at it and make changes, just that sayings its not that difficult or it's simple, is not accurate.
Again, how many is ok for that match to be made within? Floating parameters are never a good thing to give to a program, the results will end up being undesirable as much as desired..... that is not a good goal to have.
That's an interesting stand point, I'm not sure how this would only limited to any particular section of guilds.
It's also interesting that you would make a blanket statement that it should be a disadvantage, seems like you have a bias you would like built into the system. Normally this would be considered a systemic problem, which is something people usually try to avoid.
Edit: Before somebody points out the rewards, there are many guilds who couldn't care less about an extra zeta. There are other layers to aiming for a better TW track record, such as recruiting for example (which is admittedly difficult for many guilds as it is).
It should strive to be equal and fair, not one way or the other.
To make it a disadvantage just negates the point of matching on active GP. If they wanted it to be a disadvantage they would have just made it base on Guild GP, and be done with it.
I wish that was your whole point, if it was we wouldnt have gone down the path you started before.
I agree it should be fair, and at no point is fair, "do this, and those over there can just suffer". I agree they should look at different ways to match, there is no simple solution and when they do look at this, I hope they will work out a solution if one is needed*.
* there is a chance that the data shows that within a reasonable margin error that guilds who go in with less dont always win.
But why shouldnt they get a more fair match, i.e. -someone more equal, instead of being put at a disadvantage?
Seems like a built in bias against a certain segment of players, possibly that you have a gripe with.
20% better rewards from winning every war with 80% of your guild is the same rewards you'd get if you lost every war with all 50 players. Any additional (40+1, 40+2, etc) is cherry as long as you're winning. Most sandbagger guilds only hold out 6 people. A 30m GP swing is usually enough for a near guaranteed W. Plus zeta mats. If 40 players win every war, that's 120 zeta mats. If 50 players lose every war, that's only 100, so there's a clear edge there.
You can't guarantee you'll win every war with 50 players, because the match-making would be competitive, so sandbagging is the obvious choice, and anyone NOT doing it is losing out.
At the higher end this practice has become so common that about half of your match-ups are sandbagging, and you're probably only winning half of your competitive games, so that's like a 25% win-rate for a guild that's NOT doing this.
That's where you're wrong. They are intentionally trimming their war participation in order to get favorable match-up and guarantee wins.
If they prioritized player count in the matchmaking algorithm, this would even things out, but just because their algorithm is broken doesn't mean this isn't an exploitative behavior.
Before you jump down my throat, I absolutely agree with what needs to be done with the matchmaking.
But...
1) Our guild (280M GP) just entered a war with 42 signed up. TW is optional and 7 people chose not to participate. Absolutely nothing deliberate or engineered about it. This happens WAY more than people think. Neither you or I know whether there's more apathy or nefarious plotting behind guilds entering TW shorthanded, but I can assure you that not every guild going in shorthanded is intentionally trimming participation.
2) In our TW optional lifespan, we have had some really poor matchups in our favour. Those wars were not fun. We've had several brilliant wars where the winning margin was <50 banners (including one where we lost by 2 and one where we won by 3) and we've had about half a dozen horrendous matchups against an even bigger guild who wiped the floor with us.
TL;DR:
Not every guild goes in short handed intentionally, and going in short handed absolutely does not guarantee you an easier matchup.
I wouldn't jump down your throat about this. My guild has had low participation before, it happens, especially around the holidays.
But when history reports show that a guild is ALWAYS short 8-9 people that's dubious, imo.
Our guild is always short, maybe not 8-9 every time, but never full TW participation, usual 4-6 short.
It's not dubious at all, it's just the way it works out.
I have also been in a guild where a handful of players are known mercs to go out and help sister guilds or just other guilds play TWs. They enjoyed playing that way, even though they didnt always win, they felt like it gave them more play time overall.