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

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

Replies

  • StarSon
    7437 posts Member
    Options
    Sandbagging isn't a problem, so why should they care?
  • Options
    Because it kills the motivation to try (and ultimately spend time & $$ to upgrade characters...etc...etc.)
  • StarSon
    7437 posts Member
    Options
    VicMackey wrote: »
    Because it kills the motivation to try (and ultimately spend time & $$ to upgrade characters...etc...etc.)

    Well, CG knows how to make money, so I imagine if it was really doing anything to their revenue they would change it.
  • Options
    Legit point for sure
  • Fenn93
    19 posts Member
    Options
    VicMackey wrote: »
    Because it kills the motivation to try (and ultimately spend time & $$ to upgrade characters...etc...etc.)

    Hate to be devils advocate but I don’t think anyone has thought about not spending money due to the gp difference in TW.
    It’s an issue where I’m in exactly the same boat as you, in a 460m guild and just get steamrolled by bigger guilds only putting up some of they’re roster
  • Ultra
    11502 posts Moderator
    Options
    VicMackey wrote: »
    Is there any indication that CG will eventually address TW sand bagging? We (480m GP) just got annihilated by a 521m GP guild. The problem? When looking at their last 20 battles...they never put up more than 460m GP. Doing this has given them an 18-2 record during that period. Obviously sand-bagging has been a problem for YEARS.....and I'm wondering if CG at least acknowledges its a problem they want to fix. My guess is they don't give a bleep.

    not everyone in the guild has time or likes TW
  • ChuMuc
    40 posts Member
    edited March 27
    Options
    Honestly, the current method is not perfect, but I have not seen really a better version that takes into account:
    - not playing against the same guilds every other tw
    - accounting for different numbers of players
    - ensure that every guild gets a matchup
    - balance so it is a fair matchup

    GP alone does not determine the through strength of a guild, but is one indicator. However, gp is influenced by a lot of things that have no result on tw success (like the huge part of rosters not even used in tw) and also does not account for the different resources invested in tw (omicrons, team compositions) nor for the differences in player skill. So unless there is something really superior that is also practical to implement, we are stuck with the current system. What they however could easily do is adjust the brackets to guild growth over the last two years.
  • Options
    What you call sandbagging is what we call TW being optional.

    Out of our 50 members, usually around 36-38 join because they want to. As a GL, I'd much rather play with people who WANT to participate in a game mode rather than force people to do something they don't like and end up not showing up, costing us the match.
    Co-GL, Empire's 501st
  • Joebo720
    647 posts Member
    edited March 27
    Options
    Ultra wrote: »
    not everyone in the guild has time or likes TW

    That is a fine excuse, guilds should do whatever they want. Put them up against similar GP guilds then, don't reward them by being matched up with lower GP guilds. Problem solved, their problem their members don't want to join, not the lower GP guilds fault.
  • Options
    For a guild to sandbag intentionally, its members would have to all sign up to some sort of rotation system where a portion of them don't sign up for each TW. Let's say that portion is 20%. Assuming they then go on to win every time, everyone over a period of time gets 80% of the winner's rewards. On the other hand, if everyone plays, and for some odd reason they just lose every war, so everyone over the same period of time would get 100% of the loser's rewards. Is there enough difference between the two to make sandbagging worth while?
  • Options
    For a guild to sandbag intentionally, its members would have to all sign up to some sort of rotation system where a portion of them don't sign up for each TW. Let's say that portion is 20%. Assuming they then go on to win every time, everyone over a period of time gets 80% of the winner's rewards. On the other hand, if everyone plays, and for some odd reason they just lose every war, so everyone over the same period of time would get 100% of the loser's rewards. Is there enough difference between the two to make sandbagging worth while?

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

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

    There needs to be a wholesale change to tw, including matchmaking in a GAC style skill rating honestly
  • Options
    There is always a winner and always a loser and TW is an ancient event in this game's lifetime. So, no, they don't care about it at this point. It might be a priority in the future, but that would be as part of an overhaul of TW entirely, not just "sandbagging".
  • Options
    Joebo720 wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    not everyone in the guild has time or likes TW

    That is a fine excuse, guilds should do whatever they want. Put them up against similar GP guilds then, don't reward them by being matched up with lower GP guilds. Problem solved, their problem their members don't want to join, not the lower GP guilds fault.

    How about "cant"?
    Business trip? Family affairs?

    You boot a guy that shows up 99% of the time because he miss one TW? Or punish a guild because someones phone is broken and cant play for few days?

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

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

    I was comparing two extreme cases though. In reality, it's not 100% sandbagging WR vs. 0% all-hands.
    thedrjojo wrote: »
    It's also probably not an even rotation, as the officers aren't likely rotating out.

    That would make it an even worse deal for everyone else?
    thedrjojo wrote: »
    There needs to be a wholesale change to tw, including matchmaking in a GAC style skill rating honestly

    That I agree. Current TW matchmaking produces wacky matches even without anyone sandbagging.
  • waxweazle01
    34 posts Member
    edited April 3
    Options
    Nobody here has to apologize for not having all members join their guild TW for the reasons already mentioned here. This is completely legitimate. The fact that everyone here feels triggered because OP uses the word “sandbagging” is unnecessary.

    However, the problem described still exists. Smaller guilds with full participation should not be the victims for large guilds that:
    - ... had two defeats in a row and now received a bye
    - ... do not have all members registered

    In my opinion it could be solved in two ways:
    1. New GP reward tiers will be introduced so that the 550+ million guilds can move into a new braket as more people sign up
    2. In addition to the actively registered GP, either the number of registered players or the entire guild GP is included in the matchmaking.
    Post edited by waxweazle01 on
  • cboath7
    461 posts Member
    Options
    Nobody here has to apologize for not having all members join their guild TW for the reasons already mentioned here. This is completely legitimate. The fact that everyone here feels triggered because OP uses the word “sandbagging” is unnecessary.

    However, the problem described still exists. Smaller guilds with full participation should not be the victims for large guilds that:
    - ... had two defeats in a row and now received a bye
    - ... do not have all members registered

    In my opinion it could be solved in two ways:
    1. New GP reward tiers will be introduced so that the 550+ million guilds can move into a new braket as more people sign up
    2. In addition to the actively registered GP, either the number of registered players or the entire guild GP is included in the matchmaking.

    Have the reward tiers changed since they were set a long time ago in the current system? If not, they should add another bracket at the top. It's not like a group moving into that bracket at the next go-round stands a chance against a guild that's been there since day one - unless they decide to set defense and not doing anything. A guilds GP is going to go up and up unless they stop adding new characters, so you can't have a stagnant top tier that never moves up in the system. It gets overpopulated and unbalanced otherwise.
  • Pertor
    43 posts Member
    Options
    It's definitely time for new reward tiers! Sandbagging is a problem! Due to lack of time of many members my guild (446gp) is not the strongest in TW. The idea to get an easier opponent after 2 losses is a nice one, but ...then we face a guild with around 35 members, 380gp, top-level players only and a wall of squads with the latest toons und level 9 DKs. Could'nt even clear 2 fields.
    Do something about it!
    CG_Tusken_Meathead
  • Joebo720
    647 posts Member
    Options
    Phoenixeon wrote: »
    How about "cant"?
    Business trip? Family affairs?

    You boot a guy that shows up 99% of the time because he miss one TW? Or punish a guild because someones phone is broken and cant play for few days?

    Really?

    Can't, won't, doesn't want to, it's all irrelevant. Still should face the same size GP guild. Up to each guilds officers how they want to handle it. Still shouldn't get a competitive advantage.
  • Options
    Same size GP if 10 people aren’t available?
    The focus should not be on Guild GP, if TW displayed Participating GP maybe this thread wouldn’t exist.
    The bigger problem (only problem) is that the algorithm will line you up to face stronger and stronger opponents after every win- and every guild will fall into a state of equilibrium where your reward for a well played match is an impossible one. This removes a lot of the incentive to focus on the game mode from a guild perspective.
  • Options
    Pulsipher wrote: »
    Same size GP if 10 people aren’t available?
    The focus should not be on Guild GP, if TW displayed Participating GP maybe this thread wouldn’t exist.
    The bigger problem (only problem) is that the algorithm will line you up to face stronger and stronger opponents after every win- and every guild will fall into a state of equilibrium where your reward for a well played match is an impossible one. This removes a lot of the incentive to focus on the game mode from a guild perspective.

    Like GAC?
  • Options
    This game mode is no longer worth the intensive time investment for good defensive and offensive setups as long as matchmaking is (actively?) exploited so intensively by guilds like this: https://swgoh.gg/g/P22U4cb5Q8CvLq3O3w_3lA/tw-history/ to their advantage over those who (almost) fully register.

    I mean, if guilds like this ALWAYS register with 100-150 million less GP, that's noticeable and I would call it a deliberate pattern here. If you look at their investment in TW Omicrons, Relic stages, modding and Datacrons, they also take the mode (deadly) seriously...

    4tlftxyg83i2.png
  • Options
    VicMackey wrote: »
    Is there any indication that CG will eventually address TW sand bagging? We (480m GP) just got annihilated by a 521m GP guild. The problem? When looking at their last 20 battles...they never put up more than 460m GP. Doing this has given them an 18-2 record during that period. Obviously sand-bagging has been a problem for YEARS.....and I'm wondering if CG at least acknowledges its a problem they want to fix. My guess is they don't give a bleep.

    Good luck getting a Dev to respond to this. You can never prove sandbagging and even if you could…what would change. Nothing. I tried addressing this very same thing months and months ago and was met with pitchforks of people who said blah blah blah not the guilds fault blah blah blah its not sandbagging blah blah blah etc etc etc. Save yourself the headache and address what YOU can do about it. Prepare your guild with datacrons/mods and give your best effort. If it’s a steamroll match just take the rewards and envision the other guild in their underwear. No sense in raising your blood pressure over this stuff because CG isn’t going to address it or change it.

    SWGOH Guild: Peace is a Lie SWGOH Profile: Boofpoof Discord: Buffpuff#3065
  • Options
    What you call sandbagging is what we call TW being optional.

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

    This. It’s optional in our guild. I’m 11.5 million GP and haven’t joined a TW in like six months as I don’t like the game mode.
Sign In or Register to comment.