Q&A: Sandbagging Response

Replies

  • Waqui
    8802 posts Member
    @EventineElessedil

    If you do a forums search on "sandbagging" it will take you less than a minute to find reports of what you (wrongly) claim never happens.
  • 50% of these negative responses probably ARE the sandbagging guilds. Haha..

    Posts like this are what escalate the nature of the discussion. I haven't seen any negative responses here.

    You've been nothing but negative here.
  • TVF wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    None of this is proof.
    sorry for my lack of knowledge, but can someone briefly explain how sandbagging works? It seems likes it’s not possible for it to give you an advantage, but I would assume I just don’t know how it works.

    To me it just seems that the matchmaking system just does a not-so-great job at taking into account the varying rosters across the board.

    A group of 40 players, with 5.5M GP (mostly relic'd) takes on a guild of 50 players, mostly 4.4M (barely relic'd), both are 220M guilds...
    Who do you think wins easily?

    Except this never happens ... because the number of players registered for the TW is part of the matching process. You don't get group of 40 competing against a group of 50.
    You have any proof of this? It would interest me. People love to claim this but I've never seen any proof.

    If you register with 50 people and the other guild has 40 million more gp in total
    What do you think happens if you get matched with the same active gp? Of course they are less than 50 then
    This is by far the easiest point to check
    You have ignored the fact that the number of guild members registered for the TW is part of matchmaking. You don't get a 40 vs 50 match. You might get a 48-49 vs 50 match, but not 40 vs 50.

    AnnerDoon wrote: »
    sorry for my lack of knowledge, but can someone briefly explain how sandbagging works? It seems likes it’s not possible for it to give you an advantage, but I would assume I just don’t know how it works.

    To me it just seems that the matchmaking system just does a not-so-great job at taking into account the varying rosters across the board.

    A group of 40 players, with 5.5M GP (mostly relic'd) takes on a guild of 50 players, mostly 4.4M (barely relic'd), both are 220M guilds...
    Who do you think wins easily?

    Except this never happens ... because the number of players registered for the TW is part of the matching process. You don't get group of 40 competing against a group of 50.

    That's simply not true.
    I would love to be proven wrong. Show me the money.

    Waqui wrote: »
    I have never seen a TW that matched 40 players against 50. You guys sure you aren't on glue?

    I've seen it in my alt's guild. We were a handful of players short (42-43 active players) and made sign up to TW voluntary, since some players disliked the game mode. Back then we often had only about 36-38 sign-ups for TW and most of our matches were VERY easy victories. I assume, we were often matched with full guilds of less average GP than ours. We have since become a full guild of 50 active members, with almost everyone joining TW. Matches are now far more even.

    Your guild had 43 players, the opposing guild had 50 players. You had 38 players register for TW, but you don't know how many players were registered in the other guild. There is a big assumption in there.

    @EventineElessedil I noticed you responded to everyone but me.

    I didn't see yours. You have proof?

    I can give you proof too. We usually go into TW with 47 or 48 signed up. Sometimes we’re setting 24 teams per zone, but several times we’ve set 23 or even 22 teams per zone.

    The number of teams per zone is dictated by the smaller number signed up between the 2 guilds. These can be different.

    Tbh, I’m surprised you weren’t aware of this.

    I am aware of how the number of teams per zone is determined. What isn't clear is that the matching algorithm ignores the number of guild members registered for the TW. I find it hard to believe that total registered GP is the sole contributing factor.

    If you have 48 signed up on both sides, you get 24 per zone. You know this, I know this, we all do. If you have 48 signed up and only get to place 23, that means the other guild registered either 47 or 46. If you can only place 22, then the other guild registered 45 or 44. At most the difference was your guild had 4 more players registered. That's far less than 10.

    Again, not saying it doesn't happen, I've just never seen proof.

    Most of the time people come in here claiming this happens but have no real proof, just some big assumptions.

    Can you not read TVF’s post?

    Not usually, no.

    And yet you read a different one.

    @DarjeloSalas apparently this poster wants a screenshot. I have none because I don't screenshot everything and then wait for someone to be wrong. I already spend too much of my life on this game. But I don't care at this point since this poster just wants to stick fingers in ears and drown everyone else out.

    Well, when he reads that thread he’ll realise that he has made some big assumptions of his own.
  • Nikoms565 wrote: »
    ShaggyB wrote: »
    Yep. The idea of having to opt in to play is the cause. Just auto join the entire guild and match make based on that....

    Or if you want a heartless approach match make based on gp of the guild at event start regardless of how many join

    This is a horrible idea. What if you have a handful of members who are unavailable due to work, travel, vacation, holiday, hospital visit, etc.

    It's this kind of punitive "solution" that should be avoided at all costs. All it does is punish guilds with players who might be busy IRL.

    Agree 100%, not only would this lead to much worse wars by including gp for inactive accounts that didnt even register but it will also reward those inactive accounts for doing nothing resulting is more rewards being distributed overall (cg would obviously be opposed to giving our rewards for no activity).
  • We're trying to figure out why CG doesn't know how sandbagging occurs.
  • I got bored after about 5 messages, there is a case for sandbagging (stupid name) its far down the table on issues with game compared to how (alliances) with use of 3rd party communication apps (will use the stupid sandbag again) sandbag, and ruthlessly and hatred order "death kills" on any player who wont join there club!

    That said if you look at guild rosta, mange your guild with your guild, sandbaging on TW makes little differance, we are not a whale guild, we have a plan, we havnt lost to a mismatch, or a sandbag in well i forget the last time we lost,

    stop blaming something you cant control, as it will happen, no AI matchmaking can ever fix it!
  • TVF
    36524 posts Member
    edited December 2019
    @TheRHOMBUS we lost but it was very close. They full cleared us, we came up six teams short (or 7, I can't exactly remember).

    We are 77-17 after that loss, so it was impressive. Whether it was impressive strategy or impressive sandbagging, we'll never know.
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Whatever, make jokes. It gets irritating to play.
  • TVF
    36524 posts Member
    Whatever, make jokes. It gets irritating to play.

    Who made jokes?
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • TVF wrote: »
    Whatever, make jokes. It gets irritating to play.

    Who made jokes?

    who did make jokes? last TW for us was great! went to the wire! had full participation from guild, our plan held and we won? and we had 182 active gp against 197gp? i realy dont see sandbaging as such as a term a problem, if you have a guild that participates, and dosnt ecpect easy ride just because it has 50 drevans, and 50 7 star maleks etc, its like chess, and the only thing that gets our guild up and interested in the game!
  • if you purly look at active gp in a TW we also struggled against far less active gp in a TW, for all the faults if can call them faults in game, how would anyone like an AI to match make a TW? look at every player, every guild, and try and make a choice, while also trying to stop potential cheating, think you looking past the issue that your plan, is not up to doing much :)
  • Nikoms565 wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    Just to be clear - by definition, there is no such thing as "unintentional sandbagging". If it's unintentional (i.e. players are busy IRL so choose not to sign up, people forgot to sign up, people have left the guild, etc.) that's not sandbagging.

    I only make that differentiation because I think guilds are shorthanded unintentionally much more often than they are sandbagging. Think about it. If you were in a 200+ million GP guild and you were asked/forced to sit out of TW and not got any rewards, how long would you stay in that guild?

    The end result is the same, so I use the term regardless. I understand not everyone does.
    Kyno wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    I understand that his response does say that, but to the OPs point there is a difference between having an opponent who doesnt have a guild full of players who want to play TW, and guilds that try to force a situation. They are not one in the same, as many seem to think, regardless of relics,zetas or GP, and other factors.

    They are functionally the same. If you force the issue by telling 2-4 people to sit out a TW you get the same match as you would if 2-4 people just didn't sign up for any other reason. Making a distinction between doing it on purpose or not is 100% meaningless, especially in this context, where CG doesn't think it's even possible to get a favorable matchup with fewer than 50 members.

    The distinction is not meaningless, as guilds have been reported as "cheaters" when an opponent thinks they're sandbagging, when it's possible that players simply sat out due to RL commitments, left the guild, etc. Distinguishing between intentional manipulation of the matchups and real-life obstacles to participation is necessary because integrity matters. Both in the play and in the way matchmaking deals with guilds of 50 that only have 42-46 participants in a TW.

    Yes, matchmaking needs to account for player number differences better - but not in a way that "punishes" guilds with less than 50 players participating. That wouldn't be fair to smaller guilds, casual guilds, guilds that have players that travel for work or are on vacation, etc.

    Why does being accused of cheating matter? Even sandbagging on purpose is not against the rules or the TOS.

    And I agree, matchmaking should be fixed so it properly accounts for this situation.
  • Obi1_son wrote: »
    sorry for my lack of knowledge, but can someone briefly explain how sandbagging works? It seems likes it’s not possible for it to give you an advantage, but I would assume I just don’t know how it works.

    To me it just seems that the matchmaking system just does a not-so-great job at taking into account the varying rosters across the board.

    A group of 40 players, with 5.5M GP (mostly relic'd) takes on a guild of 50 players, mostly 4.4M (barely relic'd), both are 220M guilds...
    Who do you think wins easily?

    My money would be on the guild with 50 players

    Chances are they will have more meta toons/teams

    Well, then you would be wrong. Because the guild with 40 players has 40 of each meta team with all the appropriate zetas and most at g13. The guild with 50 will have maybe 30-35 of most of the meta teams, without all the zetas, and with worse gear levels.
  • StarSon wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    Just to be clear - by definition, there is no such thing as "unintentional sandbagging". If it's unintentional (i.e. players are busy IRL so choose not to sign up, people forgot to sign up, people have left the guild, etc.) that's not sandbagging.

    I only make that differentiation because I think guilds are shorthanded unintentionally much more often than they are sandbagging. Think about it. If you were in a 200+ million GP guild and you were asked/forced to sit out of TW and not got any rewards, how long would you stay in that guild?

    The end result is the same, so I use the term regardless. I understand not everyone does.
    Kyno wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    I understand that his response does say that, but to the OPs point there is a difference between having an opponent who doesnt have a guild full of players who want to play TW, and guilds that try to force a situation. They are not one in the same, as many seem to think, regardless of relics,zetas or GP, and other factors.

    They are functionally the same. If you force the issue by telling 2-4 people to sit out a TW you get the same match as you would if 2-4 people just didn't sign up for any other reason. Making a distinction between doing it on purpose or not is 100% meaningless, especially in this context, where CG doesn't think it's even possible to get a favorable matchup with fewer than 50 members.

    The distinction is not meaningless, as guilds have been reported as "cheaters" when an opponent thinks they're sandbagging, when it's possible that players simply sat out due to RL commitments, left the guild, etc. Distinguishing between intentional manipulation of the matchups and real-life obstacles to participation is necessary because integrity matters. Both in the play and in the way matchmaking deals with guilds of 50 that only have 42-46 participants in a TW.

    Yes, matchmaking needs to account for player number differences better - but not in a way that "punishes" guilds with less than 50 players participating. That wouldn't be fair to smaller guilds, casual guilds, guilds that have players that travel for work or are on vacation, etc.

    Why does being accused of cheating matter? Even sandbagging on purpose is not against the rules or the TOS.

    And I agree, matchmaking should be fixed so it properly accounts for this situation.

    we dont have 100% people on every TW, we actually allow people to join if they on holiday or away, as they part of guild and active, and just becuause they having a few hours/days of dosnt mean they should miss out, on rewards, and again maybe we just lucky, and dont keep count, but we are about 26 wins to 2 lose, and the 2 lose were over a year ago, need a strong plan, inline with current meta, and a guild who react when asked too, its a part of game realy enjoy, and no sandbag, or alliance beat us yet :)
  • BobcatSkywalker
    2194 posts Member
    edited December 2019
    TheRHOMBUS wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    Obi1_son wrote: »
    sorry for my lack of knowledge, but can someone briefly explain how sandbagging works? It seems likes it’s not possible for it to give you an advantage, but I would assume I just don’t know how it works.

    To me it just seems that the matchmaking system just does a not-so-great job at taking into account the varying rosters across the board.

    A group of 40 players, with 5.5M GP (mostly relic'd) takes on a guild of 50 players, mostly 4.4M (barely relic'd), both are 220M guilds...
    Who do you think wins easily?

    My money would be on the guild with 50 players

    Chances are they will have more meta toons/teams

    Well, then you would be wrong. Because the guild with 40 players has 40 of each meta team with all the appropriate zetas and most at g13. The guild with 50 will have maybe 30-35 of most of the meta teams, without all the zetas, and with worse gear levels.

    Why doesn’t the guild with 50 have 40+?

    Because it doesn't fit his narrative.

    He has to assume the group with 40 has all 40 g13 and the group with 50 have only 30 g13 meta teams.

    In reality either group can have 20, 30, 40, or 50 g13 meta teams and the difference in gp can be completely on the bottom ends of the rosters or even in ships.

    The only thing we do know for sure is both guilds have roughly the same active gp
  • https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/182579/territory-war-matchmaker#latest

    Have a scroll through this. On the last page I found an example of 48 vs 35 or 36. I looked for about 5 seconds.

    That should be enough proof for you, but go ahead and comb the whole of it for more if you really need it.

    It took you 5 seconds to look through 13 pages? Can you see how I might think you are exaggerating just a touch here?
    But you're right, I'm not going to look through the whole thing. I still don't see anything convincing in there. Mostly people claiming unfair matchups because they ran a bot. But the bot only compares total guild stats, it doesn't know now many players are registered for the TW. That's a big discrepancy.

    I assume this is your big "smoking gun" post you are referring to: https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/comment/1882433#Comment_1882433
    Player claims that their guild had 43 players join but could only field 18 squads per territory. That means the opposing guild Chisinau had between 36-37 players registered out of a total of 49 possible. The difference in registered players was 6-7. I will say that's a larger difference than I expected to see.
    Let's assume the TW registered GP was equal (somewhere in the 90-99.9M bracket, let's assume 95M). Let's assume these players have 30% unusable GP in their rosters due to low-level characters, but the remainder is concentrated in 100k GP squads of 5. Finally, let's assume all players in both guilds contribute equally to the squad needs of the guild on both defense and offense. What can we conclude?
    • Each guild must field 180 squads on defense, and must defeat 180 squads on offense, for 360 total squads.
    • Player guild had an average of (70%*95M/43=) 1.5M usable GP per player registered in the TW.
    • Each participant in player guild could field 15 viable fighting squads of 100k each.
    • Each participant in player guild must field 8-9 squads total (360/43=8.4).
    • Each participant in player guild has at least 6 extra squads for cleanup duties, if necessary, for a total of 258 extras.
    • Between 12 to 13 players in Chisinau did not register for the TW.
    • Chinisau has an average of (70%*95M/36=) 1.8M GP per player registered in the TW.
    • Each participant in Chinisau could field 18 viable fighting squads of 100k each.
    • Each participant in Chinisau must field 10 squads total (360/36=10).
    • Each participant in Chinisau has at least 8 extra squads for cleanup duties, if necessary, for a total of 288 extras.
    Okay, so both guilds should be able to meet the fielding requirements and should have plenty of backup power for cleanup. Chinisau has a more squads available for cleanup. Does this even matter?
    Obviously this is a simplified scenario. How much of a player's roster is actually "usable" in TW anyway? Depends on the squads the opposition puts on defense, really. Not all viable squads are 100k GP, and not all 100k GP squads are viable. And what about mods? On and on.
    Geez, enough with the word soup.

    So here you go: you are right. Yeah, that example appears to identify a situation where one guild had at most 7 fewer players signed up for TW. That this is intentional or somehow inherently unfair is not clear at all. I wonder how large the registered player difference can be and still get matched by the algorithm. Is it a 100% match on GP? It's possible; they won't tell us.

    The reality is that "fair" matchmaking has many complicated dimensions and they are always changing as the game evolves. I've written about this before. I pointed it out here, in this forum, during TW beta testing that raw GP matching was insufficient for matchmaking. Devs acknowledged the point and said there was more to it, but is there really? I don't know. Trying to capture this elusive concept of "fair" in an algorithm may not be worth the effort, in the end there will always be someone claiming it was unfair because the other guy was better. That's life, accept it, this is just a game.

    Enough yammering on about this. You are right, the number of registered players in each guild can differ by more than 1 or 2. Maybe as many as 7!
  • 50% of these negative responses probably ARE the sandbagging guilds. Haha..

    Posts like this are what escalate the nature of the discussion. I haven't seen any negative responses here.

    You've been nothing but negative here.

    Ok, but I suspect your perception is clouded here.
  • TheRHOMBUS wrote: »
    Dropper wrote: »
    ...stop blaming something you cant control, as it will happen, no AI matchmaking can ever fix it!

    This thread is more about the Devs not being aware of “sandbagging” and it’s viability.

    Probably because it doesn't make a lot of sense for anyone to do this on purpose. Or for anyone else to get all bent out of shape about it.
  • TVF wrote: »
    Not usually, no.

    And yet you read a different one.

    @DarjeloSalas apparently this poster wants a screenshot. I have none because I don't screenshot everything and then wait for someone to be wrong. I already spend too much of my life on this game. But I don't care at this point since this poster just wants to stick fingers in ears and drown everyone else out.

    Well I hate to tell you this, but the time I spend in this forum is just a little bit better if I avoid interacting with some other members with whom I don't get along, and there's a setting I can use that hides the posts from such members to make this task easier for me. Which means that there are some posts which I never see ... and when I see the things like this that you like to say about me, well perhaps you can understand why I don't see a lot of your posts.
    I'm not drowing out everyone else, just a select few. Sorry.
  • TVF
    36524 posts Member
    edited December 2019
    Deleted. Waste of time.
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • This first post was just a question to CGs Q&A response.
  • TheJEFFtm
    917 posts Member
    edited December 2019
    Obi1_son wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    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.

    Just to be clear - by definition, there is no such thing as "unintentional sandbagging". If it's unintentional (i.e. players are busy IRL so choose not to sign up, people forgot to sign up, people have left the guild, etc.) that's not sandbagging.

    I only make that differentiation because I think guilds are shorthanded unintentionally much more often than they are sandbagging. Think about it. If you were in a 200+ million GP guild and you were asked/forced to sit out of TW and not got any rewards, how long would you stay in that guild?

    Bingo!!!!

    But it does happen, and it can make sense.

    Start with the extreme end, as it makes for easy math.

    (Assume a perfect world here, where you are in a uniform guild of 50 players at 5M GP each for 250M GP)

    You sit out 10 players in rotation every TW for 200M active GP and 20 defensive slots.

    You get matched against a guild with 200M active GP (if they are a full 50, that means they have an average GP of only 4M - you can bring roster bloat into it all you want, but by the time you are hitting 5M GP, your roster bloat isn’t going to be much more than 500K), leaving you at least another 500k (or the equivalent of 4 fully relic 7 teams to 5 g12+ teams or some combination there of) PER PLAYER of high end teams.

    Your team is the one setting the ‘pace’, as the number of available slots is based on your guild only having to set and defeat the ‘normal’ 4 squads and 1 fleet per player (but each player has 500K or better worth of quality toons to do so with). This makes it extremely more likely that you (as a guild) are going to get high efficiency first round wins, and lowers the opposing guilds chance to do so - it doesn’t matter if the other guild has ‘more meta’ teams if they are overall weaker from squad to squad and don’t get to bring them all to bear because of the size of the battlefield.

    But why do this?
    Sitting out 10 players means you still get to participate in 8 out 10 TW.
    (And this does presume a 100% Win rate here, but really, the worst case scenario is that you draw another sandbagging guild - which the math is against, because there are a whole lot more 200M guilds than 250M guilds - so you have to play a mirror match, it seems a pretty fair gamble)

    Winning 5 out of 10 at near equivalent GP and you take home 25 Zeta Mats (3 x 5 for wins, 2 x 5 for losses) and 35 Omegas.
    Winning 10 of 10 TW’s (that any given player participates in 8 of 10 of) and you take home 24 zeta mats and 32 Omegas in the same time frame.

    Which doesn’t make sense from a rewards standpoint and is why you don’t typically see that large of a gap any more (and if you do, it is almost certainly not intentional). But if you drop it to 5 members sitting out, (participating in 9 out of 10) the math changes.
    You now have a 600K per player advantage (and again, assuming half of that is ‘bloat’), leaving a per player advantage of around 3 high quality teams. The reward structure looks a bit different too, as now you are sitting on a very probable 27 zeta mats and 36 Omegas, as well as about 10% higher quantity of salvage rewards.

    Now, if your guild is a lean mean PVP focused fighting machine, it doesn’t make much sense, as you are likely already winning higher than 50% of your TW.

    But if you are an ‘Everyman’ guild with a mix of collectors, raid specialists, PVP kings and everything in between, it can actually be a pretty easy method of squeaking out slightly better rewards with a whole lot less work.
    Do I agree with it? Absolutely not, it is gaming the system in the worst possible way... but it is out there.

    EDIT: Dog decided to jump in my lap and I accidentally posted original with about 70% of text and incorrect reward numbers posted...

    Post edited by TheJEFFtm on
  • Fixer
    150 posts Member
    edited December 2019

    I think your the one who doesn't understand matchmaking...

    Matchmaking is based on the gp of players who have signed up for the war.

    1. A guild of 250m gp at 5 m each player has 40 sign up. This reduces gp by 50m so they are matched against a guild with about 200m gp. It could be a guild of 25, 30, 40, even 50 players but the total registered gp will be equal at 200m. This is fair but feel free to suggest how to make it more fair if u see a way.

    Edit: Massively long btw I'll try and make a TL:DR haha

    I'd just like to point out that I don't think your considering the difference that can come with this scenario in it easily being not fair...

    Consider that situation where 40 sign up and they are matched respectfully to 200 million GP, your example says it can be any number of people in the opposite guild but let's say it is 50 people making up that 200 million GP, their power overall per team could almost certainly be less on average when comparing the top team of each individual player it's not hard to believe there's potential for multiple collectors in the 2nd guild who have spread power.

    They don't get a fair and fun match up based on this, simple example, the guild of 40 all have top tier NS or even just gear 12 nightsister with pretty fast mods, the 50 people might have a handful whose top team is empire but this is not garunteed to be their team the invested the most in, even if they have 1 or 2 gear 12 empire all it needs is that speed boost NS have to stun lock an waste the team.

    NS don't even require much power to become a troublesome team, it's a team you can't just use all 50 members for and chuck enough at to solve the slight power difference between the individual teams you need specific counters. A slight difference in power in top teams isn't as closely matched as it ought to be, there is issue in not taking the top team into consideration in matchmaking.

    If you put a guild with alot of NS geared up against a guild that for some reason has starred empire but not invested in them. Which happens since bounty hunters and could be preferred yet not focused on enough or even just a guild that has leant more towards building a good LS roster then you have no even matchup there. I know that's an extreme example but when the game has teams only beatable by hard counters it creates the problem that a match up needs to consider those counters to some degree for a fair match up...

    TL:DR

    There are teams in this game that don't take much difference in GP to be scales much larger in overwhelming power against other teams. My main example NS, without an AoE team you are almost surely screwed. Even with an empire team if the NS have more speed and slightly more GP they can stun lock the empire and make them wasted.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but it's wrong to not consider the top 5 or even 10 toons in a roster, since this matching GP of active players in a guild does not account for if one guild is mostly full of collectors and badly spread their power among toons. That is a big issue with assuming it's fair alongside the teams in the game that effectively been made to only have hard counters, if the other guild has no counters then there's no number of extra players that can throw enough to beat a NS team.
  • kalidor
    2121 posts Member
    Guilds that are sandbagging are only doing themselves a disservice. The difference between a win and a loss in TW is not that much. The difference between not participating and a loss is much larger. So if 20% of a guild is regularly missing those rewards just so 80% can get slightly better rewards, they'll be hurting themselves in the long run.
    If guilds are padding with alts to make 600 tokens, then they're going to be hurting for TBs. But I suspect this is more due to the fact that high end guilds are losing players due to game quits without being able to replace them, than any sort of grand TW strategy.
    We've accepted quite a few low gp players because long term vets called it quits, and an active, enthusiastic player with <1M gp is better than an empty slot. So I'm quite glad to see the hyperdrive bundle developed -- hope this improves the guild recruitment situation so that "false sandbagging" becomes a thing of swgoh history.
    xSWCr - Nov '15 shard - swgoh.gg kalidor-m
Sign In or Register to comment.