Sandbagging as of January 24, 2023 in Battlegrounds Season 4

Hello All,

As of Recently, I just started and found out about Sandbagging. I want to say, I understand where people are coming from when they state that it is unfair. I totally see it. HOWEVER, it also seems entirely fair. Hear me out.

- I am currently in Platinum II.
- In my Roster, I have:
- 2 Rank 3 6*'s with HERO RATING between 15,000 and 16,000
- 2 Rank 2 6*'s with HERO RATING between 11,000 and 12,000
- 9 Rank 5 5*s with HERO RATING between 10,000 and 14,000
- 12 Rank 1 6*'s with HERO RATING between 9,000 and 8,000
- 2 Rank 4 5*'s with HERO RATING between 8,000 and 10,000
- 3 Rank 5 4*'s with HERO RATING between 5,000 and 6,000

- I am Thronebreaker:
- Prestige: 10,828
- Base Hero Rating: 1,257,881

WITH THIS ROSTER:
  • I faced rosters with All CHAMPIONS with 12,000+ HERO RATING. MULTIPLE TIMES IN A ROW.

COUNTERARGUMENT:
  • SKILL ISSUES. LACK OF BETTER ROSTER.
REUBUTTAL:
  • I REPLACED 8 Champions with Champions with around 600 HERO RATING.
  • I Then faced opponents that NEAR PERFECTLY Matched my Roster from BEFORE.
CLOSING POINTS:
  • NO. I did not win every match. Heck, I'm still in Platinum II. HOWEVER, it does seem to even out the playing field by matching matching players with similar Deck Ratings.
  • NO, whatever Kabam tried to do to make sure this didn't happen did not work.
  • IS IT A DOUBLE+EDGED SWORD. Replacing about 8 Champions within the Deck does severely Increase the likely-hood of the better champions being replaced with 2*'s.
CONCLUSION:
  • I personally Believe that Sandbagging , as I experienced it, is entirely fair. It holds significant drawbacks to the person sandbagging while also making matches more even. I believe that it is a clever way to organize decks in a manner that can bring certain advantages to the player.
  • FOR EXAMPLE, say a player did not have a GALAN, DRAGONMAN, and TERRAX. at high stars. The player could include these champions in their lower rarities in their deck so when the time comes to ban those champions from their opponent's roster, they also ban them from their own roster. Reducing the number of low star champions in that deck.
  • This however, is not fool-proof as the opponent may have champions that would better the player off it they were banned.
  • By placing over half of the roster with low-star champions would seem to bring an advantage, but come at a big risk. (with the 8 2* champions in the deck, I had a hand drawn with only 2*'s).
  • A simple way to ban this playstyle would to simply ban champions 4*'s or below.
BUT for now, despite my belief in that it is Fair game. I will refrain from further use until Kabam comes out with a further statement regarding this controversial issue. Thanks All.







Comments

  • Loki_Poki1280Loki_Poki1280 Posts: 255 ★★
    As for the rebuttal part. I was saying there was a change in the opponent's seen with the two decks, and as for the screwing my opponent's over. How so? I'm saying the matches were more eye-to-eye rather than having to look up at the opponent. But I get your point. They wouldn't have been matched up with me if I didn't do it, however, WHY though? If such player exists, why mostly face opponents that are much above the level I am at? BTW, it's more PVP when you challenge player more your level and not double them. Not saying your wrong or I'm right. we all have different experiences. And BG can be improved.
  • LightsAnimeLightsAnime Posts: 194

    Hello All,

    As of Recently, I just started and found out about Sandbagging. I want to say, I understand where people are coming from when they state that it is unfair. I totally see it. HOWEVER, it also seems entirely fair. Hear me out.

    - I am currently in Platinum II.
    - In my Roster, I have:
    - 2 Rank 3 6*'s with HERO RATING between 15,000 and 16,000
    - 2 Rank 2 6*'s with HERO RATING between 11,000 and 12,000
    - 9 Rank 5 5*s with HERO RATING between 10,000 and 14,000
    - 12 Rank 1 6*'s with HERO RATING between 9,000 and 8,000
    - 2 Rank 4 5*'s with HERO RATING between 8,000 and 10,000
    - 3 Rank 5 4*'s with HERO RATING between 5,000 and 6,000

    - I am Thronebreaker:
    - Prestige: 10,828
    - Base Hero Rating: 1,257,881

    WITH THIS ROSTER:

    • I faced rosters with All CHAMPIONS with 12,000+ HERO RATING. MULTIPLE TIMES IN A ROW.

    COUNTERARGUMENT:
    • SKILL ISSUES. LACK OF BETTER ROSTER.
    REUBUTTAL:
    • I REPLACED 8 Champions with Champions with around 600 HERO RATING.
    • I Then faced opponents that NEAR PERFECTLY Matched my Roster from BEFORE.
    CLOSING POINTS:
    • NO. I did not win every match. Heck, I'm still in Platinum II. HOWEVER, it does seem to even out the playing field by matching matching players with similar Deck Ratings.
    • NO, whatever Kabam tried to do to make sure this didn't happen did not work.
    • IS IT A DOUBLE+EDGED SWORD. Replacing about 8 Champions within the Deck does severely Increase the likely-hood of the better champions being replaced with 2*'s.
    CONCLUSION:
    • I personally Believe that Sandbagging , as I experienced it, is entirely fair. It holds significant drawbacks to the person sandbagging while also making matches more even. I believe that it is a clever way to organize decks in a manner that can bring certain advantages to the player.
    • FOR EXAMPLE, say a player did not have a GALAN, DRAGONMAN, and TERRAX. at high stars. The player could include these champions in their lower rarities in their deck so when the time comes to ban those champions from their opponent's roster, they also ban them from their own roster. Reducing the number of low star champions in that deck.
    • This however, is not fool-proof as the opponent may have champions that would better the player off it they were banned.
    • By placing over half of the roster with low-star champions would seem to bring an advantage, but come at a big risk. (with the 8 2* champions in the deck, I had a hand drawn with only 2*'s).
    • A simple way to ban this playstyle would to simply ban champions 4*'s or below.
    BUT for now, despite my belief in that it is Fair game. I will refrain from further use until Kabam comes out with a further statement regarding this controversial issue. Thanks All.







    How bout dont sand bag at all. Make it fair for everyone and not for your own sake
  • Loki_Poki1280Loki_Poki1280 Posts: 255 ★★
    Sure, I mean I did say I was stopping lol.
  • phillgreenphillgreen Posts: 2,927 ★★★★
    "There's no version of this where you come out on top...Not a great plan. When they come, and they will, they'll come for you"
  • Loki_Poki1280Loki_Poki1280 Posts: 255 ★★

    "There's no version of this where you come out on top...Not a great plan. When they come, and they will, they'll come for you"

    Nice one. Loki did lose didn't he. I'm wrong. Sorry y'all.
  • Colinwhitworth69Colinwhitworth69 Posts: 5,693 ★★★★★
    Just play like a normal person and take the losses when they come. Don’t rig the game.
  • So you’re saying that Sandbagging was Re-Enabled by Kabam recently ?
    After that method was fixed to NOT benefit you 1 to 2 seasons ago now ?

    Or was it just happenstance that it appeared to algorithmically change who you got matched with, instead if it just having randomly matched you with someone lower after you did that (but NOT enough to satisfy statistical proof that it still works).

    If you are at a certain level, there must be others around your level too. And eventually you would get matched against some of those that are equivalent.

    Also, as time goes by, more of those higher roster people might have moved beyond the Silver/Gold/etc brackets that you were still in, thus leaving others maybe more to your strength left in your current Bracket to match against.

    Probably had NOTHING to do with you thinking you were sandbagging by adding in some 1* champs.
  • IvarTheBonelessIvarTheBoneless Posts: 696 ★★★
    I recently entered gladiators circuit and half of my encounters have been sandbaggers. I am rising fast.
  • TyEdgeTyEdge Posts: 2,286 ★★★★★
    edited January 25
    Matchmaking shouldn’t weigh by roster or deck. If I grind my *** off to get 10 rank 4s and 40 r3, I shouldn’t have a harder path to Gladiator circuit than some barely-Thronebreaker guy who avoids me and everyone like me.

    If they’re gonna do that “service” to players with less developed rosters, then they should stagger the starting points for the season and give higher tier players all the rewards underneath them. For example, uncollected starts in bronze, Cav in silver, TB in gold, and paragon in platinum.

    The game should never disincentivize roster growth and development. This was an issue in the old war matchmaking - alliances with strong prestige were perpetually matched against each other and unable to climb, even in low tiers. Meanwhile alliances rolling out 4-stars on defense largely faced the same.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 31,795 ★★★★★
    I don't use the Disagree button, so I'm just going to say I disagree with this. Roster manipulation is never a reasonable thing to do.
  • altavistaaltavista Posts: 796 ★★★
    It might be too small of a sample size to show if Sandbagging is working or not for you. As far as I know, Sandbagging doesn't work.

    Let us say your original roster is B tier.
    You complain that the original matchups is B tier vs A tier.
    You then 'sandbag' so that your new roster is C tier. Now you are facing C tier vs B tier.

    It could just be that you are B tier, and matchmaking in general has you facing only A or B tier rosters regardless of you 'sandbagging.' You just happened to be unlucky and faced only A rosters initially, and then B rosters later.
  • GeneralMerceGeneralMerce Posts: 84
    As of week 2 of season 3, matchmaking is not based on total roster but top 5 prestige. Sandbagging no longer benefits your matchmaking.
  • SCP1504SCP1504 Posts: 567 ★★★
    If it's advantageous to you then do it, everybody gotta look out for themselves.
  • Loki_Poki1280Loki_Poki1280 Posts: 255 ★★
    altavista said:

    It might be too small of a sample size to show if Sandbagging is working or not for you. As far as I know, Sandbagging doesn't work.

    Let us say your original roster is B tier.
    You complain that the original matchups is B tier vs A tier.
    You then 'sandbag' so that your new roster is C tier. Now you are facing C tier vs B tier.

    It could just be that you are B tier, and matchmaking in general has you facing only A or B tier rosters regardless of you 'sandbagging.' You just happened to be unlucky and faced only A rosters initially, and then B rosters later.

    I understand now.
    TyEdge said:

    Matchmaking shouldn’t weigh by roster or deck. If I grind my *** off to get 10 rank 4s and 40 r3, I shouldn’t have a harder path to Gladiator circuit than some barely-Thronebreaker guy who avoids me and everyone like me.

    If they’re gonna do that “service” to players with less developed rosters, then they should stagger the starting points for the season and give higher tier players all the rewards underneath them. For example, uncollected starts in bronze, Cav in silver, TB in gold, and paragon in platinum.

    The game should never disincentivize roster growth and development. This was an issue in the old war matchmaking - alliances with strong prestige were perpetually matched against each other and unable to climb, even in low tiers. Meanwhile alliances rolling out 4-stars on defense largely faced the same.

    I did not see it that way, Thank you for opening my eyes.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 15,605 Guardian
    altavista said:

    It might be too small of a sample size to show if Sandbagging is working or not for you. As far as I know, Sandbagging doesn't work.

    My experience suggests that while the game is finding matches based on roster strength, it isn't requiring that matches be exact. So it is entirely possible for random chance to cause someone who tries different deck compositions to see matches get stronger and weaker for different decks if they don't test enough matches.

    "Enough" in this case would probably be at least dozens per deck to see a statistically significant difference.
Sign In or Register to comment.