Yet again another infamy rant

Look, please figure the infamy problem out. As much as I enjoy this app I consider putting money into as I have in other apps but, what's the point? I have strong ships and strong weapons. The entire team should not be rated the same loss in infamy when some players don't pull their own weight my high damage rating means nothing when teamed with non players who have no team strategy in mind. This is a huge problem, please this or design matches by ships strength not pointless infamy

 

Yes I agree 100%

 

I agree. This happens regularly to me, and I feel like it's part of the underlying problem that I've read about here on the forums called "Farming" where people are losing on purpose to end up in lower tiers so that they can play weaker opponents.

I was up to almost 800 Infamy then over one weekend went on a losing streak where I was losing 4-5 games for every 1 that I won. In many of those losses at least one player on our team got 0 damage, meaning that they weren't even trying.


Whenever I have a game like this...where I end up with nearly 1,000 more damage than anyone else in the game, all of my team's kills, and I still lose 24 Infamy I don't even feel like playing the game any more.

 

It's a 5 on 5 team game. You either win or lose. That's it.

 

That's ridiculous.

Anyone that plays knows it's a 5 on 5 game, and anyone with any sense also knows that there's no reason for every player on the winning or losing team to automatically have the same gains/losses as everyone else on their team.

The same should be said for someone that does 0 damage and manages to be on a winning team, that player shouldn't gain 24 Infamy because they did nothing to help their team out.

 

Keyword is TEAM. You are a TEAM. You win as a team or lose as a team.

And the image you posted with 0 damage is a Fixer.

 

Again, that's ridiculous.

So as a Fixer it's his job to just sit in our spawn? Because that's what he was doing.

 

It's not ridiculous. That's how team games work. Just like any team sport in real life.

It was his job to play but he didn't. That's on him.

 

Another ridiculous statement. You're sure racking them up.

You keep saying it's a team game, but if he didn't play it's on him, huh? You've said team countless times in your several posts in this thread, so you would think you'd realize that you then can't say it's "on him," because guess what? It wasn't just on him. It was on all of us on his team. We all suffered because he decided not to play...which is why the Infamy system in it's current state is stupid and doesn't work. When one team ALL loses the same amount of experience despite one or two members clearly having better games than anyone even on the other team, then the system is flawed at best, and broken at worst.

In many, many team based video games players on winning and losing sides both gain and lose experience based on their individual performances, with bonuses coming to the winning team.

But according to you, if one guy doesn't play in the TEAM game, it's on that individual...yet the loss is on the team.

You apparently just don't get it.

 

It's his decision not to play. That's all I'm saying.

Bottom line is you either win as a team or lose a team. No participation medal or individual accollade for how much you've contributed. If you don't like that, you should look for a game where individual performance is rewarded.

 

And all I'm saying is that there's no reason that the system HAS to be all or nothing. It could easily be tweaked to give the winning team more Infamy while not penalizing everyone on the losing team equally, particularly when there are examples (numerous, numerous examples by the way) of players doing well while nobody else on their team does anything at all.

 

Actually, there is a very good reason for it to be all or nothing, and that is that contribution is very hard to measure. The star system tries to do this and is totally off sometimes. How well you perform individually can't be measured in damage numbers, for example. If person 1 deals 4000 damage over various targets that all get pulse healed, and person 2 deals only 1500 damage but sinks an enemy, person 2 clearly performed better. A good individual performance system would need to measure:

- how much damage you do, against which targets you do it, and how concentrated your damage is over the duration of the match
- how much healing you do, who you heal, and whether you actually save people or merely top off those who took 1 or 2 hits
- how much damage you take, how much you mitigate and whether you save teammates by taking damage instead of them
- how many shots you "bait", as in drawing enemy fire that misses
- where you place your mines and napalms
- how much capture % you do and the effect of it (were you capturing to win, were you using it to draw enemies, or were you pointlessly standing there while the rest of your team was losing the battle elsewhere)
- how many stuns you landed, which targets you stunned and how long your stuns lasted before being broken

I'll stop listing now, but I guarantee there's more. The point is, individual performance is so complex that it could never be measured by a system. We would only get unfair results, and threads about unfair infamy distribution would appear even more frequently than matchmaking threads do now.

 

Sport in real life don't work this way. You win or lose as a team, but the best ones get spotted and hired by better teams. Imagine what team sports would be like if you can't select your team and you are forced to make top players compete together with others that averagely have the same amount of wins

 

I understand what you're saying. It just seems like there could be some basic way to differentiate someone that is clearly performing better than other players on their team. Even if it was just a basic system based on kills, damage dealt, healing done, and stuns landed would seem better than just "Oh, well, we get that you did 8,000 damage, killed four players, while the other four guys on your team sat in the spawn and didn't even move, so you lose 24 Infamy."

I agree 100%. Video games aren't real sports. Real sports have no bearing whatsoever on what happens in a video game. Comparing this game to a real sport is just ludicrous. I've never played a real sport where I couldn't communicate with other players on my team in real time with spoken words, something that doesn't happen in this game. I've never played a real sport where if one guy decides he's just going to stand on the field and no contribute to the team, or even move at all, that he wasn't instantly kicked off of the team. I've never played a real sport where players get rewarded by deliberately losing.

I've seen several individuals refer to things like this...that this or that doesn't happen in team sports, but that has literally nothing to do with the topic of this message board.

 

I feel your pain. I have been in a lot of matches similar to the one you posted above. Sometimes I wonder if they lost connection, were trying to lose or just plain bad.
As bad as that feels, I think it best to stick with the current all or nothing system. Not because it is fair (it's not) but because every other team sport works this way. Can you name a team sport that doesn't?
My sport of choice is the NFL (American Football; I'm in the USA). I feel bad for Dan Marino and numerous other great players, who were best at their positions but due to being loyal to a bad team their whole career never, won a Superbowl Championship. Other lesser quarterbacks have multiple Superbowl wins but poor Dan has 0.
They even give out Superbowl rings to backup quarterbacks who are on championship teams even if they never set foot on the field all season! They are still considered "Superbowl winners" while Dan is not. It's not fair. It is just the nature of team sports.

 

I was literally just replying to somebody who posted "this is like real life sport" saying exactly what you meant: it is not and bears no comparison. Please, before quoting others read the context

 

I get what you're saying, but just to throw an example out there I have at times been a pretty hardcore "Battlefield" player on Xbox.

In Battlefield you're playing as a team, well, the games that I play were for a team. You won and lost as a team, but the players that did well ALWAYS earned more experience than those that didn't, even if they were both on the same team. Then multipliers came into play for the winning team based on various things. So the winning team always got a bonus for winning, but everyone in the game was rewarded for their individual performances.

I know, I'm sorry. I had put "I agree 100%" at the beginning but deleted it while trying to respond to two comments in my one post.

 

I see your point. Perhaps the "real sports" analogy is a poor fit here. If Battle Bay implemented something like you described from Battlefield I would not complain. It is more fair while keeping the "team sport" win/lose mentality.
The game is still pretty new so I don't expect perfection. Maybe in a future version.

 

I don't think I'd have nearly as much of an issue with the system as it is if the maps weren't tied to Infamy. Like I was about to 800 to unlock the next one when I went on my epic losing streak, and since then I've kind of lost interest in trying to advance as I've been noticing more and more players who aren't contributing.

Hopefully they'll figure something out.

 

You guys don't understand the concept of a Team game. "But muh damage". Anyway, after all of this rambling, at the end of the day it's still win or lose haha