Is this "fair" matchmaking?

So as you can see in the screenshot , I'm fleeting with and against people 700+ infamy more than me. I know the devs like using the excuse of "it's balanced because both sides have players at higher levels," and while true, does not make the game balanced. I'm basically cannon fodder for the bigger guys, and it doesn't matter to me if my side has high level people too because I'm taken out in 2-3 shots. 700 infamy equates to 30 wins, which could be months worth of experience and leveling. To me, that's not balanced.

I understand the numerous obstacles in the way of balancing matchmaking. But i don't think the excuse that both teams have high levels, or low levels for that matter, should be acceptable.

Hell, you're not even allowed to fleet with someone who's more than 800 or so infamy above or beneath you, so why does random matchmaking allow it?

 

becuase its the chance of winning of each team is some where 50%.
Well technically matchmaking is not balance. So deal with it for now until more player will play and infamy difference will be shortened.

 

Kinda a catch 22, isn't it? You need more people to play for a fairer matchmaking, but you also need a fair matchmaking to keep players playing. There's gotta be a better way of doing this, and I know the devs are working on it, which is why I'm not hating on the matchmaking itself, just the excuse the devs are using.

 

Your not above 800 infamy in terms of being less than him. Your 722 infamy less than the number 1 on your team.

 

This game makes sure everyone stays at around 55%. It's purposely - and stupidly - designed to make sure that some games you're the highest infamy, some games you're the lowest, and some games you're in the middle. Basically, because they match players by infamy scores - instead of skill level - it ensures that everyone will keep around a 55% win rate.

Matchmaking based in infamy is incredibly flawed because the game is "rigged" to let you win about 55% of the time no matter how good you are. It needs to be tweaked so that 1st - 5th place gets different infamy scores; this way the good players truly will move up.

 

That's wrong I currently stay at around a 60+% win rate.

 

Sure. There are a few either way. Still all relative. Most players are around 55%.

What's your infamy?

 

A progressive infamy system has been proposed a lot of times, and I'm all for it. However, I believe the devs have stated before that this kind of system will lead to a free-for-all in terms of damage, and people will be less inclined to play as a team because of it. I think that reasoning is a bunch of baloney, and I hope the devs have changed their way of thinking since then.

 

That's incredibly flawed logic by them. Every other iOS game I play yields different rewards for players on the winning and losing teams.

It's the only way to sort the good from bad players.

They just can't figure out how to rank people by skill and hanger type. They are lazy.

 

When I'm matched with big boys, I literally make it my goal to not die first. Though as a fixer I can still stay relevenant even if I'm not poking my nose out.

I will say I've been one shot once or twice and learned my place.

 

To be fair since this game allow you to upgrade your items to boost your overall performance be it using pearls to rush the progress or pure grinding, how can one expect to have a true fair game?
It's only a matter of time that someone max out all their legendary gears and run over unfriendlies with ease. This system actually helps to mitigate, he/ she will be pair up with weaker friendlies against overall stronger unfriendlies to even out the odds on a game.
Sure it is frustrating to be on a losing streak, worst for those who tried to be competitive. But if you can adjust your mid set and take this as a challenge you might feel better.
By the way I'm playing purely F2P so don't flame me on this comment haha.

 

Yes, but that would mean somebody has a 65+ w/r. It's absurd that even the top players have 55%.
"It is not possible to win without somebody losing". Yes, but what if someone just kept winning?
Oh, right, they can't. The matchmaking sucks.

 

Well its because this game doesn't really care that much about whether you're hella good or hella bad, it only cares about your gear and everything else that you can get using $$$$$, that's why it only features 5v5s, you can be a god at aim and dodge but it'll still only take two good players to take you out, or one decent one with fairly better gear. I already made a thread suggesting different infamy gain/loss for how a person individually performs but they dont agree with that. Which makes me, and I'm certain many other players, not really want to play this game much at all. At least if I'm consistently being good at matches, then I lose less infamy than others with a defeat, and gain more infamy than others with a victory, only if I perform better than everyone else, of course. That is what would make me want to continue paying attention, else, it's literally, like, who gives a shit? I can sit at the back and do nothing, or I can give my all and get the highest damage in the entire game, its the SAME if I lose, I dont progress at all.

To me, that's bs.

 

Yes, obviously it has to be a 1:1 relationship to wins and losses, but there should be some players who win 7 out of 10 and others who only win 3. Not everyone can be an equal player, so why are we rated as such?

 

What's this magical 55% win ratio everyone speaks of? The people I see around me are between 47-49%.

 

Reply to my post pls, people have already answered the why it cant be 70%

 

You're confusing "most active" with "strongest." Have you ever seen a game where every player is around 50% win rate?

It's absurd. It means your skill level, weapon level, etc don't matter. No matter what you do or how well you play, you will be at around 50%. There is no incentive to get better.

And I have no problem with MM on it's own. You should indeed play against players with similar rank. Where the game fails is how you're ranked. Infamy is terribly flawed. Not MM. That's the problem I think.