Need to adjust infamy gains and losses

Hopefully hasn't been spelled out exactly like Im suggesting here but a couple minutes in search didn't show me anything like this so forgive me if I missed it.

Currently If you win, you get +24 infamy. If you lose you get -24 infamy. If you crushed it and get 2 stars, but you lose, you get - 24 infamy. If you win but you were afk you get +24 infamy. (Correct me if I'm wrong on all of that). This is just dumb. It makes it very hard for good players to rise above the terrible ones. I propose a change based on number of stars received. If you win you gain infamy based on number of stars, 12 points per star. If you lose, you lose infamy based on how you did. 0 Stars get -24, 1 star gets -12 points, 2 star gets -6, or even 0. This way afkers get punished appropriately while there team may not get hurt so bad. People who are actually good at the game rise quicker to play with players more their level and don't get punished quite as much for getting paired with players who like to go do their own thing and die instantly.

 

Hope I don't burst any bubble here, but;

The only constant between all of your games is you -- If you play a decent amount your infamy is a product of your actions (& items), not that of incompetent teammates (the other team has them aswell!)
---
This would be a ´nightmare´ for the mid-tier players that serve as cannon fodder for the top players, regardless of how good you are it's not exacly easy to get 2-3 stars when you're teamed up with 2 top players and the outcome would far too often be either Win=+12 or loss=-24.

Its a team game, you win & loose together. Afking is not a big issue once you've played for long enough to have a decent infamy.

 

Look I'm not saying that the team aspect should be taken out of it. And personally I feel I'm actually about where I should be (about 1100 infamy with a mk3 with no epics that are worth anythng and Tier 1 and 2 uncommons and rares). But when I win a game where I got 5k damage and 3 stars and the low end get 250 damage and 1 star and we get the same infamy, it feels like I'm being short changed. When i lose and still get 1 or 2 stars because I stayed alive until the very end and did tons of damage while some other dude rushed straight at the enemy and got killed without firing a shot and yet we both lose equal infamy, it doesn't feel fair. I get that its a team game, but I don't have the option to pick more than 1 of my teammates. I don't think adjusting infamy based on performance will make that big of a difference actually. To be fair for every win that I get 3 stars, I have a game that I get 1 star. 2 Stars should be average and should yield average infamy. I just think we should rise or fall in infamy somewhat based on our personal perfomance. The team aspect comes in the fact that if the team wins, we all get infamy. If we lose we all lose infamy. Just in different amounts.

 

Infamy does not bring any reward on its own though. Performance is rewarded with stars, and enough stars will give you crates. Higher infamy will give you better end-of-season rewards, but by that point you should have played enough games for a few outstanding matches not to matter.

Also, some players simply get unlucky and get pummeled within a few seconds of skirmish. Unless he was going full 1v5, however, he still served a value for the team and should be rewarded as such. Then why not give him a team-wide reward in case his team wins?

 

Basically the whole idea is your personal performance does matter across all games and everything is averaged out in the end. Under the system you propose, you were dominating in one game and bad the next but still won both you would gain the same infamy total as the current system. The same goes for losses, if you were good in one and bad in the next. It's all averaged out in the end and if it doesn't you will rise or fall in infamy until it does for your skill/gear level.

Do you dominate games with skill/gear so much you can carry your team single handedly? Well you will rise in infamy until you can't. Don't fool yourself, you have the infamy you deserve.
Have an afk'er on your team losing you infamy? Over the course of many games you will have just as many on your team as the opposing team letting you win so it averages out.
Have an idiot suicider on your team? This should happen to your team just as much as the opposing team letting you win.
Have a legendary weapon player tearing through your team? Well the next game you will have a legendary weapon player carrying your team.

Everyone faces these same issues. The players who are higher in infamy than you are all better skilled/geared. They have overcome the exact same issues you face and persevered to a higher infamy.

 

I think the infamy is pretty representative of where you should be. However, i know a few players who are stuck below 1,000 infamy, even though they are level 16 and mk3. I play with them often, and we almost always win (as a mk3 fixer in the 12-1400 infamy) . It is obvious that they themselves are not bad players, but have become stuck with players who dont know how to play the game. For that case, I say the infamy system does need some revising. I agree that it should be by a system like stars. However, I actually dont know how stars given out are regulated. As a fixer, I would hope its not based on damage or kills because that is not something I am trying to achieve.

 

I believe stars are simply based off a combination of survival, damage, and healing (maybe). I play fixer, so my damage is on the low side (unless all teammates suicide) but I am able to heal a large amount of health for my team and survive to the end unless I get focus fired (with the lack of communication in this game, rarely ever happens). Three stars as fixer comes from a mid range of damage, surviving till end, and keeping those last two to one teammates alive, two stars from keeping the entire team alive at the cost of damage, and one star when I get killed near the start of the battle.

 

To be honest, and no disrespect meant, but Rovio doesn't give a sht about this forums, they just put it here so people feel like they have a voice in what's happening but none of our complaints have been met, no change in Infamy gain, no change in how players with friggin MK6 shooters get to be in the 1.2k Infamy battles, the fact that you are matched up against a full team that has a bunch of epic items that can 1 shot you because it's so easy to get your hands on it if you pay and there's just no resistance against it. The inability to play with a team of your choosing with a full fleet. There's just plenty of things that feel unfinished and make the game feel half-done, and just made to make money really quickly (If you want one of those big ass chests well guess what, give me 50$. Want two? 100$.)

 

You have to keep in my mind this is a new game, and updates have been released addressing problems we the players have raised. Give them time.

 

Every single person is near 55% win rate in this game. That indicates everyone is "equal," which is false.

This game is rigged to make sure everyone stays near 55%. The more you play (or pay), the quicker you move up. It has very little to do with how good you are.

A player who always finishes first and plays 100 games will win about 55 of those games (55% win rate) and have an infamy of about 1,320 (55 * 24).

Meanwhile, a player who always finishes last and plays 200 games will win about 104 of those games (52% win rate), and have an infamy of about 2,490.

Because the second player plays twice as much, they have nearly a double infamy score despite being last on the team.

It's a flawed matchmaking system because it's matching you up based on infamy and not skill and weapon loadout.

 

Miika

Please can the devs/mods create a sticky that clearly articulates the current infamy system, how stars are calculated and the fact that an ~50% win rate does not mean Rovio is ran by illuminati please.

Thanks!

 

I appreciate your opinion, and I see the logic, but I totally disagree. Everyone is at or around 50% because the MM purposely drops you up or down depending on how much you're winning.

And at the top levels, are we to assume that no player is good enough to continually lead his team to victory and get above a 60% win rate?

People are ranked by infamy - and since everyone is around that same 55% threshold, whoever is the most active will remain at the top.

There is NO incentive to spend money to buy better guns or level up quicker. Why would you when you know if you win, you'll get put against a stronger team, and if you lose, you'll go against a weaker team.

I play a ton of these types of games on iOS, with many veteran players. This is the first game I've ever seen when you will win about 55% of your games no matter what your loadout is, what your skill level is, what your number of games played is, or how much money you've spent.

It's a terrible business model in my opinion.

 

All the things you wrote are clear. It's clear how MM is setup. It's clear what how the infamy system works.

My point - and a point shared by many others - is that it's a terrible way to "rank" players they way they currently give out infamy points.

Infamy points should be earned based on how well you do in battle. MM should then be based on a combination of infamy and boat strength.

 

https://forum.battlebay.net/threads/the-infamy-loss.1143/#post-7157

Here you go. Things have been discussed in detail here if you want to read it, I STILL agree that it should be tweaked by the way. But you can read that post, I made it myself.

The matchmaking is fine.. its foolish to say its rigged.. if you're at 500 and matching with people who have similar gears etc and you win and go up to 700, you'll start facing people less skilled but with better weapons and they will eventually beat you just because they have better shit. That's obvious. The infamy change will at least let the good players progress a bit further than the bad ones, the difference in infamy loss or gain shouldn't be too much, as that would discourage the ones who aren't that good from playing, but it should at least be there.

 

Yes agree with all this. MM is mostly logically fine, it's the rankings that are more out of whack.

Thanks for the link. I'll read it.

 

This is what I consider enraging and mind-numbingly nonsensical. If every team is fairly matched, then why are there single points of difference in infamy gains/losses despite performance?

 

Infamy is messed up. Ignoring the fixer who was actually good, the rest of the team sucked during this match.

Why do I lose the most infamy when I obviously did the most work?

There are times when the infamy reward or loss is relative to how well players have done in the match, but most times it's unfair.