So sick of this crap

Maybe you should waste 1000 pearls on a dictionary because I can't seem to understand what language you're trying to speak to me right now.

 

And now this starts.. bashing..

Same thing from so many of you people.. another ignore

 

Wow! I'm curious, how do you access this data?

 

Soon @Jamesnyc will ignore everyone on this forum, except the people that believe the dev team is conspiring against all the players in this game. Now that is something I would like to see.

 

Oh .. im making it up....

The game is great and all the players that drop infamy its there fault

Happy now, so we can end the discussion

And now talk about weather or sports

 

Share replays dude.

 

Pssht! Didn't you sign a non-disclosure agreement?!
Now you better forget about the legendary weapon - and don't wonder if your family members will have some loosing streaks...

 

He won’t because he’s perfect and we are all jealous and somehow got rovio to give him bad teams because he really doesn’t suck.

 

In fact, the effect is exactly the opposite. This design is not helping the downward streakers.

Let me explain...

Let's say your typical fluctuation is between 2800-3200, but your average Infamy = 3000.
Then let's pretend you somehow find yourself on a losing streak, and drop down to 2500.
In your next match, you should be grouped with 9 other players also at 2500.
Pretend none of those 9 other players are on any streak -- their average Infamy = 2500.
So, the opponents have 5 players with avg Infamy = 2500.
But your team has 4 players with avg Infamy = 2500, and one secret weapon player (you) with avg Infamy = 3000.
This gives your team the advantage.

This kind of natural advantage is exactly what you need to help you start winning again, so can rise back to your proper Infamy.

Here is a guarantee: The further you drop from bad luck, the greater this natural advantage, which must eventually kick in at some point if you fall low enough (assuming you're truly trying your best), because you will at some point find yourself to be so much better than the players you're getting paired with down.

Keep reading....

Now imagine out of the 10 players, there was a second player with avg Infamy = 3000, who was also on a losing streak and fell down to 2500.
You are Player A, they are Player B.
In the next match, players A and B are grouped with 8 players who are naturally at 2500.
Now there are two secret weapon players in the match with avg Infamy = 3000.

If the algorithm puts them together, now their team has a double secret weapon advantage!
You're taking the natural advantage that one player needed to start winning again, doubling the power by combining them, and basically all but guaranteeing that they will win and start rising back to their proper Infamy.
The more players on losing streaks shoved together onto one team, the greater the advantage for that team to win.

Alternatively, if the algorithm splits A and B onto separate teams, there are two guaranteed results:
- One of the players will win
- One of the players will lose

For the player who wins (let's say B), that's fine. That's what should have happened. Perhaps this win will set them on a new course of winning so they can climb back to their natural infamy. Good for them!

But, for the player who loses (let's say it was you, A) ... that wasn't supposed to happen! Your are a 3000-level player -- you shouldn't be losing in the 2500 bracket! But by splitting A (you) and B onto separate teams, the algorithm forces one of those players to lose. So now A is shoved even further from their natural Infamy.

In a completely separate game, 2 other players (C and D) who were also 3000-level players, who had fallen down to 2500, just finished their game where C won, and D lost.

So now players A and D go into the next match together...
They're both 3000-level players...
They're both now playing in 2400-level games...
And instead of being paired together, to give their team an actual advantage...
They are intentionally split up.
They have once again guaranteed that either A or D must lose... again... at an Infamy level far below where they should be...
So if D wins, and A (you) loses, now you have to fall...
even...
further...
down...

And... ohmygosh... guess who you meet down there? Player H, who is also a 3000-level player, who just went through the exact same scenario that you just went through to be forced to fall so far.
And... ohmygosh... guess who isn't allowed to win? BOTH OF YOU. ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED TO WIN.
ONE OF YOU MUST LOSE!
AGAIN!

No, my friends, the algorithm does not help players on losing streaks.
It basically permanently eliminates your natural advantage to ever climb again.

The algorithm makes it very difficult for players on losing streaks to climb. Even if they're legitimately trying to climb they basically have a 50% chance EVERY SINGLE MATCH to lose again.

Some will find a way to win and climb back up, but this algorithm means that some (through no fault of their own), will fall far...
far...
far...
far below where they should be.

And only if they eventually do win again, it just means that it's at the sad expense of some other loser who has to fall even deeper...

I do not think this was Rovio's intent.
I think Rovio put that code in to try to help.
But it doesn't help.

@Miika , @The Grim Repair

 

...and then after forcing some players further down than where they should be...
...if you fall more than ~800 points, you get labeled a "tanker", and have your resources cut off...

The most obvious fix is:
- Remove the code that splits losing players apart. Let their natural advantage play out!

The next fix I would suggest is:
- Modify the "tanker" penalty for falling ~800 points. Completely removal might be the simplest solution, but 800 is too tight of a window for many players. I actually think a threshold based on % would be more effective (at least for players above 1600) than a flat value threshold. Like... once a player is above 1600, if they fall below 50% of their highest Infamy, then their rewards (and guild quest contributions) should be cut in half (not cut off completely). The main takeaway is that 800 is too tight of a window for most players -- especially given the presence of your "certain death" algorithm I just complained about above.

 

Guys stop helping him he will reject every help and ignore everyone anyways
Soon this thread will be empty in his view except MVP,mod and devs replies lol

 

LMAO

 

Wow, what a long and intelligent post(s).. i had to read it twice.. i might have to read it again when im not so tired(and from my pc). Lol

But thank you for that, refreshing to see

 

That'd apply if the moment the players on a losing stop to ruin their own game is exactly the same when he gets another player on a losing streak that'd also stop to play bad.
Let's say that you were supposed to lose 15 battles until you stop to make huge mistakes, but then you are lucky enough to get a player doing even worst than you are at your sixth battle, end of the losing streak

 

This is why u are ignored.. SO childish and pathetic, very sad..

Only saw this because I was not logged in

If nothing meaningful to add to thread, just shut up. Simple!

Maybe you just need to learn message board etiquette?

 

Sorry to pin you with this (and I see that ish sign lol, but I want to get this out), but please stop spreading this rumor. It's not 800 infamy. Some have been nailed after falling 700 or less with very little contrib, and some have fallen +900 while legitimately trying before getting caught.
There, thats off my mind.

 

It should be 0.. they should not penalize you when there doing the matching(u as a player have zero control) and you get sucked in the losing worm hole

Many things they could change, edit and or fix, but they wont because they dont seems to care at all....or they already would have

 

Rather catch the tankers and have a few "civilian casualties" than the entire player base suffering.
"The needs of the many over the needs of the few" the saying goes.

On the contrary, why would they go to the trouble of adding this system if they didn't care? And they have been trying to find ways to perfect this ever since they added it.
(and don't say it's to get people to pay money, people will sooner leave than pay)