I average first place in my games and often have a 1 to 1.5 thousand point lead to my teammate in 2nd, and at least 500 to the enemy’s best player.
Despite this, I have a 30% winrate.
Let us good players that get matched with bad teammates get the same rewards as the winning enemy team. It’s only fair considering how bad the game’s balancing is. The 34% reward that I get does not reward the effort and struggle I put into trying to win a match.
If it’ll make the grind too easy for you sad developers, then make it so the top 3 players on the losing team get (a suggestion) 60/70/80% of the reward.
You’re playing quite well and scoring and winning quite well. I think it’s just a case of remembering and feeling the losses more than the wins as well as Confirmation bias.
The sad news is, losing as first player doesn’t make you a good player automatically. Having a win rate of claimed 30% (or sub par at least) is a strong indication that you are not a good player, when it comes to winning.
Why is that so? First of all, depending on the mode you play, you will generate score when you get killed. If you manage to get killed often enough, that will generate quite some score and move you up the scoreboard.
And even worse, by moving up the scoreboard through repeated death, you also fuel an enemy win, because your death hands spawn points to the enemy.
You can also move up the score board by seal clubbing, taking out weak red players that do not matter for the win anyway. Then you get good placement but are a poor play2win player. There are plenty of those.
You claim a win rate of 30%. But your stats say it is just average 47%.
It is also very difficult to average first place in the team unless you always end in first place.
So somehow I don’t trust the claims you make here.
And before anything else: I play a LOT since I’m lucky with freetime. I’ve really racked it up for the past few hundred games at 10.3 and top tier but I’ve noticed that I now lose more games than before on average.
The last (I’d say) 50 games at 10.3-12.7 I’ve performed like a cherrypicking WT YouTuber and the most of my team’s poor performance was much more evident than ever before.
I genuinely think it’s an intentional matchmaking feature to keep you at bay and keep the grind relatively difficult by just straight up reducing your rewards.
And it goes both ways: I play with my friend at 7.0 and I struggle due to the difference in playstyle and balance, and he’s not very good himself so we find ourselves to be the trash teammates to a really good player or two that try to carry us all but fail (hence my general stats that you pointed out aren’t as great as I claim for them to be)
That’s why I want a change in the rewards since I believe it’s a general problem with the rewards not rewarding (in my opinion) harsh matchmaking enough.
I get that it’s frustrating getting a really good match and then getting a mid reward because you still lost, but that’s what motivates you to try winning so I don’t think that should be changed
I never recommend giving away your login details to any third party in general. On statshark you don’t have to log in, you can just search your in-game name.
I’ve been doing horribly lately compared to my historical performance, recently started grinding the British ground tree so that might be why :P
Doesnt the game have bad rewards % in general if you lose?
I swear i earn WAY more if i win the game with 15 kill than a lose game with 15 kills…
The % you gain for win to me its still unknown so
But what im trying to say its that it feels like you didnt do anything in that game sometimes when you lose,i dont know why
In my opinion that is accounted for by the skill bonus multiplier. If you’ve played that well then that multiplier more than makes up for the win/loss differences. But i see your point.
At least in theory the lobbies should be balanced - and not their players. So if each team has 3 better than average players the outcome depends on how these players interact with the enemy team; in other words: The experienced players are in charge of carrying the game.
So if 3 experienced players of Team A are racking up kills by camping the enemy spawn whilst the 3 experienced players of Team B cap all points and defend them at all cost you might agree that the mission score of the 3 top players of Team A was achieved without game impact.
Balancing clearly won’t get changed, and neither will matchmaking which is the real issue. And it makes perfect sense.
Also mass killing is ABSOLUTELY game impactful. This argument needs to be dissolved completely. You’re destroying enemies that are potentially going to attack or defend and change the route of the game. You’re allowing space for your teammates and you’re grinding away at enemy numbers.
That’s game impact. If you think it isn’t, think deeper about it.
Besides, the more you kill, the less points you get per kill, so it’s good to have a balance (which I do since my high performance games average 4-5k points, most of the times higher than the enemy in 1st place), so I still believe that the losing team’s carries should get closer to the full reward the higher they are on the leaderboard.
In fact it should probably be for everyone on the losing team, going from like 15% (2x lower than the current reward gain which is 34% for all losing players) to 100% or at least 80/90% based on position. This is to simply reduce the huge gap of rewards created by a small gap in score (guy in 1st got 20 more points than you cause they died once more than you did xd).
the percentage loss from losing isn’t as big as the gain from the skill bonus. The RP is the biggest difference in win/loss at 49% more RP for a win which is what you get for a stage 2 skill bonus in all ground modes.
