I feel pretty confident you are on your own here. Or at least in a very small minority.
Image two teams. Both have two similar Onyx players. And both have two similar Silver players.
The Onyx players are expected to go positive. Let’s say 20 & 5.
Both Silver players are expected to go negative. Let’s say 5 & 20.
A contrived example and made up figures, sure. But work with me here.
A par performance for the Onyx player is 20 & 5. If they kill less or die more then they have underperformed. If one of them goes 15 & 5 they are plus 10 and a 3.0 KD - but they have let the team down. If other players don’t pick up this slack the team will lose.
And if a Silver player goes 10 & 15 they are still negative with a KD less than 1 - but they have performed above and beyond. Their performance could very well have propelled the team to victory.
It’s not that hard a concept. And pretty much encompasses every team sport know to man.
You have this really flawed view of what makes up a “team”.
Good players work with their team to get the best performance out of each player. Your team performance is the sum of each individual’s contribution. If you want to rank up you have to work with what you have got.
This tells me so much about your attitude and concept of “team” play.
Can’t wait to hear your inspirational pre-game speech.
Almost every word of that is jibberish honestly. The game shouldn’t be actively FORCING people it wants to go negative on someone. It’s ridiculous game design meant to artificially choose the outcome of the match before it starts. You did too well the last two games so it needs you to lose.
No amount of positive reinforcement can make people play the game right. I can count on one hand the number of people I’ve run into with mics in ranked this month. Most people play the game like bots.
Everyone agrees with him and we are not arguing why ours ranks are ranked the way they are, it’s the how they are ranked that is a fallacy. Everyone is in agreement with that except you unfortunately. The system may have worked a few years ago, but it is CLEARLY not working. I agree with him Darwin
If the player is a legit silver and not boosting there is NO WAY they are going 10 and 15 in an onyx lobby…that’s just not mathematically possible (if they are honestly silver)
What? That a lower ranked player in a mixed team can’t contribute with a negative score? And that a good player only has to go positive to do their job?
That’s really just unrealistic.
It depends which bit your think isn’t working.
It’s not the ranking system that’s letting us down at the moment. It’s the match maker struggling with the lower population.
The only solution is to increase waiting times until the players you want are available… and at some stage that becomes untenable.
I clearly stated in the post that the numbers were a bit contrived.
It was just illustrating the point that the player can contribute to the win by going less negative than expected.
If you are expected to go 5 & 15 then either going 6 & 15 or 5 & 14 are both positive contributions to the team effort.
Slightly more realistic examples!
But sitting there and whining that said Silver player didn’t go 15 & 10 is the only really silly thing.
Atleast your admitting it finally. So are the ranks and stats and that’s all we are trying to get through to you. The rank system is NOT accurate. It would be if everyone played straight up, but this is not the case (unless your in denial)
Don’t get hung up on the actual numbers I used. They were rounded out to make the point.
It wasn’t directed specifically at you. Sorry if that’s the way it came across. It was a general statement at anyone who can’t appreciate that lower ranked players are not only not expected to go positive… but that by going less negative they can still contribute to the team.
it sounds insanely unfair what do you mean man? You’re cutting out some huge context by only adding the part saying “being smacked down to daimond”. Its how it happens that matters.
For example…if a player is gold tier facing gold and plat players and winning, gets to gold 6 and suddenly now MM only is making the player face daimond and onyx…all the while this gold player never has an onyx team let alone high daimond…gets SMACKED down to low gold because thats literally what it will feel like facing an onyx player as a gold and even daimond…tje gold player will become frustrated.
“Why do you have to be platinum? Its only a few points bro. No need for that much frustration.”
Its not that the gold player is upset they cant get to platinum itself…its that the reason they can’t move from where they’re at is due to the match maker making such a significant jump repeatedly everytime there’s a win streak. A scale up is normal within reasonable bounds. When it isnt, we run into problems.
For some reason it cut out other stuff I added. Idk why but i can reply more when I have time. The guy is good, sure. Hes an older dude and not an aspiring player trying to do more. A lot of higher players grind the game more than the lower players though. That’s why players that stream for example do so with pretty lengthy sessions. I wouldn’t say theres hardly any on, but I don’t have that information in front of me of course either.
Fair enough… I am the one who usually loves to die running for objective… for some reason I feel foolishly brave doing it. Over and over and over I appreciate a “lower rank opponent” as I feel everyone is equal on the team no matter what.
Sorry. Re-reading your post I see the context of what you were saying was more about the type of opponents faces as opposed to specifically dropping CSR points.
My bad for rushing.
I’m pretty sure you can still rank up if you need to.
In Halo 5 I used to pick the option that gave shorter wait times at the expense of wider rank ranges. I don’t have a lot of evidence apart from anecdotal, but I felt I could actually rank up faster in these games.
Towards the end I was playing tighter matching if I was struggling and then switching to wider if I was running hot.
Again - anecdotal. And only really in the last year of the game.
If you think about how TS2 works - it should work pretty well for the middle players in these teams (which is where I usually sit). Your MMR is going to tend to be around the average MMR of the opposition.
Players above and below the opposition’s mean may find it a bit harder. We know that sides who manipulate their squads tend to have a very slow progression of CSR that gets well above their MMR (hence the minus 15 with every loss). But these are players who are at their skill ceiling and trying to artificially grind it even higher.
ie. they were reasonably accurately ranked in the first place.
It would be interesting to know how the system deals with a player who is currently under (or over) ranked in these games. When the opposition’s average MMR is well under or over respectively and not-conducive to ranking on the result?
I imagine this is the case where the weighting for KPM and DPM start to become influential.
You should get your mate to check his Waypoint stats with performance to see if the drops in CSR correlate with not meeting his expected value for kills and deaths.
I’m the one on the team who stands in front of the oncoming opponent with the sword - happy to die just so I can sticky his sorry -yoink-.
For the team!
Or runs screaming at the camo opponent despite my failing shields. Desperately trying to get another shot or two before I die so that someone else on the team will notice them and finish them off.
There’s just something about a noble sacrifice that floats my boat.
I don’t care that a silver didn’t go 15 and 10, I care that they didn’t go 15 and 10 when I got stuck depending on them against an Onyx 1700, and we lost the match because of it
A huge part of the problem is the population. I think I was mid diamond last time I played and the only people I was matched with that had a close rank were being repeated every few matches. If there were thousands of people available at the same time that were at the same level this wouldn’t happen irrespective of the system in place.
Because games that have massive player retention do these things, and 343 only cares about the “broader audience”. Kind of unfortunate that less than 1% of that 20 million that downloaded infinite still play the game.
343 doesn’t understand that this “broader audience” they so desperately crave doesn’t exist. Let’s analyze.
Most gamers in general have played or seen Halo at some point in their life. Whether they invested hundreds of hours with the franchise on Xbox Live, or played it a couple of times at a friend’s house, most gamers who play shooters have some experience with Halo. They know what a Halo game is supposed to look and feel like. Something comparable to Halo 3 or Halo Reach, probably. Nostalgia sells these days. Social features are primarily brought up these days. The “broader audience” 343 claims to be after is the COD/Apex/Fortnite crowd, I assume. But why would they have any reason to abandon those games in favor of something that resembles a strange fusion of those games and Halo? In most cases, they’ll probably play a few games, go “Meh, I like Apex better,” and leave.
I just played 2 ranked matches of 5 and the teams were like extremely balanced man. Won the first game 50 to 48 where both teams had 3 onyx players and one diamond, next game lose 49 to 50 where both teams had 3 daimonds and 1 onyx.
Those matches felt much better than most of the matches I’ve had in infinite. There’s no way infinite has less players than 5 already. It didn’t take long to find the matches either. Under a minute. Probably even under 30 seconds.
