The top performers in each match should be rewarded not the winning team here’s why. When I go 16 and 4 and all my teammates go 5 and 13 that is unfair for me who did better than the winning teams players. I was better than all their players except their top scorer who went 20 and 4 their next top player was 15 and 6. So their top two or three guys should rank up but so should I. It’s not right that their lowest guy went 2 and 10 and he gets to rank up. If you guys Agree please let 343 know so they can fix this in mcc and especially in halo 5.
I think in regular slayer this should be implemented, but in HCS it should remain team based to promote team work
I understand your frustration as I share the same problem at times. But it’s called team slayer or team objective for a reason. The same goes for sports no matter how well one or two people do, if your team loses your dropping in the rankings. I know it sucks but you just gotta get a team together. Invite those other good players in the lobby to team up and wreck stuff.
Nope. It’s a team game, you win as a team or you lose as a team.
What if you were to have a match where the bottom fragger still played well and contributed to the win? Should they still not get a rank up just because they didn’t get enough kills? What if they were the flag carrier? What if they were the support player, driving the vehicles and controlling weapons for their team?
You shouldn’t be omitted from a win just because of your score. Yeah it sucks when someone doesn’t contribute, but it would suck more to contribute a whole lot and get nothing for it. It would only encourage selfish play more than the kill system already does.
So make Team Slayer an FFA where you don’t get score for killing players of the same color as you?
Or just play FFA?
I can’t stand people saying “This is a team game, if your rank goes down because your team loses then that’s too bad.” Many of us go into this game solo, and are paired up with random people. They may be of similar rank, but they are strangers nonetheless. Rank should measure your skill as an individual player, not as a team-carrier because there are so many variables in the latter situation that push it outside of your control, such as not being able to communicate since your teammates aren’t using mics.
No.
It’s a team game.
Rankings being based upon individual performance incentivizes players to play selfishly.
Your contributions to your team winning the match are also not always reflected on your k/d ratio, which everyone seems to have an obsession with.
The only true indication of how well a team played is if that team won or lost, just like in any other sport.
I assume that individual performance is more highly valued in the rankings for Free-for-all. If that’s what you want, go play that. Or, if you have to scratch that team itch, but don’t want to actually be subject to how good your team performs (oxymoron), play Doubles? That way you only have to deal with the possibility of one other player not being on your amazing skill level.
> 2533274908238201;4:
> Nope. It’s a team game, you win as a team or you lose as a team.
That’s pretty much the gist of it. Besides, doing a ranking system like the one you suggest would further encourage people of going lone wolf in matches. There is nothing more annoying that seeing your flag get capped because xXSniperLord2000Xx is to busy hunting for kills and not actually helping his team. As another poster pointed out, negative players KDR can often play very important roles in matches (such as being a dedicated Warthog driver).
It’s a team game. You play as a team, you win and lose as a team, and so you get rated as a team. If you want to get judged as an individual, you play FFA. If you want to play team gametypes, but believe that you’re better than the teammates given you by the game, find yourself players to play with. It really is that simple. Many players often like to complain about teammates, but really, they have no one but themselves to blame.
> 2533274825830455;9:
> It’s a team game. You play as a team, you win and lose as a team, and so you get rated as a team. If you want to get judged as an individual, you play FFA. If you want to play team gametypes, but believe that you’re better than the teammates given you by the game, find yourself players to play with. It really is that simple. Many players often like to complain about teammates, but really, they have no one but themselves to blame.
This so much, if I could like twice, I would.
You’re in full control over who you enter with, and you know you’re going to get randoms and know the potential skill those players might have.
> 2533274795123910;10:
> > 2533274825830455;9:
> > It’s a team game. You play as a team, you win and lose as a team, and so you get rated as a team. If you want to get judged as an individual, you play FFA. If you want to play team gametypes, but believe that you’re better than the teammates given you by the game, find yourself players to play with. It really is that simple. Many players often like to complain about teammates, but really, they have no one but themselves to blame.
>
>
> This so much, if I could like twice, I would.
>
> You’re in full control over who you enter with, and you know you’re going to get randoms and know the potential skill those players might have.
Off topic but I love your avatar’s color scheme purple and red.
I understand the frustration of loosing especially when solo searching but as many have said it is a Team game. Also if the ranking system works as intended this wont be a problem.
No it is a team game if you do so well play FFA and team mates wont hold you down that is what i do
Just because you went 16 and 4 doesn’t necessarily mean you played well. There was a reason your team lost, if you go 16 and 4 and everyone else is getting destroyed then you probably aren’t actually out there helping your team and in all honesty you deserve the loss. If you go 40 and 10 in a game and you still lose well tough luck it is going to happen from time to time.
> 2533274978553590;6:
> I can’t stand people saying “This is a team game, if your rank goes down because your team loses then that’s too bad.” Many of us go into this game solo, and are paired up with random people. They may be of similar rank, but they are strangers nonetheless. Rank should measure your skill as an individual player, not as a team-carrier because there are so many variables in the latter situation that push it outside of your control, such as not being able to communicate since your teammates aren’t using mics.
No. You see, it’s your choice to play solo. No one’s forcing you to play a ranked match by yourself. There are FFA playlists for those who feel like they should be rated individually. Team playlists, by definition, expect you to try to work as a team. If you put no effort into teamwork, that’s your own problem.
Also, let’s make something about ranks clear: ranks measure your skill. Not your skill as an individual, but your skill as a whole. As it turns out, teamwork is a very important aspect of a team game, and by ranking you purely based on your wins and losses, the system takes that aspect into account, too. Not to mention, there’s a really good justification for correlating win probabilities with player skill, and the mathematical framework you can build around that is very simple, not to mention functional.
Also, believe it or not, the win-loss based system also very adequately judges your individual skill even when you play with randoms. You see, when you play with randoms, the only constant factor in your team really is you. The players in the match are given randomly around the current expected value of your skill level. Let’s now assume your expected skill level is lower than your actual, and see what happens. The players in the match are chosen randomly, and put fairly in the opposing teams, so that the “averages” of the teams’ skill levels are as close to each other as possible. Because your skill level is less than it should be, this means that the team selections are actually always skewed in your team’s favor. This means that, on average, you’ll win more than lose, and your rank goes up. This is bound to happen if the skill given by the game is less than your actual skill, because the game is just trying to build fair teams. Alternatively, we could assume the skill given by the game is higher than your actual skill. What then happens is that games will be skewed against your team, making you lose on the average. Therefore, we see that the only way for the system to reach equilibrium is if the skill assigned by the game is exactly your real skill. And because your performance is really the only constant in your matches–everything else is random variables–the skill is all about your individual performance.
Whether you want it or not, a pure win-loss system can judge your skill accurately. The ranking system isn’t a problem. The problem is that you think you understand what makes a good ranking system, but you really don’t, because it’s not intuitively clear.
> 2533274978553590;6:
> I can’t stand people saying “This is a team game, if your rank goes down because your team loses then that’s too bad.” Many of us go into this game solo, and are paired up with random people. They may be of similar rank, but they are strangers nonetheless. Rank should measure your skill as an individual player, not as a team-carrier because there are so many variables in the latter situation that push it outside of your control, such as not being able to communicate since your teammates aren’t using mics.
well, then you’re not a team-player. because this applies to all kind of sports, any team based games.
if don’t like it this way, you shouldn’t play team based games.
because even if you’re going in solo, you’re not playing solo, you’re playing as a part of a team.
that things like that need to be explained, jeez…
for example:
just like a football player isn’t less a world champion if his team won, just because he joined the game
in the 88th minute & someone else made the winning goal. this applies especially for international matches,
where the players often don’t know their team mates pretty well, since they play in different football clubs around the world.
but nonetheless, if his team won, he and every member of the team is a champion.
like i said, that’s common sense for every team based game or sport ffs.
I wouldn’t mind a man of the match system. So at the end of the match if you’ve done better than anyone else in the game you get recognized for it and maybe if your on the loosing team don’t lose any rank.
Both your individual performance and your the team win/loss should factor in. The beta made a win/loss way more important if I remember correctly, and I do not think it should be that way. As others said, it’s team slayer, yes, but if you look at the data I guarantee most people play with randoms and most people don’t use mics. People want a team backing them up, but in the end it’s the kill/death ratio that helps your team anyway so this “selfish gameplay” stuff is sort of bs. The only time it’s selfish to get kills is if you steal them, but that doesn’t happen too often even if you’re trying. So if you get a high kill/death ratio, you’re helping your team. Yet, if your team sucks, you lose rank points. I don’t think that makes sense. If you’re first or second on your team and you have a positive kill/death ratio, you shouldn’t lose points; at worst you should stay neutral.
I agree with Quempfq, rank should not be based on W/L alone. We can’t always play with friends, especially now that split screen is gone. And most players don’t use mics, so there is often no way to work with your team. You could end up with undesirable teammates (which happens to me all the time) and they feed kills to the enemy team, which causes your rank to go down even though there wasn’t anything you could do to stop it. To me, that rank down is the game saying “It’s your fault that your randomly selected teammates did poorly.”
> 2533274825830455;15:
> > 2533274978553590;6:
> > I can’t stand people saying “This is a team game, if your rank goes down because your team loses then that’s too bad.” Many of us go into this game solo, and are paired up with random people. They may be of similar rank, but they are strangers nonetheless. Rank should measure your skill as an individual player, not as a team-carrier because there are so many variables in the latter situation that push it outside of your control, such as not being able to communicate since your teammates aren’t using mics.
>
>
> No. You see, it’s your choice to play solo. No one’s forcing you to play a ranked match by yourself. There are FFA playlists for those who feel like they should be rated individually. Team playlists, by definition, expect you to try to work as a team. If you put no effort into teamwork, that’s your own problem.
>
> Also, let’s make something about ranks clear: ranks measure your skill. Not your skill as an individual, but your skill as a whole. As it turns out, teamwork is a very important aspect of a team game, and by ranking you purely based on your wins and losses, the system takes that aspect into account, too. Not to mention, there’s a really good justification for correlating win probabilities with player skill, and the mathematical framework you can build around that is very simple, not to mention functional.
>
> Also, believe it or not, the win-loss based system also very adequately judges your individual skill even when you play with randoms. You see, when you play with randoms, the only constant factor in your team really is you. The players in the match are given randomly around the current expected value of your skill level. Let’s now assume your expected skill level is lower than your actual, and see what happens. The players in the match are chosen randomly, and put fairly in the opposing teams, so that the “averages” of the teams’ skill levels are as close to each other as possible. Because your skill level is less than it should be, this means that the team selections are actually always skewed in your team’s favor. This means that, on average, you’ll win more than lose, and your rank goes up. This is bound to happen if the skill given by the game is less than your actual skill, because the game is just trying to build fair teams. Alternatively, we could assume the skill given by the game is higher than your actual skill. What then happens is that games will be skewed against your team, making you lose on the average. Therefore, we see that the only way for the system to reach equilibrium is if the skill assigned by the game is exactly your real skill. And because your performance is really the only constant in your matches–everything else is random variables–the skill is all about your individual performance.
>
> Whether you want it or not, a pure win-loss system can judge your skill accurately. The ranking system isn’t a problem. The problem is that you think you understand what makes a good ranking system, but you really don’t, because it’s not intuitively clear.
Awesome post. I now know how the Grinch felt when his heart grew three times larger.