It’s simple: If the population lacks too much for there to be 1’s only matching 1’s, 2’s and 3’s. 2’s matching others 2’s etc etc etc then do this:
Scenario 1: You go into matchmaking by yourself and match with a team of 3. You win the game. Since you’re running singles, you should gain more CSR for the win than the party of 3 did.
Running singles should gain the most CSR the game is willing to offer.
Running 2’s should gain the second most CSR the game is willing to offer.
Running 3’s should gain the 3rd most CSR the game is willing to offer
and running 4’s should gain the least amount of CSR the game is willing to offer.
Same applies for losing:
If you’re a team of 4 and you lose to a team of 4 you should lose normal CSR.
Team of 4 matching a team of 3 and a single should lose sightly more CSR.
Team of 4 matching 2 teams of 2 (or a team of 2 and 2 singles) should lose the second most CSR
and a team of 4 that loses to 4 randoms should lose the most CSR.
As far as the winning goes, this happened in Halo 3. Running 4’s you would rank up slower vs. running by yourself.
Since everyone wants Champion in one playlist or another, i’m sure this would limit the amount of parties of 4 you match. Thoughts?
> 2533274795324144;1:
> It’s simple: If the population lacks too much for there to be 1’s only matching 1’s, 2’s and 3’s. 2’s matching others 2’s etc etc etc then do this:
>
> Scenario 1: You go into matchmaking by yourself and match with a team of 3. You win the game. Since you’re running singles, you should gain more CSR for the win than the party of 3 did.
>
> Running singles should gain the most CSR the game is willing to offer.
>
> Running 2’s should gain the second most CSR the game is willing to offer.
>
> Running 3’s should gain the 3rd most CSR the game is willing to offer
>
> and running 4’s should gain the least amount of CSR the game is willing to offer.
>
> Same applies for losing:
>
> If you’re a team of 4 and you lose to a team of 4 you should lose normal CSR.
>
> Team of 4 matching a team of 3 and a single should lose sightly more CSR.
>
> Team of 4 matching 2 teams of 2 (or a team of 2 and 2 singles) should lose the second most CSR
>
> and a team of 4 that loses to 4 randoms should lose the most CSR.
>
> As far as the winning goes, this happened in Halo 3. Running 4’s you would rank up slower vs. running by yourself.
>
> Since everyone wants Champion in one playlist or another, i’m sure this would limit the amount of parties of 4 you match. Thoughts?
This is an interesting concept, I could see this making sense.
I disagree with this. This is almost the same argument as “My team lost, but I did really good. Why do I take the L?”. The idea you propose rewards the individual. Rewarding the individual takes away from teamwork, which is bad because it promotes every man for himself. The goal of team multiplayer is to work cooperatively with a group to reach a common goal. When there is good chemistry on a team it becomes a positive feedback loop. When players are pushed to be more free-for-all it becomes a negative feedback loop because they’ll get more irritated. The last person an irritated gamer will blame is himself, so he’ll pick out anything and end up hating the game.
Granted the system implemented now is not perfect, but I don’t see your proposed idea helping MM
I think that would be an interesting concept. I think the full team still has the greatest chance of winning, but at least being singles you dont lose as much…and if you win then Bonus!!