> > You are playing in a playlist where your team’s score does not affect your rank. Whilst having more points than another player may not indicate you have done better (as in your example), having a positive kill death ratio does not mean that you’ve played better than half the players in the game either.
> You just said that my teams score doesn’t matter but then say that my teammates scores do? It is completely possible to have a system that doesn’t care how many people in the lobby ranked up after a game. If six people in the game played well, six should rank up (or just have their rank positively affected), that is more fair. Confining positive rank ups to only four players in a game of SWAT is unfair, and certainly isn’t “individually based”.
> How about this, a ranking system where if you go positive in a slayer game it is impossible for that game to negatively affect your rank. It might not positively affect it either, but it is ridiculous that a positive k/d spread in a slayer match gets a derank if the system is truly just based on how you individually do.
> <mark>Or just simply a ranking system that just looks at the ranks of the enemies you played and your individual stats of the game. Don’t worry how my teammates did or how the enemy did. That would fix a lot of the problems…</mark>
> Or just make the system like Halo 3 for every playlist…
Yes, “your team’s score” and “a teammate’s score” (not that I ever repeated the word “team”) are completely different things. One is the score of a team and one is the score of an individual that happens to belong to your team.
I’m not saying this system is perfect, but the solution you just presented is MASSIVELY flawed, which is my point, there is no nice solution.
In your system. 4 players can go 20-21, and the other 4 go 1-0. Now you’re saying that the 4 people who went 1-0 did better than the guys who went 20-21. And I’m saying its not that simple.
<mark>To the bit I highlighted:</mark>
That is exactly how it is now. The system does not care how your teammates and enemies do, it just cares about other players.
If you are suggesting it should not care about ANY of the other players in the game, well just think about what you’re saying, that’s nonsense. You have to be ranked against other players. That or the devs create some ‘average player’ model to rank you against. They can either rank you based on the actual game you just played, or they can rank you against some 1,000,000,000 game average stats. The former is clearly a more accurate method.
EDIT: upon re-reading I see what you mean in highlighted section. You want your score to be ranked against the enemies only.
The reason that is a bad idea is purely because it makes the rank less accurate. You’re still going to have people on your team steal kills from you, not because they want to score higher than you, but they still want to score as much above the enemy as possible.
Say you finish a game 5-3
All 4 enemies were 1-25.
Ranking you only against the enemies puts you massively in the lead. But in reality, the enemies died 100 times, and you only got 5 of the kills. You did rubbish, and whilst you should (and currently do) rank above all the enemies, clearly your team mates were the key to victory and to not rank you against them puts you at a huge (undeserved) advantage.