Halo 4 CSR, what matters?

I understand that for Playlists that use team scoring, winning is all that matters.

However, what about for individual scoring?

  • Is it your points earned at the end of the game? Most points = increase in rank?
  • Is it your kills? Highest kills = increase in rank
  • Is it your K/D spread? Having the most positive K/D = Increase in rank?

Im asking to see which would be better for CSR ranks. 15-5 or 25-20 or 35-35? Is staying alive with few deaths viewed as better than running around and killing as many people as possible?

It’s goes by points. Most point = increase in rank.

Just play super aggressively, challenge everything and try to pick up every power weapon on the map for yourself.

In individually-ranked CSR playlists, only two things matter: points and relative ranks.

After a match, CSR rates every player according to how many points they had. It then adjusts each player’s CSR according to who they won or lost against.

CSR expects the higher-ranked players to score higher than the lower-ranked players, so it adjusts ranks in order to make that true. Players will rank up if they consistently score higher than players ranked the same as or higher than them. Players will rank down if they consistently score lower than players who are ranked lower than them.

So for individually-ranked CSR playlists, it’s a race. It’s not about who has the best stats or who contributed most towards the win, but rather who had the most points when the match ended.

In other words skill matters nothing, only how aggressive one was? Someone could go 25-29 and get first place, even though they were a negative to their team.

Kind of disappointed to learn this, as it rewards the little suicide bunnies.

I find it difficult to take CSR seriously, I know I’m not good enough to get 50’s. While I don’t have them now sometime after their release I was capable of getting 50’s fairly easily even if I did get pummeled into dust every now and then.

> In other words skill matters nothing, only how aggressive one was? Someone could go 25-29 and get first place, even though they were a negative to their team.
>
> Kind of disappointed to learn this, as it rewards the little suicide bunnies.

Skill matters. Usually the most skilled player is the most aggressive anyway, at least compared to the average Joe. I would rather have a guy on my team go 25-29 than some camper who goes 10-0 and does nothing for map control.

Ummm…team slayer and proving ground have w/l only rank ups like Halo 3. Every other thing is what the gents above me have said.

LOL i won 7 straight games of swat carrying my team each game and still ended up losing a CSR skill rank. Its a bunch of broken garbage.

> > In other words skill matters nothing, only how aggressive one was? Someone could go 25-29 and get first place, even though they were a negative to their team.
> >
> > Kind of disappointed to learn this, as it rewards the little suicide bunnies.
>
> Skill matters. Usually the most skilled player is the most aggressive anyway, at least compared to the average Joe. I would rather have a guy on my team go 25-29 than some camper who goes 10-0 and does nothing for map control.

In Slayer type games, going 25-29 is a negative 40 score while 10-0 would be a positive 100 score. I’d also argue that a player who controls a side for virtually the entire game, but does not rush out and get flanked, does more good then the lemming who seeks incessant contact. Deaths (in slayer objective, regicide too maybe) needs taken into account.

> LOL i won 7 straight games of swat carrying my team each game and still ended up losing a CSR skill rank. Its a bunch of broken garbage.

I’ve found that games where I perform really poorly are more likely to increase my CSR while the games where I do really, really well are the ones most likely to cost me a rank. Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?

I pretty much just try and focus on maintaining a positive K/D for the match anymore; to hell with what my CSR does.

> LOL i won 7 straight games of swat carrying my team each game and still ended up losing a CSR skill rank. Its a bunch of broken garbage.

Even if you outscore the enemy team, if they have a lower csr than you, the game will predict that you outscore the enemy team by quite a lot. However csr isn’t the best abd could certainly be improved upon

> > > In other words skill matters nothing, only how aggressive one was? Someone could go 25-29 and get first place, even though they were a negative to their team.
> > >
> > > Kind of disappointed to learn this, as it rewards the little suicide bunnies.
> >
> > Skill matters. Usually the most skilled player is the most aggressive anyway, at least compared to the average Joe. I would rather have a guy on my team go 25-29 than some camper who goes 10-0 and does nothing for map control.
>
> In Slayer type games, going 25-29 is a negative 40 score while 10-0 would be a positive 100 score. I’d also argue that a player who controls a side for virtually the entire game, but does not rush out and get flanked, does more good then the lemming who seeks incessant contact. Deaths (in slayer objective, regicide too maybe) needs taken into account.

I am well aware of the numbers, sure on paper -40 is worse than +100. In game there’s a thing called map control, there’s no numbers attached to it. An aggressive player draws attention to himself, this takes pressure off his teammates and allows them to moves around more freely. A passive player has the opposite effect. Being hidden will put more pressure on the rest of the team, making things more difficult for them. If you’re not in a gun battle someone on your team is in a 1v2 situation.

Just looking at your stats you have a 2.0 K/d but a less than %50 win rate. That means you are usually a detriment to your team despite your K/d. You only average about 11 kills a game, there’s your problem. I think that proves my point.

At its simplest, your opponents cannot win a slayer game unless someone goes negative on your team. So staying positive is vital.

But a game is more complex. Its inappropriate to only count kills vs death. Assists are a good metric of team work. If you have a lot of assists then the team us working together. But counting assists as a whole number is wrong. That kill is being counted elsewhere by your team mate in his/her kdr. I like to count assists as 1/2 a kill as a way to gauge teamwork effectiveness.

So, if you go 25/29 k/d you might be the reason your team loses. If you have 10 or so assists its unlikely your team is doing poorly.

If you go 10/0 k/d you might not be the direct reason for a loss, but its possible that a lack of teamwork lead to someone else on your team going negative.

> > > In other words skill matters nothing, only how aggressive one was? Someone could go 25-29 and get first place, even though they were a negative to their team.
> > >
> > > Kind of disappointed to learn this, as it rewards the little suicide bunnies.
> >
> > Skill matters. Usually the most skilled player is the most aggressive anyway, at least compared to the average Joe. I would rather have a guy on my team go 25-29 than some camper who goes 10-0 and does nothing for map control.
>
> In Slayer type games, going 25-29 is a negative 40 score while 10-0 would be a positive 100 score. I’d also argue that a player who controls a side for virtually the entire game, but does not rush out and get flanked, does more good then the lemming who seeks incessant contact. Deaths (in slayer objective, regicide too maybe) needs taken into account.

Nah, gimme the guy drawing fire from the entire other team all game and going -4. I’ll finish his kills and go +10 thanks to his efforts alone. The guy ceding map control to go 10-0 costs his team in the end, and creates a very boring play environment. I’d rather be out fighting in the battlefield than camping 10% of the map.

> > > > In other words skill matters nothing, only how aggressive one was? Someone could go 25-29 and get first place, even though they were a negative to their team.
> > > >
> > > > Kind of disappointed to learn this, as it rewards the little suicide bunnies.
> > >
> > > Skill matters. Usually the most skilled player is the most aggressive anyway, at least compared to the average Joe. I would rather have a guy on my team go 25-29 than some camper who goes 10-0 and does nothing for map control.
> >
> > In Slayer type games, going 25-29 is a negative 40 score while 10-0 would be a positive 100 score. I’d also argue that a player who controls a side for virtually the entire game, but does not rush out and get flanked, does more good then the lemming who seeks incessant contact. Deaths (in slayer objective, regicide too maybe) needs taken into account.
>
> I am well aware of the numbers, sure on paper -40 is worse than +100. In game there’s a thing called map control, there’s no numbers attached to it. An aggressive player draws attention to himself, this takes pressure off his teammates and allows them to moves around more freely. A passive player has the opposite effect. Being hidden will put more pressure on the rest of the team, making things more difficult for them. If you’re not in a gun battle someone on your team is in a 1v2 situation.
>
> Just looking at your stats you have a 2.0 K/d but a less than %50 win rate. That means you are usually a detriment to your team despite your K/d. You only average about 11 kills a game, there’s your problem. I think that proves my point.

Awesome stat research! I dislike these “tryhards” that literally go 12-4 every game and think their 3/1 KD is good. They have no idea how much more I’m helping the team by going 20-10. Not only do I go more pos every game, but the additional teamshot and map control decides countless matches.

> Nah, gimme the guy drawing fire from the entire other team all game and going -4. I’ll finish his kills and go +10 thanks to his efforts alone. The guy ceding map control to go 10-0 costs his team in the end, and creates a very boring play environment. I’d rather be out fighting in the battlefield than camping 10% of the map.

Lol in that case you’d love me in your team :wink:

I think its not so black and white. Often i’m in top two in my slayer games (i play solo btw) but its 50-50 if i’ll get a positive kd. I honestly feel that too many people camp and wait for people like me to try and fight 1v2s and once i’ve died and laid a kill out for them they take the kill. that being said, they can say 50% of the time I cost my team.

Who’s right? I don’t think we could agree on that. Who’s a good team player? Honestly I don’t know.

I love the game though, so i carry on playing lol

EDIT: wording.

W954-L822, though i leave any game where lag is an issue. I just cannot stand playing with lag. I’d also say map control could be subjective. 25 kills, 29 deaths does not mean map control so much as constant charging against bad odds.