How much should personal performance effect rank?

Games Other Halo
1

It feels like I’ve been on platinum 6 for ages. I lost my first game on this rank, but I’ve won my last 4…

I actually went on a rampage and got 21 kills and 0 deaths, carrying my team to victory, and still no diamond…

Surely since I carried my team I deserve to rank up quicker?

I believe that W/L should be most of the reason for ranking up, but I believe a good personal performance should make you rank down slower or rank up faster, where as a bad performance should make you rank up slower and rank down faster.

Win/Loss should be the main staple, but good performance should play a part IMO.

2

I definitely agree with that. At least make it neutral; a great performance on a lost game shall cause no increase or decrease to CSR. :video_game:

3

> 2533274935972822;2:
> I definitely agree with that. At least make it neutral; a great performance on a lost game shall cause no increase or decrease to CSR. :video_game:

I thin you should still go down in rank, but not by that much.

The last two losses I’ve had in TS I’ve been about 15 and 8. I should go down, but not by much.

One of my team mates was 4 and 21 -.-, yet he’ll probably not go down faster than me.

4

hmmm

5

I actually miss the old Halo Reach Arena Ranking method where it calculated a score based on everything, deaths, kills, accuracy, medals,etc.
this way even if you got destroyed the system it was all based on the score you achieved.

In in saying that I’m good with the win based ranking too. Just need to play with actual teammates as there are a lot of false ranks out there happily going 1 to 20 because they are “having fun”…

6

I agree completely. Win/Loss should definitely be the most heavily weighted portion. But if you go like 20-2 and lose because of crap teammates, you shouldnt be penalized nearly as much.

7

Can anyone please explain to me how win/loss is a better measure of a player than KDA?

8

> 2533274873843883;7:
> Can anyone please explain to me how win/loss is a better measure of a player than KDA?

Because in team games, if K/D was all that mattered, people wouldn’t play as a team, and selfishly just camp or hog weapons and not bother about team mates.

In team games, it’s whether or not the team wins and how you contribute to the team.

Big plays in games matter more than simple kills.

In ffa, I have finished first so many times with 25 kills and like 22 deaths, where as the guy below me had 23 kills and like 12 deaths.

His KD ratio was better than mine, but I won the game!

9

My entire team quit on me today in a Team Slayer game, and I took on all 4 of the opposition team, got 19 kills and 22 deaths.

10

> 2535417088576556;8:
> > 2533274873843883;7:
> > Can anyone please explain to me how win/loss is a better measure of a player than KDA?
>
>
> Because in team games, if K/D was all that mattered, people wouldn’t play as a team, and selfishly just camp or hog weapons and not bother about team mates.
>
> In team games, it’s whether or not the team wins and how you contribute to the team.
>
> Big plays in games matter more than simple kills.
>
> In ffa, I have finished first so many times with 25 kills and like 22 deaths, where as the guy below me had 23 kills and like 12 deaths.
>
> His KD ratio was better than mine, but I won the game!

I didn’t say KD. I said KDA. Which has two separate mechanisms built into it to prevent exactly the kind of selfish game play you described. In my humble opinion it should be the primary measure of skill and rank in this game. It should be the only measure of skill and rank in this game. If a player is killing a lot and not dying too much, and still getting some assists and not camping to pad his stats (all measurable with KDA) then he is a good player and win/loss will take care of itself. The KDA metric has the added benefit of raising up the talented without regard for the abilities of his team mates, and not mistakenly ranking up a mediocre player because of his superior team mates. Team-based win/loss rankings fail miserably at determining individual skill. Miserably.

11

> 2533274873843883;10:
> > 2535417088576556;8:
> > > 2533274873843883;7:
> > > Can anyone please explain to me how win/loss is a better measure of a player than KDA?
> >
> >
> > Because in team games, if K/D was all that mattered, people wouldn’t play as a team, and selfishly just camp or hog weapons and not bother about team mates.
> >
> > In team games, it’s whether or not the team wins and how you contribute to the team.
> >
> > Big plays in games matter more than simple kills.
> >
> > In ffa, I have finished first so many times with 25 kills and like 22 deaths, where as the guy below me had 23 kills and like 12 deaths.
> >
> > His KD ratio was better than mine, but I won the game!
>
>
> I didn’t say KD. I said KDA. Which has two separate mechanisms built into it to prevent exactly the kind of selfish game play you described. In my humble opinion it should be the primary measure of skill and rank in this game. It should be the only measure of skill and rank in this game. If a player is killing a lot and not dying too much, and still getting some assists and not camping to pad his stats (all measurable with KDA) then he is a good player and win/loss will take care of itself. The KDA metric has the added benefit of raising up the talented without regard for the abilities of his team mates, and not mistakenly ranking up a mediocre player because of his superior team mates. Team-based win/loss rankings fail miserably at determining individual skill. Miserably.

I’m sorry guy but I have to say KDA is still based on your ability to kill people. Adding assists and games played into the equation doesn’t make it anymore respectable than your K/D Ratio. KDA fails to take in the big picture since there is no measure for Objectives in the equation. As far as I can tell, it only serves to make people think they have a better K/D than they actually do, but this doesn’t stop the bad behavior of padding your stats by camping and baiting.

While I do agree that ranking up should not just be based on Win/Loss, I wholeheartedly disagree that KDA should be the only measure of one’s skill when it fails to encapsulate everything outside of your slaying ability.

12

> 2533274797741254;11:
> > 2533274873843883;10:
> > > 2535417088576556;8:
> > > > 2533274873843883;7:
> > > > Can anyone please explain to me how win/loss is a better measure of a player than KDA?
>
>
> I’m sorry guy but I have to say KDA is still based on your ability to kill people. Adding assists and games played into the equation doesn’t make it anymore respectable than your K/D Ratio. KDA fails to take in the big picture since there is no measure for Objectives in the equation. As far as I can tell, it only serves to make people think they have a better K/D than they actually do, but this doesn’t stop the bad behavior of padding your stats by camping and baiting.
>
> While I do agree that ranking up should not just be based on Win/Loss, I wholeheartedly disagree that KDA should be the only measure of one’s skill when it fails to encapsulate everything outside of your slaying ability.

I will not suggest that KDA is the tool of choice for objective game types, but if you’re suggesting that we stick exclusively with win/loss in order to have a (wildly inaccurate) system which is only useful for the minuscule percentage of games played that happen to be objective-based… well, I find that logic to be faulty on multiple points, but so be it.

13

> 2533274797741254;11:
> > 2533274873843883;10:
> > > 2535417088576556;8:
> > > > 2533274873843883;7:
> > > > Can anyone please explain to me how win/loss is a better measure of a player than KDA?
>
>
> I’m sorry guy but I have to say KDA is still based on your ability to kill people. Adding assists and games played into the equation doesn’t make it anymore respectable than your K/D Ratio.

Adding assists and games played into the equation does exactly make the metric a million more times respectable than vanilla KD. A million times more useful. That’s the whole point or else why bother thinking that assists have any value at all, or that camping-for-stats is unhelpful to your team?

14

> 2533274873843883;12:
> > 2533274797741254;11:
> > > 2533274873843883;10:
> > > > 2535417088576556;8:
> > > > > 2533274873843883;7:
> > > > > Can anyone please explain to me how win/loss is a better measure of a player than KDA?
> >
> >
> > I’m sorry guy but I have to say KDA is still based on your ability to kill people. Adding assists and games played into the equation doesn’t make it anymore respectable than your K/D Ratio. KDA fails to take in the big picture since there is no measure for Objectives in the equation. As far as I can tell, it only serves to make people think they have a better K/D than they actually do, but this doesn’t stop the bad behavior of padding your stats by camping and baiting.
> >
> > While I do agree that ranking up should not just be based on Win/Loss, I wholeheartedly disagree that KDA should be the only measure of one’s skill when it fails to encapsulate everything outside of your slaying ability.
>
>
> I will not suggest that KDA is the tool of choice for objective game types, but if you’re suggesting that we stick exclusively with win/loss in order to have a (wildly inaccurate) system which is only useful for the minuscule percentage of games played that happen to be objective-based… well, I find that logic to be faulty on multiple points, but so be it.

As you can see, I clearly did not suggest that. Please thoroughly read retorts to your arguments before countering.

Also, “minuscule percentage of games played that happen to be objective-based” is just an incorrect statement. I’m not sure if you read the latest Waypoint Blog, but according to that the top 3 gamemodes are Warzone, Slayer, and Team Arena. Warzone and Team Arena are very objective heavy and to say that Objective modes played are a “minuscule percentage” is a gross under exaggeration of what is and what isn’t played. Granted, Warzone isn’t a ranked playlist, but my point still stands that Objective modes are played quite often if not more often than gamemodes whose only goal is to kill everyone else.

As for your double post about KDA being more “useful” than K/D because it includes assists. I think you overestimate the value of assists. All they serve is to tell you that you shot someone that died because you shot them. That in and of itself does not stop players from believing that a lot of kills and minimal deaths mean you are better than everyone. Including it in a combined statistic only serves to encourage the mentality of camping and baiting teammates to ensure you have the most kills and assists and the smallest amount of deaths so you can tell your friends you have a really high KDA.

TLDR; Objective modes are played a lot and KDA is not the godsend you think it is just because it includes assists.

15

> 2533274797741254;14:
> > 2533274873843883;12:
> > > 2533274797741254;11:
> > > > 2533274873843883;10:
> > > > > 2535417088576556;8:
> > > > > > 2533274873843883;7:
> > > > > > Can anyone please explain to me how win/loss is a better measure of a player than KDA?
>
>
> As you can see, I clearly did not suggest that. Please thoroughly read retorts to your arguments before countering.
>
> Also, “minuscule percentage of games played that happen to be objective-based” is just an incorrect statement. I’m not sure if you read the latest Waypoint Blog, but according to that the top 3 gamemodes are Warzone, Slayer, and Team Arena. Warzone and Team Arena are very objective heavy and to say that Objective modes played are a “minuscule percentage” is a gross under exaggeration of what is and what isn’t played. Granted, Warzone isn’t a ranked playlist, but my point still stands that Objective modes are played quite often if not more often than gamemodes whose only goal is to kill everyone else.
>
> As for your double post about KDA being more “useful” than K/D because it includes assists. I think you overestimate the value of assists. All they serve is to tell you that you shot someone that died because you shot them. That in and of itself does not stop players from believing that a lot of kills and minimal deaths mean you are better than everyone. Including it in a combined statistic only serves to encourage the mentality of camping and baiting teammates to ensure you have the most kills and assists and the smallest amount of deaths so you can tell your friends you have a really high KDA.
>
> TLDR; Objective modes are played a lot and KDA is not the godsend you think it is just because it includes assists.

Ouch. Consider me smacked down.

As far as objective game types go, I have only Halo 4 numbers to go by, as Halo 5 doesn’t tell us how many people are in a play list at any given time, so if my extrapolation offends then I offer apologies. Of course, my bias has nothing to do with the fact they I personally never play objective games… nothing at all to do with that.

Okay, so we’ve established that KDA is not the perfect tool for the job. That doesn’t leave me (or, I suspect, the OP) feeling any better about the present system. And while the idea of a hybrid method has some appeal, I’m sure that it would end up being confusing and opaque enough that people would just generally be even more distrustful of it than they are of the present, inscrutable system. I guess a lack of transparency is not a de facto disqualification for a ranking system - as witnessed by the existence of every Halo ranking system that ever was - but a guy can dream. Allow me that.

Lastly, and sorry to drag you through this, if I was to look through the stats of a lot of hard core CTF people, wouldn’t I find that the teams most likely to win are the teams with better KDAs? How can you win an objective game if you can’t stay alive, or give your team mates that critical assist, etc. etc. etc.? I always just assumed that the ability to achieve the object was based firmly on the ability to do all the things you do in a regular slayer match anyway, and then just add to it basics like knowing which direction to take the flag. I’m grossly over-simplifying this, right? Well, now we know why I don’t play objective games.

Okay, flag people, keep your win/loss if you have to, but I don’t have to like it! I don’t like it! I hate it! I hate it even more because you’re (mostly) right!

P.S. Is double posting some kind of violation of forum etiquette?

16

> 2533274873843883;15:
> > 2533274797741254;14:
> > > 2533274873843883;12:
> > >
>
>
> Ouch. Consider me smacked down.
>
> As far as objective game types go, I have only Halo 4 numbers to go by, as Halo 5 doesn’t tell us how many people are in a play list at any given time, so if my extrapolation offends then I offer apologies. Of course, my bias has nothing to do with the fact they I personally never play objective games… nothing at all to do with that.
>
> Okay, so we’ve established that KDA is not the perfect tool for the job. That doesn’t leave me (or, I suspect, the OP) feeling any better about the present system. And while the idea of a hybrid method has some appeal, I’m sure that it would end up being confusing and opaque enough that people would just generally be even more distrustful of it than they are of the present, inscrutable system. I guess a lack of transparency is not a de facto disqualification for a ranking system - as witnessed by the existence of every Halo ranking system that ever was - but a guy can dream. Allow me that.
>
> Lastly, and sorry to drag you through this, if I was to look through the stats of a lot of hard core CTF people, wouldn’t I find that the teams most likely to win are the teams with better KDAs? How can you win an objective game if you can’t stay alive, or give your team mates that critical assist, etc. etc. etc.? I always just assumed that the ability to achieve the object was based firmly on the ability to do all the things you do in a regular slayer match anyway, and then just add to it basics like knowing which direction to take the flag. I’m grossly over-simplifying this, right? Well, now we know why I don’t play objective games.
>
> Okay, flag people, keep your win/loss if you have to, but I don’t have to like it! I don’t like it! I hate it! I hate it even more because you’re (mostly) right!
>
> P.S. Is double posting some kind of violation of forum etiquette?

Double posting on most forums is frowned upon as you can edit your original post rather than posting again. But I wasn’t calling you out on that as much as I was just mentioning it so I wouldn’t have to splice quotes together.

Anyway, I would say using just a mix of Win/Loss and KDA wouldn’t be a suitable fix to the Ranking System as that is easy to abuse to your benefit. I also think if there ever are changes to the Ranking System, we should be notified in some manner without 343i being 100% transparent. CS:GO, the leader in Competitive FPS right now has never had it’s Ranking System details revealed publicly outside of the fact that it uses a variation of the Chess ELO system. We don’t know what the specifics are or what matters more to one’s ELO rating and this is probably so the system can’t be abused. We can assume that some form of a KDA is involved, but the game also has round MVP medals, and during a match you get points rewarded(which determine your position on the scoreboard) for planting/defusing the bomb and these probably all factor in somehow. CS:GO’s example should not be ignored just because “it’s not Halo.” Afterall, it is the leader for a reason and games should follow in its footsteps.

As for your point about having to kill to win objective modes, of course killing the enemy makes it easier. It puts you at a very distinct advantage when you out number your opponents. However, killing your opponents is not needed for the objective to be complete and there in lies the difference between objective and slayer modes. Yes, something like Strongholds definitely requires a lot of killing to capture and protect your bases, but you don’t have to kill someone to be able to capture a base unless they’re contesting it. CTF, killing them allows to make pushes on their base and grab their flag, but you could sneak in and steal the flag while they’re not paying attention and capture it that way. So, what I’m trying to say is that you are right in that it is significantly harder to win Objective games if you’re not killing anyone, but it is not impossible to complete objectives without killing anyone.

17

> 2533274917566811;5:
> I actually miss the old Halo Reach Arena Ranking method where it calculated a score based on everything, deaths, kills, accuracy, medals,etc.
> this way even if you got destroyed the system it was all based on the score you achieved.
>
> In in saying that I’m good with the win based ranking too. Just need to play with actual teammates as there are a lot of false ranks out there happily going 1 to 20 because they are “having fun”…

Reach was terrible. No teamwork, everyone only cared about their own k/d. There was no incentive for it.

18

> 2533274797741254;16:
> > 2533274873843883;15:
> > > 2533274797741254;14:
> > > > 2533274873843883;12:
> > > >
>
>
>
> Anyway, I would say using just a mix of Win/Loss and KDA wouldn’t be a suitable fix to the Ranking System as that is easy to abuse to your benefit. I also think if there ever are changes to the Ranking System, we should be notified in some manner without 343i being 100% transparent. CS:GO, the leader in Competitive FPS right now has never had it’s Ranking System details revealed publicly outside of the fact that it uses a variation of the Chess ELO system. We don’t know what the specifics are or what matters more to one’s ELO rating and this is probably so the system can’t be abused. We can assume that some form of a KDA is involved, but the game also has round MVP medals, and during a match you get points rewarded(which determine your position on the scoreboard) for planting/defusing the bomb and these probably all factor in somehow. CS:GO’s example should not be ignored just because “it’s not Halo.” Afterall, it is the leader for a reason and games should follow in its footsteps.

Now you’ve opened a whole new can of worms: transparency. I can’t speak for Counter-Strike or its community, but Halo seems to be overrun by players who despise the ranking system, and despise it largely because they don’t understand it (or think that they do when they really don’t). I understand how perfect transparency can readily lend itself to manipulation, but how can people be expected to submit themselves to judgment without knowing exactly how it is they’re going to be judged? Counter-Strike forums must be awash in players who can’t make a connection between their performance and their rank, just like Halo. Is it too much to ask that a system be simple, transparent, and exploitation-resistant?

19

Ranking should be 100% win/loss based.

20

> 2533274873843883;10:
> > 2535417088576556;8:
> > > 2533274873843883;7:
> > > Can anyone please explain to me how win/loss is a better measure of a player than KDA?
> >
> >
> > Because in team games, if K/D was all that mattered, people wouldn’t play as a team, and selfishly just camp or hog weapons and not bother about team mates.
> >
> > In team games, it’s whether or not the team wins and how you contribute to the team.
> >
> > Big plays in games matter more than simple kills.
> >
> > In ffa, I have finished first so many times with 25 kills and like 22 deaths, where as the guy below me had 23 kills and like 12 deaths.
> >
> > His KD ratio was better than mine, but I won the game!
>
>
> I didn’t say KD. I said KDA. Which has two separate mechanisms built into it to prevent exactly the kind of selfish game play you described. In my humble opinion it should be the primary measure of skill and rank in this game. It should be the only measure of skill and rank in this game. If a player is killing a lot and not dying too much, and still getting some assists and not camping to pad his stats (all measurable with KDA) then he is a good player and win/loss will take care of itself. The KDA metric has the added benefit of raising up the talented without regard for the abilities of his team mates, and not mistakenly ranking up a mediocre player because of his superior team mates. Team-based win/loss rankings fail miserably at determining individual skill. Miserably.

This makes no sense on so many levels.