HOW?!?!?!

So Ive won about half of my games by a big margin today and the rest have been pretty close losses…how is my CSR going down? Its bloody 2 at the moment!! I have consistantly been best player on my team! I dont understand it! Im nowhere near a 50 player but i certainly dont deserve to be deranked to 2!!!

Anyone else noticing weird csr decisions on castle map pack?

Its team-based ranking (i.e. based on wins/losses). You say that you’ve won about half your games, so it makes sense that your CSR would not be rising.

The Castle DLC playlist uses the team ranking system, not individual skill. So the playlist you are trying to play is mainly based on W/L.

Im aware of this…but to lose ranks for having a 50/50 win ratio seems a little absurd…surely a 50/50 win ratio would put you towards the middle of the ranks…not demoting you down to bloody 2…

> Im aware of this…but to lose ranks for having a 50/50 win ratio seems a little absurd…surely a 50/50 win ratio would put you towards the middle of the ranks…not demoting you down to bloody 2…

Why would a 50/50 W/L ratio playlist reward you for winning and losing your games? You said it yourself, you’ve won about half your games by a big margin. The playlist is doing what its supposed to do.

CSR isn’t supposed to go up in team games, we all know this. It’s specifically designed to go 1 step forward and six steps back making it impossible to see a CSR any higher than say a 5.

I’m talking about the Castle DLC of course, but if you want a higher CSR, just play something like rumble pit or big team cause the real value of CSR is non-existant.

I would see it like this:

Win a game, it goes up.

Lose a game, it goes down.

Therefore if there is a 50/50 win/loss ratio, then each one will cancel each other out, thus not rising.

For arguments sake, let’s say it rises by 5 every time you win, and falls by that amount when you lose. If I win 10 games and lose 5, it would be at 25 from 0. If I then proceed to win 10 games but lose 10 games, it will still be at 25. The losses cancel the wins.

From what I understand, it rises and falls based on wins and losses. In order for it to go up, a W/L ratio needs to be higher than 50/50. This is only from what I know. I don’t know how it works fully, so it’s just an idea.

Or you can actually be good at the game and win all matches.

> I would see it like this:
>
> Win a game, it goes up.
>
> Lose a game, it goes down.
>
> Therefore if there is a 50/50 win/loss ratio, then each one will cancel each other out, thus not rising.
>
> For arguments sake, let’s say it rises by 5 every time you win, and falls by that amount when you lose. If I win 10 games and lose 5, it would be at 25 from 0. If I then proceed to win 10 games but lose 10 games, it will still be at 25. The losses cancel the wins.
>
> From what I understand, it rises and falls based on wins and losses. In order for it to go up, a W/L ratio needs to be higher than 50/50. This is only from what I know. I don’t know how it works fully, so it’s just an idea.

This, but if you’re level 20, you beat a team of 1s and your rank will only rise very slightly if at all because your rank already suggests you are meant to beat that team. If you then play the same team again and lose, your CSR will drop by much more than it went up from your win. 50/50 W/L, but CSR will go down on aggregate.

> This, but if you’re level 20, you beat a team of 1s and your rank will only rise very slightly if at all because your rank already suggests you are meant to beat that team. If you then play the same team again and lose, your CSR will drop by much more than it went up from your win. 50/50 W/L, but CSR will go down on aggregate.

So it’s somewhat similar to Halo 3’s 1-50 system in a sense?

Although I managed to go from rank 1 to 32 in BTB in a matter of a small number of games. I’m not sure that would have happened in Halo 3, so a CSR of 50 in Halo 4 is probably a lot easier to get than a 50 in Halo 3. Maybe this is to conform to 343i’s idea that everything should be made easier.

CSR in team games is rubbish anyway.

Unless in Castle DLC you grab 5 friends who are amazing. The CSR is not based on skill. It is based on a Dice roll. Which ultimately is just luck.

Example, I class myself as a decent player. I don’t have 5 amazing players to team up with, therefore I will either be put with a bunch of Spactards, or be put with a decent team.

If your put into a game with total spactards and you get the highest score out of everyone but you lose as a team, your CSR goes down.

If you want your CSR actually going up in team playlists, find another 5 team players and do it that way. If you search games on your own or with 1 friend, the team you get is a dice roll, which to reiterate my point, is luck and thus not skill based.

Thanks
Darknal

> CSR in team games is rubbish anyway.
>
> Unless in Castle DLC you grab 5 friends who are amazing. The CSR is not based on skill. It is based on a Dice roll. Which ultimately is just luck.
>
> Example, I class myself as a decent player. I don’t have 5 amazing players to team up with, therefore I will either be put with a bunch of Spactards, or be put with a decent team.
>
> If your put into a game with total spactards and you get the highest score out of everyone but you lose as a team, your CSR goes down.
>
> If you want your CSR actually going up in team playlists, find another 5 team players and do it that way. If you search games on your own or with 1 friend, the team you get is a dice roll, which to reiterate my point, is luck and thus not skill based.
>
> Thanks
> Darknal

I agree in part. True its always going to be a dice roll who your team mates are in team playlists and at CSR1 players can be of any skill level (since it was only released a couple of days ago). In time, when people are spread amongst the ranks, if you are CSR20 your teammates and opponents should all be of similar skill making you’re contribution to the game meaningful.

In my opinion, the problem that you have pointed out is only a problem because at the moment CSR1 = any possible skill level. When CSR1 = brand new players and genuine CSR1s, it shouldn’t be a problem. You’ll be CSR20, playing with true CSR20s.

Similarly right now, all the games are going to be a free for all of people who genuinely want to win (the objective), and people who don’t give a -Yoink-. Once people do break into the higher ranks, everyone at CSR20 will be someone who has consistently played the objectives in games (or successfully supported their team mates in doing so).

EDIT: not going to add another post for this. But in response to the post under me (and as a general observation):

It does seem like its too difficult to rank up in team games at the moment. What is the point in a ranking system if 90% of players (of vastly varying skill) are ranked 1. I realise that CSR is new, but it still seems like it needs tweaking. (Not played any myself but seen a lot of people complaining with game stats to back them up)

I just went 16:2 and my CSR is still 1

> I just went 16:2 and my CSR is still 1

Unfortunately CSR is based on wins/loses. If you did not win the game then thats why your CSR is still 1. In my opinion CSR should judge your k/d and not you wins and losses. If CSR went bases on kills I’d be a 100, lol.

> Or you can actually be good at the game and win all matches.

Or you could keep getting put on bad teams and loss most matches.

They made it clear: It doesn’t matter how good you are as an individual, your “team” decides your fate.

> > I just went 16:2 and my CSR is still 1
>
> Unfortunately CSR is based on wins/loses. If you did not win the game then thats why your CSR is still 1. In my opinion CSR should judge your k/d and not you wins and losses. If CSR went bases on kills I’d be a 100, lol.

He did win the game :s

If CSR was based on K/D in team games it would just make even fewer people play the objective.

> > Or you can actually be good at the game and win all matches.
>
> Or you could keep getting put on bad teams and loss most matches.
>
> They made it clear: It doesn’t matter how good you are as an individual, your “team” decides your fate.

FFA has no teams, so I’m assuming that would be a good gametype to rank up your CSR on.

> > > I just went 16:2 and my CSR is still 1
> >
> > Unfortunately CSR is based on wins/loses. If you did not win the game then thats why your CSR is still 1. In my opinion CSR should judge your k/d and not you wins and losses. If CSR went bases on kills I’d be a 100, lol.
>
> He did win the game :s
>
>
> If CSR was based on K/D in team games it would just make even fewer people play the objective.

True. But what if you get stuck on a team full of noobs or randoms and you lose the game but got a good k/d?

> > > > I just went 16:2 and my CSR is still 1
> > >
> > > Unfortunately CSR is based on wins/loses. If you did not win the game then thats why your CSR is still 1. In my opinion CSR should judge your k/d and not you wins and losses. If CSR went bases on kills I’d be a 100, lol.
> >
> > He did win the game :s
> >
> >
> > If CSR was based on K/D in team games it would just make even fewer people play the objective.
>
> True. But what if you get stuck on a team full of noobs or randoms and you lose the game but got a good k/d?

Its unfortunate. But then how can someone in that situation be differentiated from someone who ignored the objective and just racked up kills until the other team eventually won?

In a CTF game where everyone on the winning team is say -20KD, and the top player on the losing team went 100-0, the guy who went 100-0 should not have his CTF rank upped.

That said, I’m not sure players who ignore the objective should be left at CSR1 to prey on noobs for easy kills.

> Im aware of this…but to lose ranks for having a 50/50 win ratio seems a little absurd…surely a 50/50 win ratio would put you towards the middle of the ranks…not demoting you down to bloody 2…

Your thinking about it wrong. Just because you say your doing average doesn’t mean your a 25/50. It’s cumulative win/loss over many games. So basically, unless you go in or stick with a good team your going nowhere fast. It[CSR] kinda reminds me of the Infinity Challenge, it’s not just based on how well you do it’s how often you play. That’s the real drive behind it. Look at last weeks update for list of game types based on individual performance but also know that it’s still configures win/loss into computation. ESPN’s new quarterback rating system comes to mind when I try and glean some sort of perception vs reality ratio of my own. Moreover, this system is supposed to put similar skill ranks together but the problem is everyone started at 1 and I have mostly 1-2 in other playlist for only playing 3-5 games. I’ve found both superior and inferior opponents in all playlists. As an example, I don’t consider myself a good SWAT player but it’s ironically my highest rating 13 or something after maybe 10 matches. So I dunno, maybe there will be some leveling out later. Makes it even funnier that there are active challenges to rank up when theres a 100 car pile up at the starting line.