It's all about the K/D spread.

Games Other Halo
1

When a proper free for all playlist was properly introduced to Matchmaking, I was quite happy. Forget Regicide, what with how worse players can win and all that bothersome business. I was yet more joyous when it turned out that the Pro/Competitive variant was played often as well. I have played the playlist a good amount these past days and I have bloodied my lips quite well on these new hunting grounds.

And yet…I find myself already growing weary of this playlist and it’s settings. It’s quite a simple reason why it’s not optimally enjoyable, and it’s nothing to do with the actual gameplay.

The scoring is the problem! I ponder why first person shooting video games have not adapted a better scoring system than 1 point (or 10, in Halo 4’s case) for a kill, and that’s it. This primitive scoring system is surely not the most accurate system to gauge player performance in a match.

I will provide an example for your viewing pleasure. A recent match of mine in said playlist.

You see the victor was not I, and yet the victor did not have the superior kill to death spread. To put it in the simplest of terms, he was felled more than he slayed! He slayed 12 more times than he died. I, however? I slayed 16 more times than I died.

And, he still wins. For ad infinitum this has happened in free for all matches of first person shooters, and this is simply not the most beneficial system to competitive players.

I propose a solution.

The scoring in free for all matches should instead be based off of an individual’s kill to death spread. This way, the best player is always the winner. Not if, and’s, or but’s! You may wish to argue the definition of ‘best player’, however I assure you that I am right and should you argue, you’d be in the wrong. Any blind fool can sprint around a map and die as many times as he kills, and still win. It takes a skilled, steadfast, and tactical player to maintain the best kill to death spread in a free for all match.

You may argue that this could encourage camping, and perhaps it could to some degree. Competitive Halo is often compared to a high speed game of Chess, and if this system makes the turn clock be lengthened a bit, well what’s the harm of it, honestly? However I myself do not camp anymore than the next individual in my free for all matches. I sprint, I engage in hectic firefights, and I raise the Battle Rifle users with a Designated Marksman Rifle, and I still maintain the best kill to death spread of my matches typically.

So, my friends, what say you about my idea? Would you drink to this?

2

This my friend, is an
EXCELLENT IDEA.

Honestly, i love it. I like the sound of it man, and it makes perfect sense. Lose a point every time you die, even if you go into the negatives? I like it. A LOT.

3

> When a proper free for all playlist was properly introduced to Matchmaking, I was quite happy. Forget Regicide, what with how worse players can win and all that bothersome business. I was yet more joyous when it turned out that the Pro/Competitive variant was played often as well. I have played the playlist a good amount these past days and I have bloodied my lips quite well on these new hunting grounds.
>
> And yet…I find myself already growing weary of this playlist and it’s settings. It’s quite a simple reason why it’s not optimally enjoyable, and it’s nothing to do with the actual gameplay.
>
> The scoring is the problem! I ponder why first person shooting video games have not adapted a better scoring system than 1 point (or 10, in Halo 4’s case) for a kill, and that’s it. This primitive scoring system is surely not the most accurate system to gauge player performance in a match.
>
> I will provide an example for your viewing pleasure. A recent match of mine in said playlist.
>
> You see the victor was not I, and yet the victor did not have the superior kill to death spread. To put it in the simplest of terms, he was felled more than he slayed! He slayed 12 more times than he died. I, however? I slayed 16 more times than I died.
>
> And, he still wins. For ad infinitum this has happened in free for all matches of first person shooters, and this is simply not the most beneficial system to competitive players.
>
> I propose a solution.
>
> The scoring in free for all matches should instead be based off of an individual’s kill to death spread. This way, the best player is always the winner. Not if, and’s, or but’s! You may wish to argue the definition of ‘best player’, however I assure you that I am right and should you argue, you’d be in the wrong. Any blind fool can sprint around a map and die as many times as he kills, and still win. It takes a skilled, steadfast, and tactiful player to maintain the best kill to death spread in a free for all match.
>
> You may argue that this could encourage camping, and perhaps it could to some degree. However I myself do not camp anymore than the next individual in my free for all matches. I sprint, I engage in hectic firefights, and I raise the Battle Rifle users with a Designated Marksman Rifle, and I still maintain the best kill to death spread of my matches typically.
>
> So, my friends, what say you about my idea? Would you drink to this?

Vodka!

Why can’t the KD thing work for Slayer, Swat and some others too? I support your view.

4

> This my friend, is an
> EXCELLENT IDEA.
>
> Honestly, i love it. I like the sound of it man, and it makes perfect sense. Lose a point every time you die, even if you go into the negatives? I like it. A LOT.

Quite. +1 for a kill, -1 for a death. Though Halo 4 gives you a ±1 for deaths should you choose to alter the scoring system to such…but it accomplishes the same result!

5

You’re treating the symptom not the disease. I would hazard that you would of won this game had it not been infinity slayer as it has instant respawn. Had it been rumble pro the winner of this game would have been re-spawning a lot more giving you a time advantage to close out the game.

FFA is fine. Instant respawn is your problem here.

Edit: On further investigation the above statement is incorrect - there isn’t instant respawn in infinity rumble

6

> You’re treating the symptom not the disease. I would hazard that you would of won this game had it not been infinity slayer as it has instant respawn. Had it been rumble pro the winner of this game would have been re-spawning a lot more giving you a time advantage to close out the game.
>
> FFA is fine. Instant respawn is your problem here.

A keen observation, sir. However this problem persists even in Rumble Pro settings, perhaps to a lesser degree, but it happens all the same.

7

Agreed :slight_smile:

8

I’d be all for that too.

Why complicate a thing that worked perfectly in all of its simplicity?

9

> > You’re treating the symptom not the disease. I would hazard that you would of won this game had it not been infinity slayer as it has instant respawn. Had it been rumble pro the winner of this game would have been re-spawning a lot more giving you a time advantage to close out the game.
> >
> > FFA is fine. Instant respawn is your problem here.
>
> A keen observation, sir. However this problem persists even in Rumble Pro settings, perhaps to a lesser degree, but it happens all the same.

Not keen at all; I’ve actually just checked - there isn’t instant respawn on either infinity or rumble pro gametypes.

It’s an interesting suggestion but I would say that I’m fearful of 343 changing the game mechanics of a mode that has existed since as long as fps have. They don’t have a great track record in this regard.

10

No mechanics would be changed, honestly. Only the scoring system would be changed. It’ll add a bigger reason to not die.

11

At first I was going to flame you…but due in partial to a recent ban and partially because I re read your post…I declare you the new prophet of free for all! Brilliant idea sir!

12

The main issue with your suggestion would be that games could last for ages. If you have a group who are pretty equal then your kill/death should, in theory, be hovering around 1.0. So I think a lot of games would go the timelimit as players wouldn’t get more than a few kills ahead.

What would be the score limit? Plus 5 would be too low but going plus 15 would be hard in competitive match ups.

13

> The main issue with your suggestion would be that games could last for ages. If you have a group who are pretty equal then your kill/death should, in theory, be hovering around 1.0. So I think a lot of games would go the timelimit as players wouldn’t get more than a few kills ahead.
>
> What would be the score limit? Plus 5 would be too low but going plus 15 would be hard in competitive match ups.

Of course the traditional winning score would be have to be lowered from 25. Perhaps…10? Make that the time limit as well, 10 minutes.

I should have mentioned I conjured up this idea for scoring upon the fact that skill matching in Matchmaking is…pitiful. If it were good, perhaps most of lobby would hover below the score limit.

14

I am certainly no expert when it comes to FFA gametypes. Mainly as my conservative play style just dosn’t suit their frantic nature. While your proposal would in fact help a player like me win FFA games, I would have to disagree.

What I’ve always known FFA to be is a race to 25 kills(or whatever the gametype demands). A perfect battlefield for the “who dares wins” crowd. By changing the scoring system you change the rules, which changes the way people approach the game, which in turn changes the gameplay.

Change the rules and you change the core gameplay. I just think Halo’s core has seen enough change for now.

15

> No mechanics would be changed, honestly. Only the scoring system would be changed. It’ll add a bigger reason to not die.

Sometimes you have to die.

I’ll admit though it does sound like an interesting idea, and I would love to see a lobby going.

It would definitely be better than regicide…

16

> To put it in the simplest of terms, he was felled more than he slayed! He slayed 12 more times than he died.

Contradictory statements.

You still have yet to elaborate on the details of the scoring system so you have nothing but air.

17

The scoring system could stay the same as it is now if a player is at a 1-1 k/d in a game. Then scale the point system to increase depending on how high the k/d ratio gets, then scale it down to normal if the k/d ratio drops. All in the same game of course.

Just thought of this. How about keep everything the way it is as far as the scoring system. Let the game finish how it would normally, then at the end add extra points for positive K/d, (this would have to be scaled in a way). After the extra points are added, then the game can pick the winner.

18

I hope you’re not serious…this is so stupid just go out there and kill everyone you see. It’s free for all. That’s like saying the baseball team with the most hits should win, not the one with the most runs. A win is a win, you can play differently if KD is all that matters to you.

19

I’m a cautious and conservative player, and I disagree. If I go +10 in an FFA game and come 2nd to someone going -10, I may have been the better at winning most of my individual matchups, but he was able to kill opponents faster. A good FFA player is not afraid of dying. So long as he is not sacrificing kill potential in the slightly longer term (loss of weapons/position) and is able to get a kill or two for each death, staying ahead of the competition, dying is A-OK.

When I lose FFA games to individually weak players, it was my fault for being too conservative, not the systems’ fault.

I do, however, like the idea as a custom FFA variant. Sounds like fun, just not as a replacement for the core mechanics.

20

Everybody is praising you for your idea, and I also like the idea, but I came up with it as well before?

I made a Custom Gametype where you gain +1 point for each kill and go -1 for each time you die. With instant respawn, Halo players are given so much less of a punishment when they die in the game. Before, you were punished with having to wait through the few-second countdown.

However, if this gametype would be added to Matchmaking, I worry that it would bring in WAY too much unfair play and encourage camping.