A troll hit me up the other day mocking me for being a level 145 bronze on Slayer. First of all I doubt I am bronze but whatever my rank I really don’t care. I only played 10 games so I just got ranked and half the time my team was short handed. Any ways, I play Slayer for fun because the only Commendations I have left from a slayer game would be Cliffhanger, Bulldozer, and Big Gun Runner.
I have always been a stat player so I play for commendations, that being said I rarely play Slayer. My over all commendation completion percentage is roughly 87%
So my question is what do you determine to be the ultimate measurement of ranking a Halo 5 player? Is it how well they do in Slayer? Is it shooting %, KD, Spartan Rank, Commendation Completion?
> 2533274809403163;1:
> A troll hit me up the other day mocking me for being a level 145 bronze on Slayer.
It’s kind of pathetic when people do that. Hopefully the troll will grow up someday.
> 2533274809403163;1:
> So my question is what do you determine to be the ultimate measurement of ranking a Halo 5 player? Is it how well they do in Slayer? Is it shooting %, KD, Spartan Rank, Commendation Completion?
So you’re asking how to determine whether someone is good at Halo 5? It’s not going to be as simple as K/D or any tracked stat. Even how well you do in slayer isn’t the most reliable metric, because it depends on the team you get matched with, and you just might be having a bad day (happens to everyone). I would say it’s a combination of many factors, like reaction time, map knowledge, etc.
When it comes to overall skill, the average CSR of a player is the most natural measure of skill, seeing that the CSR is designed to be a skill rating. Any other metric, KD-ration, win percentage, and so on is entirely ill-suited for determining a player’s skill because they are largely determined by the skill of opponents the player generally meets, rather than the player’s own abilities with respect to the rest of the player base. In general, metrics that are dependent on matchmaking quality are not useful for rating skill. CSR is the only metric that has been designed with skill rating in mind, so naturally it is the most accurate rating accessible to the player.
> 2533274809403163;1:
> A troll hit me up the other day mocking me for being a level 145 bronze on Slayer. First of all I doubt I am bronze but whatever my rank I really don’t care. I only played 10 games so I just got ranked and half the time my team was short handed. Any ways, I play Slayer for fun because the only Commendations I have left from a slayer game would be Cliffhanger, Bulldozer, and Big Gun Runner.
>
> I have always been a stat player so I play for commendations, that being said I rarely play Slayer. My over all commendation completion percentage is roughly 87%
>
> So my question is what do you determine to be the ultimate measurement of ranking a Halo 5 player? Is it how well they do in Slayer? Is it shooting %, KD, Spartan Rank, Commendation Completion?
That’s a tough question. I’m sure somebody will come along and say “well, skill is black and white, x and y”, but to me, it’s a huge combination of so many variables that I really cannot say that it’s one thing over another, especially with how confounding Halo 5’s ranking system is.
In a perfect world, I would say skill is best determined by W/L ratio in Team Slayer, when an individual is on a team that tries to win with the same people over a period of say, 50 games. Within that team, I would then say skill is determined by their K/D in that time period.
I think that weeds out the variables of people being placed on random teams, poor communication, and when people play with someone who is significantly worse than them - because let’s face it, if you’re truly trying to win, you don’t want people who are awful or have different goals on your team. Of course, then you also need a consistent matchmaking system, which is also a huge variable in its own right.
> 2533274850493408;4:
> > 2533274809403163;1:
> > A troll hit me up the other day mocking me for being a level 145 bronze on Slayer. First of all I doubt I am bronze but whatever my rank I really don’t care. I only played 10 games so I just got ranked and half the time my team was short handed. Any ways, I play Slayer for fun because the only Commendations I have left from a slayer game would be Cliffhanger, Bulldozer, and Big Gun Runner.
> >
> > I have always been a stat player so I play for commendations, that being said I rarely play Slayer. My over all commendation completion percentage is roughly 87%
> >
> > So my question is what do you determine to be the ultimate measurement of ranking a Halo 5 player? Is it how well they do in Slayer? Is it shooting %, KD, Spartan Rank, Commendation Completion?
>
>
> That’s a tough question. I’m sure somebody will come along and say “well, skill is black and white, x and y”, but to me, it’s a huge combination of so many variables that I really cannot say that it’s one thing over another, especially with how confounding Halo 5’s ranking system is.
>
> In a perfect world, I would say skill is best determined by W/L ratio in Team Slayer, when an individual is on a team that tries to win with the same people over a period of say, 50 games. Within that team, I would then say skill is determined by their K/D in that time period.
>
> I think that weeds out the variables of people being placed on random teams, poor communication, and when people play with someone who is significantly worse than them - because let’s face it, if you’re truly trying to win, you don’t want people who are awful or have different goals on your team. Of course, then you also need a consistent matchmaking system, which is also a huge variable in its own right.
Well, you can say that skill is a huge combination of many variables, and you’d be right. But the thing is, when you want to measure skill, you don’t actually need to know what skill is at the fundamental level. All you need to know is what the effect of skill on game outcomes is. And for that, all you need to know is the following: the probability that player A will perform better than player B completely determines their mutual skill difference. So, if you take two players, put them to play 100 games against each other, you will have an estimate of their skill difference. If you have 200 players, do this for each possible pair and you know everyone’s skill with respect to each other.
All serious skill rating systems in use are a play on this idea that the probability that one player performs better than another determines their skill difference. They just do some fancier math to encode information about matches the player has played in the past, so that you don’t actually need to have everyone play 100 games against each other to determine their skill difference. I’m fairly certain that the CSR number in Halo 5 also encodes such information, as this is by far the most functional methodology of skill rating that has been invented.
K/D means nothing
bronze, gold, onyx whatever unless it’s Champion it means nothing.
There are people who are silver who i’d describe as being unlucky dragons just as there are people who are onyx who cant fight their way out of a wet paper bag.
I judge players based on how well they aided their team.
the guy who goes 0 kills 27 assist 20 deaths, with multiple objective related medals if we’re playing something like ctf, gets a pass
But
the guy who goes 0 kills 0 assist and 20 deaths , 0 objective points, is a sheep
A Lot of good points. I can say that from my experience, being someone who tries to get medals / commendations sometimes I spend a whole game getting owned just to get that one medal. Im sure it happens to others too which isnt often taken into consideration when measuring spartan rank vs playlist rank.
> 2533274809403163;8:
> A Lot of good points. I can say that from my experience, being someone who tries to get medals / commendations sometimes I spend a whole game getting owned just to get that one medal. Im sure it happens to others too which isnt often taken into consideration when measuring spartan rank vs playlist rank.
So true. I’ve done some crazy things for commendations, and after playing for a year, who knows what I’m in the mood to do in a match. When you get bored you start doing pretty much everything except working on your k/d. Ranking isn’t always a good indicator of skill either. I’ve gone 20-7 in doubles and lost, and been completely carried in other games and won. Making ranking based purely on win/loss is a fail in my opinion.