Multiplayer Scoring - How does it make sense?

I like Halo 5. I like playing the campaign and the multiplayer but I cannot understand what 343 or others are thinking with the scoring in multiplayer. It just doesn’t make any sense. There are many examples I can use but lets try just a few to get started. First, Break Out - number of kills are what is used to rank you after the game is complete. Ok that makes some sense, kills are important, but what about Flag captures - which win the round… They seem to count for nothing?? huh? But wait you win the match by capturing the flag. So shouldn’t they be at least equally important if not more so? With the current scoring I could have 4 kills and my buddy 4 caps and 3 kills. I will rank higher than him every time. I don’t think it makes sense at all.

Another example would be just good old slayer and K/D. How many times have I seen this example of the kill leader being ranked the highest after the game. OK great but he was also the death leader and essentially lost the round for our team. Imagine a close game like 48 to 50. Our kill leader had 18 kills and 23 deaths. Everyone else is positive or neutral KD. It’s very easy to see the reason you lost was that kill leader but instead of being on the bottom of that teams rankings he’s on the top. Yeah good job you lost the round for the team by dying so much, but thank goodness you get to rank higher than all the others players who were trying to win the game, not just score the most kills. It’s like 343 / Bungie, whomever has forgotten you can’t die yourself to a victory. It encourages bad gaming and a lack of team work. There are many other examples (CTF flag caps count above all which is good and the way it should be but flag grabs don’t seem to count for anytihng.) Playing an objective game where no one goes for the objectives is frustrating. Seeing those that just camp sniped the whole game and never did anything very strategic score higher than someone that tried to PTFO is dumb. Don’t get me wrong sniping can be very valuable if they are helping guard or attack, but just picking some vantage point, shooting people in some random part of the map isn’t really the same thing.

By my way of thinking objectives are more important than kills, and being net positive or neutral is better than having high kills and higher deaths. If you’re negative in a slayer game, and your team lost, then you were part of the reason you shouldn’t be ranked “better” when you actually lost the round. I’m not saying kills aren’t important - they are, and game type plays a part in the equation too, but in general you can’t win by dying more than killing.

I guess no one can explain it.

Being on top of the board means nothing during a match. It just shows who’s doing what for the team. You don’t get “ranked” higher or lower.

OK that would make sense I suppose but then why the numbers 1-8 for example. If the position on the boards means nothing then why not simply take away the numbers? Also the boards appear to be sorted consistently by kills or flag grabs. Maybe you’re right and it’s just my perception problem but it’s a perception problem shared by a lot of people.