> 2533274925727172;7:
> Yes, but shouldn’t you be given less of a beating if your team loses but you alone got like half the kills?
>
> Let me pain a picture, you’re put into a game with 4 random people. . .
The problem is, you’ve already gone astray when you try to use one match as an example of what you think is wrong. It doesn’t matter what happens in one match. What matters is how your team performs on average, and if you truly are better than the players in your skill range, then your team will win more often. There’s no preference to put you in the worse team.
> 2533274925727172;7:
> And due to the low player base in the playlist, you get matched up with the same team in the next game. This time, someone on your team leaves. You know how this fight ends, you lose, again.
When the player base is small, it’s not the system that’s your problem. It doesn’t matter what system you use. If it evaluates your skill relative to other players in a proper manner, and matches you based on that skill, if the player base is small and you’re well above average, the average level of players you match will be lower than your own. Nothing will change that.
> 2533274925727172;7:
> Now what I propose to help this is to do one of 3 things:
> - You implement a matchmaking system that tires to make solo players pair with solo players and teams pair with team, as I stated above. - You implement some sort of underdog system, where if you lose against a team, you don’t go down as much or if you beat a team, you go up more then you would before. - You implement a leaderboard rank into the mix, where you may have lost the game, but because you did the best on the team, you don’t go up very much. If you win but did the worst, you don’t go up very much. This would also have to include what % of kills were with power weapons, how many times did you pick up a power weapon, what was you overall accuracy, how many assists did you get, (if possible) how often did you stick with your team mates or use your mic?Adding at least one of these things would help the ranking system greatly IMO, and would help with these alleged clams of “My team sucked and I went down??? WTF 343” blah blah blah stuff.
The first option is a completely sensible one. The second essentially proposes that the skill of a team is more than the sum of its parts, which in itself is not necessarily untrue, but impossible to implement in practice to any consistent degree. The last option just puts less emphasis on teamwork, for which there’s no rational basis besides making those players who play team gametypes by themselves feel better about themselves.
I’ve been saying for years that there should be heavier restrictions on parties matching parties, because parties generally are better than teams of randoms, so avoiding matches between these two groups would lead to fairer matches, thus supporting the whole goal of matchmaking. However, introducingstricter party restrictions would mean significantly longer search times, which players would complain about. I have no problem with that, but many players might.
> 2533274925727172;7:
> (Also had to delete most of what you said, sorry about that.)
It’s a short post if you don’t need to.
> 2533274873843883;9:
> Thanks for the links - both articles were extremely useful, although I must say that yours made me cry before I’d got past the second page! I haven’t had to think that hard in years and it most definitely did not agree with me. To all the kids: use your brains now while you still have them.
Don’t know if that’s my style, my writing skill, or the topic.
> Thanks for the articles @tsassi ,however I’m going to have to disagree with you on the point of “it’s not about individuals” sure, in general to win Halo matches teamwork is required more so than say CoD. However while the gameplay isn’t strictly for the individual, the majority of people always look at the individual instead of a whole team, and teammates look at individuals to judge how well they can perform to help the team. Companies (including mine) often recruit with one of the parameters having to be above a certain CSR, and they are looking at the individual when recruiting not a team. I think 343 got it wrong so what sue me, all I’m saying is that in Halo 6 having CSR should be based on the individuals performance which could also then be used to match teams more accurately.
>
> Teams are made up of individuals.
Teams are made up of individuals, and an integral part of their skill is how well they can work as a team. Sorry, but no determination of skill is complete if you don’t pay attention to all aspects of a player’s skill. Ultimately, a win-based rating captures all aspects of a player’s skill, not just their ability to slay other players, but also their abilities from working as a team, controlling the map, playing objective, and so on. The win is a combined result of all the skills a team needed to win. Any combination of player’s kills, assists, deaths, or whatever, is just that: a selection of arbitrary statistics that only capture a small part of total skill. Not to mention, when you’re trying to implement these individual statistics, you have to worry about weighting, which is an entirely arbitrary process.
Win-based ratings capture everything about the player’s skill in a way that’s undisputable. There is only one statistic, and therefore no arbitrary weighing factors. Moreover, if you really just want to know how good a player is working all by themselves, ignoring all aspects of teamwork, you can always look at their FFA rank. There your have your individual if that’s what you desperately need. However, in a team game, players should also be judged based on their ability to work as a team.
You believe that rating players based on their “individual skill” would lead to more accurate matchmaking, but why? You have no evidence for this really, you only believe it because you want to.
“alleged clams”