Every game people that are losing the match, for few kills also, quits. 4vs4 -> 3vs4 -> 2vs4 -> 1vs4. Every game. it’s not possible to end a game 4vs4. Please,
Enable the access to game in progress, replace their with new players.
Every quit must deranking 1 level (for example, not from Diamond 5 to Diamond 4 but from Diamond 5 to Platinum 5).
There is another “problem”. There is too much skill gap in the same rank. For example, my teammate are platinum, like me. But the worst of my team ends the match with 2-3 kills and 15 deaths. This appens because a win/lose ranking system makes up noob people if they have good teammates. Imho, a good ranking system should be 50% win/lose and 50% K/D ratio.
so, you go up if you win with a positive ratio, and go down if you lose with a negative ratio. But, you are stable if you win with a negative ratio or if you lose with a positive ratio.
p.s. sorry for some grammatical errors, english is not my primary language.
> 2533274874453277;1:
> 2. Every quit must deranking 1 level (for example, not from Diamond 5 to Diamond 4 but from Diamond 5 to Platinum 5).
This only works if you think that all quitters are primarily concerned with their rank, and I can assure you that they are not - at least not all of them. Probably not many of them.
> 2533274874453277;1:
> There is another “problem”. There is too much skill gap in the same rank. For example, my teammate are platinum, like me. But the worst of my team ends the match with 2-3 kills and 15 deaths. This appens because a win/lose ranking system makes up noob people if they have good teammates. Imho, a good ranking system should be 50% win/lose and 50% K/D ratio.
The skill gap question is a good one and it needs to be asked more often. I know that I personally think that it’s too wide, but I’m more than open to the idea that it would matter less how wide it was if the system judged players on their performance (with all the complexity that implies) instead of on win/loss. Trueskill and the pure w/l assessment system are as old as Halo 3 and have been judged since then to be an unimpeachable force for good in this game, but I think it’s garbage. I know there are plenty of players who are tired of carrying their teammates with great personal performance and still ranking down over a loss. Likewise, I’m tired of sitting out entire matches just to hear “Victory!” at the end. Ranking up for doing nothing. Ranking down for doing everything. I’m sure it all works out on average over time, but that’s still not the message you want to be sending your players. I’d say that a high-functioning ranking system could be based 100% on kda.
> 2533274873843883;2:
> > 2533274874453277;1:
> >
>
>
>
> > 2533274874453277;1:
> > There is another “problem”. There is too much skill gap in the same rank. For example, my teammate are platinum, like me. But the worst of my team ends the match with 2-3 kills and 15 deaths. This appens because a win/lose ranking system makes up noob people if they have good teammates. Imho, a good ranking system should be 50% win/lose and 50% K/D ratio.
>
> I’m sure it all works out on average over time, but that’s still not the message you want to be sending your players. I’d say that a high-functioning ranking system could be based 100% on kda.
no 100% kda because winning games is always important. But i think that a good ranking system must consider personal stats also. Not kda but 50% win lose and 50% personal kill/death.
> 2586218893181855;3:
> > 2533274873843883;2:
> > I’d say that a high-functioning ranking system could be based 100% on kda.
>
> So winning games wouldn’t matter at all?
In keeping with the old saying “it’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game,” then no, winning and losing do not matter. As long as Halo continues to be primarily team-based then you will have plenty of instances where a bad player is carried to victory by competent teammates, and plenty of instances where good players perform well but still lose because of a weak team. These kinds of outcomes lead some players to disconnect effort from outcome, and that is a bad situation for any game to be in. In the end you have to decide for yourself if this game is all about you or if it’s all about the three strangers you just got teamed up with and will probably never play with again as long as you live. I don’t want to hold those three players back and I don’t want them pushing me to a higher rank to which I personally made no contribution. That’s why I think it’s a huge mistake to make Halo all about team performance and to judge players based on wins and losses that may not be connected in any meaningful way to what they did or didn’t do in the given match.
Admittedly, it’s a purely philsophical point until someone builds ranking and matchmaking systems that ignore win/loss and use personal performance as a yardstick, but as a thought experiment I feel like it couldn’t possibly yield results that are more frustrating or more inaccurate than the ones we have now.
> 2533274873843883;5:
> > 2586218893181855;3:
> > > 2533274873843883;2:
> > > I’d say that a high-functioning ranking system could be based 100% on kda.
> >
> > So winning games wouldn’t matter at all?
>
> In keeping with the old saying “it’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game,” then no, winning and losing do not matter. As long as Halo continues to be primarily team-based then you will have plenty of instances where a bad player is carried to victory by competent teammates, and plenty of instances where good players perform well but still lose because of a weak team. These kinds of outcomes lead some players to disconnect effort from outcome, and that is a bad situation for any game to be in. In the end you have to decide for yourself if this game is all about you or if it’s all about the three strangers you just got teamed up with and will probably never play with again as long as you live. I don’t want to hold those three players back and I don’t want them pushing me to a higher rank to which I personally made no contribution. That’s why I think it’s a huge mistake to make Halo all about team performance and to judge players based on wins and losses that may not be connected in any meaningful way to what they did or didn’t do in the given match.
>
> Admittedly, it’s a purely philsophical point until someone builds ranking and matchmaking systems that ignore win/loss and use personal performance as a yardstick, but as a thought experiment I feel like it couldn’t possibly yield results that are more frustrating or more inaccurate than the ones we have now.
Well, this would definitely turn any game into a competition not only against the other team, but your teammates as well. So you’re essentially playing not to win the game, but rather to not find yourself on the short end of the stick at the end of the game. I don’t know whether a system like that is good or bad, but it certainly doesn’t sound like any kind of system a team game would want to adopt. If people think games are sweaty and competitive now…
> 2586218893181855;6:
> > 2533274873843883;5:
> > > 2586218893181855;3:
> > > > 2533274873843883;2:
> > > > I’d say that a high-functioning ranking system could be based 100% on kda.
> > >
> > > So winning games wouldn’t matter at all?
> >
> > In keeping with the old saying “it’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game,” then no, winning and losing do not matter. As long as Halo continues to be primarily team-based then you will have plenty of instances where a bad player is carried to victory by competent teammates, and plenty of instances where good players perform well but still lose because of a weak team. These kinds of outcomes lead some players to disconnect effort from outcome, and that is a bad situation for any game to be in. In the end you have to decide for yourself if this game is all about you or if it’s all about the three strangers you just got teamed up with and will probably never play with again as long as you live. I don’t want to hold those three players back and I don’t want them pushing me to a higher rank to which I personally made no contribution. That’s why I think it’s a huge mistake to make Halo all about team performance and to judge players based on wins and losses that may not be connected in any meaningful way to what they did or didn’t do in the given match.
> >
> > Admittedly, it’s a purely philsophical point until someone builds ranking and matchmaking systems that ignore win/loss and use personal performance as a yardstick, but as a thought experiment I feel like it couldn’t possibly yield results that are more frustrating or more inaccurate than the ones we have now.
>
> Well, this would definitely turn any game into a competition not only against the other team, but your teammates as well. So you’re essentially playing not to win the game, but rather to not find yourself on the short end of the stick at the end of the game. I don’t know whether a system like that is good or bad, but it certainly doesn’t sound like any kind of system a team game would want to adopt. If people think games are sweaty and competitive now…
so, in 50&50 system (first post) you play to win, and to go positive also…
> 2586218893181855;6:
> > 2533274873843883;5:
> > > 2586218893181855;3:
> > > > 2533274873843883;2:
> > > > I’d say that a high-functioning ranking system could be based 100% on kda.
>
> Well, this would definitely turn any game into a competition not only against the other team, but your teammates as well. So you’re essentially playing not to win the game, but rather to not find yourself on the short end of the stick at the end of the game. I don’t know whether a system like that is good or bad, but it certainly doesn’t sound like any kind of system a team game would want to adopt. If people think games are sweaty and competitive now…
I think there is already no shortage of players who view their teammates as competitors. Why else betray for a power weapon? Why else shoot at a teammate for some imagined slight? I’ve had players call me names because I didn’t step into their skirmish until they were dead because I knew full well they would have called me names for stealing their kill if I had. This game is built entirely around the concept of teamwork and yet manages at virtually every turn to undermine the message, and where the game itself doesn’t undermine, players with bad attitudes will step into the breach every single time.
I guess that, in the end, I believe that if people really value the win, and really understand what’s required to be truly competitive in Halo, then they’ll find their way to teamwork all on their own. And there’s nothing wrong with winning. Or with having a win/loss stat on your service record. But saying that you can understand the skill or value of an individual player based off nothing more than how often they win and how often they lose… well, that’s saying that the only thing that matters in Halo is whether you win or lose. And that’s a proposition I will never buy into.
> 2533274874453277;7:
> > 2586218893181855;6:
> > > 2533274873843883;5:
> > > > 2586218893181855;3:
> > > > > 2533274873843883;2:
> > > > > I’d say that a high-functioning ranking system could be based 100% on kda.
> > > >
> > > > So winning games wouldn’t matter at all?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2533274873843883;5:
> > > > In keeping with the old saying “it’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game,” then no, winning and losing do not matter. As long as Halo continues to be primarily team-based then you will have plenty of instances where a bad player is carried to victory by competent teammates, and plenty of instances where good players perform well but still lose because of a weak team. These kinds of outcomes lead some players to disconnect effort from outcome, and that is a bad situation for any game to be in. In the end you have to decide for yourself if this game is all about you or if it’s all about the three strangers you just got teamed up with and will probably never play with again as long as you live. I don’t want to hold those three players back and I don’t want them pushing me to a higher rank to which I personally made no contribution. That’s why I think it’s a huge mistake to make Halo all about team performance and to judge players based on wins and losses that may not be connected in any meaningful way to what they did or didn’t do in the given match.
> > > >
> > > > Admittedly, it’s a purely philsophical point until someone builds ranking and matchmaking systems that ignore win/loss and use personal performance as a yardstick, but as a thought experiment I feel like it couldn’t possibly yield results that are more frustrating or more inaccurate than the ones we have now.
> > >
> > > Well, this would definitely turn any game into a competition not only against the other team, but your teammates as well. So you’re essentially playing not to win the game, but rather to not find yourself on the short end of the stick at the end of the game. I don’t know whether a system like that is good or bad, but it certainly doesn’t sound like any kind of system a team game would want to adopt. If people think games are sweaty and competitive now…
> > >
>
> so, in 50&50 system (first post) you play to win, and to go positive also…
Nah, it’s more like you play not to die in your system since there’s no penalty if you die less than the amount of kills you have. Winning is secondary.
> 2533274873843883;8:
> > 2586218893181855;6:
> > > 2533274873843883;5:
> > > > 2586218893181855;3:
> > > > > 2533274873843883;2:
> > > > > I’d say that a high-functioning ranking system could be based 100% on kda.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2586218893181855;6:
> > > Well, this would definitely turn any game into a competition not only against the other team, but your teammates as well. So you’re essentially playing not to win the game, but rather to not find yourself on the short end of the stick at the end of the game. I don’t know whether a system like that is good or bad, but it certainly doesn’t sound like any kind of system a team game would want to adopt. If people think games are sweaty and competitive now…
> >
> > I think there is already no shortage of players who view their teammates as competitors. Why else betray for a power weapon? Why else shoot at a teammate for some imagined slight? I’ve had players call me names because I didn’t step into their skirmish until they were dead because I knew full well they would have called me names for stealing their kill if I had. This game is built entirely around the concept of teamwork and yet manages at virtually every turn to undermine the message, and where the game itself doesn’t undermine, players with bad attitudes will step into the breach every single time.
> >
> > I guess that, in the end, I believe that if people really value the win, and really understand what’s required to be truly competitive in Halo, then they’ll find their way to teamwork all on their own. And there’s nothing wrong with winning. Or with having a win/loss stat on your service record. But saying that you can understand the skill or value of an individual player based off nothing more than how often they win and how often they lose… well, that’s saying that the only thing that matters in Halo is whether you win or lose. And that’s a proposition I will never buy into.
> >
Certainly, what you say is true and I won’t deny that. But that is behavior most common among randoms, so it’s mostly randoms that undermine the concept of teamwork. The game can do nothing about this. So I can understand how you believe the game can’t possibly understand the skill of an individual based on wins and losses.
> 2586218893181855;9:
> > 2533274874453277;7:
> > > 2586218893181855;6:
> > > > 2533274873843883;5:
> > > > > 2586218893181855;3:
> > > > > > 2533274873843883;2:
> > > > > > I’d say that a high-functioning ranking system could be based 100% on kda.
> > > > >
> > > > > So winning games wouldn’t matter at all?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 2533274873843883;5:
> > > > > In keeping with the old saying “it’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game,” then no, winning and losing do not matter. As long as Halo continues to be primarily team-based then you will have plenty of instances where a bad player is carried to victory by competent teammates, and plenty of instances where good players perform well but still lose because of a weak team. These kinds of outcomes lead some players to disconnect effort from outcome, and that is a bad situation for any game to be in. In the end you have to decide for yourself if this game is all about you or if it’s all about the three strangers you just got teamed up with and will probably never play with again as long as you live. I don’t want to hold those three players back and I don’t want them pushing me to a higher rank to which I personally made no contribution. That’s why I think it’s a huge mistake to make Halo all about team performance and to judge players based on wins and losses that may not be connected in any meaningful way to what they did or didn’t do in the given match.
> > > > >
> > > > > Admittedly, it’s a purely philsophical point until someone builds ranking and matchmaking systems that ignore win/loss and use personal performance as a yardstick, but as a thought experiment I feel like it couldn’t possibly yield results that are more frustrating or more inaccurate than the ones we have now.
> > > >
> > > > Well, this would definitely turn any game into a competition not only against the other team, but your teammates as well. So you’re essentially playing not to win the game, but rather to not find yourself on the short end of the stick at the end of the game. I don’t know whether a system like that is good or bad, but it certainly doesn’t sound like any kind of system a team game would want to adopt. If people think games are sweaty and competitive now…
> > > >
> >
> > so, in 50&50 system (first post) you play to win, and to go positive also…
>
> Nah, it’s more like you play not to die in your system since there’s no penalty if you die less than the amount of kills you have. Winning is secondary.
>
>
> > 2533274873843883;8:
> > > 2586218893181855;6:
> > > > 2533274873843883;5:
> > > > > 2586218893181855;3:
> > > > > > 2533274873843883;2:
> > > > > > I’d say that a high-functioning ranking system could be based 100% on kda.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2586218893181855;6:
> > > > Well, this would definitely turn any game into a competition not only against the other team, but your teammates as well. So you’re essentially playing not to win the game, but rather to not find yourself on the short end of the stick at the end of the game. I don’t know whether a system like that is good or bad, but it certainly doesn’t sound like any kind of system a team game would want to adopt. If people think games are sweaty and competitive now…
> > >
> > >
> > >
it’s not secondary because if you don’t win don’t get up! for example:
It is secondary, because if my KD isn’t positive, winning doesn’t matter, as per your OP. Ask yourself what would be more important in your system, making sure your team wins the game, or making sure you stay positive so a loss doesn’t affect you.
What’s the objective in any game… “Win”. What does it matter if you’re on top of the leaderboard if you haven’t met the primary objective. If the game is a loss the only reward is you pat yourself on the back for getting the most kills. That’s why the game rewards the winning team with more XP/RP.
> 2586218893181855;11:
> It is secondary, because if my KD isn’t positive, winning doesn’t matter, as per your OP. Ask yourself what would be more important in your system, making sure your team wins the game, or making sure you stay positive so a loss doesn’t affect you.
ok… look this: link in this example, win get you always up, and lose always down… so win is always important… but ,in this way, we can solve the problem of people that have a rank too hight if compared to their skill. When this people plays alone, it’s a disaster, and usually quits the game…
