Does anyone else feel the ranking system shouldn’t be based on wins or loses, because honestly I cannot count the amount the times I’ve lost because I match with bad players. I’m not saying I’m good or anything, knowing people they’re probably gonna check my stats, but I just wished they went account the ranking system different.
I’ve felt a little of this pain over the years (as a 99% solo queue guy).
However, I believe wins / losses are the best way to go about it. I stick to mostly social now.
If it wasn’t for wins or loses, then what would it be?
I think it should be based off of your KDA after each game.
Win/Loss should always be factored in. Now, for the losing team, KDA could be factored in, but I think it should only be used to lessen the CSR hit taken by a player that played exceptionally well relative to his team. Never to gain CSR. This way, the value of winning doesn’t get cheapened.
> 2533274974427988;4:
> I think it should be based off of your KDA after each game.
Then every match would be nothing but stat padding. Will / Loss promotes teamwork, which is what you want from a team based shooter.
> 2533274813317074;6:
> > 2533274974427988;4:
> > I think it should be based off of your KDA after each game.
>
> Then every match would be nothing but stat padding. Will / Loss promotes teamwork, which is what you want from a team based shooter.
I agree. The biggest headache is teammates quitting, that sucks when its 3 against four or even 2 against four.
> 2533274813317074;6:
> > 2533274974427988;4:
> > I think it should be based off of your KDA after each game.
>
> Then every match would be nothing but stat padding. Will / Loss promotes teamwork, which is what you want from a team based shooter.
See: Reach’s Arena.
i think you gain the same Xp and Req even if u loose or win…Unless you use a Bonus Card
> 2533274974427988;4:
> I think it should be based off of your KDA after each game.
A good kda doesn’t equal a good player.
They tried individual stats in Reach and it made ranked completely unplayable without a team.
Nearly every game, at least one, if not more than one teammate would betray for power weapons.
Win/loss isn’t good judge of skill on an individual game-to-game basis, but it actually works extremely well past the very beginning.
If you any twitch streamers, you see that they are already getting Onyx opponents after 10 matches on brand new accounts that have never been rated before. Even with individual stat ranks, Reach wasn’t that fast to figure things out.
<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not create alternate accounts to bypass forum bans. Alternate accounts will be permanently banned, and offending users will be subject to both temporary and permanent bans.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
no matter how they set up the ranking systems, smurfs will still be there to mess everything up. they need to find a way to fix the smurf problem first.
> 2533274813317074;6:
> > 2533274974427988;4:
> > I think it should be based off of your KDA after each game.
>
> Then every match would be nothing but stat padding. Will / Loss promotes teamwork, which is what you want from a team based shooter.
Agreed it most be all about winning
I completely agree with the OP. I constantly get placed in games that drop my rank because my team is horrible. I don’t understand why, if I’m in a SWAT match, and 2 of my teammates quit, leaving myself and one other person to get blown apart, why my CSR should go down, even if I’m at a positive kill/death ratio. I agree certain game types should be based on team win/loss, like CTF, Assault, or Strongholds, but not for SWAT or Slayer. CSR for SWAT and Slayer matches should be based on individual kill-to-death ratios. Assuming players would be striving for more kills than deaths in order to win the game, it still makes sense for them to work as a team to make that happen.
> 2535436068861368;14:
> I completely agree with the OP. I constantly get placed in games that drop my rank because my team is horrible. I don’t understand why, if I’m in a SWAT match, and 2 of my teammates quit, leaving myself and one other person to get blown apart, why my CSR should go down, even if I’m at a positive kill/death ratio. I agree certain game types should be based on team win/loss, like CTF, Assault, or Strongholds, but not for SWAT or Slayer. <mark>CSR for SWAT and Slayer matches should be based on individual kill-to-death ratios.</mark> Assuming players would be striving for more kills than deaths in order to win the game, it still makes sense for them to work as a team to make that happen.
-
Because if you don’t lose CSR, all it takes is people to have a throwaway account and to party up with them, start losing, the trash account quits, then everyone else can quit with no damage. Not good and totally exploitable.
-
No. Play FFA if you want something based off individual K/D, play FFA. Team based games should be based on W/L.
There is no doubt that a system based on k/d or kda is easily manipulated - and arguably encourages behaviors that are not desirable. (That said, I don’t have to go back to Reach in order to get betrayed for a power weapon.)
But ranking on win/loss makes it all too easy to disengage yourself from the outcomes of your matches. Sometimes your teammates will be terrible or unfocused or whatever and you therefore lose any stake in the outcome of the game. Likewise, I’ve had matches where I sat on my hands, watched my teammates clean up, and the system now thinks I’m a better player for having done absolutely nothing. Expending effort to produce an outcome is only sound, psychologically speaking, if there is a minimum of examples where ‘no effort = good outcome’ or ‘much effort = bad outcome.’ The OP is right in this sense. Halo 5 tips way too far in favor of scenarios where effort and outcome don’t align.
For the sake of discussion: the Halo 4 system was significantly different from the system we have now (or any of the systems that came before). Was that ranking system over all a positive or a negative, and how would you compare it to Halo 5?