Play free for all then
> 2533274801608936;252:
> the 10 yo that want to sing while they play.
Mute all is great! Not really missing anything either as nobody gives shout outs anyway. I’m not going to shout at my TV either.
yes
yes
yes
sir
bob
> 2533275020892695;268:
> bob
Hmm
What do you get from a higher rank anyway?
I think it’s ruining the game.
The quest for a pointless rank has people quitting so you have to play 4v2 sometimes.
I play to win, but I mostly focus on getting commendations completed now. Higher rank means tougher competition and 1 team will have people that don’t deserve that rank ruining the game.
I’m hovering at Plat.2. If I was still Gold2 or less, that would be fine, because I would be playing people at my lvl, and enjoying myself.
If your super serious join a clan and have a real chance at getting that high rank, if not we’re all in the same boat. If you find a decent player with a mic, try to start a fire team for a bit.
the system in place is perfect if you can’t play like a team and help them play FFA instead just don’t quite and make it impossible to win
Agreed. Having a Win/Loss ratio dictating a persons “skill” is ridiculous. If I go out and lead my lame duck match-made team in K/D, Objective captures, metals, etc, and lose because my team doesn’t play the objective or because they just suck, why am I considered less “skilled” then the lamest duck player on the enemy team? I carried my team, and he was carried by his, yet he gets to rank up because he was on the winning team?
I get that this system promotes team play and communication, but 343 should realize that most people playing by themselves will be in private parties, which make communication impossible for people who go into arena alone and who actually want to communicate. I can’t even tell you how many times I’ve been the only player on my team actually going for the objective and doing well in Strongholds and still get completely stomped by the other team. No matter how skilled you are, in the fast majority of cases, you just aren’t going to win a game of strongholds or capture the flag by yourself.
The KDA we see is a formula that uses Total Kills, Total Deaths and Total assists vs Total games played. Like so.
(Kills+(Assists/3)- Deaths)/Total games
I have a better formula. Instead of calculating Total Kills, Deaths and Assists for the formula, it would be better to use Average KDA for each game.
Calculate KDA per game, like so [{Kill+(Assists/3)}/Deaths] and then after certain amount of games have been played (Ex. 10 games like the game uses) it sums the KDA of each game and divides by total of games played.
(KDA Game 1)+(KDA Game 2)+(KDA Game 3)…etc./Total of games played
And this would be your real KDA
Example using this formula vs the actual one and these were the results.
Example:
Game 1: 11K 6D 5A KDA: 2.1
Game 2: 12K 4D 7A KDA: 3.6
Game 3: 6K 10D 4A KDA: .7
Game 4: 4K 8D 9A KDA: .9
Game 5: 8K 8D 3A KDA: 1.1
Game 6: 7K 5D 10A KDA: 2.6
The KDA of each game was done with my formula
Total Kills: 48 Total Deaths:41 Total Assits:38
Using the games formula we get a total KDA of
3.3
Using my formula we get:
1.83
Conclusion.
The games formula gives you a very high value in regards to your performance. I think this is deliberate to give players sense of accomplishment even if they do poorly.
The result of my method is far more accurate. Looking at the KDA of each game max KDA was 3.6 and minimum was .7 so the result 1. 83 is very well in between these values.
No as for Win rate that’s easy. Wins/Games played. This means that if your result is 1 then you win 100% of your games (YOU ARE OP)
And now for the main reason of this whole shindig. Simple;
RANK SHOULDN’T BE A FORMULA THAT CALCULATES KDA WITH WIN RATE. IT SHOULD BE A GRAPH OR A CHART. WHERE 2 VALUES MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO BE A CERTAIN RANK. Like so.
Bronze Ranks range from 0KDA to 1.1KDA with a win ratio between .0 to .29
Silver Ranks Range from 1.2KDA to 1.7KDA with a win ratio between .3 to .39
Gold Ranks Range from 1.8KDA to 2.3KDA with a win ratio between .4 to .49
Platinum Ranks from 2.4KDA to 3.0KDA with a win ratio of .5 to .59
Onyx Ranks from 3.0KDA or higher with a win ratio of .60 or higher.
Many would find this system easy to fulfill. But remember this is using my idea and everybody would be on the same boat so you would facing players with the same stats as you are, meaning it’s gonna be a tough to keep a certain rank and a lot tougher to rise up.
> 2533274819944112;273:
> The KDA we see is a formula that uses Total Kills, Total Deaths and Total assists vs Total games played. Like so.
> (Kills+(Assists/3)- Deaths)/Total games
> I have a better formula. Instead of calculating Total Kills, Deaths and Assists for the formula, it would be better to use Average KDA for each game.
> Calculate KDA per game, like so [{Kill+(Assists/3)}/Deaths] and then after certain amount of games have been played (Ex. 10 games like the game uses) it sums the KDA of each game and divides by total of games played.
> (KDA Game 1)+(KDA Game 2)+(KDA Game 3)…etc./Total of games played
> And this would be your real KDA
> Example using this formula vs the actual one and these were the results.
> Example:
> Game 1: 11K 6D 5A KDA: 2.1
> Game 2: 12K 4D 7A KDA: 3.6
> Game 3: 6K 10D 4A KDA: .7
> Game 4: 4K 8D 9A KDA: .9
> Game 5: 8K 8D 3A KDA: 1.1
> Game 6: 7K 5D 10A KDA: 2.6
> The KDA of each game was done with my formula
> Total Kills: 48 Total Deaths:41 Total Assits:38
> Using the games formula we get a total KDA of
> 3.3
> Using my formula we get:
> 1.83
> Conclusion.
> The games formula gives you a very high value in regards to your performance. I think this is deliberate to give players sense of accomplishment even if they do poorly.
> The result of my method is far more accurate. Looking at the KDA of each game max KDA was 3.6 and minimum was .7 so the result 1. 83 is very well in between these values.
> No as for Win rate that’s easy. Wins/Games played. This means that if your result is 1 then you win 100% of your games (YOU ARE OP)
> And now for the main reason of this whole shindig. Simple;
> RANK SHOULDN’T BE A FORMULA THAT CALCULATES KDA WITH WIN RATE. IT SHOULD BE A GRAPH OR A CHART. WHERE 2 VALUES MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO BE A CERTAIN RANK. Like so.
> Bronze Ranks range from 0KDA to 1.1KDA with a win ratio between .0 to .29
> Silver Ranks Range from 1.2KDA to 1.7KDA with a win ratio between .3 to .39
> Gold Ranks Range from 1.8KDA to 2.3KDA with a win ratio between .4 to .49
> Platinum Ranks from 2.4KDA to 3.0KDA with a win ratio of .5 to .59
> Onyx Ranks from 3.0KDA or higher with a win ratio of .60 or higher.
>
> Many would find this system easy to fulfill. But remember this is using my idea and everybody would be on the same boat so you would facing players with the same stats as you are, meaning it’s gonna be a tough to keep a certain rank and a lot tougher to rise up.
as far as stats go, an overall kdr is great. Its nice to be able to go back and look at the totals.
however, this doesn’t account for learning or changes in rank etc. A rolling KDR of the most recent 30-50 games would be a good indicator of how you’re playing at that moment, with individual game kdr being available as well.
As for ranking… I think its a neat idea to factor in kdr as one of two metrics… but how do you account for super high kdr but a low win rate? is that player better than someone with a slightly higher win rate but the kdr within your established parameters?
in the long run kdr is a poor metric for quantifying skill. its is certainly correlated, and likely a good metric for estimation of a player, but using it as objectively as you’ve outlined is problematic and a biased way of looking at this game.
> 2533274814282332;272:
> Agreed. Having a Win/Loss ratio dictating a persons “skill” is ridiculous. If I go out and lead my lame duck match-made team in K/D, Objective captures, metals, etc, and lose because my team doesn’t play the objective or because they just suck, why am I considered less “skilled” then the lamest duck player on the enemy team? I carried my team, and he was carried by his, yet he gets to rank up because he was on the winning team?
>
> I get that this system promotes team play and communication, but 343 should realize that most people playing by themselves will be in private parties, which make communication impossible for people who go into arena alone and who actually want to communicate. I can’t even tell you how many times I’ve been the only player on my team actually going for the objective and doing well in Strongholds and still get completely stomped by the other team. No matter how skilled you are, in the fast majority of cases, you just aren’t going to win a game of strongholds or capture the flag by yourself.
statistically your losses for a crappy team will even out with your wins with a crappy team. So no, its fine.
if a player is consistently being carried by the same group of players then it doesn’t matter. You’ll only ever be matched with that player as part of said team, so you’re going to be facing the level of skill the team has demonstrated.
if that player who has been carried goes lone wolf, they will be out classes and de-rank. So we don’t have a problem there either.
yes it feels bad in the face of a single game, but thats not how this works. You have your fancy medal to make you feel good about yourself. Your rank should be for matching you with a group of people for the best possible level of competition. Play enough and your rank will be reflective of your skill level in the context you’re choosing to play.
start playing FFA then
> 2533274855279867;274:
> > 2533274819944112;273:
> > The KDA we see is a formula that uses Total Kills, Total Deaths and Total assists vs Total games played. Like so.
> > (Kills+(Assists/3)- Deaths)/Total games
> > I have a better formula. Instead of calculating Total Kills, Deaths and Assists for the formula, it would be better to use Average KDA for each game.
> > Calculate KDA per game, like so [{Kill+(Assists/3)}/Deaths] and then after certain amount of games have been played (Ex. 10 games like the game uses) it sums the KDA of each game and divides by total of games played.
> > (KDA Game 1)+(KDA Game 2)+(KDA Game 3)…etc./Total of games played
> > And this would be your real KDA
> > Example using this formula vs the actual one and these were the results.
> > Example:
> > Game 1: 11K 6D 5A KDA: 2.1
> > Game 2: 12K 4D 7A KDA: 3.6
> > Game 3: 6K 10D 4A KDA: .7
> > Game 4: 4K 8D 9A KDA: .9
> > Game 5: 8K 8D 3A KDA: 1.1
> > Game 6: 7K 5D 10A KDA: 2.6
> > The KDA of each game was done with my formula
> > Total Kills: 48 Total Deaths:41 Total Assits:38
> > Using the games formula we get a total KDA of
> > 3.3
> > Using my formula we get:
> > 1.83
> > Conclusion.
> > The games formula gives you a very high value in regards to your performance. I think this is deliberate to give players sense of accomplishment even if they do poorly.
> > The result of my method is far more accurate. Looking at the KDA of each game max KDA was 3.6 and minimum was .7 so the result 1. 83 is very well in between these values.
> > No as for Win rate that’s easy. Wins/Games played. This means that if your result is 1 then you win 100% of your games (YOU ARE OP)
> > And now for the main reason of this whole shindig. Simple;
> > RANK SHOULDN’T BE A FORMULA THAT CALCULATES KDA WITH WIN RATE. IT SHOULD BE A GRAPH OR A CHART. WHERE 2 VALUES MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO BE A CERTAIN RANK. Like so.
> > Bronze Ranks range from 0KDA to 1.1KDA with a win ratio between .0 to .29
> > Silver Ranks Range from 1.2KDA to 1.7KDA with a win ratio between .3 to .39
> > Gold Ranks Range from 1.8KDA to 2.3KDA with a win ratio between .4 to .49
> > Platinum Ranks from 2.4KDA to 3.0KDA with a win ratio of .5 to .59
> > Onyx Ranks from 3.0KDA or higher with a win ratio of .60 or higher.
> >
> > Many would find this system easy to fulfill. But remember this is using my idea and everybody would be on the same boat so you would facing players with the same stats as you are, meaning it’s gonna be a tough to keep a certain rank and a lot tougher to rise up.
>
>
> as far as stats go, an overall kdr is great. Its nice to be able to go back and look at the totals.
>
> however, this doesn’t account for learning or changes in rank etc. A rolling KDR of the most recent 30-50 games would be a good indicator of how you’re playing at that moment, with individual game kdr being available as well.
>
> As for ranking… I think its a neat idea to factor in kdr as one of two metrics… but how do you account for super high kdr but a low win rate? is that player better than someone with a slightly higher win rate but the kdr within your established parameters?
>
> in the long run kdr is a poor metric for quantifying skill. its is certainly correlated, and likely a good metric for estimation of a player, but using it as objectively as you’ve outlined is problematic and a biased way of looking at this game.
I believe that KDA is actually a very important factor BUT NOT THE DECIDING ONE. Why? Even in objective gametypes KDA is very important since the respawns take longer than other gametypes. Imagine playing CTF and your team is always down 2 players because the enemy keeps killing players constantly? This means it will be harder to attack and defend.
A player with ridiculous KDA but low win rate wouldn’t get far the same would be for a player with a high win rate but low KDA.
That’s why Win Rate and KDA are measured separately.
Using a single factor for rank is very one sided. Meaning that a player can have a very low KDA but a high Win Rate and still rank up, here you will wind players that rely on the skills of others to win and on the other side players with high KDA and low Win Rate mean that they focus on killing, kill stealing, power weapon hogging etc.
And in the same sense using BOTH factors in the same calculation means that you can still rank up even if you do poorly on 1 of the 2 aspects. Where in truth the real factor to rank up should be both aspects being good and independent of each other, so that one will not out-weigh the other. A player with a KDA of 4.2 but a Win rate of .33 means that he is a Silver Rank, because no matter how many he kills apparenlty he loses a lot. In the same manner a player with .8KDA but .46 Win rate would still be a bronze since apparenlty individual skill seems to be lacking. Take into note that the game uses KDA (Kills + Assists) are summed up. So it’s not just Kills vs Deaths. So even players who have a high Assist count are rewarded for it. An hence, having a favorable KDA isn’t much of a problem.
calling it one sided is wrong.
using win loss, and win loss alone, serves all play styles- the support player to the killing machine. win loss is all-sided.
by factoring in anything other than strictly winning you favor that play style over another.
does it suck to have your matches stifled because you dont have a full team? yes. but the answer isnt to factor in kdr, or any other metric. the answer is to match lonewolves with lonewolves and teams with teams.
> 2533274855279867;278:
> calling it one sided is wrong.
>
> using win loss, and win loss alone, serves all play styles- the support player to the killing machine. win loss is all-sided.
>
> by factoring in anything other than strictly winning you favor that play style over another.
>
> does it suck to have your matches stifled because you dont have a full team? yes. but the answer isnt to factor in kdr, or any other metric. the answer is to match lonewolves with lonewolves and teams with teams.
Not really, And I say again, It’s KDA not KDR. KDR means taking into account Kills vs Death and no assists. So your claims do not stand for “the support player”. Where Halo sums Kills with Assist. Which makes KDA relatively easy to maintain in a good margin. If a player does poorly, even on providing assists, and has a high win rate. Then it simply means that said player’s individual skill is poor and hence is dead weight to rest of the team. Before people can make any claim of being “good” first they have to be individually good also. So in other words a high win % vs a low KDR means that you are being carried by the rest.
Doesn’t it suck when you look at the end game stats, and there is a player with 12 deaths 2kills and 6 assists? He dies more than kills and assists combined.
Even for objective game types he did nothing to help the team.
So Win/Loss is not a deciding factor.
I suggest you play the game and understand how relatively easy the dynamics work for it. Then make your statements.
> 2533274819944112;279:
> > 2533274855279867;278:
> > calling it one sided is wrong.
> >
> > using win loss, and win loss alone, serves all play styles- the support player to the killing machine. win loss is all-sided.
> >
> > by factoring in anything other than strictly winning you favor that play style over another.
> >
> > does it suck to have your matches stifled because you dont have a full team? yes. but the answer isnt to factor in kdr, or any other metric. the answer is to match lonewolves with lonewolves and teams with teams.
>
>
> Not really, And I say again, It’s KDA not KDR. KDR means taking into account Kills vs Death and no assists. So your claims do not stand for “the support player”. Where Halo sums Kills with Assist. Which makes KDA relatively easy to maintain in a good margin. If a player does poorly, even on providing assists, and has a high win rate. Then it simply means that said player’s individual skill is poor and hence is dead weight to rest of the team. Before people can make any claim of being “good” first they have to be individually good also. So in other words a high win % vs a low KDR means that you are being carried by the rest.
> Doesn’t it suck when you look at the end game stats, and there is a player with 12 deaths 2kills and 6 assists? He dies more than kills and assists combined.
> Even for objective game types he did nothing to help the team.
> So Win/Loss is not a deciding factor.
> I suggest you play the game and understand how relatively easy the dynamics work for it. Then make your statements.
your suggestion is noted, and most likely your way of dismissing me for having not yet played the game. poor argumentation.
whats unfortunate is that i addressed assists when i said anything other than wins will bias the game and leave play styles out of the equation.
your metric is a narrow band of what it means to be good at halo. you can get nitpicky about whatever silly idea or initialism your throwing around, but the fact remains that winning is the truest measure for skill in this game as it allows all brands of skill to factor in without bias.
> 2533274844333880;1:
> Recently, it’s been very infuriating for me to play and try and achieve the rank I’d like to reach in Arena playlists. The fact that you MUST win in order to gain an increase to your rank has nothing to do with your own personal skill level and performance in game. If by any chance you get stuck with players who simply aren’t good in a match, you’re the one who suffers from the loss and a rank decrease because your teammates couldn’t pull their own weight while you’re the highest scoring playing in the game. I honestly believe that players should be given the opportunity to rank up based on their performance in game. Suffering rank decreases from loss due to teammates who suck seriously shouldn’t have anything to do with your personal rank. Communication is key yes, but 90% of the time, NO ONE speaks a word to aid each other.
>
> 343i should seriously consider changing the system. I know it’s how the old styles of Halo used the system, but for a hardcore competitive player such as myself, it’s infuriating if you’re the best scorer on the team, lose and have a rank removed from your stats.
But you could end up with a halo 4 style ranking where you could get a 50 in big team by simply sprinting into the enemy, trading, repeat and score the best on your team by getting 24 kills and 28 deaths. I don’t think that is actually being the best on the team.