> 2533274828997656;140:
> > 2533274946634226;3:
> > They should be comprised of both W/L and individual performance. Why this community continues to debate whether it should be one or the other totally escapes my understanding. Both factors are important, and therefore both have a place within ranking equation.
>
>
> ^^^ I total agree with this. The above is by far the most logical and fair way to assess and allocate rank in arena
Because W/L already encompasses everything personal performance is, and as soon as you put in personal performance you make it exploitable, or alternatively, the personal performance factor is so small it’s not exploitable, but barely matters anyway so it’s redundant.
Are you there to win? W/L
Are you there to rank up? Then you need to question which way you want to rank up, and ponder how well current playlists fit that type of ranking up. Any playlist with a Victory condition and one team/player wins, is not the appropriate playlist for Personal Performance.
If you’re really there to win, then you get team mates to play with, if you for some unknown reason are unable to gather enough friends to play with whenever you’re on, then that is your problem, it’s your issue that you are not able to get friends to play with and win with. Your ability to win is part team building. If you don’t win with the team you have, there’s a problem with the team, a weak link, and what do you do with weak links? You enforce them or replace them. Most come on here acknowledging that bad team mates drag their team down, knowing that the team was bad due to a weak link. However most of those do not take control into their own hands despite all the tools being easily accessible in order to do something about it.
Halo: Reach has in this very thread been mentioned several times to have used Personal Performance. It was later switched for W/L due to players not playing to win, playing against the team.
> 2533274912984822;83:
> > 2533274821977927;33:
> > Guys, I’m not sure why this argument is still up. It is currently based on both Team Performance and Individual KDA.
> > This is the way it is set up:
> >
> > First 10 Games - Unranked.
> > After 10th Game - Ranked based on INDIVIDUAL SKILL. You could lose 9 games and still be plat, because of your INDIVIDUAL SKILL.
> > Anything after being Ranked:
> > DIRECTION (CSR GOING UP OR DOWN) is based on WIN or LOSS
> > DISTANCE (CSR GOING UP OR DOWN BY 5 OR 10, for example) is based on Individual KDA.
> >
> > Game 11: I go 15 - 4 (I had a great KDA) Team Lost 47-50 (Team Lost). This then happens:
> >
> > Pregame CSR = 1200
> > Postgame CSR = 1195
> >
> > IF GAME 11 went like this:
> > Game 11: I go 15 - 10 Team still lost 47-50. This happens:
> >
> > Pregame CSR = 1200
> > Postgame CSR = 1190
> >
> > What are we missing here? This is a pretty solid system.
Simply not true. I’m still platinum and have been going up and down by of win-loss-win-loss… And I go positive almost every game ( not boasting ) and still go down
this is something ive been hating sense halo 5 came out. id always be pared up with a bunch of people that just got the game and we’d end up losing, causing me to lose my rank. thanks, 343! (seriously tho, this needs to be balanced out a little better, other than this its a really fun game)
For Slayer,
A Win with a positive KDA should rank you up.
A Loss with positive KDA shouldn’t derank you.
A Win with negative KDA shouldn’t rank you up.
A Loss with negative KDA should derank you.
For objective playlists, KDA should be disregarded and only Wins/Losses should be considered. However, if you have a lot of objective points, (Flag Grabs, Carrier Kills, etc.) then no XP should be deducted. You tried. Not your fault.
Way too many people have high ranks in Slayer playlist while having -Yoink- KDAs. This really should be happening.
I completely agree that performance should be the main variable in ranking up. Players who “earn” a platinum or diamond rank through just obtaining the appropriate wins for qualification doesn’t make them a good player. I’ve consistently been matched with what in reality are bronzies and I get swamped in the playlists I know I damn well deserve to be in. Performance should be the key component, not wins.
> 2533274795123910;142:
> > 2533274828997656;140:
> > > 2533274946634226;3:
> > > They should be comprised of both W/L and individual performance. Why this community continues to debate whether it should be one or the other totally escapes my understanding. Both factors are important, and therefore both have a place within ranking equation.
> >
> >
> > ^^^ I total agree with this. The above is by far the most logical and fair way to assess and allocate rank in arena
>
>
> Because W/L already encompasses everything personal performance is, and as soon as you put in personal performance you make it exploitable, or alternatively, the personal performance factor is so small it’s not exploitable, but barely matters anyway so it’s redundant.
>
> Are you there to win? W/L
> Are you there to rank up? Then you need to question which way you want to rank up, and ponder how well current playlists fit that type of ranking up. Any playlist with a Victory condition and one team/player wins, is not the appropriate playlist for Personal Performance.
>
> If you’re really there to win, then you get team mates to play with, if you for some unknown reason are unable to gather enough friends to play with whenever you’re on, then that is your problem, it’s your issue that you are not able to get friends to play with and win with. Your ability to win is part team building. If you don’t win with the team you have, there’s a problem with the team, a weak link, and what do you do with weak links? You enforce them or replace them. Most come on here acknowledging that bad team mates drag their team down, knowing that the team was bad due to a weak link. However most of those do not take control into their own hands despite all the tools being easily accessible in order to do something about it.
>
> Halo: Reach has in this very thread been mentioned several times to have used Personal Performance. It was later switched for W/L due to players not playing to win, playing against the team.
Really, I think the reason why people have these experiences with having bad teammates is with how 343 fails to properly match players who are playing individually vs those who play in a 4 man party. I see frustrations with this ranking system, but it wouldn’t be as severe if 343 actually took the time to match players based on the amount of people in their party. I think W/L should ultimately be a number 1 factor in ranking, but to make it the ONLY factor is unfair to those who fail to pull their weight and are carried by amazing teammates to win, and for those who are really good but ultimately lose because of their teammate’s lack of individual skill.
> 2533274840593197;149:
> I completely agree that performance should be the main variable in ranking up. Players who “earn” a platinum or diamond rank through just obtaining the appropriate wins for qualification doesn’t make them a good player. I’ve consistently been matched with what in reality are bronzies and I get swamped in the playlists I know I damn well deserve to be in. Performance should be the key component, not wins.
Individual performance should NEVER be the main factor in ranking. If this was the case, then 343 would have to carefully restrict any types of selfish exploits in an attempt for players to rank up without even winning the game. Performance should be a factor in ranking, but not a main factor; that would be W/L.
> 2745051201462131;8:
> If ranks were based on personal performance then it would encourages selfish play. K/D ratio becomes more important than win/loss.
I am annoyed with the ranking because no matter what happens if you get a -Yoink- team you lose your rank I dislike that a lot, I hate that it’s not your skill that dictates your skill
Most important stat for kill based games is your KDA… always has been in every shooter ever. Very simple way to look at it is this If you go 10 kills, 6 assists, and 8 deaths. If you look at the stats here that means you killed 10 people and did at least half of the kill on 6 others so add three more kills to your total. that stat now shows you at 13-8
+5 which is good.
The optimal ranking system would take into account how many kills, how many assists, and how many deaths. think of it like a sports stat, that’s your points, assists, and errors.
Also a more important note kills from assists should count for something more in the assisters favor depending on the damage they dealt. For example if I shoot a player down to the point a body shot with a plasma pistol would kill him… shouldn’t that be worth more than say just knocking his shield off or damaging his shield.
I personally loved reach’s arena ranking system because it took into account all of those things and gave you a numbered score based on your performance.
> 2533274921317503;154:
> > 2745051201462131;8:
> > If ranks were based on personal performance then it would encourages selfish play. K/D ratio becomes more important than win/loss.
>
>
> totall agree with you
This is why KDA > KD because it encourages team play.
I am not sure where I stand on this, though I must admit I am tired of being stuck at gold 1. I have seen gold 2 a few times but with all randoms it always goes back to gold 1.
I have improved my kd since this game came out, I had a horrible time with arena at first. Now I have gotten used to it and am getting better. But being stuck at gold 1 all the time kinda sucks.
I see both sides of the argument here…just kinda in between myself.
> 2533274835715555;19:
> NO!
>
> W/L is the only competetive system that ever will work. Performance will force people to steal the kills/powerwdapons from their teammates.
this, also in a 4v4 setting - it’s a skill to work with your team. if u want only individual performance rating - halo needs only ffa and 1 v 1