> i like most of those, but i yoinking HATE halo3s 1-50 system, it was too flawed. example. i get 30 kills 5 deaths in a game, but i lose rank since my team sucked. or if someone gets no kills but there team makes them win and they go up? i have nothing against a ranking system that puts you with players your skill level, but halo3s system was just yoink. if they came up with a better one based off individual preformence and a way to stop all the boosters that would be nice.
That’s an argument heard too many times: outsourcing the problem in fear of having to admit the person’s own incompetence. Now, I’m not saying the system was perfect, but not ranking up because of your team is a bad excuse. You see, team games aren’t work of an individual. In retrospect, it was a good thing that the ranking system of Halo 3 felt like it almost intentionally gave you a bad team. After all, that encouraged you to gather a decent team and play with them. But you really can’t blame the game for you being unable to advance in team playlists by yourself. After all, if you had wanted to done it all alone, you could’ve very well went to Lone Wolves.
But concerning getting bad teammates, that didn’t actually happen and was only a flawed perception caused by the selectivity of human mind. If you asked anyone, who has ever played Halo 3 ranked all by themselves in team playlist, what it felt like, you would always get the answer that they always got bad teammates. You could even find two players who had been in the same match claiming the same thing. Now, if everyone always got bad teammates and lost because of them, how come anyone lose when there was no one to win in the first place?
Your mind is selective. Only thing you’re ever going to find is what you’re looking for. In other words, your mind is trying to come up with an excuse for the lack of advancement in your rank. Of course, humans never want to admit their incompetence, thus external reasons are searched. Now, as you have quite a few games played and always have those few games in mind where you were exceptionally good but your team was bad. Of course you’re going to remember them and not the ones where your performance was average or the ones where your team lost because they had to drag your -10.
The truth is, you got matched with teams on your level most of the time, but as you never managed to utilize teamwork well enough, you didn’t hold much chances. Those matches where you actually did lose because of your team were planted deep into your mind to cover your own incompetence, incompetence of either to play or to form a team. But the truth about 1-50 is that it was good enough for ranking, but you couldn’t get a 50 if you weren’t good enough or didn’t have a team. The ranking system was dead honest about your skill, after hundreds of games it was really accurate and pretty much locked your in place. People simply are afraid to admit their own incompetence when they get stuck and don’t reach the max rank.
In reality, individual performance weights nothing in team games in the long run. If you think that your individual performance will save you and finally grant you that max rank, it won’t. After all, your average games are still the average of your performance. And your average teams are still the average teams. Together, all this combined gives you a rank not any more accurate than with pure win/loss and not any better or worse than your former pure win/loss. If it does, the system doesn’t work as your ability to win is the average of your performance.
