One thing I’ve noticed from playing TMCC a lot is that there is no recognition or reward for limiting your deaths in matchmaking. What I mean is that a player can go 23-25 (K/D) and he’ll end up with a far higher score than someone who goes 18-4. I get that kills are important, and a lot of people think worrying about your K/D ratio is lame, but there should be some type of algorithm that also takes into account how much a person has died in a match. Ever since Halo 2, I’ve always been aware of the fact that in 4v4 (specifically), each person on a team can die 12 times, which leaves one extra death before the other team gets to 50 kills and wins. On twitter recently, 343 was asking for medal ideas for Halo Infinite. I think in 4v4 especially players should get a medal or points (Halo 4 style) for having 10 or less deaths. Sometimes I’ll only get 6-8 kills, but I’ll also only die 3-4 times. I notice that often the top players on my team also died a ton and it’s only because I wasn’t rushing to my death every 2 seconds that even allowed my team to win.
Perfection is 15 kills minimum and zero deaths, it’s an existing medal that should return.
Immortal is not dying once in breakout/elimination. It’s an existing medal that should return.
I feel like rewards for dying less could encourage people to hide and camp all game in fear that they would die.
> 2533274804182731;1:
> One thing I’ve noticed from playing TMCC a lot is that there is no recognition or reward for limiting your deaths in matchmaking. What I mean is that a player can go 23-25 (K/D) and he’ll end up with a far higher score than someone who goes 18-4. I get that kills are important, and a lot of people think worrying about your K/D ratio is lame, but there should be some type of algorithm that also takes into account how much a person has died in a match. Ever since Halo 2, I’ve always been aware of the fact that in 4v4 (specifically), each person on a team can die 12 times, which leaves one extra death before the other team gets to 50 kills and wins. On twitter recently, 343 was asking for medal ideas for Halo Infinite. I think in 4v4 especially players should get a medal or points (Halo 4 style) for having 10 or less deaths. Sometimes I’ll only get 6-8 kills, but I’ll also only die 3-4 times. I notice that often the top players on my team also died a ton and it’s only because I wasn’t rushing to my death every 2 seconds that even allowed my team to win.
Perfection is a good medal, but I agree that people should be rewarded not only for contributions but also not allowing the team to get points. And to some people, kills might be all that matters, and to some the other way around. Maybe in competitive game modes, if the model of Halo 5 were to return with a social and arena type split, maybe the leaderboard should be KDA based, not kill based, which I think could be interesting.
> 2533274909139271;2:
> Perfection is 15 kills minimum and zero deaths, it’s an existing medal that should return.
> Immortal is not dying once in breakout/elimination. It’s an existing medal that should return.
>
> I feel like rewards for dying less could encourage people to hide and camp all game in fear that they would die.
I mean, there are literally medals for everything. A melee, head shot, etc. And the medals you mentioned are medals you only get if you don’t die at all, which is really difficult, and not what i’m really getting at. It doesn’t have to be anything amazing. Maybe not even a medal, but your score should take into account that, despite getting almost 30 kills, you also died 35 times. There are plenty of medals that encourage camping unfortunately. I’m just wanting a better scoring system. Looks really dumb when someone has died the most, and more than the number of kills they got, and they’re still at the top of the score. There has a to be a way to give a more accurate score.
Its tough to gauge. Ex. Someone who goes 23-25 to someone who is 8-0. Who was more beneficial towards the game? I would say the guy who died 25 times. Just because they didn’t die doesn’t mean they deserve to be higher up in the leaderboard. You can sit back & camp in objective & rack up kills but not contribute. So I think they way the leaderboard shakes out now is correct.
If anything, assists should be weighted as .5 kills on the leaderboard. More so assists would count as points like in a WZ match or something, they could boost your overall score.
I’ve always felt assists should be weighted higher too. I disagree, however, with your example on someone going 23-25. They would have literally just given the other team half the kills needed for the other team to win. In my opinion, that is bad, very bad. Getting kills is important, but that kind of score (23-25) just shows that a specific player is reckless and too eager to rush into dying.
> 2533274826044245;5:
> Its tough to gauge. Ex. Someone who goes 23-25 to someone who is 8-0. Who was more beneficial towards the game? I would say the guy who died 25 times. Just because they didn’t die doesn’t mean they deserve to be higher up in the leaderboard. You can sit back & camp in objective & rack up kills but not contribute. So I think they way the leaderboard shakes out now is correct.
>
> If anything, assists should be weighted as .5 kills on the leaderboard. More so assists would count as points like in a WZ match or something, they could boost your overall score.
> 2533274804182731;6:
> I’ve always felt assists should be weighted higher too. I disagree, however, with your example on someone going 23-25. They would have literally just given the other team half the kills needed for the other team to win. In my opinion, that is bad, very bad. Getting kills is important, but that kind of score (23-25) just shows that a specific player is reckless and too eager to rush into dying.
“Value” of a player to the team is a really vague concept that’s ultimately subjective. Kill and death counts alone don’t actually tell you much. How I woukd feel about each of these situations, 23–25 and 8–0, depends a lot on what actually happened in the match. The player who went 23–25 could just have been rushing too carelessly and been an overall hindrance to the team’s success, or they could’ve equally well made a very calculated decision to play aggressively, heliping their team keep control, and reducing how much the rest of the team died, in which case their efforts could as well have been the key to the team’s success. When it comse to the 8–0 player, they could’ve been a careful support player, putting in lots of assists. Alternatively, they could’ve just been a camper who might have been more useful if they had been less worried about dying.
You literally can’t tell how valuable a player was to their team based solely on how much they killed and how much they died, bceause there’s so much to the specifics of how the match actually played out. Sometimes there is a good reason for going negative, and sometimes there’s a good reason for not being the top slayer. I doubt there exists a consistent scheme for ranking a team based on kills, deaths, and assists such that any single person (let alone the players who actually were in the match) would agree with the rankings in every possible scenario.
The way I think of it is this. If someone has lots of kills and deaths it probably means they were very aggressive all game. Having an aggressive or objective player on team is kinda nice, don’t see it a lot. You know he is just gonna jump in and maybe distract the enemy up. Least someone on team will be pressuring. Good k/d usually just means they were careful, maybe fighting 1v1s when they could, going for flanks, or picking off people that were going after the aggressive guy.
Both have their value and it’s good to have a rumble pit player sometimes too, just need to have a team support him
> 2533274833309866;8:
> The way I think of it is this. If someone has lots of kills and deaths it probably means they were very aggressive all game. Having an aggressive or objective player on team is kinda nice, don’t see it a lot. You know he is just gonna jump in and maybe distract the enemy up. Least someone on team will be pressuring. Good k/d usually just means they were careful, maybe fighting 1v1s when they could, going for flanks, or picking off people that were going after the aggressive guy.
> Both have their value and it’s good to have a rumble pit player sometimes too, just need to have a team support him
I agree with you when players are playing aggressively in objective games, but not so much in slayer. I should have clarified.
> 2533274804182731;4:
> > 2533274909139271;2:
> > Perfection is 15 kills minimum and zero deaths, it’s an existing medal that should return.
> > Immortal is not dying once in breakout/elimination. It’s an existing medal that should return.
> >
> > I feel like rewards for dying less could encourage people to hide and camp all game in fear that they would die.
>
> I mean, there are literally medals for everything. A melee, head shot, etc. And the medals you mentioned are medals you only get if you don’t die at all, which is really difficult, and not what i’m really getting at. It doesn’t have to be anything amazing. Maybe not even a medal, but your score should take into account that, despite getting almost 30 kills, you also died 35 times. There are plenty of medals that encourage camping unfortunately. I’m just wanting a better scoring system. Looks really dumb when someone has died the most, and more than the number of kills they got, and they’re still at the top of the score. There has a to be a way to give a more accurate score.
“I’m just wanting a better scoring system.” Dont we all, the halo 5 Community has been preaching for a better UI for years and I’m in full support for halo infinite to have great UI changes. As for anyone going 30-35 and -5 on their KD spread, that person is hurting their in any gamemode that isn’t grifball, ctf, bomb, and other heavily objective base games. But slayer, Warzone, and invasion that score line is awful. (FFA and infection is a whole nother beast.)
> 2533274804182731;9:
> > 2533274833309866;8:
> > The way I think of it is this. If someone has lots of kills and deaths it probably means they were very aggressive all game. Having an aggressive or objective player on team is kinda nice, don’t see it a lot. You know he is just gonna jump in and maybe distract the enemy up. Least someone on team will be pressuring. Good k/d usually just means they were careful, maybe fighting 1v1s when they could, going for flanks, or picking off people that were going after the aggressive guy.
> > Both have their value and it’s good to have a rumble pit player sometimes too, just need to have a team support him
>
> I agree with you when players are playing aggressively in objective games, but not so much in slayer. I should have clarified.
Ah ok I get you