Since I have mixed feelings about the ranking system, which is not the main point of this post, I was wondering how people would feel about reducing playlist qualification matches in arena from 10 to 5. Also what factors go into determining rank in a playlist?
Wouldn’t less matches mean a less accurate ranking?
Win/Loss
Personal performance
who you played against
I imagine everyone would be on board. Placement matches are so random 
Every month, I play about 8 games in a playlist, other than BTB. So I maybe get ranked in like one playlist. And it’s usually Gold because I don’t bother grinding to make it higher.
Honestly, I don’t even see the appeal behind trying to rank up. But that’s just me. I just wanna do cool things on the battlefield.
EDIT: Although I suppose that if you’re the type to grind to increase your rank, you also wouldn’t mind playing ten matches to start with.
> 2560081931056311;2:
> Wouldn’t less matches mean a less accurate ranking?
> Win/Loss
> Personal performance
> who you played against
Well IMO I think it would be a lot more precise in determining how a player will fare against players in another rank. I just feel like there can be a lot of fluctuation with individual performance as well as wins/losses with 10 games
> 2533274808210415;4:
> Every month, I play about 8 games in a playlist, other than BTB. So I maybe get ranked in like one playlist. And it’s usually Gold because I don’t bother grinding to make it higher.
>
> Honestly, I don’t even see the appeal behind trying to rank up. But that’s just me. I just wanna do cool things on the battlefield.
>
> EDIT: Although I suppose that if you’re the type to grind to increase your rank, you also wouldn’t mind playing ten matches to start with.
^This is me. I honestly could care less about my rank for a month. I just want to enjoy the game, and do really well. Grinding for ranks doesn’t appeal to me at all. I normally just play 10 matches in Swat, since that’s my main playlist. And the fact that if your teammates are crapping around causes your rank to decrease, is enough of a reason for me to not care.
> 2533274924456243;5:
> > 2560081931056311;2:
> > Wouldn’t less matches mean a less accurate ranking?
> > Win/Loss
> > Personal performance
> > who you played against
>
>
> Well IMO I think it would be a lot more precise in determining how a player will fare against players in another rank. I just feel like there can be a lot of fluctuation with individual performance as well as wins/losses with 10 games
A lot of fluctuation generally means the good games were just good luck. More data always leads to more accurate results. Like I said, it takes into account how well you do against different ranks.
If you get stomped by an onyx, but run circles around golds, you’ll probably be plat.
> 2560081931056311;2:
> Wouldn’t less matches mean a less accurate ranking?
> Win/Loss
> Personal performance
> who you played against
It’s already inaccurate with how it currently works, matching up Golds with Onyx. I doubt we would see a difference if the number of required matches was reduced.
I’d be inclined to disagree. But seeing as how it doesn’t seem to accurately place you with your skill level I’d have to change my mind and say yes.
This month I’ve been jumping on the Arena at least twice a day to get my placement matches done. I did it twice a day to keep the cycle fresh so I wouldn’t burn myself out or get angry at a loss. Since 16 matches is a chore I wanted to make sure I was on the top of my game for the two matches everyday.
Than boom! All wins. Went positive every match. Snagged the top of the leaderboards every match. Earned most flag scores, bomb detonations, captures, kills ect. Got a placement in Gold 1… And now every game I play as a gold is one with betrayerers and people who shoot me because they forget which team they’re on or they get fustrated or want the power weapon. And the lots of quitters too. Or the enemy team just sucks and I feel bad that my team is destroying them.
I usually average at Platinum except this month. Last month I went Plat 7? And I LOSSED all my placement matches because like I said, I got burnt out and fustrated at the game. Thing is. I’m not overly competitive unless I want to be. I just want to score high enough to play with others that keep the game interesting and competitive. But whatever. This whole system in place is too random and obscure.
> 2533274852660538;8:
> > 2560081931056311;2:
> > Wouldn’t less matches mean a less accurate ranking?
> > Win/Loss
> > Personal performance
> > who you played against
>
>
> It’s already inaccurate with how it currently works, matching up Golds with Onyx. I doubt we would see a difference if the number of required matches was reduced.
Doesn’t matter how bad it already is, it still would make it worse, even if it was by a small percentage.
I don’t care much about the rank, I just want to be able to play against opponents of the same skill. The chance to be able to do that gets wiped away at the beginning of each month because so much time is spent with everyone trying to get re-ranked. When in reality, most of those folks aren’t going to have a drastic change in rank anyway. As far as I can tell, the ranked arena matches are the only form of skills based matchmaking that the game has. People playing against opponents of much higher skill so much leads to folks quiting.
> 2560081931056311;10:
> > 2533274852660538;8:
> > > 2560081931056311;2:
> > > Wouldn’t less matches mean a less accurate ranking?
> > > Win/Loss
> > > Personal performance
> > > who you played against
> >
> >
> > It’s already inaccurate with how it currently works, matching up Golds with Onyx. I doubt we would see a difference if the number of required matches was reduced.
>
>
> Doesn’t matter how bad it already is, it still would make it worse, even if it was by a small percentage.
How can it get worse if our current ranking system already matches low levels with high levels?
nah
> 2533274852660538;12:
> > 2560081931056311;10:
> > > 2533274852660538;8:
> > > > 2560081931056311;2:
> > > > Wouldn’t less matches mean a less accurate ranking?
> > > > Win/Loss
> > > > Personal performance
> > > > who you played against
> > >
> > >
> > > It’s already inaccurate with how it currently works, matching up Golds with Onyx. I doubt we would see a difference if the number of required matches was reduced.
> >
> >
> > Doesn’t matter how bad it already is, it still would make it worse, even if it was by a small percentage.
>
>
> How can it get worse if our current ranking system already matches low levels with high levels?
Because its not at 0% right now. Its probably at like 25% good-ness (for the sake of my point)
I get matched with people perfectly fine, so its working well for at least one person.
> 2560081931056311;14:
> > 2533274852660538;12:
> > > 2560081931056311;10:
> > > > 2533274852660538;8:
> > > > > 2560081931056311;2:
> > > > > Wouldn’t less matches mean a less accurate ranking?
> > > > > Win/Loss
> > > > > Personal performance
> > > > > who you played against
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It’s already inaccurate with how it currently works, matching up Golds with Onyx. I doubt we would see a difference if the number of required matches was reduced.
> > >
> > >
> > > Doesn’t matter how bad it already is, it still would make it worse, even if it was by a small percentage.
> >
> >
> > How can it get worse if our current ranking system already matches low levels with high levels?
>
>
> Because its not at 0% right now. Its probably at like 25% good-ness (for the sake of my point)
>
> I get matched with people perfectly fine, so its working well for at least one person.
Any arena game I’m in always has a mix of Gold, silver, Diamond and Onyx. That doesn’t seem too accurate in my view.
It honestly needs to have a ranking system that matches equal ranks. A gold should never be matched with an Onyx. No mix and match ranked games.
> 2533274852660538;15:
> > 2560081931056311;14:
> > > 2533274852660538;12:
> > > > 2560081931056311;10:
> > > > > 2533274852660538;8:
> > > > > > 2560081931056311;2:
> > > > > > Wouldn’t less matches mean a less accurate ranking?
> > > > > > Win/Loss
> > > > > > Personal performance
> > > > > > who you played against
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It’s already inaccurate with how it currently works, matching up Golds with Onyx. I doubt we would see a difference if the number of required matches was reduced.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Doesn’t matter how bad it already is, it still would make it worse, even if it was by a small percentage.
> > >
> > >
> > > How can it get worse if our current ranking system already matches low levels with high levels?
> >
> >
> > Because its not at 0% right now. Its probably at like 25% good-ness (for the sake of my point)
> >
> > I get matched with people perfectly fine, so its working well for at least one person.
>
>
> Any arena game I’m in always has a mix of Gold, silver, Diamond and Onyx. That doesn’t seem too accurate in my view.
>
> It honestly needs to have a ranking system that matches equal ranks. A gold should never be matched with an Onyx. No mix and match ranked games.
and the one’s I’M IN match me pretty well. The point is that it can get worse. I don’t know why this turned into such a debate.
Basic statistics. The larger your sample size, the more accurate it is. If I said 100% of gamer enjoy halo 5 that would be wrong because I only asked myself that and not 10,000 gamers.
> 2560081931056311;2:
> Wouldn’t less matches mean a less accurate ranking?
> Win/Loss
> Personal performance
> who you played against
Who you played against plays an almost negligible role in deciding your rank after placements. What it takes into account the most is personal performance and a little bit of Win/Loss. In the February season I won 9/10 of my games in team arena against diamond players, most of the games weren’t even close, being in the range of getting a Steak medal if it were MCC, yet I still got placed into Diamond 5 because I had something like ~170 kills, ~120 assists and ~110 deaths while my partner through all 10 games got Onyx 1700 for getting ~190 kills, ~100 assists and ~100 deaths. We had almost the same stats and ended the previous season at roughly the same rank in Onyx. I also have an almost 5% better winrate than him yet the game still decided he deserved the highest possible placement after qualifiers and I should get diamond 5.
10 games should be a minimum threshold for qualifying matches. My suggestion would be for 343 to factor in your previous season’s rank when matching you into a qualifying match. 10 games of throwing together a team from a mashup of players from all different skills and ranks is not a good way to determine the initial rank of a player in my opinion.
> 2533274847545000;18:
> > 2560081931056311;2:
> > Wouldn’t less matches mean a less accurate ranking?
> > Win/Loss
> > Personal performance
> > who you played against
>
>
> Who you played against plays an almost negligible role in deciding your rank after placements. What it takes into account the most is personal performance and a little bit of Win/Loss. In the February season I won 9/10 of my games in team arena against diamond players, most of the games weren’t even close, being in the range of getting a Steak medal if it were MCC, yet I still got placed into Diamond 5 because I had something like ~170 kills, ~120 assists and ~110 deaths while my partner through all 10 games got Onyx 1700 for getting ~190 kills, ~100 assists and ~100 deaths. We had almost the same stats and ended the previous season at roughly the same rank in Onyx. I also have an almost 5% better winrate than him yet the game still decided he deserved the highest possible placement after qualifiers and I should get diamond 5.
What does that have to do with my comment? I mean, I understand the connection, but what’s your point?