In Halo 3 everyone in the top 50% got a win on the leaderboards/Service Record in all Free-For-All playlists. In Halo 5 only the top player gets a win. That means that Infection and Free-For-All playlists destroys your Win/Loss ratio much easier than it should. What do you guys think?
In a team game, it makes sense that the team wins because it is a team effort. For FFA, it makes sense that the top guy wins because it is not a team effort. No one else should win because they did not contribute to him winning, other than dying. In Infection, its really hard to judge, since its ffa, but technically team. Youre fighting for your own survival, but so are the other survivors. Same case with infected. I think with infection its ok to do a top 3 at the most, but otherwise, no.
As Ricky Bobby would say if your not first your last
Because they didn’t win.
> 2533274808132968;2:
> No one else should win because they did not contribute to him winning, other than dying.
Sorry, but that’s not true. Yeah, they did die to give him kills, but people do contribute to someone winning. Other players can get people weak so all he has to do is get clean up kills and they can take out people with power weapons so they’re not a threat to his lead anymore. I’m sure there’s more, but those are two easy ones.
Anyway, I’d be fine with the top 3 counting as win. I think they made it so the top 4 counted as a win in previous games, but I’m not positive on that.
Not going to make a statement about free-for-all, but for infection I feel that if the zombies win a round the two who started off infected should get win credit. If the survivors win, the ones left alive should get win credit. Whoever has the most win credit at the end of the match wins the game.
> 2533274880633045;6:
> Not going to make a statement about free-for-all, but for infection I feel that if the zombies win a round the two who started off infected should get win credit. If the survivors win, the ones left alive should get win credit. Whoever has the most win credit at the end of the match wins the game.
So kinda like breakout?
Why not just remove stat tracking from infection altogether? Having a casual, social game mode affect your ‘competitive’ stats makes no sense.
> 2533274978553590;8:
> Why not just remove stat tracking from infection altogether? Having a casual, social game mode affect your ‘competitive’ stats makes no sense.
I second this motion.
Because the lost
> 2727626560040591;5:
> > 2533274808132968;2:
> > No one else should win because they did not contribute to him winning, other than dying.
>
>
> Sorry, but that’s not true. Yeah, they did die to give him kills, but people do contribute to someone winning. Other players can get people weak so all he has to do is get clean up kills and they can take out people with power weapons so they’re not a threat to his lead anymore. I’m sure there’s more, but those are two easy ones.
>
> Anyway, I’d be fine with the top 3 counting as win. I think they made it so the top 4 counted as a win in previous games, but I’m not positive on that.
They didnt finish their kill and map control.
> 2533274881086487;7:
> > 2533274880633045;6:
> > Not going to make a statement about free-for-all, but for infection I feel that if the zombies win a round the two who started off infected should get win credit. If the survivors win, the ones left alive should get win credit. Whoever has the most win credit at the end of the match wins the game.
>
>
> So kinda like breakout?
More for the individuals, survivors who die would still become infected. You die as a survivor you get nothing. You fail to infect everyone you get nothing. Lets call it this way. I spawn infected and fail to get everyone infected. No points for me. I spawn as a survivor rd 2. I survive 1 point. RD3 Survivor I die No Point. RD 4 infected everyone dies 1 point. etc… In the end whichever individual or individuals in the event of a tie have the most points win. Everyone else gets a loss.
Nah, I think its good for it to utterly destroy your stats.
The game is way more fun when you don’t worry about stats. Free yourself of the burden now.
> 2533274891841289;13:
> Nah, I think its good for it to utterly destroy your stats.
>
> The game is way more fun when you don’t worry about stats. Free yourself of the burden now.
Lol stop being controlled by the binding chain of kd and WL. Set your self free!!!
> 2533274808132968;11:
> They didnt finish their kill and map control.
And by doing so, other people helped contribute for that person to win the game other than just dying to him which was the point I was trying to make. With that, that’s all I’ll say about it since it’s not that important.
If not the top 50% gets a win like in Halo 3, it should be at least top 3, if not that neither I think removing stat tracking from Infection and/or FFA is most ideal. If only the top player gets a win on the service record, over 90% of all players playing Infection or Free-For-All will get a negative win/loss ratio. That’s not reasonable for neither Infection players nor Free-For-All players in my opinion.
> 2533274881086487;14:
> > 2533274891841289;13:
> > Nah, I think its good for it to utterly destroy your stats.
> >
> > The game is way more fun when you don’t worry about stats. Free yourself of the burden now.
>
>
> Lol stop being controlled by the binding chain of kd and WL. Set your self free!!!
Do it now or America will do it for you.
> 2533274808132968;2:
> In a team game, it makes sense that the team wins because it is a team effort. For FFA, it makes sense that the top guy wins because it is not a team effort. No one else should win because they did not contribute to him winning, other than dying. In Infection, its really hard to judge, since its ffa, but technically team. Youre fighting for your own survival, but so are the other survivors. Same case with infected. I think with infection its ok to do a top 3 at the most, but otherwise, no.
But infection IS a team effort… So therefore it should be top half