Skip to main content

Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

Banning should be based on performance as well.

OP McGrunty

Hear me out on this one.

How many times have you guys gotten into a slayer game or anything ranked and had 3 teammates go uberly negative, I don't mean like pretty negative, I'm talking about if that person didn't exist in the game, then it would have been won in a landslide victory. You know those people. The 4 kills and 27 deaths people in team slayer etc.

Honestly, besides people quitting constantly, this is my biggest problem with playing the game right now. So I want to put forward a new parameter to add to the ban-hammer: Personal Performance.

It would work like this: 3 games of being massively negative in a row in arena will result in a 13 minute performance ban. I'm dead serious. Continued horrible performance will result in consecutively longer bans, until you git gud, so to speak.

How would set the parameters of what is considered acceptable work? This would be broken down intricately based on what tier and rank you are. For example, a player who is silver ranked would have a pretty liberal area of being able to go negative without action being taken. An onyx ranked player would have much more stringent parameters set and would have to generally be positive or within 10 kills or less of being positive to not have a strike against them. This system would make it so low ranked play was still forgiving to players getting the hang of the game or just aren't going to advance, and high ranked play much more competitive as much more able bodied players will be in your bracket.

Reasoning for wanting this: When you quit a game it negatively impacts the environment for the remaining players, ruining or at least negatively impacting the experience. But I put forward that games are equally ruined having utterly inept players on your team, especially in games where kills on deaths actually matter.

Of course another good option would be to have the ability to get deranked from the major tiers if you constantly are performing under your rank. This would be a much better option and would also decrease the amount of terrible teammates as those people are going to rank down and not be matched up with you (hopefully).
I'm all for allowing de-ranking from tiers based on bad performance (similar to how you lost ranks in H3).

But to ban someone from playing the game just because they aren't really that good at it? No, just no. Whether you're elite or casual noob, your performance shouldn't occasionally strip you of the ability to play for temporary periods of time. I mean, how is a bad player supposed to 'git gud' if they can't even play the game for minutes, hours, or even days at a time due to performance bans?
Play campaign, custom games, warzone. Until you at least have a BASE-line of skill to play arena.
Theres no need for banning, matchmaking should just be based primarly on KDA. And it should not put EU players on US Servers...
This is a horrible idea, just no, simple as.
lol this is new...hey you suck so you cant play this game...how would anyone learn to play and get better if theyre constantly getting banned for not doing well. what if that person is really trying but just cant get it together, now your going to ban them? this would really make people leave the game.
No, the guys that go negative are at least trying, and I salute the ones that stick it out, I was one of those players today, I played a game of SWAT to see if the servers were up (because of a thread) this morning, so we ended up 3v4, and won by a point, three games like that and you want me banned for 13 minutes for NOT quitting ? That's ridiculous, the one that quits deserves the ban, not the ones trying, the ones that have about 10 DNFs in 30 are the biggest problem in my opinion.
I wouldn't BAN them, but if you are consistently below a certain level you should de rank from your tier. Not for losing, but for personal performance. Winning should move you up in and between tiers, but losing should only lower you within the tier. Personal performance should be what decides if you lower tiers.
And the winner for dumbest idea of the year makes it in at the wire. They should ban people for discrimination of new players.
Or you could build your own team.

This whole argument about my teammates are inept, falls completely on anyone who does not join up with a party of four. I'm sorry, but playing solo or with 2 or 3 people is your fault. If people care so much about getting higher ranks, then you will need a team. Simple as that.
Haha this is quite funny. Although I absolutely hate losing because I have 2 players always going negative, they shouldn't be banned. I think other things would work better. For example, in GTAV, players who behave badly get put into the "dunce lobby", a lobby full of other players who have bad behavior. I think all " bad" players should have something similar happen. After a few games of consecutive bad gameplay, make it so they're only able to find other players who also constantly go negative. I think that would be fair, they can still play, and maybe they won't get destroyed like they do when facing skilled players.
Yes, and they should also ban you if you don't buy REQs on a regular basis and if you go into the pause menu. Cause going into the pause menu means you are denying your team mates your effort and if you do that then that's very bad. Especially in a Video Game.
How about no. You must be joking. Not everyone can be a pro. Stripping people of the ability to play a game just because they are bad at it is one of the worst ideas I have heard yet. If anyone gets banned it should be people like you that suggest crap like this. They payed for the game just like you did. If you really want a good team you need to make your own before going into the arena. Joining random people, obviously you are going to occasionally get put with people who have less experience or are just playing for fun rather than to be in the top rankings, and they won't always be good, but enjoy it anyway.
McGrunty wrote:
Hear me out on this one.
How many times have you guys gotten into a slayer game or anything ranked and had 3 teammates go uberly negative, I don't mean like pretty negative, I'm talking about if that person didn't exist in the game, then it would have been won in a landslide victory. You know those people. The 4 kills and 27 deaths people in team slayer etc.
Honestly, besides people quitting constantly, this is my biggest problem with playing the game right now. So I want to put forward a new parameter to add to the ban-hammer: Personal Performance.
It would work like this: 3 games of being massively negative in a row in arena will result in a 13 minute performance ban. I'm dead serious. Continued horrible performance will result in consecutively longer bans, until you git gud, so to speak.
How would set the parameters of what is considered acceptable work? This would be broken down intricately based on what tier and rank you are. For example, a player who is silver ranked would have a pretty liberal area of being able to go negative without action being taken. An onyx ranked player would have much more stringent parameters set and would have to generally be positive or within 10 kills or less of being positive to not have a strike against them. This system would make it so low ranked play was still forgiving to players getting the hang of the game or just aren't going to advance, and high ranked play much more competitive as much more able bodied players will be in your bracket.
Reasoning for wanting this: When you quit a game it negatively impacts the environment for the remaining players, ruining or at least negatively impacting the experience. But I put forward that games are equally ruined having utterly inept players on your team, especially in games where kills on deaths actually matter.
Of course another good option would be to have the ability to get deranked from the major tiers if you constantly are performing under your rank. This would be a much better option and would also decrease the amount of terrible teammates as those people are going to rank down and not be matched up with you (hopefully).
Get out of here with that crap. That's just kicking people when they're down.
What about CTF / Stronghold games?
Theoretically, I could go 4-25 with 20 flag grabs. I could be the ONLY ONE on my team going into the enemy base to grab the flag (you know, the objective of the gametype), cap the flag Twice, and lose the game 3-2.

Would my performance be rated poorly because I was only able to get 4 kills? Would I be ranked high because I was able to grab the flag 15 times, or because I was able to actually Cap the flag twice?

If your system is based ONLY on a KDA or K/D ratio, then in games types other than slayer it would promote kill farming and not doing the actual objective of the game. I can't even begin to count the number of times my ENTIRE TEAM has gone negative KDA in a game and still won (by a significant margin) because we are going for the objectives (flags, strongholds) while the other team is just camping and farming kills.
JHC, get a freaking team to play with and stop blaming everyone else for your failure to win. Honestly, banning people because they're bad at the game is just about the most outrageous thing I've heard on these forums, and that's saying something.
I got a horrible idea going for 200. 200. 200. 200. Do I hear a 3? Do I hear a 3. Do I hear a 3. SOLD TO MCGRUNTY!
This thread is AIDS. Nobody should be penalized because they performed badly. They're playing the game as it was designed, OP. For some, this is their first Halo and not everybody is going to be as good as elite players
McGrunty wrote:
Hear me out on this one.

How many times have you guys gotten into a slayer game or anything ranked and had 3 teammates go uberly negative, I don't mean like pretty negative, I'm talking about if that person didn't exist in the game, then it would have been won in a landslide victory. You know those people. The 4 kills and 27 deaths people in team slayer etc.

Honestly, besides people quitting constantly, this is my biggest problem with playing the game right now. So I want to put forward a new parameter to add to the ban-hammer: Personal Performance.

It would work like this: 3 games of being massively negative in a row in arena will result in a 13 minute performance ban. I'm dead serious. Continued horrible performance will result in consecutively longer bans, until you git gud, so to speak.

How would set the parameters of what is considered acceptable work? This would be broken down intricately based on what tier and rank you are. For example, a player who is silver ranked would have a pretty liberal area of being able to go negative without action being taken. An onyx ranked player would have much more stringent parameters set and would have to generally be positive or within 10 kills or less of being positive to not have a strike against them. This system would make it so low ranked play was still forgiving to players getting the hang of the game or just aren't going to advance, and high ranked play much more competitive as much more able bodied players will be in your bracket.

Reasoning for wanting this: When you quit a game it negatively impacts the environment for the remaining players, ruining or at least negatively impacting the experience. But I put forward that games are equally ruined having utterly inept players on your team, especially in games where kills on deaths actually matter.

Of course another good option would be to have the ability to get deranked from the major tiers if you constantly are performing under your rank. This would be a much better option and would also decrease the amount of terrible teammates as those people are going to rank down and not be matched up with you (hopefully).
Where's the dislike button?