Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

Just frustrated

OP SatanasSum666

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2
I've always thought that it would be right to ensure that best players on the team take more points than the worst when you win, and lose less points when you lose.

In this way four players of the same team who play n ° games together, rise or fall at different speeds in the ranks and the carrying up / down is limited.
I'm sure it's a population/too many playlists problem. I think there are like 17-18 ranked and social playlists not including warzone which is way too many. I played team arena last night and played 8 games. 7 of them were against the same team. Im ranked diamond 3 and had 2 diamond team mates and a platinum. We played against 3 champs and an onyx. 6 games in a row. Definitly wasn't fun. I'm assuming just not enough players available to find a decent match.
Is there really that small of a community of halo players? It used to be huge. 343 needs to stop dropping the ball. They probably lost a lot of key players from back in the day
I'm sure it's a population/too many playlists problem. I think there are like 17-18 ranked and social playlists not including warzone which is way too many. I played team arena last night and played 8 games. 7 of them were against the same team. Im ranked diamond 3 and had 2 diamond team mates and a platinum. We played against 3 champs and an onyx. 6 games in a row. Definitly wasn't fun. I'm assuming just not enough players available to find a decent match.
Is there really that small of a community of halo players? It used to be huge. 343 needs to stop dropping the ball. They probably lost a lot of key players from back in the day
To be fair Halo 5 itself is four years old. I don't see anything particularly unusual about a game of that age starting to lose players. With other games around and the MCC being revitalized I'm not at all surprised it doesn't have a bustling community right now. It still has one, which does say something, but it's showing its age definitely.
LuKr4SH wrote:
I've always thought that it would be right to ensure that best players on the team take more points than the worst when you win, and lose less points when you lose.

In this way four players of the same team who play n ° games together, rise or fall at different speeds in the ranks and the carrying up / down is limited.
The system already does this by comparing your MMR (affected by kills per minute) with your CSR (affected by win/loss). That's why a team of 4 who play all 10 placement matches together don't place exactly the same unless they all hit the upper limit of Diamond 3.
This would never happen within the halo community, yet if more players used their mics and helped the lesser skilled plays the Halo world would be a much better place.
Yeah I'm sure the numbers are pretty low. But there are just way too many playlists so players are spread to thin. Heck even new games like cod have less playlists than 4 year old halo game.
Sylxeria wrote:
I'm sure it's a population/too many playlists problem. I think there are like 17-18 ranked and social playlists not including warzone which is way too many. I played team arena last night and played 8 games. 7 of them were against the same team. Im ranked diamond 3 and had 2 diamond team mates and a platinum. We played against 3 champs and an onyx. 6 games in a row. Definitly wasn't fun. I'm assuming just not enough players available to find a decent match.
Is there really that small of a community of halo players? It used to be huge. 343 needs to stop dropping the ball. They probably lost a lot of key players from back in the day
To be fair Halo 5 itself is four years old. I don't see anything particularly unusual about a game of that age starting to lose players. With other games around and the MCC being revitalized I'm not at all surprised it doesn't have a bustling community right now. It still has one, which does say something, but it's showing its age definitely.
Halo infinity will be awesome.
qlimm wrote:
LuKr4SH wrote:
I've always thought that it would be right to ensure that best players on the team take more points than the worst when you win, and lose less points when you lose.

In this way four players of the same team who play n ° games together, rise or fall at different speeds in the ranks and the carrying up / down is limited.
The system already does this by comparing your MMR (affected by kills per minute) with your CSR (affected by win/loss). That's why a team of 4 who play all 10 placement matches together don't place exactly the same unless they all hit the upper limit of Diamond 3.
given that I do not know perfectly how the MMR system works but, If this were the only parameter, I would find it strange because I could continually throw myself into the fray to make more kills, at the cost of making as many deaths and penalizing the team. Equally strange that a player with 15 kills and 20 deaths would have a higher KPM than one with 10 kills and 5 deaths.

I would find it more correct to evaluate KD or KDA, which generally rewards those who do not expose themselves too much and play in a more reasoned way. Or, in objective games, the position at the end of the game.
LuKr4SH wrote:
qlimm wrote:
LuKr4SH wrote:
I've always thought that it would be right to ensure that best players on the team take more points than the worst when you win, and lose less points when you lose.

In this way four players of the same team who play n ° games together, rise or fall at different speeds in the ranks and the carrying up / down is limited.
The system already does this by comparing your MMR (affected by kills per minute) with your CSR (affected by win/loss). That's why a team of 4 who play all 10 placement matches together don't place exactly the same unless they all hit the upper limit of Diamond 3.
given that I do not know perfectly how the MMR system works but, If this were the only parameter, I would find it strange because I could continually throw myself into the fray to make more kills, at the cost of making as many deaths and penalizing the team. Equally strange that a player with 15 kills and 20 deaths would have a higher KPM than one with 10 kills and 5 deaths.

I would find it more correct to evaluate KD or KDA, which generally rewards those who do not expose themselves too much and play in a more reasoned way. Or, in objective games, the position at the end of the game.
If you are killing more then you are, on average, dying less. You could also argue that it is more skillful to get a large number of kills than it is to simply die less.

Exposing yourself less is detrimental to your team because you are possibly relinquishing map control and creating fewer engagements for your teammates to work with.
It's due to playlist population, like others have said. The algorithm assumes you'd rather play a game with anyone after waiting a few minutes, instead of waiting longer for a better match.

When I'm matched with onyx or champs, I try to take it as learning experience. Practice my aim, play smarter, and try to get them at least once.
qlimm wrote:
LuKr4SH wrote:
qlimm wrote:
LuKr4SH wrote:
I've always thought that it would be right to ensure that best players on the team take more points than the worst when you win, and lose less points when you lose.

In this way four players of the same team who play n ° games together, rise or fall at different speeds in the ranks and the carrying up / down is limited.
The system already does this by comparing your MMR (affected by kills per minute) with your CSR (affected by win/loss). That's why a team of 4 who play all 10 placement matches together don't place exactly the same unless they all hit the upper limit of Diamond 3.
given that I do not know perfectly how the MMR system works but, If this were the only parameter, I would find it strange because I could continually throw myself into the fray to make more kills, at the cost of making as many deaths and penalizing the team. Equally strange that a player with 15 kills and 20 deaths would have a higher KPM than one with 10 kills and 5 deaths.

I would find it more correct to evaluate KD or KDA, which generally rewards those who do not expose themselves too much and play in a more reasoned way. Or, in objective games, the position at the end of the game.
If you are killing more then you are, on average, dying less.
No, the two are totally different.

If I have an aggressive style of play and I expose myself more, I do many kills but also more deaths. On the contrary, if I do camper gaming (more assists for teammates and less assists for enemies), I probably do less kills but my K/D ratio and K-D spread will certainly be better.

It is much more useful for the team to do 10 kills and 5 deaths than to do 15 kills and 15 deaths.
This game is near unplayable alone. I ask myself why I bother turning it on sometimes. None of my friends play it anymore, and trying to warmup in quickplay can end the night before it begins most times these days. It feels way more sweaty than ranked slayer.

An ok night of halo brings us back tomorrow. When it's really bad though...players get off for weeks, sometimes months...and sometimes they uninstall the game altogether.
I’m creeping up on platinum 4 now and it’s becoming a breeze. I created a clutch, joined some groups, got myself out there and now have about 25 new friends that only play halo. Giving me people to play with and incentives to play different modes. I suppose it’s altered the atmosphere in a good way having others I can invite to play matches with
I’m creeping up on platinum 4 now and it’s becoming a breeze. I created a clutch, joined some groups, got myself out there and now have about 25 new friends that only play halo. Giving me people to play with and incentives to play different modes. I suppose it’s altered the atmosphere in a good way having others I can invite to play matches with
Maybe I need to do that now lol
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2