Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

Ranks should be based on performance

OP EarlyExecuter

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
Recently, it's been very infuriating for me to play and try and achieve the rank I'd like to reach in Arena playlists. The fact that you MUST win in order to gain an increase to your rank has nothing to do with your own personal skill level and performance in game. If by any chance you get stuck with players who simply aren't good in a match, you're the one who suffers from the loss and a rank decrease because your teammates couldn't pull their own weight while you're the highest scoring playing in the game. I honestly believe that players should be given the opportunity to rank up based on their performance in game. Suffering rank decreases from loss due to teammates who suck seriously shouldn't have anything to do with your personal rank. Communication is key yes, but 90% of the time, NO ONE speaks a word to aid each other.

343i should seriously consider changing the system. I know it's how the old styles of Halo used the system, but for a hardcore competitive player such as myself, it's infuriating if you're the best scorer on the team, lose and have a rank removed from your stats.
I am also struggling with this. Its unfortunate but its basically forced me to play warzone only when I dont have a party going.
They should be comprised of both W/L and individual performance. Why this community continues to debate whether it should be one or the other totally escapes my understanding. Both factors are important, and therefore both should have a place within the ranking equation.
Basing CSR on w/l is a terrible idea. Should be based on k/d or at least a mix of both. As it stands now it's a terrible indication of skill.
Personal performance should weigh heavily on your rank but W/L should still be a factor
It should be based on a different things for different playlists.
They should be comprised of both W/L and individual performance. Why this community continues to debate whether it should be one or the other totally escapes my understanding. Both factors are important, and therefore both have a place within ranking equation.
How is KDR important?
If ranks were based on personal performance then it would encourages selfish play. K/D ratio becomes more important than win/loss.
DaddyTrax wrote:
If ranks were based on personal performance then it would encourages selfish play. K/D ratio becomes more important than win/loss.
What in the world is selfish play?
And I've always seen K/D as more important then W/L.
If you've got more kills then deaths you're a better player then if you have more wins then losses.
DaddyTrax wrote:
If ranks were based on personal performance then it would encourages selfish play. K/D ratio becomes more important than win/loss.
What in the world is selfish play?
And I've always seen K/D as more important then W/L.
If you've got more kills then deaths you're a better player then if you have more wins then losses.
Although there's a correlation it's not absolutely the case every time. Selfish play is playing for personal stats rather than the team's stats. When you're K/D is more important than your win/loss you're doing it wrong.
S 000 DeM wrote:
They should be comprised of both W/L and individual performance. Why this community continues to debate whether it should be one or the other totally escapes my understanding. Both factors are important, and therefore both have a place within ranking equation.
How is KDR important?
Well, if you go 5-15 in slayer you put the team -10 in the hole...if you have another player that's 2-12, that's another 12 in the hole...down 22 total...they are almost half way through the match because half the team is getting dominated. That's making the other 2 on your team go 25-10, and 23-10 to pull out and win the game...how many times do you get put on a team where you have 2 randoms that go 20+ kills...yeah
KD is not important in every game mode, but in slayer, breakout, and swat it's everything. The more you die the more you lose, the more you kill the more you win. basing the rank on strictly w/l in theory works, but in practice...i dont know. you need to be held for some accountability for your individual actions.

Usually the people that say KDR isnt important are the people with low KDRs. Play objective game types and I would agree that KDR doesnt matter, but when youre playing to 50...KDR is all the matters
DaddyTrax wrote:
If ranks were based on personal performance then it would encourages selfish play. K/D ratio becomes more important than win/loss.
What in the world is selfish play?
And I've always seen K/D as more important then W/L.
If you've got more kills then deaths you're a better player then if you have more wins then losses.
Here's an example. Farming kills in a CTF game and not playing the objective = selfish play. Getting a higher KD in a CTF game does not mean you are better at CTF than other players.
No.

No matchmaking system should ever be based on "individual performance."

Players see their rank as something to be earned rather than a tool for creating the best possible games. As such any will do whatever they can to achieve a rank. If the game looking at individual kills and such then those things are going to be farmed, and then integrity of games where winning is the overall goal will be compromised.

Win/Loss is the only reliable metric for matching.

However, that doesn't mean there can't be a rating based on individual performance. A CSR or Combat effectiveness could be created to gauge a player. A metric based on individual score and kdr (and other stuff) could be useful in ADDITION to the win/loss derived rank. This rating would be calculated based on the most current games... maybe going back 30 or so games so that a slump or learning curve don't forever bog down what might otherwise be a great score.
If you looking for some good team players I am always look for ppl to play with. I love Halo but I dont like playing solo. Must my friends nvr upgrade to the X1.
GT- LL Vash LL
I'm interested to see what formula you or anyone would suggest. There are many factors that can decide your statistical performance.

There's bait and switches / distractions, kill stealing / team-shooting, Power Weapon map control, Objective focus vs Slaying, and etc
Your performance also depends on who you play with. Decent players can consistently be last if their team is good or first if their team is bad.

The more complicated you make a formula or game mechanic the less the community understands the system as well, so it's not necessarily good to complicate things. But for the sake of argument I was curious what would be an ideal formula to calculate a true performance rating.
Play FFA, if you are a top player there your CSR will reflect it. Otherwise, enter team-based game types with a full team of friends who play well and have communication skills.
Let's look back at a game using only personal performance, Halo: Reach. If you went in and matched players who were serious about their skill rank, they'd betray you for you power weapons. Meaning your performance went down compared to their and they'd get your power weapon to use for kills. They were on your team, they killed you and their performance would get better to yours. Personal performance promotes selfish play, you play against your team because your own stats are more important to rank up than winning.

Most of you here vouching for personal performance would probably be here complaining about mass betrayals and such if this system was used.

If you want Personal Performance:
New game mode:
No win condition
10 minute timer
Players are ranked according to their performance

If you want to win, W/L is the only option. Reach changed to W/L as well
Naqser wrote:
Let's look back at a game using only personal performance, Halo: Reach. If you went in and matched players who were serious about their skill rank, they'd betray you for you power weapons. Meaning your performance went down compared to their and they'd get your power weapon to use for kills. They were on your team, they killed you and their performance would get better to yours. Personal performance promotes selfish play, you play against your team because your own stats are more important to rank up than winning.

Most of you here vouching for personal performance would probably be here complaining about mass betrayals and such if this system was used.

If you want Personal Performance:
New game mode:
No win condition
10 minute timer
Players are ranked according to their performance

If you want to win, W/L is the only option. Reach changed to W/L as well
Exactly. But you could balance it to take away massive statistical points when you put damage into your teammates, or you could also give more points for weaker weapons or something or even take away points if you pick up a power weapon and get no kills.

EDIT: As long as the community understands the formula and isn't a mystery.
NO!

W/L is the only competetive system that ever will work. Performance will force people to steal the kills/powerwdapons from their teammates.
Recently, it's been very infuriating for me to play and try and achieve the rank I'd like to reach in Arena playlists. The fact that you MUST win in order to gain an increase to your rank has nothing to do with your own personal skill level and performance in game. If by any chance you get stuck with players who simply aren't good in a match, you're the one who suffers from the loss and a rank decrease because your teammates couldn't pull their own weight while you're the highest scoring playing in the game. I honestly believe that players should be given the opportunity to rank up based on their performance in game. Suffering rank decreases from loss due to teammates who suck seriously shouldn't have anything to do with your personal rank. Communication is key yes, but 90% of the time, NO ONE speaks a word to aid each other.

343i should seriously consider changing the system. I know it's how the old styles of Halo used the system, but for a hardcore competitive player such as myself, it's infuriating if you're the best scorer on the team, lose and have a rank removed from your stats.
Let's say hypothetically that you did rank up by performance. Let's say you go from gold to onyx losing every game because of bad teammates but you did great. Now you are in onyx and the 3 randoms on your team quits and you go 1 and 40, what happens? You would drop quite significantly right? So then you would say, well don't count games if people are quitting on the losing team. Then I would say to you, this is Halo in 2015, quitting is the new thing that everyone does, it's impossible to play with randoms in which they don't quit. What I'm trying to explain is that implementing a individual performance statistic is impossible as long as quitting stays as prominent as it is today because think about how much that screws up individual performance. Implementing an individual performance may increase quitting because maybe you lose less points if it only records a loss but you quit when your stats are 1 kill and 2 deaths. And since quitting is a cultural thing because of how awful society is today, I don't see this quitting trend ending any time soon which means your only hope whether you want to rank up by K/D or by wins is to play with a team.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16