Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

Ranks should be based on performance

OP EarlyExecuter

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 13
  4. 14
  5. 15
  6. ...
  7. 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.
But you could end up with a halo 4 style ranking where you could get a 50 in big team by simply sprinting into the enemy, trading, repeat and score the best on your team by getting 24 kills and 28 deaths. I don't think that is actually being the best on the team.
Rell9 wrote:
What do you get from a higher rank anyway?
I think it's ruining the game.
The quest for a pointless rank has people quitting so you have to play 4v2 sometimes.
I play to win, but I mostly focus on getting commendations completed now. Higher rank means tougher competition and 1 team will have people that don't deserve that rank ruining the game.
I'm hovering at Plat.2. If I was still Gold2 or less, that would be fine, because I would be playing people at my lvl, and enjoying myself.
If your super serious join a clan and have a real chance at getting that high rank, if not we're all in the same boat. If you find a decent player with a mic, try to start a fire team for a bit.
Have you ever played Halo 2 or 3 back in their glory days? The ranking systems made people very frustrated but it was also very motivating. I remember getting my but whipped and struggling to get past 20. I wouldn't give up because I wanted that next rank. Then I remember that same struggle at 30, 35, then 40. I spent well over a year getting to 40. It kept me and many others playing for a very long time. The old ranking system worked. The problem is this new generation of gamers that don't want their feelings hurt by a true ranking system. What makes it worse, is the complainers are the loudest voices and 343 tries to accommodate the cry babies. That's every game developer now. I miss when a game would come out and it was the way it was. It's nice to have a way to update a game if something is wrong technically but now developers uses updates as a way to cater to anyone with hurt feelings.
ObeseHipp0 wrote:
It should be based on points you get every match and it would go like this:
HOW TO FIX RANKS
1. Each game you have a chance of gaining rank points no matter if you win or lose
2. You drastically lose ranks points if your team loses (complete opposite for winning) but you still have a chance of gaining RP(rank points) if you get enough in game points (Which takes me to my next topic)
3. Your IGP(in game points) will be measured with the rest of your team's IGP
4. IGP will be measured like this:
HOW IGP WORKS
1)Your IGP can drastically improve or destroy your rank.
2) IGP's are added up from your team
3) Your penalty for losing a match will depend on if your IGP is at least 1/4 of your team' TIGP(Total IGP).
For example say your team's TIGP is 500, this would then mean that anybody with an IPG below 125 (1/4 of 500) would be penalized. (Example: you have 150 IGP, Teammate #1 has 160 IGP, Teammate #2 has 130 IGP, and Teammate #3 has 60 IGP. This would then mean that you, Teammate #1 and Teammate #2 would all gain RP no matter if you lost or won, but if you did lose then you would only gain a bit of RP (If you win then you gain a lot of RP). Teammate #3 on the other hand would lose a butt load of RP and go down a sub rank (Example:Plantinum4 --->Platinum3) if this happens twice in a row. If it constantly occurs then they would go down a whole rank (gold -----> silver) until it no longer occurs constantly.)
4)Let's say only ONE person is able to get 1/4 of their team's TIGP(Because they are above the skill levels of everyone else at their appropriate rank). The 3 players who did not accomplish at getting 1/4 of their team's TIGP would be punished accordingly: The Best of the worst (second place) would not receive any punishments or promotions, the average joe (3rd) place will receive a minor RP reduction, the worst of the worst (4th place) will receive the fat replenishment that was mentioned in 3) of "HOW IGP WORKS"
5) Let's say you are constantly (at least twice in a row) getting 1st place in your team (which undeniably means you are at least getting 1/4 of your team's TIGP), this would then double your RP until you are NOT at a high enough Rank so that you dont always get first place, this would then put you with other people of your appropriate TRUE skill level. (Example: say you had a few bad games in your placement ranking and you get put in the silver ranking, you are get 1st place and your RP massively increases. You make it all the way to Platinum-5 and you are no longer always achieving first place in your team due to the fact that you have reached your appropriate TRUE skill and matches are more level and even)
What do you guys think about this? Would this work? If you have any questions just ask.

FYI: When I say IGP I am talking about the points you get for getting kills, capturing flags/strongholds, ect

THIS IS WHAT RANKING SHOULD BE LIKE, GREAT JOB……….Obesehipp0………..you got the perfect system.

sound good to me, with this system you can play with your friends who are WAY BETTER than you,
who would not normally want to play A RANK GAME with you in fear of losing their rank.
but with this system at least you get to play with good people and not drag them down too much.
The current ranking will only make good players team up with good players, and not give a chance for their not so good friends.
It’s not a fair system
It divides friends.
This is the way Halo has always figured rank though isn't it? Halo 3 was like that from what I remember. Pretty sure Myth: The Fallen Lords (A Bungie PC game) was like that as well.

I think recently it's seems the forums have had cooler people on it, but my first thought was that if they were to implement rank DIFFERENTLY than had been in the past Halo games then people would complain.

I suppose ultimately I don't disagree, however winning or losing certainly needs to be added into the equation.
It has ALWAYS been based on wins
It has ALWAYS been based on wins
Not entirely true.

Halo 2 was a mix of FFA and Team based ranking systems.
Halo 3 was solely off of Team
Halo Reach was a mix.
Halo 5 is similar to Halo 3.
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.
Get this guy a massive cookie now. Seriously plz....
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.
Get this guy a massive cookie now. Seriously plz....
Agreed. Those who favor W/L only do not understand the importance individual performance. In a game that favors team based play style, skill is not just about "W/L". It's about what you contribute to each victory. This is important to keep the gap between players who piggy back on others victories and to find difference between players who "played well" only when certain conditions are met (the get a power weapon, take hold of an advantageous position, scored objectives). Having dependence on a certain situation in order to perform well show a great lack of skill. A player with a high W/L rate but a low KDA boasting about his "ability" is like having a Professional Basketball player bragging about winning a championship yet he didn't score any point, often lost the ball and spent most of the time on the bench.
it isnt that individual performance isnt important- a team suffers when a member under performs after all- its that quantifying individual performance isnt easily done.

kdr or kda arent enough. so, while it is possible to list a number of situations where w/l seems ridiculous, the fact remains that no one is winning championships being carried by team. if this hypothetical player spent a season actively playing bad he wouldn't be playing in the last game at all.

no halo player playing alone is going to be carried by randoms to max level. and is such a player is on a consistent team then they will lose rank if playing alone. if playing with their team then it doesn't matter at all- the cumulative rank is representative of the team as comprised.

what needs to happen is for lonewolves to only play lonewolves, and teams to only play teams.
It really shouldnt though
Z0DYY wrote:
The ranks are so broken i was playing team doubles with a friend and after the ten games i only got platinum and he got diamond, we had won the same amount of games and my KDA was way higher in the playlist can anyone explain how that works?
It is not broken. These fitst ten games actually take your performance into account
Then why did i get a lower ranking then my friend who played the ten games with me and i did better in every match and my KDA in the playlist was 5.3 and his was 3.5?
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.
K/D is a slippery number to base a ranking system on. K/D doesn't really depend on your performance, but also on the performance of your enemies. Before launch, I got placed in Champion and I was matched with MLG pros every game. I went somewhere around 0.8 K/D. Does that mean I suck and should be in Bronze or Silver? I think 0.8 agains Ogre 2, Walshy, Roy and others is a pretty damn good performance.
But hey, look at it this way. You are placed against lower skilled players, which means you can wreck everybody :D. I lost a lot of my BTB promo's on purpose so I got placed in gold 1. I'm having a blast getting 30 kills every game haha
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.
No they shouldn't. Thanks.
But hey, look at it this way. You are placed against lower skilled players, which means you can wreck everybody :D. I lost a lot of my BTB promo's on purpose so I got placed in gold 1. I'm having a blast getting 30 kills every game haha
that's something really unfair, imho
Play Free For All then...
Without knowing the internals of the system it's hard to make a judgement.

How much does the rank affect matchmaking for example? I guess a good deal, in this case W/L isn't very good to judge rank because good players with great K/D that where put in bad teams 5 times in a row will be considered "low rank" and be matched against truly low ranked players, generating skewed results where the winning team has just one 38/2 member and frustrates the entire opposite team of newbs.

A good rank system to me is one that makes good players be matched against good players. If you're constantly winning or losing 50 to 20 then something is wrong with the matchmaking system.

Sure, K/D may not be the best indicator of skill. I've seen players with 30/15 plenty of times, that's a good 2x K/D ratio but so does a 2/1 - both players screwed their teams, one contributing for more than 25% of their team's deaths and the other doing nothing but hide the entire match. I would rather have a bunch of 12/8 or 13/8 players than one 42/20 and the team loses 50 to 45.
A system closer to Halo 3 would be nice; however this takes away from teamwork and 343's goal of making the game more esportsy.
I agree. Played a team of unranked and we were all Plats. Pretty crazy when we dominated them 50-13!
lol

If you think k/d and surface level stats like that are what dictates whether a player is good or not you have no idea what you are talking about. We simply do not have metrics advanced enough to actually paint an accurate picture of a player's skill. Which is why we go off of wins and losses.

There are so many things that go into the meta of a game of halo that often don't reflect in the k/d scorebaord.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 13
  4. 14
  5. 15
  6. ...
  7. 16