Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 01:10:00 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 12:32:04 AM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 12:24:11 AM

Quote from: aMetroid on January 02, 2015, 12:20:28 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 12:14:03 AM

Quote from: aMetroid on January 01, 2015, 10:02:16 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

This is the rating system that H5 uses

Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.

Just showing what it's based off of.

It's not good imo, for instance that guy who OP showed with more deaths than kills only is in the gold range because he got carried up to that.

But how far can he be carried? That's the question.

Just throwing this out here, do you think it would be better if you were placed into a tier based on personal skill (first 10 matches), and then once your placed, it switches over to a win-loss based system?

People are still going to suck on average those first 10 matches, so it should be designed to not punish you for sucking shit early on. Halo 3's Truskill did that to people iirc.

You can still be carried after those 10 matches. If your team wins, and you did shit (Negative K/D, no assists or objective points), then you should go down in rank or stay the same low rank. If your team sucked shit because, like my experience in Halo always seems to have been, your teammates were moving the thumbsticks with their asses and being buffoons, but you did good, then you should go up in rank/get points.

My problem with that then is that is then that the game values personal skill more than teamwork. And the key to success for Halo is all about manipulating the enemy spawns and weapons spawns as a team. AKA Map Control.

How does it punish teamwork by punishing the people that aren't helping their team and rewarding the people that are helping their team, even if their team sucks?

I don't have access to long term statistics, or anything of that sort, but logically in my mind, having an individual ranking system doesn't punish teamwork, it just promotes personal gain more than assisting your team. IE, playing it safe and ensuring you have kills more than assists. Or a bit more complexly, involves you setting yourself up to get kills rather than get set up to help your team with map control.

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 01:18:35 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 01:11:49 AM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 01:10:00 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 12:32:04 AM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 12:24:11 AM

Quote from: aMetroid on January 02, 2015, 12:20:28 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 12:14:03 AM

Quote from: aMetroid on January 01, 2015, 10:02:16 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

This is the rating system that H5 uses

Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.

Just showing what it's based off of.

It's not good imo, for instance that guy who OP showed with more deaths than kills only is in the gold range because he got carried up to that.

But how far can he be carried? That's the question.

Just throwing this out here, do you think it would be better if you were placed into a tier based on personal skill (first 10 matches), and then once your placed, it switches over to a win-loss based system?

People are still going to suck on average those first 10 matches, so it should be designed to not punish you for sucking shit early on. Halo 3's Truskill did that to people iirc.

You can still be carried after those 10 matches. If your team wins, and you did shit (Negative K/D, no assists or objective points), then you should go down in rank or stay the same low rank. If your team sucked shit because, like my experience in Halo always seems to have been, your teammates were moving the thumbsticks with their asses and being buffoons, but you did good, then you should go up in rank/get points.

My problem with that then is that is then that the game values personal skill more than teamwork. And the key to success for Halo is all about manipulating the enemy spawns and weapons spawns as a team. AKA Map Control.

How does it punish teamwork by punishing the people that aren't helping their team and rewarding the people that are helping their team, even if their team sucks?

I don't have access to long term statistics, or anything of that sort, but logically in my mind, having an individual ranking system doesn't punish teamwork, it just promotes personal gain more than assisting your team. IE, playing it safe and ensuring you have kills more than assists. Or a bit more complexly, involves you setting yourself up to get kills rather than get set up to help your team with map control.

I'm not saying make the skill ranks based on personal stats, I'm just saying don't fuck people over for having shitty teammates, and do punish players on winning teams that do horribly. I'm not listing specific points for what qualifies as horrible on winning team or great on losing team, but it shouldn't be that complicated for people that are getting paid to do this to find out.

LoL and StarCraft runs on this ranking system. No one seems to complain about that. Of course, this ranking system essentially means that if you want to do well, you need to find reliable teammates.

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 01:29:48 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 01:21:51 AM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 01:18:35 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 01:11:49 AM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 01:10:00 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 12:32:04 AM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 12:24:11 AM

Quote from: aMetroid on January 02, 2015, 12:20:28 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 12:14:03 AM

Quote from: aMetroid on January 01, 2015, 10:02:16 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

This is the rating system that H5 uses

Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.

Just showing what it's based off of.

It's not good imo, for instance that guy who OP showed with more deaths than kills only is in the gold range because he got carried up to that.

But how far can he be carried? That's the question.

Just throwing this out here, do you think it would be better if you were placed into a tier based on personal skill (first 10 matches), and then once your placed, it switches over to a win-loss based system?

People are still going to suck on average those first 10 matches, so it should be designed to not punish you for sucking shit early on. Halo 3's Truskill did that to people iirc.

You can still be carried after those 10 matches. If your team wins, and you did shit (Negative K/D, no assists or objective points), then you should go down in rank or stay the same low rank. If your team sucked shit because, like my experience in Halo always seems to have been, your teammates were moving the thumbsticks with their asses and being buffoons, but you did good, then you should go up in rank/get points.

My problem with that then is that is then that the game values personal skill more than teamwork. And the key to success for Halo is all about manipulating the enemy spawns and weapons spawns as a team. AKA Map Control.

How does it punish teamwork by punishing the people that aren't helping their team and rewarding the people that are helping their team, even if their team sucks?

I don't have access to long term statistics, or anything of that sort, but logically in my mind, having an individual ranking system doesn't punish teamwork, it just promotes personal gain more than assisting your team. IE, playing it safe and ensuring you have kills more than assists. Or a bit more complexly, involves you setting yourself up to get kills rather than get set up to help your team with map control.

I'm not saying make the skill ranks based on personal stats, I'm just saying don't fuck people over for having shitty teammates, and do punish players on winning teams that do horribly. I'm not listing specific points for what qualifies as horrible on winning team or great on losing team, but it shouldn't be that complicated for people that are getting paid to do this to find out.

LoL and StarCraft runs on this ranking system. No one seems to complain about that. Of course, this ranking system essentially means that if you want to do well, you need to find reliable teammates.

I leveled up to 41 in Lone Wolves in Halo 3 because I always had shit teammates, and I can do it again.

Fair enough. There's still ample time to adjust Halo 5's ranking system. Provide your feedback on the system here. 343i says that is their main place when looking for feedback on the game. Of course, 343i employees on the MP team have also said they're monitoring tweets, streams, and other Halo websites.

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 01:38:00 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 01:32:24 AM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 01:29:48 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 01:21:51 AM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 01:18:35 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 01:11:49 AM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 01:10:00 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 12:32:04 AM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 12:24:11 AM

Quote from: aMetroid on January 02, 2015, 12:20:28 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 12:14:03 AM

Quote from: aMetroid on January 01, 2015, 10:02:16 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

This is the rating system that H5 uses

Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.

Just showing what it's based off of.

It's not good imo, for instance that guy who OP showed with more deaths than kills only is in the gold range because he got carried up to that.

But how far can he be carried? That's the question.

Just throwing this out here, do you think it would be better if you were placed into a tier based on personal skill (first 10 matches), and then once your placed, it switches over to a win-loss based system?

People are still going to suck on average those first 10 matches, so it should be designed to not punish you for sucking shit early on. Halo 3's Truskill did that to people iirc.

You can still be carried after those 10 matches. If your team wins, and you did shit (Negative K/D, no assists or objective points), then you should go down in rank or stay the same low rank. If your team sucked shit because, like my experience in Halo always seems to have been, your teammates were moving the thumbsticks with their asses and being buffoons, but you did good, then you should go up in rank/get points.

My problem with that then is that is then that the game values personal skill more than teamwork. And the key to success for Halo is all about manipulating the enemy spawns and weapons spawns as a team. AKA Map Control.

How does it punish teamwork by punishing the people that aren't helping their team and rewarding the people that are helping their team, even if their team sucks?

I don't have access to long term statistics, or anything of that sort, but logically in my mind, having an individual ranking system doesn't punish teamwork, it just promotes personal gain more than assisting your team. IE, playing it safe and ensuring you have kills more than assists. Or a bit more complexly, involves you setting yourself up to get kills rather than get set up to help your team with map control.

I'm not saying make the skill ranks based on personal stats, I'm just saying don't fuck people over for having shitty teammates, and do punish players on winning teams that do horribly. I'm not listing specific points for what qualifies as horrible on winning team or great on losing team, but it shouldn't be that complicated for people that are getting paid to do this to find out.

LoL and StarCraft runs on this ranking system. No one seems to complain about that. Of course, this ranking system essentially means that if you want to do well, you need to find reliable teammates.

I leveled up to 41 in Lone Wolves in Halo 3 because I always had shit teammates, and I can do it again.

Fair enough. There's still ample time to adjust Halo 5's ranking system. Provide your feedback on the system here. 343i says that is their main place when looking for feedback on the game. Of course, 343i employees on the MP team have also said they're monitoring tweets, streams, and other Halo websites.

>Halo Waypoint
Listen, I hate my life already and I realize people are stupid, but I have some decency left.

You do realize that creating a topic on a feedback forum does not force you to reply to anyone, right?

Hey, if you don't want 343i to know about your thoughts and criticisms on the ranking system, that's your fault, not mine.

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 01:49:24 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 01:40:10 AM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 01:38:00 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 01:32:24 AM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 01:29:48 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 01:21:51 AM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 01:18:35 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 01:11:49 AM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 01:10:00 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 12:32:04 AM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 12:24:11 AM

Quote from: aMetroid on January 02, 2015, 12:20:28 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 12:14:03 AM

Quote from: aMetroid on January 01, 2015, 10:02:16 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

This is the rating system that H5 uses

Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.

Just showing what it's based off of.

It's not good imo, for instance that guy who OP showed with more deaths than kills only is in the gold range because he got carried up to that.

But how far can he be carried? That's the question.

Just throwing this out here, do you think it would be better if you were placed into a tier based on personal skill (first 10 matches), and then once your placed, it switches over to a win-loss based system?

People are still going to suck on average those first 10 matches, so it should be designed to not punish you for sucking shit early on. Halo 3's Truskill did that to people iirc.

You can still be carried after those 10 matches. If your team wins, and you did shit (Negative K/D, no assists or objective points), then you should go down in rank or stay the same low rank. If your team sucked shit because, like my experience in Halo always seems to have been, your teammates were moving the thumbsticks with their asses and being buffoons, but you did good, then you should go up in rank/get points.

My problem with that then is that is then that the game values personal skill more than teamwork. And the key to success for Halo is all about manipulating the enemy spawns and weapons spawns as a team. AKA Map Control.

How does it punish teamwork by punishing the people that aren't helping their team and rewarding the people that are helping their team, even if their team sucks?

I don't have access to long term statistics, or anything of that sort, but logically in my mind, having an individual ranking system doesn't punish teamwork, it just promotes personal gain more than assisting your team. IE, playing it safe and ensuring you have kills more than assists. Or a bit more complexly, involves you setting yourself up to get kills rather than get set up to help your team with map control.

I'm not saying make the skill ranks based on personal stats, I'm just saying don't fuck people over for having shitty teammates, and do punish players on winning teams that do horribly. I'm not listing specific points for what qualifies as horrible on winning team or great on losing team, but it shouldn't be that complicated for people that are getting paid to do this to find out.

LoL and StarCraft runs on this ranking system. No one seems to complain about that. Of course, this ranking system essentially means that if you want to do well, you need to find reliable teammates.

I leveled up to 41 in Lone Wolves in Halo 3 because I always had shit teammates, and I can do it again.

Fair enough. There's still ample time to adjust Halo 5's ranking system. Provide your feedback on the system here. 343i says that is their main place when looking for feedback on the game. Of course, 343i employees on the MP team have also said they're monitoring tweets, streams, and other Halo websites.

>Halo Waypoint
Listen, I hate my life already and I realize people are stupid, but I have some decency left.

You do realize that creating a topic on a feedback forum does not force you to reply to anyone, right?

Hey, if you don't want 343i to know about your thoughts and criticisms on the ranking system, that's your fault, not mine.

I don't want to catch the stupid, Admirals. Don't do this to me.

I swear to god, if you complain about the ranking system when the game launches...

posts like these are making me want to save up for H5 less and less...

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 02:29:29 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 02:12:29 AM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 01:49:24 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 01:40:10 AM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 01:38:00 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 01:32:24 AM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 01:29:48 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 01:21:51 AM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 01:18:35 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 01:11:49 AM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 01:10:00 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 12:32:04 AM

Quote from: Mr. Admirals on January 02, 2015, 12:24:11 AM

Quote from: aMetroid on January 02, 2015, 12:20:28 AM

Quote from: Assassin 11D7 on January 02, 2015, 12:14:03 AM

Quote from: aMetroid on January 01, 2015, 10:02:16 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

This is the rating system that H5 uses

Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.

Just showing what it's based off of.

It's not good imo, for instance that guy who OP showed with more deaths than kills only is in the gold range because he got carried up to that.

But how far can he be carried? That's the question.

Just throwing this out here, do you think it would be better if you were placed into a tier based on personal skill (first 10 matches), and then once your placed, it switches over to a win-loss based system?

People are still going to suck on average those first 10 matches, so it should be designed to not punish you for sucking shit early on. Halo 3's Truskill did that to people iirc.

You can still be carried after those 10 matches. If your team wins, and you did shit (Negative K/D, no assists or objective points), then you should go down in rank or stay the same low rank. If your team sucked shit because, like my experience in Halo always seems to have been, your teammates were moving the thumbsticks with their asses and being buffoons, but you did good, then you should go up in rank/get points.

My problem with that then is that is then that the game values personal skill more than teamwork. And the key to success for Halo is all about manipulating the enemy spawns and weapons spawns as a team. AKA Map Control.

How does it punish teamwork by punishing the people that aren't helping their team and rewarding the people that are helping their team, even if their team sucks?

I don't have access to long term statistics, or anything of that sort, but logically in my mind, having an individual ranking system doesn't punish teamwork, it just promotes personal gain more than assisting your team. IE, playing it safe and ensuring you have kills more than assists. Or a bit more complexly, involves you setting yourself up to get kills rather than get set up to help your team with map control.

I'm not saying make the skill ranks based on personal stats, I'm just saying don't fuck people over for having shitty teammates, and do punish players on winning teams that do horribly. I'm not listing specific points for what qualifies as horrible on winning team or great on losing team, but it shouldn't be that complicated for people that are getting paid to do this to find out.

LoL and StarCraft runs on this ranking system. No one seems to complain about that. Of course, this ranking system essentially means that if you want to do well, you need to find reliable teammates.

I leveled up to 41 in Lone Wolves in Halo 3 because I always had shit teammates, and I can do it again.

Fair enough. There's still ample time to adjust Halo 5's ranking system. Provide your feedback on the system here. 343i says that is their main place when looking for feedback on the game. Of course, 343i employees on the MP team have also said they're monitoring tweets, streams, and other Halo websites.

>Halo Waypoint
Listen, I hate my life already and I realize people are stupid, but I have some decency left.

You do realize that creating a topic on a feedback forum does not force you to reply to anyone, right?

Hey, if you don't want 343i to know about your thoughts and criticisms on the ranking system, that's your fault, not mine.

I don't want to catch the stupid, Admirals. Don't do this to me.

I swear to god, if you complain about the ranking system when the game launches...

>implying they'd listen to me
>implying I wouldn't get drowned out by countless dummies
>implying the game isn't going to suck anyway

I frankly don't give a shit what you think I'm implying.