Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Poll [32 votes]: Should arena be based on wins or game performance?
  • Poll [32 votes]: Should arena be based on wins or game performance?
Subject: Should arena be based on wins or game performance?

Poll: Should arena be based on wins or game performance?  [closed]
Wins:  72%
(23 Votes)
Game Performance:  28%
(9 Votes)
Total Votes: 32

Hi, im currently ranked into the gold division and i would like to play with some teams/clans. Look me up. Berkut07. Message me ingame if you dont mind. Thanks

  • 05.08.2012 10:20 AM PDT

Join Halo Haven for all things related to Halo 4


Tell her that If you jingle my bells, Ill promise you a white Christmas - Call Me Venom
The world can't end next month. My yogurt expires in 2013 - Princess Cadence
If Apple invented a car, would it have windows? - Xxembers

It was changed to wins for a reason.

Is this a serious poll or are you just looking for players?

[Edited on 05.08.2012 10:24 AM PDT]

  • 05.08.2012 10:23 AM PDT

Im just looking for clans/teams that want another player, never used these forums before and Arena is the only playlist I play.

  • 05.08.2012 10:31 AM PDT

its a tough choice they each have their flaws of giving fals information. like what if you play a game where someone quits then the its usually an easy win for the team with more people, you could also have one guy carrying the whole team, but he gets the same score because his team loses. i think it should be a little of both, winning and how much you contributed to that win

  • 05.08.2012 11:18 AM PDT

Add my gt confessors! id love to play add me and maybe we can start a clan together :)

  • 05.08.2012 11:23 AM PDT

...im just looking for people to play with man.

  • 05.08.2012 11:26 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Meagss
  • user homepage:

I play games for gameplay, not silly gimmicks

H3 MM warrior

Reach S7, 8 and 9 arena warrior.

H4 MM legend

anyone who thinks stats should be the thing that ranks you has no idea what they are doing.

OT, ill pass

  • 05.08.2012 12:53 PM PDT

I intend to live forever, or die trying,

so far, so good.

Both

  • 05.08.2012 8:07 PM PDT

Posted by: Darkside Eric
So basically... Waypoint is pro-vanilla?

Posted by: Sentox6
Waypoint isn't pro-anything so much as they're just anti-intelligence.


Posted by: meagsIZbeast
anyone who thinks stats should be the thing that ranks you has no idea what they are doing.

This.

Winning is literally the only thing that matters (assuming that no cheating is involved). If you win, stats become irrelevant.

  • 05.08.2012 8:23 PM PDT

There's always room for you, If you want to be my friend.


Posted by: Ghosty Gh0st
Add my gt confessors! id love to play add me and maybe we can start a clan together :)

  • 05.08.2012 8:26 PM PDT

Posted by: Darkside Eric
So basically... Waypoint is pro-vanilla?

Posted by: Sentox6
Waypoint isn't pro-anything so much as they're just anti-intelligence.


Posted by: Neutralism

Posted by: Ghosty Gh0st
Add my gt confessors! id love to play add me and maybe we can start a clan together :)

  • 05.08.2012 8:28 PM PDT

Why even bother, really?
I rage.

Add Formail . I'll play all day to help you get you your 1% onyx.

  • 05.09.2012 2:51 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Rtma
  • user homepage:

Click the Link to find out more about myself. Click Here

READ FIRST PLEASE! Please stop sending me Group invitations, it's not that I don't appreciate it it's just not going to work out for me considering the variables, Time zone differences, Mentality, motivation etc, Thank you for your consideration, Rtma Eros Paragon out.

You know they have a Forum dedicated to recruiting. The Classifieds

  • 05.09.2012 3:20 AM PDT

I personally think they should be based on personal performance. I've just dropped from gold 65% to silver 50% because of stupid team mates.

  • 05.09.2012 6:35 AM PDT

Posted by: Emperor7928
You know they have a Forum dedicated to recruiting. The Classifieds
Derp.

  • 05.09.2012 6:37 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Meagss
  • user homepage:

I play games for gameplay, not silly gimmicks

H3 MM warrior

Reach S7, 8 and 9 arena warrior.

H4 MM legend


Posted by: i Pengborg
I personally think they should be based on personal performance. I've just dropped from gold 65% to silver 50% because of stupid team mates.


"you win as a team or you lose as a team"

Searching solo in a team playlist and losing is nobodys fault, but your own.

  • 05.09.2012 11:35 AM PDT

Posted by: Tom T
Prolonged exposure to this forum is bad for your health.


Posted by: aBIueBooksheIf
because I like pen­is.

source

For a second I though the OP was Beirut.

  • 05.09.2012 11:51 AM PDT

Welcome to the internet. Joy dies here.

Posted by: meagsIZbeast

Posted by: i Pengborg
I personally think they should be based on personal performance. I've just dropped from gold 65% to silver 50% because of stupid team mates.


"you win as a team or you lose as a team"

Searching solo in a team playlist and losing is nobodys fault, but your own.

*Jumps into FFA playlist*
*watches seven players run to the middle of the map and armor lock*
*returns to searching team playlists solo*

  • 05.09.2012 1:37 PM PDT

Posted by: Darkside Eric
So basically... Waypoint is pro-vanilla?

Posted by: Sentox6
Waypoint isn't pro-anything so much as they're just anti-intelligence.


Posted by: WhackyGordon
If you're searching a team playlist, it doesn't make sense to base the rank of each player on their individual stats. That type of a ranking system encourages selfish gameplay, which is counterintuitive to effective teamwork.

  • 05.09.2012 2:06 PM PDT

Welcome to the internet. Joy dies here.

Posted by: nicksta14

Posted by: WhackyGordon
If you're searching a team playlist, it doesn't make sense to base the rank of each player on their individual stats. That type of a ranking system encourages selfish gameplay, which is counterintuitive to effective teamwork.

That logic only applies with established teams like MLG. Even when I do play with friends, it's not always the same group of people. And the reason I'm playing MM is so I can get people matched to me. If I had all the players I need, customs would be the logical place to go, as we would have control over the maps, gametypes, and team balance.

Regardless, it would make more sense to use both values and rank based off of that. Individual performance is just as important as team performance. Would it really seem fair if your team was comprised of yourself, two good players, and somebody's retarded little brother, and you all ended up with the same rank? Would it be appropriate to match that retarded little brother against the same opponents as one of the good players simply because they played together for a while?

I don't think you should be required to enlist a squad of players to be able to enjoy a video game. If I had a squad of players at my beck and call, I'd go play an actual sport.
Video games are an anti-social activity. They should be treated as such.

And come on - FFA with armor lock - that's just retarded. Might as well throw some warthogs in there too.

  • 05.09.2012 2:19 PM PDT

Posted by: Darkside Eric
So basically... Waypoint is pro-vanilla?

Posted by: Sentox6
Waypoint isn't pro-anything so much as they're just anti-intelligence.

Posted by: WhackyGordon
That logic only applies with established teams like MLG. Even when I do play with friends, it's not always the same group of people. And the reason I'm playing MM is so I can get people matched to me. If I had all the players I need, customs would be the logical place to go, as we would have control over the maps, gametypes, and team balance.

Untrue. MM has the benefits of matching one up with new players, which is conductive to expanding your in-game experience (as opposed to playing against the same team over and over and over). This is beneficial in that it expands the number and variety of players you meet and subsequently, play MM (or customs) with.

Posted by: WhackyGordon
Regardless, it would make more sense to use both values and rank based off of that. Individual performance is just as important as team performance. Would it really seem fair if your team was comprised of yourself, two good players, and somebody's retarded little brother, and you all ended up with the same rank? Would it be appropriate to match that retarded little brother against the same opponents as one of the good players simply because they played together for a while?

No, because the 'little brother' wouldn't retain his high rank. One bad player in a match full of good players can singlehandedly lose the game for the team he is assigned to, and as these losses accrued, this would become evident in his inevitable rank drop. This (theoretically) creates the necessity for one to consistently play well and utilize effective teamwork at high level gameplay in order to retain said rank.

Posted by: WhackyGordon
I don't think you should be required to enlist a squad of players to be able to enjoy a video game.

You're not required to play with a full squad. In an ideal ranking system in which rank is based entirely on win/loss, your teammates and opponents will be just as good as you are at playing with a team.

  • 05.09.2012 3:12 PM PDT

Posted by: AngryBrute1
Oh yeah, since somebody does not believe what YOU believe; that makes us vapid...
I cannot grasp that what you call "Something happened to nothing, and that nothing became something, and it was smaller than than a period."

Wins pros: You could AFK and get the point.
If you get negative k/d, you still get a point.

Wins cons: You could kill everyone you see, but lose.
You could get a rampage and never die, but lose somehow.

Performance pros: You can't AFK, and you have to try to win.
Performance cons: Camping.

  • 05.09.2012 3:26 PM PDT

Posted by: Darkside Eric
So basically... Waypoint is pro-vanilla?

Posted by: Sentox6
Waypoint isn't pro-anything so much as they're just anti-intelligence.

Posted by: Wikked Navajoe
Wins pros:  You could AFK and get the point.
If you get negative k/d, you still get a point.

This won't happen with an accurate ranking system. If one goes AFK, their teammates are trapped in a 3v4 situation against players of a similar skill level. In addition to this, the AFK is feeding kills to the other team (assuming they know the spawn zones).

Posted by: Wikked Navajoe
Wins cons: You could kill everyone you see, but lose.
You could get a rampage and never die, but lose somehow.

Again, one will ideally be matched up with/against players of a similar skill level, so this is an extremely unlikely situation.

Posted by: Wikked Navajoe
Performance pros: You can't AFK, and you have to try to win.
Performance cons: Camping.

The first pro also applies to win/loss rankings, and the con is one of the reasons that individual performance rankings in a team game are ineffectual. They encourage selfish play, which is detrimental to the team as a whole.

  • 05.09.2012 3:32 PM PDT