Hey guys, Josh here, this is me reading your posts on matchmaking and ranking.
I'm not w/ 343 anymore, so I just have some "outsider" comments I can make.
First, at a match level, the matchmaking looks good. I've seen a lot of really close matches, and heard from you folks that you're having a lot of close ones.
Yeah, you do get some noobs on your teams sometimes, and lose because of it. But this happens randomly to everyone. The other team will get baddies just as often as you do. If it really just is bad luck, it'll wash out as you play more.
Condescending Soapbox: In my experience, just being able to kill better than anyone on your team doesn't make you a winner in a "team" game. Getting the rest of your team to play their best together (no matter how bad that is) is part of that winning skill. Though I agree it's probably impossible to do without voice.
Now, onto
ranking. I totally understand the comments about personal performance vs. team performance, and losing more points than it feels you deserve.
It's actually
a lot harder than just giving a few more points to the top performers if you want to have a simple ranking system without:
- huge and easy to use exploits
- encouraging players to compete against their own teammates (stealing kills, etc)
Both of those would have a huge negative impact on the game, and design is often about compromising on a bunch of points. No system is perfect.
Trust me (or don't?) I've tried it. I've tried a ton of different systems on both real players, real data, and simulated data.
I could probably come up with some *really* complex systems that did an OK job at this, but at that point players would have no idea what was going on with the rankings, and lose confidence in them. At least this way, you know players with high ranks have eventually won their way to them.
Also, think of it this way. Imagine you have a team of Pros. Imagine each of them is much better than most of you will ever be (sorry!). But, imagine that part of their main strategy is to feed most of their kills to one player, resulting in him having the best spread and and the rest having a lot of assists. A system too focused on personal performance would end up giving you some really weird rankings where that player is far ahead of the rest of his team, despite them all actually being really close in skill.
My personal feeling on ranking systems is to try and have them fit the game. If this was a more casual BTB with lots of solo folks running around and having little impact on the win, then I like systems that are more personal (like BTB CSR in H4). But I like the team-focus for arena.
I know it sucks when those individual experiences happen, but they will wash out if you truly deserve the higher ranks and play enough games to remove the randomness.
So, anyways, I'm enjoying the posts. It's good stuff. I'll lurk around some more.