The update is up.

They talk about showing Forsaken at E3 a bit. Then move on to a new roadmap:

Solstice of Heroes, July 31.

Crucible updates follow. Playlist updates and some good stuff with Valor and Glory.

Then Presige Raid Lairs are discussed. The TL:DR is this--no encounter changes. They will be the same as Normal mode. However, there will be three modifiers that are in rotation from week to week. Two are brand new, designed for the raid lairs, the final one is Prism. There will also be "curated loadouts." Loadouts will not be locked like in Prestige Nightfall, but will instead be focused on weapon type. For example Scout Rifle/Hand Cannon/Rocket Launcher. You can use any weapons you have and switch them at will, so long as they're the correct type. That will change week to week.

Prestige Raid Lairs will drop 400 Power Level weapons. Solstice of Heroes stuff will give you up to 400 Power Level armor. There are also exotic catalysts as a rare drop for each prestige lair.

Then they talk about collections:

Collections include any weapon, armor piece, Ghost, ship, Sparrow, emblem, or shader available in Year 1 of Destiny 2.

It's safe to dismantle these things now--as long as you had them after Warmind's launch (May 8), they'll be in your collection when Forsaken hits.

Players won’t have to deal with currency conversions. For example, if a shader dismantles into Glimmer, it costs Glimmer to reacquire. If the shader came from Eververse, it will dismantle into Bright Dust, and therefore costs Bright Dust to reacquire. These same goals are true of all Collection items.

A lot of you have been asking about the cost of shaders. We can say that they will have a cost to reacquire from Collections, but there will no longer be a cost to apply shaders to gear.

Consecutive losses will decrease the Rank Points lost instead of increasing

Wtf.

Their change makes no sense. The more you lose the LESS you are penalized?! I expected there to just be no loss streak at all, but this creates the bizarre situation in which winning can hurt you.

LLW - You lose fewer points on your second loss than your first.
LWL - You lose full points on both losses. You were better off losing the games back to back!

WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?! Winning a game should NEVER hurt you!

LWL - You lose full points on both losses. You were better off losing the games back to back!

WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?! Winning a game should NEVER hurt you!

It doesn't hurt you. You still don't lose as much as you gain when you win. It's just to keep losses from snowballing on you and losing a bunch for a big loss streak.

I don't really understand where you're coming from here.

It doesn't hurt you. You still don't lose as much as you gain when you win. It's just to keep losses from snowballing on you and losing a bunch for a big loss streak.

It hurts you. If you win a game between losses, the next loss is felt in full. If the losses are together, the subsequent ones are diminished.

Let's say you win 50% of your games:

LLLLLWWWWW

Now someone else wins 50% of their games:

LWLWLWLWLW

The first person will only lose the full amount of points on the first loss, whereas the second would on ALL their losses. So let's say you lose 10 points for a loss, and each subsequent loss in a streak diminishes that by one. The first person would lose 40 points. The second person would lose 10 points each time, for a total of 50. So the second person loses a full extra loss' worth of points, all because they have wins in between the losses.

Person one could even lose SIX games in a row instead of 5, and come out ahead even though their record is worse!

If they are going to get rid of loss streaks, each loss should just be 10 points. Period.

Consecutive losses will decrease the Rank Points lost instead of increasing

Wtf.

Their change makes no sense. The more you lose the LESS you are penalized?! I expected there to just be no loss streak at all, but this creates the bizarre situation in which winning can hurt you.

LLW - You lose fewer points on your second loss than your first.
LWL - You lose full points on both losses. You were better off losing the games back to back!

WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?! Winning a game should NEVER hurt you!

Your examples don't factor into real world scenarios because they assume you have the ability to see the future and control it. It also assumes you would ever want to throw a game. It is never a negative to win a game. Lets assume you are in round one and you lose. If you know you're going to play two more games you should always play to win the next two games. You would only throw a game if you knew you were guaranteed to lose one and had a guaranteed win at the same time.

Starting from a L, you have a couple outcomes, but it's always better to try and win.

LW is better than LL

Would you ever, at that point, decide to throw the third game? Of course not. A win in either situation is still better.

LWW is better than LWL

and

LLW is better than LLL

Now, in retrospect you could say you get different ranking outcomes for LWL and LLW, but in the moment to moment decisions of the world, you have no reason to think that you should have thrown a game. Another critique is that a person's rank isn't really super meaningful because similar records aren't weighted the same way. However, that only matters if you're comparing yourself to other players.

Person one could even lose SIX games in a row instead of 5, and come out ahead even though their record is worse!

I don't think that matters at all. This isn't about coming out "ahead" with losses. It's solely about preventing people from getting screwed out of a bunch of rank for bad losing streaks. That's it.

At risk of being whiny, July 17th sure seems like a long time to wait for these simple Crucible changes. Bungie's glacial pace with quality of life changes (and tendency to lump patches together) doesn't jive especially well with the transient rewards they've introduced.

Person one could even lose SIX games in a row instead of 5, and come out ahead even though their record is worse!

I don't think that matters at all. This isn't about coming out "ahead" with losses. It's solely about preventing people from getting screwed out of a bunch of rank for bad losing streaks. That's it.

I think the best way is to simple eliminate streaks from losses all together… you lose a fixed amount with each loss.

At risk of being whiny, July 17th sure seems like a long time to wait for these simple Crucible changes. Bungie's glacial pace with quality of life changes (and tendency to lump patches together) doesn't jive especially well with the transient rewards they've introduced.

It’s two and a half weeks. It’ll be here before you can say “radiolarian fluid”.

Person one could even lose SIX games in a row instead of 5, and come out ahead even though their record is worse!

I don't think that matters at all. This isn't about coming out "ahead" with losses. It's solely about preventing people from getting screwed out of a bunch of rank for bad losing streaks. That's it.

Eh, there's gotta be something else they're doing here, because as it stands there is a VERY REAL issue. Let's look at some examples:

Let's assume the Win and Loss streaks perform exactly the same, but one is a gain and one is a loss:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50
Loss -= 20, 25, 30, 40, 50
LLLLLWWWWW = 0
LWLWLWLWLW = 0

You'll notice that both scenarios work out evenly.

Let's look at the scenario is the Loss streak is down shifted by 10 points:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50
Loss -= 10, 15, 20, 30, 40

LLLLLWWWWW = 50
LWLWLWLWLW = 50

Again, both scenarios even out. However, let's assume an increasing scale for Wins and a decreasing scale for Losses:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50
Loss -= 20, 15, 10, 5, 5

LLLLLWWWWW = 115
LWLWLWLWLW = 0

I initially set the first win and first loss values to the same absolute value. You'll see that in this scenario, there is a significant difference in points based on the order of the games. I then tried this again but with a significantly lower point Loss ceiling and a narrower reduction:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50
Loss -= 10, 8, 6, 4, 2

LLLLLWWWWW = 135
LWLWLWLWLW = 50

Still a significant difference. My argument here is eliminate the loss streak. Have a constant loss amount and have it break a win streak, but don't penalize for constant failure any more than you already have to.

:-p

Still a significant difference. My argument here is eliminate the loss streak. Have a constant loss amount and have it break a win streak, but don't penalize for constant failure any more than you already have to.

This should be fundamental to any competitive game. Winning should always make you better off, and never ever make you worse off.

I've easily demonstrated a system where winning makes you worse off. The system they are proposing is stupid. The solution is right there in front of everyone: as you suggested, a fixed amount for a loss.

It is never a negative to win a game.

Both Fury and have have detailed where a win absolutely hurts you:

It is very clearly negative to win games in certain situations with this system. No you can't predict the future, but that makes it worse! You are ostensibly trying to win every game, so if you manage to do that at the wrong time IT SHOULD NOT PUNISH YOU.

it should be plainly obvious why: under the new system a losing streak means your penalties are less, so winning means increasing the penalties for a loss. This is the exact opposite of how it is now, where a win decreases your penalty for losing. Winning a game straight up punishes you in their new system.

It's like they have no fucking clue. Absolutely amateur.

- No text -

It is never a negative to win a game.

Both Fury and have have detailed where a win absolutely hurts you:

It is very clearly negative to win games in certain situations with this system. No you can't predict the future, but that makes it worse! You are ostensibly trying to win every game, so if you manage to do that at the wrong time IT SHOULD NOT PUNISH YOU.

it should be plainly obvious why: under the new system a losing streak means your penalties are less, so winning means increasing the penalties for a loss. This is the exact opposite of how it is now, where a win decreases your penalty for losing. Winning a game straight up punishes you in their new system.

It's like they have no fucking clue. Absolutely amateur.

They have to know, though...right? Like, if I were running through ideas for the system, the first thing I would do would be exactly what I posted earlier: some specific use cases. Then I'd try to plot a graph up to some N number of wins/losses and compare the systems. I'm not statistician but I feel like this is the base level of investigation.

Either they know and chose to do it anyway for some reason...or...the alternative...which is a little frightening.

- No text -

It is never a negative to win a game.

Both Fury and have have detailed where a win absolutely hurts you:

No you haven't and this is silly- Every single person who plays the game will earn rank faster under their new mechanics, or, at worst, if they lose every other game, things will stay exactly the same. Notice how in EF's examples there was never a scenario in which having a losing streak rule made the outcome worse for anyone. All his scenarios assumed 50/50 win/losses. The current rules made a zero gain in rank the outcome of such a record. Under all other rules, the capacity to have a nonzero positive rank increased for the 50/50 scenario.

You also haven't addressed the fact that at any given moment, the incentive is there for you to win your next game. There is never a scenario in which losing is preferable, unless you knew the future and were guaranteed a certain number of wins and losses.

Yes, streaks are rewarded, but wins are never penalized. Wording matters. You're upset that had you seen the future, you could maximize the bonuses of a streak more effectively than if you won every other game. But you can't control that so it' a moot point.

Let's look at the nightmare scenario I think you're envisioning. Different outcomes for LLLLWLLLLL vs LLLLLLLLLW

Under current rules:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50, 50
Loss -= 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50, 50

LLLLWLLLLL = -260
LLLLLLLLLW = -435

Under new system:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50
Loss -= 20, 15, 10, 05, 05, 05, 05

LLLLWLLLLL = -85
LLLLLLLLLW = -55

Look at that. Isn't it advantageous to win at the end rather than in the middle? Well, yes-ish. A win that breaks the streak is worse in the middle than at the end. But compare both of those scenarios to the numbers of the current system. As as player, the new system punishes you less across the board for losing. You losses are lessened and your gains are increased. Isn't this player-friendly?

I'm actually quite surprised that no one here has totally railed on Bungie for what they are doing to the Lairs. What I was expecting was an overwhelming complaint that Bungie hasn't really added anything to the lairs for prestige and they are just slacking off by just adding modifiers. I'm sure Reddit is in a "righteous" fury right now but I don't care about them.

I for one really like this idea. I've loved modifiers from the get go. And to me, this makes total sense for the raid lairs as oppose to the raid. I'm actually really looking forward to the curated loadouts. Not only because it's going to be a new challenge, but I get to really try out new weapon types that I normally wouldn't have at the same time hear why everyone loves the gun they chose.

I'm actually quite surprised that no one here has totally railed on Bungie for what they are doing to the Lairs. What I was expecting was an overwhelming complaint that Bungie hasn't really added anything to the lairs for prestige and they are just slacking off by just adding modifiers. I'm sure Reddit is in a "righteous" fury right now but I don't care about them.

I for one really like this idea. I've loved modifiers from the get go. And to me, this makes total sense for the raid lairs as oppose to the raid. I'm actually really looking forward to the curated loadouts. Not only because it's going to be a new challenge, but I get to really try out new weapon types that I normally wouldn't have at the same time hear why everyone loves the gun they chose.

I love it too. I like the mentality that the encounter doesn’t change—that we got the best, most complete version of the encounters already. I like modifiers, and I really like being encouraged to try different loadouts. I naturally switch weapons often, but there are still guns I naturally gravitate towards, so anything to encourage more variety is awesome in my book.

I did note that there might be something we don't know that affects this, and that would likely be the numbers they choose to use. Some choices will potentially be worse than before, some better.

You also haven't addressed the fact that at any given moment, the incentive is there for you to win your next game. There is never a scenario in which losing is preferable, unless you knew the future and were guaranteed a certain number of wins and losses.

THIS DOESNT MATTER! If you can look at a stretch of someone’s games, and they would be better off having lost a particular game rather than winning it, then the system is broken. Period. It doesn’t matter if you can’t predict the future and exploit it. If winning ever makes you worse off the system is garbage.

It also doesn’t matter that everyone ranks up faster after the change, because there can be situations where you would rank up faster having lost a particular game rather than winning it! Again, pure broken garbage.

Even regardless of the actual numbers, the principle is stupid: winning carries a penalty in the form of a higher point loss on the next game you lose because it resets your losing anti-streak. Winning should never confer any kind of disadvantage or penalty ever.

Then they talk about collections:

Collections include any weapon, armor piece, Ghost, ship, Sparrow, emblem, or shader available in Year 1 of Destiny 2.

It's safe to dismantle these things now--as long as you had them after Warmind's launch (May 8), they'll be in your collection when Forsaken hits.

Players won’t have to deal with currency conversions. For example, if a shader dismantles into Glimmer, it costs Glimmer to reacquire. If the shader came from Eververse, it will dismantle into Bright Dust, and therefore costs Bright Dust to reacquire. These same goals are true of all Collection items.

A lot of you have been asking about the cost of shaders. We can say that they will have a cost to reacquire from Collections, but there will no longer be a cost to apply shaders to gear.

Hurray, I can now just shard anything I don't immediately want (though I can't get it back until the collections are all there). These changes should also help significantly with changing shaders. Today I refuse to do it because I can't get them back. If it's trivial to get them back then I don't care and I'll shard every single one of the things I don't want to use.

Except changing any loss to a win is a positive. There are zero instances where a win somehow results in a negative.

I'm actually quite surprised that no one here has totally railed on Bungie for what they are doing to the Lairs. What I was expecting was an overwhelming complaint that Bungie hasn't really added anything to the lairs for prestige and they are just slacking off by just adding modifiers. I'm sure Reddit is in a "righteous" fury right now but I don't care about them.

I for one really like this idea. I've loved modifiers from the get go. And to me, this makes total sense for the raid lairs as oppose to the raid. I'm actually really looking forward to the curated loadouts. Not only because it's going to be a new challenge, but I get to really try out new weapon types that I normally wouldn't have at the same time hear why everyone loves the gun they chose.

I love it too. I like the mentality that the encounter doesn’t change—that we got the best, most complete version of the encounters already. I like modifiers, and I really like being encouraged to try different loadouts. I naturally switch weapons often, but there are still guns I naturally gravitate towards, so anything to encourage more variety is awesome in my book.

I also love how it gives me the option to say "did you see what I just did? AND WITH THIS GUN!?" We are going to see some awesome videos out of this. And I'm not just from the sweaty players, I mean from DBOers who beat Argos with swords.

Then Presige Raid Lairs are discussed. The TL:DR is this--no encounter changes. They will be the same as Normal mode. However, there will be three modifiers that are in rotation from week to week. Two are brand new, designed for the raid lairs, the final one is Prism. There will also be "curated loadouts." Loadouts will not be locked like in Prestige Nightfall, but will instead be focused on weapon type. For example Scout Rifle/Hand Cannon/Rocket Launcher. You can use any weapons you have and switch them at will, so long as they're the correct type. That will change week to week.

Great ingame conversation last night about "curated loadouts" and the like. Given the different approaches taken by different players (in this case Stabbim and I), I propose Bungie add an additional layer of gear lock, in which a specific gear/weapon loadout can be saved and locked for future use. It would allow players to step outside their normal comfort zone without having to worry about screwing up a build they've honed over time.

New changes to the meta? No problem. Make sure your favorite build's pieces are all double-locked into a Custom Set. Mix and match weapons and gear outside of that build to your heart's content. Experiment with perks and bonuses to find something new and different that you like. Tired of that? Hit a button and auto-equip your Custom set.

Especially with the arrival of curated loadouts, I think this is something we're going to need.

Then Presige Raid Lairs are discussed. The TL:DR is this--no encounter changes. They will be the same as Normal mode. However, there will be three modifiers that are in rotation from week to week. Two are brand new, designed for the raid lairs, the final one is Prism. There will also be "curated loadouts." Loadouts will not be locked like in Prestige Nightfall, but will instead be focused on weapon type. For example Scout Rifle/Hand Cannon/Rocket Launcher. You can use any weapons you have and switch them at will, so long as they're the correct type. That will change week to week.

Great ingame conversation last night about "curated loadouts" and the like. Given the different approaches taken by different players (in this case Stabbim and I), I propose Bungie add an additional layer of gear lock, in which a specific gear/weapon loadout can be saved and locked for future use. It would allow players to step outside their normal comfort zone without having to worry about screwing up a build they've honed over time.

New changes to the meta? No problem. Make sure your favorite build's pieces are all double-locked into a Custom Set. Mix and match weapons and gear outside of that build to your heart's content. Experiment with perks and bonuses to find something new and different that you like. Tired of that? Hit a button and auto-equip your Custom set.

Especially with the arrival of curated loadouts, I think this is something we're going to need.

Why not just use the loadout tools in apps like DIM?

I'll shard every single one of the things I don't want to use.

Like shaders that aren't blue. Or those awful ones that trick me by having blue, but turn everything orange. That's just cruel, Bungie.

Except changing any loss to a win is a positive. There are zero instances where a win somehow results in a negative.

This is false and exactly why I started the sub thread. If you have a long string of losses interrupted by a win in the middle, that is worse than just the string of losses, because the win resets the anti streak and now the losses after it hurt more than if you kept your anti Loss streak.

- No text -

I don’t like it just because I prefer challenge over difficulty. New mechanics add challenge. Modifiers add difficulty.

Last night was genuinely fascinating and enlightening and a great example of how different players engage with Destiny, and how difficult a job Bungie surely has just holding the game together and allowing those players to have good experiences together.

If I remember later, I want to make a post about some of the stuff we talked about. Mainly the stuff around perks and synergistic builds. I say I wish the game encouraged that stuff more, but it’s a little bit hypocritical to wish for that when I already don’t engage with that stuff much anyway. I’d like to get some builds people like and explore that aspect of the game more.

I don’t like it just because I prefer challenge over difficulty. New mechanics add challenge. Modifiers add difficulty.

I know you have said this exact same thing before and that's fine, it's your opinion, but I disagree. The way you say it, you make it sound like they just doubled the boss HP. This in my mind would make it more difficult without making it any more challenging. Modifiers to me add another layer of challenge to the fight. And because it adds more challenging mechanics, it's thus more difficult.

Last night was genuinely fascinating and enlightening and a great example of how different players engage with Destiny, and how difficult a job Bungie surely has just holding the game together and allowing those players to have good experiences together.

I don't think people truly understand how hard it is to keep people happy with such a dynamic game as this. Heck, I don't even truly understand. But think I know enough that I would give every Bungie employee a high five and a heartfelt thank you for everything they do. Cause that shit aint easy.

Prestige Raid Lairs will drop 400 Power Level weapons. Solstice of Heroes stuff will give you up to 400 Power Level armor. There are also exotic catalysts as a rare drop for each prestige lair.

I foresee alot more Fireteam building in the future.

Then they talk about collections:

Collections include any weapon, armor piece, Ghost, ship, Sparrow, emblem, or shader available in Year 1 of Destiny 2.

It's safe to dismantle these things now--as long as you had them after Warmind's launch (May 8), they'll be in your collection when Forsaken hits.

Score. I've been holding on to (for as much as I can) "One-Of-Everything", in expectation of this occurrence. It's been a long year for my vault, but it's nice to see the bet shall be paid. I'm still not deleting anything though, until I get to see it with my own eyes. I wonder if Collections saves Masterworked Legendaries?

Players won’t have to deal with currency conversions. For example, if a shader dismantles into Glimmer, it costs Glimmer to reacquire. If the shader came from Eververse, it will dismantle into Bright Dust, and therefore costs Bright Dust to reacquire. These same goals are true of all Collection items.

Lame. More so the with the bright dust, but... lame.

... but there will no longer be a cost to apply shaders to gear.

There should have never been a cost in the first place. WHAT DID YOU DO TO POOR OLD EVA! ಥ_ಥ

--------------

By the way, on the subresddit there is a nice discussion on how the API sees content, and "why the game can't see retroactive data".

You also haven't addressed the fact that at any given moment, the incentive is there for you to win your next game. There is never a scenario in which losing is preferable, unless you knew the future and were guaranteed a certain number of wins and losses.

THIS DOESNT MATTER! If you can look at a stretch of someone’s games, and they would be better off having lost a particular game rather than winning it, then the system is broken. Period. It doesn’t matter if you can’t predict the future and exploit it. If winning ever makes you worse off the system is garbage.

It also doesn’t matter that everyone ranks up faster after the change, because there can be situations where you would rank up faster having lost a particular game rather than winning it! Again, pure broken garbage.

Even regardless of the actual numbers, the principle is stupid: winning carries a penalty in the form of a higher point loss on the next game you lose because it resets your losing anti-streak. Winning should never confer any kind of disadvantage or penalty ever.

SANTA CLAUSE: Good news kids! I'm giving out more gifts this year to those who have been good. I'm even relaxing the rules so that you are less likely to get coal in your stocking. It may still happen, but you will get substantially less coal than you previously experienced.

CODY MILLER: This system is garbage. I'm not after gifts or being good. I just want to minimize the amount of coal I'm getting. If I were to do one good deed in the middle of an evil streak, I would get more coal than if I had waited until the end of my streak to turn a leaf. Garbage!

SANTA CLAUSE: I guess that's true, but you'll be getting a lot less coal than you would have in either case.

CODY MILLER: Garbage. Clearly you're an amateur at this. People need to feel punishment more explicitly or they'll never change.

SANTA CLAUSE: So... even though everyone is getting more presents, or fewer pieces of coal, you're upset that your good deeds are not always equally weighted?

CODY MILLER: Look man, I'm just trying to figure out the minimum amount of coal I can get for being passively bad. If I accidentally do something nice, I don't want to get penalized for doing it at the wrong time. So yeah, I'd rather have more coal if my punishment was at least consistent.

SANTA CLAUSE: I clearly don't understand kids these days. I've got to get out of this game...

- No text -

Cute, but you aren’t getting to the heart of the issue.

If Bungie wanted less penalty on loss, they should either eliminate the loss streak, or make losses take away fewer points, both. The thing that you want could have been done properly. So ok, the system penalizes losses less now, but it’s worse than it otherwise could be because it penalizes winning too.

You can drive a car across country now! You don’t have to spend 3 months in an ox cart! Why are you complaining? I don’t know, maybe because I could take a plane instead and be even better off.

If Bungie wanted less penalty on loss, they should either eliminate the loss streak, or make losses take away fewer points, both. The thing that you want could have been done properly. So ok, the system penalizes losses less now, but it’s worse than it otherwise could be because it penalizes winning too.

You can drive a car across country now! You don’t have to spend 3 months in an ox cart! Why are you complaining? I don’t know, maybe because I could take a plane instead and be even better off.

Your system is analogous to flying across the country and taking more stops and then getting detained somewhere so it takes longer than the car ride would have. Everyone else is hopping in the car and beating the ox and the plane to the destination.

You falsely assume your proposal is more player-friendly than the new system.

Under current rules:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50, 50
Loss -= 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50, 50

LLLLWLLLLL = -260
LLLLLLLLLW = -435

Under new system:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50
Loss -= 20, 15, 10, 05, 05, 05, 05

LLLLWLLLLL = -85
LLLLLLLLLW = -55

Cody's flat-rate system:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50
Loss -= 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20

LLLLWLLLLL = -160
LLLLLLLLLW = -160

There was a temporary fix (that allowed API-driven tools to equip weapons/armor on all but the currently-active character - you could still move stuff TO the character, just not equip it with the tools) on June 6. A final fix that brings us back to full functionality happened last week. Both of these were documented by the @BungieHelp twitter account.

There was a temporary fix (that allowed API-driven tools to equip weapons/armor on all but the currently-active character - you could still move stuff TO the character, just not equip it with the tools) on June 6. A final fix that brings us back to full functionality happened last week. Both of these were documented by the @BungieHelp twitter account.

Nice!

Not typically the circles I travel in; but we were discussing said functionality for folks who stick to a narrow bandwidth for builds. I don't have much use for it because mine change multiple times in the course of a single sitting, but good to know!

If you have a long string of losses interrupted by a win in the middle, that is worse than just the string of losses, because the win resets the anti streak and now the losses after it hurt more than if you kept your anti Loss streak.

What is the potential benefit to having any sort of loss streak? Either I'm missing something, or you're missing something. And I think it might be the latter…

Edit: If you're referring to the scaling system for your Glory rank, remember that Join-in-Progress isn't even a thing in the Competitive (Glory) playlist. The new JIP-losses-don't-affect-your-Streak are only relevant to the Valor playlists.

I’d like to get some builds people like and explore that aspect of the game more.

Send me in, coach.

If Bungie wanted less penalty on loss, they should either eliminate the loss streak, or make losses take away fewer points, both. The thing that you want could have been done properly. So ok, the system penalizes losses less now, but it’s worse than it otherwise could be because it penalizes winning too.

You can drive a car across country now! You don’t have to spend 3 months in an ox cart! Why are you complaining? I don’t know, maybe because I could take a plane instead and be even better off.

Your system is analogous to flying across the country and taking more stops and then getting detained somewhere so it takes longer than the car ride would have. Everyone else is hopping in the car and beating the ox and the plane to the destination.

You falsely assume your proposal is more player-friendly than the new system.

Under current rules:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50, 50
Loss -= 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50, 50

LLLLWLLLLL = -260
LLLLLLLLLW = -435

Under new system:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50
Loss -= 20, 15, 10, 05, 05, 05, 05

LLLLWLLLLL = -85
LLLLLLLLLW = -55

Cody's flat-rate system:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50
Loss -= 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20

LLLLWLLLLL = -160
LLLLLLLLLW = -160

You're demonstrating with extreme cases not average cases. While neither is admissible proof, extreme cases are not very representative of a systemic issue.

First of all, we don't know what values Bungie will settle on. That will have an impact on the end result.

Second, there still is an issue here. In your Santa analogy, the issue is that performing a bunch of bad deeds and then a bunch of good deeds looks better than performing a good deed then a bad deed. Since that metaphoric example sounds morally correct (lol), let's say bad deeds, good deeds, then bad deeds:

Under current rules:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50, 50
Loss -= 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50, 50

LLLLWWWWLLLL = -115
LLWLLWLLWLLW = -115

Under new system:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50
Loss -= 20, 15, 10, 05, 05, 05, 05

LLLLWWWWLLLL = 15
LLWLLWLLWLLW = -60

Cody's flat-rate system:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50
Loss -= 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20

LLLLWWWWLLLL = -45
LLWLLWLLWLLW = -80

It's entirely subjective what's "better," but frankly it's a factual statement that a Win that interrupts a losing streak is less beneficial long term than not winning at all.

If you have a long string of losses interrupted by a win in the middle, that is worse than just the string of losses, because the win resets the anti streak and now the losses after it hurt more than if you kept your anti Loss streak.

What is the potential benefit to having any sort of loss streak? Either I'm missing something, or you're missing something. And I think it might be the latter…

Edit: If you're referring to the scaling system for your Glory rank, remember that Join-in-Progress isn't even a thing in the Competitive (Glory) playlist. The new JIP-losses-don't-affect-your-Streak are only relevant to the Valor playlists.

The loss streak currently exists. Right now, the more times you lose in a row, the more points loss for each subsequent loss. They are changing it so now a loss streak actually lowers the subsequent point loss for each sequential loss. Frankly, neither system appeals to me, either.

And actually, we're not talking about the REASON I'm pretty sure they made this change. Right now streaks reset after 5, so losing hurts, but you get some relief after 5 losses if you're having a bad day in competitive. If it didn't reset and stayed at the maximum value you could dig a hole that could take a significant amount of time to dig out of and actively discourage the player from continuing to play.

I was looking at this change, and couldn't figure out what you were talking about:

Joining a game in progress will protect your Valor Win Streak for that game
- If you lose: No penalties incurred to your Valor Win Streak
- If you win: Valor Win Streak increases

This is the relevant item (a couple points further down):

Glory Loss Streaks will be re-tuned to be less punishing over time
- Consecutive losses will decrease the Rank Points lost instead of increasing
- Streaks will still cap out at 5

Argument understood. Told you one of us was missing something. ;-)

Why not just use the loadout tools in apps like DIM?

Long ago and far away, back in the D1 days, I did try a few of the smartphone apps, but the UI design was so clunky and the apps so buggy that I judged them to be basically unusable. I'm SURE they're much better now, but I think that experience put me off so much that I've just never bothered going back.

DIM sounds much better from what I hear, but I also hear that it's browser-only. I stare at a PC screen all day for work and I'm not putting my laptop in the living room for my gaming.

If there's an Android app with a decent UI (meaning something that doesn't take a week and a trip through a wiki to learn) which lets me do the following as part of a set/build, I'd love to hear about it:

1. Equip specific armor pieces.
2. Equip specific weapons.
3. Move a specific set of weapons into inventory (sending everything that isn't in that set back to the vault at the same time would be a nice bonus).

It is never a negative to win a game.

Both Fury and have have detailed where a win absolutely hurts you:

No you haven't and this is silly- Every single person who plays the game will earn rank faster under their new mechanics, or, at worst, if they lose every other game, things will stay exactly the same. Notice how in EF's examples there was never a scenario in which having a losing streak rule made the outcome worse for anyone. All his scenarios assumed 50/50 win/losses. The current rules made a zero gain in rank the outcome of such a record. Under all other rules, the capacity to have a nonzero positive rank increased for the 50/50 scenario.

You also haven't addressed the fact that at any given moment, the incentive is there for you to win your next game. There is never a scenario in which losing is preferable, unless you knew the future and were guaranteed a certain number of wins and losses.

Yes, streaks are rewarded, but wins are never penalized. Wording matters. You're upset that had you seen the future, you could maximize the bonuses of a streak more effectively than if you won every other game. But you can't control that so it' a moot point.

Let's look at the nightmare scenario I think you're envisioning. Different outcomes for LLLLWLLLLL vs LLLLLLLLLW

Under current rules:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50, 50
Loss -= 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50, 50

LLLLWLLLLL = -260
LLLLLLLLLW = -435

Under new system:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50
Loss -= 20, 15, 10, 05, 05, 05, 05

LLLLWLLLLL = -85
LLLLLLLLLW = -55

Look at that. Isn't it advantageous to win at the end rather than in the middle? Well, yes-ish. A win that breaks the streak is worse in the middle than at the end. But compare both of those scenarios to the numbers of the current system. As as player, the new system punishes you less across the board for losing. You losses are lessened and your gains are increased. Isn't this player-friendly?

Let me get this straight.

A streak breaking game is worth +/- 20 points...under the old system AND the new system. Yet, it seems Cody's fervent anger is solely over the streak breaking game. It was always worth 20 points and will still be worth 20 points.

I don’t like it just because I prefer challenge over difficulty. New mechanics add challenge. Modifiers add difficulty.

I know you have said this exact same thing before and that's fine, it's your opinion, but I disagree. The way you say it, you make it sound like they just doubled the boss HP. This in my mind would make it more difficult without making it any more challenging. Modifiers to me add another layer of challenge to the fight. And because it adds more challenging mechanics, it's thus more difficult.

And I see having to mix up my loadout/approach as a challenge. Now it's entirely possible for modifiers to make things more bullet spongey and lets be clear, I'm not into those.

And actually, we're not talking about the REASON I'm pretty sure they made this change. Right now streaks reset after 5, so losing hurts, but you get some relief after 5 losses if you're having a bad day in competitive. If it didn't reset and stayed at the maximum value you could dig a hole that could take a significant amount of time to dig out of and actively discourage the player from continuing to play.

Agreed. But a flat rate on loss would mean that the only additional implicit penalty for loss is the interruption of a win streak, which is just a positive bonus anyway. The argument is that with a decreasing loss streak rate, the inverse is also now true: an implicit penalty for a win interrupting a loss stream is the end of your reduced loss streak. Now if you continue to lose after the win, you are losing more points than you would have had you not won the last match.

It is never a negative to win a game.

Both Fury and have have detailed where a win absolutely hurts you:

No you haven't and this is silly- Every single person who plays the game will earn rank faster under their new mechanics, or, at worst, if they lose every other game, things will stay exactly the same. Notice how in EF's examples there was never a scenario in which having a losing streak rule made the outcome worse for anyone. All his scenarios assumed 50/50 win/losses. The current rules made a zero gain in rank the outcome of such a record. Under all other rules, the capacity to have a nonzero positive rank increased for the 50/50 scenario.

You also haven't addressed the fact that at any given moment, the incentive is there for you to win your next game. There is never a scenario in which losing is preferable, unless you knew the future and were guaranteed a certain number of wins and losses.

Yes, streaks are rewarded, but wins are never penalized. Wording matters. You're upset that had you seen the future, you could maximize the bonuses of a streak more effectively than if you won every other game. But you can't control that so it' a moot point.

Let's look at the nightmare scenario I think you're envisioning. Different outcomes for LLLLWLLLLL vs LLLLLLLLLW

Under current rules:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50, 50
Loss -= 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50, 50

LLLLWLLLLL = -260
LLLLLLLLLW = -435

Under new system:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50
Loss -= 20, 15, 10, 05, 05, 05, 05

LLLLWLLLLL = -85
LLLLLLLLLW = -55

Look at that. Isn't it advantageous to win at the end rather than in the middle? Well, yes-ish. A win that breaks the streak is worse in the middle than at the end. But compare both of those scenarios to the numbers of the current system. As as player, the new system punishes you less across the board for losing. You losses are lessened and your gains are increased. Isn't this player-friendly?

Let me get this straight.

A streak breaking game is worth +/- 20 points...under the old system AND the new system. Yet, it seems Cody's fervent anger is solely over the streak breaking game. It was always worth 20 points and will still be worth 20 points.

It is over the impact the streak breaking game has on subsequent games. Breaking a loss streak with a win resets the loss streak, which means higher subsequent losses.

Let me get this straight.

A streak breaking game is worth +/- 20 points...under the old system AND the new system. Yet, it seems Cody's fervent anger is solely over the streak breaking game. It was always worth 20 points and will still be worth 20 points.

We don't actually know the new values, so it's possible that first loss will hurt more than the current first loss, but we won't know until it's released I'm guessing.

Still though you nailed it. The system only seems worse if you look at it in hindsight. If you look at it as the potential outcome of the next game (assuming first losses are not significantly higher) this system will only help you in maintaining or gaining rep.

It is never a negative to win a game.

Both Fury and have have detailed where a win absolutely hurts you:

No you haven't and this is silly- Every single person who plays the game will earn rank faster under their new mechanics, or, at worst, if they lose every other game, things will stay exactly the same. Notice how in EF's examples there was never a scenario in which having a losing streak rule made the outcome worse for anyone. All his scenarios assumed 50/50 win/losses. The current rules made a zero gain in rank the outcome of such a record. Under all other rules, the capacity to have a nonzero positive rank increased for the 50/50 scenario.

You also haven't addressed the fact that at any given moment, the incentive is there for you to win your next game. There is never a scenario in which losing is preferable, unless you knew the future and were guaranteed a certain number of wins and losses.

Yes, streaks are rewarded, but wins are never penalized. Wording matters. You're upset that had you seen the future, you could maximize the bonuses of a streak more effectively than if you won every other game. But you can't control that so it' a moot point.

Let's look at the nightmare scenario I think you're envisioning. Different outcomes for LLLLWLLLLL vs LLLLLLLLLW

Under current rules:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50, 50
Loss -= 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50, 50

LLLLWLLLLL = -260
LLLLLLLLLW = -435

Under new system:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50
Loss -= 20, 15, 10, 05, 05, 05, 05

LLLLWLLLLL = -85
LLLLLLLLLW = -55

Look at that. Isn't it advantageous to win at the end rather than in the middle? Well, yes-ish. A win that breaks the streak is worse in the middle than at the end. But compare both of those scenarios to the numbers of the current system. As as player, the new system punishes you less across the board for losing. You losses are lessened and your gains are increased. Isn't this player-friendly?

Let me get this straight.

A streak breaking game is worth +/- 20 points...under the old system AND the new system. Yet, it seems Cody's fervent anger is solely over the streak breaking game. It was always worth 20 points and will still be worth 20 points.

It is over the impact the streak breaking game has on subsequent games. Breaking a loss streak with a win resets the loss streak, which means higher subsequent losses.

So following this logic, you would prefer to continue to lose, so you're not penalized AS MUCH. Even though before, you were being penalized 50 points in streak, but will now be only penalized 5 points in streak. You're afraid that if you win, then lose again, you will lose 20 points? This is the dumbest thing I've heard of.

Let me get this straight.

A streak breaking game is worth +/- 20 points...under the old system AND the new system. Yet, it seems Cody's fervent anger is solely over the streak breaking game. It was always worth 20 points and will still be worth 20 points.

We don't actually know the new values, so it's possible that first loss will hurt more than the current first loss, but we won't know until it's released I'm guessing.

Still though you nailed it. The system only seems worse if you look at it in hindsight. If you look at it as the potential outcome of the next game (assuming first losses are not significantly higher) this system will only help you in maintaining or gaining rep.

Your current score, in-and-of-itself, is a representation of hindsight. It is the accumulation of your past deeds.

By the way, I don't even play competitive; I don't have a horse in this race. I'm just trying to point out that there's a point here. lol

It is never a negative to win a game.

Both Fury and have have detailed where a win absolutely hurts you:

No you haven't and this is silly- Every single person who plays the game will earn rank faster under their new mechanics, or, at worst, if they lose every other game, things will stay exactly the same. Notice how in EF's examples there was never a scenario in which having a losing streak rule made the outcome worse for anyone. All his scenarios assumed 50/50 win/losses. The current rules made a zero gain in rank the outcome of such a record. Under all other rules, the capacity to have a nonzero positive rank increased for the 50/50 scenario.

You also haven't addressed the fact that at any given moment, the incentive is there for you to win your next game. There is never a scenario in which losing is preferable, unless you knew the future and were guaranteed a certain number of wins and losses.

Yes, streaks are rewarded, but wins are never penalized. Wording matters. You're upset that had you seen the future, you could maximize the bonuses of a streak more effectively than if you won every other game. But you can't control that so it' a moot point.

Let's look at the nightmare scenario I think you're envisioning. Different outcomes for LLLLWLLLLL vs LLLLLLLLLW

Under current rules:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50, 50
Loss -= 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50, 50

LLLLWLLLLL = -260
LLLLLLLLLW = -435

Under new system:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50
Loss -= 20, 15, 10, 05, 05, 05, 05

LLLLWLLLLL = -85
LLLLLLLLLW = -55

Look at that. Isn't it advantageous to win at the end rather than in the middle? Well, yes-ish. A win that breaks the streak is worse in the middle than at the end. But compare both of those scenarios to the numbers of the current system. As as player, the new system punishes you less across the board for losing. You losses are lessened and your gains are increased. Isn't this player-friendly?

Let me get this straight.

A streak breaking game is worth +/- 20 points...under the old system AND the new system. Yet, it seems Cody's fervent anger is solely over the streak breaking game. It was always worth 20 points and will still be worth 20 points.

It is over the impact the streak breaking game has on subsequent games. Breaking a loss streak with a win resets the loss streak, which means higher subsequent losses.

So following this logic, you would prefer to continue to lose, so you're not penalized AS MUCH. Even though before, you were being penalized 50 points in streak, but will now be only penalized 5 points in streak. You're afraid that if you win, then lose again, you will lose 20 points? This is the dumbest thing I've heard of.

It's not about what you decide to do next, it's about how the order affects the outcome when the order isn't something entirely under your control.

We don't actually know the new values, so it's possible that first loss will hurt more than the current first loss, but we won't know until it's released I'm guessing.

This whole thread is based on information we don't have!!!??

We don't actually know the new values, so it's possible that first loss will hurt more than the current first loss, but we won't know until it's released I'm guessing.

This whole thread is based on information we don't have!!!??

I noted this in my first post. However, regardless of the actual numbers, with the information we have about Glory Loss Declining in a Loss Streak and Glory Gain Inclining in a Win Streak, the point is valid regardless of actual values.

I understand the argument, but I don't agree with it unless the first loss hurts more now than it did before. If it doesn't then the potential outcome of the next game is always better than the old system. It looks worse in hindsight, but you don't actually fully control your wins or losses, so in reality, it is actually better for EVERYONE. Let me explain:

The real way you evaluate the system is how the NEXT game will affect you. If you lose the same points for the first loss as you do now then the new system is ALWAYS better for the player than the old system. The average number of points you gain is higher now than it was before, without exception. Either your loss streak reduces the number of points you would lose, or you can gain more points because you stay on a winning streak.

Looking at it in hindsight it looks like "oh hey, if I hadn't won THIS game but had won THAT game instead I'd be way better off!" makes no sense because you can't move wins and losses around.

I understand the argument, but I don't agree with it unless the first loss hurts more now than it did before. If it doesn't then the potential outcome of the next game is always better than the old system. It looks worse in hindsight, but you don't actually fully control your wins or losses, so in reality, it is actually better for EVERYONE. Let me explain:

The real way you evaluate the system is how the NEXT game will affect you. If you lose the same points for the first loss as you do now then the new system is ALWAYS better for the player than the old system. The average number of points you gain is higher now than it was before, without exception. Either your loss streak reduces the number of points you would lose, or you can gain more points because you stay on a winning streak.

Looking at it in hindsight it looks like "oh hey, if I hadn't won THIS game but had won THAT game instead I'd be way better off!" makes no sense because you can't move wins and losses around.

It doesn't matter what the old system was; the system as evaluated internally has an issue.

A win/loss ratio doesn't care about order. Streaks for consistent good play throw the first wrench into the score being any sort of representation of your win/loss consistency, but seeing as it is simply rewarding good behavior, that just means higher scores for consistently good players. Still a decent reflection.

Then we throw in loss streaks. Still applies the same concept of dramatic decrease in score for consistent failures. Shitty, but still a mirror of the above concept.

Changing the losses to a reducing scale alters the meaning of the score dramatically. Order now matters greatly. A win interrupting a loss streak used to mean the next game you lost took away less points than had you continued to lose.

This isn't about looking forward at the games you are about to play, it as about what your score represents after having played them.

- No text -

Ishtar Commander is simple and clean. Works well on my Android phone.

Logging onto DIM in your phone's browser and saving it to your home screen works the same as an app. It has all kinds of search functionality. For instance, it can highlight all of a certain weapon type, or all weapons that have a certain perk. It's a little more cluttered than Ishtar, but it's super handy if you are trying to find something in your vault quickly.

And if you're like me, you can play with loadout ideas while you sit in boring meetings.

- No text -

I totally get the argument, I just think it's dumb. The system is better in every way for the player. You can argue that it's somehow less representative of your skill, but the system is already not representative of your skill pretty much at all since it's based on team performance, not personal performance, and is not a ranked system, so being representative of your skill is not really a goal of the system anyway (despite claims even from Bungie). In every single scenario, the new system improves the amount of Glory you gain on average from a match which is the goal of the change.

- No text -

And actually, we're not talking about the REASON I'm pretty sure they made this change. Right now streaks reset after 5, so losing hurts, but you get some relief after 5 losses if you're having a bad day in competitive. If it didn't reset and stayed at the maximum value you could dig a hole that could take a significant amount of time to dig out of and actively discourage the player from continuing to play.

But at the end of the day, your status in competitive is based on winning. So if you don’t win… you shouldn’t gain standing. That’s what quickplay is for.

I'm not arguing it's fair. But you're basically arguing that somehow the new system is worse because someone will randomly have a meaningless number higher than yours because the gods of matchmaking let their streaks be better than yours. Guess what, it's already like that! A number I might add that is not visible in game (only ranks, not points, and only if you choose to put on the emblem) and means nothing since you can reset it at any point. And if you say that Joe Guardian will gain points faster than you based on luck, sure that's true, but you are still gaining points faster than you were with the old system, so... what's the problem?

But at the end of the day, your status in competitive is based on winning. So if you don’t win… you shouldn’t gain standing.

And you still won't...

We don't actually know the new values, so it's possible that first loss will hurt more than the current first loss, but we won't know until it's released I'm guessing.

This whole thread is based on information we don't have!!!??

I just want to point out that if it weren't for that little upward bit in the middle where the car rolls up hill for a second before dropping off of a steeper cliff*, the car might have taken less damage. I think it would have been better for the car had it just gone DDDDDDDDDD than DDDDDUDDDD.

-Disciple

Edit: Too many Ds

*OK, so the cliff after the upward bit isn't actually steep enough to make a difference, but I REALLY wanted to make this work :p

- No text -

I totally get the argument, I just think it's dumb. The system is better in every way for the player. You can argue that it's somehow less representative of your skill, but the system is already not representative of your skill pretty much at all since it's based on team performance, not personal performance, and is not a ranked system, so being representative of your skill is not really a goal of the system anyway (despite claims even from Bungie). In every single scenario, the new system improves the amount of Glory you gain on average from a match which is the goal of the change.

This doesn't make sense either. If they wanted to improve the average amount of glory per match, they would make wins worth more proportionally than losses.

This doesn't make sense either. If they wanted to improve the average amount of glory per match, they would make wins worth more proportionally than losses.

Unless the first loss hurts you more than it does now technically they did.

I'm not arguing it's fair. But you're basically arguing that somehow the new system is worse because someone will randomly have a meaningless number higher than yours because the gods of matchmaking let their streaks be better than yours. Guess what, it's already like that! A number I might add that is not visible in game (only ranks, not points, and only if you choose to put on the emblem) and means nothing since you can reset it at any point. And if you say that Joe Guardian will gain points faster than you based on luck, sure that's true, but you are still gaining points faster than you were with the old system, so... what's the problem?

Once again: it's a problem because the new system has an issue, that other potential systems do not have, and those other systems also solve the problem the current system has.

Fixed amount of glory lost per loss. Fixes the problem present now, and doesn't introduce the problem the new system does. They could then adjust the fixed value to be less than it is now.

I'm not arguing it's fair. But you're basically arguing that somehow the new system is worse because someone will randomly have a meaningless number higher than yours because the gods of matchmaking let their streaks be better than yours. Guess what, it's already like that! A number I might add that is not visible in game (only ranks, not points, and only if you choose to put on the emblem) and means nothing since you can reset it at any point. And if you say that Joe Guardian will gain points faster than you based on luck, sure that's true, but you are still gaining points faster than you were with the old system, so... what's the problem?

I personally prioritize fairness over "everyone is better than before," especially when these things cost next to nothing to "do better." I'm going to run some numbers and post some graphs soon.

This doesn't make sense either. If they wanted to improve the average amount of glory per match, they would make wins worth more proportionally than losses.

Unless the first loss hurts you more than it does now technically they did.

Which they could have done by getting rid of loss streaks altogether, and adjusting the values for wins/losses. This would NOT have the problem the new system has now.

If you fix one problem but create another, why would you not adopt a solution that fixes the problem WITHOUT creating a new issue?

But at the end of the day, your status in competitive is based on winning. So if you don’t win… you shouldn’t gain standing.

And you still won't...

You absolutely will. Because losses will get less and less, it's going to be entirely possible to gain ranks by losing more than half your games. But only if you lose them all in a row. That's a huge problem.

Once again it was so simply illustrated by the difference between losing 5 games then winning 5 games, versus alternating win/loss 5 times.

The thing is, I don't think that many of see it is a problem (I think that's rather clear from this thread actually).

The thing is, I don't think that many of see it is a problem (I think that's rather clear from this thread actually).

Then you and others have absolutely no regard for the integrity of a competitive game. Winning should never confer on you a penalty or disadvantage. That's like the most basic thing ever when it comes to designing a competitive game.

Still though you nailed it. The system only seems worse if you look at it in hindsight.

Everyone keeps saying this but it doesn't matter. Any system in which theoretically changing a win to a loss would benefit you is BROKEN. It doesn't matter if you can exploit it. It doesn't matter until it becomes apparent after the fact.

How well you do should be based on how often you win. NOT WHEN YOU WIN.

We don't actually know the new values, so it's possible that first loss will hurt more than the current first loss, but we won't know until it's released I'm guessing.

This whole thread is based on information we don't have!!!??

All the information we need is right here:

Consecutive losses will decrease the Rank Points lost instead of increasing

This is a de-facto penalty on winning. Winning should never be penalized, in any sense. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the numbers are.

The fact that WWWWWLLLLL can give you a really different point ranking than WLWLWLWLWL should have been evidence enough. For the record, I don't think win streaks are 'fair' either, but nothing about them penalizes winning.

The thing is, I don't think that many of see it is a problem (I think that's rather clear from this thread actually).

Then you and others have absolutely no regard for the integrity of a competitive game.

You're absolutely right, I don't. Even the competitive playlist is not compared to anyone, there's no leaderboard ranking players, no permanent required listing on my profile that shows my "skill" in the competitive playlist. In fact, it's not even based on my personal performance. I've had games where I was at the top of both teams and still lost several times. The system as it is is not even built as an accurate competitive system. Making it so I'm less dragged down because I alone can't make up for a bad draw of teammates or opponents is absolutely more friendly and more fun. I'm positive there are better ways to do it, no system is EVER perfect, but this system is absolutely, in my opinion, an improvement over the old system.

You can argue that it's somehow less representative of your skill, but the system is already not representative of your skill pretty much at all since it's based on team performance, not personal performance

Measuring personal performance in terms of how much you contributed to winning is basically impossible, and it would create unhealthy incentives.

Base it on kills? Then players would trade kills an / or take risks instead of disengaging and letting the team clean up the kill. Base it on K/D? Then players would seek to maximize their own K/D, possibly at the team's expense. Base it on bombs armed and defused? Then the team who wipes the other team before anyone touches the bomb suffers. And if a player contributes to the win in a way not defined or tracked by stats? Then he's out of luck.

Further, sometimes you mesh and jive with people in ways that aren't mathematically apparent.

The only fair system is 'did your team win'.

I totally agree it's the only fair system, anything else is too complicated. As Bungie said during Halo ranked development "How many kills is a flag capture worth?" My point was just that because of that rank is already based on quite a bit of luck.

- No text -

Still though you nailed it. The system only seems worse if you look at it in hindsight.

Everyone keeps saying this but it doesn't matter. Any system in which theoretically changing a win to a loss would benefit you is BROKEN. It doesn't matter if you can exploit it. It doesn't matter until it becomes apparent after the fact.

How well you do should be based on how often you win. NOT WHEN YOU WIN.

You keep saying that, but it doesn’t matter. See how easy that is to say?

No one is misunderstanding your point. It’s just not that big of an issue. You will still fundamentally be better off than you would have been previously. That was their only stated goal, and they accomplished it.

Edit: Just to be clear—this doesn’t affect me at all, so I don’t care. I also see your point, and I agree that a flat loss penalty would be a better system for a competitive ranking. I just don’t think it’s a big enough deal to be upset about.

It's entirely subjective what's "better," but frankly it's a factual statement that a Win that interrupts a losing streak is less beneficial long term than not winning at all.

Amazingly (to me), this is true:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50
Loss -= 20, 15, 10, 05, 05, 05, 05

LLLLWLLLLL = -85
LLLLLLLLLL = -80

Yeah... that's sort of broken. :)

The thing is, I don't think that many of see it is a problem (I think that's rather clear from this thread actually).

I was on your side of this until I did the math on 9 games, all losses except one win in the middle, vs all losses... and the series with the win was worse for you. (Post here.)

That might be an edge case... but that's CLEARLY broken.

But at the end of the day, your status in competitive is based on winning. So if you don’t win… you shouldn’t gain standing.

And you still won't...

You absolutely will. Because losses will get less and less, it's going to be entirely possible to gain ranks by losing more than half your games. But only if you lose them all in a row. That's a huge problem.

Once again it was so simply illustrated by the difference between losing 5 games then winning 5 games, versus alternating win/loss 5 times.

Okay, here's where your argument gets silly.

If you have the control to decide WHERE your losses are going to come, you're not going to lose half your games. You're arguing a theoretical that simply won't show up in the real world.

You may be better of in the future than now, but you’d be even better off if hey did a proper fix!

The fact that WWWWWLLLLL can give you a really different point ranking than WLWLWLWLWL should have been evidence enough. For the record, I don't think win streaks are 'fair' either, but nothing about them penalizes winning.

What you're really upset about then is the presence of streaks at all. WWLLWWLLWL under your system gives a different outcome than WLWLWLWLWL.

This is a legitimate critique of a ranking system in competitive play. Should we have streaks at all? This is a line of inquiry that could be explored.

Then you'd have to try to determine the intent of the competitive playlist. Who does it serve? What does a rank mean (especially if it can be reset)? Is the design goal for people to have steady progress or is it for people to stack themselves up against each other?

I’m not saying that. That’s why the system is so broken: because you CANT decide when to win and lose. You are just trying to always win. So to have a win hurt you in the long run would be frustrating.

The fact that WWWWWLLLLL can give you a really different point ranking than WLWLWLWLWL should have been evidence enough. For the record, I don't think win streaks are 'fair' either, but nothing about them penalizes winning.

What you're really upset about then is the presence of streaks at all. WWLLWWLLWL under your system gives a different outcome than WLWLWLWLWL.

This is a legitimate critique of a ranking system in competitive play. Should we have streaks at all? This is a line of inquiry that could be explored.

Then you'd have to try to determine the intent of the competitive playlist. Who does it serve? What does a rank mean (especially if it can be reset)? Is the design goal for people to have steady progress or is it for people to stack themselves up against each other?

It’s like, I totally “get” the idea behind win streaks. It feels really good as an extra bonus when you are already killing it. But there is also the frustration of having it break up and reset that you wouldn’t feel if there were no win streaks. I think overall those should go too, but their inclusion is tolerable.

The fact that WWWWWLLLLL can give you a really different point ranking than WLWLWLWLWL should have been evidence enough. For the record, I don't think win streaks are 'fair' either, but nothing about them penalizes winning.

What you're really upset about then is the presence of streaks at all. WWLLWWLLWL under your system gives a different outcome than WLWLWLWLWL.

This is a legitimate critique of a ranking system in competitive play. Should we have streaks at all? This is a line of inquiry that could be explored.

Then you'd have to try to determine the intent of the competitive playlist. Who does it serve? What does a rank mean (especially if it can be reset)? Is the design goal for people to have steady progress or is it for people to stack themselves up against each other?

Except that:

• The current system
  
• A system with only a Win streak and no Loss streak
  
• EVEN a Loss streak and no Win streak

...are ALL more fair than the new proposed system.

Yeah I totally see how that's a problem, a couple of things to bear in mind though, one being we don't actually know how much it diminishes by, these numbers are made up on the spot to provide POTENTIAL outcomes. Sure potentially with ANY number, you'll lose more by winning one in the middle than if you keep losing, but the more edge case it becomes the less of an issue it is. The other being you'll still come out ahead from the current system.

Like I said, it's definitely not a perfect system, but it still stings less than the current system. The argument seems to be on how much each of us feels it's a problem.

It's entirely subjective what's "better," but frankly it's a factual statement that a Win that interrupts a losing streak is less beneficial long term than not winning at all.

Amazingly (to me), this is true:

Win += 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 50, 50
Loss -= 20, 15, 10, 05, 05, 05, 05

LLLLWLLLLL = -85
LLLLLLLLLL = -80

Yeah... that's sort of broken. :)

Though the data is in support of my position, you actually didn't do it correctly. The streak resets after 5 no matter what, so it'd actually be:

LLLLWLLLLL = -85
LLLLLLLLLL = -110

In my lifetime I’ve witnessed two men become president who had fewer votes then their opponents. That’s because nobody cared about edge cases.

The fact that WWWWWLLLLL can give you a really different point ranking than WLWLWLWLWL should have been evidence enough. For the record, I don't think win streaks are 'fair' either, but nothing about them penalizes winning.

What you're really upset about then is the presence of streaks at all. WWLLWWLLWL under your system gives a different outcome than WLWLWLWLWL.

This is a legitimate critique of a ranking system in competitive play. Should we have streaks at all? This is a line of inquiry that could be explored.

Then you'd have to try to determine the intent of the competitive playlist. Who does it serve? What does a rank mean (especially if it can be reset)? Is the design goal for people to have steady progress or is it for people to stack themselves up against each other?

Except that:

• The current system
  
• A system with only a Win streak and no Loss streak
  
• EVEN a Loss streak and no Win streak

...are ALL more fair than the new proposed system.

Regarding fairness? You are correct. But is that the design goal? Because if the design goal is a feeling of progress for players than this is the most beneficial system to the player.

Though the data is in support of my position, you actually didn't do it correctly. The streak resets after 5 no matter what, so it'd actually be:

LLLLWLLLLL = -85
LLLLLLLLLL = -110

It doesn't actually, with the new system all streaks will no longer reset after 5 but stay at the value it was at 5.

In my lifetime I’ve witnessed two men become president who had fewer votes then their opponents. That’s because nobody cared about edge cases.

Comparing a mountain to a molehill there a just a tiny bit.

The fact that WWWWWLLLLL can give you a really different point ranking than WLWLWLWLWL should have been evidence enough. For the record, I don't think win streaks are 'fair' either, but nothing about them penalizes winning.

What you're really upset about then is the presence of streaks at all. WWLLWWLLWL under your system gives a different outcome than WLWLWLWLWL.

This is a legitimate critique of a ranking system in competitive play. Should we have streaks at all? This is a line of inquiry that could be explored.

Then you'd have to try to determine the intent of the competitive playlist. Who does it serve? What does a rank mean (especially if it can be reset)? Is the design goal for people to have steady progress or is it for people to stack themselves up against each other?

Except that:

• The current system
  
• A system with only a Win streak and no Loss streak
  
• EVEN a Loss streak and no Win streak

...are ALL more fair than the new proposed system.

Regarding fairness? You are correct. But is that the design goal? Because if the design goal is a feeling of progress for players than this is the most beneficial system to the player.

I think when Bungie said they aimed progressing to the top 40% of crucible players, they’ve already entered the realm of exclusionary fairness.

In my lifetime I’ve witnessed two men become president who had fewer votes then their opponents. That’s because nobody cared about edge cases.

Comparing a mountain to a molehill there a just a tiny bit.

Not getting the Claymore because of a stupid system would devestate me more than any election. :-p

I’m already 70% of the way there baby.

Not getting the Claymore because of a stupid system would devestate me more than any election. :-p

If that's your entire worry I have good news for you! The average amount you'll gain will go up when the changes take place! Disagreement resolved!

Not getting the Claymore because of a stupid system would devestate me more than any election. :-p

If that's your entire worry I have good news for you! The average amount you'll gain will go up when the changes take place! Disagreement resolved!

No bruh, I wanna get it for realz, not the pussy way yo. Freaking casuals man. :-p

So I don't have any more time to devote, but here's the Excel file with the data (15 games) and some charts. One thing I wanted to do was take a few 100-point-window slices and see what the W/L ratio spread looked like at different parts of the data set. Maybe someone can do that for me.

Data is Cool

I just realized that the streaks stay at 5...well that breaks all of my data...I'll fix it later.

- No text -

- No text -

- No text -

- No text -

This is awesome. Even if the data is dirty. Well done.

I fixed the data, original link should work. I also changed the Ratio to just Wins; seeing as every row is out of 15 games, the ratio can be calculated easily within Excel and that way it gives us cleaner numbers.

Now we can also do things like find out the average score for each W/L ratio and spread of W/L ratios among a range of scores! Neat.

- No text -