- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
Posted by: Sword
Alright, I've read this and various comments and would like to know if I understand this correctly (the numbers I'll be using are hypothetical, it's the theory I'd like confirmation on):
A person will level quickly until they reach a point that is their supposed skill level. So, let's say someone wins about 7 out of 10 games consistently, and this puts them at around skill 40 fairly quickly in a playlist. However, for them to rank up to 45 or 50, they will have to start winning 8 or 9 out of 10 games, or something like that. So once you reach a certain peak, you are stuck at that skill level until you improve on your win/loss ratio. Am I correct?
Alright, if that is true and that's how it basically works, I'd like to say something: This is stupid.
Wouldn't it have been a hell of a lot easier to make it: Win a game = +10 points, lose a game= -10 points, and depending on the skill level of your opponents, maybe your win is +7 or your loss is -5 or something like that. And to reach a new level, one must achieve a certain number of points? You know, the old fashioned way like an RPG?
The way the system is set up now seems rather lame, IMO. Not that I can complain, I'm a 46 LW, and I'm about to embark on my quest for 50. I've hardly ever had trouble leveling, and if I didn't it at least made sense because I could tell I was doing poorly and losing some games. However, this rank system means that no matter how well I started off in Halo, I have to improve drastically to make the rank system go up? To me, more wins than losses should eventually accumulate enough 'points' to go up a skill level. Instead, one must be improving exponentially, even if they are already winning way more than losing. That just feels wrong to me. If you do well consistently, you should be rewarded. Sure, maybe it will take longer than the person who wins 9/10 as opposed to 8/10, but you shouldn't be 'held back' because you have not reached that ratio of wins/losses.
So in short, I understand now how this works. This also explains why after 8 wins in a row and 2 losses, I went from 39 to 44, then down to 43 in Team Slayer, while two of my other friends went from 32 and 34 to 33 and 35, only to go back down to where they started. And why the fourth person in our party didn't budge from 42 the entire time. Sorry, but something is wrong here no matter which way you look at it. The guys who are lower levels should be leveling faster than the ones who are higher. If I could choose so, I would have the skill rating work the same as EXP, only winning is +1 and losing is -1. And depending on the levels of your opponents, maybe it's technically +1.1 or -.9, you know what I mean?
Alright, thanks for the informative post, TC. While I dislike the system, I'm glad I finally know how it works. Unless I'm still not quite on the mark? If so, someone let me know.
With that sort of system you would have people going up even just winning more than 1 of 3 games. The Trueskill system tries to evaluate your actual skill in the game. It also helps you level up more quickly in the start so you can get to the commander or whatever you should be at. With your system, every other person would be a general because its not hard to win more games than you've lost. The other problem is that you would have no way to tell from people who are really good and people who have gotten lucky. You would basically have leutenants facing majors and commanders a lot of the time. The Trueskill system is meant to evaluate and match up even teams as well as determining skill level. You don't have to understand what it does other than that if you win you will go up. This may take a while but there you go.