Halo 3 Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: In depth explanation of the Halo 3 skill ranking system.
  • Subject: In depth explanation of the Halo 3 skill ranking system.
Subject: In depth explanation of the Halo 3 skill ranking system.
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I consider this to be inadequate, and there are certainly way s to figure out that some of his explanations are just outright wrong.

For example, when I started out on my new account, I took MVP the first 16 games I played, and yet I remained at a level 8 for 9 of those 16. Now, considering I was ahead of people every single game, by his explanation, there's no way I couldn't have leveled(and looking at some of those games, his explanation doesn't even work because I was the lowest rank in a fair percentage of them). I eventually moved on, and perhaps coincidentally it was first time I won without being MVP. So either it was a glitch(but I still ranked up) or he's not taking into consideration that there are glaringly obvious additions to the TrueSkill system that bungie has implemented.

Simply saying that any affect on your skill by other factors is chance correlation is missing the point of correlation: even if it is by chance it does have an effect. So say perhaps medals are meaningless, but in level outcomes there is substance to the claim that they impact your ability to level up.

The essential problem with his explanation is it attempt to explain off phenomena as irrelevant or only perceived in attempt to fit it with what has been explained as the base TrueSkill system, which we know bungie has expanded. Instead of going along with massive data supporting other proofs in practice, we're given an explanation that does not encompass many situations occurring with actual play.

So my conclusion is there really are aspects of gameplay that are recognized, even if not by the base TrueSkill system. Disregarding correlating factors even if they happens to be by chance(though probability leans towards it not being chance) would be ignoring aspects which would still have significance in actual gameplay. In terms of looking at what the overall goal is, it's a little irrelevant figuring out why the system works the way it does as opposed to how it works. Sticking to my example even if medals aren't recognized in the calculating rank, and even if those medals don't correlate to wins, if there is a practical outcome for no reason other than sheer luck, it is still a gain that shouldn't be disregarded as chance should it by sheer probability be affecting your overall skill levels.

  • 07.10.2008 9:16 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: drshortydd
I consider this to be inadequate, and there are certainly way s to figure out that some of his explanations are just outright wrong.

For example, when I started out on my new account, I took MVP the first 16 games I played, and yet I remained at a level 8 for 9 of those 16. Now, considering I was ahead of people every single game, by his explanation, there's no way I couldn't have leveled(and looking at some of those games, his explanation doesn't even work because I was the lowest rank in a fair percentage of them). I eventually moved on, and perhaps coincidentally it was first time I won without being MVP. So either it was a glitch(but I still ranked up) or he's not taking into consideration that there are glaringly obvious additions to the TrueSkill system that bungie has implemented.

Simply saying that any affect on your skill by other factors is chance correlation is missing the point of correlation: even if it is by chance it does have an effect. So say perhaps medals are meaningless, but in level outcomes there is substance to the claim that they impact your ability to level up.

The essential problem with his explanation is it attempt to explain off phenomena as irrelevant or only perceived in attempt to fit it with what has been explained as the base TrueSkill system, which we know bungie has expanded. Instead of going along with massive data supporting other proofs in practice, we're given an explanation that does not encompass many situations occurring with actual play.

So my conclusion is there really are aspects of gameplay that are recognized, even if not by the base TrueSkill system. Disregarding correlating factors even if they happens to be by chance(though probability leans towards it not being chance) would be ignoring aspects which would still have significance in actual gameplay. In terms of looking at what the overall goal is, it's a little irrelevant figuring out why the system works the way it does as opposed to how it works. Sticking to my example even if medals aren't recognized in the calculating rank, and even if those medals don't correlate to wins, if there is a practical outcome for no reason other than sheer luck, it is still a gain that shouldn't be disregarded as chance should it by sheer probability be affecting your overall skill levels.


I apologize but I am having a hard time understanding what you are getting at. Seems to me you are implying correlation = causation, which is completely untrue. Sure if you get a lot of medals or get MVP, you probably have a higher chance of ranking up. But thats not because you got them, its because your team had a higher chance of winning. They are independant.

Bungie cannot make a lot of changes to True Skill...they can really only change the sigma variables. What they can do is mess around with matchmaking qualities and mixed party restrictions.

[Edited on 07.10.2008 9:37 AM PDT]

  • 07.10.2008 9:24 AM PDT

Is it true that: The more xp you have, the harder it is to gain skill, even at a low skill lvl?

  • 07.11.2008 11:36 AM PDT

"Once Bungie takes over the world, The Marty Army will take over Bungie and then we'll really have some fun."
-Marty O'Donnell

"Condemnant quod non intellegunt."

Make Bungie.net More Enjoyable: Read & Follow

Good post. It's also nice to see that there still are some people on Bungie.net that can fluently speak English with appropriate spelling and solid grammar.

  • 07.11.2008 1:04 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: XxNoObTa5tIcxX
Is it true that: The more xp you have, the harder it is to gain skill, even at a low skill lvl?


No, please re read. Lower Sigma means harder to rank. Sigma has nothing to do with EXP. EXP is in theory irrelevant to ranking speed, other than that high EXP typically implies you have likely played a lot of games in most playlists.

[Edited on 07.11.2008 3:35 PM PDT]

  • 07.11.2008 3:35 PM PDT
  • gamertag: Oml3t
  • user homepage:

What I am, is trapped. And I've been trapped for so long that I don't know what it feels like...to be free.

"Major changes to the Halo 3 Online Experience"

Hmm, Bungie may be thinking of assisting Microsoft in tweaking the TrueSkill system?

  • 07.11.2008 4:46 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Ive read it and im confused im very slow.... i was wondering how hard would it be for me to hit 50 in DT and TS im a 43 in both used to be a 46 in both....i have 1400 xp without penalty

  • 07.11.2008 8:07 PM PDT

Phazon Injected.

Posted by: Domino Theory 2
"Major changes to the Halo 3 Online Experience"

Hmm, Bungie may be thinking of assisting Microsoft in tweaking the TrueSkill system?

Same thoughts here. I hope we're both right.

  • 07.11.2008 9:03 PM PDT

no offense but i think the ranking system should be like COD4 but not as easy because ive been stuck on 33 for a veryyyyyyy long time so im guessing i have a low sigmas or whatever
after a while of winning so much games and not ranking up gets very fustrating and the worst thing is your friends go up and u dont

  • 07.12.2008 3:56 AM PDT

add me if you need ODST Firefight achievements

An excellent well written post there, I have been looking for a while about some good information on this. Thanks.

  • 07.12.2008 4:03 AM PDT

very good post but i wonder how long u spent on writing that lol

  • 07.12.2008 4:09 AM PDT

Posted by: Domino Theory 2
"Major changes to the Halo 3 Online Experience"

Hmm, Bungie may be thinking of assisting Microsoft in tweaking the TrueSkill system?



http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=23300945

  • 07.12.2008 4:13 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

While I trust this guy Bungie rules the world for a reason.

  • 07.12.2008 5:12 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

O'RLY?
I wish i may one day understand the System Perfectly.

  • 07.12.2008 10:32 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

very good post but i have 1 question.

I have won many games in a row and according to your post i have a lower sigma, now if i lose a few in a row will my sigma increase?!

mayb you have explained this already but i didnt understand :s

  • 07.13.2008 9:39 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

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.

  • 07.13.2008 7:29 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

How do you level up, though, if you lose a game.

Just recently we got owned in team snipers in the Team Doubles playlist, but I ranked up even though I lost.

My partner, however, remained at the same level.

[Edited on 07.13.2008 11:44 PM PDT]

  • 07.13.2008 11:29 PM PDT

Posted by: Sword
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.
The system you described which you want H3 to use is very similar to the H2 EXP points based. Bungie decided to ditch that type of system for what we have now.

The thing to keep in mind is not so much how many wins but who those wins are against. You must beat players of equal or higher skill level to gain anything from the win. You also have to remember that generally the more games played in a playlist, the more wins it takes to go up.

Once you start losing some games, it will take more wins to go up. How you got to a certain skill level will dictate how many wins or what you have to do to go up. This is why people, even of the same skill level, will not go up at the same rate. If one if a 45 with very few losses and one is a 45 with a lot of losses, they will not gain skill levels at the same rate even if they are on the same team.

  • 07.14.2008 5:52 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Aeroic
  • user homepage:

Wow, so complicated. What about Mental Factor!?

  • 07.14.2008 6:53 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Jay120171
Posted by: Sword
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.
The system you described which you want H3 to use is very similar to the H2 EXP points based. Bungie decided to ditch that type of system for what we have now.

The thing to keep in mind is not so much how many wins but who those wins are against. You must beat players of equal or higher skill level to gain anything from the win. You also have to remember that generally the more games played in a playlist, the more wins it takes to go up.

Once you start losing some games, it will take more wins to go up. How you got to a certain skill level will dictate how many wins or what you have to do to go up. This is why people, even of the same skill level, will not go up at the same rate. If one if a 45 with very few losses and one is a 45 with a lot of losses, they will not gain skill levels at the same rate even if they are on the same team.



Hmm. Okay, that seems to make sense. Alright, well thanks for responding back. I guess I'm off to go raise my 45 to a 50 as best I can! And convince my others friends who were mad enough to quit Halo 3 that there is still a light at the end of the tunnel!

Later, and thanks again for the info.

  • 07.14.2008 11:12 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • 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.

  • 07.15.2008 10:24 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I've heard that your level will rise more slowly if you party up. Is that true or just more ranking myth?

  • 07.15.2008 10:28 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Let's say I play all day long from midnight to midnight... Would I be skipping levels?

  • 07.15.2008 10:30 AM PDT

I'm not entirely sure I understand the logic behind this. Either that or I'm just reading it wrong, but help me out here.
Being inconsistent raises your Sigma, and with a high Sigma, your Mu goes up faster.
Being consistent lowers your Sigma, making your Mu increase slower.
Surely if you are beating players with the same Mu as yourself consistently, it would make sense to rank you up faster, because your Mu is clearly higher than what the system calculates it actually is (Shown by beating players at the same apprent skill level)?

Also, this makes the system unfair, because you cannot control the Mu and Sigma of the players you match up against. For example, if you win 10 matches against players with lower Mu and higher Sigma, you won't go up, but then if you get matched against someone with a higher Mu, you'll go down.
Surely, if you're trying to rank up, this makes these 10 matches a complete waste of time?

  • 07.15.2008 11:09 AM PDT

Posted by: DarknessCalls
I've heard that your level will rise more slowly if you party up. Is that true or just more ranking myth?
It is possible especially on a new account or new playlist. If you play all of your games with the same few teammates, you will level slower or stall. Playing with a lot of different people allows the system to place people on your team where it can learn info about you. One team of 4 played over a 100 games of TS with only each other and didn't get over 15.

Posted by: Glycerine Flesh
I'm not entirely sure I understand the logic behind this. Either that or I'm just reading it wrong, but help me out here.
Being inconsistent raises your Sigma, and with a high Sigma, your Mu goes up faster.
Being consistent lowers your Sigma, making your Mu increase slower.
Surely if you are beating players with the same Mu as yourself consistently, it would make sense to rank you up faster, because your Mu is clearly higher than what the system calculates it actually is (Shown by beating players at the same apprent skill level)?

Also, this makes the system unfair, because you cannot control the Mu and Sigma of the players you match up against. For example, if you win 10 matches against players with lower Mu and higher Sigma, you won't go up, but then if you get matched against someone with a higher Mu, you'll go down.
Surely, if you're trying to rank up, this makes these 10 matches a complete waste of time?
Don't confuse consistent with winning. Consistent means winning the games you should and losing the games you should according to how the system predicts. Winning against lower skill people will not give you much MU and lower your sigma while winning against higher skilled people will give you more MU and keep your sigma higher. Winning consistently will get your skill level up regardless of sigma. It's how MANY games it takes to go up that is determined by your sigma, the skill levels of your opponents and your opponents sigma.

The reason playing inconsistent keeps your sigma high is so the system can adjust you up AND down to get you to your skill level quickly. Once you become consistent, your sigma is lower by this process and it takes more to go up OR down. Beating people with a higher MU will still get your skill level up, it's the speed at which this happens which is an issue for some.

It's good for people starting out but the issue seems to be people that start out poor and then have greatly improved. By the time they improve, they have a low sigma and it takes 10 wins (on average) to go up 1 skill level. You will never get stuck at a skill level unless you only play with the same teammates for ALL of your games. Folks quickly realize they can now start over and go up much quicker on a new account and not have to put the time in to their original account. Most people only land a few skill levels higher but for the majority, it is worth it.

  • 07.15.2008 12:55 PM PDT