Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Halo Reach Perfect Ranking System. Reflects Skill NOT Time Played.
  • Subject: Halo Reach Perfect Ranking System. Reflects Skill NOT Time Played.
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: Halo Reach Perfect Ranking System. Reflects Skill NOT Time Played.

I'm xAssault12x, and I love the Halo Universe. Discussion please!

The ranking system should be based half on Career Kill/Death Ratio and half on a point system.

Example of points per game.
+7 per win -6 per loss
Objective Game Points
+1 per flag score, +1 per bomb detonation, +3 for most time with odd ball, +2 for second most time with odd ball, +1 per VIP kill, +1 posotive K/D Ratio, -1 negative K/D Ratio, +1 most kills,
+1 second most kills, -1 most deaths, -1 second most deaths
Slayer Match Points
+4 most kills, +3 second most kills, +2 third most kills, -3 most deaths, -2 second most deaths,
-1 third most deaths, +1 posotive K/D Ratio, -1 Negative K/D Ratio

Rank requirements should be a certain number of points for each level and a Career Kill/Death Ratio for every 5 levels. For example: to be a level 36 you need 860 points and a Career Kill/Death Ratio of 1.6. This would keep noobs from getting a level 50. In almost every game noobs will get high level because they play the game every day and the ranking systems are based on experience and not skill.

Ranking in Halo has never made sense to me. If I played the game enough then eventualy I will get a 50. What insentive, other then ego and pride, do I have to get a higher rank, and why do they even bother matching me with people of the same rank in matchmaking? There is a 50% chance I will face a noob and a 50% chance I will face someone who makes me look like a noob. Rank should actually tell me how good that person is and not just how much time they played Halo. Also, boosting is an easy way to get a 50 as well.

If a Kill/Death Ratio determines the highest rank you can get then people will not be able to boost. There is no way to cheat this ranking system and it will accurately gauge someones skill.

  • 10.13.2009 3:40 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

IMO the system CoD uses is very well done. In this I mean that we should recieve points for wins, points for personal preformance, and for doing cool stuuff like achievements or as CoD puts it, challenges.

Just so you know, I'm not implying that I want this to become like CoD.

  • 10.13.2009 3:45 PM PDT

Here’s what Luke had to say about the differences in treatment between the Spartans and Elites in Reach:

“Instead of piece-by-piece customization like the Spartans, Elite customization is a full model swap with models selected from the various Elite classes appearing throughout the Campaign. There are all kinds of reasons for this, not the least of which is our continued emphasis on the Spartan as your identity in Reach.”

Ranking, or Matchmaking system?

The matchmaking system will be Trueskill.

I would prefer a Gears of War point system, where you get points for every single thing you do, from damaging an opponent, to spending time in the Hill. And you get points for the damage you deal to people, even if you don't kill them. You get a bonus for finishing the job though.

And you could get bonus points for medal based kills, melees, and sprees.

  • 10.13.2009 3:47 PM PDT

I'm xAssault12x, and I love the Halo Universe. Discussion please!

Posted by: EpicIn10sity
IMO the system CoD uses is very well done. In this I mean that we should recieve points for wins, points for personal preformance, and for doing cool stuuff like achievements or as CoD puts it, challenges.

Just so you know, I'm not implying that I want this to become like CoD.


I get what you meen. I just kinda built on that and also made it possible to loose points too. I think that if you do really bad then you should loose rank. Under my ranking system, every game is important. Your Kill/Death Ratio is effected and you can win or loose points. It is a give and take system.

  • 10.13.2009 3:49 PM PDT

I'm xAssault12x, and I love the Halo Universe. Discussion please!

Posted by: Uncle Kulikov
Ranking, or Matchmaking system?

The matchmaking system will be Trueskill.

I would prefer a Gears of War point system, where you get points for every single thing you do, from damaging an opponent, to spending time in the Hill. And you get points for the damage you deal to people, even if you don't kill them. You get a bonus for finishing the job though.

And you could get bonus points for medal based kills, melees, and sprees.


Trueskill and Gears 2 ranking systems suck. In Gears I face people who are tripple my rank and I demolish them. That is not right. Rank should reflect skill. Trueskill is the same. If someone is a 50 they can be a noob. I constantly beat people way above me. That is not how it should work. A rank, the number or symbol next to your name, should accurately reflect your skill and not just how much time you spend on a game.

  • 10.13.2009 3:53 PM PDT

Here’s what Luke had to say about the differences in treatment between the Spartans and Elites in Reach:

“Instead of piece-by-piece customization like the Spartans, Elite customization is a full model swap with models selected from the various Elite classes appearing throughout the Campaign. There are all kinds of reasons for this, not the least of which is our continued emphasis on the Spartan as your identity in Reach.”

Posted by: xAssault12x
Posted by: Uncle Kulikov
Ranking, or Matchmaking system?

The matchmaking system will be Trueskill.

I would prefer a Gears of War point system, where you get points for every single thing you do, from damaging an opponent, to spending time in the Hill. And you get points for the damage you deal to people, even if you don't kill them. You get a bonus for finishing the job though.

And you could get bonus points for medal based kills, melees, and sprees.


Trueskill and Gears 2 ranking systems suck. In Gears I face people who are tripple my rank and I demolish them. That is not right. Rank should reflect skill. Trueskill is the same. If someone is a 50 they can be a noob. I constantly beat people way above me. That is not how it should work. A rank, the number or symbol next to your name, should accurately reflect your skill and not just how much time you spend on a game.

Every Xbox 360 game with Matchmaking uses Trueskill to match players. Every single one.

Halo is the only one that shows your trueskill value.

Reach will use Trueskill as well.

CoD and GoW use an EXP system to show your progress, not your matching rank.

That is why you can go into gears and find people double your "rank" and demolish them. They could play a lot, but not be that good.

Im all for an EXP system to show accomplishments in game, like assists and the like, but they won't shift from Trueskill.

And Halo does do that already. In Ranked. A glance at the number next to player's names gives you a reasonable measure of their skill, if it's a first account. And no system could get around multiple accounts.

[Edited on 10.13.2009 4:00 PM PDT]

  • 10.13.2009 3:58 PM PDT

I'm xAssault12x, and I love the Halo Universe. Discussion please!

Posted by: Uncle Kulikov
Posted by: xAssault12x
Posted by: Uncle Kulikov
Ranking, or Matchmaking system?

The matchmaking system will be Trueskill.

I would prefer a Gears of War point system, where you get points for every single thing you do, from damaging an opponent, to spending time in the Hill. And you get points for the damage you deal to people, even if you don't kill them. You get a bonus for finishing the job though.

And you could get bonus points for medal based kills, melees, and sprees.


Trueskill and Gears 2 ranking systems suck. In Gears I face people who are tripple my rank and I demolish them. That is not right. Rank should reflect skill. Trueskill is the same. If someone is a 50 they can be a noob. I constantly beat people way above me. That is not how it should work. A rank, the number or symbol next to your name, should accurately reflect your skill and not just how much time you spend on a game.

Every Xbox 360 game with Matchmaking uses Trueskill to match players. Every single one.

Halo is the only one that shows your trueskill value.

Reach will use Trueskill as well.

CoD and GoW use an EXP system to show your progress, not your matching rank.

Im all for an EXP system to show accomplishments in game, like assists and the like, but they won't shift from Trueskill.



They should get away from it. It does nothing at all. It is supposed to match me with people who are the same skill level as me but instead I end up playing people who can destroy me every time or I play people who could never beat me ever. It makes no sense. Why do we use a system that doesn't work???

  • 10.13.2009 4:01 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Uncle Kulikov
Ranking, or Matchmaking system?

The matchmaking system will be Trueskill.

I would prefer a Gears of War point system, where you get points for every single thing you do, from damaging an opponent, to spending time in the Hill. And you get points for the damage you deal to people, even if you don't kill them. You get a bonus for finishing the job though.

And you could get bonus points for medal based kills, melees, and sprees.


That sounds very cool. Assists, IMO, say as much, if not more than kills do. Anyone can sit back and snipe while their teammates put up a wall of protection for them. They can rack up their k/d ratio while others do the dirty work. Assists show that you were with someone and you weren't just doing it alone, trying to be the hero. Bonuses for medals is cool too, though some medals are more luck based than skill based.

As far as capping rank with a k/d ratio, I think that's absurd. People improve over time and it takes a long time to bring up some k/d ratios. And the OP says he doesn't want it to be about time spent. On top of that, k/d doesn't necessarily mean that much, depending on what gametype you play the most, whether you play with a consistent team or go in alone and risk getting with losers, and what position you tend to play on the team (sit in the back sniper or holding the front).

  • 10.13.2009 4:02 PM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"

My issue with going with straight k/d is that it simply does not tell you anything about a players "skill" simply that they can kill more than they die. Take into account objective games, that are notorious for hurting k/d (for those that actually try for the objective and not just camp for kills), what does that do for you rank?

The truskill system isn't all that bad when it's not being abused by cheaters and people with multiple accounts. I like the idea of the Gears system, where it rewards point value for actions taken, some big, some small. Skill encompasses more than just kills.

  • 10.13.2009 4:03 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

[EDIT] What ^he^ said. I'm always too wordy.

Posted by: xAssault12x
They should get away from it. It does nothing at all. It is supposed to match me with people who are the same skill level as me but instead I end up playing people who can destroy me every time or I play people who could never beat me ever. It makes no sense. Why do we use a system that doesn't work???


That's not trueskill's fault, that's the little kids whose mommies tell them they deserve everything because the're the best. Trueskill works based off time. If you're consistent, you go up. It may take awhile if you've blown your first 1000 games, or if you were horrible when you started, but if you're consistent and deserve it, it will take you to where you deserve.

The problem is that people start new accounts, boost, or whatever else. They mess with the sigma/mu so you get matched up with people you shouldn't - either because they were in the 40s and are now working their way up through the teens, or because when they get to a 30, the system is still unsure about where they should go. So between the people wanting to work the system for their rank and those who love to "have fun" playing off new players, trueskill goes out the window.

If everyone would have hung with the system in the beginning, it would have evened out. But when someone else manipulated their way through the system, others saw that they were as good as them and could get to their level and followed suit. Thus the demise of trueskill showing true skill.

For more info on these wretches, check out this.

[Edited on 10.13.2009 4:10 PM PDT]

  • 10.13.2009 4:09 PM PDT

Peace through superior firepower.

This is good. My friends beat me to general in CoD4 by about a year, but I still own them. I don't play it a lot of CoD. I have a very low rank in Halo as well, and that's because I score well, but my team always seems worse than the other. The other teams all have microphones, nobody on my team does.

  • 10.13.2009 4:12 PM PDT

Here’s what Luke had to say about the differences in treatment between the Spartans and Elites in Reach:

“Instead of piece-by-piece customization like the Spartans, Elite customization is a full model swap with models selected from the various Elite classes appearing throughout the Campaign. There are all kinds of reasons for this, not the least of which is our continued emphasis on the Spartan as your identity in Reach.”

Posted by: fifthderelicte
Posted by: Uncle Kulikov
Ranking, or Matchmaking system?

The matchmaking system will be Trueskill.

I would prefer a Gears of War point system, where you get points for every single thing you do, from damaging an opponent, to spending time in the Hill. And you get points for the damage you deal to people, even if you don't kill them. You get a bonus for finishing the job though.

And you could get bonus points for medal based kills, melees, and sprees.


That sounds very cool. Assists, IMO, say as much, if not more than kills do. Anyone can sit back and snipe while their teammates put up a wall of protection for them. They can rack up their k/d ratio while others do the dirty work. Assists show that you were with someone and you weren't just doing it alone, trying to be the hero. Bonuses for medals is cool too, though some medals are more luck based than skill based.

As far as capping rank with a k/d ratio, I think that's absurd. People improve over time and it takes a long time to bring up some k/d ratios. And the OP says he doesn't want it to be about time spent. On top of that, k/d doesn't necessarily mean that much, depending on what gametype you play the most, whether you play with a consistent team or go in alone and risk getting with losers, and what position you tend to play on the team (sit in the back sniper or holding the front).
I agree. If ranking is based on K/D, then some players will boost that at the expense of their team winning or lending help.

And Trueskill works decently overall over time. The problem it that it can be broken by multiple accounts and boosters, though I don't know a system that is immune to either.

  • 10.13.2009 4:27 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Elder Heroic Member

B.W.O. - One of Bungie.nets most active and fun organization's in the world. Join B.W.O. and we will prove it to you!
From game nights & contests to special ranks and clan matches, we got it all!

Halo2 ranking was fine.

  • 10.13.2009 4:29 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

My new B.net account is Grizzled Ancient. If you see him, its me.

this should be added for EXP, but you need to keep the True Skill along with it

  • 10.13.2009 4:32 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Senior Legendary Member

Posted by: BTE
Posted by: Xharpan
it doese'nt look nextgen , looks good but not nextgen
If by next-gen you mean crappy, dark and colorless, I agree. It doesnt look next-gen at all.

Posted by: EpicIn10sity
IMO the system CoD uses is very well done. In this I mean that we should recieve points for wins, points for personal preformance, and for doing cool stuuff like achievements or as
Meaning that if you play long enough you can get the highest ranking even if you suck horribly. Sure, maybe you wont get there as fast but you will still get there.

FAIL

I think that the whole officer ranking (Brigadier, General, lieutenant, Captain) in Halo should be used to indicate level. They should add something else to show how much time you have been playing the game.

[Edited on 10.13.2009 4:42 PM PDT]

  • 10.13.2009 4:40 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

These are very good ideas but don't forget that we want the ranking system to remain true. We should not be seeing our true skill or closeness tp ranking up. But AI agree that ranking should be based off all aspects of the game.

But getting a legit high rank should still take skill and focas. Not like getting a 10th prestige in CoD which only takes time.

  • 10.13.2009 4:44 PM PDT

My name is from Star Wars. Now you know.

Feel free to follow me on my twitter and stalk me.

Posted by: EpicIn10sity
IMO the system CoD uses is very well done. In this I mean that we should recieve points for wins, points for personal preformance, and for doing cool stuuff like achievements or as CoD puts it, challenges.

Just so you know, I'm not implying that I want this to become like CoD.


Both Halo and CoD use the TrueSkill Ranking System.

  • 10.13.2009 4:45 PM PDT

Group invites will be treated very poorly because the Care Package is empty.

__/
|__|

Way to easy to boost.

It should be determined by your K/D ratio and the same EXP system we have now..

Ex.

Level 10 - .8 k/d, 25 EXP

  • 10.13.2009 4:47 PM PDT

Here’s what Luke had to say about the differences in treatment between the Spartans and Elites in Reach:

“Instead of piece-by-piece customization like the Spartans, Elite customization is a full model swap with models selected from the various Elite classes appearing throughout the Campaign. There are all kinds of reasons for this, not the least of which is our continued emphasis on the Spartan as your identity in Reach.”

Posted by: XMadIrishmanX
this should be added for EXP, but you need to keep the True Skill along with it
The perfect distillation of what I was trying to say.

  • 10.13.2009 4:48 PM PDT

I'm xAssault12x, and I love the Halo Universe. Discussion please!

Posted by: Uncle Kulikov
Posted by: XMadIrishmanX
this should be added for EXP, but you need to keep the True Skill along with it
The perfect distillation of what I was trying to say.


The reason I want a point system like I made is so that you don't just keep building exp. If your exp can be diminished by loses then I would welcome an exp system but they don't work like that. The actual rank that a game uses to match people for a ranked game should be based off of things that can go up and down, otherwise the ranks are meaningless.

In Halo you actually have to try to lose your rank. I have never gone down a level ever. That meens the system is broken. If I do really bad for a week then my rank should go down showing that I had a bad week. If the rank can move acourding to how you are playing then you will allways e facing people who are playing as good as you but not crazy better or worse.

My ranking system measures a players skill. I DON'T CARE HOW MUCH TIME YOU SPEND ON A GAME. I WANT TO KNOW I AM PLAYING SOMEONE WHO HAS A SKILL THAT IS CLOSE TO MINE. IF THE CURRENT SYSTEM CAN BE CHEATED AND FAILS TO MEASURE SOMEONES SKILL AND ONLY MEASURES HOW MUCH TIME YOU SPEND ON THE GAME THEN IT IS NOT A RANKING SYSTEM. TRUESKILL IS AN ACCURATE MEASURE OF HOW MUCH TIME SOMEONE SPENDS ON THE GAME. IT IS NOT A RANKING SYSTEM.

Trueskill fails. I am a legit 45 in Halo 3 and yet I constantly face noobs who are 45s and I demolish them because they suck at Halo 3 and the only reason they are 45 is because they played 4000-8000 games and after all those games anyone would be a 45. I haven't even played 1000 ranked games and I am a 45 but these noobs are 45 as well because Trueskill rewards people who waist their life on this game as well as the people who are good. I'm tired of seeing noobs with high levels because they have no lives. Trueskill sucks. I like the idea of haveing some sort of thing that shows how much exp I have from playing the game over time but I don't want it to be involved in my rank.

  • 10.13.2009 8:24 PM PDT

I think that true skill should be determined by:

1) The players average K/D per game.
2) The players average K/D overall
3) The players accuracy.
4) How many assists
5) Other things that do not depend on the performance of the team.

Honestly, why make it any more complicated? And the true skill can only be viewed by the player themselves.

EXP is there, but it in no way affects your overall true skill. It only goes up, and only affects your rank symbol.

[Edited on 10.13.2009 8:33 PM PDT]

  • 10.13.2009 8:28 PM PDT

I'm xAssault12x, and I love the Halo Universe. Discussion please!

Posted by: TW InKoGnIto
I think that true skill should be determined by:

1) The players average K/D per game.
2) The players average K/D overall
3) The players accuracy.

Honestly, why make it any more complicated? And the true skill can only be viewed by the player themselves.

EXP is there, but it in no way affects your overall true skill. It only goes up, and only affects your rank symbol.


That is good but then you just made objective games meaningless. That is why I made up that point system as an example of something that rewards points for good performance in the different game types. I just split up the effect that the points and K/D ratio have on your rank.

  • 10.13.2009 8:33 PM PDT

Here’s what Luke had to say about the differences in treatment between the Spartans and Elites in Reach:

“Instead of piece-by-piece customization like the Spartans, Elite customization is a full model swap with models selected from the various Elite classes appearing throughout the Campaign. There are all kinds of reasons for this, not the least of which is our continued emphasis on the Spartan as your identity in Reach.”

Posted by: xAssault12x
Posted by: TW InKoGnIto
I think that true skill should be determined by:

1) The players average K/D per game.
2) The players average K/D overall
3) The players accuracy.

Honestly, why make it any more complicated? And the true skill can only be viewed by the player themselves.

EXP is there, but it in no way affects your overall true skill. It only goes up, and only affects your rank symbol.


That is good but then you just made objective games meaningless. That is why I made up that point system as an example of something that rewards points for good performance in the different game types. I just split up the effect that the points and K/D ratio have on your rank.
I do think that penalties should be applied to your EXP, as you suggested.

If you got points for kills, and a subtraction for deaths, then you don't have to keep track of K/D ratio, since the points will already be subtracted.

So if you have a bad K/D ratio, unless you had lots of assists and other bonuses (Objectives, vehicle destruction, sticks) you would have a low EXP.

And I think accuracy should be tracked, but not included in EXP except as a bonus.

For example, you get 1 bonus point for 50-60% accuracy, 2 points for 60-70% accuracy, and so on, but no penalty to not punish warthog gunners.

Also, Objective actions (Killing the ball carrier, planting the bomb, successfully detonating the bomb, killing the flag carrier, killing someone with a bomb/flag, and the like) should give an extremely large bonus, like 4x a kill to make them worth it, especially since accomplishing objectives usually means that you get fewer kills and get killed a lot more.

[Edited on 10.13.2009 10:27 PM PDT]

  • 10.13.2009 10:24 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

H2's ranking system would do the best job.

  • 10.13.2009 10:26 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3