Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: What could be the next Ranking System for Reach's online Multip...
  • Subject: What could be the next Ranking System for Reach's online Multip...
Subject: What could be the next Ranking System for Reach's online Multip...
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I have been wondering about a new Ranking System for reach multiplayer and supposedly Matchmaking games. I would like it if it where similar to Halo 3. Nothingless it will be similar to it, Medals, too. And what could be the playing characters, I wonder.

Hence none knows of Reach's multiplayer(I hope is good) but only its creator Bungie... We shall then know untill the Beta Release(It means Demo, Prototype or 'a first'of many).

Besides. Jott down some good Ranking ideas for Reach's Multiplayer.

Attention: If you want to include the Prestiges from Modern Warfare, then mix things a little. I also invite the Gallery here for some badges or medals they want to show for the game.


I am not, I repeat, I am not trying to spoil anything. just a regular fan.

[Edited on 11.17.2009 12:58 PM PST]

  • 11.17.2009 12:25 PM PDT
Subject: New Ranking System for Reach?

Mythical Group

There is no greater catharsis than arguing on the Flood.

I say keep using Truskill, it's one of the greatest systems out there.

  • 11.17.2009 12:28 PM PDT

poop

Posted by: Phoenix9508
I say keep using Truskill, it's one of the greatest systems out there.

  • 11.17.2009 12:28 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Yeah, I would like for it to have more tactics....Hopefully the acknowledgement lights form the Spartan's REAL missions of the Novels.
Posted by: Phoenix9508
I say keep using Truskill, it's one of the greatest systems out there.

  • 11.17.2009 12:33 PM PDT
  • gamertag: SSLYK
  • user homepage:

~SSLYK~

i would love to see more ranks,halo charts ranks has really got the idea with the new ranks that they implanted onto there site...........i would also like to see a new way to get EXP, instead of having to rely on your team and yourself it should be individual, getting EXP for getting medals, kills,....etc. i geuss you could say it is a little like COD but i'm an all halo fan and i like that type of EXP collection better than halo 3's.

  • 11.17.2009 12:39 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Well, if they can overpass the bugs and other stuff... it would be too much for little kids to understand and a lot of data of lagging pathways would be a lot, but nice, though I still whant more intell on what game it was or what more, well you know what I mean. I whant extras.

  • 11.17.2009 12:55 PM PDT
Subject: What could be the next Ranking System for Reach's online Multip...
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

If the system could see more than just wins/losses and look more for skill indicators, it could shoot people up the ranks. So you reset an account and play the low levels, but it's obvious you're really good, shoot the player up to a 30, or even a 50 if they're that good. That way they don't ruin the lower levels like they do now.

HOWEVER, the high skill should not be set for X amount of games (say 30, 50, 100, or whatever). That means the system will try to place you where it thinks you should go, but you won't earn that rank until you're theoretically consistent enough for the system to know it's pegged you right. That means low levels are safe and high levels are safe. No more wiping up the floor with the new players and no more boosting your rank by manipulating the system and starting a new account.

The new rank system should aim to drop players quickly up and/or quickly down. Partnering with true skill, a perceived skill should be added to quickly get new accounts to where they should be. However, a minimum number of games (X) should be mandatory before attributing a high skill in a playlist or account to a particular player. This would prevent both bad sportsmanship where players beat up lower level players, as well as inflation of levels from booting via resetting sigma/mu.

[Edited on 11.17.2009 1:00 PM PST]

  • 11.17.2009 12:59 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

You'll be better saying this as "getting beast kills, but losing IT because of your dumb teammates"
Posted by: fifthderelicte
If the system could see more than just wins/losses and look more for skill indicators, it could shoot people up the ranks. So you reset an account and play the low levels, but it's obvious you're really good, shoot the player up to a 30, or even a 50 if they're that good. That way they don't ruin the lower levels like they do now.

HOWEVER, the high skill should not be set for X amount of games (say 30, 50, 100, or whatever). That means the system will try to place you where it thinks you should go, but you won't earn that rank until you're theoretically consistent enough for the system to know it's pegged you right. That means low levels are safe and high levels are safe. No more wiping up the floor with the new players and no more boosting your rank by manipulating the system and starting a new account.

The new rank system should aim to drop players quickly up and/or quickly down. Partnering with true skill, a perceived skill should be added to quickly get new accounts to where they should be. However, a minimum number of games (X) should be mandatory before attributing a high skill in a playlist or account to a particular player. This would prevent both bad sportsmanship where players beat up lower level players, as well as inflation of levels from booting via resetting sigma/mu.


[Edited on 11.17.2009 1:09 PM PST]

  • 11.17.2009 1:09 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

ill like something more like the gow2 ranking system
that it values "your skill" no how much you win or you loose or amount of exp

  • 11.17.2009 1:12 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Trancient Ghost
You'll be better saying this as "getting beast kills, but losing IT because of your dumb teammates"


I don't mind the ranking system necessarily lowering your rank in a team game because you lost, even though you appeared to do well. You can get tons of kills in a game and still not have been a team player. Kill stealing, sitting back with the sniper and taking easy kills, etc does not merit you going up in a game because your stats were good. Your team lost and you should have worked better with them.

However, for initial ranking, I think it is beneficial to get someone to their natural ranking based on their personal skills quickly, and then falling back to the trueskill system for wins and losses. Everyone who is initially placed in their first ten games will have been done so based on their personal skills, so all of their teammates should be pretty equal. After that, it's largely up to you to work well with the people who are on your same skill level.

  • 11.17.2009 2:55 PM PDT

Number ranking: true skill system

Officer Rank: Based on EXP,KILLS,ETC, INDEPENDENT OF TRUESKILL SYSTEM, unlocks armor features (permutations, colors, emblems, etc.)

E.g.: A level 32 Admiral (Admiral=General, just used in NAVY)

  • 11.17.2009 3:02 PM PDT

fire cures all

i would like it if they used something similar to the ranking system in CoD 4

  • 11.17.2009 3:18 PM PDT

I would like to see Navy ranks rather than Army ranks. ;)

  • 11.17.2009 3:22 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

bungie needs the CoD ranking system. its the best

  • 11.17.2009 3:40 PM PDT

Posted by: Iceberg Halo3
I would like to see Navy ranks rather than Army ranks. ;)

Spartans aren't part of the UNSC's Navy, nor will multiplayer be a ship to ship combat game.

  • 11.17.2009 3:45 PM PDT

Posted by: Hylebos
Posted by: Iceberg Halo3
I would like to see Navy ranks rather than Army ranks. ;)

Spartans aren't part of the UNSC's Navy, nor will multiplayer be a ship to ship combat game.


Really? Isnt the Master cheif rank a Naval rank? What about Chief petty officer? Or what about all those Admiral's that the spartans kept saving in the books?

Never said anything about ship to ship combat, thats just silly to think that.

  • 11.17.2009 4:54 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Iceberg Halo3
Posted by: Hylebos
Posted by: Iceberg Halo3
I would like to see Navy ranks rather than Army ranks. ;)

Spartans aren't part of the UNSC's Navy, nor will multiplayer be a ship to ship combat game.


Really? Isnt the Master cheif rank a Naval rank? What about Chief petty officer? Or what about all those Admiral's that the spartans kept saving in the books?

Never said anything about ship to ship combat, thats just silly to think that.


Navy Seals?

People always forget that each branch of the military has differing units. The army has a force that fights using land, sea, and air vehicles. The Navy, especially, uses both land, sea, and air (and space in the future) units. The airforce also has the same thing. Unbeknownst to many people, the air force has an elite fighting/medical ground extraction force.

[Edited on 11.17.2009 4:58 PM PST]

  • 11.17.2009 4:56 PM PDT

Posted by: fifthderelicte
Posted by: Iceberg Halo3
Posted by: Hylebos
Posted by: Iceberg Halo3
I would like to see Navy ranks rather than Army ranks. ;)

Spartans aren't part of the UNSC's Navy, nor will multiplayer be a ship to ship combat game.


Really? Isnt the Master cheif rank a Naval rank? What about Chief petty officer? Or what about all those Admiral's that the spartans kept saving in the books?

Never said anything about ship to ship combat, thats just silly to think that.


Navy Seals?

People always forget that each branch of the military has differing units. The army has a force that fights using land, sea, and air vehicles. The Navy, especially, uses both land, sea, and air (and space in the future) units. The airforce also has the same thing. Unbeknownst to many people, the air force has an elite fighting/medical ground extraction force.


Right, from what I heard, the Air force has the best hand to hand combat training of all the branches.

  • 11.17.2009 5:03 PM PDT
Subject: New Ranking System for Reach?
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Phoenix9508
I say keep using Truskill, it's one of the greatest systems out there.


You're joking right? Trueskill is a terrible ranking system.

  • 11.17.2009 5:07 PM PDT
Subject: What could be the next Ranking System for Reach's online Multip...

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do."
-Benjamin Franklin

I'd like to see the removal of exp penalties for quiting/disconnecting from games. In my experience exp penalties don't keep players from quitting. Also, negative exp boosting would be less of a problem without exp penalties.

Also I don't want Truskill, its not that great imo

[Edited on 11.17.2009 5:14 PM PST]

  • 11.17.2009 5:13 PM PDT

-Sam

In my personal opinion they should incorporate some of Firefights ranking into Halo Reach. So its not only keeping track of how many kills you get but how much a kill was worth depending on how you got it (including sprees and multiply kills).

  • 11.17.2009 6:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

i say you keep truskill, but change the ranks to REAL USMC, or US ARMY ranks.

  • 11.17.2009 6:12 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Then, you all think players should winn Ranks by how many games played and how many times won

  • 11.19.2009 3:58 PM PDT