Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: the need for a 1-50 ranking system
  • Subject: the need for a 1-50 ranking system
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: the need for a 1-50 ranking system
  •  | 
  • Intrepid Mythic Member
  • gamertag: P3P5I
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Achronos
It isn't our shiznit anymore.

Maybe I'm just more competitive than the average forum-goer here, but what I like most in ranking systems is the speed that I can get my rank and start playing people around my skill level. I never understood why other self-proclaimed competitive players enjoy watering down the quality of the ranking system by wanting to grind through ranks to get a 50 instead of getting that 50 in a dozen games (which is the fastest amount of games technically possible with Trueskill).

If you like grinding, the MMO genre is just dying to hook you in.

  • 05.07.2012 9:45 AM PDT

Owning Noobs Since 05

"I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror like his passengers."

Jim Harkins

I liked the 1-50 ranking system. The only problem that I can see with a 1-50 ranking system is cheaters *looks at halo 2*. Cheaters ruin it, but what can you do? Cheaters will always exist. I feel like Halo 3 had a good balance you could get a rank that took skill to get (1-50) or you could get a military rank for just breathing so it made most people happy because it cattered to both types of people. Halo 2 wasn't as nice. On Halo Reach I never know if I'm playing somebody good or bad. I get people with cool looking symbols but most of the time they aren't very good. And the match up system isn't very good. I started playing 4 weeks ago and I usually get matched up with kids that are way above my rank.

  • 05.07.2012 10:12 AM PDT


Posted by: burritosenior
Arena's flaws:

2s tricking
Iron boosting
Bad, unbalanced maps
Poor gametype for competitive play

Fixes to 1-50:

Take Halo 3's 1-50 exactly as it was and then say that the maximum disparity between ranks that you search with can be 5 (or 10, for lenience.)

What I mean by that is that if you have a party of a 44, a 27 and an 11, the party will be considered as a 44, 39 and 39 (or 44, 34 and 34 if you go for the 10 option)

This means that the ability of a player to boost another player up is greatly diminished because it's not like they're winning with a crap teammate, they're winning with a teammate regarded as relatively close to them in skill. It's not ideal but it would fix the problems with boosting, provided that 343 were to make sure that people knew that boosting no longer worked.

And I say you're wrong because you have no experience of it. How can you say '50s never searched on their 50s' when you aren't a 50 yourself? '50s never searched on their 50s because there was no challenge' (or something similar) - wrong again. Is it really so hard to believe that 50s searched on their 50s for fun? I certainly did. I didn't get my 50 in Slayer and say, 'yes! I got my 50 - now I never have to play Team Slayer again!'

And for the record, you know me by now and you know I've been here for quite a while - since 2007. When I made the profile I was 12. Please don't refer to me as 'xXxXMLGXxpR0xXx' or whatever.

  • 05.07.2012 10:42 AM PDT

Posted by: X El BaZzA X
2s tricking
Iron boosting
Bad, unbalanced maps
Poor gametype for competitive play
Gametypes and maps are completely irrelevant to the ranking system.
Don't know what the others are.


if you have a party of a 44, a 27 and an 11, the party will be considered as a 44, 39 and 39 (or 44, 34 and 34 if you go for the 10 option)

This means that the ability of a player to boost another player up is greatly diminished because it's not like they're winning with a crap teammate, they're winning with a teammate regarded as relatively close to them in skill. It's not ideal but it would fix the problems with boosting, provided that 343 were to make sure that people knew that boosting no longer worked.
Mmm. I like it. But tell me:

Say that was implemented. And say they new players who are rank 1 (but better than that) win against those 39-44 people. Would they shoot up in rank a -blam!--ton instantly? What would prevent this to ensure that this system doesn't just help boosting move even quicker?


How can you say '50s never searched on their 50s' when you aren't a 50 yourself?
Don't believe I said that. I said it wasn't encouragement to do so is all.
'50s never searched on their 50s because there was no challenge'Never said there was no challenge. If there wasn't, wouldn't that defeat the purpose?
Is it really so hard to believe that 50s searched on their 50s for fun?Nope.

I didn't get my 50 in Slayer and say, 'yes! I got my 50 - now I never have to play Team Slayer again!'Er... based on Halo 3 forum threads though, seems a good number of people did do just that though. Namely the cheaters. So if you're legit, good for you. But the boosting problem sort of overshadows everything else.

And for the record, you know me by now and you know I've been here for quite a while - since 2007. When I made the profile I was 12. Please don't refer to me as 'xXxXMLGXxpR0xXx' or whatever.Sorry but I don't know usernames very well mate. But you seem like a fairly prickly fellow so the name seemed rather appropriate. If it offended you I will not do so in the future though.
:)

[Edited on 05.07.2012 11:07 AM PDT]

  • 05.07.2012 11:06 AM PDT

my signature is unique and nobody has one like it

I just think credits and rank should be two TOTALLY different things.

To add on to this, someone in the military rarely gets promoted based on how long they've been there.
You shouldn't get promoted based on how many games you play.

[Edited on 05.07.2012 11:12 AM PDT]

  • 05.07.2012 11:11 AM PDT


Posted by: Screamo

Posted by: burritosenior
someones mad they were a colonel

  • 05.07.2012 11:26 AM PDT


Posted by: burritosenior
Posted by: X El BaZzA X
2s tricking
Iron boosting
Bad, unbalanced maps
Poor gametype for competitive play
Gametypes and maps are completely irrelevant to the ranking system.
Not really. I don't feel like playing Arena, 'the competitive playlist' if I know I have a 50% chance of playing blue team sword base.
Don't know what the others are.Well that just goes to show your lack of experience and knowledge on the topic then, doesn't it?

  • 05.07.2012 12:06 PM PDT

Posted by: X El BaZzA X
Not really. I don't feel like playing Arena, 'the competitive playlist' if I know I have a 50% chance of playing blue team sword base.
Unless you're saying, 'If we had the 1-50 system then the maps would suddenly not be bad,' then... yeah, really.
Well that just goes to show your lack of experience and knowledge on the topic then, doesn't it?And here I was trying to see your side by asking legitimate questions. Way to act like a five year old mate.
:/

  • 05.07.2012 12:11 PM PDT


Posted by: X El BaZzA X
Arena's flaws:

2s tricking
Iron boosting
Bad, unbalanced maps
Poor gametype for competitive play

Iron boosting is the only flaw caused by the ranking system itself and that flaw exists under 1-50 as well.

I like the concept of Arena much better than 1-50, it was just poorly implemented in Reach. I think Arena would have been much more popular if the playlists were split 50/50 between Arena and Competitive like in Halo 3 and your best Arena rank was displayed next to your credit rank in all non-Arena playlists.

The problem with the non-Arena playlists in Reach are the extremely loose TrueSkill restrictions. TrueSkill needs to be tightened in all non-ranked playlists - making TrueSkill visible won't suddenly solve all the matchmaking problems if the restrictions stay the same.

  • 05.07.2012 12:32 PM PDT


Posted by: burritosenior
Well that just goes to show your lack of experience and knowledge on the topic then, doesn't it?And here I was trying to see your side by asking legitimate questions. Way to act like a five year old mate.
:/
It's true, is it not? You can't really have a valid opinion on why 1-50 is bad but not have any idea about Arena's flaws. I'll enlighten you about them both so you have a clue what you're talking about and aren't so wrong.

2s tricking: This is when a party of 4 enters party chat and goes into two separate game parties of two. They then search at the same time and communicate to let each other know if they have matched each other at the 'players found' screen. When they do, they are guaranteed to be in the same match on the same team. They are effectively a party of four, but as they're split into two parties they will match parties of one and two. Bungie decided that they didn't want to 'punish' partying up as much as they did in Halo 3, so you stay with your teammates and every game you find will be against parties of 1 and 2 when you are a party of 4, obviously giving you a huge advantage.

Iron boosting: Essentially the same as boosting in Halo 3 - search with a high % Iron account and your % rating increases much more than it normally would because the game thinks you're winning even with someone really bad on your team. However, it's even worse than on Halo 3 - someone else getting a 50 didn't affect mine at all. In Arena, however, people using iron boosters will get to single digit Onyx pretty fast, and when they do, it pushes the legit single digits out. Clearly a system which effectively pushes you down the rankings for playing legit is a bad one.

[Edited on 05.07.2012 12:41 PM PDT]

  • 05.07.2012 12:33 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Heroic Member

Real account.

Join me as we make new friends from different communities!

If you assign every letter of the alphabet a number, a is 1, b is 2, etc., and you take all of the values of the word "MATH", and add them, you get 42. So math is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.

I like to win shiny numbers instead of shiny pictures.

  • 05.07.2012 12:39 PM PDT

Posted by: X El BaZzA X
It's true, is it not? You can't really have a valid opinion on why 1-50 is bad but not have any idea about Arena's flaws.
I'm sorry, but that's an incredibly stupid thing to think let alone say out loud.

I didn't like the 1-50 system long before Halo: Reach came out. The fact that 1-50 was a poor system in Halo 3 is completely irrelevant to Arena, which came years later.
:/


2s tricking: This is when a party of 4 enters party chat and goes into two seperate game parties of two. They then search at the same time and communicate to let each other know if they have matched each other at the 'players found' screen. When they do, they are guaranteed to be in the same match on the same team. They are effectively a party of four, but as they're split into two parties they will match parties of one and two. Bungie decided that they didn't want to 'punish' partying up as much as they did in Halo 3, so you stay with your teammates and every game you find will be against parties of 1 and 2 when you are a party of 4, obviously giving you a huge advantage.Oh. So you don't actually have any complaint about the Arena ranking system whatsoever then. You're upset with how the party system works. So basically it's totally irrelevant. Essentially saying that the majority of your points against the Arena system weren't actually points against the Arena system.
:/

Iron boosting: Essentially the same as boosting in Halo 3 - search with a high % Iron account and your % rating increases much more than it normally would because the game thinks you're winning even with someone really bad on your team. However, it's even worse than on Halo 3 - on H3 - someone else getting a 50 didn't affect mine at all. In Arena, however, people using iron boosters will get to single digit Onyx pretty fast, and when they do, it pushes the legit single digits out. Clearly a system which effectively pushes you down the rankings for playing legit is a bad one.


Check one against the Arena system. Check none for the 1-50 being visible. Again, none of your points are really relevant.


Add those to how you avoided my other question and... yeah I'm just not seeing any upside whatsoever to a visible 1-50 system.

  • 05.07.2012 12:43 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

My Level. Get on it.


Posted by: RC Clone
Nope. SouthPole isn't a person. He's the avatar of the force of tryhards everywhere. He stalks the web looking for retards to set straight. He can not be stopped by mere bans or thread locks for he shall rise anew.

How people can call the 1-50 a poor system is beyond me. It literally did everything a ranking system should do. Funny how the only people who didn't like it were the ones who couldn't get a 50.

  • 05.07.2012 1:57 PM PDT

wow halo reach is STILL BAD!!!


Posted by: SouthPoIe
How people can call the 1-50 a poor system is beyond me. It literally did everything a ranking system should do. Funny how the only people who didn't like it were the ones who couldn't get a 50.

its mainly the bad kids who wouldnt like ranks. also its the bad kids who dont see the GLARING flaws in reach's mm system. its really pathetic but w/e.

  • 05.07.2012 2:11 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

Arena is retarded, you get into single digits and you have to search forever to find a game.

  • 05.07.2012 2:16 PM PDT

My First account: MC VS ARBITER
My main account: xMCxVSxARBITERx
My new accounts: Legendifier & Melting Fire (I = i)

The Arena > 1 - 50 in H3. But only if The arena has more than 3k players online at the same time. Too bad it does not. 1 - 50 in H3 is pretty similar to The Arena in Reach though, I would think the biggest difference would be the rank `reset´ currently after 3 months in The Arena compared to H3s non resetable skill.

But I still think H3s system is more rewarding even though a 1% Onyx is a lot harder to get.

[Edited on 05.07.2012 2:22 PM PDT]

  • 05.07.2012 2:20 PM PDT

Man, I miss dem Halo 3 days :'(

It's a great system if it was actually 'policed,' which it certainly wasn't in Halo 3.

It (1-50 in H3) had tonnes more re playability factor than the Reach system:

-It effected your overall rank
-You could play when you wanted for as many games as you wanted
-There was a real sense of progression ("Oh, my rank reset")

And it was a much more competitive system also. There was a real drive, even in casual players, to play Ranked. Just look at Arena - an absolute joke compared to the H2/3 1-50.

  • 05.07.2012 2:31 PM PDT

Man, I miss dem Halo 3 days :'(


Posted by: Verachi
I liked the 1-50 ranking system. The only problem that I can see with a 1-50 ranking system is cheaters *looks at halo 2*. Cheaters ruin it, but what can you do? Cheaters will always exist. I feel like Halo 3 had a good balance you could get a rank that took skill to get (1-50) or you could get a military rank for just breathing so it made most people happy because it cattered to both types of people. Halo 2 wasn't as nice. On Halo Reach I never know if I'm playing somebody good or bad. I get people with cool looking symbols but most of the time they aren't very good. And the match up system isn't very good. I started playing 4 weeks ago and I usually get matched up with kids that are way above my rank.


Precisely, the only real problem with 1-50 was cheaters. The whole "It doesn't motivate because you get to a 50 and that's it" is also a terrible argument against it, because for one, the vast, vast majority of people couldn't get a 50 - and two, the percentage of population who got a 50 in every permanent playlist....well, I'd be surprised if it was over 0.1%.


It was just a better system. The fact that it was integrated into your overall rank also made it a real driving force to play.

Arena just isn't motivating enough. I can play a few games and get gold basically without trying, and to get onyx I'd simply have to do the same thing but play more. For anyone to find out that I got Onyx, they have to delve into my service record, as it doesn't contribute to anything.

"Yawn" is the best word to sum up Arena when comparing in to the 1-50 system.

And don't even get me started on how instead of developing proper methods to stop cheaters, they just dumped the system and made a new one purely because of them....

  • 05.07.2012 2:37 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Intrepid Mythic Member
  • gamertag: P3P5I
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Achronos
It isn't our shiznit anymore.

Posted by: SouthPoIe
How people can call the 1-50 a poor system is beyond me. It literally did everything a ranking system should do. Funny how the only people who didn't like it were the ones who couldn't get a 50.
Isn't one of the main tenets of a ranking system to get me my real rank and match me with other people similar in skill as fast as possible? One thing I don't like about 1-50 is it forces grinding, when (if Bungie/343 wanted) the game could technically get you that 50 in a dozen games (instead of 100 or whatever the normal amount is).

So is 1-50 not competitive enough for me because I don't like the grinding?

  • 05.07.2012 5:38 PM PDT

Posted by: An average gamer
I honestly like how Arena works. You have to fight for the top spot, it always changes, and the ranks reset.

It is a dynamic ranking system based on who is playing. That way 1% Onyx is not something everybody can get like a 50 was. It's something meaningful.

Nobody gives 2 cents about a rank that only the few elitist players suck on and point out to others, specially when it gets wiped out in so little time.

There's no incentive for working for a rank that gets cleaned. That's like forcing you to prestige in COD in a system that doesn't reward you in any way for doing so.

  • 05.07.2012 5:42 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

My Level. Get on it.


Posted by: RC Clone
Nope. SouthPole isn't a person. He's the avatar of the force of tryhards everywhere. He stalks the web looking for retards to set straight. He can not be stopped by mere bans or thread locks for he shall rise anew.


Posted by: P3P5I
Posted by: SouthPoIe
How people can call the 1-50 a poor system is beyond me. It literally did everything a ranking system should do. Funny how the only people who didn't like it were the ones who couldn't get a 50.
Isn't one of the main tenets of a ranking system to get me my real rank and match me with other people similar in skill as fast as possible? One thing I don't like about 1-50 is it forces grinding, when (if Bungie/343 wanted) the game could technically get you that 50 in a dozen games (instead of 100 or whatever the normal amount is).

So is 1-50 not competitive enough for me because I don't like the grinding?


The "grind" is the system's way of finding your skill level. Afterwords, it did match you with others of similar skill.

And the 1-50 did do that btw. That's the basis of how selling accounts worked. A 50 would get onto a new account, and then get a 50 in a relatively short amount of time. The 1-50 did an amazing job at finding the player's skill level.



[Edited on 05.07.2012 6:29 PM PDT]

  • 05.07.2012 6:28 PM PDT

Want a cool clan? Join FRAG!

Want a war sim? The best war sim in Halo, Forerunner Conflict.


Posted by: Ex0 Dante

Posted by: OMARRCHR
I do like the 1-50 ranking system more than any ranking system in Halo Reach, but the problem with such a system is that it's easily exploitable.


Which is the main reason why it's not coming back.

If you want your ranks, go to Halo 3.
The funny thing is, Arena is just as easily exploitable. At least exploiters in 1-50 didn't hurt anyone's chances of ever getting a 50, whereas in Arena all those boosted single digits will take the place of players that actually deserve to be up there.

  • 05.07.2012 6:40 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Intrepid Mythic Member
  • gamertag: P3P5I
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Achronos
It isn't our shiznit anymore.

Posted by: SouthPoIe
Posted by: P3P5I
Posted by: SouthPoIe
How people can call the 1-50 a poor system is beyond me. It literally did everything a ranking system should do. Funny how the only people who didn't like it were the ones who couldn't get a 50.
Isn't one of the main tenets of a ranking system to get me my real rank and match me with other people similar in skill as fast as possible? One thing I don't like about 1-50 is it forces grinding, when (if Bungie/343 wanted) the game could technically get you that 50 in a dozen games (instead of 100 or whatever the normal amount is).

So is 1-50 not competitive enough for me because I don't like the grinding?


The "grind" is the system's way of finding your skill level. Afterwords, it did match you with others of similar skill.

And the 1-50 did do that btw. That's the basis of how selling accounts worked. A 50 would get onto a new account, and then get a 50 in a relatively short amount of time. The 1-50 did an amazing job at finding the player's skill level.
Ahh, you must not be acquainted with the wonders of Trueskill!

In fact, Bungie even admitted to "grinding" the ranking system out (slide 30).

My proposal benefits all competitive players. Do you deserve a 50? Well good! You can now get it in half the time while keeping the same matchmaking quality. There is no reason to keep the current Halo 2/3 "hill-climbing" experience except to satisfy those who like seeing flashy pictures wiz by their screen.

So, am I too competitive for Halo 2 or 3's ranking system? Basically, I'm saying the past 1-50 systems were too slow and inefficient.

[Edited on 05.07.2012 7:31 PM PDT]

  • 05.07.2012 7:25 PM PDT


Posted by: SouthPoIe
How people can call the 1-50 a poor system is beyond me. It literally did everything a ranking system should do. Funny how the only people who didn't like it were the ones who couldn't get a 50.

  • 05.08.2012 3:26 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3