Hi induestries 343 i want tell you thanks for continu the Halo serie halo is the reason why i stay xbox and i will continu stay on xbox when next gen will be out but i have sugestion to give you. You should really bring back the ranking lvl sytem like Halo 2 and Halo 3 iknow i read somewhere is for pepole to stop cheat for there lvl butJust fix cheat glitch and stuff and bringit back. cause pepole like me play legit was loving the lvl system.it was very cool the stress to gain lvl our try to keep it cause you will lose it.iknow on halo ways point i can see my lvl but i will like you bring to the games thanks for take my sugestion in considiration.
I hated Halo 3’s primary ranking system. I didn’t like the XP system, especially the fact that you had to win games to rank up (I consistently lose my games, and I’ve been playing Halo since 2001.)
However, Halo 3’s competitive 1-50 ranking system I actually liked. Despite the fact that my rank always hovered around 10 to 15, I liked how it allowed the competitive community to foster and grow. I liked how it paired me with players at my same skill level.
With Halo 5, I want a Reach-style progressive ranking system, and I want a 1-to-50 CSR system. The CSR system will match you with players of similar skill, and the progressive ranking system will unlock armor and stuff like that.
"TrueSkill" is an awful an inaccurate ranking system. Why would anyone want it back?
> “TrueSkill” is an awful an inaccurate ranking system. Why would anyone want it back?
Um… Maybe because it significantly increased the game’s competitiveness and gives players an incentive to come back and play for years after launch?
They need a ranked/social PLUS a experience system like Reach.
> “TrueSkill” is an awful an inaccurate ranking system. Why would anyone want it back?
Any reasoning behind it’s “inaccuracy”? Let me guess, it put you in your place and you didn’t like it.
I want it back I don’t want that CSr crap it sucks and achievements should unlock armor not constant playing winning should rank u up not just playing a lot
> “TrueSkill” is an awful an inaccurate ranking system. Why would anyone want it back?
Care to back that up? It’s quite an audacious claim. Especially when the statistics are clearly against your claim (page 7). Let’s put it this way: prove me that there exists a better, more accurate ranking system than TrueSkill.
> I want it back I don’t want that CSr crap it sucks and achievements should unlock armor not constant playing winning should rank u up not just playing a lot
So, true.
> I hated Halo 3’s primary ranking system. I didn’t like the XP system, especially the fact that you had to win games to rank up (I consistently lose my games, and I’ve been playing Halo since 2001.)
The NO SYSTEM has worked as well as Halo 3s system did when it comes to giving people a reason to stay in the game / along side wining is the key and only way to Rank up
> However, Halo 3’s competitive 1-50 ranking system I actually liked. Despite the fact that my rank always hovered around 10 to 15, I liked how it allowed the competitive community to foster and grow. I liked how it paired me with players at my same skill level.
It was best for everyone because it only matched you people of smiler skill
> With Halo 5, I want a Reach-style progressive ranking system, and I want a 1-to-50 CSR system. The CSR system will match you with players of similar skill, and the progressive ranking system will unlock armor and stuff like that
CSR is NOT the same as 1-50 just a heads up but i under stand what you are saying - and i agree reach had a better progressive system longevity wise BUT A MIX of HALO 3 and Reach’s would be great
> > “TrueSkill” is an awful an inaccurate ranking system. Why would anyone want it back?
>
> Care to back that up? It’s quite an audacious claim. Especially when the statistics are clearly against your claim (page 7). Let’s put it this way: prove me that there exists a better, more accurate ranking system than TrueSkill.
My interpretation of that explanation is that trueskill, for the lack of a better term, “guesstimates” a player’s skill. It isn’t exact. It only displays the average of the possible degree of skill the player has.
There’s hundreds of points of data is tracked per player in Halo. You would think that someone would have thought of a way to take all those points of date (more than just win/loss and kills/death) and use them to accurately display a player’s exact level of skill.
I doubt it will return again since frankie didn’t like it a lot.
> > > “TrueSkill” is an awful an inaccurate ranking system. Why would anyone want it back?
> >
> > Care to back that up? It’s quite an audacious claim. Especially when the statistics are clearly against your claim (page 7). Let’s put it this way: prove me that there exists a better, more accurate ranking system than TrueSkill.
>
> TrueSkill™ Ranking System - Microsoft Research
>
> My interpretation of that explanation is that trueskill, for the lack of a better term, “guesstimates” a player’s skill. It isn’t exact. It only displays the average of the possible degree of skill the player has.
> There’s hundreds of points of data is tracked per player in Halo. You would think that someone would have thought of a way to take all those points of date (more than just win/loss and kills/death) and use them to accurately display a player’s exact level of skill.
“Skill” is a very complex thing. Hence every system that predicts the player’s skill will always be more or less a statistical approximation. For an exact measurement of skill you would need to be able to assign a numeric value for everthing the player can do. Not only would you need to accurately measure their accuracy and their strafe performance, but you would also need to be able to objectively quantify the quality of their decisions.
Skill is a sum of our every action and decision that ultimately either leads to a positive or a negative outcome. But in itself, the process that leads to that outcome is impossible to measure and therefore we only approximate the skill by concentrating on the outcome.
As it turns out, probability theory and statistical analysis are quite good at approximating different things, and the accuracy is directly proportional to the sample size. You don’t have to take my word for it that it works, but you can start flipping a coin, and the longer you flip it, the closer you get to a 1:1 ratio of heads and tails. Systems that rate players based on skill are just fancier versions of that. They’re not perfect, but they’re easily accurate enough that the World Chess Federation has been happy with their system for the past couple of decades.
When it comes to accuracy, well first of all, “accuracy” is kind of a bad way to put it. Any system will make accurate predictions if given enough data. The right word to use would be “speed”; how fast can it figure out the player’s skill? TrueSkill is supposed to be faster, making it the fastest rating system to date (at least that I have heard of). (Of course, whether you believe the data provided to you is up to you.) Now, could there be a system that converges towards the right skill even faster? Absolutely, but as of now, no one has invented such a system.
The problem with using all that extra data that is tracked about the player is that it needs to be implemented into the formulas. Taking into account more data makes the system fundamentally more complex. Ideally, you would probably still use the probability of winning as a basis and use all those extra numbers to construct some form of correcting factor. However, you can’t just plug it all in there however you want. It actually needs to produce results that are better than those produced by any other system. As it stands, for objective evaluation of player skill, TrueSkill just happens to be the best we have. Calling it awful is a gigantic hyperbole.
Halo 2 still to this day had the best Halo ranking system.
You had to win to rank up, if you lost to better players you didn’t lose as much, if you lost to a weaker team you look a bigger hit.
It should be that basic, make it about winning not individual stats and so on.
Sure, add another side scale/rank that show show much you play but that shouldn’t have anything to do with WHO to play against, it should be YOUR RANK for that gametype.
A truely functional ranking system should be have a bell-curve, only a small % should reach the maximum level. I personally don’t think I should be able to reach that point and I am happy with that, I should idle off around 38-40 like I did in Halo 2.
People just don’t want to admit they are really only a level 18-20, which was around the average in Halo 2. The rank is designed to GENERATE A BALANCED GAME, so if you’re stuck at 10, ask a higher level for help or you could just be at your peak.
Use Halo 3’s competitive/social splits to separate the two groups.
Use Reach’s progressive system (i.e. playing time/XP based) for both styles of play, and let it be the primary for social games.
SR 130? Heck no. Inheritor? Heck yes!
Tie the commendations/challenges into the armory for a more complete and enjoyable solution. H4 tried but missed the mark here.
~1000 kills for a Master commendations? Nope. 10,000 for Onyx? Yes!
Oh and be rid of Spartan Points. They were pointless. Zing!
> I doubt it will return again since frankie didn’t like it a lot.
Pretty sure Frankie has nothing to do with the multiplayer
Anyway, I’d like Competitive Playlists with a Halo 3 like system then Social Playlists have a Reach type system
> > I doubt it will return again since frankie didn’t like it a lot.
>
> Pretty sure Frankie has nothing to do with the multiplayer
>
> Anyway, I’d like Competitive Playlists with a Halo 3 like system then Social Playlists have a Reach type system
Frankie helps direct the franchise he has some influence on the project, also since he was part of Bungie he has stats that some of the newer guys don’t have.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=470101&page=328 Stinkles is Frankie
http://www.examiner.com/article/halo-4-making-changes-to-multiplayer-ranking-system-343-explains-why
I can’t really remember but was Halo2 better than the Halo3’s ranking system ? Halo3’s kind of pissed me off in a way x)
> > I doubt it will return again since frankie didn’t like it a lot.
>
> Pretty sure Frankie has nothing to do with the multiplayer
Frankie has ALOT to do with multiplayer. His direction of 343i is part of the reason why they’ve gone the way they have with Halo. For example, he has said he wanted the 1-50 system gone because of the cheating and deranking, when in reality its arguably one of the best things about Halo.
> I can’t really remember but was Halo2 better than the Halo3’s ranking system ? Halo3’s kind of pissed me off in a way x)
From what I have heard it was a lot harder to rank up, it got to the point that higher top ranks were only achieved by the modders/cheaters and from there the legit players had a hard time winning against the cheaters. You basically couldn’t afford to lose any game once you were up at the higher ranks.
Also detailed info on how it worked for Halo 2.