Design your ideal Halo 5 Ranking system

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

DESIGN YOUR IDEAL HALO 5 RANKING SYSTEM

The multiplayer ranking system is very important to me. It gives you something to work for, while determining the quality of player you’re with.
I personally prefer the halo 3 ranking system overall. This consisted of ranking up your trueskill in the ranking playlist while ranking up your experience by winning games. This system allowed you to know exactly what kinda of player someone was (competitive/casual).

Halo 3 ranking system

I do think however that there should be a few more ranks (not many) to pad out the ranks. Perhaps one or two more enlisted ranks and one or two more officer ranks, all with a few more grades.

There are however a few things that I see wrong with this system, and thats the formulas themselves. Put simply, I think that the trueskill system is how often and consistently you win games while experience needed you to just win a game.

Skill
Skill, I believe, involves:

  • accuracy
  • K/D
  • Number of assists
  • Number of objectives (if applicable)
  • Winning a game
  • How well you played overall in the game

Experience
Experience, I believe involves:

  • Number of games
  • Number of wins
  • Number of hours played
  • Total points (kills/assists/objective/ect…)

If someone clever could put together a formula for each, that’d be great. What d’you think each should be?

2

Mine would be similar to Halo Reach (as in extremely long but based on progression rather than skill), it would unlock stuff through commendations and levels (like Halo 4) BUT you would get a significant bonus (if you usually get 1000, then an extra 500) for winning a match- in team games being in the winning team and in FFA/Multiteam games being on the top half of the leaderboard. This would install a revived importance to play to win- which the series has lacked since Halo 3.

On top of this system, there would be CSR which would only be visible in ranked matches and would not appear on the service record (so people won’t annoy less skilled players). It would only be visible during a ranked match (where you would be matched to similarly skilled players- so no gloating) and online (though there should be an option to make that invisible too). CSR would match players by skill throughout all playlists, the only difference in Ranked ones is that it’s visible and that the gametypes would be more competitive (ie. no Loadouts).

EDIT: General CSR should always be visible to the player through their own menu, but not to others. So you will always know where you’re at.

3

As an individual with just about average gaming skill who plays games with friends who are above average in skill, I prefer hidden rankings since it takes a little time for me to move from the “oh I’m just playing for fun” to " I’m more worried about my K/D ratio than dieing an extra 10 times even if it will win the match". The Factors that are essential to “balanced” as much as possible matchmaking should factor in K/D ratio, if in a party/group/clan to avoid picking on random teams search should be prioritized for party/group/clan to play against, scoring average should effect matchmaking, total time played should also impact how matches get put together along with the standard with connectivity to host/server thing.

4

That’s the great thing about the halo 3 ranking system, you could focus on either: skill / experience (fun) / or both!

The experience path is essentially what we have now (but spiced up a little), it gave people an incentive to win (but not to care for K/D) so they focused on the objective or the game at hand.

EDIT:

I saw this video on youtube (i’ll post it if i find it) and basically the guy was saying that for halo reach, you didn’t have to get any kills, win any games or EARN any points, but after a number of hours gameplay (a lot), you could still get to inheritor.

If a ranking system is as such, there is no point. Ranking systems are there to measure something, whether its skill or experience or in halo 3’s case, both.

5

> Mine would be similar to Halo Reach (as in extremely long but based on progression rather than skill), it would unlock stuff through commendations and levels (like Halo 4) BUT you would get a significant bonus (if you usually get 1000, then an extra 500) for winning a match- in team games being in the winning team and in FFA/Multiteam games being on the top half of the leaderboard. This would install a revived importance to play to win- which the series has lacked since Halo 3.
>
> On top of this system, there would be CSR which would only be visible in ranked matches and would not appear on the service record (so people won’t annoy less skilled players). It would only be visible during a ranked match (where you would be matched to similarly skilled players- so no gloating) and online (though there should be an option to make that invisible too). CSR would match players by skill throughout all playlists, the only difference in Ranked ones is that it’s visible and that the gametypes would be more competitive (ie. no Loadouts).
>
> EDIT: General CSR should always be visible to the player through their own menu, but not to others. So you will always know where you’re at.

I agree that there should be a substantial bonus for winning. I would like the option to reveal my CSR but I accept that other people may not want to.

Funnily enough, I still experienced kids gloating to me of their rank in halo reach despite it not meaning anything. (It was kinda embarrising for them when I explained to them that noble was higher than legend.

6

Edit 1 [ 07/09/13, Assumptions: ]

- The player base is infinitely large.

Players are always matched against others that share their exact rank. There is no need to include an algorithm to account for skill variation in matches.

- All players finish all games.

There is no need to address quitters and JIP.

/Edit 1

Prior to the release of Halo 4 there were several threads in which possible ranking systems for Halo 4 were discussed. I came up with this idea:

Every player would be rated following a game. This rating would determine whether they ranked up or down.

Each player’s performance PP, would be calculated as follows:

PP = x*((K+A)/(K+A+B+D)) + y*W/(W+L)

where:

K = kills
A = assists
B = betrayals
D = deaths
W = Wins
L = Losses

x&y are coefficients (between 0 and 100) that determine the ratio at which a players individual performance is weighted against their team’s performance.
x+y = 100

The values of x&y will be different for every playlist.

Here are a few examples of how PP would be calculated following a game of slayer (x=70, y=30):

Lets say that Red team wins 600-580 and the player stats are as follows:

Red Team:

R1: 25-6-13
R2: 17-3-11
R3: 12-9-17
R4: 6-9-17

Blue Team:

B1: 17-8-18
B2: 18-5-10
B3: 13-8-19
B4: 10-8-13

The PP scores are as follows:

Red Team:

R1: 70*(25+6/25+6+13) + 30*(1/1+0) = 49.32 + 30 = 79.32

R2: 70*(17+3/17+3+11) + 30*(1/1+0) = 45.16 + 30 = 75.16

R3: 70*(12+9/12+9+17) + 30*(1/1+0) = 38.68 + 30 = 68.68

R4: 70*(6+9/6+9+17) + 30*(1/1+0) = 32.81 + 30 = 62.81

Blue Team:

B1: 70*(17+8/17+8+18) + 30*(0/0+1) = 40.70 + 0 = 40.70

B2: 70*(18+5/18+5+10) + 30*(0/0+1) = 48.79 + 0 = 48.79

B3: 70*(13+8/13+8+19) + 30*(0/0+1) = 36.75 + 0 = 36.75

B4: 70*(10+8/10+8+13) + 30*(0/0+1) = 40.65 + 0 = 40.65

Whether or not a player ranks up would be determined by:

EXP’ = EXP + (PP-50)*Z

where:
EXP’ = Total experience following the match
EXP = Total experience before the match
Z = A fixed point value for completing a match

The players rank would be determined by what experience bracket they fall into. An example is shown below:

1: 0-500
2: 500-1250
3: 1250-2000
.
.
.

7

I believe we should keep a progression system similar to now, along with a skill system. This isn’t a skill system though and is irrelevant.

What I want from a skill system is something that actually functions as a skill system. CSR is essentially a skill influenced progression system. It takes ages for the system to accurately determine your rank, and once you achieve a rank its hard to lose that rank.

A skill system should not be the same as a progression system. A skill system should quickly assign you the proper rank, and you should quickly gain or lose ranks based on your progress.

Here is one of my ideas:

K+A/D = Kill + Assist / Deaths

For Slayer, base it off of K+A/D.
>The Higher your K+A/D, the Higher your rank.
>On the flipside, your rank drops if you start being sloppy.
>K/D and rank reset every few days to prevent a static system.*

*Say you have 15000 kills and 10000 deaths. It would take ages to improve your K/D, and likewise would take ages to rank up. If the system starts you back at 0/0 each week, you are given a chance to improve.

Someone who starts out at 10/5, and throughout the week manages that ratio, would be very high in rank.

Someone who starts out at 10/5, but scores significantly less each subsequent game, would start out high in rank but drop very quickly.

For Objective, base it off of win/loss.
>The Higher your win/loss ratio, the Higher your rank.
>On the flipside, if you lose several games, your rank drops.
>Win/Loss also resets every few days.

8

Reach progression ranks and Halo 2 or 3’s 1-50 skill-based ranks, all combined and in the game.

For example, to be a 5-star general, you’d need a 50 and the Inheritor’s requirement (20 million cR).

9

Two Ranks. One is a trueskill 0-50 from Halo 3 that actually determines your skill and matches you up accordingly. The other is a very very long term progression system that unlocks stuff over time. Simple and awesome.

Slightly off-topic, I always thought that it’d be cool if when you play as Elites (assuming you can in Halo 5) your ranks title transfers over to a Sangheli one. For instance, when you;re a Captain as a human, your an Ultra as an Elite. When you’re a general as a human, you’re a Zealot as an elite, etc.

10

I like the more recent ranking system(s) over Halo 3’s. In Halo 3 you were only matched up against people of ‘your skill level’ but that skill level was not an accurate representation of player skill. My skill level was always low because I died a lot but I am by no means a bad player; I often carry the team, and in objective games I’m always getting things done. On top of that, Using a ranking system like Halo 3’s meant that you never got a chance to play with people who are significantly better than you and I feel that such a restriction can be damaging to the development of a player’s skills. You’re not going to improve if you don’t get a chance to play tougher opponents.

I like unlocking new stuff as I rank up but felt that Halo 4’s ranking system just isn’t big enough. In Halo: Reach it takes literally years to reach the final rank but in Halo 4 many people hit SR130 within the first month. I think that a more extended version of Halo 4’s ranking system would be great. Maybe drop the specialisations for more general-purpose unlocks and you’re good to go. And PLEASE, don’t try and match me with players of “my skill”…

11

I like how progression takes into account performance in recent ranking systems.
This is my idea for progression:

  • Kill: 100

  • Assist: % of health reduced

  • Spree: 50

  • Multi-kill: 20,30,40…

  • Flag / Bomb (most objectives): 500

  • Carrier-Kill / Disarm (/ Ect.): 250

  • Driver/Passenger/Gunner assist: 50

  • Assassination: 125

  • Retribution:150

  • Grenade kill: 10

  • Hail Mary: 15

  • Reload this: 10

  • Revenge/Avenger: 20

(along with the others)

Here’s the best part:

Game completion bonus multiplier: x1.5
Game win bonus multiplier: x2

This way, players are rewarded for completion/win, but they have to score to earn better points.

Example:

Player A (good):
11 Kills: 1100
4 Assists: (23 + 87 + 56 + 34) 200
1 Flag: 500
3 Flag Carrier Kills: 750
1 Assassination: 125
3 Grenade Kills: 30
= 2705

Game completion: x1.5
= 4057.5
Game win: x2
= 8115

Player B (Bad):
4 Kills: 400
3 Assists: (23 + 11 + 47 + 39) 120
0 Flag: 0
1 Flag Carrier Kills: 250
0 Assassination: 0
2 Grenade Kills: 20
= 790

Game completion: x1.5
= 1185
Game win: x2

12

For long term progression and commitment:

Total Points Earned from Games+ ((Games played + Games Won) * Number of hours played)

Using my Halo 4 service record as an example:

((1233 + 661) * 5D 23H)
1894*120 = 227280

13

There are three paths: Army/Navy/Air. Players choose one. Each path offers different variants of the same equivalent rank and armours/unlocks specific to that path.

Army:

Enlisted Ranks: (5K average per game)

Cadet:0
Recruit: 5K
Apprentice: 10K
Private: 15K (PVT1): 20K (PVT2): 25K
Lance Corporal: 30K (LC1): 35K (LC2): 40K
Corporal: 50K (CPL1): 60K (CPL2): 70K

Sergeant: 80K (Staff SGT): 90K (Master Sgt): 100K (First Sgt): 110K (Sgt Maj): 120K
Gunnery Sergeant: 130K (G.sgt1): 140K (G.Sgt 2): 150K (G.Sgt3): 160K (G.Sgt 4): 170K
Warrant Officer: 180K (WO1): 190: (WO2): 200K (WO3): 210K (WO4): 220K

Officer Ranks:
[10 Skill] Lieutenant: 230K (Lt1): 250K (Lt2): 300K (Lt3): 400K
[15 Skill] Captain: 240K (Cpt1): 300K (CPT2): 375K (CPT3): 500K
[20 Skill] Major: 250K (Maj1): 325K (Maj2): 400K (Maj3): 600K
[25 Skill] Commander: 260K (CMD1): 350K (CMD2): 500K(CMD3):700K
[30 Skill] Lt. Colonel: 270K (Lt.Col1): 375(Lt.Col2): 600(Lt.Col3):800K
[35 Skill] Colonel: 280K (Col1): 400K(Col2):650K (Col3):900K
[40 Skill] Brigadier: 290K (BRG1):450K (BRG2):750K: (BRG3):1000K
[45 Skill] Brigadier-General: 300K (BRGEN1): 500K (BRGEN2): 800K (BRGEN3):1100K
[50 Skill] General: 310K (GEN1): 600K (GEN2): 900K (GEN3):1200K

Air Force:

Enlisted Ranks: (5K average per game)

Cadet:0
Recruit: 5K
Apprentice: 10K
Airman: 15K (A1): 20K (A2): 25K
Lance Corporal: 30K (LC1): 35K (LC2): 40K
Corporal: 50K (CPL1): 60K (CPL2): 70K

Sergeant: 80K (Staff SGT): 90K (Master Sgt): 100K (First Sgt): 110K (Sgt Maj): 120K
Flight Sergeant: 130K (F.sgt1): 140K (F.Sgt 2): 150K (F.Sgt3): 160K (F.Sgt 4): 170K
Warrant Officer: 180K (WO1): 190: (WO2): 200K (WO3): 210K (WO4): 220K

Officer Ranks:
[10 Skill] Officer Cadet: 230K (OC1): 250K (OC2): 300K (OC3): 400K
[15 Skill] Pilot Officer: 240K (PO1): 300K (PO2): 375K (PO3): 500K
[20 Skill] Flying Officer: 250K (FO1): 325K (FO2): 400K (FO3): 600K
[25 Skill] Flight Leuitennant: 260K (FLT1): 350K (FLT2): 500K(FLT3):700K
[30 Skill] Squadron Leader: 270K (SQL1): 375(SQL2): 600(SQL3):800K
[35 Skill] Wing Commander: 280K (W.Com1): 400K(W.Com2):650K (W.Com3):900K
[40 Skill] Group Captain: 290K (G.Capt1):450K (G.Capt2):750K: (G.Capt3):1000K
[45 Skill] Air Commadore: 300K (ACOM1): 500K (ACOM2): 800K (ACOM3):1100K
[50 Skill] Air Marshall: 310K (AMA1): 600K (AMA2): 900K (AMA3):1200K

Navy:

Enlisted Ranks: (5K average per game)

Cadet:0
Recruit: 5K
Apprentice: 10K
Private: 15K (PVT1): 20K (PVT2): 25K
Lance Corporal: 30K (LC1): 35K (LC2): 40K
Corporal: 50K (CPL1): 60K (CPL2): 70K

Sergeant: 80K (Staff SGT): 90K (Master Sgt): 100K (First Sgt): 110K (Sgt Maj): 120K
Petty-Officer: 130K (PO1): 140K (PO 2): 150K (PO3): 160K (MCPO 4): 170K
Warrant Officer: 180K (WO1): 190: (WO2): 200K (WO3): 210K (WO4): 220K

Officer Ranks:
[10 Skill] Lieutenant: 230K (Lt1): 250K (Lt2): 300K (Lt3): 400K
[15 Skill] Lieutenant-Commander: 240K (Lt.Com1): 300K (Lt.Com2): 375K (Lt.Com3): 500K
[20 Skill] Commander : 250K (Com1): 325K (Com2): 400K (Com3): 600K
[25 Skill] Captain: 260K (Capt1): 350K (Capt2): 500K(Capt3):700K
[30 Skill] Commadore: 270K (Cmdr1): 375(Cmdr2): 600(Cmdr3):800K
[35 Skill] Rear Admiral: 280K (RAD1): 400K (RAD2):650K (RAD3):900K
[40 Skill] Vice-Admiral: 290K (VAD1):450K (VAD2):750K: (VAD3):1000K
[45 Skill] Admiral: 300K (Adm1): 500K (Adm2): 800K (Adm3):1100K
[50 Skill] Fleet Admiral: 310K (FAD1): 600K (FAD2): 900K (FAD3):1200K

Once/If Completed All 3:

Spec Ops:
[30 Skill] Commando: 1500K
[35 Skill] Sgt: 2000K
[40 Skill] Captain: 3000K
[45 Skill] Major 4000K
[50 Skill] Colonel: 5000K

[50 Skill] Field Marshall: 10000K + Halo 3 Lieutenant + Halo Wars Lieutenant + Halo Reach Lt. Colonel + Halo 4 SR130 + Halo 5 General + Halo 5 Admiral + Halo 5 Air Marshall

…

EDIT:
For anyone interested, estimated completion time =

1200 (per path [army/navy/air]) / 5 (average per game) = 240 games (per path)
240 * 3 = 720 games for all three paths.

Spec ops =
Max: 10000 / 5 = 2000 Games

Grand Total = 2720 Games

Presuming games last on average 20 minutes, total playtime = 8160 minutes = 136 hours of progression.

Although that seems short, skill can take time to level up and if this idea was to seriously be considered, I’m sure some adjustments would be done

14

Works like CSR but is visible, there should be a set of playlist that are ranked taht has CSR and a set that are not like halo 3, some will have counterparts and some will be exclusive to one side due to the nature of the playlist. CSR should update after the game, playlist that determine your CSR based off performance should include deaths into its calculation. So it removes 5 points for each death for CSR calculation. Now you have a perfect rank system.

15

To be frank, I personally don’t think anyone who doesn’t have a good grasp of statistics and probabilities, and doesn’t understand or recognize this set of equations is qualified to discuss game ranking systems outside the high level concepts. That is to say, I take any community suggested ranking system formula with an enormous grain of salt because I truly don’t believe anyone here has the mathematical expertise to understand anything about what actually goes into matching players based on skill.

Let’s come up with some rudimentary formula that looks like it could be used as a basis of a ranking system. Wins, losses, kills, deaths, and assists are the parameters. Let’s say skill points gained from a match is ΔS=E+(1/15)P where E=±1 (win or loss) and P=(K/D)+A/(3D). So, the whole formula looks like

ΔS=±1+(1/15)*((K+(1/3)A)/(3D))

That’s great, isn’t it? I mean, it emphasizes the importance of winning but rewards good individual play by awarding points for it, right? And it has coefficients and everything.

No. It’s not good. It’s just a system that gives and takes away points for doing arbitrary things in the game. For one, it doesn’t take into account the level of your opponents, making it fundamentally flawed. The whole notion of “skill based” is pointless when the rating difference between players is irrelevant.

You know there’s something wrong with your ranking system when a player playing against a team much worse than them can gain more points another player of similar skill player playing against a team of equal skill. So, truth be told, that formula I presented is a joke. Even if I was capable of coming with a solution that integrates relative scores to the equation, I’d have no way of telling if it actually produces an acceptable distribution.

Additionally, integrating kills, deaths, assists, or any metric other than wins and losses isn’t as simple as dividing kills and assists multiplied with an arbitrary coefficient by deaths, multiplied by another arbitrary coefficient and just throwing it in. As a matter of fact, it’s not even worth the effort, nor is it necessary or even preferable.

All that is actually relevant is your and the opponent’s likelihood of winning the match. Why that is the case? I forward you to this article and recommend studying probability theory.

16

> To be frank, I personally don’t think anyone who doesn’t have a good grasp of statistics and probabilities, and doesn’t understand or recognize this set of equations is qualified to discuss game ranking systems outside the high level concepts. That is to say, I take any community suggested ranking system formula with an enormous grain of salt because I truly don’t believe anyone here has the mathematical expertise to understand anything about what actually goes into matching players based on skill.
>
> Let’s come up with some rudimentary formula that looks like it could be used as a basis of a ranking system. Wins, losses, kills, deaths, and assists are the parameters. Let’s say skill points gained from a match is ΔS=E+(1/15)P where E=±1 (win or loss) and P=(K/D)+A/(3D). So, the whole formula looks like
>
> ΔS=±1+(1/15)*((K+(1/3)A)/(3D))
>
> That’s great, isn’t it? I mean, it emphasizes the importance of winning but rewards good individual play by awarding points for it, right? And it has coefficients and everything.
>
> No. It’s not good. It’s just a system that gives and takes away points for doing arbitrary things in the game. For one, it doesn’t take into account the level of your opponents, making it fundamentally flawed. The whole notion of “skill based” is pointless when the rating difference between players is irrelevant.
>
> You know there’s something wrong with your ranking system when a player playing against a team much worse than them can gain more points another player of similar skill player playing against a team of equal skill. So, truth be told, that formula I presented is a joke. Even if I was capable of coming with a solution that integrates relative scores to the equation, I’d have no way of telling if it actually produces an acceptable distribution.
>
> Additionally, integrating kills, deaths, assists, or any metric other than wins and losses isn’t as simple as dividing kills and assists multiplied with an arbitrary coefficient by deaths, multiplied by another arbitrary coefficient and just throwing it in. As a matter of fact, it’s not even worth the effort, nor is it necessary or even preferable.
>
> All that is actually relevant is your and the opponent’s likelihood of winning the match. Why that is the case? I forward you to this article and recommend studying probability theory.

wow.
You’re right, I do not have the best grasp on statistics (which is why I left the formula out in my first post), but I can appreciate that number and frequency of wins (TrueSkill) is not really a measure of skill. I understand that concept. Would be good if you could put together a formula that does take into account opponent’s skill and you (and your team if applicable), showing how well you played in the game.

BTW the point scoring system i posted a couple before you is NOT for Skill but for general Progression.

17

>

No disrespect, but it seems as though you are directly targetting my post and saying it is no good. Obviously a good ranking system will take into account the relative skill of the parties of interest, that is unless the player base is infinitely large. Another important issue is the incluson of JIP which will throw a wrench into any ranking system that does not account for it.

Edit: Updated 1st post to include assumptions.

18

Very simple… Win and Loss.

19

> Very simple… Win and Loss.

for which skill or progression?

20

Gain Exp if you win and go up in true skill if you win go down if you lose

Lose Exp if you quit.

I also want Double exp weekends back.