I feel that Halo 5 needs to drop ‘progression EXP’ and challenges.
I think it would be better off with just Halo 3 style ranking.
Halo shouldn’t be a grind like WoW. It promotes bad play and things such as afk’ing to level up.
What do others think?
> I feel that Halo 5 needs to drop ‘progression EXP’ and challenges.
>
> I think it would be better off with just Halo 3 style ranking.
>
> Halo shouldn’t be a grind like WoW. It promotes bad play and things such as afk’ing to level up.
>
> What do others think?
I like exp ranking but I like 1-50 too also if we are gonna go back…make it like halo 2’s and keep exp ranking just for the heck of it (it makes people feel good and if we don’t put to much weight on it, it offers nothing but pros).
And honestly the grind argument can work both ways its just a opinion on which one you like.
My favorite ranking system of all time including all games ever was Halo 3’s combination of skill and progression.
The ranking system should be split into three parts:
Skill, experience, commendations
Skill:
Skill ranking was a hugely popular back in halo 2&3 with it showing how skilful players often were more so in halo 2 with it being harder. It will changed to 1-100 to keep people playing for longer and will not be based upon KD since its easily abused, instead it will be based upon peoples points in matches since it shows how they contributed to the team through assists (which will give the equivalent to the % of damage they did to the player) and objectives etc.
However instead of getting skill 100 on one playlist it will take their average across the ranked playlists so it shows how good people actually are later on in the game and will allow for people to be better matched with equally skilled players instead of jumping into a new playlist as a good player to kill all the noobs lower down.
This will be shown through a number next to players name and underneath the player next to challenges completed if something like the reach UI is used.
XP:
This shows how dedicated/experience to the game the person is and is responsible for lots of aethesetic unlocks on the player. (Ranked gives achievements since it takes skill not grinding) and reward team efforts with more xp, it will take less time than reach but way more than halo 4. It is shown through rank name and icon
Commendations:
This is just your average rating on commendations which shows how much of a challenge seeker you are and isnt really a big thing but used non the less. It will be shown through a slash after your other ranks on your player slit. It will b coloured according to your average commendations rating of:
Tin, iron, bronze, silver, gold, platinum/diamond and onyx which offers weapon skins for each if these colours.
Ranks will also be shown on your spartan through a secondary emblem smally placed somewhere of your choice (or not at all if your wish) on your player, commendation rank can also be displayed if wished by really small stripes on the edges of armour plates.
KD and average match rating over all matches and the last 25 matches on the player card next to average skill rank.
> My favorite ranking system of all time including all games ever was Halo 3’s combination of skill and progression.
Win loss xp was horrible since it didnt reward good play and close losses screwed people over, however win loss should take a substantial effect upon xp unlike in reach and 4
> > My favorite ranking system of all time including all games ever was Halo 3’s combination of skill and progression.
>
> Win loss xp was horrible since it didnt reward good play and close losses screwed people over, however win loss should take a substantial effect upon xp unlike in reach and 4
God…you…I don’t know what to say…but I think I have another favorite person on waypoint.
> Win loss xp was horrible since it didnt reward good play and close losses screwed people over, however win loss should take a substantial effect upon xp unlike in reach and 4
How is rewarding wins not rewarding good play?
> > Win loss xp was horrible since it didnt reward good play and close losses screwed people over, however win loss should take a substantial effect upon xp unlike in reach and 4
>
> How is rewarding wins not rewarding good play?
It does but not on both sides and one person can carry a team, ranking people who do nothing (or not much) up without a good reason, thus win loss shoudlnt be the only xp system but it should have an larger impact upon match completion xp.
> It does but not on both sides and one person can carry a team, ranking people who do nothing (or not much) up without a good reason, thus win loss shoudlnt be the only xp system but it should have an larger impact upon match completion xp.
Are you talking about a progressive rank or a skill rank? Just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing.
> > It does but not on both sides and one person can carry a team, ranking people who do nothing (or not much) up without a good reason, thus win loss shoudlnt be the only xp system but it should have an larger impact upon match completion xp.
>
> Are you talking about a progressive rank or a skill rank? Just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing.
The progressive since only winners were rewarded which is a bit unfair to some people especially when jts a close match.
> > > It does but not on both sides and one person can carry a team, ranking people who do nothing (or not much) up without a good reason, thus win loss shoudlnt be the only xp system but it should have an larger impact upon match completion xp.
> >
> > Are you talking about a progressive rank or a skill rank? Just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing.
>
> The progressive since only winners were rewarded which is a bit unfair to some people especially when jts a close match.
The Superbowl can be a close game, but only one team gets the trophy. Every player still gets a salary.
There should be an XP buff for wins and a W/L next to the K/D on the surface. Every player will get rewarded for their effort in the match, but only the winning team will be rewarded with substantially more XP, doing a better job to separate skill tiers and discouraging XP farming in Objective games.
To provide balance in fairness of good players stuck with bad teams and good teams that carry one or two bad players, XP should be given to reflect kills, assists, points toward objectives; Possibly even penalties for deaths and betrayals.
Personally, I have never really been able to inspire myself for Halo 3’s skill based progression rank.
I think a skill based rank should get actually calculated and should not have to be grinded.
Besides, I think a system like Halo 3, that is solely based on win/loss, to determine an individual’s skill is flawed and often frustrating because, like Biotic Khajiit already mentioned, ranks can either get carried or get oppressed by team mates.
Therefore, personally I would prefer or rather would like to have a properly calculated skill rank for a well-working matchmaking system and to find your personal level (or try to go beyond it) and a proper and fair xp or credit progression rank to unlock the majority of the aesthetical customization.
A long time ago I started a thread that asked the question: Define Skill. After three pages there was still no consensus.
In a Halo match, the team wins or loses. If you’re on the winning team, you won, and vice versa. Determining individual skill is not easy when the only thing that matters is which team won. The player with the most points on the losing team still ranks down. You could get a 50 by just being on a team that consistently wins. I never believed that Halo 3’s ranking system was an indication of skill. All TrueSkill does is calculate your likelihood of being on the winning side. The rest of the matchmaking system tries to put together two teams with the same likelihood. Individual skill is only a component part of the calculation.
Any discussion of what a skill rank should consist of tends to boil down to W/L vs K/D, and both of those statistics are easily manipulated.
I think in the long run most people don’t really care how a rank is calculated, so long as it keeps going up.
> A long time ago I started a thread that asked the question: Define Skill. After three pages there was still no consensus.
>
> In a Halo match, the team wins or loses. If you’re on the winning team, you won, and vice versa. Determining individual skill is not easy when the only thing that matters is which team won. The player with the most points on the losing team still ranks down. You could get a 50 by just being on a team that consistently wins. I never believed that Halo 3’s ranking system was an indication of skill. All TrueSkill does is calculate your likelihood of being on the winning side. The rest of the matchmaking system tries to put together two teams with the same likelihood. Individual skill is only a component part of the calculation.
>
> Any discussion of what a skill rank should consist of tends to boil down to W/L vs K/D, and both of those statistics are easily manipulated.
>
> I think in the long run most people don’t really care how a rank is calculated, so long as it keeps going up.
Points and the matchrating from reach determines player skill close to what it is. Did I really have to answer that?
> Any discussion of what a skill rank should consist of tends to boil down to W/L vs K/D, and both of those statistics are easily manipulated.
That’s why I think you should consider as many variables as possible and weight them properly when calculating the “skill” of an individual.
W/L and K/D are only parts of such a calculation actually.
> The progressive since only winners were rewarded which is a bit unfair to some people especially when jts a close match.
I wouldn’t be opposed to lesser XP amounts for losses, but I don’t necessarily consider no XP for losing “unfair.” Of course, this is assuming that, like in Halo 3, high-level progression ranks are tied only to a picture next to your name, not unlocks, achievements, etc.
> Besides, I think a system like Halo 3, that is solely based on win/loss, to determine an individual’s skill is flawed and often frustrating because, like Biotic Khajiit already mentioned, ranks can either get carried or get oppressed by team mates.
You’re right that a win/loss ranking system has flaws, but I can’t think of a better way. You could add K/D spread, K/D ratio, assists, etc., which would all make it more accurate, but I think the reason that hasn’t been done up until this point is because that would be a pretty complex formula. How do you decide which statistics are more of an indicator of skill, and then how do you decide how to weigh those indicators? Moreover, there are some individual strategies that lead to a team win but don’t have a direct impact (or have a negative impact) on stats, which means you can’t really calculate everything. The only thing that matters is the win, so rating players based on whether or not they won is the most accurate way (right now) to determine skill. TrueSkill is very good at using win/loss to rate players’ relative skill levels accurately–if there are any flaws, I don’t think many people could give many actual examples of inaccuracies (e.g. a 28 beating a 30 in a 1v1 match or a team of 28s beating a team of 30s).
Not only that, but rating based on win/loss also has the best impact on in-game player behavior. Players will attempt to do whatever it is that will rank them up. If you rank players on individual stats such as kills, teammates will play selfishly, fighting over and hording power weapons like in Halo: Reach’s original arena games. Halo 4 judges based on score, and as a result, players run blindly into the fray to get as many kills as possible and get a big score, but also die more, which nets a negative effect to the team. But if players know that winning is what will rank them up, they will do whatever it takes to win, which we can all agree is the most important.
> You could get a 50 by just being on a team that consistently wins.
W/L rates all players as averages, so the only way a player could get a 50 without actually being a 50 is if his teammates were always on the high, high end of 50s. As explained in the 4.3.13 Halo Bulletin:
> To get a 50 in the more prestigious playlists will require players skilled enough to <mark>consistently</mark> bring the win to their entire team so that they can be matched against better and better players.
>
> Now, can you then carry a worse player? In a sense, yes, but only as high as the average skill of the group. <mark>Two 40s won’t bring a 10 up to a 40, but instead they will all end up around 30.</mark> Does that accurately represent that 10’s skill? Well, if that 10 plays alone, then no, it is grossly overestimating that player’s skill. However, if that player ALWAYS plays with two 40 CSR friends, then <mark>20 of that player’s skill is playing with the right friends.</mark>
> > The progressive since only winners were rewarded which is a bit unfair to some people especially when jts a close match.
>
> I wouldn’t be opposed to lesser XP amounts for losses, but I don’t necessarily consider no XP for losing “unfair.”
Its just when you can only get any form of xp for winning like in halo 3 so if you played good but werent rewarded for it and you cant rank up any other way thats all. As hard as it would be to understand making it more complex would be for the better since the ranking system requires a huge update now and many games use lots of more complicated stuff so it could be for the better. End of the day people will always abuse it regardless of what you do.
> You’re right that a win/loss ranking system has flaws, but I can’t think of a better way. You could add K/D spread, K/D ratio, assists, etc., which would all make it more accurate, but I think the reason that hasn’t been done up until this point is because that would be a pretty complex formula. How do you decide which statistics are more of an indicator of skill, and then how do you decide how to weigh those indicators? Moreover, there are some individual strategies that lead to a team win but don’t have a direct impact (or have a negative impact) on stats, which means you can’t really calculate everything. The only thing that matters is the win, so rating players based on whether or not they won is the most accurate way (right now) to determine skill. TrueSkill is very good at using win/loss to rate players’ relative skill levels accurately–if there are any flaws, I don’t think many people could give many actual examples (e.g. a 28 beating a 30 in a 1v1 match or a team of 28s beating a team of 30s).
>
> Not only that, but rating based on win/loss also has the best impact on in-game player behavior. Players will attempt to do whatever it is that will rank them up. If you rank players on individual stats such as kills, teammates will play selfishly, fighting over and hording power weapons like in Halo: Reach’s original arena games. Halo 4 judges based on score, and as a result, players run blindly into the fray to get as many kills as possible and get a big score, but also die more, which nets a negative effect to the team. But if players know that winning is what will rank them up, they will do whatever it takes to win, which we can all agree is the most important.
Yes, it would be indeed quite complicated to calculate that and especially to weight all these variables properly and fairly. Nonetheless I think a system solely based on W/L is only advisable when you rate and match organized teams but not individual players.
However, you are right that a rating based on win/loss has likely the best impact on player behavior and encourages team play rather than focusing on personal performance. But just as well people tend to blame their team mates when they oppress their rank up. 
Perhaps the best would be when the ranks would be invisible to the player and would get calculated in the shadows but then of course you would not be able to know where you are standing.
It’s a tough task.
> > A long time ago I started a thread that asked the question: Define Skill. After three pages there was still no consensus.
> >
> > Any discussion of what a skill rank should consist of tends to boil down to W/L vs K/D, and both of those statistics are easily manipulated.
> >
> > I think in the long run most people don’t really care how a rank is calculated, so long as it keeps going up.
>
> Points and the matchrating from reach determines player skill close to what it is. Did I really have to answer that?
No, you didn’t have to but since you did…
Reach used TrueSkill for matchmaking just like Halo 3, except tighter. Progression ranking was introduced to appease those who were addicted to ranking up. Proper ranked matches suffered the same fate as Halo 4 matches for the same reason: low population, although Halo 4 is far worse.
I hope you weren’t implying that Reach’s ranks were skill-based?
> I feel that Halo 5 needs to drop ‘progression EXP’ and challenges.
>
> I think it would be better off with just Halo 3 style ranking.
>
> Halo shouldn’t be a grind like WoW. It promotes bad play and things such as afk’ing to level up.
>
> What do others think?
The great thing about the Halo Rank system that it kind of had both Rank and Progression.
We need to have Ranked and Social playlist but also think there should a progression system as well. Halo 3 did this. And im am sure it can be greatly improved.