Read at
It’s not actually all visual is it? It’s still writing.
OT: I’m fine with it for the most part, so long as credits can still be earned through Campaign, Firefight and everything else AND don’t get ridiculous caps for playing offline.
It doesn’t look too bad apart from the EXP system. I’m not thrilled about it.
Personally, I loved Halo 3’s playlist EXP coupled with a skill number with an overal rank in the service record.
I disagree strongly on making k/d or whatever matter in slayer. If people know this matters they won’t work as a team as well, and just go for individual stats. I’d rather go -20 if my teammates can go +40 because of that. People will start betraying for power weapons much more. It has been stated by MS themselves that in a team game only thing that can matter is the win.
Q: I bought a 360 for my son for Xmas, and both of us have become seriously addicted to Halo 3 on XBox Live, particularly Team Slayer matches. Basing the skill change only on the team performance yields pretty counterintuitive results. For example, I often play a string of team slayer games where I am MVP (Most Valuable Player), which means I outscore everyone. But if my team loses those games, I gain no skill. Then, I can play poorly, but if my team wins I gain skill. This lack of feedback from individual performance is frustrating and makes your skill level beholden to the performance of the rest of your team, which is usually not under your control unless you explicitly team up with friends
A: Great that you are enjoying your 360 and Halo 3.
The question you are asking has indeed been raised by quite a few people and we had many discussions about it. However, we always return to our point of view that in a team game the only way to assess someone’s skill towards the team objective is to consider the team objective only. Any auxiliary measurements such as number of flags carried, number of kills, kill-death spread, etc, all have the problem that they can be exploited thereby compromising the team objective and hence the spirit of the game. If flag carries matter, players will rush to the flag rather than defend their teammates or their own flag. Some may even kill the current flag carrier of their own team to get the flag. If it is number of kills, people will mindlessly enter combat to maximise that metric. If it is K-D spread they may hold back at a time when they could have saved a team mate. Whichever metric you take, there will be people trying to optimise their score under that metric and this will lead to distortions.
Another problem is, of course, that we would like to use the skill ratings for matchmaking. The current system essentially aims at a 50:50 win loss ratio for each team. It is unclear, how individual skill ratings based on individual achievements would change the calibration of such a system.
Of course, one might use a weighted combination of team and individual measurements. However, whenever individual measurements enter the equation there will be trouble, maybe less trouble if the weight is less, but that is not really good enough.
Source: TrueSkill™ Ranking System - Microsoft Research
Also i would like global rank to be tied to your division. And i feel like the reward for winning should be something like 1.5x your exp and when you lose you get 0.5x your exp.
> I disagree strongly on making k/d or whatever matter in slayer. If people know this matters they won’t work as a team, and just go for individual stats. I’d rather go -20 if my teammates can go +40 because of that. People will start betraying for power weapons much more. It has been stated by MS themselves that in a team game only thing that can matter is the win.
>
>
> Q: I bought a 360 for my son for Xmas, and both of us have become seriously addicted to Halo 3 on XBox Live, particularly Team Slayer matches. Basing the skill change only on the team performance yields pretty counterintuitive results. For example, I often play a string of team slayer games where I am MVP (Most Valuable Player), which means I outscore everyone. But if my team loses those games, I gain no skill. Then, I can play poorly, but if my team wins I gain skill. This lack of feedback from individual performance is frustrating and makes your skill level beholden to the performance of the rest of your team, which is usually not under your control unless you explicitly team up with friends
>
> A: Great that you are enjoying your 360 and Halo 3.
>
> The question you are asking has indeed been raised by quite a few people and we had many discussions about it. However, we always return to our point of view that in a team game the only way to assess someone’s skill towards the team objective is to consider the team objective only. Any auxiliary measurements such as number of flags carried, number of kills, kill-death spread, etc, all have the problem that they can be exploited thereby compromising the team objective and hence the spirit of the game. If flag carries matter, players will rush to the flag rather than defend their teammates or their own flag. Some may even kill the current flag carrier of their own team to get the flag. If it is number of kills, people will mindlessly enter combat to maximise that metric. If it is K-D spread they may hold back at a time when they could have saved a team mate. Whichever metric you take, there will be people trying to optimise their score under that metric and this will lead to distortions.
>
> Another problem is, of course, that we would like to use the skill ratings for matchmaking. The current system essentially aims at a 50:50 win loss ratio for each team. It is unclear, how individual skill ratings based on individual achievements would change the calibration of such a system.
>
> Of course, one might use a weighted combination of team and individual measurements. However, whenever individual measurements enter the equation there will be trouble, maybe less trouble if the weight is less, but that is not really good enough.
>
> Source: TrueSkill™ Ranking System - Microsoft Research
>
> Also i would like global rank to be tied to your division.
It’s kind of dumb not to include it. Slayer games should record kd spread. It’s weighted so that winning is more important than going positive. Going negative and winning will still rank them up. It’s unless they go super negative it’s a problem.
Read the examples…
> > I disagree strongly on making k/d or whatever matter in slayer. If people know this matters they won’t work as a team, and just go for individual stats. I’d rather go -20 if my teammates can go +40 because of that. People will start betraying for power weapons much more. It has been stated by MS themselves that in a team game only thing that can matter is the win.
> >
> >
> > Q: I bought a 360 for my son for Xmas, and both of us have become seriously addicted to Halo 3 on XBox Live, particularly Team Slayer matches. Basing the skill change only on the team performance yields pretty counterintuitive results. For example, I often play a string of team slayer games where I am MVP (Most Valuable Player), which means I outscore everyone. But if my team loses those games, I gain no skill. Then, I can play poorly, but if my team wins I gain skill. This lack of feedback from individual performance is frustrating and makes your skill level beholden to the performance of the rest of your team, which is usually not under your control unless you explicitly team up with friends
> >
> > A: Great that you are enjoying your 360 and Halo 3.
> >
> > The question you are asking has indeed been raised by quite a few people and we had many discussions about it. However, we always return to our point of view that in a team game the only way to assess someone’s skill towards the team objective is to consider the team objective only. Any auxiliary measurements such as number of flags carried, number of kills, kill-death spread, etc, all have the problem that they can be exploited thereby compromising the team objective and hence the spirit of the game. If flag carries matter, players will rush to the flag rather than defend their teammates or their own flag. Some may even kill the current flag carrier of their own team to get the flag. If it is number of kills, people will mindlessly enter combat to maximise that metric. If it is K-D spread they may hold back at a time when they could have saved a team mate. Whichever metric you take, there will be people trying to optimise their score under that metric and this will lead to distortions.
> >
> > ]Another problem is, of course, that we would like to use the skill ratings for matchmaking. The current system essentially aims at a 50:50 win loss ratio for each team. It is unclear, how individual skill ratings based on individual achievements would change the calibration of such a system.
> >
> > Of course, one might use a weighted combination of team and individual measurements. However, whenever individual measurements enter the equation there will be trouble, maybe less trouble if the weight is less, but that is not really good enough.
> >
> > Source: TrueSkill™ Ranking System - Microsoft Research
> >
> > Also i would like global rank to be tied to your division.
>
> It’s kind of dumb not to include it. Slayer games should record kd spread. It’s weighted so that winning is more important than going positive. Going negative and winning will still rank them up. It’s unless they go super negative it’s a problem.
>
> Read the examples…
Read the blue above.
> > > I disagree strongly on making k/d or whatever matter in slayer. If people know this matters they won’t work as a team, and just go for individual stats. I’d rather go -20 if my teammates can go +40 because of that. People will start betraying for power weapons much more. It has been stated by MS themselves that in a team game only thing that can matter is the win.
> > >
> > >
> > > Q: I bought a 360 for my son for Xmas, and both of us have become seriously addicted to Halo 3 on XBox Live, particularly Team Slayer matches. Basing the skill change only on the team performance yields pretty counterintuitive results. For example, I often play a string of team slayer games where I am MVP (Most Valuable Player), which means I outscore everyone. But if my team loses those games, I gain no skill. Then, I can play poorly, but if my team wins I gain skill. This lack of feedback from individual performance is frustrating and makes your skill level beholden to the performance of the rest of your team, which is usually not under your control unless you explicitly team up with friends
> > >
> > > A: Great that you are enjoying your 360 and Halo 3.
> > >
> > > The question you are asking has indeed been raised by quite a few people and we had many discussions about it. However, we always return to our point of view that in a team game the only way to assess someone’s skill towards the team objective is to consider the team objective only. Any auxiliary measurements such as number of flags carried, number of kills, kill-death spread, etc, all have the problem that they can be exploited thereby compromising the team objective and hence the spirit of the game. If flag carries matter, players will rush to the flag rather than defend their teammates or their own flag. Some may even kill the current flag carrier of their own team to get the flag. If it is number of kills, people will mindlessly enter combat to maximise that metric. If it is K-D spread they may hold back at a time when they could have saved a team mate. Whichever metric you take, there will be people trying to optimise their score under that metric and this will lead to distortions.
> > >
> > > ]Another problem is, of course, that we would like to use the skill ratings for matchmaking. The current system essentially aims at a 50:50 win loss ratio for each team. It is unclear, how individual skill ratings based on individual achievements would change the calibration of such a system.
> > >
> > > Of course, one might use a weighted combination of team and individual measurements. However, whenever individual measurements enter the equation there will be trouble, maybe less trouble if the weight is less, but that is not really good enough.
> > >
> > > Source: TrueSkill™ Ranking System - Microsoft Research
> > >
> > > Also i would like global rank to be tied to your division.
> >
> > It’s kind of dumb not to include it. Slayer games should record kd spread. It’s weighted so that winning is more important than going positive. Going negative and winning will still rank them up. It’s unless they go super negative it’s a problem.
> >
> > Read the examples…
>
> Read the blue above.
Read the note I put in the image. It states objective games don’t record individ. stats…It’s slayer exclusive
the calibration would change for the better. Like seriously. Better players on winning teams would normally rank up the same with the worse players. With this system, the gap becomes larger between them. It’s more accurate
Also, people won’t be -Yoink!- the power weapons or betraying teammates. The win/loss weighting is too high for them to do that while the individ. stats are too low, they’ll still go down by losing.
+40 is a silly consideration, it would never happen
> > > > I disagree strongly on making k/d or whatever matter in slayer. If people know this matters they won’t work as a team, and just go for individual stats. I’d rather go -20 if my teammates can go +40 because of that. People will start betraying for power weapons much more. It has been stated by MS themselves that in a team game only thing that can matter is the win.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Q: I bought a 360 for my son for Xmas, and both of us have become seriously addicted to Halo 3 on XBox Live, particularly Team Slayer matches. Basing the skill change only on the team performance yields pretty counterintuitive results. For example, I often play a string of team slayer games where I am MVP (Most Valuable Player), which means I outscore everyone. But if my team loses those games, I gain no skill. Then, I can play poorly, but if my team wins I gain skill. This lack of feedback from individual performance is frustrating and makes your skill level beholden to the performance of the rest of your team, which is usually not under your control unless you explicitly team up with friends
> > > >
> > > > A: Great that you are enjoying your 360 and Halo 3.
> > > >
> > > > The question you are asking has indeed been raised by quite a few people and we had many discussions about it. However, we always return to our point of view that in a team game the only way to assess someone’s skill towards the team objective is to consider the team objective only. Any auxiliary measurements such as number of flags carried, number of kills, kill-death spread, etc, all have the problem that they can be exploited thereby compromising the team objective and hence the spirit of the game. If flag carries matter, players will rush to the flag rather than defend their teammates or their own flag. Some may even kill the current flag carrier of their own team to get the flag. If it is number of kills, people will mindlessly enter combat to maximise that metric. If it is K-D spread they may hold back at a time when they could have saved a team mate. Whichever metric you take, there will be people trying to optimise their score under that metric and this will lead to distortions.
> > > >
> > > > ]Another problem is, of course, that we would like to use the skill ratings for matchmaking. The current system essentially aims at a 50:50 win loss ratio for each team. It is unclear, how individual skill ratings based on individual achievements would change the calibration of such a system.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, one might use a weighted combination of team and individual measurements. However, whenever individual measurements enter the equation there will be trouble, maybe less trouble if the weight is less, but that is not really good enough.
> > > >
> > > > Source: TrueSkill™ Ranking System - Microsoft Research
> > > >
> > > > Also i would like global rank to be tied to your division.
> > >
> > > It’s kind of dumb not to include it. Slayer games should record kd spread. It’s weighted so that winning is more important than going positive. Going negative and winning will still rank them up. It’s unless they go super negative it’s a problem.
> > >
> > > Read the examples…
> >
> > Read the blue above.
>
> Read the note I put in the image. It states objective games don’t record individ. stats…It’s slayer exclusive
>
> the calibration would change for the better. Like seriously. Better players on winning teams would normally rank up the same with the worse players. With this system, the gap becomes larger between them. It’s more accurate
>
> Also, people won’t be -Yoink!- the power weapons or betraying teammates. The win/loss weighting is too high for them to do that while the individ. stats are too low, they’ll still go down by losing.
>
> +40 is a silly consideration, it would never happen
I realize you stated objective games don’t have this.
Any auxiliary measurements such as number of flags carried, number of kills, kill-death spread, etc, all have the problem that they can be exploited thereby compromising the team objective and hence the spirit of the game.
This does not speak exclusively about objective games. What im saying, and MS trueskill research supports this, is that when you add ANY kind of other incentive to winning a game (k/d in this matter) it could ruin the spirit of a game.
Take this example, i could rush rockets and die, assuring that my teammate can pick them up. If k/d matters there will be players who won’t go for these rockets since it compromises their k/d.
Or this one. Your team is down by 10 kills the score is 35-25. One player on the team may just say, well we’ve lost this one and just start hiding or camping with the power weapons, not helping your team out, because it could compromise his k/d. When if he would be helping you might just pull off a comeback. I honestly don’t see how you don’t agree with the source i’ve given, since they make it very clear (and no offence put a lot more thought into this than you) that it simply does not work
> I realize you stated objective games don’t have this.
>
> Any auxiliary measurements such as number of flags carried, number of kills, kill-death spread, etc, all have the problem that they can be exploited thereby compromising the team objective and hence the spirit of the game.
>
> This does not speak exclusively about objective games. What im saying, and MS trueskill research supports this, is that when you add ANY kind of other incentive to winning a game (k/d in this matter) it could ruin the spirit of a game.
>
> Take this example, i could rush rockets and die, assuring that my teammate can pick them up. If k/d matters there will be players who won’t go for these rockets since it compromises their k/d.
> Or this one. Your team is down by 10 kills the score is 35-25. One player on the team may just say, well we’ve lost this one and just start hiding or camping with the power weapons, not helping your team out, because it could compromise his k/d. When if he would be helping you might just pull off a comeback. I honestly don’t see how you don’t agree with the source i’ve given, since they make it very clear (and no offence put a lot more thought into this than you) that it simply does not work
First off, I don’t care what the TruSkill people think. Their system was the biggest -Yoink- up ever created.
“Take this example, i could rush rockets and die, assuring that my teammate can pick them up. If k/d matters there will be players who won’t go for these rockets since it compromises their k/d.
Or this one. Your team is down by 10 kills the score is 35-25. One player on the team may just say, well we’ve lost this one and just start hiding or camping with the power weapons, not helping your team out, because it could compromise his k/d. When if he would be helping you might just pull off a comeback. I honestly don’t see how you don’t agree with the source i’ve given, since they make it very clear (and no offence put a lot more thought into this than you) that it simply does not work”
They won’t care about their K/D spread, unless they’re a tryhard, which already happens in win loss games so this won’t change anything.
What it does to your rank is a small amount. Even going +15 at 49 high is only 1/2 of what your win weighting is. You’d have to go +30 to match it, which is virtually impossible at such high ranks.
The person who doesn’t get rocks is an idiot, but at least he’s better than a deranker right? Would you like that again? Nope. He’d just quit out if he was thought he’d lost. Any sane minded person would. And this already happens. Once again, nothing will change during games.
This system honestly doesn’t change much but makes the system more accurate and gets rid of boosters and derankers. Any bad things you think will happen like the example you listed will be extremely rare, and the people are actually pretty dumb to do it.
Do you want to be rewarded for going positive and winning while the worse players on your team don’t rank up as much? I’d think so, it’s only fair.
Not to mention, most of the stuff you mentioned already exists in win loss games.
Another argument I assume will come up:
There are different type of people that play slayer. There are Main slayers, support players etc.
Yes that’s true. But support players should STILL pull positive if they’re good. Going negative every game is not good at all. They should be extremely passive players landing shots on everyone.
Chances are, the main slayer is better than the support anyway, so again, more accurate.
Anyway, a good working team will have most of its players pull positive if not all. Supporting each other will all give them +s.
> > I realize you stated objective games don’t have this.
> >
> > Any auxiliary measurements such as number of flags carried, number of kills, kill-death spread, etc, all have the problem that they can be exploited thereby compromising the team objective and hence the spirit of the game.
> >
> > This does not speak exclusively about objective games. What im saying, and MS trueskill research supports this, is that when you add ANY kind of other incentive to winning a game (k/d in this matter) it could ruin the spirit of a game.
> >
> > Take this example, i could rush rockets and die, assuring that my teammate can pick them up. If k/d matters there will be players who won’t go for these rockets since it compromises their k/d.
> > Or this one. Your team is down by 10 kills the score is 35-25. One player on the team may just say, well we’ve lost this one and just start hiding or camping with the power weapons, not helping your team out, because it could compromise his k/d. When if he would be helping you might just pull off a comeback. I honestly don’t see how you don’t agree with the source i’ve given, since they make it very clear (and no offence put a lot more thought into this than you) that it simply does not work
>
> First off, I don’t care what the TruSkill people think. Their system was the biggest Yoink! up ever created.
>
> The statement they make is not to defend trueskill, it just showes that winning is the only way to assure the spirit of the game is kept.
>
> “Take this example, i could rush rockets and die, assuring that my teammate can pick them up. If k/d matters there will be players who won’t go for these rockets since it compromises their k/d.
> Or this one. Your team is down by 10 kills the score is 35-25. One player on the team may just say, well we’ve lost this one and just start hiding or camping with the power weapons, not helping your team out, because it could compromise his k/d. When if he would be helping you might just pull off a comeback. I honestly don’t see how you don’t agree with the source i’ve given, since they make it very clear (and no offence put a lot more thought into this than you) that it simply does not work”
>
> They won’t care about their K/D spread, unless they’re a tryhard, which already happens in win loss games so this won’t change anything.
>
> Yes people will care, because it affects their rank, simple as that.
>
> What it does to your rank is a small amount. Even going +15 at 49 high is only 1/2 of what your win weighting is. You’d have to go +30 to match it, which is virtually impossible at such high ranks.
>
>
>
> The person who doesn’t get rocks is an idiot, but at least he’s better than a deranker right? Would you like that again? Nope. He’d just quit out if he was thought he’d lost. Any sane minded person would. And this already happens. Once again, nothing will change during games.
>
>
> I don’t see how linking your rank to k/d removes deranking. Also i like how you added quitters. Their k/d is usually pretty inaccurate because they quit out early or mid game. This usually leads to the team with one person less to go negative, simply because they have one person less. Doesn’t exactly seem fair to me.
>
> This system honestly doesn’t change much but makes the system more accurate and gets rid of boosters and derankers. Any bad things you think will happen like the example you listed will be extremely rare, and the people are actually pretty dumb to do it.
>
> No they are not dumb to do it. They simply say, well i could lose this much rank, or lose more rank, what decision do you think people will make.
>
> Do you want to be rewarded for going positive and winning while the worse players on your team don’t rank up as much? I’d think so, it’s only fair.
>
> Being the better player does not automatically mean a higher k/d spread. I have played with people who didn’t have that good of a shot, but were amazing teammates, and really understood map control, spawns, calling out and more. I would rather have someone like that on my team then someone who doesn’t communicate and goes + 5
>
> Not to mention, most of the stuff you mentioned already exists in win loss games.
>
> Another argument I assume will come up:
>
> There are different type of people that play slayer. There are Main slayers, support players etc.
>
> Yes that’s true. But support players should STILL pull positive if they’re good. Going negative every game is not good at all. They should be extremely passive players landing shots on everyone.
>
> If playing against a team of equal skill it is very well possible for the support player to go negative and still have a good game
>
> Chances are, the main slayer is better than the support anyway, so again, more accurate.
>
> Like ive said before, having the best shot does noet automatically make him the best player. Thats whats so good about halo, there are so many other things that make a good player.
>
> Anyway, a good working team will have most of its players pull positive if not all. Supporting each other will all give them +s.
>
> Again, against equally skilled teams its very well possible for people to go negative on the team. Even the mlg pros go negative in their games. Does that mean they automatically played bad? No i don’t think so. Players like Walshy consistently goe negative, and still people view hem as one of the better pros. Why is that? because he helps his team out, creates strategys and much more.
> This system honestly doesn’t change much but makes the system more accurate and gets rid of boosters and derankers. Any bad things you think will happen like the example you listed will be extremely rare, and the people are actually pretty dumb to do it.
You know, this statement, especially the first sentence struck me. It’s a false assumption that weighing kills to affect any amount would somehow make the system more accurate. The problem originates from the automacy of the system.
Have you ever seen the formula of the TrueSkill? It’s very complex, even when it’s only based on your (or your team’s) position after the game. With a lot of research Microsoft managed to find a ranking system that produces A) consistent results B) a perfect bell curve. Both being very important when figuring out a ranking system. We have never directly seen this ranking system in action, only a watered down version of it in Halo 3.
Anyway, the problem with adding stats such as kills to that equation brings problems, mostly because believe or not, the amount of kills you manage to make in one game isn’t an accurate measure of skill. There is so much more to player’s actual skill than just their kills even in Slayer games. I could spend my whole day calling out opponents to my team and putting shots on the opponents without getting a single kill and ending negative, still my team could win all the games with me being the real most valuable player because my team knew the locations of all the opponents all the time because of me.
A pure win based system can’t go wrong because you only have a team that wins and a team that loses. The team that wins is quaranteed to be the better team because they won. Of course we may have players that get carried, but they won’t get carried constantly, they won’t get boosted to ultimately high ranks.
So, the pure win based system is simply better because machines can’t know the real skills of the individual players, if they try to figure it out from arbitrary stats, the system is just going to end up worse. So until we get a ranking system that equals a human watching the gameplay of the individual players, pure win/loss system is the best.
> > This system honestly doesn’t change much but makes the system more accurate and gets rid of boosters and derankers. Any bad things you think will happen like the example you listed will be extremely rare, and the people are actually pretty dumb to do it.
>
> You know, this statement, especially the first sentence struck me. It’s a false assumption that weighing kills to affect any amount would somehow make the system more accurate. The problem originates from the automacy of the system.
>
> Have you ever seen the formula of the TrueSkill? It’s very complex, even when it’s only based on your (or your team’s) position after the game. With a lot of research Microsoft managed to find a ranking system that produces A) consistent results B) a perfect bell curve. Both being very important when figuring out a ranking system. We have never directly seen this ranking system in action, only a watered down version of it in Halo 3.
>
> Anyway, the problem with adding stats such as kills to that equation brings problems, mostly because believe or not, the amount of kills you manage to make in one game isn’t an accurate measure of skill. There is so much more to player’s actual skill than just their kills even in Slayer games. I could spend my whole day calling out opponents to my team and putting shots on the opponents without getting a single kill and ending negative, still my team could win all the games with me being the real most valuable player because my team knew the locations of all the opponents all the time because of me.
>
> A pure win based system can’t go wrong because you only have a team that wins and a team that loses. The team that wins is quaranteed to be the better team because they won. Of course we may have players that get carried, but they won’t get carried constantly, they won’t get boosted to ultimately high ranks.
>
> So, the pure win based system is simply better because machines can’t know the real skills of the individual players, if they try to figure it out from arbitrary stats, the system is just going to end up worse. So until we get a ranking system that equals a human watching the gameplay of the individual players, pure win/loss system is the best.
Of course skill isn’t based purely on killdeath spread, but that’s the heart of it. If they are superior at completing the objective (to kill) better than others, then they ARE the more skilled player in the game and will be rewarded accordingly. No matter who the better caller-out-er is, the better killer will win.
It’s like saying someone who calls out constantly and makes perfect callouts, but absolutely terrible at aiming and positioning, is of equal skill to someone who never misses a headshot and has near perfect placement. It’s just not true, because calling out isn’t the objective.
If you’re calling out and going negative then sure, you’re good to your team and you’ll rank up by winning. You could’ve been the most valuable, but you didn’t get the job done like the others did. That is not being skillful overall. You should be able to callout, put shots on and not die simultaneously.
True Skill works outside of 1-50. If we ever want it back, we’ll need a different type of system, that’s final.
Skimmed through it and really liked the idea. This is the best way to cater to both the casual and competitive audiences…
Personally, I disliked the H3 ranking system as I was nearly never on the winning side (even though I was pretty good on multiple occasions). Then again, in Reach, nobody really cares weather they win or not because the ranking system isn’t even remotely connected to the cR system. And if its not about winning, what is it about? Mixing the winning stat with individual stats is a great way to combine both systems and to take the best of both worlds.
> Skimmed through it and really liked the idea. This is the best way to cater to both the casual and competitive audiences…
>
> Personally, I disliked the H3 ranking system as I was nearly never on the winning side (even though I was pretty good on multiple occasions). Then again, in Reach, nobody really cares weather they win or not because the ranking system isn’t even remotely connected to the cR system. And if its not about winning, what is it about? Mixing the winning stat with individual stats is a great way to combine both systems and to take the best of both worlds.
If you were never on the winning side then the system works at finding your skill. Play enough games with TS and it will match you accordingly where your W/L is 50/50.
Well, I don’t know how I kept loosing regardless of how well I played, something was definitely wrong, no? And, since the whole system is based on winning, it is that much worse…
Aside from that, though, H3 MM was the best by far.
> Of course skill isn’t based purely on killdeath spread, but that’s the heart of it. If they are superior at completing the objective (to kill) better than others, then they ARE the more skilled player in the game and will be rewarded accordingly. No matter who the better caller-out-er is, the better killer will win.
>
> It’s like saying someone who calls out constantly and makes perfect callouts, but absolutely terrible at aiming and positioning, is of equal skill to someone who never misses a headshot and has near perfect placement. It’s just not true, because calling out isn’t the objective.
>
> Thats not what he said, and there are far more skills that don’t show in k/d. Knowledge about the game, knowing where to go, how to help out your team, how to get map control, when to push, when weapons spawn, and many more are skills vital to being a good player. All of these things don’t show up on your k/d. If you honestly believe that in order to win a game your k/d is the most important then you haven’t played very much high level halo.
>
> If you’re calling out and going negative then sure, you’re good to your team and you’ll rank up by winning. You could’ve been the most valuable, but you didn’t get the job done like the others did. That is not being skillful overall. You should be able to callout, put shots on and not die simultaneously.
>
> This is a contradiction in itself. How can you be the MVP and not get the job done? Because they got the kills, because you provided the oppurtunity for them to?.
>
> True Skill works outside of 1-50. If we ever want it back, we’ll need a different type of system, that’s final.
>
> Even ELO systems are based solely on winning. ELO is widely considered to be about the best ranking system out there and has been used in chess for a long time. Not saying its perfect, as no system is.
> > Of course skill isn’t based purely on killdeath spread, but that’s the heart of it. If they are superior at completing the objective (to kill) better than others, then they ARE the more skilled player in the game and will be rewarded accordingly. No matter who the better caller-out-er is, the better killer will win.
> >
> > It’s like saying someone who calls out constantly and makes perfect callouts, but absolutely terrible at aiming and positioning, is of equal skill to someone who never misses a headshot and has near perfect placement. It’s just not true, because calling out isn’t the objective.
> >
> > Thats not what he said, and there are far more skills that don’t show in k/d. Knowledge about the game, knowing where to go, how to help out your team, how to get map control, when to push, when weapons spawn, and many more are skills vital to being a good player. All of these things don’t show up on your k/d. If you honestly believe that in order to win a game your k/d is the most important then you haven’t played very much high level halo.
> >
> > Yeah but k/d is a result of all those things. It’s what shapes the game due to your decisions, so it actually does depict your skill as a player, generally speaking.
> >
> >
> > If you’re calling out and going negative then sure, you’re good to your team and you’ll rank up by winning. You could’ve been the most valuable, but you didn’t get the job done like the others did. That is not being skillful overall. You should be able to callout, put shots on and not die simultaneously.
> >
> > This is a contradiction in itself. How can you be the MVP and not get the job done? Because they got the kills, because you provided the oppurtunity for them to?.
> >
> > idk where that is, but i could have misread it, it’s 6am and i haven’t slept
> >
> > True Skill works outside of 1-50. If we ever want it back, we’ll need a different type of system, that’s final.
> >
> > Even ELO systems are based solely on winning. ELO is widely considered to be about the best ranking system out there and has been used in chess for a long time. Not saying its perfect, as no system is.
> >
> > Yeah but in video games there’s no real way to tell if a deranker is actually bad or not. You can’t ban someone for being bad.
> > > I realize you stated objective games don’t have this.
> > >
> > > Any auxiliary measurements such as number of flags carried, number of kills, kill-death spread, etc, all have the problem that they can be exploited thereby compromising the team objective and hence the spirit of the game.
> > >
> > > This does not speak exclusively about objective games. What im saying, and MS trueskill research supports this, is that when you add ANY kind of other incentive to winning a game (k/d in this matter) it could ruin the spirit of a game.
> > >
> > > Take this example, i could rush rockets and die, assuring that my teammate can pick them up. If k/d matters there will be players who won’t go for these rockets since it compromises their k/d.
> > > Or this one. Your team is down by 10 kills the score is 35-25. One player on the team may just say, well we’ve lost this one and just start hiding or camping with the power weapons, not helping your team out, because it could compromise his k/d. When if he would be helping you might just pull off a comeback. I honestly don’t see how you don’t agree with the source i’ve given, since they make it very clear (and no offence put a lot more thought into this than you) that it simply does not work
> >
> > First off, I don’t care what the TruSkill people think. Their system was the biggest Yoink! up ever created.
> >
> > The statement they make is not to defend trueskill, it just showes that winning is the only way to assure the spirit of the game is kept.
> >
> > “Take this example, i could rush rockets and die, assuring that my teammate can pick them up. If k/d matters there will be players who won’t go for these rockets since it compromises their k/d.
> > Or this one. Your team is down by 10 kills the score is 35-25. One player on the team may just say, well we’ve lost this one and just start hiding or camping with the power weapons, not helping your team out, because it could compromise his k/d. When if he would be helping you might just pull off a comeback. I honestly don’t see how you don’t agree with the source i’ve given, since they make it very clear (and no offence put a lot more thought into this than you) that it simply does not work”
> >
> > They won’t care about their K/D spread, unless they’re a tryhard, which already happens in win loss games so this won’t change anything.
> >
> > Yes people will care, because it affects their rank, simple as that.
> >
> > Not to the extent that they’ll betray people
> >
> > What it does to your rank is a small amount. Even going +15 at 49 high is only 1/2 of what your win weighting is. You’d have to go +30 to match it, which is virtually impossible at such high ranks.
> >
> >
> >
> > The person who doesn’t get rocks is an idiot, but at least he’s better than a deranker right? Would you like that again? Nope. He’d just quit out if he was thought he’d lost. Any sane minded person would. And this already happens. Once again, nothing will change during games.
> >
> >
> > I don’t see how linking your rank to k/d removes deranking. Also i like how you added quitters. Their k/d is usually pretty inaccurate because they quit out early or mid game. This usually leads to the team with one person less to go negative, simply because they have one person less. Doesn’t exactly seem fair to me.
> >
> > it removes deranking because it no longer uses other peoples records to judge your own, you’re starting fresh each new game.
> >
> > This system honestly doesn’t change much but makes the system more accurate and gets rid of boosters and derankers. Any bad things you think will happen like the example you listed will be extremely rare, and the people are actually pretty dumb to do it.
> >
> > No they are not dumb to do it. They simply say, well i could lose this much rank, or lose more rank, what decision do you think people will make.
> >
> > About 0.1 of a rank if even that, at maximum.
> >
> > Do you want to be rewarded for going positive and winning while the worse players on your team don’t rank up as much? I’d think so, it’s only fair.
> >
> > Being the better player does not automatically mean a higher k/d spread. I have played with people who didn’t have that good of a shot, but were amazing teammates, and really understood map control, spawns, calling out and more. I would rather have someone like that on my team then someone who doesn’t communicate and goes + 5
> >
> > That’s nice if they’re good teammates. All this is doing is slowing the progression of the bit worse players vs. good players, it’s really not as dramatic as you make it seem
> >
> > Not to mention, most of the stuff you mentioned already exists in win loss games.
> >
> > Another argument I assume will come up:
> >
> > There are different type of people that play slayer. There are Main slayers, support players etc.
> >
> > Yes that’s true. But support players should STILL pull positive if they’re good. Going negative every game is not good at all. They should be extremely passive players landing shots on everyone.
> >
> > If playing against a team of equal skill it is very well possible for the support player to go negative and still have a good game
> >
> > It depends how many assists they got
> >
> > Chances are, the main slayer is better than the support anyway, so again, more accurate.
> >
> > Like ive said before, having the best shot does noet automatically make him the best player. Thats whats so good about halo, there are so many other things that make a good player.
> >
> > Obviously. Being smart is a huge part, and doing that will still make their k/d higher, it was just a basic analogy…
> >
> > Anyway, a good working team will have most of its players pull positive if not all. Supporting each other will all give them +s.
> >
> > Again, against equally skilled teams its very well possible for people to go negative on the team. Even the mlg pros go negative in their games. Does that mean they automatically played bad? No i don’t think so. Players like Walshy consistently goe negative, and still people view hem as one of the better pros. Why is that? because he helps his team out, creates strategys and much more.
> >
> >
> > Of course not. They’re versing people of equal skill and therfor should hover around 1.0 K/D. +0 spread. If they’re going negative often then their rank will be slowed when winning.
> > > Of course skill isn’t based purely on killdeath spread, but that’s the heart of it. If they are superior at completing the objective (to kill) better than others, then they ARE the more skilled player in the game and will be rewarded accordingly. No matter who the better caller-out-er is, the better killer will win.
> > >
> > > It’s like saying someone who calls out constantly and makes perfect callouts, but absolutely terrible at aiming and positioning, is of equal skill to someone who never misses a headshot and has near perfect placement. It’s just not true, because calling out isn’t the objective.
> > >
> > > Thats not what he said, and there are far more skills that don’t show in k/d. Knowledge about the game, knowing where to go, how to help out your team, how to get map control, when to push, when weapons spawn, and many more are skills vital to being a good player. All of these things don’t show up on your k/d. If you honestly believe that in order to win a game your k/d is the most important then you haven’t played very much high level halo.
> > >
> > > Yeah but k/d is a result of all those things. It’s what shapes the game due to your decisions, so it actually does depict your skill as a player, generally speaking.
> > >
> > >
> > > Aren’t you reading at all? These things don’t have to influence youre own k/d. They can help the k/d of your teammates. But they ALWAYS influence your team score. therefore team score should be looked at. If you honestly believe that in order to win a game your k/d is the most important then you haven’t played very much high level teamwork halo.
> > >
> > >
> > > If you’re calling out and going negative then sure, you’re good to your team and you’ll rank up by winning. You could’ve been the most valuable, but you didn’t get the job done like the others did. That is not being skillful overall. You should be able to callout, put shots on and not die simultaneously.
> > >
> > > This is a contradiction in itself. How can you be the MVP and not get the job done? Because they got the kills, because you provided the oppurtunity for them to?.
> > >
> > > idk where that is, but i could have misread it, it’s 6am and i haven’t slept
> > >
> > > True Skill works outside of 1-50. If we ever want it back, we’ll need a different type of system, that’s final.
> > >
> > > Even ELO systems are based solely on winning. ELO is widely considered to be about the best ranking system out there and has been used in chess for a long time. Not saying its perfect, as no system is.
> > >
> > > Yeah but in video games there’s no real way to tell if a deranker is actually bad or not. You can’t ban someone for being bad.
> > >
> > > Like i said, no system is perfect, but i just don’t see how linking k/d to your skill prevents derankers.
How did halo 2 do it? Didn’t a lot of people like that system?