Halo 4 Ranks: Catering to both the Casual and the Competitive

Games Other Halo
1

Before I start, this is part of a larger document I intend to post when it’s done. This section deals only with rank.

Perhaps the most heated debate among the multiplayer community is rank, and how it should be approached. I personally like the way Halo Reach approach rank: not as a determination of skill, but a determination of time. However, this was, by no means, perfect. For Halo 4 and on, I believe there should be two ranks:

Experience Rank
The first rank work much like Halo Reach and most other multiplayer-ranking systems: an accumulation of experience points (or cR in Halo’s case) based on games played. Now, this should in no way work like it did in Halo Reach. Halo Reach reward time spent in a match, and very little else. For Halo 4, experience should be weighed based on:

[/li]- Game Completion: This is just for finishing the match. It would vary slightly based on the length of the match, but the credits rewarded would be very low. This would be to discourage AFKing and the like

  • Objective Completion: This is basically “did you contribute to the objective of the match”. In slayer, this would mostly be kills and assists. In objective gametypes, there would be less credits rewarded for simple kills, and more for contribution to the objective of the match. For example, more credits would be reward in a CTF match to the player who captures the flag, or kills the flag carrier, or returns the flag, and so on like that.
  • Winning and Losing: Something important to bringing back competitive Halo is rewards for winning. In my credit system, a credit bonus would be given to the winning team or, in the case of FFA matches, something like the top 3 players (like Halo 3’s Lone Wolves).
  • Lottery: This is just like Halo Reach’s. It’s a small bonus, and would allow for mega-jackpot weekends or the like.
  • Quitting Penalty: the last thing this system would feature is a quitting penalty. If a player leaves the match, even in the pre-game lobby, they would experience a harsh experience penalty. Naturally, this system would have to be tuned to determine if a player quit, used some form of network manipulation, or lagged out. People who lagged would not be punished, but still would not receive their credits.
  • In addition, the game would not reward the player until the match is over. This means no credits earned during the match, but only once the match is over.

Classes
Now for the second rank. This would be a skill-based rank, or class, for the competitive player. It would work like the Halo Reach’s Arena, using accumulations of rating to put a player in a class and division. Much like when Arena started, there would be multiple playlists, and a class would be assigned to each playlist (much like there were separate ranks to each Halo 3 ranked playlist). The top most class achieved would show up on a player’s nameplate in every social playlist and on the main page of the player’s service record (classes for other playlist could be viewed much like they are in Reach right now).

I must also note that, after a long period of inactivity within a playlist, a player’s class and division would begin to drop. Say within a month or so, this would begin to happen. After, say, 3 months, a player’s class within a playlist would reset if the player does not work to hold his/her standing.

Trueskill Matchmaking
Another important thing I would want to see done in Halo 4 is the use of trueskill in everyplaylist. This mean that no matter what playlist you are in, be it ranked or social or anything else, the system would work to match players of similar skill as often as possible.

2

I would be fine with this idea its a good start.

3

> I would be fine with this idea its a good start.

Well thank you. Like I said, a work in progress, but with all the discussion of it going on, I felt it was time for my two cents.

4

Competitive Playlists - Halo 2 Ranking System

Social Playlists - Reach’s Ranking System

5

> Competitive Playlists - Halo 2 Ranking System
>
> Social Playlists - Reach’s Ranking System

Absolutely not.

6

> Absolutely not.

Great argument.

7

> > Absolutely not.
>
> Great argument.

I don’t want a separation of ranks. I was saying that every playlist would reward credits as described above, and then certain “ranked” playlist would use an arena style rank system, but would use stats from across all ranked playlist to figure the player’s skill-based rank.

Halo 2’s system was horrible and flawed, and Reach’s is horrible and flawed. However, Reach, I believe, is a step in the right direction, especially with ratings, divisions, and seasons. You want that rank, truly earn it.

8

Some of your ideas for exp/credit distribution are fine, though overall Halo 3 had an ideal rank system and Halo 2 the ideal leveling system. Reach ranks BLOW, and there is no way in hell they’re coming back, I can guarantee it.

You do not need to reset ranks or levels, that is stupid. If you need to keep an incentive to keep playing, than have a soft punish for inactivity ie. If you don’t play a certain playlist for extended periods your levels begin to drop. Reset of ranks or levels is THE DUMBEST thing I have ever seen in any ranking system, it basically makes leveling pointless to begin with.

For ranks - H3 nailed it. your rank improved with exp/credits, however you were restricted to a certain tier if your level did not meet a certain standard. This became a quick and accurate way to determine not only how much a player had played, but also how good they were. The system worked so well I was surprised. Far better than any Reach or COD rank system.

The leveling in Halo 2 was perfect. The icons were sick, and achieving levels beyond 40 was a near impossible task - which was good! In h3 it was FAR too easy to achieve a 50. It actually annoyed me how many awful people I saw with a 50 in h3. It was far too common. I missed the days when you saw a level 43 and just thinking “woah he must be a SICK player”. Now it’s “oh look, another 50”. It takes the exclusiveness but also the WOW factor away, which H2 certainly had. Also each level icon was unique which added another element, making it a much more desirable goal. Finally, the leader board system, and the level being identified on your tag was icing on the cake. Whenever you looked on your friends list, right next to their tag was the highest level they had achieved. It was PERFECT.

This might all seem super competitive but it isn’t. You can still achieve ranks as a social player, and leveling up to about 25 as a social player wasn’t too difficult. IMO a blend between the two would be ideal, though that would be asking for too much I suppose. Reach took even more of the wow factor away. Ranks and divisions mean next to nothing now. Theres no wow factor, no real sense of accomplishment. They ruined the ranking system and is part of the reason so many people have dropped reach.

9

> > > Absolutely not.
> >
> > Great argument.
>
> I don’t want a separation of ranks. I was saying that every playlist would reward credits as described above, and then certain “ranked” playlist would use an arena style rank system, but would use stats from across all ranked playlist to figure the player’s skill-based rank.
>
> Halo 2’s system was horrible and flawed, and Reach’s is horrible and flawed. However, Reach, I believe, is a step in the right direction, especially with ratings, divisions, and seasons. You want that rank, truly earn it.

I’m sorry if i’m coming off as a -Yoink-… I’m pretty tired :confused:

Right now, the only flaws i can think of in Halo 2’s ranking system, were the ridiculous amounts of modders that plagued the game. Even with that in mind the game was still amazing. It never failed to match me up against someone that was my level. Getting to 50 is nearly impossible ( there everywhere in Halo 3…). It’s ranking system was perfect and i don’t think you can cater to the competitive population any better than that.

As far as everything you said with the social playlists, i think you’re ideas are perfect for it. I really like your objective completion thing. I love to drive warthogs and don’t think i ever get credited well with 15+ assists :stuck_out_tongue:

10

nope

11

mm… it’s similar to actual ranking…

this is my idea:

H4 Ranking

12

> Before I start, this is part of a larger document I intend to post when it’s done. This section deals only with rank.
>
> Perhaps the most heated debate among the multiplayer community is rank, and how it should be approached. I personally like the way Halo Reach approach rank: not as a determination of skill, but a determination of time. However, this was, by no means, perfect. For Halo 4 and on, I believe there should be two ranks:
>
> The first rank work much like Halo Reach and most other multiplayer-ranking systems: an accumulation of experience points (or cR in Halo’s case) based on games played. Now, this should in no way work like it did in Halo Reach. Halo Reach reward time spent in a match, and very little else. For Halo 4, experience should be weighed based on:
>
> [/li]- Game Completion: This is just for finishing the match. It would vary slightly based on the length of the match, but the credits rewarded would be very low. This would be to discourage AFKing and the like
> - Objective Completion: This is basically “did you contribute to the objective of the match”. In slayer, this would mostly be kills and assists. In objective gametypes, there would be less credits rewarded for simple kills, and more for contribution to the objective of the match. For example, more credits would be reward in a CTF match to the player who captures the flag, or kills the flag carrier, or returns the flag, and so on like that.
> - Winning and Losing: Something important to bringing back competitive Halo is rewards for winning. In my credit system, a credit bonus would be given to the winning team or, in the case of FFA matches, something like the top 3 players (like Halo 3’s Lone Wolves).
> - Lottery: This is just like Halo Reach’s. It’s a small bonus, and would allow for mega-jackpot weekends or the like.
> - Quitting Penalty: the last thing this system would feature is a quitting penalty. If a player leaves the match, even in the pre-game lobby, they would experience a harsh experience penalty. Naturally, this system would have to be tuned to determine if a player quit, used some form of network manipulation, or lagged out. People who lagged would not be punished, but still would not receive their credits.
> - In addition, the game would not reward the player until the match is over. This means no credits earned during the match, but only once the match is over.
>
> Now for the second rank. This would be a skill-based rank for the competitive player. To start, it would not be playlist-specific, but an accumulation of stats from every “ranked” playlist the player participated in. It would work like the Halo Reach’s Arena, having 3 month seasons and then resetting. Most importantly, this rank would be seen in every playlist on the player’s nameplate, and be posted on the main page of the player’s service record. Show that thing off!

the problem with your ‘skill based’ ranking is that some people would farm ‘rank’ in the joke playlists. so what do you do? make some playlists not count towards this ‘rank’?

or do you, perhaps, just rank each playlist individually so a players rank in a playlist is that of the playlist that hes actually playing (or in the lobby of).

the latter, i assure you, makes infinitely more sense than ranking every playlist together, especially considering if i was an objective player and i was ranked on my slaying stats (which are lower since thats not what im good at) i would feel cheated, just like if i was a slaying player and i was ranked on my objective stats (which are lower since im not good at playing the obj).

13

Penalties for quitting only discourage the people left behind.

Let’s say I’m in a 6v6, and two people on my team quit. It is now a 6v4. Unless there is some abdication option (vote to surrender), we are probably going to lose. Our experience has pretty much been trashed. The only way to avoid the inevitable frustration would be for us to quit in turn, but if we do so, we get punished.

So now our choice is between losing the match or losing credits, while the people who left early probably don’t even care anyway. The ones who get left behind are the ones who get punished the most by quit bans.

I have no strong feelings one way or the other, regarding the rest.

14

Meh. I want a Halo 2/3 ranking system. The Credit System ruined Reach (ex. Firefight, Griffball, Infection).

15

My personal opinion is that there should be a global ranking system across the entire game (campaign, firefight, etc) that works like Reach’s, and a second ranking system for the Ranked/Competitive multiplayer playlists that “float” taking into account overall skill, games won/lost/completed and the like.

That way, the casual players or players who enjoy parts of the game that isn’t hypercompetitve multiplayer get a rank, and the people who want a skill-based rank get one. Everyone wins, more or less.

16

Halo 2 ranking system. Make it hard to level. Only hackers can 50s :stuck_out_tongue:

In all seriousness, i didn’t see what was wrong with Halo 3 and how it set up camp. You got your fair amount of social and ranked playlist; something for everyone really. Reach just does a 180 on the ranked and just makes the majority of the game social and only abysmal ranked playlist.

As for quitting, hmmm an option to surrender would be awesome if the match becomes lopsided though i can see this option being a bane of one’s existence. If it required majority vote, what if some don’t vote and want to stay in? That would be a BIG problem, especially if you are playing with Children.

17

> [/li]1. Winning and Losing: Something important to bringing back competitive Halo is rewards for winning. In my credit system, a credit bonus would be given to the winning team or, in the case of FFA matches, something like the top 3 players (like Halo 3’s Lone Wolves).
[/quote]
This already exists in Reach. It’s called ‘Performance Bonus.’
>
> Now, you can take this as evidence that it was named badly and isn’t sufficiently rewarding in Reach yes, but you can also say that Toa Freak should make an effort to understand wtf the system currently is before saying what it should be.

18

> Meh. I want a Halo 2/3 ranking system. The Credit System ruined Reach (ex. Firefight, Griffball, Infection).

19

So…
Basically you want Halo 3’s ranking system but without playlist specific ranks?

Personally, I think it’s a horrible idea. If anything bring it back like Halo 3 was. But have resets like Arena, so that it’s a constantly moving scale instead of a rush to 50 then stop playing.

That way it’s a constantly moving scale and it won’t be like “Oh, I got to 50, time to stop playing that playlist”.

20

> > [/li]1. Winning and Losing: Something important to bringing back competitive Halo is rewards for winning. In my credit system, a credit bonus would be given to the winning team or, in the case of FFA matches, something like the top 3 players (like Halo 3’s Lone Wolves).
[/quote]
This already exists in Reach. It’s called ‘Performance Bonus.’
> >
> > Now, you can take this as evidence that it was named badly and isn’t sufficiently rewarding in Reach yes, but you can also say that Toa Freak should make an effort to understand wtf the system currently is before saying what it should be.
[/quote]
Actually, a performance bonus is not a win bonus. You get a performance bonus based on your performance in the match (but yes, this number does increase if you win). However, it is still heavily flawed. I understand very well how Reach’s experience system works. The problem with it is that is barely rewards a player’s skill or performance in a match, and mainly just reward them for having been in the match, participation be -Yoink!-.
> >
> > The system I propose is based on existing experience systems that I have found work extremely well in promoting team play and motivation to win. It also motivates players to strive to achieve the goal of the gametype instead of hording kills. For example, my proposed system would, in the case of say king of the hill, reward the player/team that tries to capture and hold the hill vs. the players/teams that horde kills.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > So…
> > > Basically you want Halo 3’s ranking system but without playlist specific ranks?
> > >
> > > Personally, I think it’s a horrible idea. If anything bring it back like Halo 3 was. But have resets like Arena, so that it’s a constantly moving scale instead of a rush to 50 then stop playing.
> > >
> > > That way it’s a constantly moving scale and it won’t be like “Oh, I got to 50, time to stop playing that playlist”.
> >
> > No, I do not want a Halo 3 style system because it doesn’t reflect a player’s actual skill in a game. Halo 3 used a diluted trueskill system based on win to lose ratios, and because it allowed any player to reach 50, which any decent player could do, it did not reflect genuine skill. My proposed system would be more like Reach’s Arena, which does reflect a player actual skill and proficiency in a game.