I’ve put some time into creating a ranking system I feel would be appropriate for future Halo games, and would like to see what you guys think. This system is based upon the Arena system, however with a 1-100 set up. This system is also works similar to a leaderboard system. By this, I mean only 1% of the population will be able to be a “100” at the same time. Here are some specifics:
First of all, this system uses a score system similar to Reach’s “Arena.” After each game, players are given a rating for the game. Players must also play at least 3 games that day for the system to include any ratings recieved that day. The system, however, averages players rating over all accounted games rather than all accounted days. By this, I mean that a player can play 10 games one day, and 3 games another- but all 13 of those games will be equally weighted.
If players go an entire week without playing at least 3 games in one day, they will have 3 games with a 0 rating put into the system. A player’s rating is recieved by adding the players rating for every accounted game divided by the number of games accounted for. Again, players going an entire week without playing at least 3 games in one day will have 3 games with a 0 rating entered into the database.
Players who leave a game will have any current game stats to be used in making a rating, as well as counting the game as a loss. These games will be weighted like any other complete game.
Here’s how the players rating will be found:
Legend-
P1- Player
P2- Opposing Player
Ranks: 1-100
Kills: (P2’s Rank)x2
Assists: (P2’s Rank)x(% of damage dealt)x1.5
Assisted Kill: (P2’s Rank)x(% of damage dealt)x1.8
Headshot Kill: Kill Points x 0.15
Deaths: -(120-P2’s Rank)x1.5
Deaths From Multiple Enemies: -(120-[P2’s Rank+P3’s Rank +P?'s Rank etc.]/ Number of opposing players involved)
Suicides: -200
Betrayal: -200
Game Completion: +200
Win: +200
Loss: -200
I’m in favor of any type of ranking system that consistantly matches me up with people within my skill range. I think that continues to be the challenge to creating a truely excellent multiplayer experience.
I can’t point any exact flaws on that ranking system, but I know it has some. Developing a fairly accurate ranking algorithm requires time and you can’t just do it by simple (xy+w(x/z))*y or anything like that. If you look at the algorithms for TrueSkill, it becomes clear that none of us can really come up with something like that without extensive and long research.
Anyway, I’m still in the belief that ranking should only be win/loss based, because in the end, getting a lot of kills doesn’t guarantee win in objective games, you can always go negative while securing that one last flag cap, it doesn’t make you a bad player.
> I’m in favor of any type of ranking system that consistantly matches me up with people within my skill range. I think that continues to be the challenge to creating a truely excellent multiplayer experience.
Why do rank and trueskill matchmaking have to be connected?
> I can’t point any exact flaws on that ranking system, but I know it has some. Developing a fairly accurate ranking algorithm requires time and you can’t just do it by simple (xy+w(x/z))*y or anything like that. If you look at the algorithms for TrueSkill, it becomes clear that none of us can really come up with something like that without extensive and long research.
>
> Anyway, I’m still in the belief that ranking should only be win/loss based, because in the end, getting a lot of kills doesn’t guarantee win in objective games, you can always go negative while securing that one last flag cap, it doesn’t make you a bad player.
Ah, forgot to add that- this is for Slayer gametypes only. Objective would have to take another set of variables entirely.
Also, I understand this isn’t nearly as complex as our current system. This was really just an example to give the community a bit of an oppurtunity to modify a ranking system to favor the proper variables. If 343 were to see this, I hope for them to take some of these into account.
I wanted a ranking system that not only takes into account kills/deaths, but also the talent of each players. With the current system, players with a 1.10 K/D would recieve a poor rating no matter what. If this is against a team made up of very talented players, a positive K/D should be very rewarding. Destroying a low ranked team shouldn’t result in a high rating either.
I felt a system similar to this one would accomplish this.
Sounds good, though I have a problem with it for two reasons.
I feel ranks should be very difficult to lose. Possible, but very difficult. Rank loss should really only be a fail safe to root out people trying to achieve high ranks unjustly. One of my biggest problem with the Halo 3 system was how easy it was for me to go down in rank after working so hard to rank up. Averaging scores and other variables would help, but a few bad games would still work to knock your rank down fast.
You shouldn’t lose rank based on time spent away from the game, period. Real life beckons even to the most hardcore gamer, and having zeroes averaged in for every week you’re away would be very disconcerting. Ranks in game should be sort of like ranks in real life. Once you’ve proven you can reach it, it shouldn’t be stripped from you for no reason.
I could see why on a leaderboard system why this would be a problem, as someone could get to the top and stay there indefinitely. I think by having an overall and a weekly leaderboard, (showing the highest ranks that week), you could prevent this.
> > I’m in favor of any type of ranking system that consistantly matches me up with people within my skill range. I think that continues to be the challenge to creating a truely excellent multiplayer experience.
>
> Why do rank and trueskill matchmaking have to be connected?
Because right now it’s the only visual indicator we have when we match up against another person. If they want to keep them seperate I would at least like some sort of quick visual reference that the people i’m facing are at least within my skill bracket.
> > I can’t point any exact flaws on that ranking system, but I know it has some. Developing a fairly accurate ranking algorithm requires time and you can’t just do it by simple (xy+w(x/z))*y or anything like that. If you look at the algorithms for TrueSkill, it becomes clear that none of us can really come up with something like that without extensive and long research.
> >
> > Anyway, I’m still in the belief that ranking should only be win/loss based, because in the end, getting a lot of kills doesn’t guarantee win in objective games, you can always go negative while securing that one last flag cap, it doesn’t make you a bad player.
>
> Ah, forgot to add that- this is for Slayer gametypes only. Objective would have to take another set of variables entirely.
>
> Also, I understand this isn’t nearly as complex as our current system. This was really just an example to give the community a bit of an oppurtunity to modify a ranking system to favor the proper variables. If 343 were to see this, I hope for them to take some of these into account.
>
> I wanted a ranking system that not only takes into account kills/deaths, but also the talent of each players. With the current system, players with a 1.10 K/D would recieve a poor rating no matter what. If this is against a team made up of very talented players, a positive K/D should be very rewarding. Destroying a low ranked team shouldn’t result in a high rating either.
>
> I felt a system similar to this one would accomplish this.
One of the reasons I don’t play Arena is that it’s Slayer only. Sure, Slayer is fun, but it gets boring when you have to play it over and over again. It also offers a very narrow view inside the player’s skill because Slayer is all about killing opponents. Of course team work is needed to accomplish that, but not in as great amounts as securing a flag cap.
I don’t want Halo 4 to do the same mistake that ranked is Slayer only because players have the feeling that their K/D should be rewarded. Slayer based ranking let’s people use the excuse that they’re “supporting” their team while in reality they’re just going for a high K/D because they think it makes them good.
> Sounds good, though I have a problem with it for two reasons.
>
> 1. I feel ranks should be very difficult to lose. Possible, but very difficult. Rank loss should really only be a fail safe to root out people trying to achieve high ranks unjustly. One of my biggest problem with the Halo 3 system was how easy it was for me to go down in rank after working so hard to rank up. Averaging scores and other variables would help, but a few bad games would still work to knock your rank down fast.
>
> 2. You shouldn’t lose rank based on time spent away from the game, period. Real life beckons even to the most hardcore gamer, and having zeroes averaged in for every week you’re away would be very disconcerting. Ranks in game should be sort of like ranks in real life. Once you’ve proven you can reach it, it shouldn’t be stripped from you for no reason.
>
> I could see why on a leaderboard system why this would be a problem, as someone could get to the top and stay there indefinitely. I think by having an overall and a weekly leaderboard, (showing the highest ranks that week), you could prevent this.
First, I somewhat agree. This is mainly why I say average all games that meet the requirements. While the system may be a bit iffy, it would greatly improve over time. If you can consistantly score well, it will be much harder to derank. Unfortunatly, this means its also harder to rank up. I’m thinking possibly having a system that resets if a player scores significantly higher than usual for 5/6 consecutive games.
Second, I have another possible suggestion for keeping away players out of the system. Perhaps if players go longer than a month without playing 3 games in the same day, the system kicks the player out of the system. As soon as the player plays those 3 games, however, thier scores are immediatly added back into the system. This would also prevent a drastic loss of players from keeping players from reaching certain ranks.
> no. just H2 or H3 ranking system please. Anything will be better than the abysmal system we have in reach. the hero, forunner, nova ish is just dumb
I disagree with re-implimenting the H2/3 systems.
Halo 2 didn’t have near enough emphasis on personal stats. Halo 3 was incredibly inaccurate and too suceptable to boosting. Personally, I’d say put a system like H3’s rank/xp setup however. Reach’s xp system would be great for a replacement to 3’s xp system.
A system like the one I suggested could be balanced easily to give proper balance on player stats as well as winning. It would also balance itself over time allowing for much more accurate ranks.
A system should never punish you for not playing. That is a terrible idea.
Any ranked system should only be based of W/L. This (for the most part) discourages selfish play styles, and K/D boosting in Objective.
Some of your other stuff is good though.
Oh, I realised you said there would need to be a different system for objective after I typed this. I think having different systems for different game types would be too confusing for some people. Better to have one universal rank over all gametypes.
Why? Play H3 if you want to play H3. Personally, I couldn’t stand losing a match in H3 because I have 3 AFK teammates(legal? yep, zero ramifications for AFKing in H3.) and we get stomped 4v1, thus I lose exp and DE-RANK. the hell is that? Down Ranking in one game after I won the last 5? PYAH!!! There are only a select few individuals that can murder people 4v1 and its usually guys in their 20s who spent their entire childhood playing Halo CE till now(Reach) with almost no life. I am not one of these people. I am not MLG. Sorry. Get better, adapt, blah blah, save your speech for the 10 yearold screaming into the Mic.
So what if there are 92873928 Inheritors. Is it bugging some of you so much that someone obtained this rank before you? I saw a Forerunner this other day who has almost NO MM Experience and over 500k kills in FF. I laughed because that is frickin GREAT! People are allowed to play the game the way THEY want to play it. For some, Reach MM is too fast paced so they play FF/MM. They gave you guys Classic and they’re now able to tweak settings so its EVEN CLOSER to Halo 3… It’s sad actually. Why? Bc they could save all this crap for a H3 remake and make all of you pay 70$ again for Halo 3.8…
Don’t get me wrong tho! Halo 3 was an awesome game and still IMO better than any CoD game/clone/whatever. The 1-50 rank system however, IS flawed. I’ve seen 50s with no stats, 2-3 games played… At least the Inheritors in Reach have a buttload of stats to go with the high rank.
Someone give me a real reason to put the H3 ranking system on H4. If you say “Juz bkuz itz betterz” you need to be beaten to death with your 360. Maybe if they fixed the de-rank issue. I’m sorry, but It won’t be enjoyable, and i’m sure thousands hated the h3 ranking system because getting 2000xp in Ranked Slayer means nothing if you have 2000 games won, and 3500 games Lost. I’ve been sitting on highest Skill 9 in Halo 3 for some YEARS now. I win and win with a +k/d in most games and I won’t rank up and I refuse to boost.
So instead of going backwards to stuff that is broken and needs fixing like Reach, (sorry but suck it up, H3 is and never will be anything close to Perfect), Someone come up with something better and original If you don’t want Halo 4 “Suckin it like Reach does”, and before you ask “where is your contribution” , I’ve already posted about MY Credit system among a dozen other ideas in the Suggestions Thread.
You made a five paragraph long post raging to 1-50 system in Halo 3? That’s cool, somebody here needs to calm down and concentrate on the facts. People, need an incentive to play. A good ranking system provides it to them, is the Halo 3 system good? No it’s flawed. What about the Halo 2 system? There would be no de-rankers because no one would be able to achieve a 50 in the first place, everyone would be having something to look forward to.
I already got sick of the line “You only want Halo 3.5” over a year ago. So why don’t you just go, try to find a real reason why you think that the Halo Reach system is better, and then come here and post with a more civlized tone. Then you can also stop throwing around the generic lines invented by casuals who think Halo Reach is perfect and all players who appreciate can appreciate good gameplay should go back to Halo 3, which in reality, isn’t really that great of a game.
Well, a good game is good enough to keep people playing. Tryhards and boosters on the other hand love a easy to exploit ranking system (Halo 3) where you can get a high rank in a few weeks by not even playing (AFK) and then brag and claim to be soo good at the game due to you rank, even if you never play competitive any more. When I played ranked in Halo 3 (for achivements, lols) I did meat my fair share of 40+, even 50’s high, that I ruined. They were spraying with the AR and got no idea how to play, boosted accounts all the way (real rank 5-10).
In Halo 3, 45-50 usually meant bad player, 37-45 usually meant good (legit) player to my experience, sad but true.
A ranking system that is based on kills just gives us the CoD legion infesting reach, camping and betraying to get kills, no teamplay. However, only W/L is not fair either, since you’ll get the AFKers and the random betrayers and such. There is no such thing as a “perfect” ranking system.
The best they can do is check k/d, W/L and make something out of them together. Many kills is good, but many kills and wins = good player, not camper. I would say they go for a W/L + k/d = rank, not perfect but a lot closer and a bit harder to boost. The only reason anyone cares to boost is because people are so obsessed with rank, and people who are good enough don’t need no visible rank to show it, they just start the game and dominate
I think some sort of system that is a 1-50 in multiple ranked playlists would be best for Halo. I’m not saying make it exactly like h2 or h3, but we need separate rankings for different playlists. Although there are some who abuse the system (there will always be), a lot of people enjoy the challenge of ranking up, myself included.
> All I hear is "make Reach like H3"
>
> Why? Play H3 if you want to play H3. Personally, I couldn’t stand losing a match in H3 because I have 3 AFK teammates(legal? yep, zero ramifications for AFKing in H3.) and we get stomped 4v1, thus I lose exp and DE-RANK. the hell is that? Down Ranking in one game after I won the last 5? PYAH!!! There are only a select few individuals that can murder people 4v1 and its usually guys in their 20s who spent their entire childhood playing Halo CE till now(Reach) with almost no life. I am not one of these people. I am not MLG. Sorry. Get better, adapt, blah blah, save your speech for the 10 yearold screaming into the Mic.
>
> So what if there are 92873928 Inheritors. Is it bugging some of you so much that someone obtained this rank before you? I saw a Forerunner this other day who has almost NO MM Experience and over 500k kills in FF. I laughed because that is frickin GREAT! People are allowed to play the game the way THEY want to play it. For some, Reach MM is too fast paced so they play FF/MM. They gave you guys Classic and they’re now able to tweak settings so its EVEN CLOSER to Halo 3… It’s sad actually. Why? Bc they could save all this crap for a H3 remake and make all of you pay 70$ again for Halo 3.8…
>
> Don’t get me wrong tho! Halo 3 was an awesome game and still IMO better than any CoD game/clone/whatever. The 1-50 rank system however, IS flawed. I’ve seen 50s with no stats, 2-3 games played… At least the Inheritors in Reach have a buttload of stats to go with the high rank.
>
> Someone give me a real reason to put the H3 ranking system on H4. If you say “Juz bkuz itz betterz” you need to be beaten to death with your 360. Maybe if they fixed the de-rank issue. I’m sorry, but It won’t be enjoyable, and i’m sure thousands hated the h3 ranking system because getting 2000xp in Ranked Slayer means nothing if you have 2000 games won, and 3500 games Lost. I’ve been sitting on highest Skill 9 in Halo 3 for some YEARS now. I win and win with a +k/d in most games and I won’t rank up and I refuse to boost.
>
> So instead of going backwards to stuff that is broken and needs fixing like Reach, (sorry but suck it up, H3 is and never will be anything close to Perfect), Someone come up with something better and original If you don’t want Halo 4 “Suckin it like Reach does”, and before you ask “where is your contribution” , I’ve already posted about MY Credit system among a dozen other ideas in the Suggestions Thread.
>
> inb4 trolls: yesimadbro/notacoolstorybro
First of all, I never said implement a system such as this into Reach. I’m talking about future games.
While I’m all for playing a game to have fun, its nice to have goals. Having a ranking system helps players set and achieve goals. I also support having an xp system alongside a trueskill system, similar to in Halo 3. Unfortunatly, this system fails to provide support for those “hardcore” players out there. A large portion of players in the Halo community enjoy playing seriously.
I also support allowing players to reach high ranks in as few games as possible. If a players is amazing, his rank should show this. As we’ve seen in Reach, players can have thousands of games behind them and still suck.
A system such as mine also seems to be much more fair than anything we’ve seen yet. This system focuses on your opponents ranks rather than just stats. This means players won’t suffer from facing great opponents.
> no. just H2 or H3 ranking system please. Anything will be better than the abysmal system we have in reach. the hero, forunner, nova ish is just dumb
This.
I dont want a rank system that remotely copies Arena, why? because having your rank reset after a ‘season’ is just rubbish, its the reason why there is only ONE ranked list in Reach. Pathetic.
i would prefer the 1-50 system back (maybe 1-100 to make it uber ) because that way we can have multiple ranked lists.
I had 50s in TS, TD and Snipers, 45+ in the other ranked lists on Halo 3 and i loved every single second of it.
The Arena cant even pull more than a 2000 average population yet halo 3 had thousands of players in each playlist, team throwback (which i loved) didnt quite have the population it deserved yet it had more than Arena does now!
I have faith that 343i will bring back TRUE Halo multiplayer in halo 4, Reach is an abomination.
