halo 4 service record concept + Idea

Games Other Halo
1

>> View it here. <<

I also came up with an individual ranking system, which I posted here a couple of weeks ago which goes like this.

note: k/d is locked at 4.0 and d/k is locked at 4.0 as a maximum.

r = rank
c = current rank
k = kills
d = deaths
a = assists

If a play has a positive K/D, then

r = c + (K/D) / 1.5 + a/10

If a player has an equal K/D, then

r = c + a/10

If a player has an negative K/D, then

r = c - (D/K) / 1.5 + a/10.

This is essentially a new system which ranks players based on their performance and not win/loss.

I think it is better than Halo 3s for numerous reasons.

Those being:

a) based purely on a player’s skill and performance in-game
b) being carried to 50 is no longer an option
c) carrying other players and losing is no longer a problem
d) less rage, more fun and motivation.

Also I realise Halo is a team game but ranking should be purely dependent on a player’s performance during games. MLG however, should be purely win/loss based, as that is part of their rule system. A penalty for losing and a reward for winning can be introduced as well.

Yeah.

2

> A player must maintain a 3.0+ K/D, win at least 7 games over the course of 10 games versing other silver 50s to get a gold 50.

Impossible. If the system’s doing its job there shouldn’t be any super lopsided matches, meaning players will just break even, if that. Having a K/D requirement like that would just lead to slumming (aka, purposefully getting the system to match you up with lower skilled players so you can boost your K/D).

3

That’s a really dumb idea.

1st off - Most 50s don’t maintain a k/d of 3+ because continually playing players at their skill level decreases their k/d over time.

2nd - Most people would not be able to continually win 7/10 games.

3rd - Halo is a team game and should be based on w/l only.

4

> That’s a really dumb idea.
>
> 1st off - Most 50s don’t maintain a k/d of 3+ because continually playing players at their skill level decreases their k/d over time.
>
> 2nd - Most people would not be able to continually win 7/10 games.
>
> 3rd - Halo is a team game and should be based on w/l only.

1 & 2 = I really need to introduce you to a friend of mine, 3000+ games played only 18 losses legit (Halo 3). Level 50. Yet he is absolute legend.

True Skill Ranks FTW, No stupid Credits! Should be based on W/L YEP 100%

5

Well then, I suppose it would search 45-50 rather than just 50.

6

> That’s a really dumb idea.
>
> 1st off - Most 50s don’t maintain a k/d of 3+ because continually playing players at their skill level decreases their k/d over time.
>
> 2nd - Most people would not be able to continually win 7/10 games.
>
> 3rd - Halo is a team game and should be based on w/l only.

Their K/D is not recorded as a total, it’s fresh each new game. It’s not Truskill. 1 - it’s possible, only for the really really good players. 2 - um, “most people”, this rank isn’t for most people…

3 - i already said why it should be based on k/d rather than w/l for ranks, and w/l should still contribute perhaps. i already listed reasons why w/l is also inferior.

7

> > That’s a really dumb idea.
> >
> > 1st off - Most 50s don’t maintain a k/d of 3+ because continually playing players at their skill level decreases their k/d over time.
> >
> > 2nd - Most people would not be able to continually win 7/10 games.
> >
> > 3rd - Halo is a team game and should be based on w/l only.
>
> 1 & 2 = I really need to introduce you to a friend of mine, 3000+ games played only 18 losses legit (Halo 3). Level 50. Yet he is absolute legend.
>
> True Skill Ranks FTW, No stupid Credits! Should be based on W/L YEP 100%

I didn’t say no one, I said most, as in like 99.9% of the overall Halo population.

I know people that do that also.

8

> It’s not Truskill. 1 - it’s possible, only for the really really good players.

I didn’t say it wasn’t. I know it’s possible.

> 2 - um, “most people”, this rank isn’t for most people…

You’re just stating what I already know. But saying the have to win 7/10 games is far too extreme.

> 3 - i already said why it should be based on k/d rather than w/l for ranks, and w/l should still contribute perhaps. i already listed reasons why w/l is also inferior.

Win/Loss should be the only contributing factor in rank. You win as a team, you lose as a team.

We don’t need people screwing their team over trying to camp and stat -Yoink!- to increase their rank like in Reach. We’ve already seen how individual stat rewarding goes with Reach and it turned out horribly.

9

> > It’s not Truskill. 1 - it’s possible, only for the really really good players.
>
> I didn’t say it wasn’t. I know it’s possible.
>
>
>
> > 2 - um, “most people”, this rank isn’t for most people…
>
> You’re just stating what I already know. But saying the have to win 7/10 games is far too extreme.
>
>
>
> > 3 - i already said why it should be based on k/d rather than w/l for ranks, and w/l should still contribute perhaps. i already listed reasons why w/l is also inferior.
>
> Win/Loss should be the only contributing factor in rank. You win as a team, you lose as a team.
>
> We don’t need people screwing their team over trying to camp and stat -Yoink!- to increase their rank like in Reach. We’ve already seen how individual stat rewarding goes with Reach and it turned out horribly.

3 - People do not play with the same team 24/7, that is the team that achieved 50 for each other. The individual player does not get an overall rank on their performance, which is what everything should be about. Unless there’s a team rank, then no, it should be based on an individual.

Reach’s turned out horribly because

a) it wasn’t permanent
b) only 5(?) ranks, wasn’t 1-50
c) other silly mechanics that caused ranked to be a failure

10

> > That’s a really dumb idea.
> >
> > 1st off - Most 50s don’t maintain a k/d of 3+ because continually playing players at their skill level decreases their k/d over time.
> >
> > 2nd - Most people would not be able to continually win 7/10 games.
> >
> > 3rd - Halo is a team game and should be based on w/l only.
>
> Their K/D is not recorded as a total, it’s fresh each new game. It’s not Truskill. 1 - it’s possible, only for the really really good players. 2 - um, “most people”, this rank isn’t for most people…
>
> 3 - i already said why it should be based on k/d rather than w/l for ranks, and w/l should still contribute perhaps. i already listed reasons why w/l is also inferior.

But you must realise that k/d shows absolutely nothing about your skill level, high k/d only shows that you play against opponents that are way below your skill level or that you get carried by a good team while personally camping in a corner of the map with a Sniper. It’s in no way a measure of skill because in a pefectly even Slayer game the highest possible k/d would be around 1.5.

It’s pretty obvious that Halo 4 should have a Trueskill system that actually matches players against other players on their skill level, especially that randoms don’t get matched against teams. The gameplay of Halo 4 should also encourage helping your team. This means that it would be better to play actively than camp in a corner, and of course in objective games to get you actually go for the objective.

Win/loss based ranking is in no way inferior to your system, quite the opposite in fact. Your individual performance only tells your skill level relative to your opponents. If you ahve a high k/d, we could conclude that you only play against bad players or camp in a corner.

Pure w/l based system is this far the best best ranking system. It sucks to get bad teammates, but we just have to deal with it. If you really want to invest in your rank, you need to have a good team

11

> > > That’s a really dumb idea.
> > >
> > > 1st off - Most 50s don’t maintain a k/d of 3+ because continually playing players at their skill level decreases their k/d over time.
> > >
> > > 2nd - Most people would not be able to continually win 7/10 games.
> > >
> > > 3rd - Halo is a team game and should be based on w/l only.
> >
> > Their K/D is not recorded as a total, it’s fresh each new game. It’s not Truskill. 1 - it’s possible, only for the really really good players. 2 - um, “most people”, this rank isn’t for most people…
> >
> > 3 - i already said why it should be based on k/d rather than w/l for ranks, and w/l should still contribute perhaps. i already listed reasons why w/l is also inferior.
>
> But you must realise that k/d shows absolutely nothing about your skill level, high k/d only shows that you play against opponents that are way below your skill level or that you get carried by a good team while personally camping in a corner of the map with a Sniper. It’s in no way a measure of skill because in a pefectly even Slayer game the highest possible k/d would be around 1.5.
>
> It’s pretty obvious that Halo 4 should have a Trueskill system that actually matches players against other players on their skill level, especially that randoms don’t get matched against teams. The gameplay of Halo 4 should also encourage helping your team. This means that it would be better to play actively than camp in a corner, and of course in objective games to get you actually go for the objective.
>
> Win/loss based ranking is in no way inferior to your system, quite the opposite in fact. Your individual performance only tells your skill level relative to your opponents. If you ahve a high k/d, we could conclude that you only play against bad players or camp in a corner.
>
> Pure w/l based system is this far the best best ranking system. It sucks to get bad teammates, but we just have to deal with it. If you really want to invest in your rank, you need to have a good team

I can’t really believe you just said k/d shows nothing about your skill. It is literally, EVERYTHING. It shows a player at x skill level is better than another player at y skill level. Win loss does not. It shows team x is better than team y, yet the player is still rewarded a 50. this is a team’s effort not a individuals effort, yet he gets a 50 displayed on his profile when the whole team should be recognised.

Let’s just say an ok guy with a good team gets 50. Then another player always has bad teams and is a 49. Both play some social, and the 49 is far better than the 50. This is, quite simply, flawed logic. It doesn’t make sense that a 49 is better than a 50.

Going in solo is quite rare, because players are afraid of losing their rank due to worse players on their team. That player gets a positive K/D, meaning he is better than some or all of the players on the other team, yet goes down a rank and they rank up. Once again, flawed logic.

Getting a good team is not always easy.

I don’t want a w/l system returning, it can contribute, but not be a basis for everything.

Also, of course objective ranked matches should be entirely win/loss, but slayer shouldn’t. We need to move on from the old system, and actually reward better players for being better. And punishing worse players for being worse.

12

> I can’t really believe you just said k/d shows nothing about your skill. It is literally, EVERYTHING. It shows a player at x skill level is better than another player at y skill level.

Only in a 1v1 Slayer enviroment. Outside of that, it shows pretty much nothing. In team games you can win and achieve high k/d by staying in a good spot with a Sniper. In objective there is even no point at achieving high k/d, chances are you aren’t helping your team at all by doing that.

> Let’s just say an ok guy with a good team gets 50. Then another player always has bad teams and is a 49. Both play some social, and the 49 is far better than the 50. This is, quite simply, flawed logic. It doesn’t make sense that a 49 is better than a 50.

These are the minor problems of win/loss, but something we only have to cope with. Same thing goes for lag, there isn’t much you can do about them. Every ranking system has a small margin of error, adding k/d to the equation wouldn’t make it smaller, it would only make it more complicated.

> Going in solo is quite rare, because players are afraid of losing their rank due to worse players on their team. That player gets a positive K/D, meaning he is better than some or all of the players on the other team, yet goes down a rank and they rank up. Once again, flawed logic.
>
> Getting a good team is not always easy.
>
> I don’t want a w/l system returning, it can contribute, but not be a basis for everything.

Again, not flawed logic, just a margin of error in the ranking system. All we know, the player getting the positive k/d could be host and have advantage or just camp in a corner getting few kills, but even lower amounts of deaths. He isn’t necessarily better, it could very well, again, just be a margin of error on the k/d system.

What I’m pretty much trying to say, there is no perfect ranking system, but this far the best ranking system you can have is a pure w/l based system, it simply has the smallest margin of error.

If you really want a ranking system with very low margin of error, get someone of your friends who understands about gameplay to sit next to you and observe how good you are. Chances are that he will be more accurate than the game.

13

> > I can’t really believe you just said k/d shows nothing about your skill. It is literally, EVERYTHING. It shows a player at x skill level is better than another player at y skill level.
>
> Only in a 1v1 Slayer enviroment. Outside of that, it shows pretty much nothing. In team games you can win and achieve high k/d by staying in a good spot with a Sniper. In objective there is even no point at achieving high k/d, chances are you aren’t helping your team at all by doing that.
>
>
>
> > Let’s just say an ok guy with a good team gets 50. Then another player always has bad teams and is a 49. Both play some social, and the 49 is far better than the 50. This is, quite simply, flawed logic. It doesn’t make sense that a 49 is better than a 50.
>
> These are the minor problems of win/loss, but something we only have to cope with. Same thing goes for lag, there isn’t much you can do about them. Every ranking system has a small margin of error, adding k/d to the equation wouldn’t make it smaller, it would only make it more complicated.
>
>
>
> > Going in solo is quite rare, because players are afraid of losing their rank due to worse players on their team. That player gets a positive K/D, meaning he is better than some or all of the players on the other team, yet goes down a rank and they rank up. Once again, flawed logic.
> >
> > Getting a good team is not always easy.
> >
> > I don’t want a w/l system returning, it can contribute, but not be a basis for everything.
>
> Again, not flawed logic, just a margin of error in the ranking system. All we know, the player getting the positive k/d could be host and have advantage or just camp in a corner getting few kills, but even lower amounts of deaths. He isn’t necessarily better, it could very well, again, just be a margin of error on the k/d system.
>
> What I’m pretty much trying to say, there is no perfect ranking system, but this far the best ranking system you can have is a pure w/l based system, it simply has the smallest margin of error.
>
> If you really want a ranking system with very low margin of error, get someone of your friends who understands about gameplay to sit next to you and observe how good you are. Chances are that he will be more accurate than the game.

The thing is, a service record is a depiction of a player. An individual, teamless player. This is a service record of THAT player not THAT team that got him rank x.

I’ve thought about the low kill low death scenario. eg: 4 kills 0 deaths while camping. Which is why I suggested it in the other topic which was ignored (forgot to post here) to not reward players skill and lock them to a minimum of 5 or 6 kills before it uses the formulas, or some other system to discourage camping.

You say the entire team-network would fall, and everyone would be mindlessly running around. Sure, at the lower levels. People still need to work together to get a high k/d. If your team does not control the map, you will most likely get a low k/d. People will still work together and rely on each other, it’s just that you don’t need to rely on them to give you YOUR skill that displays on YOUR profile.

It’s not really a matter of margin of error, it’s simply pure inaccuracy. I’ve seen 40s beaten by 50s and 50s beaten by 40s, which is too far out from the margin of error. This really ensures players that go positive will gradually rank up, because they’re better than their opponents at a similar skill level and players that go negative will go down until they start going positive again and hover around a certain skill level.

14

Also have you clicked on the link? I made it in photoshop. What do you guys think?

15

> > > I can’t really believe you just said k/d shows nothing about your skill. It is literally, EVERYTHING. It shows a player at x skill level is better than another player at y skill level.
> >
> > Only in a 1v1 Slayer enviroment. Outside of that, it shows pretty much nothing. In team games you can win and achieve high k/d by staying in a good spot with a Sniper. In objective there is even no point at achieving high k/d, chances are you aren’t helping your team at all by doing that.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Let’s just say an ok guy with a good team gets 50. Then another player always has bad teams and is a 49. Both play some social, and the 49 is far better than the 50. This is, quite simply, flawed logic. It doesn’t make sense that a 49 is better than a 50.
> >
> > These are the minor problems of win/loss, but something we only have to cope with. Same thing goes for lag, there isn’t much you can do about them. Every ranking system has a small margin of error, adding k/d to the equation wouldn’t make it smaller, it would only make it more complicated.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Going in solo is quite rare, because players are afraid of losing their rank due to worse players on their team. That player gets a positive K/D, meaning he is better than some or all of the players on the other team, yet goes down a rank and they rank up. Once again, flawed logic.
> > >
> > > Getting a good team is not always easy.
> > >
> > > I don’t want a w/l system returning, it can contribute, but not be a basis for everything.
> >
> > Again, not flawed logic, just a margin of error in the ranking system. All we know, the player getting the positive k/d could be host and have advantage or just camp in a corner getting few kills, but even lower amounts of deaths. He isn’t necessarily better, it could very well, again, just be a margin of error on the k/d system.
> >
> > What I’m pretty much trying to say, there is no perfect ranking system, but this far the best ranking system you can have is a pure w/l based system, it simply has the smallest margin of error.
> >
> > If you really want a ranking system with very low margin of error, get someone of your friends who understands about gameplay to sit next to you and observe how good you are. Chances are that he will be more accurate than the game.
>
> The thing is, a service record is a depiction of a player. An individual, teamless player. This is a service record of THAT player not THAT team that got him rank x.
>
> I’ve thought about the low kill low death scenario. eg: 4 kills 0 deaths while camping. Which is why I suggested it in the other topic which was ignored (forgot to post here) to not reward players skill and lock them to a minimum of 5 or 6 kills before it uses the formulas, or some other system to discourage camping.
>
> You say the entire team-network would fall, and everyone would be mindlessly running around. Sure, at the lower levels. People still need to work together to get a high k/d. If your team does not control the map, you will most likely get a low k/d. People will still work together and rely on each other, it’s just that you don’t need to rely on them to give you YOUR skill that displays on YOUR profile.
>
> It’s not really a matter of margin of error, it’s simply pure inaccuracy. I’ve seen 40s beaten by 50s and 50s beaten by 40s, which is too far out from the margin of error. This really ensures players that go positive will gradually rank up, because they’re better than their opponents at a similar skill level and players that go negative will go down until they start going positive again and hover around a certain skill level.

Honestly you both have very valid points, I guess we’ll just see what 343i decides to do, but I think it should incorporate both K/D and W/L in a slayer only playlist. As Objective is completely a W/L game, and you shouldn’t be rewarded for being the one with the best K/D even though in Swat Objective games I don’t try to win, I try to get 50 kills a game.

16

> Honestly you both have very valid points, I guess we’ll just see what 343i decides to do, but I think it should incorporate both K/D and W/L in a slayer only playlist. As Objective is completely a W/L game, and you shouldn’t be rewarded for being the one with the best K/D even though in Swat Objective games I don’t try to win, I try to get 50 kills a game.

FINALLY. When you incorporate things separately it works out very effectively. For example, splitting casual and competitive players is a great idea. It pleases both audiences. Trying to incorporate a one sided system into a game pleases one audience, not both.

This is where the win/loss and kill/death systems both work with each other. Objective games should be win loss, as the objective is NOT to kill. Slayer games however SHOULD be kill death as the objective IS to kill. It’s simple really. You’re pleasing the people who want to be rewarded for doing good and not being dragged down by bad players. You still work as a team, but it does not affect you personally.

:3

17

I love w/l and Halo 3’s ranking system. All i care about is having one that matches me up with people my skill, H3 did a fine job. Sorry but i really don’t like the K/d thing, H3 was perfect, the game type is called team slayer… that means my team vs your team so idc if my team has one bad person and we kick -Yoink-, the reward goes to the team. IF IT AIN’T BROKE, DON’T FIX IT.

18

But it is broke, so fix it must be applied!

19

> The thing is, a service record is a depiction of a player. An individual, teamless player. This is a service record of THAT player not THAT team that got him rank x.
>
> I’ve thought about the low kill low death scenario. eg: 4 kills 0 deaths while camping. Which is why I suggested it in the other topic which was ignored (forgot to post here) to not reward players skill and lock them to a minimum of 5 or 6 kills before it uses the formulas, or some other system to discourage camping.
>
> You say the entire team-network would fall, and everyone would be mindlessly running around. Sure, at the lower levels. People still need to work together to get a high k/d. If your team does not control the map, you will most likely get a low k/d. People will still work together and rely on each other, it’s just that you don’t need to rely on them to give you YOUR skill that displays on YOUR profile.
>
> It’s not really a matter of margin of error, it’s simply pure inaccuracy. I’ve seen 40s beaten by 50s and 50s beaten by 40s, which is too far out from the margin of error. This really ensures players that go positive will gradually rank up, because they’re better than their opponents at a similar skill level and players that go negative will go down until they start going positive again and hover around a certain skill level.

I’m only against any k/d based system for the reason that I know how easily you can get a high k/d. The camping issue isn’t only about low kill amounts. At least eight kills would have to be the line and even then camping could be a bit too beneficial.

I’m not really saying that teamwork would become pointless if the system was implemented. I only think that k/d encourages selfish gameplay. I understand that service record is a service record of an individual player, but as it’s already hard enough to get people get the objective, k/d affecting your rank would make it even harder. If you think about it, the people who only go for k/d will be on lower ranks, you will have to face them eventually on your way to higher ranks.

Last of all, you’re probably referring to Halo 3 when you talk about 40’s winning 50’s. That was just because of the huge amount of bought 50’s in Halo 3. It’s not really fault of the formula, and your solution definitely wouldn’t solve it.

But the main reason I hate k/d with a passion is because it fools people and it can be fooled. I know from personal experience how easy it’s to get a nice k/d when you just grab the Sniper. If I were to decide, the whole concept of k/d would be abolished.

And finally it boils down to the fact that assuming Halo 4 had a well working TrueSkill system, balanced maps and balanced gameplay, getting a high k/d on higher levels would be near impossible to achieve. Because if you think about it, the idea of ranked is to get evenly skilled players to fight eachother. When the skill division is even, k/d has really no point.

I’m not saying you’re idea is in any way inherently flawed, my hate towards k/d might affect my judgement abilities, but that idea too needs a bit work. I’d rather have the amount of kills made in game to be the deciding factor than k/d. Even better, the most effective player (e.g. the player who made most kills in Slayer or got most objectives in objective) should be a deciding factor. “The MVP factor”, how does that sound? Because we all know that the guy with the highest k/d isn’t necessarily the best player, chances are that the player who was most useful for the team is.

20

> Honestly you both have very valid points, I guess we’ll just see what 343i decides to do, but I think it should incorporate both K/D and W/L in a slayer only playlist. As Objective is completely a W/L game, and you shouldn’t be rewarded for being the one with the best K/D even though in Swat Objective games I don’t try to win, I try to get 50 kills a game.

You don’t actually even know what a kill/death ratio even is so stop talking about it until you do. k/d is a non-factor in team games. People have different play styles and some people die more than others. Support players who put shots on people and get a lot of assists, but don’t get a lot of kills as their team mates still win and win together, as a team. Anyone who’s played high level Halo knows that k/d is unimportant.

Besides you guys are all just discussing ideas that have already put tried in Halo. In Reach specifically. Bungie put assists and k/d in a system but that worked horribly. 343i Just needs to go back to the 1-50 system that Halo 3 had, and put a limit on how far a players trueskill value can go as to eliminate boosting. Ranking system problem solved.