So i was wondering about this in Halo 4. Since Bungie tried to use it in Reach, will 343 use it in Halo 4? Normally i wouldn’t care but because in Halo 4 you rank up and unlock things for multiplayer I really don’t want to be a recruit fighting a General you know? Thats the only reason i prefer Halo over COD because the Multiplayer has been balanced in that regard… more or less :p. I’d appreciate any comments if anyone knows anything about this. Thanks 
-
Trueskill has nothing to do with rank. I don’t know where you got the idea that you would be a Recruit fighting a General because of the trueskill system.
-
The trueskill system in Reach was terrible, if not non-existent. If they want any chance of staying alive as a game, they better get trueskill right.
TruSkill
Ranking System
No 1-50
No Arena Ranking System link in reach
Changes in Ranking System due to Boosters
I guess i was just worried that this was turning into COD where u can be brand new facing against the highest lvl guy with all the best stuff. Halo always seemed fair…er lol.
Virtually all Xbox 360 games with online multiplayer enabled are required to use the Trueskill system. Halo 4 will probably have Trueskill.
Truskill system made sense to me. If you played the game long enough to reach a Eclipse, chances are you have become better at the game. Though I want see what 343 has for us in H4
> Truskill system made sense to me. If you played the game long enough to reach a Eclipse, chances are you have become better at the game. Though I want see what 343 has for us in H4
it doesnt matter if youve gotten better by playing for so long. Hopefully you have gotten better by the time youve gotten all the way to eclipse, if not thats a little sad. The problem is a recruit could very easily be better than an inheritor and there for the ranks in reach mean absolutely nothing as far as skill level.
> Truskill system made sense to me. If you played the game long enough to reach a Eclipse, chances are you have become better at the game. Though I want see what 343 has for us in H4
This is where the problem with the new Halo community lies: Skill =/= Rank in Halo Reach. It’s time-based, meaning I could play hours on end and be a higher level than you, but still be dreafully awful.
Can you explain the people who play Firefight? They certainly aren’t "better for their time played. Can you explain to me the people who sit in a corner game after game? They aren’t even playing, and yet they rank up.
People need to stop equating Rank with Skill in this game. They aren’t directly correlated in any way, shape or form.
> They aren’t directly correlated in any way, shape or form.
Untrue.
There is absolutely a positive correlation between rank and skill in reach.
The only way that this could go south and make gameplay unbalanced is if they allowed power weapons to be in your load outs. With that said, I strongly believe that this will not happen.
Now with the whole “true skill” dilemma,this is a new game with new additions being added into the ranking system. So the most we can do is speculate, because we do not know how it will all work together until we finally get our hands on it.
> > They aren’t directly correlated in any way, shape or form.
>
> Untrue.
>
> There is absolutely a positive correlation between rank and skill in reach.
I hope you are trolling because your statement is absolutely false.
> > They aren’t directly correlated in any way, shape or form.
>
> Untrue.
>
> There is absolutely a positive correlation between rank and skill in reach.
Give me one solid example. Either that, or stop trolling.
> > > They aren’t directly correlated in any way, shape or form.
> >
> > Untrue.
> >
> > There is absolutely a positive correlation between rank and skill in reach.
>
> Give me one solid example. Either that, or stop trolling.
Its the definition of correlation that makes it untrue. There is no causal relationship, but as play time accumulates players have a tendency to get better… all the while rank increases. Your average field marshal is probably better than your average recruit. Just a fact.
But you cant look at either and make definite statements.
> > > They aren’t directly correlated in any way, shape or form.
> >
> > Untrue.
> >
> > There is absolutely a positive correlation between rank and skill in reach.
>
> I hope you are trolling because your statement is absolutely false.
> > > > They aren’t directly correlated in any way, shape or form.
> > >
> > > Untrue.
> > >
> > > There is absolutely a positive correlation between rank and skill in reach.
> >
> > Give me one solid example. Either that, or stop trolling.
>
> Its the definition of correlation that makes it untrue. There is no causal relationship, but as play time accumulates players have a tendency to get better… all the while rank increases. Your average field marshal is probably better than your average recruit. Just a fact.
>
> But you cant look at either and make definite statements.
A direct correlation is defined as “when A goes up, B goes up, and vice-versa.”
There is no proof to your statement. You can make a broad generalization, but the fact is that I can still rank up to the same rank as you, but I can do it by sitting in a corner not playing.
There is also no proof that time-played will automatically make you better. Ive played soccer all my life, but there are 14 year olds who can dribble the ball around me and score from 30 yards out.
i just hope that 343 isnt going to **** the bed the way Bungie did with Reach. There is no incentive to play other than armor unlocks which for me is not why I play Halo. A ranking system added so much the Halo 2 & 3 from a competitive standpoint not to mention the fact that you were matched with players at your skill level, for the most part. What did Reach provide?? Some armor variations, a meaningless ranking system, and a penalty box for those who quit due to being pulled into unbalanced matches.
I bet the new ranking system will have 50 different ranks that are based on how much experience you gain which is ultimately based on what armor you have unlocked, commendations, and how many kills you get in a game.
Once you get to level 50 you will have a prestige option which will mean you have to sacrifice all armor, commendation prgress and weopon unlocks to go through the levels again.
> > > > > They aren’t directly correlated in any way, shape or form.
> > > >
> > > > Untrue.
> > > >
> > > > There is absolutely a positive correlation between rank and skill in reach.
> > >
> > > Give me one solid example. Either that, or stop trolling.
> >
> > Its the definition of correlation that makes it untrue. There is no causal relationship, but as play time accumulates players have a tendency to get better… all the while rank increases. Your average field marshal is probably better than your average recruit. Just a fact.
> >
> > But you cant look at either and make definite statements.
>
> A direct correlation is defined as “when A goes up, B goes up, and vice-versa.”
>
> There is no proof to your statement. You can make a broad generalization, but the fact is that I can still rank up to the same rank as you, but I can do it by sitting in a corner not playing.
>
> There is also no proof that time-played will automatically make you better. Ive played soccer all my life, but there are 14 year olds who can dribble the ball around me and score from 30 yards out.
Correlation isn’t absolute. If you plotted every player on a time played/skill x/y style graph the trend would be an upward slope with a few off the wall points of people who afk’d. If you cant understand this i cant help you, I’m not in a position to make you smarter.
> > > > > > They aren’t directly correlated in any way, shape or form.
> > > > >
> > > > > Untrue.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is absolutely a positive correlation between rank and skill in reach.
> > > >
> > > > Give me one solid example. Either that, or stop trolling.
> > >
> > > Its the definition of correlation that makes it untrue. There is no causal relationship, but as play time accumulates players have a tendency to get better… all the while rank increases. Your average field marshal is probably better than your average recruit. Just a fact.
> > >
> > > But you cant look at either and make definite statements.
> >
> > A direct correlation is defined as “when A goes up, B goes up, and vice-versa.”
> >
> > There is no proof to your statement. You can make a broad generalization, but the fact is that I can still rank up to the same rank as you, but I can do it by sitting in a corner not playing.
> >
> > There is also no proof that time-played will automatically make you better. Ive played soccer all my life, but there are 14 year olds who can dribble the ball around me and score from 30 yards out.
>
> Correlation isn’t absolute. If you plotted every player on a time played/skill x/y style graph the trend would be an upward slope with a few off the wall points of people who afk’d. If you cant understand this i cant help you, I’m not in a position to make you smarter.
so in other words, if you gathered data representative of players skill vs time played you would get a resulting graph with a postitive slope that is represented by a line of best fit due to the fact tht outlier points will result from some players being inherently good or bad at the game?
Makes sense to me
> > Correlation isn’t absolute. If you plotted every player on a time played/skill x/y style graph the trend would be an upward slope with a few off the wall points of people who afk’d. If you cant understand this i cant help you, I’m not in a position to make you smarter.
>
> so in other words, if you gathered data representative of players skill vs time played you would get a resulting graph with a postitive slope that is represented by a line of best fit due to the fact tht outlier points will result from some players being inherently good or bad at the game?
>
>
> Makes sense to me
Stats what?! 