Infinite needs to have much better ranking than what Halo 5 has. Halo 5’s ranking is terrible. Win 7 - 10 matches consecutively to get one rank up and lose 1 and go down half a rank. That is ridiculous. Ranking should not punish you so drastically for a single loss.
If your 7-10 wins are against evenly matched teams you don’t deserve to rank up.
But then, if your loss happens against a weaker team, you deserve to drop ranks.
Nobody complains when they beat a higher ranked team and take a big step up the ladder.
Although I think there is a slight bias built into the system for ranking down. I don’t remember the explanation for it, but it sounded reasonable at the time.
> 2585548714655118;2:
> If your 7-10 wins are against evenly matched teams you don’t deserve to rank up.
>
> But then, if your loss happens against a weaker team, you deserve to drop ranks.
>
> Nobody complains when they beat a higher ranked team and take a big step up the ladder.
>
> Although I think there is a slight bias built into the system for ranking down. I don’t remember the explanation for it, but it sounded reasonable at the time.
they should make it like football leagues after the 10 placement matches. fifa has a really good addictive system(besides its crap gameplay)
basically you play 10 matches each season in your division and based on how many matches you win you get relegated, stay or get promoted. i cant believe fifa has the best accurate and fun ranking system ive played
You ever get matched against an onyx, 2 diamonds and a gold and you have a plat 5, silver 4 and a bronze 1 on your team? Yeah, you get curb stomped. Your team is outclassed because half of it doesn’t shoot, and if they do they don’t aim. Lose that and lose 75% of a rank… yeah, the ranking is perfectly balanced.
> 2533274821339472;3:
> [i cant believe fifa has the best accurate and fun ranking system ive played
There isn’t anything wrong with the accuracy of the Halo 5 system. The maths behind it is pretty cool.
The fun part though… H5 can be frustrating because it can feel random. It needs more information at ground zero - like showed the team ranks at the end - that way you could see that the amount of ranking you gained or lost makes sense.
> 2535464001674715;4:
> You ever get matched against an onyx, 2 diamonds and a gold and you have a plat 5, silver 4 and a bronze 1 on your team? Yeah, you get curb stomped. Your team is outclassed because half of it doesn’t shoot, and if they do they don’t aim. Lose that and lose 75% of a rank… yeah, the ranking is perfectly balanced.
There’s no way the system would penalise you harshly for losing a match where you were so outclassed.
But as I mentioned, there needs to be some visual representation of what your win or loss means. Show the team rankings so that we can better gauge the relevance of the win (or loss).
> 2585548714655118;5:
> > 2533274821339472;3:
> > [i cant believe fifa has the best accurate and fun ranking system ive played
>
> There isn’t anything wrong with the accuracy of the Halo 5 system. The maths behind it is pretty cool.
>
> The fun part though… H5 can be frustrating because it can feel random. It needs more information at ground zero - like showed the team ranks at the end - that way you could see that the amount of ranking you gained or lost makes sense.
>
>
>
>
> > 2535464001674715;4:
> > You ever get matched against an onyx, 2 diamonds and a gold and you have a plat 5, silver 4 and a bronze 1 on your team? Yeah, you get curb stomped. Your team is outclassed because half of it doesn’t shoot, and if they do they don’t aim. Lose that and lose 75% of a rank… yeah, the ranking is perfectly balanced.
>
> There’s no way the system would penalise you harshly for losing a match where you were so outclassed.
>
> But as I mentioned, there needs to be some visual representation of what your win or loss means. Show the team rankings so that we can better gauge the relevance of the win (or loss).
its accurate but boring. fifa is a bit less accurate but insanely fun as you quickly rank up if you keep winning. theres probably a way to merge both systems. if you keep winning in the 10 match season then you face the tougher oponents of similar skilled people to you in that division
halo 5’s main ranking problem with accuracy was the core gameplay as it was heavily teamwork based than individual skill. teamwork is an impossible metric to measure unless the same people play together. infinites core gameplay looks better balanced from what i saw
Here’s the thing. If I get 16 - 20 kills in a slayer match and the rest of my team totals 15. Why should I be punished so harshly for their bad performance. Things like this happen a lot and it gets incredibly annoying. One person shouldn’t have to carry a group of 4 to victory or face huge rank losses.
Player performance should take precedence over team win/loss, not the other way around.
> 2535464001674715;7:
> Here’s the thing. If I get 16 - 20 kills in a slayer match and the rest of my team totals 15. Why should I be punished so harshly for their bad performance. Things like this happen a lot and it gets incredibly annoying. One person shouldn’t have to carry a group of 4 to victory or face huge rank losses.
>
> Player performance should take precedence over team win/loss, not the other way around.
And that’s real talk! No matter population size, win or lose, the current ranking system is not reflective of a players true performance.
> 2533274821339472;6:
> its accurate but boring. fifa is a bit less accurate but insanely fun as you quickly rank up if you keep winning. theres probably a way to merge both systems. if you keep winning in the 10 match season then you face the tougher oponents of similar skilled people to you in that division
That’s an issue with populations and matchmaking - not the ranking. You should never rank up just by winning.
> 2533274821339472;6:
> halo 5’s main ranking problem with accuracy was the core gameplay as it was heavily teamwork based than individual skill. teamwork is an impossible metric to measure unless the same people play together.
> 2535464001674715;6:
> Here’s the thing. If I get 16 - 20 kills in a slayer match and the rest of my team totals 15. Why should I be punished so harshly for their bad performance. Things like this happen a lot and it gets incredibly annoying. One person shouldn’t have to carry a group of 4 to victory or face huge rank losses.
> Player performance should take precedence over team win/loss, not the other way around.
> And that’s real talk! No matter population size, win or lose, the current ranking system is not reflective of a players true performance.
I tend to agree. In principle I see why they’ve focused purely on team performance… but on the otherhand it is insanely frustrating when a higher ranked ‘team-mate’ goes negative gazillion and costs you the game. There are so many high Platinums / low Diamonds out there who have obviously been carried by loftier team members.
In non-Slayer games it makes sense. What metrics do you use in CTF, for example, to decide who played well?
But in Team Slayer there is a very simple metric. The slice of the winners (or losers) pie should be divided proportionally to your K:D.
I get where you’re coming from, Halo 5’s ranking (especially in the beta) was merciless and boarderline unfair. I liked the ranking in the Master Chief Collection. Numbers are just less stressful for me.
> 2585548714655118;9:
> > 2533274821339472;6:
> > its accurate but boring. fifa is a bit less accurate but insanely fun as you quickly rank up if you keep winning. theres probably a way to merge both systems. if you keep winning in the 10 match season then you face the tougher oponents of similar skilled people to you in that division
>
> That’s an issue with populations and matchmaking - not the ranking. You should never rank up just by winning.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274821339472;6:
> > halo 5’s main ranking problem with accuracy was the core gameplay as it was heavily teamwork based than individual skill. teamwork is an impossible metric to measure unless the same people play together.
>
>
>
> > 2535464001674715;6:
> > Here’s the thing. If I get 16 - 20 kills in a slayer match and the rest of my team totals 15. Why should I be punished so harshly for their bad performance. Things like this happen a lot and it gets incredibly annoying. One person shouldn’t have to carry a group of 4 to victory or face huge rank losses.
> > Player performance should take precedence over team win/loss, not the other way around.
>
>
>
> > And that’s real talk! No matter population size, win or lose, the current ranking system is not reflective of a players true performance.
>
> I tend to agree. In principle I see why they’ve focused purely on team performance… but on the otherhand it is insanely frustrating when a higher ranked ‘team-mate’ goes negative gazillion and costs you the game. There are so many high Platinums / low Diamonds out there who have obviously been carried by loftier team members.
>
> In non-Slayer games it makes sense. What metrics do you use in CTF, for example, to decide who played well?
>
> But in Team Slayer there is a very simple metric. The slice of the winners (or losers) pie should be divided proportionally to your K:D.
“You should never rank up just by winning” I think it should work by winning. sure you can carry people but they were still part of your team that helped you win and you might have good chemistry. if that carried guy decides to play on his own and start playing bad then he will be quickly back at his level in 10-20 games as he gets relegated. i think it would be a fun fair enough system.
Formulary and mathematically I understand why True Skill is what it is. But, there needs to be more visual information on why you moved up or down in rank. I think this would clear up a lot of questioning. What I do not agree with is the dictatorial style of ranking. The, “We know what were doing so deal with it” message without openly displaying the methodology and reasoning. I also do not agree with the encouragement of grouping similarly ranked player. This negatively impacts friendships and fireteams with different ranks. It encourages them to split up by not rewarding them from wins. I understand it is to try and discourage rank boosting but if a true lower ranked player wishes to boost in ranks by riding coat tails so be it. My eclectic fireteam and I can only wish to play high ranked posers and mop the floor. Halo is competitive and fun. Please do not punish players and fans who are trying to get better. Don’t discourage the loyal fireteams to break up because their buddies arent ranked high enough to reap rewards. In team playlists, if you win you move up. If you lose you move down. You cant fake KD and performance.
I don’t have so much of a problem with grouping people so that teams are even. This stops strong teams from beating the crap out of weaker teams over and over again.That part is fine. It keeps the matches fun and less frustrating. If you’re winning against those groups, then rank you up and get in with higher level groups. That way you have a gradual progression system that encourages improving player skill over time. I don’t think that the whole “if your 7 - 10 wins are against evenly matched teams, you don’t deserve to rank up” is right at all. Thats saying unless you win matches you’re projected to lose, then you shouldn’t rank up. That’s some elitist crap right there. Playing and winning balanced matches should not stop you from ranking up.
> 2533274821339472;11:
> “You should never rank up just by winning” I think it should work by winning. sure you can carry people but they were still part of your team that helped you win and you might have good chemistry. if that carried guy decides to play on his own and start playing bad then he will be quickly back at his level in 10-20 games as he gets relegated. i think it would be a fun fair enough system.
Badly phrased on my behalf.
You do rank up with every win… but if you beat an evenly matched team your rank should (and does) only change by a tiny bit. Same with a loss against the same team.
You should never expect to rank up quickly just by winning.
> 2585548714655118;14:
> > 2533274821339472;11:
> > “You should never rank up just by winning” I think it should work by winning. sure you can carry people but they were still part of your team that helped you win and you might have good chemistry. if that carried guy decides to play on his own and start playing bad then he will be quickly back at his level in 10-20 games as he gets relegated. i think it would be a fun fair enough system.
>
> Badly phrased on my behalf.
>
> You do rank up with every win… but if you beat an evenly matched team your rank should (and does) only change by a tiny bit. Same with a loss against the same team.
>
> You should never expect to rank up quickly just by winning.
im ok with the system, however resetting ranks ruins all the good work, its common for players to play average in their placement matches as they warm up. so they end up having to stomp dozens of teams to get to their natural rank after the placement matches. some people take weeks to play 10 games. resetting ranks should happen every 6 months to stop the vicious cycle of placement matches being unreliable due to lots of different factors.
> 2533274801953616;12:
> Formulary and mathematically I understand why True Skill is what it is. But, there needs to be more visual information on why you moved up or down in rank. I think this would clear up a lot of questioning. What I do not agree with is the dictatorial style of ranking. The, “We know what were doing so deal with it” message without openly displaying the methodology and reasoning.
I agree that it’s something the developers should be more open about. However, it’s also a very difficult problem to communicate it to players in a useful way. Just telling people the truth isn’t necessarily helpful:
—“Why did I lose so much rank in this game?”
—“Because the Gaussian skill distribution that best reproduced the posterior distribution of the match outcome had you down that many points”
—"…"
I mean, you can be less pretentious about it than that, but I’m not sure how much while still communicating something of value that corresponds to reality.
I think more transparency about the uncertainty inherent to the process should be given, because I don’t think this idea of uncertainty about the skill level is that well communicated. Like maybe the in-game stats page should have some visual representation of the probability distribution of the player’s skill level. And maybe you could show some information in post-game carnage reports about how the outcome compares to the predicted outcomes of the match. But this all relies on the assumption that the player believes in probability, and has the understanding that just because the most likely outcome didn’t happen doesn’t mean the prediction was bad.
Ultimately, there’s a very specific frame of mind that you need in order to have knowledge-based faith in the idea that you can infer something seemingly so abstract and complex like “skill” from something as simple as whether a player wins or loses in sequence of matches. If you don’t have that, it’s very easy to convince yourself otherwise. Humans didn’t evolve to do mathematical modeling. Some of them just figured it out.
> 2533274821339472;15:
> im ok with the system, however resetting ranks ruins all the good work, its common for players to play average in their placement matches as they warm up. so they end up having to stomp dozens of teams to get to their natural rank after the placement matches. some people take weeks to play 10 games. resetting ranks should happen every 6 months to stop the vicious cycle of placement matches being unreliable due to lots of different factors.
The game still uses your ‘internal’ rank inside placement games… so they shouldn’t be hugely different to any other game.
And Trueskill can pretty much find your (current) skill level within a handful of games.
Anecdotally I think that the placement games get a bad wrap from people who haven’t played in a while (so get put in placement) and feel a bit agrieved by their level. Which may not be the level they expected; a) because they haven’t played in a while, and b) because the system errs on the side of ranking you down at the start.
> 2585548714655118;17:
> > 2533274821339472;15:
> > im ok with the system, however resetting ranks ruins all the good work, its common for players to play average in their placement matches as they warm up. so they end up having to stomp dozens of teams to get to their natural rank after the placement matches. some people take weeks to play 10 games. resetting ranks should happen every 6 months to stop the vicious cycle of placement matches being unreliable due to lots of different factors.
>
> The game still uses your ‘internal’ rank inside placement games… so they shouldn’t be hugely different to any other game.
>
> And Trueskill can pretty much find your (current) skill level within a handful of games.
>
> Anecdotally I think that the placement games get a bad wrap from people who haven’t played in a while (so get put in placement) and feel a bit agrieved by their level. Which may not be the level they expected; a) because they haven’t played in a while, and b) because the system errs on the side of ranking you down at the start.
the whole point of placement matches is to significantly lower or raise your rank. obviously it keeps your last rank for the first placement match to start you off fair.
> 2533274821339472;18:
> … the whole point of placement matches is to significantly lower or raise your rank. obviously it keeps your last rank for the first placement match to start you off fair.
That’s not how I read it.
The point of placement matches are along the lines of;
- encouraging players to return regularly.
- giving 343 the option or rewards / competitions tied to seasons
- stop people from buying rankings and then sitting on them
You can argue the benefits or not… but the bottom line is that you shouldn’t end up with a significantly different rank. That’s not going to happen as we know that Trueskill can gauge your ranking very quickly.
The maths doesn’t lie.
And from the Waypoint matchmaking FAQ;
> **Does CSR take my personal performance into account at all?**or
> **I carried my team and we lost, and I still lost a lot of CSR, why is that?**The CSR system itself does not currently consider anything about in-game performance. So, playing well in a match will not reflect in that match’s CSR update at all. However, TrueSkill2 DOES see that better performance and your MMR goes up when this happens. You don’t benefit from it in that match itself but having a higher MMR results in matching harder opponents, which results in you getting more CSR when you beat them. The reason why we don’t now change it to use TrueSkill2’s performance results after the match is because H5’s original data plumbing as well as UI don’t support it, and we aren’t currently updating H5 while Halo Infinite is in development.
> 2585548714655118;19:
> > 2533274821339472;18:
> > … the whole point of placement matches is to significantly lower or raise your rank. obviously it keeps your last rank for the first placement match to start you off fair.
>
> That’s not how I read it.
>
> The point of placement matches are along the lines of;
> - encouraging players to return regularly.
> - giving 343 the option or rewards / competitions tied to seasons
> - stop people from buying rankings and then sitting on them
>
> You can argue the benefits or not… but the bottom line is that you shouldn’t end up with a significantly different rank. That’s not going to happen as we know that Trueskill can gauge your ranking very quickly.
>
> The maths doesn’t lie.
>
> And from the Waypoint matchmaking FAQ;
>
>
>
>
> > **Does CSR take my personal performance into account at all?**or
> > **I carried my team and we lost, and I still lost a lot of CSR, why is that?**The CSR system itself does not currently consider anything about in-game performance. So, playing well in a match will not reflect in that match’s CSR update at all. However, TrueSkill2 DOES see that better performance and your MMR goes up when this happens. You don’t benefit from it in that match itself but having a higher MMR results in matching harder opponents, which results in you getting more CSR when you beat them. The reason why we don’t now change it to use TrueSkill2’s performance results after the match is because H5’s original data plumbing as well as UI don’t support it, and we aren’t currently updating H5 while Halo Infinite is in development.
“placement games get a bad wrap from people who haven’t played in a while (so get put in placement) and feel a bit agrieved by their level.”
its definitly not to keep people coming back for reasons you even stated. i also used to hate the monthly resets. resets hurt the game. rocket league has awful ranks too. my rank goes up and down like a yoyo.