How h5's ranking system encourages problems

Halo 5 is-and has been facing some pretty bad problems that seem to be getting worse as time goes by. It’s my belief that the ranking system plays an integral role in why such things are happening . The theme of this topic will be sort of… comparing the current ranking system to the old system, and in what ways can players brainstorm to make the best system.

Quitters, and time invested in your rank

Ok, so let’s disect this. Currently we have this 10 match ranking system right? Now this either jump starts your season, or really hinders you. Without a team it sometimes it’s almost like playing the lottery. You can have 6 outa 10 games where you’re in a team where 1 or more team mate quits and consequently who moves up faster and gets an easy win? What happens to you? Even more critical- what about if you’re already ranked?

Lets lay out some scenarios. You have some players who only play like 13 games or less each season. Sometimes they don’t complete all 10 if they’ve lost too many times. In some instances you could rank gold and end up working your way to daimond or even higher. Who wants to do that while some other guy ranked his 10th game as daimond? Bam. He just laid his controller down. To him, he’s reached the finish line.

At that very same time, there are players on game 120 having been had a rank. So lets say that player is in a match and lets say hes daimond, and he gets 3 random team mates. 1 daimond and 2 unranked at game 5of10. Those 2 players quit immediately after the enemies got rockets and snipe on colosseum after dying a few times to said power weapons. Let’s try to understand why they quit, but the ranked guys didn’t.

Ok, so these daimonds…if they’re on game 120, they’ve invested time into that playlist. Quitting impacts your csr, and its better to take a Loss while trying. To the unranked player there’s no progress bar. Its no biggie quitting. Besides its game 5of10, who cares right? Lets hope 6of10 is better.

Makes sense right? Now multiply that across the player base. Chew on that for a second. Now… wait a minute… there’s more…

Smurfing.

Smurfs make new accounts and DRASTICALLY increase this happening. That needs no explanation. The matches have no value. It’s not a main account. Didn’t get the power weapons at the begining? Missed camo or OS? Let’s just quit. Who cares right? Got a quit ban? Eh who cares. Make another smurf. Rinse and repeat.

Why do smurfs exist? Well lets blame it on long wait times. Ok. Let’s do that. Now let’s consider that every single smurf account decreases the population of high tier ranked players, thus increasing wait times even more. How could it not? I mean, meanwhile these smurfs are in the preliminary matches right? When their main account is way higher tiered.

So lets look at investment. If all players started from rank 1 or let’s even use bronze… they’d have how many matches under their belt to get to where they reached? There wouldn’t be this 10 game thing EACH time causing those problems. This games been out long enough to where players playtime and amount of matches would mean a lot more. You’re diacouraged to quit. You wouldn’t ever have a unranked player on your team because you’d for the most part be playing vs others who’ve played as long.

As for smurfing, well that in and of itself will always exist. So we’d be looking at how it affects each system, and if 1s more affected.

Would a new ranking system help this game? Or is it too late? I think how the top players is set up in this game make sense. Though for anything below onyx seems to be plagued with the above mentioned issues. So 1-50 wouldn’t be enough. A top level needs to still exist beyond that 50. Idk how it could be done, so that’s where the community brainstorming comes into play.

Hopefully this wasn’t too long of a thread. Hope everyone’s had a good weekend. If you’ve made it far, thanks for taking the time to read it.

Im pretty sure that its a bit too late to change the entire ranking system without excessive reworks.

I just started getting back into Halo 5. I don’t even remember how the ranking system works

Its way too late to change h5. Maybe h6 will be an improvement sadly I don’t know how it feels to be smurfed and etc cause I hit that onyx tier. And I don’t want to make a smurf because I can only empathize how much that sucks

> 2535462450434439;4:
> Its way too late to change h5. Maybe h6 will be an improvement sadly I don’t know how it feels to be smurfed and etc cause I hit that onyx tier. And I don’t want to make a smurf because I can only empathize how much that sucks

There’s some tell tale signs that a smurf is on your team. It can be beneficial, or non beneficial. Beneficial since they’re usually good players, non beneficial becauss they have no worry over quitting a match for not getting a headstart and gaining all the advantageous aspects in the match from the get go.

> 2533274907200114;2:
> Im pretty sure that its a bit too late to change the entire ranking system without excessive reworks.

It’s true, but seeing how they change things like the weapons and stuff this late in the game… is it really too late?

Despite the obvious lateness though, do you agree with how the current ranking system influences quitting and such? I guess that really should be the main point of this thread. You’re right. It’s hella late in halo 5 to change the system… but if the systems causing havoc… we should just leave it? I feel like the game’s losing more and more players as time goes by. One could say that’s natural… but idk man.

> 2533274827349475;3:
> I just started getting back into Halo 5. I don’t even remember how the ranking system works

You play 10 matches where you are unranked. Your win loss ratio, opponent rank tier, and your previous rank, all influence what your final rank will be at the end of the 10th match.

Once the current season ends, a new season begins. You lose your ranks and have to play those 10 games once again.

OP - Please don’t post multiple times in a row, thanks. You can edit your last post to add more information

> 2533274842046585;5:
> > 2535462450434439;4:
> > Its way too late to change h5. Maybe h6 will be an improvement sadly I don’t know how it feels to be smurfed and etc cause I hit that onyx tier. And I don’t want to make a smurf because I can only empathize how much that sucks
>
> There’s some tell tale signs that a smurf is on your team. It can be beneficial, or non beneficial. Beneficial since they’re usually good players, non beneficial becauss they have no worry over quitting a match for not getting a headstart and gaining all the advantageous aspects in the match from the get go.

I say we start a head hunting team and hunt down all the smurfs off of halo 5. Start the great Smurf movement.

Pretty much every issue brought up in the original post has been an issue in Halo since before Halo 5. Smurfs, derankers, quitting, increased matchmaking wait times and unbalanced matches… all this stuff was around during Halo 3, too. The only difference is that Halo 5’s public rank resets while Halo 3’s did not. So what does this actually do? Well, it means that in Halo 5, CSR is more representative of a players skill at that time. No more achieving a max rank and then holding onto it forever by not playing anymore. No, instead players who want to have their ranks made public have to get a rank every season; kind of like renewing your driver’s license.

Also, matchmaking is based on hidden MMR, not public CSR; they are two different (but related) ratings. A player who is unranked for a season still has a hidden MMR like everyone else which is used to determine matchmaking. If you see an unranked person on your team, you can’t assume they aren’t close to your skill level based on that.

I’m interested in why you think Halo 5’s ranking system influences quitting, or at least influences quitting more than previous Halo games.

> 2533274842046585;1:
> Quitters, and time invested in your rank:
>
> Ok, so these daimonds…if they’re on game 120, they’ve invested time into that playlist. Quitting impacts your csr, and its better to take a Loss while trying. To the unranked player there’s no progress bar. Its no biggie quitting. Besides its game 5of10, who cares right? Lets hope 6of10 is better.

Some clarification for you:

Yes, quitting a match will impact your CSR in similar fashion to earning a completed match loss, but from my understanding the first quitter will have their MMR/CSR negatively impacted to a greater amount than any one else and they’re the only player who will earn credit towards a temporary matchmaking ban so if the remaining team is getting crapped on they can choose to accept the loss (via quitting) without incurring a ban credit. Also, it’s my understanding that playing out the match with a disadvantage in player count means that you’re MMR/CSR won’t be as severely impacted as it would be if you quit the match which instead treats your loss as if both teams remained evenly balanced, player count wise, throughout the match.

The unranked players effectively do have a type of progression bar, but it remains visually hidden until it’s earned by completing your ten placement matches. So even though you say it’s “no biggie” to quit that’s not entirely true if those players want to earn the best initial visual rank that they can from their placement matches. My point is that the MMR effects follow the same rules regardless to whether or not you’ve completed the 10 placement matches that earn you the right to visually see your calculated CSR or not and your CSR is primarily dictated by your MMR.

> Smurfing:
>
> Smurfs make new accounts and DRASTICALLY increase this happening. That needs no explanation. The matches have no value. It’s not a main account. Didn’t get the power weapons at the begining? Missed camo or OS? Let’s just quit. Who cares right? Got a quit ban? Eh who cares. Make another smurf. Rinse and repeat.

You make some fair points here regarding the problems that smurf accounts can create on the matchmaking system. I’d say these are protentially the biggest issues related to smurf accounts.

> So lets look at investment. If all players started from rank 1 or let’s even use bronze… they’d have how many matches under their belt to get to where they reached? There wouldn’t be this 10 game thing EACH time causing those problems. This games been out long enough to where players playtime and amount of matches would mean a lot more. You’re diacouraged to quit. You wouldn’t ever have a unranked player on your team because you’d for the most part be playing vs others who’ve played as long.

I have to disagree with you here. The CSR system should not be influenced so much by time played as it needs to remain a fairly accurate reflection and indication of your actual skill level and not a progression of experience. I also don’t see why you’d be discouraged to quit with a progression system that over time will essentially lock you into a rank regardless of what ebb and flow your skill actually reflects or actions you take such as quitting. Not to mention, for the most part unranked players that sport decent to high Spartan Ranks (SRs) likely have a plethora of playlist experience and are simply in the progress of re-earning their visual CSR after a seasonal reset.

The goal of a progression system is to make you feel like you’re “progressing,” calling out milestones in your personal development. The goals of a ranking system are to give feedback in actual skill development, and make sure the matchmaking feels fair. These goals can be conflicting, so they should not have them overly combined into the same system. I’m glad that their current preference is to separate the progression and ranking systems so both can do what they do best without being restricted by the other system. Should they introduce an individual playlist progression rank to go along with your playlist CSR and overall SR? I think that’d be an interesting addition and I hope it’s something they choose to do for Halo 6.

> As for smurfing, well that in and of itself will always exist. So we’d be looking at how it affects each system, and if 1s more affected.
>
> Would a new ranking system help this game? Or is it too late? I think how the top players is set up in this game make sense. Though for anything below onyx seems to be plagued with the above mentioned issues. So 1-50 wouldn’t be enough. A top level needs to still exist beyond that 50. Idk how it could be done, so that’s where the community brainstorming comes into play.

There has been brainstorming with regards to curbing the smurf issue and some minor changes already went into place awhile back which have managed to improve the problem from what it was previously; plus, 343i are in the process of developing and testing a new TrueSkill system that will further curb the smurfing issue since it will estimate your skill better and quicker, it will account for individual performance along with team outcomes, and more appropriately handle fireteam or party matchmaking. Some of the other ideas that have been floated out there that 343i are weighing as potential options are:

  • Require a minimum playlist SR: If they make the barrier to enter ranked matches high enough, it won’t be worth re-rolling new accounts. Concerns:It puts up barriers to ranked play for legitimate players, which they’ve never done in a Halo title before. Barriers decrease population, which increases wait times. There are many ways to earn SR outside of Arena, so they’d be chasing the right SR level.
  • After playing with 2 accounts on the same Xbox, additional accounts need to meet a minimum SR level to play ranked. Concerns:The messaging would have to be very clear to avoid confusion. Is it even possible with the current tech? It is a barrier for some power users or large families which hopefully they’d be mature enough to understand the reasoning why.

Given the potential barriers I imagine that 343i would probably want to see how effective their new TrueSkill system will be in dealing with smurf accounts before trying any of these other ideas because of the potential negative trade-offs.

> 2533274817408735;10:
> Pretty much every issue brought up in the original post has been an issue in Halo since before Halo 5. Smurfs, derankers, quitting, increased matchmaking wait times and unbalanced matches… all this stuff was around during Halo 3, too. The only difference is that Halo 5’s public rank resets while Halo 3’s did not. So what does this actually do? Well, it means that in Halo 5, CSR is more representative of a players skill at that time. No more achieving a max rank and then holding onto it forever by not playing anymore. No, instead players who want to have their ranks made public have to get a rank every season; kind of like renewing your driver’s license.
>
> Also, matchmaking is based on hidden MMR, not public CSR; they are two different (but related) ratings. A player who is unranked for a season still has a hidden MMR like everyone else which is used to determine matchmaking. If you see an unranked person on your team, you can’t assume they aren’t close to your skill level based on that.
>
> I’m interested in why you think Halo 5’s ranking system influences quitting, or at least influences quitting more than previous Halo games.

I believe I’ve said why I believe it influences quitting. I’ll try to make it a bit more clearer, and not use smurf account/new players as an example. I’m also aware things of this nature existed before, but I don’t believe it was as bad, which is why I’ve made this thread.

I’ll try to make it as brief as possible. This especially affects solo Q players the most. So as a random you’re obviously at many times grouped with other randoms, so your odds have many more random factors regarding those 10 matches. If you squad up, it’s rare your buddy just up and quits right? Even if you’re all unranked that season, you’d have to quit as a team decision. Again, it’s more likely to happen as a game 5 of 10 vs game 120. The rank progress bar I do believe is why. Idk if I’m imagining this or not, but when I’ve quit in the past I swear the CSR lost felt/looked significantly more than a standard loss. As a game 5of10, you maybe just see that little up/down arrow point down in a red color though.

So the thoughts of the players mentality towards what just happened is basically

  • Dang bro. Man I just went from mid daimond 4 back to daimond 3. We just lost a few matches. Let’s play social, or better yet… I’ll just hop off dude. We’re having a bad night.

Vs

  • Dude let’s just quit. We know we lost this one. Onto game 6.

So in reality there’s still a penalty. Though it’s representation isn’t the same. It’s my firm belief that players see this as 1of10 vs the rank I’ve “been” grinding towards. Players don’t give up what they’ve spent so much time to get to as easily as a set of 10 matches. Also, knowing that your potential grind can can one season range from as low as silver (having a series of bad matches) to daimond (having a series of good matches) can make or break the entire deciding factor of player deeming it worthy of even grinding that specific playlist.

I’ve hit daimond after my 10th match before. I’ve also hit gold though, in the same playlist. One thing I’ve noticed tho is that towards the end of each season when I hardly see unranked players in matches, the matches feel SIGNIFICANTLY more balanced, more neck and neck, less quitting, etc. It’s fairly simple to assume that by a certain time, all those players who had a bad series of 10 reached their actual skill level by that time, and anyone who’s still playing that had a series of lucky matches but actually isn’t in the corresponding skill bracket has deranked by that time. I call this “averaging out”, and this is where your skill truly being to rise. It becomes a real grind at this point.

I understand the thought of thinking some players will reach max rank and entirely stop, which is why a visual leaderboard bracket should exist that fluctuates, one which you can never attain and hold without playing. One thing to note is that you have players who play this game because they love it so much. I don’t believe I’ll ever reach a champion rank in this game. If the system wasn’t reset each season I’d still never reach it. I’d still play ranked though. Ranks important, but love of the game is why I’m really playing though. A guy on my friends list plays soo much, I’ve checked his slayer rank and one day its nearing onyx, the next he’s platinum 3, the next day he’s back in daimond, etc. He just loves playing halo. Just like me. I’m fine losing. I’m not fine having quitters so often though.

So the 10 game mechanic is what I see as a big reason you see unranked players quit. This multiplies when you add in smurf accounts just like I’ve said. New players also would feel inclined to quit. If I myself would have to come up with a remedy for this, without changing the actual system would be this

To remedy smurfs

  • must reach Spartan rank (insert appropiate number here) in order to play ranked playlists
    Or
    -must complete X games of (insert appropiate social game types here) this also assures new players don’t just jump into ranked as well.

To make players realise the set of 10 is as easily affected by quitting

  • add a progress bar. Somehow, some way, use some kinda visual representation so the players like… man
    …quitting this 1 match resulted csr lost almost equivalent of losing 3 games…I should have just stayed in it.

I’m sorry this is lengthy. Hopefully it makes sense amd I didn’t have tons of redundancy issues. I barely woke up and had a bit of a drive home last night. Thanks for replying though. I’d like your honest opinion. Maybe I’m wrong about this issue, and it’s just all in my head.

> 2775209234672000;11:
> > 2533274842046585;1:
> > Quitters, and time invested in your rank:
> >
> > Ok, so these daimonds…if they’re on game 120, they’ve invested time into that playlist. Quitting impacts your csr, and its better to take a Loss while trying. To the unranked player there’s no progress bar. Its no biggie quitting. Besides its game 5of10, who cares right? Lets hope 6of10 is better.
>
> Some clarification for you:
>
> Yes, quitting a match will impact your CSR in similar fashion to earning a completed match loss, but from my understanding the first quitter will have their MMR/CSR negatively impacted to a greater amount than any one else and they’re the only player who will earn credit towards a temporary matchmaking ban so if the remaining team is getting crapped on they can choose to accept the loss without incurring a ban credit. Also, its my understanding that playing out the match with a disadvantage in player count means that you’re MMR/CSR won’t be as severely impacted as it would be if you quit the match which instead treats your loss as if both teams remained evenly balanced, player count wise, throughout the match.
>
> The unranked players effectively do have a type of progression bar, but it remains visually hidden until its earned by completing your ten placement matches. So even though you say its “no biggie” to quit that’s not entirely true if those players want to earn the best initial visual rank that they can from their placement matches. My point is that the MMR effects follow the same rules regardless to whether or not you’ve completed the 10 placement matches that earn you the right to visually see your calculated CSR or not and your CSR is primarily dictated by your MMR.
>
>
>
>
> > Smurfing:
> >
> > Smurfs make new accounts and DRASTICALLY increase this happening. That needs no explanation. The matches have no value. It’s not a main account. Didn’t get the power weapons at the begining? Missed camo or OS? Let’s just quit. Who cares right? Got a quit ban? Eh who cares. Make another smurf. Rinse and repeat.
>
> You make some fair points here regarding the problems that smurf accounts can create on the matchmaking system. I’d say these are protentially the biggest issues related to smurf accounts.
>
>
> > So lets look at investment. If all players started from rank 1 or let’s even use bronze… they’d have how many matches under their belt to get to where they reached? There wouldn’t be this 10 game thing EACH time causing those problems. This games been out long enough to where players playtime and amount of matches would mean a lot more. You’re diacouraged to quit. You wouldn’t ever have a unranked player on your team because you’d for the most part be playing vs others who’ve played as long.
>
> I have to disagree with you here. The CSR system should not be influenced so much by time played as it needs to remain a fairly accurate reflection and indication of your actual skill level and not a progression of experience. I also don’t see why you’d be discouraged to quit with a progression system that over time will essentially lock you into a rank regardless of what ebb and flow your skill actually reflects or actions you take such as quitting. Not to mention, for the most part unranked players that sport decent to high Spartan Ranks likely have a plethora of playlist experience and are simply in the progress of re-earning their visual CSR after a season reset.
>
> The goal of a progression system is to make you feel like you’re “progressing,” calling out milestones in your personal development. The goals of a ranking system are to give feedback in actual skill development, and make sure the matchmaking feels fair. These goals can be conflicting, so they should not have them overly combined into the same system. I’m glad that they’re current preference is to separate the progression and ranking systems so both can do what they do best without being restricted by the other system. Should they introduce an individual playlist progression rank to go along with your playlist CSR and overall Spartan Rank (SR)? I think that’d be an interesting addition and I hope its something they choose to do for Halo 6.
>
>
> > As for smurfing, well that in and of itself will always exist. So we’d be looking at how it affects each system, and if 1s more affected.
> >
> > Would a new ranking system help this game? Or is it too late? I think how the top players is set up in this game make sense. Though for anything below onyx seems to be plagued with the above mentioned issues. So 1-50 wouldn’t be enough. A top level needs to still exist beyond that 50. Idk how it could be done, so that’s where the community brainstorming comes into play.
>
> There has been brainstorming with regards to curbing the smurf issue and some minor changes already went into place awhile back which have managed to improve the problem from what it was previously; plus, 343i are in the process of developing and testing a new TrueSkill system that will further curb the smurfing issue since it will estimate your skill better and quicker, it will account for individual performance along with team outcomes, and more appropriately handle fireteam or party matchmaking. Some of the other ideas that have been floated out there that 343i are weighing as potential options are:
> - Require a minimum SR: If they make the barrier to enter ranked matches high enough, it won’t be worth re-rolling new accounts. Concerns:It puts up barriers to ranked play for legitimate players, which they’ve never done in a Halo title before. Barriers decrease population, which increases wait times. There are many ways to earn SR outside of Arena, so they’d be chasing the right SR level.
> - After playing with 2 accounts on the same Xbox, additional accounts need to meet a minimum SR level to play ranked. Concerns:The messaging would have to be very clear to avoid confusion. Is it even possible with the current tech? It is a barrier for some power users or large families which hopefully they’d be mature enough to understand the reasoning why.
>
> Given the potential barriers I imagine that 343i would probably want to see how effective their new TrueSkill system will be in dealing with smurf accounts before trying any of these other ideas because of the potential negative trade-offs.

If you read my last reply to the monitor who replied to me, you may see some things you disagreed with talked about. I use my phone to talk here, so to breakdown your series of replies may be difficult for me. I can try to, perhaps I may reply later. There are some known things about quitting and ban credits, and some that aren’t. If you can, an actual source of what penalties are and what criteria serves them to you would be appreciated. I’ve thought the same, that if 1 players leaves and I follow after I’d receive no ban credit. That hasn’t always been true in my experience. Plus, not all players know and not all players even use the forums. Those guys end up staying in the matches. The experience can be overwhelming.

> 2533274842046585;12:
> > 2533274817408735;10:
> >
>
> -snip-

I can understand, based on your experience, why it may seem like quitting is more prevalent in Halo 5’s ranking system compared to other Halo games. However, I do think it is a local issue; that is, not nearly as widespread as you suggest. If it were, 343i would have adjusted the harshness of the banhammer to hit quitters harder as opposed to enacting the “soft forfeit” feature. Without global data on quitting, a conclusion cannot truly be drawn; you only have your own experience and the testament of friends to support your notion, but this is hardly representative of general trends.

Also, here is the weekly update that details the enactment of the soft forfeit feature. It’s true that not everyone reads the forums, but generally the Halo 5 home screen announcement informs players when there was an update, and tells them to go to Waypoint for more info/patch notes. It’s not really 343i’s fault that most players aren’t informed about the state of the game; the information is readily available. As for criteria on what lands you a matchmaking ban, the guidelines are purposefully vague. If players knew how many quits or betrayals or whatever they could get away with before getting a ban, they would exploit this knowledge. Therefore the guidelines are very open-ended; they just state what kind of behavior can lead to a ban. Each playlist used to have a disclaimer saying “Matchmaking misconduct can lead to a ban, including: excessive quitting, betraying, suicides, or idling”, or something like that. Now the playlists just say “Matchmaking rules in effect for misconduct” or something.

> 2533274842046585;7:
> > 2533274827349475;3:
> > I just started getting back into Halo 5. I don’t even remember how the ranking system works
>
> You play 10 matches where you are unranked. Your win loss ratio, opponent rank tier, and your previous rank, all influence what your final rank will be at the end of the 10th match.
>
> Once the current season ends, a new season begins. You lose your ranks and have to play those 10 games once again.

Oh right thanks. Think I prefer the 1 - 50 system instead

Losing encourages quitting, not the ranking system.

> 2533274817408735;14:
> > 2533274842046585;12:
> > > 2533274817408735;10:
> > >
> >
> > -snip-
>
> I can understand, based on your experience, why it may seem like quitting is more prevalent in Halo 5’s ranking system compared to other Halo games. However, I do think it is a local issue; that is, not nearly as widespread as you suggest. If it were, 343i would have adjusted the harshness of the banhammer to hit quitters harder as opposed to enacting the “soft forfeit” feature. Without global data on quitting, a conclusion cannot truly be drawn; you only have your own experience and the testament of friends to support your notion, but this is hardly representative of general trends.
>
> Also, here is the weekly update that details the enactment of the soft forfeit feature. It’s true that not everyone reads the forums, but generally the Halo 5 home screen announcement informs players when there was an update, and tells them to go to Waypoint for more info/patch notes. It’s not really 343i’s fault that most players aren’t informed about the state of the game; the information is readily available. As for criteria on what lands you a matchmaking ban, the guidelines are purposefully vague. If players knew how many quits or betrayals or whatever they could get away with before getting a ban, they would exploit this knowledge. Therefore the guidelines are very open-ended; they just state what kind of behavior can lead to a ban. Each playlist used to have a disclaimer saying “Matchmaking misconduct can lead to a ban, including: excessive quitting, betraying, suicides, or idling”, or something like that. Now the playlists just say “Matchmaking rules in effect for misconduct” or something.

Gotcha. Well thanks for all the info. I do appreciate it. I guess I’ve just heard from friends on xbl and read threads on here complaining about players quitting so I kind of was lead to believe it wasn’t just a small issue. So I pondered what could influence quitting. Then I pondered…well… when do I quit? Honestly, the times I quit the most without much thought are in those initial 10 games. I don’t do it often, but I have done so. I know everyone’s not like me of course. Otherwise, I’ve taken the route of only quiting when others quit and leave me hanging. I’ll stay in a 3v4 usually though . Then there are some connection issues as well maybe.

I did give it much more thought though, hence why I’ve laid the thread out and took the time to write all my thoughts on it. Though it seems I’ve perhaps been mistaken in such thoughts. Thanks for clearing it up for me. I’m not sure if users can delete their own threads here, but since it seems you’ve covered all bases you may wish to lock the thread so it doesn’t get replies more or less saying what someone else already said.

I love playing halo 5. This thought I have isn’t "343i made a really bad ranking system, it’s all their fault. ", so hopefully people don’t mistakenly see it as that. I think everyone can agree that those who partake on these kinds of threads genuinely either want to add to the brainstorm, or let others know some of their info may be incorrect, which all in all helps. I guess I’ll save brainstorming for halo 6 lol thanks again.

In all that reading I couldn’t quite determine whether you are saying that rankings are inaccurate or unfair. Or was it both? Or that they are unfair because they’re inaccurate?

Here’s the thing I’ve come to understand and to actually believe: This game can look into your soul and know how good or bad you are, and it can do it in way less than ten matches. Drawing out the qualifiers for ten matches is a courtesy to the players. So when you get your rank then you can believe that it’s the real deal, and don’t think for a minute that the system can’t tell the difference between a mediocre player who was handicapped by lesser team mates or quitters vs. a really good player who was handicapped by lesser team mates or quitters. Your rank is accurate. And if you genuinely believe that not to be true, and if you’re really going to lay that all at the feet of silver tier scrubs and players who don’t finish matches, then you need to ask yourself some searching questions about the value of teamwork and about whether Halo is the right game for you. Because Trueskill, my friend, is going absolutely nowhere.

And, as others have pointed out, none of the problems you’re talking about are unique to Halo 5, or to this franchise - they are a feature, to one degree or another, of any game that allows you to compete against others and scores you based on your performance. Quitting has been around since the dawn of competition. People who game the system for their own advantage (smurfs) are also as old as ranked competition. Why do you think golf has handicaps? 50% to level the playing field and 50% so people can lie about them to get strokes they don’t need.

> 2533274873843883;18:
> In all that reading I couldn’t quite determine whether you are saying that rankings are inaccurate or unfair. Or was it both? Or that they are unfair because they’re inaccurate?
>
> Here’s the thing I’ve come to understand and to actually believe: This game can look into your soul and know how good or bad you are, and it can do it in way less than ten matches. Drawing out the qualifiers for ten matches is a courtesy to the players. So when you get your rank then you can believe that it’s the real deal, and don’t think for a minute that the system can’t tell the difference between a mediocre player who was handicapped by lesser team mates or quitters vs. a really good player who was handicapped by lesser team mates or quitters. Your rank is accurate. And if you genuinely believe that not to be true, and if you’re really going to lay that all at the feet of silver tier scrubs and players who don’t finish matches, then you need to ask yourself some searching questions about the value of teamwork and about whether Halo is the right game for you. Because Trueskill, my friend, is going absolutely nowhere.
>
> And, as others have pointed out, none of the problems you’re talking about are unique to Halo 5, or to this franchise - they are a feature, to one degree or another, of any game that allows you to compete against others and scores you based on your performance. Quitting has been around since the dawn of competition. People who game the system for their own advantage (smurfs) are also as old as ranked competition. Why do you think golf has handicaps? 50% to level the playing field and 50% so people can lie about them to get strokes they don’t need.

I think you didn’t understand Anything I’ve written. The rankings aren’t 100% accurate all the way up. We all know this. I’ve played onyx opponents who played terrible, and I’ve played golds that played better than the onyx player and actually sometimes those 2 players are even on the same team.

That beings said, you’re saying it takes 10 matches, while I’m saying it ENTIRELY dependent on who you face, and how accuract your opponents ranks are. What you’re saying is like saying a guy can get ranked daimond after those 10 games and PRESTO…he really is a daimond. He wont derank, and probably won’t rank up…because magically the game just looked into his soul and assessed his TSR. I mean…come on dude. Really? I’m not saying the ranks are entirely arbitrary, but they’re definitely not entirely accurate either. The TSR gets achieved much after those 10 matches, when you begin playing less and less players who are ubranked, when most of the population has been assessed and has had a good chunk of games under their belt to see if they’ve deranked or increased rank.

Seeing if halo is the right game for me. Please leave condescending remarks to yourself. I don’t appreciate that attitude. I love playing this game, and this is an open discussion. What does telling me that do? It does absolutely nothing. You think I’m saying to get rid of ranking system or what? I don’t get that remark.

I said in my own OP that I’m aware these things already existed. I’m pretty sure I did.again, I think you as you read my OP you must have been thinking too hard on one aspect of it and missed the entirety of it.

It’s also a bad assumption that it’s only silver “scrub” players are the only one’s to quit. It’s another bad remark on your part, and I’m not really sure where that attitude stems from. This thread has nothing to do with fairness of rank, it has everything to do with how you’re ranked and if it infact encourages certain behavior. There’s a stark difference between 1-50 and how halo 5s rankings work. The variables in 10 games can jump start your progress or hold you back. I’m not stating fair or unfaif, but I definitely AM stating a fact. This also creates certain behaviors for some players too vs working up from 1. Again, I’m not sure if you understand what I’m saying, but please leave condescending remarks to yourself if you wish continue this conversation.

> 2533274842046585;19:
> > 2533274873843883;18:
> >
>
> I think you didn’t understand Anything I’ve written. The rankings aren’t 100% accurate all the way up. We all know this. I’ve played onyx opponents who played terrible, and I’ve played golds that played better than the onyx player and actually sometimes those 2 players are even on the same team.
>
> That beings said, you’re saying it takes 10 matches, while I’m saying it ENTIRELY dependent on who you face, and how accuract your opponents ranks are. What you’re saying is like saying a guy can get ranked daimond after those 10 games and PRESTO…he really is a daimond. He wont derank, and probably won’t rank up…because magically the game just looked into his soul and assessed his TSR. I mean…come on dude. Really? I’m not saying the ranks are entirely arbitrary, but they’re definitely not entirely accurate either. The TSR gets achieved much after those 10 matches, when you begin playing less and less players who are ubranked, when most of the population has been assessed and has had a good chunk of games under their belt to see if they’ve deranked or increased rank.
>
> Seeing if halo is the right game for me. Please leave condescending remarks to yourself. I don’t appreciate that attitude. I love playing this game, and this is an open discussion. What does telling me that do? It does absolutely nothing. You think I’m saying to get rid of ranking system or what? I don’t get that remark.
>
> I said in my own OP that I’m aware these things already existed. I’m pretty sure I did.again, I think you as you read my OP you must have been thinking too hard on one aspect of it and missed the entirety of it.
>
> It’s also a bad assumption that it’s only silver “scrub” players are the only one’s to quit. It’s another bad remark on your part, and I’m not really sure where that attitude stems from. This thread has nothing to do with fairness of rank, it has everything to do with how you’re ranked and if it infact encourages certain behavior. There’s a stark difference between 1-50 and how halo 5s rankings work. The variables in 10 games can jump start your progress or hold you back. I’m not stating fair or unfaif, but I definitely AM stating a fact. This also creates certain behaviors for some players too vs working up from 1. Again, I’m not sure if you understand what I’m saying, but please leave condescending remarks to yourself if you wish continue this conversation.

Sorry if the tone came across as condescending. It was intended more as a splash of cold water. You know - a reality check?

I still don’t think the ranking system in this game works the way you think that it does. If your rank came from ten qualifiers that were based strictly on win/loss then you might have the right end of the stick. But they’re not and so I don’t think that you do. I’ll grant you that 343 is very unforthcoming about how those qualifiers are judged (and with good reason) so there’s room here for debate. But it sounds to me as if you’re saying that a legitimate diamond tier player can solo queue, have three matches where team mates quit, lose those three matches, and end up ranked gold. I would say that the outcome of those three matches (all ten for that matter) is only relevant in relation to the quality of the players he faced. In Halo you’ve never ranked up by beating lower ranked players and you’ve never ranked down by losing to higher-skilled players. The point is that for those ten matches straight win/loss doesn’t determine where you end up. Maybe you’re a legit platinum, but on the day you played your ten matchmaking could only find a bunch of silvers and golds. And so you won all ten matches. That doesn’t make you onyx. The system still knows you’re a platinum player. More and more, as I re-read what you wrote, I’m getting the feeling that you believe unbalanced games are a result of mis-ranked players. Lately I’m more of the opinion that it’s just compromised matchmaking. But I have to admit that this is one of those game features that is hard to understand, and that looks very different to players with different perspectives.

On the point of smurfs, you are right that they’re a problem - and a big one. But you’re wrong, in my opinion, to suppose that they weren’t a huge problem in Halo 3 or that they would go away now if only 343 would do away with the season system. Or am I inferring something there that you didn’t mean to imply? At any rate, I can see a lot of ways in which they cause problems, but I still believe (as noted above) that the ranking system is far more resilient (and accurate) than you think it is. And to whatever extent a smurf can screw with that accuracy (less I think than you do), you still have the rest of the season to get to your true rank. Their effect is not enough to cripple an entire season. If you’re not getting to whatever rank it is that you think you are then it’s because you were never that rank to begin with. A few smurfs in your qualifiers aren’t setting you back as far as you think they are, and if they’re as pervasive as we both seem to believe them to be, then you have to acknowledge that for every match where you’re screwed by one, there’s probably another match where the presence of one works to your advantage. Matchmaking - the great leveler.

Anyway, I hope I haven’t set you on fire again. These are, after all, just my opinions, and I readily admit there’s a lot about this game I don’t know. Consider this all just something to chew on.