How to fix the 1-50 ranking system for h4.

The major problem with the 1-50 system in H3 was that people could be boosted by accounts with bad records (for example people wanting to get a 50 would play with low ranked accounts with awful win/loss record to rank up faster). The main problem this caused was that people would purposely lose games to make those accounts. The main way to fix this would be for the ranking system to simply ignore players whose records/ranks are a lot worse than the average record and skill ceiling/floor for that match when the ranking system decides how much the winning team should go up by. For example if a 49 was playing with three booster accounts against 4 50’s, and the team with boosters won, the ranking system would ignore the boosters when calculating how much the winning teams ranks would increase by.

So in short, the ranking system would ignore outlier accounts when looking at the average account in a match, and calculate how much the winning team will increase by accordingly.

The problem with 1-50 is as a progression system, it effectively locks out large portions of the player base from every reaching the end goal.

Thats why you implement a progression style ranking system for casual players alongside of the 1-50 ranking system for competitive players.

Bungie’s (or Microsoft’s) mistake was in Halo 3 was counting all matches ever played into the trueskill ranking system. If 343 could tweak it to only take into account the last 50 or so games, then rank lock would disappear almost completely (unless, of course, you never actually improve in skill).

I would also like to see Halo 2 style, where the your highest global rank was based off of your highest current rank, but that is just a side point.

> Thats why you implement a progression style ranking system for casual players alongside of the 1-50 ranking system for competitive players.

And then we just made a giant cirlce back to where we are now.

People complaining about the social ranking system and how it’s “flawed” for matching them against higher players and completely ignoring the actual skill based ranking system.

Best way to fix the 1-50 system is use Halo 2s system. It worked, I dunno why they changed it.

> Bungie’s (or Microsoft’s) mistake was in Halo 3 was counting all matches ever played into the trueskill ranking system. If 343 could tweak it to only take into account the last 50 or so games, then rank lock would disappear almost completely (unless, of course, you never actually improve in skill).
>
> I would also like to see Halo 2 style, where the your highest global rank was based off of your highest current rank, but that is just a side point.

I forgot about rank lock, that’s actually a great idea.

> > Bungie’s (or Microsoft’s) mistake was in Halo 3 was counting all matches ever played into the trueskill ranking system. If 343 could tweak it to only take into account the last 50 or so games, then rank lock would disappear almost completely (unless, of course, you never actually improve in skill).
> >
> > I would also like to see Halo 2 style, where the your highest global rank was based off of your highest current rank, but that is just a side point.
>
> I forgot about rank lock, that’s actually a great idea.

Rank lock happened in H3 because H3’s TrueSkill was altered so slow your intial leveling to simulate a MMO style grinding experience. Thus your sigma got you locked at a lower rank than you generally should have been.

If you play long enough in just a single day you can see the quality of players you fight against increase.

If TrueSkill was just magically flipped on and made visible people will -Yoink- bricks over how their TrueSkill jumps around like a crack addled chimp in a banana factory.

Methew doesn’t know what he’s talking about. There is no way to get rank locked.

> > > Bungie’s (or Microsoft’s) mistake was in Halo 3 was counting all matches ever played into the trueskill ranking system. If 343 could tweak it to only take into account the last 50 or so games, then rank lock would disappear almost completely (unless, of course, you never actually improve in skill).
> > >
> > > I would also like to see Halo 2 style, where the your highest global rank was based off of your highest current rank, but that is just a side point.
> >
> > I forgot about rank lock, that’s actually a great idea.
>
> Rank lock happened in H3 because H3’s TrueSkill was altered so slow your intial leveling to simulate a MMO style grinding experience. Thus your sigma got you locked at a lower rank than you generally should have been.
>
> If you play long enough in just a single day you can see the quality of players you fight against increase.
>
> If TrueSkill was just magically flipped on and made visible people will Yoink! bricks over how their TrueSkill jumps around like a crack addled chimp in a banana factory.

It doesn’t have to be 50 games specifically, but the ranking system should forgive losses that occurred a long time ago.

I don’t care how the 1-50 system is as long as it back, BTW I agree with you.

If they did implement a rank floor, it should be the bottom rank in the search range.

By the way, your example is impossible because if theres a 49 and 3 boosters, they can’t match a team of 50s, seeing as they are searching 39-49. Putting that aside for the sake of the discussion, say they did magically search 40-50, the boosters should invisibly trueskill rank at 40, which would be the bottom of the search range for that specific match.

edit - Jesus christ, everyone in this thread has the same exact avatar. Holy confusion. Time to change mine.

I want to talk with you all on TrueSkill. My firsts thoughts would be to attack the formula first and tweak my own numbers. Raise the Max TS level to 100 using the current system it should be harder and harder to level past 50. The will stretch how the players are rated so previously H3 47s now become 51s because all the other 50s are near the 60 range at this point.

Another code inclusion I would add is a ceiling to the amount of TrueSkill XP gained per win. You can still boost but it would take 50 wins in a row to hit 50 if the cap is at 1. By the time these games have been played the underworkings of the Trueskill system will have been able to calculate the new variables and the booster account would be many levels higher from so many games finding all the numbers they need.

I think this rating system could work if I had any mathematics and statistical majors to help me develop a formula.

This would only be used to match players against evenly skilled players.

There would also be some sort of XP/credit overall rank that shows how much you play and an individual version of those in each playlist

Level 16 Double Team
100 XP Rank Captain
Credits Earned 10,000

Sample of all three ranking systems in a playlist. I’m toasted mighty right now so just leave me some feedback and I will check out all your thoughts when I am sober.

As you can see from the topic, there are two competing concerns with the ranking system. There are those like Scavenger’s, people who are concerned with bad players unfairly earning a higher rank than they deserve by abusing the matchmaking system (though I think this is more frustrating in Halo Reach because of the percentile placements, someone abusing the matchmaking system by “iron boosting”, i.e. playing with someone that has intentionally deleveled their account to help his friends rank up faster since the game thinks they are carrying an iron teammate, so someone who iron boosts gets an Arena placement is actually taking someone else’s placement. For instance, I don’t think it’s fair at all that someone that earned a Top 1% Onyx by winning 145/150 games against single-digit Onyx players, but someone playing with an iron booster can get there by winning ten games against single digit players (and they aren’t punished for a loss at all either, since the game expects their team to lose) and that iron-boosting player can take the 1% Onyx rank away from someone that earned it legitimately.

In this regard, I completely agree with treating low-level accounts as the level at the lower-end of the skill range with which that player can match, as the OP stated. If a level 1 player is searching with a level 50 player, he should be treated as a level 40 for the purpose of calculating the change in TrueSkill of both that level 50 player and the opponent’s ranks (though the level 1 should rank up as fast as he normally would by beating level 40’s, since he clearly wouldn’t belong in those low levels if he’s able to consistently win). I mean really, someone that is a high-level is probably concerned with his rank, and thus he wouldn’t ever search with someone that is level 1 (or a single-digit Onyx player wouldn’t ever search with a true Iron division player, etc).

The only possible abuse of this proposed system that I could foresee would be “circle boosting”, since one could easily shove a new/Silver/etc account on a level 50 team and rotate who they win/lose to (as it would be treated as a high level, and thus saving circle boosters the time of leveling up their throwaway account). However, I trust there would be a system in place available to discourage circle boosting as I’m sure there already is (can’t increase TrueSkill after matching the same people more than X number of times, flag matches where the same people as matching each other repeatedly to check for suspicious activity, etc).

Then there are the concerns of the casual player, like Methew’s. Sorry buddy, but as someone who broke out of the so called “rank lock,” I don’t exactly sympathize with you. Players don’t magically get dramatically better overnight, and there’s no reason the game should expect someone that loses a bunch of games at level 40 to suddenly rocket through the ranks of 41, 42, 43, … etc overnight just because they won a couple game in a row. Compare this event to random chance-- if you had an exactly 50% chance of winning (because in this hypothetical scenario, every player is exactly the TrueSkill they deserve and the teams are evenly matched), it’s not that improbable to flip a coin and get heads 4, 5, 6 etc times in a row. Try it. Flip a coin 100 times and record the results. Even though the odds are 50-50, strings of heads (or tails) are not that unlikely to occur at all. But in Halo, players that are “rank locked” have likely played 1000+ games, and you can try flipping a coin a thousand times (I’d recommend a computer program to simulate this) and see that it’s entirely possible you could reel off ten straight heads at some point. To rank up with the TrueSkill system, the system needs to be convinced that the outcomes of the games are not due to random chance-- that is, that a player is consistently beating similarly skilled players because one of the assumptions (i.e. that player’s TrueSkill level) is incorrect. The way to do this is by consistently beating higher-ranked players. Odds are that if you consider yourself “rank-locked”, you are not doing this. I also implore you not to use terms like “your sigma got you rank locked” when it is clear that you do not fully understand the basic statistical principles behind the system. Further, no, your TrueSkill does not jump wildly from game to game, and in reality, your “TrueSkill” is actually a range of levels. In Halo 3, the lower bound of that range was the rank displayed to you.

HOWEVER, with that being said, I DO support the idea of JoinTheFlood318 (although with a number much greater than 50). That is because I do believe there are people in Halo 3 that have like 10,000+ games and are level 49 (a Brigadier Grade 87 or whatever). I do believe there is a point where a player might truly be a level 50, but that it is infeasible for them to win the required number of games to rank up to a 50. Even if you operate under the assumption that this person is the single greatest player to ever play the game and so are his teammates, it’s nigh impossible to win 100-200 straight games because of extrinsic factors. For instance, when I was searching alone in Team Slayer not too recently, I was cheated (DDoSed, hostbooted, whatever) seemingly once every 4 or 5 games. Regardless of how good of a player I am, there is no way to beat (competent) cheaters without somehow cheating yourself.

Now again, looking at potential abuses of this system: I believe considering your X most recent games could be hazardous because it could easily be abused by the boosters mentioned in part 1. For instance, if only your 50 most recent games are considered, me and my Doubles partner could take turns losing 50 straight games (deleveling, quitting out, etc), have the game consider us to be really bad players, and then play with my doubles partner and very effectively boost him. Then we swap, he delevels a bunch, boosts me up, and now both of us have “highest skill 50.” I don’t think there should be any game mechanic that encourages more quitting, deleveling, etc, as that person would then be ruining the experience of 7 other people in 50+ games each time. So again, such a system would have to be cautiously implemented to prevent such abuse.

This is a great idea. I definitely hope 343 uses this or a similar idea for Halo 4.

best solution (click me)

> The problem with 1-50 is as a progression system, it effectively locks out large portions of the player base from every reaching the end goal.

Why does everyone have to reach the end rank if they don’t deserve it? Being a level 50 doesn’t give you better things, it just means you play better people, that are at your ability…

Being 50 does not mean you get better weapons, you don’t get better shields, you don’t get to run faster, you don’t get to jump higher, you don’t unlock better looking gear, it’s just there so you can play higher skilled players, and show that you’re a good player, that is it.

Every game doesn’t have to have a rank system like Cod or Gears.

> > The problem with 1-50 is as a progression system, it effectively locks out large portions of the player base from every reaching the end goal.
>
> Why does everyone have to reach the end rank if they don’t deserve it? Being a level 50 doesn’t give you better things, it just means you play better people, that are at your ability…

why does everyone ignorantly think that a rank system should be skill based only?

> > > The problem with 1-50 is as a progression system, it effectively locks out large portions of the player base from every reaching the end goal.
> >
> > Why does everyone have to reach the end rank if they don’t deserve it? Being a level 50 doesn’t give you better things, it just means you play better people, that are at your ability…
>
> why does everyone ignorantly think that a rank system should be skill based only?

It doesn’t.

Have the skill based one, then have a level system that either requires credits or exp, exp/credits can be earned from winning or losing, you just gain more if you win/how well you do. And challenges can also stay to earn more credits.

But also have the skill based one show as a number somewhere on your name tag, like in Halo 2/3

A Haunted Army:

1- It gives more motivation to improve yourself and compare yourself with friends

2- It places more emphasis on working with your team rather than playing solo and trying to get the most for yourself

3- It distinguished the good players from the bad players, giving good players something to feel accomplished about and bad players something to improve on

4- It helps to give fairer matches so that your matches are better balanced between the teams and thus more fun

Do you need any more?