HOW TO FIX THE 1-50 SKILL SYSTEM!!!

halo 3’s booster situation is so easy to fix, if you think about it you get extra pionts for winning when you have someone on your team thats a booster(fake bad player)there is the mistake!!! dont let your teammates effect your xp gain, but still give the player extra pionts for beating someone that has a high skill, so beating someone good gives you a boost but winning with a bad teammate that does not affect your EXP gain if you win. but as long as you cant get that boost from your fake bad teammate you CANT BOOST problem solved!

thats a terrible fix because when winning doesn’t matter people play selfishly.

doesn’t matter anyway because it doesn’t look like there is going to be a ranking system, only a progression system.

I loved 1-50 back in the day and really really hated when it was removed, however im actually hoping for a sc2 style league system on one playlist. This would be enough for me i think.

The advantage of the SC2 league system is there is no point of boosting/account trading. As if you play a game you will be destroyed. Then come season end around 6-9month later you will loose you league, get owned in placement games then be back where you belong.

I mean id take CS:GO elo system over no system!

@ a haunted army how if you have to beat the other team to get any pionts at all. let me explain

you win agains a good team you get more pionts (rank up)

you lose aginst a good team you lose a small amound of pionts (lose rank)

you win against a bad team you get a little pionts (rank up)

lose against a bad team you lose a lot of pionts (lose rank)

so if you cant get extra pionts for having a booster on your team you CANT BOOST! and the booster will only get matched aginst bad players so he wont be able to get vary many pionts because winning against other bad players wont give you many pionts so there would be no piont in making you account inyo what looks like a bad player to the match making system.

> @ a haunted army how if you have to beat the other team to get any pionts at all. let me explain
>
> you win agains a good team you get more pionts (rank up)
>
> you lose aginst a good team you lose a small amound of pionts (lose rank)
>
> you win against a bad team you get a little pionts (rank up)
>
> lose against a bad team you lose a lot of pionts (lose rank)
>
> so if you cant get extra pionts for having a booster on your team you CANT BOOST! and the booster will only get matched aginst bad players so he wont be able to get vary many pionts because winning against other bad players wont give you many pionts so there would be no piont in making you account inyo what looks like a bad player to the match making system.

this is not what your OP says and this is how 1-50 already worked i think.

> > @ a haunted army how if you have to beat the other team to get any pionts at all. let me explain
> >
> > you win agains a good team you get more pionts (rank up)
> >
> > you lose aginst a good team you lose a small amound of pionts (lose rank)
> >
> > you win against a bad team you get a little pionts (rank up)
> >
> > lose against a bad team you lose a lot of pionts (lose rank)
> >
> > so if you cant get extra pionts for having a booster on your team you CANT BOOST! and the booster will only get matched aginst bad players so he wont be able to get vary many pionts because winning against other bad players wont give you many pionts so there would be no piont in making you account inyo what looks like a bad player to the match making system.
>
> this is not what your OP says and this is how 1-50 already worked i think.

no in the original system if you won with a booster (fake bad player) you got a lot of pionts, because the system assumes that if you can win with that player on you team that you must be vary good. and that is why boosters lose on perpose when they were not boosting someone.

Teamwork > Individual effort.

1-50 is NOT coming back no matter how much your barking. So stop it already.

> > > @ a haunted army how if you have to beat the other team to get any pionts at all. let me explain
> > >
> > > you win agains a good team you get more pionts (rank up)
> > >
> > > you lose aginst a good team you lose a small amound of pionts (lose rank)
> > >
> > > you win against a bad team you get a little pionts (rank up)
> > >
> > > lose against a bad team you lose a lot of pionts (lose rank)
> > >
> > > so if you cant get extra pionts for having a booster on your team you CANT BOOST! and the booster will only get matched aginst bad players so he wont be able to get vary many pionts because winning against other bad players wont give you many pionts so there would be no piont in making you account inyo what looks like a bad player to the match making system.
> >
> > this is not what your OP says and this is how 1-50 already worked i think.
>
> no in the original system if you won with a booster (fake bad player) you got a lot of pionts, because the system assumes that if you can win with that player on you team that you must be vary good. and that is why boosters lose on perpose when they were not boosting someone.

you’ve got to be a little kid, i can barely understand what you’re trying to say.

the 1-50 system in halo 3 worked pretty much as your fix does, it creates an expectation if you’re going to win or not, if you meet that expectation very little happens, if you don’t a lot happens.

if you got matched against a bad team, the game would expect you to win and if you won then you didn’t gain anything significant, if you lost how ever you lost quite a bit.

if you got matched against a good team then the game would expect you to loose, if you lost then you didn’t loose anything significant but if you won you gained quite a bit.

sound familure?

Haunted. Sorry but, the “Kid” has it right, no matter how bad his grammar is. It’s yours and your teammates, plus the oppositions sigma value in the Trueskill formula that determines how much you go up by.

He is correct. If the game didn’t take your partners or team mates sigma value into effect it would make a booster account completely useless.

> thats a terrible fix because when winning doesn’t matter people play selfishly.
>
> doesn’t matter anyway because it doesn’t look like there is going to be a ranking system, only a progression system.

> He is correct. If the game didn’t take your partners or team mates sigma value into effect it would make a booster account completely useless.

oh is that what he’s saying? really wasn’t clear at all.

still, the fix won’t work, players can still easily exploit it to boost through the ranks using the same techneques as before, it also promotes selfish gameplay because its basing it off you as an individual then as a team effort so teammates will fight with each other then work together, the very same problem arena suffered from for months untill it was made W/L

Why do people keep living in the past?

> Why do people keep living in the past?

Because the old ranking system worked better than Reach’s grind-athon progression system.
I don’t mind a progression system for unlocking stuff, but I want to be matched up based on a skill-based system, Reach had the most imbalanced pairing system I’ve ever seen on any MP game. This morning I played, I’m a hero getting paired with warrant officers. Happened numerous times, check my recent games.
Their stats, BPR and rank were nowhere near mine, so why the hell are they in my game?

1-50 was much better. Not the best, but better than what we have.

> > Why do people keep living in the past?
>
> Because the old ranking system worked better than Reach’s grind-athon progression system.
> I don’t mind a progression system for unlocking stuff, but I want to be matched up based on a skill-based system, Reach had the most imbalanced pairing system I’ve ever seen on any MP game. This morning I played, I’m a hero getting paired with warrant officers. Happened numerous times, check my recent games.
> Their stats, BPR and rank were nowhere near mine, so why the hell are they in my game?
>
> 1-50 was much better. Not the best, but better than what we have.

don’t worry, halo 4 is using an improved true skill system and is prioritizing it over very factors while searching un like reach which david ellis said prioritized connection.

also, progression rank != skill, that warrent officer you got paired with could have been 10x better then you for all you know.

> > > Why do people keep living in the past?
> >
> > Because the old ranking system worked better than Reach’s grind-athon progression system.
> > I don’t mind a progression system for unlocking stuff, but I want to be matched up based on a skill-based system, Reach had the most imbalanced pairing system I’ve ever seen on any MP game. This morning I played, I’m a hero getting paired with warrant officers. Happened numerous times, check my recent games.
> > Their stats, BPR and rank were nowhere near mine, so why the hell are they in my game?
> >
> > 1-50 was much better. Not the best, but better than what we have.
>
> don’t worry, halo 4 is using an improved true skill system and is prioritizing it over very factors while searching un like reach which david ellis said prioritized connection.
>
> also, progression rank != skill, that warrent officer you got paired with could have been 10x better then you for all you know.

http://www.halowaypoint.com/en-GB/Career/HaloReach/GameHistory?gamerTag=xxxEO%20SL4Y3Rxxx#!/? Click on the 4th one you see. Below the 2 FF games.

This evening. A few hours ago.
They sucked. I understand when people say the rank argument that higher rank doesn’t mean better players, I completely agree.
But that begs the question, how the hell did those guys get into my game? I’m a higher rank and they are an incredibly low rank, so it wasn’t on that basis.
My BPR, average game performance and time played beats them, couldn’t have been on that basis.
So what is determining who I’m playing with?
I don’t want to trust 343i. I’m not condemning their new system, but it SOUNDS similar to the old one, and I know Frankie was anti 1-50, despite it being far more accurate pairing up players. The only problem was derankers, who we can get rid of with harsh quit bans in the playlists that have the 1-50 system.

I’ll wait and see, but if I keep getting games like the one I linked, then I am not putting blind trust in 343i. I have no reason to distrust them, nor trust them. So right now I’ll take the waiting approach, let’s hope neither of us are disappointed.

> > > > Why do people keep living in the past?
> > >
> > > Because the old ranking system worked better than Reach’s grind-athon progression system.
> > > I don’t mind a progression system for unlocking stuff, but I want to be matched up based on a skill-based system, Reach had the most imbalanced pairing system I’ve ever seen on any MP game. This morning I played, I’m a hero getting paired with warrant officers. Happened numerous times, check my recent games.
> > > Their stats, BPR and rank were nowhere near mine, so why the hell are they in my game?
> > >
> > > 1-50 was much better. Not the best, but better than what we have.
> >
> > don’t worry, halo 4 is using an improved true skill system and is prioritizing it over very factors while searching un like reach which david ellis said prioritized connection.
> >
> > also, progression rank != skill, that warrent officer you got paired with could have been 10x better then you for all you know.
>
> http://www.halowaypoint.com/en-GB/Career/HaloReach/GameHistory?gamerTag=xxxEO%20SL4Y3Rxxx#!/?game=1149343098&section=Unknown
>
> This evening. A few hours ago.
> They sucked. I understand when people say the rank argument that higher rank doesn’t mean better players, I completely agree.
> But that begs the question, how the hell did those guys get into my game? I’m a higher rank and they are an incredibly low rank, so it wasn’t on that basis.
> My BPR, average game performance and time played beats them, couldn’t have been on that basis.
> So what is determining who I’m playing with?
> I don’t want to trust 343i. I’m not condemning their new system, but it SOUNDS similar to the old one, and I know Frankie was anti 1-50, despite it being far more accurate pairing up players. The only problem was derankers, who we can get rid of with harsh quit bans in the playlists that have the 1-50 system.
>
> I’ll wait and see, but if I keep getting games like the one I linked, then I am not putting blind trust in 343i. I have no reason to distrust them, nor trust them. So right now I’ll take the waiting approach, let’s hope neither of us are disappointed.

i never disagreed that they were bad, just that because they were a warrent officer doesn’t mean they are automatically bad because its just a symbol of time played not skill level.

true skill, connection and location determines who you are matched with, its also very key to note that 1-50 in halo 3 was just a visual representation of true skill, when frankie is saying he is against 1-50 he is reffering to the visual representation and not true skill. in halo reach, it is quite clear that true skill was put on the side line while connection and other things took priority, because skill wasn’t a priority and never really considered while searching for a game you were matched against extremely varied skill levels. david ellis, a 343i employee has already stated that its no surprise that reach ignored true skill and that in halo 4 they’re prioritizing skill above everything else, this means that you will be matched against people based off of your skill level in halo 4 resulting in a lot more balanced games.

> > > > > Why do people keep living in the past?
> > > >
> > > > Because the old ranking system worked better than Reach’s grind-athon progression system.
> > > > I don’t mind a progression system for unlocking stuff, but I want to be matched up based on a skill-based system, Reach had the most imbalanced pairing system I’ve ever seen on any MP game. This morning I played, I’m a hero getting paired with warrant officers. Happened numerous times, check my recent games.
> > > > Their stats, BPR and rank were nowhere near mine, so why the hell are they in my game?
> > > >
> > > > 1-50 was much better. Not the best, but better than what we have.
> > >
> > > don’t worry, halo 4 is using an improved true skill system and is prioritizing it over very factors while searching un like reach which david ellis said prioritized connection.
> > >
> > > also, progression rank != skill, that warrent officer you got paired with could have been 10x better then you for all you know.
> >
> > http://www.halowaypoint.com/en-GB/Career/HaloReach/GameHistory?gamerTag=xxxEO%20SL4Y3Rxxx#!/?game=1149343098&section=Unknown
> >
> > This evening. A few hours ago.
> > They sucked. I understand when people say the rank argument that higher rank doesn’t mean better players, I completely agree.
> > But that begs the question, how the hell did those guys get into my game? I’m a higher rank and they are an incredibly low rank, so it wasn’t on that basis.
> > My BPR, average game performance and time played beats them, couldn’t have been on that basis.
> > So what is determining who I’m playing with?
> > I don’t want to trust 343i. I’m not condemning their new system, but it SOUNDS similar to the old one, and I know Frankie was anti 1-50, despite it being far more accurate pairing up players. The only problem was derankers, who we can get rid of with harsh quit bans in the playlists that have the 1-50 system.
> >
> > I’ll wait and see, but if I keep getting games like the one I linked, then I am not putting blind trust in 343i. I have no reason to distrust them, nor trust them. So right now I’ll take the waiting approach, let’s hope neither of us are disappointed.
>
> i never disagreed that they were bad, just that because they were a warrent officer doesn’t mean they are automatically bad because its just a symbol of time played not skill level.
>
> true skill, connection and location determines who you are matched with, its also very key to note that 1-50 in halo 3 was just a visual representation of true skill, when frankie is saying he is against 1-50 he is reffering to the visual representation and not true skill. in halo reach, it is quite clear that true skill was put on the side line while connection and other things took priority, because skill wasn’t a priority and never really considered while searching for a game you were matched against extremely varied skill levels. david ellis, a 343i employee has already stated that its no surprise that reach ignored true skill and that in halo 4 they’re prioritizing skill above everything else, this means that you will be matched against people based off of your skill level in halo 4 resulting in a lot more balanced games.

Sounds great on paper. If it performs as well as what you’re describing, then I’m happy.
I remember hearing that Bungie said Reach had TS but it was just hidden, that’s just bollocks and a lie. Because I never got games like that linked game, where I had to carry on such an extreme level. Or at least it was incredibly rare, in Reach it happens at least 1 in 5 games for me. So whatever Reach was doing wasn’t working, if Halo 4 is fixing that, great.
I’d still like a 1-50 in some playlists for the sake of working towards a realistic goal instead of grinding credits, but the practical basis of matching players was my biggest reason.
Cheers for the info.

> > > > > > Why do people keep living in the past?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because the old ranking system worked better than Reach’s grind-athon progression system.
> > > > > I don’t mind a progression system for unlocking stuff, but I want to be matched up based on a skill-based system, Reach had the most imbalanced pairing system I’ve ever seen on any MP game. This morning I played, I’m a hero getting paired with warrant officers. Happened numerous times, check my recent games.
> > > > > Their stats, BPR and rank were nowhere near mine, so why the hell are they in my game?
> > > > >
> > > > > 1-50 was much better. Not the best, but better than what we have.
> > > >
> > > > don’t worry, halo 4 is using an improved true skill system and is prioritizing it over very factors while searching un like reach which david ellis said prioritized connection.
> > > >
> > > > also, progression rank != skill, that warrent officer you got paired with could have been 10x better then you for all you know.
> > >
> > > http://www.halowaypoint.com/en-GB/Career/HaloReach/GameHistory?gamerTag=xxxEO%20SL4Y3Rxxx#!/?game=1149343098&section=Unknown
> > >
> > > This evening. A few hours ago.
> > > They sucked. I understand when people say the rank argument that higher rank doesn’t mean better players, I completely agree.
> > > But that begs the question, how the hell did those guys get into my game? I’m a higher rank and they are an incredibly low rank, so it wasn’t on that basis.
> > > My BPR, average game performance and time played beats them, couldn’t have been on that basis.
> > > So what is determining who I’m playing with?
> > > I don’t want to trust 343i. I’m not condemning their new system, but it SOUNDS similar to the old one, and I know Frankie was anti 1-50, despite it being far more accurate pairing up players. The only problem was derankers, who we can get rid of with harsh quit bans in the playlists that have the 1-50 system.
> > >
> > > I’ll wait and see, but if I keep getting games like the one I linked, then I am not putting blind trust in 343i. I have no reason to distrust them, nor trust them. So right now I’ll take the waiting approach, let’s hope neither of us are disappointed.
> >
> > i never disagreed that they were bad, just that because they were a warrent officer doesn’t mean they are automatically bad because its just a symbol of time played not skill level.
> >
> > true skill, connection and location determines who you are matched with, its also very key to note that 1-50 in halo 3 was just a visual representation of true skill, when frankie is saying he is against 1-50 he is reffering to the visual representation and not true skill. in halo reach, it is quite clear that true skill was put on the side line while connection and other things took priority, because skill wasn’t a priority and never really considered while searching for a game you were matched against extremely varied skill levels. david ellis, a 343i employee has already stated that its no surprise that reach ignored true skill and that in halo 4 they’re prioritizing skill above everything else, this means that you will be matched against people based off of your skill level in halo 4 resulting in a lot more balanced games.
>
> Sounds great on paper. If it performs as well as what you’re describing, then I’m happy.
> I remember hearing that Bungie said Reach had TS but it was just hidden, that’s just bollocks and a lie. Because I never got games like that linked game, where I had to carry on such an extreme level. Or at least it was incredibly rare, in Reach it happens at least 1 in 5 games for me. So whatever Reach was doing wasn’t working, if Halo 4 is fixing that, great.
> I’d still like a 1-50 in some playlists for the sake of working towards a realistic goal instead of grinding credits, but the practical basis of matching players was my biggest reason.
> Cheers for the info.

reach had true skill, it just wasn’t taking priority when it should have which is why you get lop sided games.

> > > > > > > Why do people keep living in the past?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because the old ranking system worked better than Reach’s grind-athon progression system.
> > > > > > I don’t mind a progression system for unlocking stuff, but I want to be matched up based on a skill-based system, Reach had the most imbalanced pairing system I’ve ever seen on any MP game. This morning I played, I’m a hero getting paired with warrant officers. Happened numerous times, check my recent games.
> > > > > > Their stats, BPR and rank were nowhere near mine, so why the hell are they in my game?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1-50 was much better. Not the best, but better than what we have.
> > > > >
> > > > > don’t worry, halo 4 is using an improved true skill system and is prioritizing it over very factors while searching un like reach which david ellis said prioritized connection.
> > > > >
> > > > > also, progression rank != skill, that warrent officer you got paired with could have been 10x better then you for all you know.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.halowaypoint.com/en-GB/Career/HaloReach/GameHistory?gamerTag=xxxEO%20SL4Y3Rxxx#!/?game=1149343098&section=Unknown
> > > >
> > > > This evening. A few hours ago.
> > > > They sucked. I understand when people say the rank argument that higher rank doesn’t mean better players, I completely agree.
> > > > But that begs the question, how the hell did those guys get into my game? I’m a higher rank and they are an incredibly low rank, so it wasn’t on that basis.
> > > > My BPR, average game performance and time played beats them, couldn’t have been on that basis.
> > > > So what is determining who I’m playing with?
> > > > I don’t want to trust 343i. I’m not condemning their new system, but it SOUNDS similar to the old one, and I know Frankie was anti 1-50, despite it being far more accurate pairing up players. The only problem was derankers, who we can get rid of with harsh quit bans in the playlists that have the 1-50 system.
> > > >
> > > > I’ll wait and see, but if I keep getting games like the one I linked, then I am not putting blind trust in 343i. I have no reason to distrust them, nor trust them. So right now I’ll take the waiting approach, let’s hope neither of us are disappointed.
> > >
> > > i never disagreed that they were bad, just that because they were a warrent officer doesn’t mean they are automatically bad because its just a symbol of time played not skill level.
> > >
> > > true skill, connection and location determines who you are matched with, its also very key to note that 1-50 in halo 3 was just a visual representation of true skill, when frankie is saying he is against 1-50 he is reffering to the visual representation and not true skill. in halo reach, it is quite clear that true skill was put on the side line while connection and other things took priority, because skill wasn’t a priority and never really considered while searching for a game you were matched against extremely varied skill levels. david ellis, a 343i employee has already stated that its no surprise that reach ignored true skill and that in halo 4 they’re prioritizing skill above everything else, this means that you will be matched against people based off of your skill level in halo 4 resulting in a lot more balanced games.
> >
> > Sounds great on paper. If it performs as well as what you’re describing, then I’m happy.
> > I remember hearing that Bungie said Reach had TS but it was just hidden, that’s just bollocks and a lie. Because I never got games like that linked game, where I had to carry on such an extreme level. Or at least it was incredibly rare, in Reach it happens at least 1 in 5 games for me. So whatever Reach was doing wasn’t working, if Halo 4 is fixing that, great.
> > I’d still like a 1-50 in some playlists for the sake of working towards a realistic goal instead of grinding credits, but the practical basis of matching players was my biggest reason.
> > Cheers for the info.
>
> reach had true skill, it just wasn’t taking priority when it should have which is why you get lop sided games.

Well Halo 4 is apparently prioritising that, as it should. That’s what I want.