Ideas for the Riddance of TrueSkill Deranker Abuse

Games Other Halo
1

Greetings friends.

In this other thread of mine, we were discussing what would be ideal for Ranked playlists in Halo 4 and what it should consist of (from a broad approach, that is). Of course, the discussion extended to what would make a good ranking system, and talking about Halo 3’s made be realize something:

> […] the main issue in Halo 3’s Ranked was how being a 50 became near meaningless after a while. It had something to do with all these boosted ranks deciding to give a try at playing at high level and getting stomped, thus increasing the other players’ ranks much quicker and higher in the process. On a big scale, it caused a chain reaction that made almost all players a bit higher in ranks that they would have been if it wasn’t for boosters. Therefore a big skill gap happened even within level 50 itself.
>
> That’s how much of an impact that boosters and derankers had on the 1-50 system of Halo 3. Taking this into account, if there was a manner of ridding Ranked of boosters and derankers, the system would be near perfect.

Now, Halo 3’s ranks use TrueSkill, which Frankie has confirmed to return, but in a different manner than from Reach, which is a good start.

A lot of people said that 50’s were “simple” to achieve, and I have explained the reason why it felt that way after a while. When Halo 3 came out up until pre-TU, 50’s were quite uncommon and meaningful. To retain that in Halo 4, was the system to be similar, two things would make a big difference:

  1. <mark>TrueSkill that doesn’t take your teammates into consideration for POSITIVE INFLUENCE ONLY towards Sigma</mark> (more to come about this).

OR

  1. <mark>An improved automated Banhammer</mark> (more to come on this as well)

Now here are the specifics on these ideas.

Before going further, if needed, I suggest you read this to understand more about the specifics of TrueSkill:

Halo 3 & TrueSkill explained

  1. TrueSkill that doesn’t take your teammates into consideration for POSITIVE INFLUENCE ONLY towards Sigma.

In a simple manner, “Sigma” in the context represents the accuracy of you or your team’s level. This, in correlation to the opponents you are facing, represents the odds of you winning the game and therefore, how big of an effect it will have on how much it counts towards the next level.

Even though the wording I’ve used to name this idea is somewhat wrong, you should get the point that it is to prevent players from gaining an advantage from derankers as teammates. At the same time though, it’s important not the remove the opposite influence, because then people would search with [MAX RANKS] to grow faster as well.

  1. An improved automated Banhammer.

Of course, this would have to be an evolution from Reach’s. Even stricter. I’ve had some ideas about this myself but a good friend of mine, known as “Katastrophe” and nailed it down, I believe. I’ll quote what he has said in the other thread. All credits go to him.

> The system should look for typical and common tendencies of deranked players:
>
> • Idle movement for extended periods of time.
> • Continuous and predictable movement for extended periods of time (rubber banding controllers)
> • Short time between deaths and excessive deaths per game.
> • Excessive quitting
>
> A bit more detail on the quitting… the system will, if you physically go to the menu and leave a game, flag you. If you quit another game within X minutes, you will be warned. If you quit another game, you will receive the temporary matchmaking ban seen in Reach. The system will NOT punish you for lagging out. However, if continued disconnects are detected, you will be warned to look into your network settings or receive an identical temporary ban. This is to prevent other methods of intentionally leaving the game rather then quitting.
>
> Griefers:
> If you get a certain number of betrayals or suicides per game, repeatedly, you will be warned and asked to play nice. Continuing to do so will result in temporary matchmaking bans. Also to note that the settings for what counts as a betrayal and suicide should be altered. If you take damage equal to the value of an assist from an ally and then die from an enemy, the system will not count this as a betrayal in game, but will flag it as though it were one for banning purposes. Same for suiciding after taking damage from an enemy. This will prevent players from shooting allies and sending them into battle to not have kills counted for the other team, but also detect grief behavior.
>
> Network Manipulation:
> If a player has games were people quit out due to network issues at an excessive rate, these games will be flagged and the network data sent directly to 343i to personally inspect for tampering.

Be sure to thank him if he posts in here.

Anyhow, these suggestions, applied to the Banhammer, would help catching and banning derankers from Matchmaking and provide an accurate, boosting-free ranking system, once again. To prevent accidental bans, perhaps being less strict on Social incidents would be an alternative. And some method of appealing them.

Of course the length of and how severe the bans are would be all up to 343. But it should be strict on the accounts with suspicious records and stats (negative K/Ds, high suicide / betrayal count in comparison to kill, negative win ratios, and so on).

These are suggestions. Discuss them, and if you support, post in here and / or leave a thank!

Thanks for reading!

Credits to Katastrophe for his ideas on getting rid of grieving and excessive qutting.

2

no, i have to disagree with you. i hated halo 3 ranking system. the problem with the “true skill” ranking system was that is only worked if you won the games and had a great k/d because here is the true skill ranking system (Kill/death x win/lose) and anyone that has a bad k/d like me is screwd in ranking. and your ban ideas won’t really work. because if someone leaves, guess what they are out of that gaming system, and 343i wont be able to do that much because if i leave a game because of what ever reason. most likely my job. and if i do that enough i will get band for it. now how is that fair? and if anything i want halo reach’s ranking system. you get points for playing the game regardless if we lose or win. you still get points for it, where unlike halo 3 ranking system where if you lose you get one point. and one point only. lets not forget the reason why most people hated halo 3 ranking system, level locked… like no joke, i won 6 games in a row and i lose one game. i get de-ranked, now how is that fair? if anything i want a ranking system that works and rewards players that do good, and also get points to players for just playing the game. which is not halo 3

3

I’d rather not see 1-50, but 1-100 or even 1-150. You get amazing 50s, and you get absolutely godawful 50s that somehow managed to scrape a 50 in SWAT with their mexican host-fuelled ghandi-hopping dinosaurs (you can tell I don’t like H3 SWAT. Only a 45 in that -Yoink-). In each case, the amazing player would be able go go all the way and achieve a 100 or 150, yet lesser skilled players (that are still 50s in Halo 3’s system) may only be able to obtain a 94, or a 139.

To be honest I don’t even care about derankers. Most people exaggerate the extent of the deranking when trying to use it in an argument against the 1-50 system.

Even better, we could see the Halo 2 ranking system (either post- or pre-patch), where is was literally impossibly to achieve a legitimate 50. Then rank actually means a hell of a lot.

4

> the problem with the “true skill” ranking system was that is only worked if you won the games and had a great k/d because here is the true skill ranking system (Kill/death x win/lose)

Solution: get good, have a positive K/D, and win games. You really think you deserve to rank up if you go negative and lose? Yeah… that makes sense.

5

> > the problem with the “true skill” ranking system was that is only worked if you won the games and had a great k/d because here is the true skill ranking system (Kill/death x win/lose)
>
> Solution: get good, have a positive K/D, and win games. You really think you deserve to rank up if you go negative and lose? Yeah… that makes sense.

no i said my k/d sucks, my win/lose is good. but I’m still leveled locked, the thing is, i want to be rewarded for playing the damn game more thing anything. if i win, sure give me more points, but don’t give me just one freaking point for losing and nothing else. thus my point. sorry if i did not make that clear for you.

6

> > > the problem with the “true skill” ranking system was that is only worked if you won the games and had a great k/d because here is the true skill ranking system (Kill/death x win/lose)
> >
> > Solution: get good, have a positive K/D, and win games. You really think you deserve to rank up if you go negative and lose? Yeah… that makes sense.
>
> no i said my k/d sucks, my win/lose is good. but I’m still levied locked, the thing is, i want to be rewarded for playing the damn game more thing anything. if i win, sure give me more points, but don’t give me just one freaking point for losing and nothing else. thus my point. sorry if i did not make that clean for you.

Then clearly, ranked isn’t for you. Ranked rewards those who perform well and continue to improve. You shouldn’t be rewarded if you lose.

Of course with the idea of Spartan points in Halo 4, you’re getting your reward sort to speak by playing the game and unlocking stuff. Though i am not a fan of Reach’s system (and to a great extent COD) being rewarded for doing badly. Maybe in Halo 4 it will be different.

As flawed as it was, i think the 1-50 system should be given another chance. Too much potential to leave as is.

Hell it doesn’t have to be a 1-50 system but evolution of the system and no i am not talking about LolArena.

7

@Odin 188, there are a few inconsistencies in your post.

First off, if you would have read the thread where the ranking system in Halo 3 is broken down. Anything aside from winning, including stats, is not taken into consideration towards your ranking up.

As for the progression system, it is unrelated to a ranking system. It’s not a proof of skill. It’s just experience. This was a fail in Halo: Reach. People don’t want that once again.

Rank locks are also a myth. It has something with you Sigma expecting you to lose therefore, making it take longer to go up. Once again you should go read the Halo 3 & TrueSkill thread posted in the OP to clear up confusion.

8

> anyone that has a bad k/d like me is screwd in ranking.
> <mark>Maybe your playing at the top of your level that’s why you have a bad k/d</mark>
>
>
> leave a game because of what ever reason. most likely my job.
> <mark>YOU play HALO a work?</mark>
>
>
> you get points for playing the game regardless if we lose or win.
> <mark>If every gets points thers=es no INSENITIVE to try and win.</mark>
>
>
> if anything i want a ranking system that works and rewards players that do good.
> <mark>TRUE BUT YOU JUST SAID YOU HAVE A BAD K/D so you would NOT be REWARDED</mark>
>
>
> and also get points to players for just playing the game. which is not halo 3
> <mark>WHY should you get points for just showing up and not doing anything - You have to help out you team if you want to WIN</mark>

I hope that helps

also

Halo 3 style RANKS > Halo Reach style Ranks

9

> As flawed as it was, i think the 1-50 system should be given another chance. Too much potential to leave as is.
>
> Hell it doesn’t have to be a 1-50 system but evolution of the system and no i am not talking about LolArena.

Then in that case I hope it’s extended to 100 or 150… in Halo 3 you could buy a 48-hour code on a new account and get it to a 50 over the weekend… not exactly longevity, is it? :stuck_out_tongue:

10

> @Odin 188, there are a few inconsistencies in your post.
>
> First off, <mark>if you would have read the thread where the ranking system in Halo 3 is broken down.</mark> Anything aside from winning, including stats, is not taken into consideration towards your ranking up.
>
> As for the progression system, it is unrelated to a ranking system. It’s not a proof of skill. It’s just experience. This was a fail in Halo: Reach. People don’t want that once again.
>
> Rank locks are also a myth. It has something with you Sigma expecting you to lose therefore, making it take longer to go up. <mark>Once again you should go read the Halo 3 & TrueSkill thread posted in the OP</mark> to clear up confusion.

Befor you post about how broken H3 ranking system "READ and understand it"

11

> > As flawed as it was, i think the 1-50 system should be given another chance. Too much potential to leave as is.
> >
> > Hell it doesn’t have to be a 1-50 system but evolution of the system and no i am not talking about LolArena.
>
> Then in that case I hope it’s extended to 100 or 150… in Halo 3 you could buy a 48-hour code on a new account and get it to a 50 over the weekend… not exactly longevity, is it? :stuck_out_tongue:

Yah, not to mention buying 50 accounts. Man people were making a killing back then…lol

There’s always going to be flaws in any ranking system, some more than others. I do agree that for the sake of longevity and repeatability, Halo 4 has to keep players coming back.

Also on the theoretical banhammer solutions: As long as it’s not too banhammer happy, . A lot of players left Reach because Bungie failed to communicate to players that being idle can and will get you banned. Not even the player messages during searching said anything about this before the bans were handed out. Mind you, i played the game as intended but something that bothered me nonetheless.

If you were around during that time in B.net, you’ll know what i am referring to.

12

Thanks for the kind words, Vetoed! (:

I’d just like to throw in my two cents into this discussion a bit.
Based on a previous thread over on HaloCharts where I attempted to create a ranking system that used a seasonal system similar to StarCraft 2, I had key suggestion/concept for what determines skill in ranked playlist that would make the primary issue in Halo 3 of deranked accounts/boosting null and void.

That issue is the divide between teammates performance and individual performance. That is to say that your individual performance in a game of Halo 3 had NOTHING to do with how much you ranked up or done - Halo 3 was based 100% on the win/lose ratios of you, your teammates, and the opposing team. I haven’t played Arena for a long time because I hate it so much… but I’m aware that my next few words are not how the system works anymore. At launch, Arena looked at nothing other than your individual performance. This stopped deranked accounts and put an end to the “I ranked down because my teammates sucked” complaint that was so common place. In Halo 3, it didn’t matter if you went +20 or -20, if you won, it improved your rating. So how does the system REALLY determine if you pulled your own weight? If you recall the equation used by Arena, you might remember a part at the end called “Game Normalization” which was designed to make a 1600 rating in Team Slayer comparable to a 1600 in Team Doubles, due to the difference in team size and score to win.

My Suggestion? Keep the Arena equation as the skill tracker, but decrease the amount of damage required to register an assist back to Halo 3 standards - possibly one BR shot more. Game Normalization shouldn’t be used to compare Team Slayer to Doubles. Instead, it should be used to compare your performance to what your expected performance is. For example, in Doubles, it’s 25 kills to win between 2 people, which averages to 12.5 kills per person. Compare what each person gets to that 12.5. So if I get 20 kills while my teammate gets 5, I should receive a larger boost than he does for winning. Likewise, if I get 20 kills while my teammate gets 4 and we lose, I should hardly be punished for losing since I most definitely carried my weight. However, this will have to account for total assists because maybe I just cleaned everything up, like a jerk. I’m not saying rank him down for not going positive - I’m saying that how high he and I rank up (or down) should be scaled based on our expected performance.

I noticed some posts coming in while I was typing this, so I’ll address them as well.

@Odin 188: Your idea that the Halo 3 ranking system is [(kills/deaths) x (win/lose)] is horribly wrong, for starters. As I stated previously, and from the description of TruSkill, in-game performances means absolutely nothing. TruSkill is based on the ELO ranking system used in Chess which accounts for nothing other than your win/lose ratio and the win/lose ratio of your opponent. Say I have a 75% win ratio and you have a 50% win ratio. The ranking system would expect me to win. If you won, you would be ranked up by a greater degree than I would if I had won because you performed outside the system’s expectations. If you have a bad K/D in ranked, that means that you are probably ranked higher than where you should be. Everyone’s K/D should eventually fall to 1.0 when they reach their real rank.

Your first point about leaving a game because of your job and getting banned is flawed. You’ll note that I said “the temporary matchmaking ban as seen in Reach” - not a permanent ban.

The ranking system in Arena is awful. It originally promoted stat -Yoink!-, as that’s how you ranked up. Now… I think it’s back to win/lose ratio, but I could be wrong. I honestly don’t know how it works at the moment. All I know is that when I get Onyx, I get teammates who are Bronze and Silver… that is a flawed system at it’s finest. A ranking system should reward players for performing well - not just performing, as you suggest. That’s what EXP/Credits/Spartan Points are for. And to remark about your “rank locked”… yes, rank locked was real. I won 26 games straight on a 22 before getting 23. Why is this? Let me explain.

Because my win/ratio in Team Slayer up to that point was 100%, the system ALWAYS expected me to win and, therefore, I never outperformed the expectations and ranked up very, VERY slowly. This is the system working AS DESIGNED, but in an extenuating circumstance - I was really at a 50, but playing in the low 20s. In your case, 6 wins is not “rank locked”. If anything, the system probably expected you to win these games and therefore ranked you up very little. In that game you lost, you were probably expected to win and that underperformance was enough for the system to rank you down. Quite simply, the system worked exactly as it was designed to.

@Subtle: I completely agree that 1-50 is too small. There was a wide skill gap between 50s. I don’t think any 50 will dispute that fact. However, there was little difference between the Halo 2 and Halo 3 ranking systems. The primary reason 50s were so much easier is because of the lack of cheating in Halo 3. Yes, their were boosters… but Halo 2 had super bouncers, modders, etc - things that didn’t exist in Halo 3. I don’t know of a single Halo 2 50 that wasn’t ill-got. I think most pros at the time only had lower 40s…?

13

Good stuff, Vetoed. You and Katastrophe make a good team. Although I’m not a fan of visible skill-based rank I could certainly live with this approach.

The rest of you need to weigh in. Perhaps if we can get this hashed out early it just might happen.

14

> > anyone that has a bad k/d like me is screwd in ranking.
> > <mark>Maybe your playing at the top of your level that’s why you have a bad k/d</mark>
> >
> >
> > leave a game because of what ever reason. most likely my job.
> > <mark>YOU play HALO a work?</mark>
> >
> >
> > you get points for playing the game regardless if we lose or win.
> > <mark>If every gets points thers=es no INSENITIVE to try and win.</mark>
> >
> >
> > if anything i want a ranking system that works and rewards players that do good.
> > <mark>TRUE BUT YOU JUST SAID YOU HAVE A BAD K/D so you would NOT be REWARDED</mark>
> >
> >
> > and also get points to players for just playing the game. which is not halo 3
> > <mark>WHY should you get points for just showing up and not doing anything - You have to help out you team if you want to WIN</mark>
>
> I hope that helps
>
> also
>
>
> Halo 3 style RANKS > Halo Reach MMO Style Grinding

Fix’d xD

It shouldn’t be called a ranking system. It literally serves no purpose besides unlocking armor, looks, and earning more credits. Which i might add becomes pointless once you unlocked everything.

It’s just ugh. Halo 3 had it’s problems yeah but at least there was a point to the ranking system in 3.

15

and know that i got this post going. i will say this much. i hated halo 3 ranking system and would like to see something that works for all players. and most of you guys don’t like my idea, good for you. but i could care less. my views are that.
and how am i wrong with the halo 3 ranking system?

16

> and know that i got this post going. i will say this much. i hated halo 3 ranking system and would like to see something that works for all players. and most of you guys don’t like my idea, good for you. but i could care less. my views are that.
> and how am i wrong with the halo 3 ranking system?

<mark>Did you READ the link in the OP YET</mark>

and your view on the Halo 3 ranking system is WRONG

17

> I think most pros at the time only had lower 40s…?

True. None of them ever got a 50… maybe a 46. The easiest playlist to get one in was Team Snipers, but even then it was ridiculously hard if you didn’t mod or abuse glitches.

18

> and know that i got this post going. i will say this much. i hated halo 3 ranking system and would like to see something that works for all players. and most of you guys don’t like my idea, good for you. but i could care less. my views are that.

A rank system is designed to compare your performance against the performance of your peers and place you accordingly. If the system rewards you simply for effort, it’s not a ranked system - it’s an experience system.

> and how am i wrong with the halo 3 ranking system?

There’s a quote in the OP that goes to the Microsoft explanation of the TruSkill system where it states that rank is based on win/lose ratio - that’s it.

@Subtle: Exactly. If you earn a 50, you should be on par with Pistola.
Although I’m good, I don’t think I’m Pistola good.
Did I deserve a 50 in Halo 3? Most definitely, in Team Slayer. I had over 600 wins on it.

I think MLG was the most accurate ranking in Halo 3.
I was only able to get a 48 searching solo, and to me, that seems pretty accurate.

19

I am happy to see you posting here Vetoed, once i had the unfortunate luck of running into you in a matchmaking game, me and the other team didnt fair so well. Showing there were some problems with the way trueskill matched players.

If Halo 4 is to have a ranked and social playlist, then a verbatim copy of halo 3 isnt going to work as a universal game ranking, or maybe I have misunderstood the point. Solely, for ranked, it still doesnt work, for it only benefit players who search with a full party. I have seen what kind of beast you are when you play, so if you happen to search as a random and get stuck with players who used less than desirable ways to get there and you carry the team only to lose then would you be like, what the hell.

My next question would be, what happens if they use a completely different form of ranking, never seen before. I say this because some of us on here speculated for months about what was coming and the GI turn everything we had talked about on its ear.

20

> no, i have to disagree with you. i hated halo 3 ranking system. the problem with the “true skill” ranking system was that is only worked if you won the games and had a great k/d because here is the true skill ranking system (Kill/death x win/lose) and anyone that has a bad k/d like me is screwd in ranking. and your ban ideas won’t really work. because if someone leaves, guess what they are out of that gaming system, and 343i wont be able to do that much because if i leave a game because of what ever reason. most likely my job. and if i do that enough i will get band for it. now how is that fair? <mark>and if anything i want halo reach’s ranking system. you get points for playing the game regardless if we lose or win.</mark> you still get points for it, where unlike halo 3 ranking system where if you lose you get one point. and one point only. lets not forget the reason why most people hated halo 3 ranking system, level locked… like no joke, i won 6 games in a row and i lose one game. i get de-ranked, now how is that fair? if anything i want a ranking system that works and rewards players that do good, and also get points to players for just playing the game. which is not halo 3

And this is a major reason why loads of people left Reach. There was no incentive to win. Despite the fact that you won or lost, you were rewarded with credits. Hell, the only “incentive” per say was a measly “Performance Bonus” credit boost that didn’t give you much more. In fact, the longer the game played out, the more credits earned for each player. This promoted camping and dragging games on until the timer ran out. Since when was that rewarding?