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