I think the ranking system in H4 should be like the arena system in reach (bare with me for a moment). What I mean is, instead of using a grinding system like 1-50(H3) or playtime ranking(Reach), all playlist should keep track of your rating at the end of the game for the last 10 games in that playlist (the 0-2000 rating).
If you play one game and get a 1500, that will be your rank and you will be matched against other 1500s. If the next game you get a 1200, it will average into the 1500 (an average that is 1350, which will be your new rank). after 10 games have passed, the first rating will drop off in order to keep your rating up to date. If it didn’t, people who start the game and have horrible ratings for hundreds of games will have a hard time increasing it as they get better.
Under the ranks (depending on what playlist is selected), there will be your average rating displayed for each individual playlist. Every playlist will keep track of the last 10 games specific to that playlist. If you haven’t played a certain playlist yet, your rating will be blank. Maybe just for fun, under your service record, in-game, it could have a total average of all games played through out all playlist into one average rating. Obviously, the military rankings (general, etc…) should stay to give reason for players to keep playing, and maybe add the iron, bronze, silver, gold, and onyx emblems somewhere on your gamertag with your current rating.
There will be no reason to boost. If they do, when they get into a game matched to their rating, they will get dominated, and after a few games their rating will drop back to what it should be.
Please tell me what you guys think of this idea. ^^
Where does one find this 0-2000 rating and how is it calculated?
no no no 343 needs to make a ranking system that is fare but something like reachs credit system but something that does not promote boosting.
I actually like that idea as long as there is no demoting
Under perfect conditions everyone should end up with the same rating.
That’s actually a ranking system I can get on board with
Why can’t 343 just use BPR to rank?
BPR for each playlist, and then BPR for overall.
> Why can’t 343 just use BPR to rank?
>
> BPR for each playlist, and then BPR for overall.
BPR is useless
I think most people want a fair, balanced ranking system that promotes good play in order to rank up higher but not too harsh when you do badly.
How this is calculated, I am unsure.
Also, when you do kill people, assists etc…you can still earn “Spartan Points” but the points would not contribute to your rank. I do not want a system in which when you rank up, you get more points. This way, people can customise the hell out of their spartans by playing games, but might not be a high rank.
And In terms of playlists,
Ranked (TS, etc…) Is where you go in order to rank up. As per Halo 3. Would SP’s be unlocked here? I would say yes, but I know others would disagree.
Social: No ranks can go up or down here. SP’s unlocked though.
I’m assuming it’s 0(least)-2000(highest). these rating are on the after report or whatever when you finish a slayer game. I don’t think they show up after objective games.
Of course i’m not saying to use the exact arena method. tweaks and adjustments here and there might make this a good, very fast system to use.
What about your average score? It’s the only truly individual stat that is not tied to team win/loss. It’s not something you can boost by AKFing, hiding, camping, or otherwise not participating. Even if your team loses you still get an individual score, so if you did well it still counts.
The current rating system only rates kills assists and deaths if i’m not mistaken. What I’m trying to say is, hopefully they will use a reworked arena system to match people together. As in, it should have a rating system for objective games, like capturing flags, holding oddballs and hills aswell as factoring in kills, assists, and deaths.
The majority of the halo community would like the old 1-50 system back please…
people will stop playing halo if this system does not return.
players actually try harder at the game and take it more seriously and its funner…
From what I hear, the Arena ranking formula has some serious flaws; apparently, it encourages selfish play, and at extremely high tiers it’s way too hard to advance but way too easy to fall.
But I like the general idea of using some formula to measure a person’s last 10 games, and averaging those to get an always-up-to-date rank. I just think that it shouldn’t use the Arena formula, and that it should use a much larger sample size of games.
100 games should suffice, I think. Some people – I used to be one of them, before I lost interest in Reach – could log ten games every day, so if the system uses 100 games, it’d take about a week and a half for an average player to “update” their rank if they experience a sudden increase in skill; for a player with much more time, I’d gauge it about five days.
I’d like my ranking system to be a tweaked 1-50 to stop the incentive of deranking. I don’t care about account buying/selling. Thanks.