My Revised H4 Ranking System - Skill

Games Other Halo
1

(Sorry it’s not visual this time, but it is worth your time)

Skill - Wins / Losses only.

-This system is designed to take longer to reach the max division

The positives:

-Removes “rank locks”, no record on their account
-Removes Deranking and Boosting
-Keeps the heavy team aspect of Halo
-Players can now see how many skill points they gain/lose a gain and how many they need to reach the next skill number
-More accurate - now all good and pro players are not longer stuck at 50, the very good players will exceed past that

The negatives:

-What’s associated with win/loss only
-Slow-ish start for newer players, but with EXP and credit gimmicks it will not matter.

This system is different from Halo 2 and Halo 3.

Your skill can fluctuate just like Halo 2 and Halo 3, but you can now see how many
points you have left to reach x skill.

And this system does not have a cap of 50, it is in fact infinite.

Formula

Base rates (0 streak)

Win = + (skill^-0.30)*300
Loss = - (skill^-0.30)*300

All players start off at Skill 1, and have 100 Skill points. 100 is the miniumum any player can be.

As a player wins/loses games in a row/streaks - the power your skill points are worth is decreased by 0.01. (that makes it better/worse)

0 Streak - ^-0.30.
1 Streak - ^-0.29.
2 Streak - ^-0.28.
3 Streak - ^-0.27.

and so on until they win/lose again.

*^-0.15 is the cap for streaks. (16 wins/losses in a row)

1-9 = White Division
10-19 = Steel Division
20-29 = Bronze Division
30-34 = Silver Division
35-39 = Gold Division
40-44 = Platinum Division
45-49 = Onyx Division
50+ = Onyx Max Division

These are images that will be displayed next to your number (example):
http://4stor.com/images/CKdp.png

From 1-50, the system searches with a 10 either way gap, like H3.

So a Level 40 in H4 would search 30-50. (Going solo of course)

A Level 55 in H4 would search 40-65, a level 60 would search 40-70 and so on.

But level 40s versing level 70s?! How unfair!

Not exactly.

First off level 70 would be extremely difficult unless they are on a 16 win streak+ all the way from 50. Even then it would take
30+ games to go from 50-70, and that’s with ZERO games lost while on a 16+ win streak. So by then, at least a 46 win streak versing
amazing players. Not saying it couldn’t happen, but expect it to be rare.

Secondly, what’s so different? 40s had to verse Halo 3 pros who were capped at 50. Nothing’s changed.

Let’s take a new player.

Skill Level 1 (100 Skill points)

Win - 175 (1)
Win - 242 (2)
Win - 307 (3)
Win - 371 (3)
Win - 435 (4)
Win - 501 (5)
Win - 568 (5)
Loss - 523 (5)
Loss - 474 (4)
Loss - 421 (4)
Win - 470 (4)
Win - 520 (5)
Loss - 474(4)
Win - 521 (5)

*other players cannot see their skill points

Based on this, the player is probably a skill level 4 or 5 for now.

Let’s take a very good, experienced player.

He’s reached Skill Level 50 (5000 skill points) And also on a 0 streak for now.

Win - 5023 (50)
Win - 5048 (50)
Win - 5076 (50)
Win - 5106 (51)
Win - 5139 (51)
Loss - 5116 (51)
Win - 5139 (51)
Win - 5164 (51)
Win - 5191 (51)
Win - 5221 (52)

There’s probably something wrong with an infinite cap like this, so point out why it would be bad please

Thanks for reading.

2

I like this idea, but I would say that winning gives you 3 points effectively and loosing takes away 2. And every 300 points you get you rank up or something like that.

Still, I would be happy if this was the basis for the ranking system.

3

> I like this idea, but I would say that winning gives you 3 points effectively and loosing takes away 2. And every 300 points you get you rank up or something like that.
>
> Still, I would be happy if this was the basis for the ranking system.

Um.

They’d have to win 100 games in a row without losing just to reach the next level.

They should at least be 40s or 45s at that point if they never lost

4

Good your new system is based solely on w/l. I kind of like the idea of having an infinite number, 50 being the nr needed to reach the highest rank. However I do feel that in your system it is a bit easy getting past 50. If you have a team of 4, winning 20 games on something like team slayer in a row isn’t that hard on level 50, Especially if you keep finding lvl 40 teams. Also theoretically the best possible team could reach level 1000, i don’t know how that would work (even ELO has sort of a max nr around 2800).

Your system looks a lot like ELO, which is good (though i highly doubt MS will trash their trueskill), but in systems like ELO, you have to take into account your opponents skill. Im thinking the game should look at your own skill. Lets say you’re a 45. You versus a team of 45,44,43 and 42. It should see the average is 43.5, and based around the fact that this is lower then your own (or your teams average, though i am not sure because this might encourage new accounts), and lower the reward you get for winning.

I would also like to see your global rank tied to your highest skill.

Good read though

5

Then lets say 30 points to rank up. The point is that as long as you won as many games as you lost you would rank up eventually. But you rank up much quicker the better your win/loss percentage is.

6

> Good your new system is based solely on w/l. I kind of like the idea of having an infinite number, 50 being the nr needed to reach the highest rank. However I do feel that in your system it is a bit easy getting past 50. If you have a team of 4, winning 20 games on something like team slayer in a row isn’t that hard on level 50, Especially if you keep finding lvl 40 teams. Also theoretically the best possible team could reach level 1000, i don’t know how that would work (even ELO has sort of a max nr around 2800).
>
> Your system looks a lot like ELO, which is good (though i highly doubt MS will trash their trueskill), but in systems like ELO, you have to take into account your opponents skill. Im thinking the game should look at your own skill. Lets say you’re a 45. You versus a team of 45,44,43 and 42. It should see the average is 43.5, and based around the fact that this is lower then your own (or your teams average, though i am not sure because this might encourage new accounts), and lower the reward you get for winning.
>
> I would also like to see your global rank tied to your highest skill.
>
> Good read though

Yeah that could be added, just don’t include win/loss records or the whole deranking and boosting saga again.

Not to mention they’d need to prevent level 50s from teaming up with new acc level 1s to boost themselves that way. A maximum of 10 skill diff to party up with would be needed

7

> I would also like to see your global rank tied to your highest skill.

Skill has divisions and EXP has progressive ranks, like in my other topic.

You don’t have a unified global rank anymore.

8

> Then lets say 30 points to rank up. The point is that as long as you won as many games as you lost you would rank up eventually. But you rank up much quicker the better your win/loss percentage is.

Imo that’s a bad idea (3 point wins, 2 point losses), wins and losses should be worth the same, otherwise it’s essentially a progressive system.

Good idea overall, but it’s too static

9

This isn’t perfect, but it’s better than Skill/EXP and cR.

10

> This isn’t perfect, but it’s better than Skill/EXP and cR.

Please explain why. Anything to help improve the idea is worthwhile