Firstly, for those of you who don’t know, a Deranker (only really found in Halo 3) is a player who intentionally loses games in a given playlist and subsequently helps other people acquire level 50’s for minimal time/effort input.
This is due to the fact that Trueskill ranking expects the team with the Deranker on to lose because of his terrible record (100 wins and 500 losses). However, when the Derankers team wins, due to being expected to lose, the other members on the team level up faster as it appears on the face of it that they are skilful enough to win despite an apparently useless teammate.
To fix this and ban players who exploit the system I offer this:
Example: Over his playing history in a certain playlist, a player averages 3 kills and 14 deaths (or similarly contributes average of 5% towards team score if in objective)
However, a 10 game running average is employed to notice any significant change to a players kills/deaths/objective score.
The system notices that something is wrong and that over short periods, the player is exceeding 20 kills per game per-se.
As this appears and is consistent with behaviour exhibited by Derankers/Boosters, then this player would subsequently banned. On top of this, players who he has been partied up with shall also receive a ban.
I believe that this would prevent Deranking/Boosting accounts indefinitely making 1-50 in certain playlists a perfectly viable option for Halo 4.
Please note: This can also work the other way round, and that if a player buys a 50, but clearly does not play at the expected standard, banning of the account would swiftly ensue.
I would love feedback, and please remember that the numbers quoted are just examples, actual metrics would require some tweaking.
I have nothing against your post, however i feel like there are better / easier ways to fix the problem. Like reducing or removing the boost from teammates. Don’t really wanna get in depth atm
There maybe an event of two people playing of different skills whereby one isnt a good player and the other is who is taking turns to play. Rare ill admit but none the less possible with the amount of people playing.
I do like the idea though. One of few to come out of the coummunity. Maybe something along the lines of a booster is likely to go on his/her own to de rank then team up and win that might help take out the challenge i showed above.
> There maybe an event of two people playing of different skills whereby one isnt a good player and the other is who is taking turns to play. Rare ill admit but none the less possible with the amount of people playing.
>
> I do like the idea though. One of few to come out of the coummunity. Maybe something along the lines of a booster is likely to go on his/her own to de rank then team up and win that might help take out the challenge i showed above.
This is a good point, I fear I may have overlooked this:(
Although, like you said, the circumstances for this seems exceptionally rare abd I can’t foresee the less skilled player playing many games at a much higher skill level than the better player. The likelihood is that if they don’t have their own profile, they rarely play, and will most likely play social instead.
> Stopping Derankers
>
> Firstly, for those of you who don’t know, a Deranker (only really found in Halo 3) is a player who intentionally loses games in a given playlist and subsequently helps other people acquire level 50’s for minimal time/effort input.
> This is due to the fact that Trueskill ranking expects the team with the Deranker on to lose because of his terrible record (100 wins and 500 losses). However, when the Derankers team wins, due to being expected to lose, the other members on the team level up faster as it appears on the face of it that they are skilful enough to win despite an apparently useless teammate.
>
>
> To fix this and ban players who exploit the system I offer this:
>
> Example: <mark>Over his playing history in a certain playlist, a player averages 3 kills and 14 deaths (or similarly contributes average of 5% towards team score if in objective)</mark>
> <mark>However, a 10 game running average is employed to notice any significant change to a players kills/deaths/objective score. </mark>
> <mark>The system notices that something is wrong and that over short periods, the player is exceeding 20 kills per game per-se.</mark>
>
> As this appears and is consistent with behaviour exhibited by Derankers/Boosters, then this player would subsequently banned. On top of this, players who he has been partied up with shall also receive a ban.
>
>
> I believe that this would prevent Deranking/Boosting accounts indefinitely making 1-50 in certain playlists a perfectly viable option for Halo 4.
>
> Please note: This can also work the other way round, and that if a player buys a 50, but clearly does not play at the expected standard, banning of the account would swiftly ensue.
>
> I would love feedback, and please remember that the numbers quoted are just examples, actual metrics would require some tweaking.
I have a problem with this.
Judging a gamertag by someone’s K/D or W/L isn’t enough. There’s too many variables that come to play with this. What if the player who owns the gamertag just really isn’t a good player at all? What if after losing time and time again, the player finds that his strategies aren’t working and chooses a different path and eventually has a game where he does better? And what about the scenario that one day, he allows someone else to play for him after a constant losing streak, and the other individual’s play-style is different enough to achieve more positive scores?
I think that they should look into the IP address of the individual making multiple accounts from the same internet connection to see the constant de-ranking going on, or 343i should invest on finding a better, less-exploitable ranking system where this kind of thing doesn’t happen anymore.
Many things can be put into place. Reach banned so many people for AFKing, quiting and betraying. If a true skill system was put in place so boosters couldn’t gain so much exp from teammates it would be glorious. Obviously nothing is perfect but the current ban hammer with a refined TS system could work wonders.
> >
>
> I have a problem with this.
>
> Judging a gamertag by someone’s K/D or W/L isn’t enough. There’s too many variables that come to play with this. What if the player who owns the gamertag just really isn’t a good player at all? What if after losing time and time again, the player finds that his strategies aren’t working and chooses a different path and eventually has a game where he does better? And what about the scenario that one day, he allows someone else to play for him after a constant losing streak, and the other individual’s play-style is different enough to achieve more positive scores?
>
> I think that they should look into the IP address of the individual making multiple accounts from the same internet connection to see the constant de-ranking going on, or 343i should invest on finding a better, less-exploitable ranking system where this kind of thing doesn’t happen anymore.
I appreciate what you are saying, however with appropriate stat monitoring this can be accounted for.
Obviously players have good and bad periods. However, if someone improves, over a 30 period, this will always be slight increases. Regardless of tactics, a player doesn’t simply become amazing overnight and as much as I would love this to happen to me, it will never be the case.
I definitely like the idea of banning 50s that all of the sudden suck. Sorry, but noobs who buy accounts just for numbers are what helps to take a game down. Punishing them by banning them would also affect those who boost accounts to 50 for the purpose of selling them to said noobs.
Now, if the noob were a tattle-tell and gave 343 the name/info of the person who sold the account to them, then there would be another way to track the boosters. That’s unlikely to happen though.
I just hope something can be done about boosting and deranking. That kind of play really made me hate playing Halo 3’s multiplayer in the last 9 months or so before Reach came out. Due to that, I’ve only played H3’s MP twice since Reach came out.
The main trouble I see with all of this is that these set levels of “expected skill” seem completely arbitrary.
The standards of the Halo community in general can change on a daily basis and saying, “Oh! This person has not been meeting X criteria for his K/D, W/L, etc. for a good amount of games! He must be deranking!” or “he must have bought an account with the highest rank!”
When it comes to something as severe as banning, you just can’t make generalizations like that. I know that i will have complete off-days, where I will just do horrible in every single game I play, I don’t want to be labeled as a deranker.
Also I will have days where I will get a BUNCH of kills in every match that I play, I don’t want to be labeled as a booster.
Plus, this all hinges on the assumption that Halo 4 will contain a strictly skill-based ranking system, or at the very least a system that would even allow for deranking (would you LOSE credits/Spartan Points?)
I understand where you are coming from, boosters and derankers are extremely annoying and need to be dealt with, but not like this.
> The main trouble I see with all of this is that these set levels of “expected skill” seem completely arbitrary.
>
> The standards of the Halo community in general can change on a daily basis and saying, “Oh! This person has not been meeting X criteria for his K/D, W/L, etc. for a good amount of games! He must be deranking!” or “he must have bought an account with the highest rank!”
>
> When it comes to something as severe as banning, you just can’t make generalizations like that. I know that i will have complete off-days, where I will just do horrible in every single game I play, I don’t want to be labeled as a deranker.
>
> Also I will have days where I will get a BUNCH of kills in every match that I play, I don’t want to be labeled as a booster.
>
> Plus, this all hinges on the assumption that Halo 4 will contain a strictly skill-based ranking system, or at the very least a system that would even allow for deranking (would you LOSE credits/Spartan Points?)
>
> I understand where you are coming from, boosters and derankers are extremely annoying and need to be dealt with, but not like this.
It would be very lenient and only notice exceptional changes in performance. It is unknown in my experience for a player to have a consistent average of 5 kills and 15 deaths per game to then suddenly change this around to average 20 kills and 7 deaths per game. With strict skill ranges in place, this just doesn’t happen.
> How about make to where your teammates wins and losses doesn’t matter against your rank.
Sadly, this is an integeral part of Trueskill. By removing this, the system becomes more like a W/L as opposed to a skill rating.
Example: I start playing as a team of 4 and my 3 teammates have played 100 games and lost 5. They effectively win all the time. From this as I win with them every game for 20 games, I go up more than I should as it doesn’t reflect their skill and ability to beat nearly everyone they face.
In all seriousness, i have to question what causes a person to get on a 4+ year old game, search Halo 3 and just derank all day. It’s no where close to being productive and it’s just a waste of valuable resources (like air and electricity). I know a person has a right to play the game the way they want but no matter how you look at it, deranking isn’t that fun and the whole point of video games is to entertain oneself.
Trolling these forums in humorous way is preferable to that.
