Lately, I have been pondering on how to make a player ranking system that doesn’t simple reward you for sheer time played. Sure more skill players rank up faster but, anyone can get there. Older systems like H3 had its problems too. Individual rankings that kind of blurred the overall skill or ranking.
Enter my new system. Every week, a system like true skill sums up your overall performance for this time period and re-ranks your according to your most recent average skill. Here is the catch, although you may have the overall skill to be the highest rank, there are caps that are based on your overall wins.
Example: Say the highest rank requires 4,00 wins and a true skill of a theoretical 9.5/10. At the end of a few weeks, you may have acquired the skill that would translate to 9.5 on our fictional scale BUT, you only have 300 wins. You are then ranked to the highest possible rank based on your wins.
That would punish players that couldn’t play all the time. And having ranks that just disappear every week would take away that reward of getting a high rank.
I don’t see how it “punishes” anyone. A rank shouldn’t be simply how much time you put in nor your skill level. It SHOULD be a little of both. People who do not participate in wars as frequently as others often don’t make it to ranks higher than those who serve longer…
Halo 2’s ranking system alone would be too shallow. I’m not saying a ranking system is the only reason someone should play the game, I’m saying the frequently leveling up or unlocking new items makes the game more enjoyable. Obviously, only the best of the best players can level up frequently with Halo 2’s ranking system. What I feel they should do is mix Reach’s and Halo 3’s ranking systems. Bring back credits to buy armor, but also bring back trueskill to reward players who are actually good at the game.
> > Halo 2 Ranking System. Done.
>
> Halo 2’s ranking system alone would be too shallow. I’m not saying a ranking system is the only reason someone should play the game, I’m saying the frequently leveling up or unlocking new items makes the game more enjoyable. Obviously, only the best of the best players can level up frequently with Halo 2’s ranking system. What I feel they should do is mix Reach’s and Halo 3’s ranking systems. Bring back credits to buy armor, but also bring back trueskill to reward players who are actually good at the game.
Completely agree with you. Halo 3 is so much more competitive than Halo Reach. I like Truskill, but serious tweaks need to be put into place. For example, boosting with low level accounts and having players with less games played rank up faster. The ranking system should depend on wins and losses and comparison of ranks.
To prevent boosting with low levels (example, a team of 40s with a level 1 to bring down the level), the matchmaking should match based on your highest ranking player. That way, a level 1 player would still rank up faster because he’s playing higher levels, but the fact that he is a level 1 would not be a benefit to the other 3 players by bringing down the matchmade competition.
The experience playing into ranking speed was just awful in Halo 3 and resulted in some serious rank locks. Remove that. I think the Reach system of challenges and such works well, but I would also like to see the 1-50 system put back in.
> > > Halo 2 Ranking System. Done.
> >
> > Halo 2’s ranking system alone would be too shallow. I’m not saying a ranking system is the only reason someone should play the game, I’m saying the frequently leveling up or unlocking new items makes the game more enjoyable. Obviously, only the best of the best players can level up frequently with Halo 2’s ranking system. What I feel they should do is mix Reach’s and Halo 3’s ranking systems. Bring back credits to buy armor, but also bring back trueskill to reward players who are actually good at the game.
>
> Completely agree with you. Halo 3 is so much more competitive than Halo Reach. I like Truskill, but serious tweaks need to be put into place. For example, boosting with low level accounts and having players with less games played rank up faster. The ranking system should depend on wins and losses and comparison of ranks.
>
> To prevent boosting with low levels (example, a team of 40s with a level 1 to bring down the level), the matchmaking should match based on your highest ranking player. That way, a level 1 player would still rank up faster because he’s playing higher levels, but the fact that he is a level 1 would not be a benefit to the other 3 players by bringing down the matchmade competition.
>
> The experience playing into ranking speed was just awful in Halo 3 and resulted in some serious rank locks. Remove that. I think the Reach system of challenges and such works well, but I would also like to see the 1-50 system put back in.
I agree too. I actually didn’t realize till now. But A mix of halo 3’s and Reach would be great.