I’m not sure if there will be any sort of ranking structure in halo 4 due to the problems in h2/h3. If there is any way to bring back a high skill system it would have to be done responsibly. I would purpose a much slower ranking system that would take the best elements of Halo 2 (with an exp bar) and Halo 3. Below I will explain an in depth system that could be implemented. Social playlists it would not be effected by this ranking system.
Overall exp bar/rank (for the Reach fans)
Like Reach you would get exp after each match you finished. These points would be used to purchase armour, effects, ect. Tweaks here and there, but essentially the same.
Bring back 1-50 and introduce a playlist progress bar (for the Halo 2/3 fans)
You would have a progress bar that would be used for ranked matches. Each playlist would have its own independent bar. This progress bar would be visible for you to see when searching (perhaps hold the back button to view your playlist progress). There would be an rating system (preferably invisible in game, but results effect your progress bar) that would lower or raise your bar after each match.
At the start of each rank up the bar will start at a median point (we’ll call this 50). So it will be half filled green. Have games with bad ratings and that bar will shrink to a yellow and eventually small red bar (we’ll call this 1). Have it rise and it will grow until you are close to a rank up it will pulse blue (we’ll call this 99). You won’t actually see this number but the colour and bar will reflect your status. If you level up or down after a match there will be no carry over and you will be start again at the next levels median. This means it will be harder to lose a rank after obtaining it. Also, it will be less frustrating for those who earned their respective rank because they will be able to hold it for a couple games without fear of losing what they just got.
Player history has no effect on how this rating will be effected. There will be a rating cap of +/-20 (again based on 1-99). It will be heavily weighted on your game performance with only a small (say a 1.04 multiplier for a win/.96 for a lose) handicap for playing against higher levels. This would prevent people trying to boost by playing with higher levels. Also, remember you can not carry over your extra rating to the next. This means it would take a minimum of 150 games to reach level 50 in a playlist.
Achievement for Level 10
At levels 1-10 only games you have a positive rating would affect this exp bar. Meaning once you’re level 10 you’re at least there for good. This would help lesser skilled players not get frustrated. Also, you would grant players an achievement for reaching level 10, giving those said players who are only casual an incentive to try out ranked.
**I may edit this a bit and feel free to shed light on anything that is unclear or I left out. It’s quite late here (4AM) so I may have completely forgot something.
I don’t know what kind of ranking system they’ll put in Halo 4 but if they put in Arena then they might as well stop making copies of the game because nobody is gonna play it. Absolute failure of a ranking system, what was Bungie thinking?
> I wouldn’t mind it, I just hated getting ranked down when I had a bad day.
“hate ranking down when you lose”
that’s called being casual, and that’s ok, but then you shouldn’t care about your rank if you don’t like competition. The purpose of OP’s rank is to be competitive(like halo 2 and 3), which I know isn’t everyone’s cup of tea but if that’s the case why do you care what your rank is?
First, there is no reason to have a skill based ranking system that takes long to rank up in. The goal for a skill based ranking system should be to find an accurate rank for a player as quick as possible, because the whole point of skill based ranks is to match players of equal skill. Slowing down the time it takes to do that is pointless.
Second, skill based ranks should be achieved through win/loss. Any rating system will inevitably be biased towards a certain playstyle.
I like your idea of starting a player in the middle of his rank when he levels up, if only to reduce the frustration of losing your level right after you get it.
> > I wouldn’t mind it, I just hated getting ranked down when I had a bad day.
>
> “hate ranking down when you lose”
>
> that’s called being casual, and that’s ok, but then you shouldn’t care about your rank if you don’t like competition. The purpose of OP’s rank is to be competitive(like halo 2 and 3), which I know isn’t everyone’s cup of tea but if that’s the case why do you care what your rank is?
I don’t know if you’re trying to take the piss, but it’s failing miserably anyway so give it up, I said I hate ranking down. How the -Yoink- does that make me casual, are you going to tell me that you like it when you rank down??? And I bloody care about my rank because I -Yoinking!- worked hard to get it, I’m stuck at 41 in Halo 3 because once you get past 40 it gets so intense, it’s hard to rank up unless you get a good game consecutively.
EDIT: Sorry for my monetary rage, I just don’t like being tagged as a “casual” it implies that i’m just another BK Randy who doesn’t know anything about competitive game-play.
> > > I wouldn’t mind it, I just hated getting ranked down when I had a bad day.
> >
> > “hate ranking down when you lose”
> >
> > that’s called being casual, and that’s ok, but then you shouldn’t care about your rank if you don’t like competition. The purpose of OP’s rank is to be competitive(like halo 2 and 3), which I know isn’t everyone’s cup of tea but if that’s the case why do you care what your rank is?
>
> I don’t know if you’re trying to take the piss, but it’s failing miserably anyway so give it up, I said I hate ranking down. How the -Yoink!- does that make me casual, are you going to tell me that you like it when you rank down??? And I bloody care about my rank because I -Yoinking!- worked hard to get it, I’m stuck at 41 in Halo 3 because once you get past 40 it gets so intense, it’s hard to rank up unless you get a good game consecutively.
And so it begins.
How can a rank accurately reflect your skill if it can’t go down?
> I don’t know if you’re trying to take the piss, but it’s failing miserably anyway so give it up, I said I hate ranking down. How the -Yoink!- does that make me casual,
It makes you casual if you’re using that as an argument against the competitive ranking system, which was implied
i liked it the way halo 3 was BEFORE that updated individual playlist rank. that was a failure, still didn’t match up with people with my gametype rank. just keep it simple in ranked playlists only and overall rank like the way halo 3 was in the first couple of years it was out.
> First, there is no reason to have a skill based ranking system that takes long to rank up in. The goal for a skill based ranking system should be to find an accurate rank for a player as quick as possible, because the whole point of skill based ranks is to match players of equal skill. Slowing down the time it takes to do that is pointless.
I think the reason people like a ranking system that takes a long time to rank up is because it’s more rewarding and a higher status once you reach that rank.
But I don’t think people take into account the fact that once you face off against the highest rank people, its going to take a lot longer to rank up anyway because no matter how good you are you will lose a lot. So because of that, you are right that a system that takes an equal amount of wins at any rank to rank up is best, but that also means that the ranking down from losses has to be consistent too
In Halo 2 you knew when you would rank up. In Halo 3 you may of had an idea but with the ‘locked’ rank it made it frustrating. If you are good enough you will move up in rank. If you have a bad day and move down it could be due to inconsistency or simply a few bad games. The 1-50 system, although not perfect, is far better than what we have for Reach.
Keep reaches system but turn it into XP with no purchasing, just unlocking armour through level and certain challenges/achievements.
Add 1-50 or similar system for some sort of ranked playlist, which would go up based on how high up the leaderboard you were, kd spread, objectives captured/destroyed if applicable, and medals. All these should be taken into consideration using some sort of formulae to determine if your rank would go up or not.
The trueskill system should always be in every playlist regardless if its competitive or not. The reason is because that ranking system is simply to match you up with people that has similiar skill. However it should be invisible because it has its not necessarily a ranking system but a match making system. A ranking system should tell me exactly how good i am compared to everyone. So it would be a 1 - how ever many people play that given playlist.
> In Halo 2 you knew when you would rank up. In Halo 3 you may of had an idea but with the ‘locked’ rank it made it frustrating. If you are good enough you will move up in rank. If you have a bad day and move down it could be due to inconsistency or simply a few bad games. The 1-50 system, although not perfect, is far better than what we have for Reach.
The TrueSkill ranking for Halo 3 was garbage.
It puts everyone who’s skill level ranged from “decent” to “pro” all in the 41-50 ranking. It was pretty stupid.
The H2 system was easy to understand and accurate.
If you saw someone who was a 35 in Team Slayer in H2 you knew that they were good and knew what they were doing.
If you saw a 45 in Halo 3 you didn’t know if they were good or if they were horrible.
> Couple things.
>
> First, there is no reason to have a skill based ranking system that takes long to rank up in. The goal for a skill based ranking system should be to find an accurate rank for a player as quick as possible, because the whole point of skill based ranks is to match players of equal skill. Slowing down the time it takes to do that is pointless.
>
> Second, skill based ranks should be achieved through win/loss. Any rating system will inevitably be biased towards a certain playstyle.
>
> I like your idea of starting a player in the middle of his rank when he levels up, if only to reduce the frustration of losing your level right after you get it.
No, it should be slow because jumping ranks is a bad idea. It should take a few games before you level up not one good game and you rank up five times. This is not that slow and Halo 2 was a bit slower and no one had a huge problem with that.
Also, The rating would be affected by winning. I should probably edit that in so thank you for shedding light on that. It would work like this. If you do well and win you will recieve a high positive rating. If you do bad, but still win you will recieve a low positive rating. If you lose, but put up a good fight you will recieve a minor negative rating. If you lose and do bad you will recieve a rating more close to the negative maximum.
Yes, I think the median idea is best because it allows players to maintain their rank for a little for if they have a bad day.