"Ranked" Discussion

So, we know there are plenty of ‘competitive’ players begging for the 1-50 ranked system back. Doesn’t matter how FLAWED it was, they want it back. I’m thinking because it’s an ego-boost to see you’ve attained something only a small sliver of the community can (without boosting/buying of the account, etc. Which a lot of players did boost for their 50’s in Halo 3.)

Now, as opposed to the 1-50 ranked system I am, because of all the flaws it has, I’m not opposed to pleasing the competitive community, by giving them something to strive towards. I will give Halo 3’s exp system a head-nod, in it, that it motivated players, skilled and unskilled alike to WIN the game, where Reach failed pretty badly.

I think a way to remedy this, is to have a visual representation of your win percentage on your Spartan’s ‘service record’ thing in-game.

In Halo 3, you could see in the matchmaking game lobby, their highest level achieved, if they’ve beaten the campaign on legendary, games played and total EXP.

What all the competitive players want is that 50 beside their name, so people know how 1337 they are, and that they are obviously so awesome and kewl.

So a way too show how awesome and kewl you are, without the flaws and problems that come along with the 1-50 ranking system is a visual representation of your win percentage in the matchmaking game lobby (when someone looks are your Spartan). There’s a certain pride that comes with winning a lot, that I’m sure, could atleast, make the competitive community a little bit happier.

Anyone agree, disagree? Discuss why my idea sucks or is good, what you would do differently, etc.

The Death of the Halo Black Market

That’s a really good explanation why 50 doesn’t work and why the Arena is a much better system. The problem is that sooo many people have such self-esteem problems, ego issues and too much pride that they ‘need’ some sort of acknowledgement to help ‘reverse’ it and didn’t like the Arena system because it would always reset. If it was a one time thing then they would probably like it more, even if they don’t play it. If Halo 3 is any indication the second they reach the top rank is the second they stop playing out of the fear that they’ll lose it.

First it should probably be an OPTION to show or hide something like this .

Anything showing KD-WL-Rank should be an option for each player

And, Yes I would love love love to have an Exp per playlist system Back or A Rank per playlist system – WL in that playlist

Something that keeps me coming back and keeps me going for the win every game

> The Death of the Halo Black Market
>
> That’s a really good explanation why 50 doesn’t work and why the Arena is a much better system. The problem is that sooo many people have such self-esteem problems, ego issues and too much pride that they ‘need’ some sort of acknowledgement to help ‘reverse’ it and didn’t like the Arena system because it would always reset. If it was a one time thing then they would probably like it more, even if they don’t play it. If Halo 3 is any indication the second they reach the top rank is the second they stop playing out of the fear that they’ll lose it.

Inherently, Arena suffers from the same problem Trueskill does. It is human beings that are playing. If a 1-50 Trueskill system was played by AI of varying skills, it would work 100% as they would be programmed to win. Deranking/Boosting is an issue caused by humans, and the system becomes flawed when players intentionally lose games.

Likewise, Arena suffers, naturally, a person does not want to see his efforts and input go to waste. Why work hard to get into a good division, for it to reset at the end of the month/season?

I have read and analysed the article, but I still feel that a fixed Trueskill offers more appealing prospects than Arena. (I’m not sure on this though, Starcraft II anyone?).

> > The Death of the Halo Black Market
> >
> > That’s a really good explanation why 50 doesn’t work and why the Arena is a much better system. The problem is that sooo many people have such self-esteem problems, ego issues and too much pride that they ‘need’ some sort of acknowledgement to help ‘reverse’ it and didn’t like the Arena system because it would always reset. If it was a one time thing then they would probably like it more, even if they don’t play it. If Halo 3 is any indication the second they reach the top rank is the second they stop playing out of the fear that they’ll lose it.
>
> Inherently, Arena suffers from the same problem Trueskill does. It is human beings that are playing. If a 1-50 Trueskill system was played by AI of varying skills, it would work 100% as they would be programmed to win. Deranking/Boosting is an issue caused by humans, and the system becomes flawed when players intentionally lose games.
>
> Likewise, Arena suffers, naturally, a person does not want to see his efforts and input go to waste. Why work hard to get into a good division, for it to reset at the end of the month/season?
>
> I have read and analysed the article, but I still feel that a fixed Trueskill offers more appealing prospects than Arena. (I’m not sure on this though, Starcraft II anyone?).

I would think that your rank regularly getting reseted would be motivation enough to achieve that rank again. Some players did create new accounts just to get to 50 again.

> The Death of the Halo Black Market

Good read. I agree with it 100%, but I’m asking what’s a good replacement for the 1-50 ranks? Yes it had many flaws, but it also did some things good for SOME players. For example, it pushed ME to want to win the game. In Reach I could care less if I win, because I still get rewarded handsomely if I don’t win. Which basically ruins objective games, where everyone is trying to stat-pad and not win. Sure it feels good getting those running riots, and medals, and there will always be players who just stat-pad in objective… but there should be something that rewards winners.

So, I’m trying to think of a way that pushes players to win. Something that could essentially ego-boost those competitive players, something that’s not massively exploitable though.

And I think per-playlist win percentages on the player’s in-game service record could do that.

How about the incentive to win is to win? We didn’t need cookies when we were kids.

> How about the incentive to win is to win? We didn’t need cookies when we were kids.

You would think that’s good enough, but quite frankly it’s not. The way I see it, Reach is sort of like a communist system. Everyone is rewarded, win or loss, you still get paid. There are positives to this system outlined in that article, I can’t deny that, but there are also problems to Reach’s cR system.

Because you could get a crapload of credits for getting multi-kills and headshots and sprees and all that, winning was a secondary goal. And this basically ruined objective games. No one was trying to win.

If we give something players can brag about that is directly correlated to winning, more players will want to win. Making games more intense and fun. And this system is not easily exploitable, and there really is no reason to exploit it.

Like an Onyx in Arena, a win percentage has to be maintained.

Just some thoughts on how to make competitive players happy, whilst also fixing some problems from Reach.

> I would think that your rank regularly getting reseted would be motivation enough to achieve that rank again. Some players did create new accounts just to get to 50 again.

However, most went for 50’s in other playlists. It is difficult to compare the two, as Arena is designed to have short, regular seasons, but only has 1 playlist (was 3). With a 3 month season, players get their divisions and stop playing. There needs to be more Arena playlists to make a comparison between how they play out. I feel it is a catch 22, have more playlists with arena’s ranks, and the season need to be longer so a player can be rated in each one, the season becomes too long and diliutes populations of the playlists.

To remove the flaws in the system caused by humans cheating the system, one must remove the incentive to cheat. If you keep True Skill but remove the visible 1-50 ranks, then what you have is a system wherein you’re always being matched with similarly skilled people (or, at least, for most of the time) and you have less boosters because the only reward to boosting to of buying an invisible 50 is so that you can play matches against the game’s finest, which only the game’s finest (that could get to that level legitimately) would enjoy.

Just a rough idea, but I think something similar to a high score may work. It doesn’t have a cap, and it can’t be boosted without 343 knowing it(should they be willing to moderate the game).

Basically 1-50, but with no cap and more emphasis on w/l ratio to determine the score. Ex: a player with a 2.0 w/l ratio with 20 games will have a lower score than another with a 2.0 w/l ratio with 200 games.

Actual trueskill stays hidden, as the score is the trophy to fight for. Reason being is the trueskill requires a history to go up. However, trueskill could be used to help influence how one increases and decreases their score.

What about if the players in the divisions were given a % Number at the closing of the season? IE your Gold all season, and when the current season finishes your service record shows a Gold 64 for example.

As a competitive gamer myself, I couldn’t care less what the rest of the community sees. All I want is a system where I’m rewarded for playing well, and punished for playing poorly. I enjoy challenges and working towards something. I have fun doing this.

An experience ranking system doesn’t do this. The 1-50 system does.

Hell, make it only visible to the player, I don’t care. As long as I have something to strive for that isn’t just how much you play.

[deleted]

Just some thoughts:

There needs to be some sort of ranking system based off of skill. If 343 leave us with just another time-played mechanism (yes, there are other factors, like how well you play in-game, but ultimately you rank up by playing more), the game won’t hold its’ members.

I don’t understand what was so bad about Halo 3’s system of EXP. If people boost experience, so what? If people quit out, they lose experience. If they win, they get a point. It’s simple and effective. I can indirectly tell the player’s approximate Win/Loss record by looking at Games Played and Total EXP.

Arena was terrible. Simple as that. Don’t believe me? Look at the population statistics. It’s embarrassing that an Infection playlist pulls more players than the only ranked playlist in the game.

  • Most people didn’t understand Arena’s division system - therefore, they didn’t play it
  • Arena was time-consuming, and your work was rewarded by getting reset every month, quarter, or whatever the time limit is now. Seriously, they wanted people to play 4 games in the playlist for 10 days total? In a system that supposedly rewards teamwork, it’s pretty damn hard to get a team together for 40 games within a month.
  • Ranks reset. While this was obviously established to stop cheaters from selling Onyx accounts, it was detrimental to those players who only slightly cared about rank. In Halo 3, you could play ten games of Team Doubles, rank up to level 9, then forget about it. A year later, you could hop on and pick up right where you left off.
  • Arena only matched you will similarly-skilled opponents after your rank was established. The only reason I ever played Arena was to pad my stats, since the majority of games ended 50-20 or more. I remember one particular game where it ended 50-4 and both me and a teammate got Perfections. In those 40 games before you get ranked, you play anyone. Then, you start playing those of similar rank to you. But then you have to factor in that you were playing terrible players in order to get ranked, so you were placed in a higher division than you probably should have been.

Look, we all get that 1-50 had some problems, especially with boosting and selling. But is it really worse than Arena, or no skill-based ranking system at all? The simple answer is “no”.

> I’m pretty sure H4 will just be one big social fest like Reach and we’ll end up with hypercompetives, griefers, mess arounders, guests, AFKers, strive to winners, objective players, stat padders, lone wolfers, suiciders all playing in the same playlists.
>
> Which will be awesome for everyone won’t it?!

Isn’t this the goal of 343i? Make it fun for “everyone at the same time”? Most of their additions have no competitive significance, so it seems as though they are packing this game full of gimmicks to keep players engaged. But that’s another discussion.

i don’t know why everyone wants the trueskill back. it was so flawed. like no joke.while playing halo 3, i won about 5-6 games in a row nothing happen, i lose one game. i got de-ranked. thinking to myself. thats fair. -lying- my thing is this.
i want to get points for what i have done. regardless if i win or lose. if i win give me a bonus for winning, if i lose, then give me points for what i have done during the match and winning no bonus

> How about the incentive to win is to win? We didn’t need cookies when we were kids.

For the last time. We get that people are different. You’re not special because you like social slayer.

Honestly I wonder how you can say you don’t care, yet anytime there is a post about skill based ranking you feel the need to post how much you don’t need it.

Not that we don’t appreciate the bumps.

> i don’t know why everyone wants the trueskill back. it was so flawed. like no joke.while playing halo 3, i won about 5-6 games in a row nothing happen, i lose one game. i got de-ranked. thinking to myself. thats fair. -lying- my thing is this.
> i want to get points for what i have done. regardless if i win or lose. if i win give me a bonus for winning, if i lose, then give me points for what i have done during the match and winning no bonus

This is essentially what’s wrong with the current Halo community. You all want, want, want, especially if you don’t earn, earn, earn.

The trueskill system, in this case, worked perfectly. You won several games but didn’t rank up - this means that you’ve hit your trueskill, or “true skill” (see what I did there?). Same thing happened to me: I would win several games in a row on Team Doubles, but I wouldn’t rank up past 41. Thus, I’m a 41.

I think it’s amazing that you actually expect people to reward you for no reason. You didn’t win, and I’m sure you don’t carry your team every single game, so why should you be rewarded for losing? Oh, you got a Killing Spree? Whoop-die-doo. Go get yourself a Mountain Dew.

You should be rewarded for actually winning the game, not simply playing it. This is what caused so many AFKs in Halo: Reach. You could literally sit there and still rank up. That’s an issue.

P.S. I love this: You don’t like trueskill because it makes you actually play well to rank up, but you love Reach’s system because you get points no matter what. That’s ridiculous.

I enjoy being matched against a team with similar skill, and it being a really good game.
the time played rank system does nothing for this. whether you suck or you are good, you should be against a team that matches that. somebody plz tell me why these casuals are so against a system like that?! do they enjoy getting stomped out by good players? just doesnt make sense. saying things like “ohh well i think the competitive gamers just wanna have a 50 next to their name” is just stupid…its more like you dont wanna have a 15 next to yours -_-

> i don’t know why everyone wants the trueskill back. it was so flawed. like no joke.while playing halo 3, i won about 5-6 games in a row nothing happen, i lose one game. i got de-ranked. thinking to myself. thats fair. -lying- my thing is this.
> i want to get points for what i have done. regardless if i win or lose. if i win give me a bonus for winning, if i lose, then give me points for what i have done during the match and winning no bonus

I assure you that truskill put you where you belong. As much as that hurts your pride, it’s true.