Ranking system for Infinite

There is people who love the 1-50 system (which I do personally), and the newer system with shown MMR and brackets.

My idea is have a system that is in-between the Halo 3 and Halo 2 in terms of wins for 50, with 10 qualifying matches to place you more closely to where you need to be. Add in extra bit of emphasis past 50 for the people who want to brag. Such as: Top 500, top 100, top 50, and #1 spot. (which is you keep gaining MMR, the more MMR you get, the more you will play with similiar MMR players at 50, but not guaranteed) With a unique stylization symbol like there is for the MCC. Maybe add in a nameplate for each season, to show what bracket you had previously achieved, or if you were in the top 500+ players ect. Also would be nice to show your MMR when you go to your profile to see how many wins you need for the next rank. I think this combines the best of both systems.

When implemented, it needs to be strict. 5 up and 5 down for people playing with and against you. Add in team matching. Maybe in the future in it’s life span, add in a certain xp rank to play ranked to deter smurfing, and add in two factor authentication. Sooner you nip problems in the butt, the better.

Thoughts, suggestions, criticism? improvements? So 343 can get an idea of what to do for ranked, for the best possible experience for ranked matchmaking. (I will further update this thread, when enough comments have been made to determine what the community prefers to happen).

I would say get rid of it all together, the inherent need to compete always leads a need to cheat. And an even greater griefer factory. Since Halo 2, my one and consistent complaint was against griefers. But my opinion is a solitary one and will never be reality, but I’ll stand by it regardless.

A system like Halo 3 but evolved to current times I see it the best way to carry the competitive system.

In Overwatch you get a special spray for ranking in a season and one for getting top 500. You also can only earn golden gun skins by playing and winning games of competitive. I think having clearly defined bonuses to encourage people to play competitive is important. Halo 3 had a strong competitive community as you couldn’t rank up without it. By having something exclusive to ranked it will improve player count and therefore better suited and balanced teams.

I’m not really a fan of placement games, because you end up with a bunch of players getting placed in your games that don’t belong there and it’s frustrating for the matchmaking experience, as the game figures out where they actually should be. I also think the idea of having seasons puts me off competitive as I just want to play and progress my rank, but then it feels pointless if it is just going to be reset every couple of months. It takes away the grind as well, on Halo 5 I hit Onyx after 10 placement games. Sort of takes away the incentive to keep playing for me on a personal level. Compare this to Halo 3 and it took me 600+ games to get to 50 in team slayer.

Although after playing MCC it is slack for veteran players to be matched against new players. Can imagine that being really off putting to people wanting to play ranked.

It’s so hard to come up with a solution that makes it fun to play and rewarding for all skill level of players.

There is a visual factor with ranks that needs to be simple. I think H5 kinda confused new players, I understood it, but also hated how it was visually represented. In my opinion, the Overwatch system has the cleanest understanding of ranks these days with the give and take of SR. I love the H3 1-50, but it feels less forgiving when you lose as opposed to Overwatch, which I dont think will cut it these days(H3) to maintain a fresh playerbase.

I believe that they should follow the same ranking system that other games have basically standardized to make the Halo experience feel less foreign to new players. Such as having to play 10 matches to get placed at a suitable rank for your skill level where you will play to try and go up even higher in rank. Also, the ranks will probably have names such as bronze, silver, gold, platinum, ex. But I think it would be really cool if the ranks you got placed in were the ranks of the UNSC and the top one being The Master Chief (I know that isnt the top on in the UNSC but it would be cooler that way).

Considering the focus on the “Spartan Acadamy,” military ranks should return in combination with an SR system.

It sounds like you’re mixing up MMR for CSR. The MMR is not shown to players on screen. They only see their CSR. Your CSR goes up X amount of points depending on the MMR of your opponents team vs your teams. This has to do with match prediction odds. So when an onyx 1530 wins a match and at the end they see onyx 1531(they went up 1 CSR point), it means their win chance was significantly higher…they were basically calculated to win from the get go, even if their opponents had the exact same CSR. So a lobby of 4v4 where all players are 1500s, the actual CSR number isn’t as important as what you don’t see. The MMR. So you can’t put some flat number for how much you go up or down during a loss or win. I think this is actually where the old system got it wrong because you could get carried by wins alone, not performance of who you’re facing against and doing more than expected at your current rating.

So in terms of winning…players shouldn’t just go up for winning. Not unless they’re displaying that they clearly are below where they are rated…because that’s what a ranking system is for. The whole perk of flexing your rank and feeling proud over It is a side bonus (if thats what you care about) but the purpose of a ranking system is to bracket players into having fair competitive healthy matches against their peers. This is where matches feel best, fun, exciting and both teams have decent odds. No lopsided matches once everyone is at least close to their rating. It isn’t a progression system…and although it feels nice to see your rank climb higher each win…even for the wins you clearly were gifted…it just isn’t the purpose of a ranking system.

As far as how It looks on screen…numeric…mineral…whatever I mean they all serve the same function. Whatever looks good. Would be nice to quickly see all time highest rank, last season etc tho.

I feel like there should be a ranked play mode and it could follow the ranking system of rocket leuge how you play ten games then get placed in a on a tier and in the tier there is three levels but also i feel like you should be able to retest every month because a lot of time climbing the ranks is very long process when you are at a higher rank then what is says you are so you should be able to retest play ten matches and then it puts you in a new rank an level.

I think having a mixture would be best. Make it 1-50 and then after 50 you can do the more elite ranks.

I like the idea.

The competitive side of games is very important for the longevity of the game, the competitive side gives players reasons to come back again and again

> 2533274876278412;1:
> There is people who love the 1-50 system (which I do personally), and the newer system with shown MMR and brackets.

A lot of people seem to like the 1-50.

Personally I like the Divisions of Halo 5 - and it definitely makes it less jarring when the matchmaking serves up a wider range of ranks.

But keep in mind that the 1-50 and Bronze to Onyx/Champ are both just different ways of showing your external CSR. The MMR remains internal / private. See Pheinted’s post just above.

> 2533274876278412;1:
> My idea is have a system that is in-between the Halo 3 and Halo 2 in terms of wins for 50, with 10 qualifying matches to place you more closely to where you need to be.

Yep, there is a lot of love for the combined skill rank and winning XP - like Halo 3. And it should be better now as the old TrueSkill seemed to rank lock a lot of people (where they had to get a ridiculous amount of consecutive wins to rank up).

> 2533274876278412;1:
> Add in extra bit of emphasis past 50 for the people who want to brag. Such as: Top 500, top 100, top 50, and #1 spot.

I’m all for this sort of thing. The top 200 for Champ is too exclusive. Have other brackets… including regional based ones.

> 2533274876278412;1:
> … (which is you keep gaining MMR, the more MMR you get, the more you will play with similiar MMR players at 50, but not guaranteed) With a unique stylization symbol like there is for the MCC… when implemented, it needs to be strict. 5 up and 5 down for people playing with and against you.

Not sure this would work. For proper SBMM the MMR just needs to know what your skill level is - to match you against players of similar skill. And it shouldn’t be constricted to only +/- 5. If you beat just beat a team of the same skill level your MMR shouldn’t go up very much at all… but if you lose badly to a team that is ranked well below you, then your MMR needs to be penalised harder.

> 2533274876278412;1:
> Add in team matching.

TrueSkill2’s MMR already includes a weighting for players who are in (well performed) fireteam.

> 2533274876278412;1:
> Thoughts, suggestions, criticism? improvements? So 343 can get an idea of what to do for ranked, for the best possible experience for ranked matchmaking. (I will further update this thread, when enough comments have been made to determine what the community prefers to happen).

Can’t wait to see what Infinite holds for us…

The real question is how do you use the MMR?
As explained above, MMR is based on TrueSkill2 and measure individual player performance. This is quite accurate, but the problem is that it doesn’t care whether you win or loose a game. Your MMR is just based on performance and is about comparing you to the players you are playing with and against so it can decrease while wining a game and increase while loosing. So displaying that data is not a good idea, and my guess is that it will remain hidden.

As of right now, what they show what they call CSR.
What happen is when CSR << MMR: when you loose a game you barely loose anything and when you win you go up by quite a lot.
After a while what should happen is CSR = MMR. But then if you keep playing and let’s say you’re on a nice 10 win streak, your CSR > MMR, then if you loose a game your CSR is going to go down a lot undoing all your hard work, because the game wants to see CSR = MMR. That system is that it can be really frustrating when your CSR has reached your MMR.

We will see what they do, but I believe they will keep the same system, as it is very effective against new accounts and “boosters”. It’s also nice for solo queuing players since you can reach the rank you deserve independently of your winrate. I’ve seen champs in team arena with 30% winrate, and I’ve personally reached onyx with 33% winrate (30games/10 victories) this is a real tilter but you end up where you should be…

> 2533274817157770;14:
> MMR is based on TrueSkill2 and measure individual player performance. This is quite accurate, but the problem is that it doesn’t care whether you win or loose a game. Your MMR is just based on performance and is about comparing you to the players you are playing with and against so it can decrease while wining a game and increase while loosing. So displaying that data is not a good idea, and my guess is that it will remain hidden.

I think TrueSkill2 does take into account the win / loss?

From a 2018 paper on TrueSkill2;

> A player’s latent skill is inferred from their individual statistics such as kill and deathcounts, in addition to team win/loss.

Of course, that doesn’t tell us what weighting it puts on the win compared to how it decides to rate the individual.

Personally, I’m more of a fan of divisions + seasonal resets. I think the important thing with seasonal resets is it give some sort of reward for the season so the “effort” isn’t gone to waste. If someone get’s Onyx in a season, give them an exclusive weapon skin or something like that so that they can show off their achievement.

Halo desperately needs to go back to a similar ranking system as to halo 3 being a skilled based rank. 1-50 ranks will always be in my heart as that was one of the main reasons I got heavily addicted for years to halo 2 and 3. I agree that there should be a way to integrate everything in today’s day in age. Placement matches Blends in with everything in the market today so halo will have the problem of not having its own identity in that aspect compared to how different halo 3 was In the market at the time to everything else. Plus I never found any satisfaction in arena ranks at all compared to 1-50. Halo Definitely needs to have a set XP per match system like in MCC with the shields ranks and 1-152 in H5 but it should be capped at certain points only requiring skill ranks to move that base rank up. You’ll still get that XP per match but you won’t move up till you hit that certain skill level. That’s what made people so addicted and proud of their rank back in the day. Similar to how you could get that brigadier general in H3 with 6000+ or so XP with a skill rank of 48 for example but you’ll never move up till you hit the 50, jumping you straight into 5 star general since you’ve already accumulated all of that XP when you finally hit 50. Someone suggested to have 2 ranks per ranked playlist (THAT ARE SHOWN), one being seasonal and another being lifetime, and having your overall base rank affected by your highest lifetime rank obtained, lifetime being the 1-50. So you would still need that required skill level to progress to the highest possible Overall rank in the game. Your lifetime rank would be affected at the end of every season by your seasonal rank being bronze-onyx by how you performed per season and will never reset. Meaning it would take multiple seasons of consistent good performance to actually hit a 50 also meaning that it would take a lot of time and skill to hit that final overall base rank! Never thought of that till I was told that, but that’s the first time I felt, WOW that could get me addicted to the HR, H5 seasonal ranks, while I truly try to work on my 1-50 rank from H2,H3. Hitting that final base rank would be one of heck of a bragging right. I feel like that would be a lot to get that to work but if it did that would be incredible. Other than all that, I stand with halo needing to go back to a skill based ranking system. I want to be extremely addicted to halo again and without the ranking from halo 2 and 3 I’ve never felt that level of enjoyment form halo since. Halo 4 has 1-50 ranks only showable on waypoint and prior to all the MCC updates when every game had a 1-50 playlist and doubles and hardcore were crossed ranked, these were the closest I got to that addicted level since H3.

> 2585548714655118;15:
> > 2533274817157770;14:
> > MMR is based on TrueSkill2 and measure individual player performance. This is quite accurate, but the problem is that it doesn’t care whether you win or loose a game. Your MMR is just based on performance and is about comparing you to the players you are playing with and against so it can decrease while wining a game and increase while loosing. So displaying that data is not a good idea, and my guess is that it will remain hidden.
>
> I think TrueSkill2 does take into account the win / loss?
>
> From a 2018 paper on TrueSkill2;
>
>
>
>
> > A player’s latent skill is inferred from their individual statistics such as kill and deathcounts, in addition to team win/loss.
>
> Of course, that doesn’t tell us what weighting it puts on the win compared to how it decides to rate the individual.

Well, they may have tweaked it, because from my personal experience, I have managed to get to onyx with 10 won game and 30 games played in the playlist. Meaning I managed to rank diamond 3 (highest possible rank) after the 10 placement match (won 2) and then managed to go from diamond 3 to onyx with 8 win and 12 loss. They clearly don’t care too much about the winrate, even getting ranked diamond 3 with only 2 wins means the system puts more weight onto how you perform against others players rather than if your team wins or loses.

> 2533274817157770;18:
> > 2585548714655118;15:
> > > 2533274817157770;14:
> > >
>
> Well, they may have tweaked it, because from my personal experience, I have managed to get to onyx with 10 won game and 30 games played in the playlist. Meaning I managed to rank diamond 3 (highest possible rank) after the 10 placement match (won 2) and then managed to go from diamond 3 to onyx with 8 win and 12 loss. They clearly don’t care too much about the winrate, even getting ranked diamond 3 with only 2 wins means the system puts more weight onto how you perform against others players rather than if your team wins or loses.

I hope there’s never any official confirmation on how it is worked out as it will promote a certain playstyle.

Accuracy surely has to play a part too.

> 2533274801036271;19:
> > 2533274817157770;18:
> > > 2585548714655118;15:
> > > > 2533274817157770;14:
> > > >
> >
> > Well, they may have tweaked it, because from my personal experience, I have managed to get to onyx with 10 won game and 30 games played in the playlist. Meaning I managed to rank diamond 3 (highest possible rank) after the 10 placement match (won 2) and then managed to go from diamond 3 to onyx with 8 win and 12 loss. They clearly don’t care too much about the winrate, even getting ranked diamond 3 with only 2 wins means the system puts more weight onto how you perform against others players rather than if your team wins or loses.
>
> I hope there’s never any official confirmation on how it is worked out as it will promote a certain playstyle.
>
> Accuracy surely has to play a part too.

From my testing, accuracy does not play a role, as you said it would influence the playstyle and the type of weapon used.
I also thought damage would play a role as to me it’s one of the most consistent data. I mean there are games where you are a little unlucky with your kills but damage remains constant. In my opinion, it shows player awareness and impact on the game. I hope they take that data into account for infinite.