Ranking system idea

Bare with me here because to some of you this may come off as a little far fetched and probably a bit lengthy so if you dont have the time or arent open to innovative ideas i suggest you pass on this post. Anyway, ive been thinking about this for quite some time and i believe the system i propose to be the most comprehensive and accurate measure of a player’s skill.

When you think of a player’s level of skill a few things come to mind…

Individual skill: Since shooters are about shooting and eliminating the other team. How well you can kill others while avoiding death yourself is obviously a main indicator of personal skill in most shooters and also is an important underlying factor in the outcome of any match of any gametype. That being said, kill-to-death ratio is a direct reflection of personal skill.

Team-oriented skill: One facet of a player’s overall skill is their personal skill but in games in which winning isnt based solely on one versus one battles, teamwork is very important. While there are players out there that may top the kill charts every game there are also players who contribute greatly in lesser known areas to ensure the victory of their team. What better way to determine a players influence on the outcome of a match than win-to-loss ratio. While there may be games with some team imbalance, games in which your influence on the outcome of the match is rather irrelevant; you will find that over a longer period of time, win/loss ratio pretty accurately describes a players “team skill”.

Level of activity in matches: What would any stat mean if you camped the whole game only entering the heat of battle when the perfect opportunity arises. Stats can become distorted if a player avoids any combat situation in which the odds may be against their favor. This being said we need to make sure players are out there playing the game and not sitting in a corner. Thats why the third and final aspect to this ranking system is points-per-match. In other words, on average, how much do you participate and contribute in matches.

So now we have three factors to use in ranking a player. How do we use these numbers? As simple as it is the best way is the multiply these numbers together making each a factor of the other. This way, a players rank will suffer if he/she is lacking a particular area. Each factor balances the other out in this equation making for an extremely fair ranking system not favoring any particular type of player.

So now we have an arbitrary number (let’s call this your skill-number or Snumber) that means nothing as it currently stands. To give meaning to your Snumber we have to compare it to others’ Snumber. Meaning your Snumber’s relative position in the long list of Snumbers will determine your actual rank. This way, your skill rank is directly attributed to the current skill levels of other players. If your skill declines, your rank will too and visa versa. This ranking system can never get old and will always be accurate based on the current skill level of the Halo population as a whole. Now i know that may have been confusing so i tried to explain a little more below.

Here’s an example of how to calculate your rank…

TL;DR the formula

K/D * W/L * PPM = Snumber


Highest Snumber

… / --top X% = rank 1

… / --next X% = rank 2

Everything in between

Lowest Snumber


The only variable here is how many ranks you want and how rare you want each rank to be. If you want rank 1 to be the top 5% of the population, you give that rank to the top 5% of Snumbers. If you want 10 ranks all of equal size you split the population up into 10% sectors. How this portion is done is up to the developers

So yea thats about it. Any thoughts?

Interesting. But “skill” raters always have flaws. The BPR that Waypoint has is fairly accurate though. I think they should use that to determine skill when pairing players.

bump

bump… last one to see if this catches on

Pretty good idea. I’m not sure about the level of activity stuff, though. Ultimately if the game is won then the player did something right, and if k/d is taken into account then there isn’t much else to go by.

OK i see your idea I kinda agree. The only thing is that the participation rating probably wouldn’t work although it is a good idea. The whole personal + team ranking are good. Personally i think the individual skill rating should be the only thing reflected by rank. We should only get our points (credits, spartan points, ect.) from playing but they add nothing to us only unlock things in the armory. As for the team rating that should be reflected in a number on our [spartan cards]?

I dont know what 343i is planning but i hope they realize that alot of team strategy goes down pregame. See 1 really good person on the other team everyone might start having wingmen on the other side.

I don’t have time to totally read your ranking system,however I would like to show you this thread

> Bare with me here because to some of you this may come off as a little far fetched and probably a bit lengthy so if you dont have the time or arent open to innovative ideas i suggest you pass on this post. Anyway, ive been thinking about this for quite some time and i believe the system i propose to be the most comprehensive and accurate measure of a player’s skill.
>
> When you think of a player’s level of skill a few things come to mind…
>
> Individual skill: Since shooters are about shooting and eliminating the other team. How well you can kill others while avoiding death yourself is obviously a main indicator of personal skill in most shooters and also is an important underlying factor in the outcome of any match of any gametype. That being said, kill-to-death ratio is a direct reflection of personal skill.
>
> Team-oriented skill: One facet of a player’s overall skill is their personal skill but in games in which winning isnt based solely on one versus one battles, teamwork is very important. While there are players out there that may top the kill charts every game there are also players who contribute greatly in lesser known areas to ensure the victory of their team. What better way to determine a players influence on the outcome of a match than win-to-loss ratio. While there may be games with some team imbalance, games in which your influence on the outcome of the match is rather irrelevant; you will find that over a longer period of time, win/loss ratio pretty accurately describes a players “team skill”.
>
> Level of activity in matches: What would any stat mean if you camped the whole game only entering the heat of combat when the perfect opportunity arises. Stats can become distorted if a player avoids any combat situation in which the odds may be against their favor. This being said we need to make sure players are out there playing the game and not sitting in a corner. Thats why the third and final aspect to this ranking system is points-per-match. In other words, on average, how much do you participate and contribute in matches.
>
> So now we have three factors to use in ranking a player. How do we use these numbers? As simple as it is the best way is the multiply these numbers together making each a factor of the other. This way, a players rank will suffer if he/she is lacking a particular area. Each factor balances the other out in this equation making for an extremely fair ranking system not favoring any particular type of player.
>
> So now we have an arbitrary number (let’s call this your skill-number or Snumber) that means nothing as it currently stands. To give meaning to your Snumber we have to compare it to others’ Snumber. Meaning your Snumber’s relative position in the long list of Snumbers will determine your actual rank. This way, your skill rank is directly attributed to the current skill levels of other players. This ranking system can never get old and will always be accurate based on the current skill level of the Halo population as a whole. Now i know that may have been confusing so i tried to explain this below.
>
> Here’s an example of how to calculate your rank…
>
> TL;DR the formula
>
> K/D * W/L * PPM = Snumber
>
> ______________________________________
> Highest Snumber
> …
> … / --top X% = rank 1
> …
> … / --next X% = rank 2
> Everything in between
> …
> Lowest Snumber
> ______________________________________
>
> The only variable here is how many ranks you want and how rare you want each rank to be. If you want rank 1 to be the top 5% of the population, you give that rank to the top 5% of Snumbers. If you want 10 ranks all of equal size you split the population up into 10% sectors. How this portion is done is up to the developers
>
> So yea thats about it. Any thoughts?

Dude, WHY did you wait till now to share this idea? Why not 3 years ago with the dev team? why’d you wait till it was too late?

> > Bare with me here because to some of you this may come off as a little far fetched and probably a bit lengthy so if you dont have the time or arent open to innovative ideas i suggest you pass on this post. Anyway, ive been thinking about this for quite some time and i believe the system i propose to be the most comprehensive and accurate measure of a player’s skill.
> >
> > When you think of a player’s level of skill a few things come to mind…
> >
> > Individual skill: Since shooters are about shooting and eliminating the other team. How well you can kill others while avoiding death yourself is obviously a main indicator of personal skill in most shooters and also is an important underlying factor in the outcome of any match of any gametype. That being said, kill-to-death ratio is a direct reflection of personal skill.
> >
> > Team-oriented skill: One facet of a player’s overall skill is their personal skill but in games in which winning isnt based solely on one versus one battles, teamwork is very important. While there are players out there that may top the kill charts every game there are also players who contribute greatly in lesser known areas to ensure the victory of their team. What better way to determine a players influence on the outcome of a match than win-to-loss ratio. While there may be games with some team imbalance, games in which your influence on the outcome of the match is rather irrelevant; you will find that over a longer period of time, win/loss ratio pretty accurately describes a players “team skill”.
> >
> > Level of activity in matches: What would any stat mean if you camped the whole game only entering the heat of combat when the perfect opportunity arises. Stats can become distorted if a player avoids any combat situation in which the odds may be against their favor. This being said we need to make sure players are out there playing the game and not sitting in a corner. Thats why the third and final aspect to this ranking system is points-per-match. In other words, on average, how much do you participate and contribute in matches.
> >
> > So now we have three factors to use in ranking a player. How do we use these numbers? As simple as it is the best way is the multiply these numbers together making each a factor of the other. This way, a players rank will suffer if he/she is lacking a particular area. Each factor balances the other out in this equation making for an extremely fair ranking system not favoring any particular type of player.
> >
> > So now we have an arbitrary number (let’s call this your skill-number or Snumber) that means nothing as it currently stands. To give meaning to your Snumber we have to compare it to others’ Snumber. Meaning your Snumber’s relative position in the long list of Snumbers will determine your actual rank. This way, your skill rank is directly attributed to the current skill levels of other players. This ranking system can never get old and will always be accurate based on the current skill level of the Halo population as a whole. Now i know that may have been confusing so i tried to explain this below.
> >
> > Here’s an example of how to calculate your rank…
> >
> > TL;DR the formula
> >
> > K/D * W/L * PPM = Snumber
> >
> > ______________________________________
> > Highest Snumber
> > …
> > … / --top X% = rank 1
> > …
> > … / --next X% = rank 2
> > Everything in between
> > …
> > Lowest Snumber
> > ______________________________________
> >
> > The only variable here is how many ranks you want and how rare you want each rank to be. If you want rank 1 to be the top 5% of the population, you give that rank to the top 5% of Snumbers. If you want 10 ranks all of equal size you split the population up into 10% sectors. How this portion is done is up to the developers
> >
> > So yea thats about it. Any thoughts?
>
> Dude, WHY did you wait till now to share this idea? Why not 3 years ago with the dev team? why’d you wait till it was too late?

Its not too late. These stats are something that are probably already being recorded in the game, if not theyre fairly easily calculated. This would require no more than implementing the formula, deciding how many ranks there should be, deciding how rare each rank should be, deciding whether to use symbols or numbers, and then actually putting it in the game. 343 could add this overnight the day before the launch if they really wanted to.

sorry one last bump. i just want to make sure 343 sees this. Whether or not they use it is a different story i just want to make sure its been seen.

Good idea, but too late. games gone gold.

Is there a ranked system?Or is it officially COD: 2557? *see perks,streaks,kill cams,no weapons on map

I do like this system, but I dislike the “top %” idea that establishes your overall rank. It makes it too “leaderboard-y”. Maybe maintaining a certain average “Snumber” for a certain amount of time could just get you a certain rank.

Any rank system that involves K/D will be flawed, the Arena was K/D based before it was changed to W/L, essentially it turned a team game of 4v4 into a FFA, while i do admit a W/L system isnt completely accurate, it is a much better system than anything that incorporates K/D, sure you may get bad team mates in a W/L system but if you are good enough then you will reach whatever rank (if any) you deserve.

> Any rank system that involves K/D will be flawed, the Arena was K/D based before it was changed to W/L, essentially it turned a team game of 4v4 into a FFA, while i do admit a W/L system isnt completely accurate, it is a much better system than anything that incorporates K/D, sure you may get bad team mates in a W/L system but if you are good enough then you will reach whatever rank (if any) you deserve.

The reason this system wont be flawed is because k/d is only one third of the equation. You can go around lone wolfing it but that wont necessarily get your rank up. You need to be involved in the game… assists, objectives, etc. etc. and you need to work with your team to win games if you ever want to rank up. Thats why 4v4s wont be FFAs, because having a good rank is more than just killing everything that pops up on your screen.

On top of that this system isn’t exploitable, you need to be legit to have a good rank and thats all there is to it. If your trying to boost with other better players, that only means your w/l will go up while your individual skill will probably go down and involvement in the game stays the same. if you camp in a corner the whole game and try for a 10-0 that means only your k/d will go up but your ppm will suffer. In the end everything balances out and only truly good players will have truly good ranks.

There’s no denying k/d is a major factor in a level of skill, thats why it should be incorporated. Just because k/d is a solo player’s stat that doesnt mean you cant use k/d while still keeping the game team-oriented.

> Interesting. But “skill” raters always have flaws. The BPR that Waypoint has is fairly accurate though. I think they should use that to determine skill when pairing players.

If thats the case, even though my BPR is low, I’ll rank up fairly quick in BTB then.

Interesting idea! Only thing that I see is the fact that it lacks the differentiation of WHO you defeat. If the true skill matching system works your W/L ratio should be 50% (ideally) because everyone is theoretically equal in skill.

> Interesting idea! Only thing that I see is the fact that it lacks the differentiation of WHO you defeat. If the true skill matching system works your W/L ratio should be 50% (ideally) because everyone is theoretically equal in skill.

This is very true. If a matchmaking system is truly ideal, you should have around a %50 w/l. But… from my experience i dont believe matchmaking is at that level yet. Ive played many multiplayer games that claim to use the trueskill formula in matchmaking yet still show players with a wide range of w/l ratios.

While trueskill, on paper may seem arrange matches in such a way that you lose half your games and win half, in actuality this isnt the case. I understand what you are saying but there’s enough discrepancy in the system that not every player will have a 1.0 w/l ratio. Players who generally have a substantial impact on their team’s victory will (over time) have a distinctly higher win loss ratio than players on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Im not saying you are wrong, your definitely right in that the best and most fair possible matchmaking should lead to a 50/50 win/loss for every player but ive found that this isnt the case with games that use the current trueskill system.

Also on another note, thats not to say the trueskill system is our best option. Though im pretty sure microsoft forces all multiplayer games to use this formula, i think there are better ways to create relatively fair matches while keeping your selection of opponents and teammates diverse.

> Interesting. But “skill” raters always have flaws. The BPR that Waypoint has is fairly accurate though. I think they should use that to determine skill when pairing players.

you can’t be serious!
If you are, just wow
I’ve lost faith…
:frowning:

bump…