What is everyones thoughts on this system being used.
http://www.bungie.net/Stats/Content.aspx?link=h2statoverview
IMHO The H2 ranking system was perfect. It felt like you had to really strive for something. It was also much more difficult to level up, which meant better players were much more recognised. This doesn’t apply to casual gamers who don’t play ranked, I’m sure there’ll be a variety of social playlists for you.
I’d like to hear peoples thoughts.
No. Skill based ranks in halo are not supposed to be a grind. The ideal is to get a player at their deserved rank as quick as possible. This allows for evenly matched teams with the highest probability for a good, competitive game.
Trueskill is miles ahead of ELO. Possibly the only benefit of ELO is knowing when you’re going to rank up/down.
> No. Skill based ranks in halo are not supposed to be a grind. The ideal is to get a player at their deserved rank as quick as possible. This allows for evenly matched teams with the highest probability for a good, competitive game.
>
> Trueskill is miles ahead of ELO. Possibly the only benefit of ELO is knowing when you’re going to rank up/down.
I do agree with that position to an extent. I haven’t thought about this too much, but it seems like the only downfall of ELO is the speed at which you rank up. While I can’t say I thought the Halo 3 ranking system was unbalanced or inaccurate, I do remember there were far too many 50s. A 50 should be something looked upon with awe. If you see a 50 they should be the equivalent of a god. In H3, every second kid I met had a 50. It was a joke.
I would rather rank up slower, and have a more challenging ranking system, than one that ranks up too quickly. Any ranking system which allows you to level more than 2 levels after one game is a joke imo.
> > No. Skill based ranks in halo are not supposed to be a grind. The ideal is to get a player at their deserved rank as quick as possible. This allows for evenly matched teams with the highest probability for a good, competitive game.
> >
> > Trueskill is miles ahead of ELO. Possibly the only benefit of ELO is knowing when you’re going to rank up/down.
>
> I do agree with that position to an extent. I haven’t thought about this too much, but it seems like the only downfall of ELO is the speed at which you rank up. While I can’t say I thought the Halo 3 ranking system was unbalanced or inaccurate, I do remember there were far too many 50s. A 50 should be something looked upon with awe. If you see a 50 they should be the equivalent of a god. In H3, every second kid I met had a 50. It was a joke.
>
> I would rather rank up slower, and have a more challenging ranking system, than one that ranks up too quickly. Any ranking system which allows you to level more than 2 levels after one game is a joke imo.
Why is it a joke to rank up more than 2 levels. If I go in as a level 1 with a team mate who is a 50 in doubles and I am beating 50’s, why shouldn’t I rank up multiple levels. It should jump more than 2 levels.
I do agree on the 50 being to easy to obtain. But I would rather have trueskill and easy 50’s than ELO and no 50’s.
> Any ranking system which allows you to level more than 2 levels after one game is a joke imo.
I… You… I’m not gonna bother…
> Why is it a joke to rank up more than 2 levels. If I go in as a level 1 with a team mate who is a 50 in doubles and I am beating 50’s, why shouldn’t I rank up multiple levels. It should jump more than 2 levels.
>
> I do agree on the 50 being to easy to obtain. But I would rather have trueskill and easy 50’s than ELO and no 50’s.
It’s a joke because even under those circumstances you shouldn’t be jumping 3 or 4 levels at a time. I remember my friend got a 50 in 26 games or something in doubles when we played. It was pathetic. That’s hardly something worth striving for. I actually prefer the H2 days were there were no legit 50s to the Halo 3 days where everybody had one. A nice balance would be nice, but it needs to be far more difficult imo.
> > Any ranking system which allows you to level more than 2 levels after one game is a joke imo.
>
> I… You… I’m not gonna bother…
I agree.
> > Why is it a joke to rank up more than 2 levels. If I go in as a level 1 with a team mate who is a 50 in doubles and I am beating 50’s, why shouldn’t I rank up multiple levels. It should jump more than 2 levels.
> >
> > I do agree on the 50 being to easy to obtain. But I would rather have trueskill and easy 50’s than ELO and no 50’s.
>
> It’s a joke because even under those circumstances you shouldn’t be jumping 3 or 4 levels at a time. I remember my friend got a 50 in 26 games or something in doubles when we played. It was pathetic. That’s hardly something worth striving for. I actually prefer the H2 days were there were no legit 50s to the Halo 3 days where everybody had one. A nice balance would be nice, but it needs to be far more difficult imo.
The only way to get a 50 in 26 games is by manipulating trueskill. In doing that your friend probably never even played a 50 to get his. That is a flaw in trueskill that can be solved. Other than that, trueskill works pretty well.
The best Halo ranking system is that of Halo Wars. You get a nice shiny badge purely for playing, but you also have TrueSkill which actually told you how good you are. The very best people could get accounts to 50 ‘easily’, but I really mean only the best. It wasn’t like Halo 3 where anybody could grind up to it. You couldn’t see the rank, which was a shame, but there were leaderboards and being a 50 meant so much that if you had one, anybody else halfway decent knew about it. Plus you could lose rank for playing poorly, so it monitored how good you were, not that you once got lucky with a decent party and piggybacked your way up to 50.
Halo Wars uses Trueskill.
Not sure what the mathematical process for determining trueskill are, but I’m sure there’s a way to cap the higher ranks to make it more challenging. I remember in H2 once you got to 40, your level up exp was reduced to 90%, and for each level you rose it decreased by 5%, meaning you had to win more consistently than you lost to get the 50. Not sure if this is the best solution, but there needs to be some sort of cap on higher levels, they are far too common.
Also I’m not sure if you knew this but H2 also had a leaderboard system, till they took it down to deter cheaters.
I dont think its normal to level up more than twice in one game, its either skills or ALOT of boosting
Yes its nice to have recognition for how long you’ve played the game, but I believe that SKILL is what we try to recognize in these games. So when I go into games as a level 40 and absolutely destroy higher levels with all sorts of armor and crap, I get upset when I have nothing to show for my skill. Ease up on the requirements, or create a REAL competitive rank we can see in game, because I refuse to grind for unlocks and recognition. This is halo, not farmville.