So we have just had the news about the challenge only xp battle pass. Which got my wondering I am sure I read on one of the blogs about seasonal ranking system is this correct or am I mistaken in this?
That’s what I want to know I don’t hate 5s system but I highly prefer 3 over it…. It’s a more straight foward system idk why they don’t go back to it… but 343 makes bad descisions a lot of the time… although they’ve done a lot of good with infinite so far
We don’t know a lot.
It’s Bronze to Onyx again (my personal preference). Not that it’s really any different to 1-50. They are both scaled to the same internal TrueSkill2 number.
Infinite is definitely having Seasons again but we don’t know how that will affect the skill ranks. The brief re-ranking in Halo 5 was really badly ‘sold’ by 343. I think it opens up the ranking algorithm, making your rank (and games) a bit volatile - which is why they like to hide it. It’s the perfect catharsis to rank locking - but 343 needs to sell it better this time.
But please let’s not go back to the dark days of Halo 3… with hidden ranks, rank locking, and a rampant black market for '50’s.
> 2585548714655118;3:
> We don’t know a lot.
>
> It’s Bronze to Onyx again (my personal preference). Not that it’s really any different to 1-50. They are both scaled to the same internal TrueSkill2 number.
>
> Infinite is definitely having Seasons again but we don’t know how that will affect the skill ranks. The brief re-ranking in Halo 5 was really badly ‘sold’ by 343. I think it opens up the ranking algorithm, making your rank (and games) a bit volatile - which is why they like to hide it. It’s the perfect catharsis to rank locking - but 343 needs to sell it better this time.
>
> But please let’s not go back to the dark days of Halo 3… with hidden ranks, rank locking, and a rampant black market for '50’s.
I will tell you why 1-50 is so different. Even though there is bronze, silver, gold, platinum, diamond, onyx, champ. Each has 5 tiers, 7x5=35. So right there already missed 15 ranks. On top of that if your a plat 1 and im a plat 3, we are both plats. But if you 48 and I’m 50, it feels like a much harder thing to accomplish. Even tho both are just 2 ranks a part, in the first we both categorized in the same as plats.
1-50>Onyx anyday
I like the champion rank being there. It seems much more satisfying to be a high rank champion than just having a rank 50. It gives you something to work for after you achieve champion.
> 2533274833656619;4:
> I will tell you why 1-50 is so different. Even though there is bronze, silver, gold, platinum, diamond, onyx, champ. Each has 5 tiers, 7x5=35. So right there already missed 15 ranks. On top of that if your a plat 1 and im a plat 3, we are both plats. But if you 48 and I’m 50, it feels like a much harder thing to accomplish. Even tho both are just 2 ranks a part, in the first we both categorized in the same as plats.
>
> 1-50>Onyx anyday
It’s still just a different way of expressing your TrueSkill2 MMR. You could divide it 1 to 50… or 1 to 100… A to Z… or Bronze to Onyx.
The advantage to the broader Divisions is that it softens the blow when Matchmaking can’t pull enough players of the same skill. People don’t as freaked when they see someone who is a division above them - even thought he skill gap can be quite marked.
The difference from 48 to 50 isn’t that great. Especially in Halo 3 where it was the equivalent of a Diamond 2 (48) to a Diamond 3 (50). If you want to take out the 20 odd hidden levels of Halo 3 and spread the 1-50 from a MMR of 1 to about 1800… you are looking at Onyx 1728 (48) to Onyx 1800 (50).
Of course… the problem in Halo 3 was that your ‘50’ could be anything from a Diamond 3 to the #1 Champ. At the extremes the difference between 48 and 50 could have been HUGE.
But bottom line is that the scale needs to be consistent. The gap between 48 and 50 should be the same as 38 and 40. Gold 3 to Gold 5 the same as Diamond 1 to Diamond 3.
> 2533274968883178;5:
> I like the champion rank being there. It seems much more satisfying to be a high rank champion than just having a rank 50. It gives you something to work for after you achieve champion.
Champ is a cool concept. But with ELO type systems the only way to work them out is to have them play against each other regularly. It’s one thing to have a broad group of Onyx… but it’s another to sort them into a strict order. And what works in Chess - where the top players regularly play each other - doesn’t work in Halo (due to time zone differences and lag).
It may make more sense to have regional champs.
> 2585548714655118;6:
> > 2533274833656619;4:
> > I will tell you why 1-50 is so different. Even though there is bronze, silver, gold, platinum, diamond, onyx, champ. Each has 5 tiers, 7x5=35. So right there already missed 15 ranks. On top of that if your a plat 1 and im a plat 3, we are both plats. But if you 48 and I’m 50, it feels like a much harder thing to accomplish. Even tho both are just 2 ranks a part, in the first we both categorized in the same as plats.
> >
> > 1-50>Onyx anyday
>
> It’s still just a different way of expressing your TrueSkill2 MMR. You could divide it 1 to 50… or 1 to 100… A to Z… or Bronze to Onyx.
>
> The advantage to the broader Divisions is that it softens the blow when Matchmaking can’t pull enough players of the same skill. People don’t as freaked when they see someone who is a division above them - even thought he skill gap can be quite marked.
>
> The difference from 48 to 50 isn’t that great. Especially in Halo 3 where it was the equivalent of a Diamond 2 (48) to a Diamond 3 (50). If you want to take out the 20 odd hidden levels of Halo 3 and spread the 1-50 from a MMR of 1 to about 1800… you are looking at Onyx 1728 (48) to Onyx 1800 (50).
>
> Of course… the problem in Halo 3 was that your ‘50’ could be anything from a Diamond 3 to the #1 Champ. At the extremes the difference between 48 and 50 could have been HUGE.
>
> But bottom line is that the scale needs to be consistent. The gap between 48 and 50 should be the same as 38 and 40. Gold 3 to Gold 5 the same as Diamond 1 to Diamond 3.
You nailed it. You said it “softens the blow” and “people wont get as freaked”. Thats what this generation is all about, making things easier and less emotional so people dont get hurt. Back in the day you could talk to your opponents before and after the game, you could also see their ranks, and could click their name to see their stats, all this is gone so people dont get “hurt”. And also kids now a days want instant gratification. Their not willing to grind 90% of achievements to get a katana, they will just buy it with micro-transactions. The generation is turning soft, along with all the games.
They should make the ranks on individual performance and not team based it means nothing when you go always positive but in the end your team lose cause of 2 people who go terrible negative all the time,
it doesn’t help you and it’s frustrating because you don’t get rewarded for playing good it feels like work That shouldn’t be the case it’s a game not a Job
Halo is by far my favorite game and i enyed Halo 3 and Reach very much , hope Infinite will be Great
> 2533274923385571;9:
> They should make the ranks on individual performance and not team based it means nothing when you go always positive but in the end your team lose cause of 2 people who go terrible negative all the time,
>
> it doesn’t help you and it’s frustrating because you don’t get rewarded for playing good it feels like work That shouldn’t be the case it’s a game not a Job
> Halo is by far my favorite game and i enyed Halo 3 and Reach very much , hope Infinite will be Great
So your telling me in a team game your rank shouldn’t be based on your team? If that was the case most people would just camp and hide for a good K/D.
In the same way as was H5 and Halo Wars 2, that is enough I think.
From what I’ve read; no one is going to be happy with what is produced. 343 has made a lot of mistakes with Halo. We can probably add “messed up ranking system” to their list.
> 2533274872013539;12:
> From what I’ve read; no one is going to be happy with what is produced. 343 has made a lot of mistakes with Halo. We can probably add “messed up ranking system” to their list.
They don’t have the best track record.
> 2533274923385571;9:
> They should make the ranks on individual performance and not team based it means nothing when you go always positive but in the end your team lose cause of 2 people who go terrible negative all the time,
>
> it doesn’t help you and it’s frustrating because you don’t get rewarded for playing good it feels like work That shouldn’t be the case it’s a game not a Job
> Halo is by far my favorite game and i enyed Halo 3 and Reach very much , hope Infinite will be Great
It’s difficult. It’s a team game… and every team has their star quarterback as well as the player that nobody remembers. But both have the ‘W’ (or the ‘L’) stamped in their record book. I can see why they have focussed on the team result.
But personally I think they could do a bit more to emphasise each player “carrying their weight”. I don’t get annoyed by the occasional player going negative (and it’s often me) but I do get very frustrated when a player with a much higher rank does worse than I do. I’m mid Platinum and I often do ok (breaking even or even positive) only to see a high Plat or even Diamond go negative.
It would be very easy to calculate the amount of damage every player needs to contribute to the team.
eg. 50 kills at 100 damage points = 5,000 damage total… multiplied by your MMR divided by the team’s MMR.
So if the team’s total MMR is 4,000… someone with 1,500 MMR needs to do 1,875 damage points compared to someone with a 500 MMR who only needs to do 625 damage points.
You can do the same thing for deaths; (1 - MMR ratio) * 5,000.
Of course… it’s still needs to depend on the W/L… but you can now more appropriately reward the winners and penalise the losers individually.
I think the issue with looking at metrics like damage, kills, assists deaths etc don’t factor in an individual’s contribution in other ways. You might die more, but your push and positioning help your team secure maps, power weapons, distractions etc etc. The players that do everything the best, whether it can be quantified or not will rise to the top because they will win more through their actions. I think the current system is very positive and win loss is the only way to judge it.
> 2533274801036271;16:
> I think the issue with looking at metrics like damage, kills, assists deaths etc don’t factor in an individual’s contribution in other ways. You might die more, but your push and positioning help your team secure maps, power weapons, distractions etc etc. The players that do everything the best, whether it can be quantified or not will rise to the top because they will win more through their actions. I think the current system is very positive and win loss is the only way to judge it.
Definitely. It has to be all about the wins and losses. Team game and all that.
But individual performance should be recognised… and I’m a big fan of ‘damage’ over traditional KD or KDA metrics. When it comes to allocating rises and falls in MMR - it should come into play.
> 2585548714655118;17:
> > 2533274801036271;16:
> >
>
> Definitely. It has to be all about the wins and losses. Team game and all that.
>
> But individual performance should be recognised… and I’m a big fan of ‘damage’ over traditional KD or KDA metrics. When it comes to allocating rises and falls in MMR - it should come into play.
Ah yes I agree, the whole hidden MMR system is good. You gain more for wins and lose less for losses of your MMR is higher than your CSR. They should keep that, Trueskill2 is very good.