this should be simple enough to understand, I am comparing the benefits and flaws of skill based ranking and progression based ranking. then commenting on my opinion of what should be used in halo 4.
I am going to start with skill based ranking.
flaws;
1 - how do you define skill in a sandbox game?
2 - the skill gap.
3 - population Vs. skill graphical example
so
1 - how ever you do it someone will loose out.
2+3 - if it is too big then finding a ‘fair’ game can be hard as you out-skill one side but are out-skilled on the other so progressing takes a geometric improvement. but if it is too small then very high and very low ranks cannot find a match (see graph)
benefits;
1 - no easy wins or un-winnable games
2 - incentive to improve rank
3 - competitive players naturally separate from casual.
so
1 - everyone has a fair chance of winning, no-one gets -Yoink- on, and no-one is left bored from an easy game
2+3 - a high rank in a skill based system means you are good. a low rank means you are less good, so to improve rank you have to improve your game. casual player won’t be too concerned and will stagnate at the mid ranks providing a large population and faster searches, while competitive players will constantly try to improve their game, and rank, leaving the less competitive players behind, giving them the opponents they want to play. cheaters will acquire a high rank, but unless they continuously cheat (and get caught) their lower skill will cause their rank to drop.
meanwhile in a progression system…
flaws;
1 - anyone can get a high rank
2 - casual and competitive players are mixed in one population for matching games.
3 - games can easily be one sided when matching games.
so
1 - it is almost impossible to tell competitive players from casual at a glance after the game has been around a while, but in early days the competitive players are the ones who rocket ahead, but everyone catches them eventually.
2+3 - yes, everyone gets a fast matchmaking system, but casual players can easily be matched against a team of competitive players and it becomes a one-sided F fest as the competitive players dominate the casual. the casual players get frustrated and quit out while the competitive players get bored with the easy wins. add join in progress and the loosing team keeps getting refreshed with new players dropped into a game they cannot possibly win. no-one actually has fun here and everyone leaves to play a game more suited to their play style.
benefits…
1 - faster matchmaking
2 - rank based unlocks available to all.
3 - i can’t actually think of a 3rd benefits for progression based ranking.
so, in halo 4 they should have a progression system for unlocks to go into custom classes, and cosmetics. but they should use a skill based ranking system for matchmaking, but not in all play-lists. if all play lists have the progression built in you always gain something from games you play, but in the ‘ranked’ play lists you also use skill system to separate people and provide a competitive environment for people to test themselves in. casual players in these play lists will gain their progression rank as intended but their skill rank will cap around the second quarter region of the population by skill while the average competitive players will cap out around the third quarter and the upper end of the skill gap will make up the top quarter of the population.
and I think the best thing is that my analysis of these two ranking systems and opinion on what should be done in halo 4, is (while purely my opinion based on relevant information) both logical and what 343 has already said they are doing, so anyone want to give a constructive counter argument to the use of both a ‘hidden’ skill based system and a visible progression system?
can we please stop crying about rank in halo4? if you are good you will match with good players, if you are not so good your opponents will be similarly skilled. and if you play in the ‘unranked’ play lists you will play against anyone.