The need for a true rank system Challenge to 343 and community

Games Other Halo
1

Let me just get right into why our game NEEDS a system SOLELY based on winning.

The thing is the 1-50 system put the most emphasis on the most important thing in any competition or game where there is a winner, winning. A player went up or down based on if he WON or LOST. No other factors were present. If someone wins a whole bunch of games, bravo to him , BUT no one else’s wins effected yours unless you played that person and won or lost. This is the beauty of 1-50 that makes Arena pale in comparison. (that and it does not update instantly)A player should only be penalized if that player loses, someone else winning games should never affect another person’s rank unless they play each other.

To the person that retorts with SC2’s rank system, it only affects your rank between 100 players in a set division. If you never play (after being put into a division) you will also never be demoted from the division that you were placed in.

This next bit is dedicated to people that view 1-50 as a sub-par system.

This bar none is what Reach lacks a system in; a system where winning first and foremost is held with the most importance. Individual performance is NEVER the most important factor in a team game. The most important factor is if the team wins or not.

Having a system that promotes individual performance over team performance in a (note when I say this) TEAM GAME is flawed. It promotes selfish play that does not in turn promote teamwork and undermines the team aspect of the TEAM GAME. AFKers and derankers are annoying but EVERY player has to deal with them, you are not the only one. Furthermore a deranker or AFKer will never hold back a player in the 1-50 system from achieving a certain rank. This is why an individual continues to play more games. People also have problems with boosters. Well regardless of how annoying they are they are still BETTER than you. If you go into the ranked section of matchmaking (there in this scenario should be social playslists as well) you better be prepared to play the best you can, you aren’t in the kiddie pool anymore.

Halo over the years has placed great importance in 2 and 3 on the team winning the game. If your team lost you lost, why? Because you were a part of that team. Call of duty and other games place less importance on if your team wins but rather how well you do. This creates a system of first if I must say, campers (in objective gametypes) who only boost k/d because winning simply means nothing.

Your mother might have said that winning doesn’t mean everything… Which might lead you to believe that becoming focused on winning is something only for the obsessed. Let me challenge this belief. The phrase “winning isn’t everything” means a lot of things. First off if a person cheats to win they truly do not win. Second if a person does not win it is not the end of the world. This person can learn from mistakes which in turn will improve this person. This is true for every activity that we partake in during our lifetime. But does that mean that he/she did not try and win? Of course not we all try to win, it is human nature. Failing to win is not failure, failure is not learning why you lost. This is at the heart of what “winning isn’t everything” truly means, no one is expected to win all the time, we are however during our lifetime expected to learn and improve from instances and situations that we did not win in.

I make this post as a challenge to 343 and the community and ask you why not? Halo is a game. A game requires competition. Rank facilitates competition and allows it to prosper. Competition can not be had if the best players are not allowed to play the best of the best. Also how is an aspiring competitor to get good if he/she doesn’t have the chance to play people of his/her own skill level. If you don’t want to compete stay in the kiddie pool. (Social side of matchmaking)

P.S.- no shame of going to the kiddie pool, I know I did in Halo 3 after some rough losses. Sometimes its good to be able to relax but why not have the choice?

2

Arena is completely based on win/lose. Don’t post a wall of text -Yoink!-ing about the ranking system when you don’t even know how it works.

3

I feel like the Arena’s population would get somewhat of a boost if the people “in charge” bothered mentioning that the system was changed to win/loss.

The rating system was scrapped almost nine months ago now? Yet people still think your rating means something…

4

Welcome to nearly 9 months ago when Arena was changed to use the same Win/Loss system as Halo 3.

At least make the effort of understanding what it is that you’re -Yoink–ing about before you come here.

5

> Arena is completely based on win/lose. Don’t post a wall of text -Yoink!-ing about the ranking system when you don’t even know how it works.

You misread my post.

The very first part of it addresses arena and why it is not as good as 1-50. Arena is also based on how much you play, the more you play higher chance of being placed in a higher percentage. The flaw with this is you will get people high up in the arena system that are simply not that good (granted they are good, but not that good) and the amount of play time they put in helps boost them up.

The last part of my post simply challenges people that view 1-50 as a sub-par system.

6

> Welcome to nearly 9 months ago when Arena was changed to use the same Win/Loss system as Halo 3.
>
> At least make the effort of understanding what it is that you’re -Yoink!–ing about before you come here.

“This is the beauty of 1-50 that makes Arena pale in comparison. (that and it does not update instantly)A player should only be penalized if that player loses, someone else winning games should never affect another person’s rank unless they play each other.”

Maybe you should of made the effort to look into this more, might of changed your post.

I make a point about a perceived flaw of arena. At the very least make an intelligent post and counter this idea, instead of spouting two sentences out of your -Yoink- and dismissing the entire post completely.

7

> I feel like the Arena’s population would get somewhat of a boost if the people “in charge” bothered mentioning that the system was changed to win/loss.
>
> The rating system was scrapped almost nine months ago now? Yet people still think your rating means something…

I address the arena system at the beginning of the post. The rest is a defense for the 1-50 system.

8

> Arena is also based on how much you play

If you’re going to try to level this argument at Arena, then it applys equally as much (if not more) to the 1-50 system.

9

> > Arena is also based on how much you play
>
> If you’re going to try to level this argument at Arena, then it applys equally as much (if not more) to the 1-50 system.

There is a distinct difference however.

In Arena say a person is ranked in the 20th percentile in their division, the division itself does not matter. (We will call this player, player A) If another player (player B) has the same win percentage but plays simply more games player B will move ahead and take the 20th percentile from player A and player A will most likely be moved down to the 25th percentile.

1-50 does not work the same way. If player A achieves a rank of say level 25. And then player B achieves the same rank or a higher rank this will in no way change player A’s level. In fact player A will keep the same level. Everything in turn is under player A’s control, if he wins he goes up if he loses he goes down. Player B can NEVER change player A’s level unless they play head to head, then of course one will win and the other will lose.

With Arena this becomes inherently different. A player to keep the same % must continue playing, otherwise with a possible consequence of going down. I view 1-50 as a better system because a player will always have control of the level that he/she possesses. (coupled with the fact that 1-50 instantly updates, another luxury of not having %'s)

To summarize my answer to your response, arena is much more dependent on play time in maintaining a player’s rank than 1-50.

10

Op did you already e-mail 343?

11

> Op did you already e-mail 343?

Try to keep the discussion on topic, I would not want this thread locked…

If you still would like to know feel free to PM me!

12

> > Op did you already e-mail 343?
>
> Try to keep the discussion on topic, I would not want this thread locked…
>
> If you still would like to know feel free to PM me!

This is entirely on-topic, have you not heard about the Flamesword rank campaign?

13

> This is the beauty of 1-50 that makes Arena pale in comparison.

You know that Arena is based entirely off of your TrueSkill now right?

> someone else winning games should never affect another person’s rank unless they play each other.

Why? If they played and won more games than you against tougher opponents, why shouldn’t your rank go down in relation to theirs? They are better than you.

> Having a system that promotes individual performance over team performance in a (note when I say this) TEAM GAME is flawed.

And having a system that only progresses you when you win consistently over extended periods of time (1-50) is equally flawed. It effectively locks players out from ever progressing in and leads to frustration over the time invested and the lack of rewards given back in turn.

> Furthermore a deranker or AFKer will never hold back a player in the 1-50 system from achieving a certain rank.

Pretty sure they will.

AFKer on your team means you have one less person covering your back and one more free to shoot you in the face. A deranker is actively sabotaging your team. Thus you are more likely to lose the game and prevent you from achieving a certain rank.

And when that deranker goes to play and wins, the fact that he is a rank 1 playing against rank 50s, is going to suck your rank from you to him and his boosting buddy.

14

> In Arena say a person is ranked in the 20th percentile in their division, the division itself does not matter. (We will call this player, player A) If another player (player B) has the same win percentage but plays simply more games player B will move ahead …

The same is also exactly true of 1-50. To state otherwise betrays your lack of knowledge about the system.

There are however, two cases:

  1. your Uncertainty hasn’t lowered enough. Where you have played less than 150 games, you can reasonably expect that your uncertainty is still not at it’s minimum level. So playing more will give the system more data to work with and may consequently raise your Conservative Skill Estimate (the rounded version of which you saw directly in Halo 3, and this is also what is passed onto the leaderboard-style Arena ranks)

  2. You have a win percentage greater than 50%. In this case, you are by consequence beating the majority of players you face against. So in TrueSkill, your actual skill must lay higher than where it is currently, so it keeps moving you up, trying to get you to that ideal place where you win 50% of the time. You can attempt to argue that TrueSkill has poor assumptions or doesn’t work with the available pool of players, or mesh well in the online competitive environment, but you cannot argue that the above is not true: it is true for both H3 Ranked and Reach Arena since it’s the same system powering the core of it.

> and take the 20th percentile from player A and player A will most likely be moved down to the 25th percentile. 1-50 does not work the same way. If player A achieves a rank of say level 25. And then player B achieves the same rank or a higher rank this will in no way change player A’s level.

Thats a consequence of Arena Divisions being leader-board style and is actually a strength of the system.

I can understand the notion that since the Arena Division is all you see, it seems unfair to ‘take away your hard earned rank.’ But your underlying TrueSkill value won’t have changed, just your position on the leaderboard.

Consider any sporting league. If team A plays 3 games, wins two and draws one, they might have 7 points (3 for 1, 1 for draw). If everyone else currently has 5 points or less, Team A is ranked ‘1.’ Now, if Team B plays some games, and ends up with 9 points (3 wins), they would now be ranked ‘1’ and Team B would be ranked ‘2’.

This is exactly how it works in Arena. Except you don’t see the underlying TrueSkill.

Basically, you’re arguing the wrong thing, because you don’t understand how it works.

15

response to methew

> You know that Arena is based entirely off of your TrueSkill now right?

You don’t understand what I am pointing out. Arena rank is not in the full control of the player. Other players will affect his/her arena rank even IF these other players never face that player. 1-50 makes it simple if you win games you go up, if you lose you go down. Other people winning and losing do not effect this player because it is based solely on how that player performs in the games he plays.

> Why? If they played and won more games than you against tougher opponents, why shouldn’t your rank go down in relation to theirs? They are better than you.

BCS standings anyone??? A computer also computes these and it is widely held that it is a flawed system. ANY system that ranks people above another in where two players have not had head to head match ups is flawed. Why?? The system cannot know for sure, there are too many unknown variables to calculate to give a prediction with 100% accuracy to who is better. That is why there are things like tournaments. 1-50 addresses this problem by allowing a person’s ability to win dictate what rank that person achieves.

> And having a system that only progresses you when you win consistently over extended periods of time (1-50) is equally flawed. It effectively locks players out from ever progressing in and leads to frustration over the time invested and the lack of rewards given back in turn.

The thing is the system completely and accurately places you where your skill level allows you to be. I had a 50 in team snipers in halo 3 (by no means however was I a great sniper in that playlist) but I played on a friends account that was level 42 and got it up to a level 50. (this account had 500xp +) That player is never locked from progressing, that player instead is forced to get better. If I can achieve the highest rank in the game and then go to an account with 500xp+ and bring it up to a level 50 isn’t that proof that, that player is not actually locked out??? Why do you feel a system that not only accurately places an individual at his/her current skill level is flawed? How is the system flawed if it forces the player to get better if he wants to get a higher level???

I know in a 1-50 system all I have to do is win to move up. This can be done on my own time. In arena I am also competing against other people who play an unknown amount of time and have an unknown amount of win. As an arena player I am left in the dark to how much I need to play, I can have a good win percentage but because there is a lack of an official leader board system how am I to know how many games I need to play to catch up with the players at the top.

1-50 a player has full control of the rank that person achieves. (Win and you go up/ lose you go down) Arena is the same way EXCEPT your win/loss is compared to everyone’s. Your rank is also in relation and in constant flux with EVERYONE. Even people that you may NEVER PLAY. This last point is crucial in my argument. Why should someone I have never played effect my rank?

Furthermore, in 1-50 you know EXACTLY where you are. You know at any part of the day if you are level 23 or 24, there is no question. With arena you have to wait till the next day and you will not know what percent you are currently. That percent will not change no matter what until the next day. A player is left in the dark about what % her/she is and plays blindly throughout the day.

Not only does the player in Arena not have full control over their %. They don’t even know what their percent is, except once every 24 hours. The reason why 1-50 is better is because the player had full control over their level all the time. In Arena the player not only doesn’t have control but does not even know what he/she is ranked except once every 24 hours. 1-50 is static and only changed if the player played. Arena is a fluid rank system but is only updated once every 24 hours. This is another flaw of arena, it does not allow for a player to have any idea of where the player is at except at a 24 hour interval. How is a player supposed to know if he/she is getting better?

> Pretty sure they will.
>
> AFKer on your team means you have one less person covering your back and one more free to shoot you in the face. A deranker is actively sabotaging your team. Thus you are more likely to lose the game and prevent you from achieving a certain rank.
>
> And when that deranker goes to play and wins, the fact that he is a rank 1 playing against rank 50s, is going to suck your rank from you to him and his boosting buddy.

Notice you state an example of one game with a deranker/afker.

My point is all players have to deal with this. One loss does not mean that a person cannot achieve a 50. I got to a 50 (in like I said team snipers) and I have lost games because of afkers/derankers. My point was that that those few games that do have afkers/derankers do not mean you cannot achieve a 50. On the other hand a player will have games when that deranker is on the other team and you get a win because of it.

16

I think halo 4 needs a 1-50 system but idk about reach. Reach is a bit nooby and now theres way less cheaters.

17

@ OP

“This bar none is what Reach lacks a system in; a system where winning first and foremost is held with the most importance. Individual performance is NEVER the most important factor in a team game. The most important factor is if the team wins or not.”

This is directly from your original post. You either think that the arena is not based off win/loss or you have very poor literary skills.

Winning IS all that matters. As for having ranks relative to other players…changing in rank while not playing is only a problem for the first week or two of the season, when everyone is still getting rated.

If you “sit” on a rank you obtained in the middle of the season and stop playing, you might -Yoink- 5-10% by the end of the season. Not a big issue i.m.o.

Finally you stated that the Arena favours those who play more. This is ABSOLUTLEY false. Firstly, the true skill formula in reach is much “looser” than in past halos, meaning that you can achieve proper rank much more quickly. You can play 30-40 games and realistically be upper tier onyx.

The proof of this is in the fact that the best players/teams in the Arena tend to play about 100 games every season (a relatively low amount compared to other Arena players), and still manage to keep their percentiles.

18

> > Welcome to nearly 9 months ago when Arena was changed to use the same Win/Loss system as Halo 3.
> >
> > At least make the effort of understanding what it is that you’re -Yoink!–ing about before you come here.
>
> “This is the beauty of 1-50 that makes Arena pale in comparison. (that and it does not update instantly)A player should only be penalized if that player loses, someone else winning games should never affect another person’s rank unless they play each other.”
>
> Maybe you should of made the effort to look into this more, might of changed your post.
>
> I make a point about a perceived flaw of arena. At the very least make an intelligent post and counter this idea, instead of spouting two sentences out of your -Yoink!- and dismissing the entire post completely.

LOL don’t try to justify your stupid mistake by pretending like you were talking about something different.

The very first sentence of your very first post clearly makes a directly and undeniable implication that Arena is not based on winning alone.

> Let me just get right into why our game NEEDS a system SOLELY based on winning.

And soon after, you not only imply it, but directly state that Reach does not have a purely Win/Loss system:

> This bar none is what Reach lacks a system in; a system where winning first and foremost is held with the most importance. Individual performance is NEVER the most important factor in a team game. The most important factor is if the team wins or not.

Nobody believes your BSing. Stop, you’re embarrassing yourself and taking away any sense of credibility which could have originally been achieved.

19

H2 Rank System >

Players on the winning team are ranked 1-4, losers are ranked 5-8.
winning gets you the most points to improve your rank, 1st place on the winning team will get more rank points then 4th place on the winning team.
1st place on the losing team loses less points then the player in last place on the losing team.
Not only does this promote winning as a team, but also rewards players who do well individually. So if the guy on your team went -15 and caused you to lose, if you did the best on your team then you will not go down in rank as much as that baddy that was -15

Also if you carried your team to victory you are rewarded higher rank points then the guy that just sat around and let you do all the work.

As you got higher in rank (level 40+) the bonuses for winning was less and penalty for losing was much higher.

This system was the most fair and balanced system ever created. It saw the best players in the world rise to the top and the slackers to fall to the bottom.

I would love to see this system return in Halo 4. Microsoft pushes trueskill on every ranked game that’s played on the 360 console, So my suggestion to 343i is to use trueskill in the background much like its used in Reach, because you have to use it. But give us the visual ranking system that Halo 2 had.