Hello Halo-fans. Today I’m going to introduce to you what I think is the perfect ranking system for those who want it in Halo 4. We all know each Halo to date has had a pretty flawed ranking system (Halo: Reach being excluded since this was not a rank representative of skill, rather, time spent). Each system in place has been boostable. Unfortunately, it’s an inevitability; every system can be worked. As previously mentioned, I’m going to present to you what I believe is the perfect ranking system.
-
The system will rank you from 1-100.
-
The system will rank you up or down with a formula. Every three games, the system will calculate whether you deserve to rank up or rank down.
-
To go further in depth, the system will be looking at whether you’d won, your kill/death ratio, and the medals you achieved compared to the gametype you played (e.g. Slayer, Objective, FFA).
-
The system will go by three standards: positive (+1), neutral (0), negative (-1).
-
If the system calculates three games as positives, you’ll rank up. Three games as negative will bring your rank down. Three neutral games will keep your rank static.
-
When adding the three games together, if the sum is positive, you’ll rank up. Negative: down. Neutral: static.
-
The system considers a game positive if you meet the following criteria:
-
You’d won
-
You met a K/D that was 0 or higher for Slayer and -3 or higher for Objective
-
You achieved at least 2 medals relative to the gametype
(Note: A relative medal is a medal pertaining to a gametype. An Assistance medal would be relative to a Team Slayer game. A Flag Capture medal would be relative to an Objective game. You catch my drift).
-
The system considers a game neutral if you meet the following criteria in a won game:
-
Your K/D fell below 0
-
You didn’t earn at least 2 relative medals
-
The system considers a game neutral if you meet the following criteria in a lost game:
-
Your K/D was 5 or higher
-
You’d achieved more than 2 relative medals
-
The system considers a game negative if you meet the following criteria:
-
Your K/D fell below 0 in a Slayer game and below -3 in an Objective game
-
You didn’t achieve 5 or more relative medals
-
OR*
-
You were booted for betrayal (assuming the betrayal system is better)
-
Special Cases:
The system will grant a positive point to a player who lost under these circumstances:
-
Your K/D was the highest of all players in a Slayer game
OR
-
You achieved more relative medals than anyone in an Objective game
The system will grant a negative point to a player who won under these circumstances:
-
Your K/D fell under -10 (only applies to non-FFA)
-
You obtained no relative medals
-
Things to consider:
-
De-ranking won’t be an issue*. A system will be put in place where if a player commits suicide up to 3 times (suicide spree), he/she will be booted from the game, receiving a neutral point for that game.
An inactive player will be booted after 3 minutes and will receive a neutral point for that game.
A player who quits in the first 3 minutes of the game will receive a neutral point; the Join-in-Progess system will attempt to replace the quitter (system inactive after 3 minutes [deters annoyance of joining a losing game]). A player who quits after 3 minutes will receive a negative point. Boosters aren’t patient enough to wait 3 minutes; trust me.
-
Losing your high rank because you bought the account will be easy*. Players in the 80-100 range will be good players; if you’re not worthy of said rank, it’ll inevitably go down.
Please, community, offer me your opinions and advice.
The thing that matters most is will it look cool?
Vanity is very important to those that care about having their skill recognized by others.
I suggest an extremely gaudy set of gold armor for those with 100’s.
> The thing that matters most is will it look cool?
> Vanity is very important to those that care about having their skill recognized by others.
>
> I suggest an extremely gaudy set of gold armor for those with 100’s.
90-100 will have their own unique symbols. Cool symbols. Each rank from 90-100 will reward the player with a special piece of armor (nothing too gaudy, my friend).
> -snip-
This isn’t, at all, relevant to my topic. My topic describes the intricacies of a ranking system.
My perfect ranking system is something like this,
Competitive Playlists - Halo 2’s Ranking System (or as close as TrueSkill can get)
Overall (this includes everything you do from Campaign to Matchmaking) - Reach’s cR System
Wouldn’t hurt anyone, caters to both “Casual” and “Competitive” players.
> [REDACTED]
But why do they have to be separated though? It’s not like the two systems interfere with each other. It’s not hard to make one set of playlists display your truskill, and the other set hide it.
Also, OFF TOPIC.
Your idea is absolutely riddled with criteria that has no relevance to skill.
Medals? Are you serious?
> Your idea is absolutely riddled with criteria that has no relevance to skill.
>
> Medals? Are you serious?
If you get a crap-ton of kills in a Flag game, it doesn’t represent skill at all. Being skilled is being good at the gametype provided and capability of completing the goal at hand.
Medals are important in this equation.
> > Your idea is absolutely riddled with criteria that has no relevance to skill.
> >
> > Medals? Are you serious?
>
> If you get a crap-ton of kills in a Flag game, it doesn’t represent skill at all. Being skilled is being good at the gametype provided and capability of completing the goal at hand.
>
> Medals are important in this equation.
Getting a crap ton of kills in a flag game can absolutely represent skill. The important times to get kills in a flag game is when you are pushing with your team and then when you are running the flag back.
If you have a player who is great at securing those kills, he is a great objective player. He doesn’t have to touch the flag once. In fact you could argue that the players who mindlessly rush the flag and grab it are bad objective players. There are most certainly times when you should not grab the flag.
Your formula is to specific to represent all the skills that come with being a good player.
> My perfect ranking system is something like this,
>
> Competitive Playlists - Halo 2’s Ranking System (or as close as TrueSkill can get)
>
> Overall (this includes everything you do from Campaign to Matchmaking) - Reach’s cR System
>
> Wouldn’t hurt anyone, caters to both “Casual” and “Competitive” players.
>
>
This was my thoughts. I would love to see a mix of EXP based ranks and skill based ranks.
> > > Your idea is absolutely riddled with criteria that has no relevance to skill.
> > >
> > > Medals? Are you serious?
> >
> > If you get a crap-ton of kills in a Flag game, it doesn’t represent skill at all. Being skilled is being good at the gametype provided and capability of completing the goal at hand.
> >
> > Medals are important in this equation.
>
> Getting a crap ton of kills in a flag game can absolutely represent skill. The important times to get kills in a flag game is when you are pushing with your team and then when you are running the flag back.
>
> If you have a player who is great at securing those kills, he is a great objective player. He doesn’t have to touch the flag once. In fact you could argue that the players who mindlessly rush the flag and grab it are bad objective players. There are most certainly times when you should not grab the flag.
>
> Your formula is to specific to represent all the skills that come with being a good player.
Then in this case, the ranking system would need to be MUCH more in-depth. I do agree with you. The objective ranking could be a little more lenient and not require so many medals. Maybe just a few (such as Flag Return and Kill Flag Carrier) so the system knows you weren’t just farming kills. A player shouldn’t rank up for ignoring the objective.
> > > > Your idea is absolutely riddled with criteria that has no relevance to skill.
> > > >
> > > > Medals? Are you serious?
> > >
> > > If you get a crap-ton of kills in a Flag game, it doesn’t represent skill at all. Being skilled is being good at the gametype provided and capability of completing the goal at hand.
> > >
> > > Medals are important in this equation.
> >
> > Getting a crap ton of kills in a flag game can absolutely represent skill. The important times to get kills in a flag game is when you are pushing with your team and then when you are running the flag back.
> >
> > If you have a player who is great at securing those kills, he is a great objective player. He doesn’t have to touch the flag once. In fact you could argue that the players who mindlessly rush the flag and grab it are bad objective players. There are most certainly times when you should not grab the flag.
> >
> > Your formula is to specific to represent all the skills that come with being a good player.
>
> Then in this case, the ranking system would need to be MUCH more in-depth. I do agree with you. The objective ranking could be a little more lenient and not require so many medals. Maybe just a few (such as Flag Return and Kill Flag Carrier) so the system knows you weren’t just farming kills. A player shouldn’t rank up for ignoring the objective.
So I put 3 shots on the flag carrier, yet my team mate cleans him up and returns the flag, leaving me with absolutely nothing to show for my effort.
How about no. How about we have a simple ranking system that inherently takes into consideration every aspect that makes a good player: A win/loss ranking system.
> > > > > Your idea is absolutely riddled with criteria that has no relevance to skill.
> > > > >
> > > > > Medals? Are you serious?
> > > >
> > > > If you get a crap-ton of kills in a Flag game, it doesn’t represent skill at all. Being skilled is being good at the gametype provided and capability of completing the goal at hand.
> > > >
> > > > Medals are important in this equation.
> > >
> > > Getting a crap ton of kills in a flag game can absolutely represent skill. The important times to get kills in a flag game is when you are pushing with your team and then when you are running the flag back.
> > >
> > > If you have a player who is great at securing those kills, he is a great objective player. He doesn’t have to touch the flag once. In fact you could argue that the players who mindlessly rush the flag and grab it are bad objective players. There are most certainly times when you should not grab the flag.
> > >
> > > Your formula is to specific to represent all the skills that come with being a good player.
> >
> > Then in this case, the ranking system would need to be MUCH more in-depth. I do agree with you. The objective ranking could be a little more lenient and not require so many medals. Maybe just a few (such as Flag Return and Kill Flag Carrier) so the system knows you weren’t just farming kills. A player shouldn’t rank up for ignoring the objective.
>
> So I put 3 shots on the flag carrier, yet my team mate cleans him up and returns the flag, leaving me with absolutely nothing to show for my effort.
>
> How about no. How about we have a simple ranking system that inherently takes into consideration every aspect that makes a good player: A win/loss ranking system.
Assistance medals would DEFINITELY be accounted for! I couldn’t list every detail possible in this system. I had this in mind, though.
A win/loss rank mechanic is severely flawed. An inherently skilled player could lose a game and rank down regardless of how well he performed in game? I can’t even count how many times I’d lost a game in Halo 3 with a spread about 10.
I like lots of the ideas but there are far more criteria that need to be looked at. For example, I’d throw some type of hit accuracy in there too!
> > > > > > Your idea is absolutely riddled with criteria that has no relevance to skill.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Medals? Are you serious?
> > > > >
> > > > > If you get a crap-ton of kills in a Flag game, it doesn’t represent skill at all. Being skilled is being good at the gametype provided and capability of completing the goal at hand.
> > > > >
> > > > > Medals are important in this equation.
> > > >
> > > > Getting a crap ton of kills in a flag game can absolutely represent skill. The important times to get kills in a flag game is when you are pushing with your team and then when you are running the flag back.
> > > >
> > > > If you have a player who is great at securing those kills, he is a great objective player. He doesn’t have to touch the flag once. In fact you could argue that the players who mindlessly rush the flag and grab it are bad objective players. There are most certainly times when you should not grab the flag.
> > > >
> > > > Your formula is to specific to represent all the skills that come with being a good player.
> > >
> > > Then in this case, the ranking system would need to be MUCH more in-depth. I do agree with you. The objective ranking could be a little more lenient and not require so many medals. Maybe just a few (such as Flag Return and Kill Flag Carrier) so the system knows you weren’t just farming kills. A player shouldn’t rank up for ignoring the objective.
> >
> > So I put 3 shots on the flag carrier, yet my team mate cleans him up and returns the flag, leaving me with absolutely nothing to show for my effort.
> >
> > How about no. How about we have a simple ranking system that inherently takes into consideration every aspect that makes a good player: A win/loss ranking system.
>
> Assistance medals would DEFINITELY be accounted for! I couldn’t list every detail possible in this system. I had this in mind, though.
>
> A win/loss rank mechanic is severely flawed. An inherently skilled player could lose a game and rank down regardless of how well he performed in game? I can’t even count how many times I’d lost a game in Halo 3 with a spread about 10.
Why don’t you go count the games you won, but had a negative spread. They even out the games you lost but went positive. Same with derankers. Everyone remembers when the got derankers on their team, but never remembers when they were on the other team. If you counted them up, they would be pretty even.
Win/Loss is not severely flawed.
> I like lots of the ideas but there are far more criteria that need to be looked at. For example, I’d throw some type of hit accuracy in there too!
Accuracy is meaningless with out context.
There are plenty of times where I empty an entire BR clip into a guy across the map, which is the RIGHT thing to do, yet if you were to look at my accuracy it would be relatively low.
> > > > > > > Your idea is absolutely riddled with criteria that has no relevance to skill.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Medals? Are you serious?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you get a crap-ton of kills in a Flag game, it doesn’t represent skill at all. Being skilled is being good at the gametype provided and capability of completing the goal at hand.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Medals are important in this equation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Getting a crap ton of kills in a flag game can absolutely represent skill. The important times to get kills in a flag game is when you are pushing with your team and then when you are running the flag back.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you have a player who is great at securing those kills, he is a great objective player. He doesn’t have to touch the flag once. In fact you could argue that the players who mindlessly rush the flag and grab it are bad objective players. There are most certainly times when you should not grab the flag.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your formula is to specific to represent all the skills that come with being a good player.
> > > >
> > > > Then in this case, the ranking system would need to be MUCH more in-depth. I do agree with you. The objective ranking could be a little more lenient and not require so many medals. Maybe just a few (such as Flag Return and Kill Flag Carrier) so the system knows you weren’t just farming kills. A player shouldn’t rank up for ignoring the objective.
> > >
> > > So I put 3 shots on the flag carrier, yet my team mate cleans him up and returns the flag, leaving me with absolutely nothing to show for my effort.
> > >
> > > How about no. How about we have a simple ranking system that inherently takes into consideration every aspect that makes a good player: A win/loss ranking system.
> >
> > Assistance medals would DEFINITELY be accounted for! I couldn’t list every detail possible in this system. I had this in mind, though.
> >
> > A win/loss rank mechanic is severely flawed. An inherently skilled player could lose a game and rank down regardless of how well he performed in game? I can’t even count how many times I’d lost a game in Halo 3 with a spread about 10.
>
> Why don’t you go count the games you won, but had a negative spread. They even out the games you lost but went positive. Same with derankers. Everyone remembers when the got derankers on their team, but never remembers when they were on the other team. If you counted them up, they would be pretty even.
>
> Win/Loss is not severely flawed.
So you should be rewarded when you’re bad (high K/D with loss) and punished when you’re good (low K/D and win)? That’s evening it out? That’s flawed thinking. This is also not true. I kept an eye on my K/D when I played Halo 3. There were rarely cases where I’d go negative in a game I’d won. Even if I did, it would be only a few negative. I didn’t deserve the credit for winning the game since I detracted from my team.
no such thing as perfect.
> > > > > > > > Your idea is absolutely riddled with criteria that has no relevance to skill.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Medals? Are you serious?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you get a crap-ton of kills in a Flag game, it doesn’t represent skill at all. Being skilled is being good at the gametype provided and capability of completing the goal at hand.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Medals are important in this equation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Getting a crap ton of kills in a flag game can absolutely represent skill. The important times to get kills in a flag game is when you are pushing with your team and then when you are running the flag back.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you have a player who is great at securing those kills, he is a great objective player. He doesn’t have to touch the flag once. In fact you could argue that the players who mindlessly rush the flag and grab it are bad objective players. There are most certainly times when you should not grab the flag.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your formula is to specific to represent all the skills that come with being a good player.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then in this case, the ranking system would need to be MUCH more in-depth. I do agree with you. The objective ranking could be a little more lenient and not require so many medals. Maybe just a few (such as Flag Return and Kill Flag Carrier) so the system knows you weren’t just farming kills. A player shouldn’t rank up for ignoring the objective.
> > > >
> > > > So I put 3 shots on the flag carrier, yet my team mate cleans him up and returns the flag, leaving me with absolutely nothing to show for my effort.
> > > >
> > > > How about no. How about we have a simple ranking system that inherently takes into consideration every aspect that makes a good player: A win/loss ranking system.
> > >
> > > Assistance medals would DEFINITELY be accounted for! I couldn’t list every detail possible in this system. I had this in mind, though.
> > >
> > > A win/loss rank mechanic is severely flawed. An inherently skilled player could lose a game and rank down regardless of how well he performed in game? I can’t even count how many times I’d lost a game in Halo 3 with a spread about 10.
> >
> > Why don’t you go count the games you won, but had a negative spread. They even out the games you lost but went positive. Same with derankers. Everyone remembers when the got derankers on their team, but never remembers when they were on the other team. If you counted them up, they would be pretty even.
> >
> > Win/Loss is not severely flawed.
>
> So you should be rewarded when you’re bad (high K/D with loss) and punished when you’re good (low K/D and win)? That’s evening it out? That’s flawed thinking. This is also not true. I kept an eye on my K/D when I played Halo 3. There were rarely cases where I’d go negative in a game I’d won. Even if I did, it would be only a few negative. I didn’t deserve the credit for winning the game since I detracted from my team.
The situations you keep pointing out as flaws of a win loss system are irrelevant.
They do not keep anyone from reaching the rank they deserve. That is the bottom line. You can not find one person who is incapable of ranking up because of the situations you describe.