Couldn’t they just make a “hidden” Ranking (that you could still check in your service record or see when hovering over their name), similar to 1-50 that is based of kills/captures and possibly winning, that is put in all playlists.
It seems the main reason people want a 1-50 ranking is so they get matched with people on their level and are as good as them. So this should fix this problem.
If 1-50 or any sort of skill rating system were to make a return, is should absolutely not be based on wins/loses, at least, not entirely. The weaknesses of 1-50 (boosting, deranking) stem from the fact that a player’s rank was based on their wins and loses. This allowed for easy boosting and deranking.
Any sort of new skill rating system should be based on individual performance and wins/loses, a nice hybrid that doesn’t allow for boosting, and doesn’t punish players due to bad teammates or circumstances.
However, I would say that simple non-visible, strict trueskill is all that’s required to ensure competitive matches between similarly-skilled players.
Because I like having a shiny number next to my name? It gives me something else to work for; an incentive to win, if you will.
In Halo 3 I always used Social for goof around playing and Ranked for competitive playing.
One of the reasons that people want 1-50 is indeed so they can be matched with people of the same skill level but it’s mainly for the competitive aspect of it.
People like leveling up based on how well they do, their own skill and teamwork.
Making a system simply based off of winning is flawed. For example:You could have a group of 4 people. 3 of the guys could have be really good and constantly go +10 to +20, etc. The 4th guy could be really bad. Maybe he often goes negative or doesn’t contribute much. If the other 3 manage to carry him and they often win, then his W/L ratio would be great but his skill would still be low.
I like the 1-50 system because I like the competitive side to it and i’d like to be able to rank up based upon my own skills/abilities.
But I also do agree with Toa Frank.
because fizzles like yourselves are in the minority and 4/5 halo players want it back
> If 1-50 or any sort of skill rating system were to make a return, is should absolutely not be based on wins/loses, at least, not entirely. The weaknesses of 1-50 (boosting, deranking) stem from the fact that a player’s rank was based on their wins and loses. This allowed for easy boosting and deranking.
>
> Any sort of new skill rating system should be based on individual performance and wins/loses, a nice hybrid that doesn’t allow for boosting, and doesn’t punish players due to bad teammates or circumstances.
>
> However, I would say that simple non-visible, strict trueskill is all that’s required to ensure competitive matches between similarly-skilled players.
1-50 needs to be based on pure W/N. It also needs to be visible, but not based on overall rank, to achieve true competitiveness.
> because fizzles like yourselves are in the minority and 4/5 halo players want it back
>
> https://halo.xbox.com/Forums/yaf_postsm851314_Community-be-heard-and-Vote--1-50.aspx?g=posts&m=851314&#
194 votes of the 100,000 people on Reach at a given time. It’s what the forums want, not necessarily the people still playing the game. If that was the case Reach wouldn’t be beating Halo 3 in population.
> Because I like having a shiny number next to my name? It gives me something else to work for; an incentive to win, if you will.
If a game cannot give you incentive to win, give you something to work for, on the merits of gameplay and mechanics alone, I don’t see how a skill rating system is going change that.
> One of the reasons that people want 1-50 is indeed so they can be matched with people of the same skill level but it’s mainly for the competitive aspect of it.
>
> People like leveling up based on how well they do, their own skill and teamwork.
>
> Making a system simply based off of winning is flawed. For example:You could have a group of 4 people. 3 of the guys could have be really good and constantly go +10 to +20, etc. The 4th guy could be really bad. Maybe he often goes negative or doesn’t contribute much. If the other 3 manage to carry him and they often win, then his W/L ratio would be great but his skill would still be low.
>
> I like the 1-50 system because I like the competitive side to it and i’d like to be able to rank up based upon my own skills/abilities.
>
> <mark>But I also do agree with Toa Frank.</mark>
The problem I’ve always had is that truly “ranking up” based on your skill is that any sort of skill rating system that allows a person to progress in a manner like Halo 2 or 3’s defeats the purpose of a skill rating system. You can also reward a player based on ability though a simple, experience based-progression system. Reach definitely did it wrong, but there are ways to do it right.
Also: thanks (the highlighted bit).
> If 1-50 or any sort of skill rating system were to make a return, is should absolutely not be based on wins/loses, at least, not entirely. The weaknesses of 1-50 (boosting, deranking) stem from the fact that a player’s rank was based on their wins and loses. This allowed for easy boosting and deranking.
>
> Any sort of new skill rating system should be based on individual performance and wins/loses, a nice hybrid that doesn’t allow for boosting, and doesn’t punish players due to bad teammates or circumstances.
>
> However, I would say that simple non-visible, strict trueskill is all that’s required to ensure competitive matches between similarly-skilled players.
Basing the system on wins/losses is really the only way to give players a common goal and in doing so, promote actual team play. Reach’s biggest problem wasn’t the armour abilities or the kill times, it was the fact that games were no longer fun anymore because every player had a different motivation with each game. Some were going for commendations, some to improve their K/D and only a few were there to win games; the entire system promoted a selfish attitude and made the game less enjoyable to play, because playing a team game with a group of people who are only out for themselves doesn’t work.
The numbered ranks are a psychological thing to be honest. People not only want something to strive for, they want a physical representation of Trueskill, because most people don’t understand that Trueskill doesn’t need a physical representation to work. They want to see that they are a 42 and they are getting paired up with other 42s, it’s proof for them that Trueskill is doing its job; even if sometimes it gets confused.
Yes, derankers and boosters are a problem, but 343 has had 5 years since Halo 3 to iron out the problems that the original system had and hopefully Halo 4 can be free from those troglodytes.
Also, although Reach attempted to rank people based on their personal performance, it didn’t work. Ranks mean even less in Reach than they did in Halo 3.
> > If 1-50 or any sort of skill rating system were to make a return, is should absolutely not be based on wins/loses, at least, not entirely. The weaknesses of 1-50 (boosting, deranking) stem from the fact that a player’s rank was based on their wins and loses. This allowed for easy boosting and deranking.
> >
> > Any sort of new skill rating system should be based on individual performance and wins/loses, a nice hybrid that doesn’t allow for boosting, and doesn’t punish players due to bad teammates or circumstances.
> >
> > However, I would say that simple non-visible, strict trueskill is all that’s required to ensure competitive matches between similarly-skilled players.
>
> 1-50 needs to be based on pure W/N. It also needs to be visible, but not based on overall rank, to achieve true competitiveness.
Why? Basing the system on wins/loses is what leads to boosting and deranking, and the permanence of the rating lead to multiaccounting and the blackmarket.
By simply basing the system on individual performs more than wins/loses, a lot of the issue are resolved. Allowing rank to decay overtime (as oppose to resetting), would resolve the remaining issues.
And again, if a game cannot breed competitiveness through it’s gameplay and mechanics alone, a visible skill rating system isn’t going to change that.
Win/Loss doesn’t show “your” skill, it shows what ever your teams skill was in your past games.
Kills, deaths, captures, and wins and losses should all count towards your “rank” as this would show your actual skill, which is basically the “hidden” part of my OP.
@Frank-Hmm that is true. I agree once again. The 1-50 system also had many many flaws. I also wasn’t a big fan of how you ranked up in Reach but like you said, there are ways to do it right.
Having an underlying truskill is fine with me as well. My biggest thing is that half the time you often don’t get matched with people of a similar skill level. This isn’t just in Halo though. It happens in a lot of online games.
I’m not saying I never want to be placed against people who have a higher or lower skill than me. However, it’d be nice to get matched up with similar skill levels more often.
This isn’t directed to you but I definitely don’t think we should rank up based on win/loss. Getting rewarded for teamwork is nice but you will often find people who don’t contribute much to the team, don’t play like team players, and boosters/derankers, etc.
I think kills/deaths/wins/losses should all be factored in. Ranking up solely on wins is flawed.
if you make the ranks hidden, then there’s no point in ranking up in the first place. people would stop playing if halo 4 doesn’t have a skill system. the reason people play a lot is because they want to have a high skill/rank. if it’s hidden, then your really appealing to casuals, the people that don’t care who they play with as long as they play.
> > Because I like having a shiny number next to my name? It gives me something else to work for; an incentive to win, if you will.
>
> If a game cannot give you incentive to win, give you something to work for, on the merits of gameplay and mechanics alone, I don’t see how a skill rating system is going change that.
Because you have no record of your skill or accomplishments that others can easily view. it’s basically to show others “hey, I’m awesome.” These type of systems have been in games since the very beginning. An example would be high scores. The game itself is fun, but you feel like you’re not getting anywhere. This is why I can only stand to play Halo PC and Halo 2 Vista for certain spells of time. Yeah, it’s fun, but you don’t progress. You start to ignore winning and doing other things that interest you. This is why the Ranked and Social layout of Halo 3 worked so well. It gave a place to both the hyper-competitive and the easygoing, casual player.
> > If 1-50 or any sort of skill rating system were to make a return, is should absolutely not be based on wins/loses, at least, not entirely. The weaknesses of 1-50 (boosting, deranking) stem from the fact that a player’s rank was based on their wins and loses. This allowed for easy boosting and deranking.
> >
> > Any sort of new skill rating system should be based on individual performance and wins/loses, a nice hybrid that doesn’t allow for boosting, and doesn’t punish players due to bad teammates or circumstances.
> >
> > However, I would say that simple non-visible, strict trueskill is all that’s required to ensure competitive matches between similarly-skilled players.
>
> Basing the system on wins/losses is really the only way to give players a common goal and in doing so, promote actual team play. Reach’s biggest problem wasn’t the armour abilities or the kill times, it was the fact that games were no longer fun anymore because every player had a different motivation with each game. Some were going for commendations, some to improve their K/D and only a few were there to win games; the entire system promoted a selfish attitude and made the game less enjoyable to play, because playing a team game with a group of people who are only out for themselves doesn’t work.
>
> The numbered ranks are a psychological thing to be honest. People not only want something to strive for, they want a physical representation of Trueskill, because most people don’t understand that Trueskill doesn’t need a physical representation to work. They want to see that they are a 42 and they are getting paired up with other 42s, it’s proof for them that Trueskill is doing its job; even if sometimes it gets confused.
>
> Yes, derankers and boosters are a problem, but 343 has had 5 years since Halo 3 to iron out the problems that the original system had and hopefully Halo 4 can be free from those troglodytes.
>
> Also, although Reach attempted to rank people based on their personal performance, it didn’t work. Ranks mean even less in Reach than they did in Halo 3.
Reach did a lot of things wrong, but it’s very possible to encourage teamwork and winning with a simple experience progression system. Reach wanted to discourage quitting by ensuring payout no matter what, but this lead to it’s own series of problems. By turning the reward system so that is rewards players based on their performance, if they win, and their contribution to the objective of the gametype, you can solve a lot of the problems found in Reach.
Bungie had a lot of time to work out the problem with 1-50, and they found it by rewarding individual skill instead of pure win/lose. However, even their solution had issues. I’m proposing a hybrid, which minimizes the issue of both systems while still encouraging winning and teamwork. This part is mostly just theory, but I strongly believe it could work.
In the end, my major hope is that any sort of skill rating system is completely disconnected from a player’s global rank (much like the relationship, or lack there of, between Arena rank and Global Rank in Reach). By linking skill to progression, you defeat the purpose of a skill rating system, as the two work in completely opposite manners.
> > > If 1-50 or any sort of skill rating system were to make a return, is should absolutely not be based on wins/loses, at least, not entirely. The weaknesses of 1-50 (boosting, deranking) stem from the fact that a player’s rank was based on their wins and loses. This allowed for easy boosting and deranking.
> > >
> > > Any sort of new skill rating system should be based on individual performance and wins/loses, a nice hybrid that doesn’t allow for boosting, and doesn’t punish players due to bad teammates or circumstances.
> > >
> > > However, I would say that simple non-visible, strict trueskill is all that’s required to ensure competitive matches between similarly-skilled players.
> >
> > 1-50 needs to be based on pure W/N. It also needs to be visible, but not based on overall rank, to achieve true competitiveness.
>
> Why? Basing the system on wins/loses is what leads to boosting and deranking, and the permanence of the rating lead to multiaccounting and the blackmarket.
>
> By simply basing the system on individual performs more than wins/loses, a lot of the issue are resolved. Allowing rank to decay overtime (as oppose to resetting), would resolve the remaining issues.
>
> And again, if a game cannot breed competitiveness through it’s gameplay and mechanics alone, a visible skill rating system isn’t going to change that.
If you knew the inner workings of how ELO or the TrueSkill system work, you’d know that basing it off player stats just isn’t an option.
What would you rather.
A player camps, stat hungry in the back of a map. High K/D, lots of assists, but ends up making the team lose. He doesn’t care, He goes up in rank based on loss, and he’s the reason the team lost.
Now, a player tries super hard. Gives his K/d up for the benefit of the team. Makes 2-3 people one shot every time hes taken out and his team wins because of it. Now he won’t rank up fairly.
Every sport, every game, it’s about the win. Individual stats don’t matter for anything unless you win. If you’re super good and you’re losing so much because of other people that it’s affecting what skill level you are, you need to get some friends, or accept you’re not actually good.
Ranking systems work most effectively by whole team win/loss, go look it up for yourself if you want to see how it works, because I’m not about to type it. I think we should be looking at more innovative ways to prevent boosting and deranking.
> By simply basing the system on individual performs more than wins/loses, a lot of the issue are resolved. Allowing rank to decay overtime (as oppose to resetting), would resolve the remaining issues.
>
> And again, if a game cannot breed competitiveness through it’s gameplay and mechanics alone, a visible skill rating system isn’t going to change that.
If Halo Reach proved anything, it’s that ranking on individual performance does not work in Halo. Halo has always been centred around TEAM play and with 4 different people and 4 different motivations, you can’t have that. If you only rank up by winning matches, people are more likely to play as a team in order to do so, because you are only as good as your weakest link in a situation like that, so that team shot becomes important.
The fact is that personal ranking systems make for selfish playstyles. Who cares if I lost? I still went 35-0 and got 4000cR. All this while his teammates die constantly trying to capture the flag.
The scoreboard is there for a reason, because the goal is supposed to be at the top of that scoreboad.
A game’s gameplay can only go so far, just as a poorly told story in campaign can still make the game bad regardless of gameplay, poor multiplayer mechanics can as well. Gameplay isn’t necessarily the be all and end all, we need a complete package.
I’ve proposed many times two separate ranking systems with the ability to work in tandem. A 1-50 ranking system in specific playlists, a Reach style ranking system that judges you based on individual performance and accross both ranked and social gametypes. This would solve the issues.
We need 1-50 so great premades have a place to go. Ever try going solo in the MLG playlists? It won’t end pretty.
> > > Because I like having a shiny number next to my name? It gives me something else to work for; an incentive to win, if you will.
> >
> > If a game cannot give you incentive to win, give you something to work for, on the merits of gameplay and mechanics alone, I don’t see how a skill rating system is going change that.
>
> Because you have no record of your skill or accomplishments that others can easily view. it’s basically to show others “hey, I’m awesome.” These type of systems have been in games since the very beginning. An example would be high scores. The game itself is fun, but you feel like you’re not getting anywhere. This is why I can only stand to play Halo PC and Halo 2 Vista for certain spells of time. Yeah, it’s fun, but you don’t progress. You start to ignore winning and doing other things that interest you. This is why the Ranked and Social layout of Halo 3 worked so well. It gave a place to both the hyper-competitive and the easygoing, casual player.
Again, if a game cannot give you incentive to win and keep playing on gameplay alone, then it has failed as a game. If Halo PC and Halo 2 Vista cannot keep you playing, both games have failed to do what they are supposed to do.
Classic games showed accomplishment through progressing through game levels. Achievements, skill rating, commendations, none of these or anything like these were necessary to encourage playing. When a player finished the game, the game would encourage players to replay the game by featuring elements that would allow for new approaches to encounters or ways to progress through the levels.
um i have about 10 friends that aren’t on the forums that also want 1-50 back. why do people say the forums are just a small percentage? sure its true its a ratio. if 90 percent of the forums want 1-50 back then 90 percent of the population want it back also. its not like every person that wants ranked back is here lol. wow people are so dumb. ranked is fun. if you dont want to play thats what social is for. its that simple.