hollowpts Posted October 15, 2012 Report Share Posted October 15, 2012 Bare with me here because to some of you this may come off as a little far fetched and probably a bit lengthy so if you dont have the time or arent open to innovative ideas i suggest you pass on this post. Anyway, ive been thinking about this for quite some time and i believe the system i propose to be the most comprehensive and accurate measure of a player's skill. When you think of a player's level of skill a few things come to mind... Individual skill: Since shooters are about shooting and eliminating the other team. How well you can kill others while avoiding death yourself is obviously a main indicator of personal skill in most shooters and also is an important underlying factor in the outcome of any match of any gametype. That being said, kill-to-death ratio is a direct reflection of personal skill. Team-oriented skill: One facet of a player's overall skill is their personal skill but in games in which winning isnt based solely on one versus one battles, teamwork is very important. While there are players out there that may top the kill charts every game there are also players who contribute greatly in lesser known areas to ensure the victory of their team. What better way to determine a players influence on the outcome of a match than win-to-loss ratio. While there may be games with some team imbalance, games in which your influence on the outcome of the match is rather irrelevant; you will find that over a longer period of time, win/loss ratio pretty accurately describes a players "team skill". Level of activity in matches: What would any stat mean if you camped the whole game only entering the heat of battle when the perfect opportunity arises. Stats can become distorted if a player avoids any combat situation in which the odds may be against their favor. This being said we need to make sure players are out there playing the game and not sitting in a corner. Thats why the third and final aspect to this ranking system is points-per-match. In other words, on average, how much do you participate and contribute in matches. So now we have three factors to use in ranking a player. How do we use these numbers? As simple as it is the best way is the multiply these numbers together making each a factor of the other. This way, a players rank will suffer if he/she is lacking a particular area. Each factor balances the other out in this equation making for an extremely fair ranking system not favoring any particular type of player. So now we have an arbitrary number (let's call this your skill-number or Snumber) that means nothing as it currently stands. To give meaning to your Snumber we have to compare it to others' Snumber. Meaning your Snumber's relative position in the long list of Snumbers will determine your actual rank. This way, your skill rank is directly attributed to the current skill levels of other players. If your skill declines, your rank will too and visa versa. This ranking system can never get old and will always be accurate based on the current skill level of the Halo population as a whole. Now i know that may have been confusing so i tried to explain a little more below. Here's an example of how to calculate your rank... TL;DR the formula K/D * W/L * PPM = Snumber ______________________________________ Highest Snumber ... \ ... / --top X% = rank 1 ... \ ... / --next X% = rank 2 ... Everything in between ... Lowest Snumber ______________________________________ The only variable here is how many ranks you want and how rare you want each rank to be. If you want rank 1 to be the top 5% of the population, you give that rank to the top 5% of Snumbers. If you want 10 ranks all of equal size you split the population up into 10% sectors. How this portion is done is up to the developers So yea thats about it. Any thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryu♥Hayabusa Posted October 15, 2012 Report Share Posted October 15, 2012 Cool. Well thought out. I think that having something like this is very accurate. Few things could surpass this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upton889 Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 I think you have a great idea going. Simple and effective. The 3rd rank is the only one that I could see problems with as it may promote people to move around carelessly. People might have a lower rank based on play style, which isn't necessarily camping, but some people do hang back and lay down support fire. Despite that, I like the other 2 ranks. Great idea and great thinking! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishy Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 It's well thought out, but to many people would complain about it and I don't want to hear the excuse "I'm not even trying, that's why I'm such a low rank." it'll get used alot and annoying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TECH Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 Well the problem with this, is it would kill off all of the people who play just to play. Your idea is great, but the all-round basis of the ranking system would make the game so hard for people who play it for fun that they will leave for another game. Plus your system is already somewhat in use in the game anyway. The points you get to rank up are all already linked to these traits, the only thing not implemented is the fact your rank never suffers. Long story short, great idea, but if it was implemented alot of people would leave based on the fact that if you have a bad night your rank goes all the way down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rizotic Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 the only thing i dont like here is the ability to lose your rank simply by taking time off or not playing which is discouraging or not being able to rank up even from winning alot because you just havent played as much as the top 5 percent have even though you could go toe to toe.. i do however really want the old h3 or even h2 ranking system back where like the last 6 lvls you get actual symbols instead of numbers and it was really hard to get to a high level.. i really like h3 too i just think there should always be a lvl system implemented in halo.. is damn halo for cryin out loud.. in halo reach there are too many games where i am the only person on my team to go positive, in playlist that are clearly for competitive gamers like mlg playlist... its like i am lvl 50 getting lvl 30s on my team and that **** would never happin in h2 or h3 it just sucks knowing it would be alot more fun if you actually got same calibur players as you on your team every time.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real Talk Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 Well the problem with this, is it would kill off all of the people who play just to play. Your idea is great, but the all-round basis of the ranking system would make the game so hard for people who play it for fun that they will leave for another game. Plus your system is already somewhat in use in the game anyway. The points you get to rank up are all already linked to these traits, the only thing not implemented is the fact your rank never suffers. Long story short, great idea, but if it was implemented alot of people would leave based on the fact that if you have a bad night your rank goes all the way down. Thats why its good to have a competitive playlist and ranked playlist so people do not have to feel like they should always be trying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ISTRAFED UP0NI Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 the only thing i dont like here is the ability to lose your rank simply by taking time off or not playing which is discouraging or not being able to rank up even from winning alot because you just havent played as much as the top 5 percent have even though you could go toe to toe.. i do however really want the old h3 or even h2 ranking system back where like the last 6 lvls you get actual symbols instead of numbers and it was really hard to get to a high level.. i really like h3 too i just think there should always be a lvl system implemented in halo.. is damn halo for cryin out loud.. in halo reach there are too many games where i am the only person on my team to go positive, in playlist that are clearly for competitive gamers like mlg playlist... its like i am lvl 50 getting lvl 30s on my team and that **** would never happin in h2 or h3 it just sucks knowing it would be alot more fun if you actually got same calibur players as you on your team every time.. Just listen to what this guy said, it's all that needs to be said. OP 3rd part is just .. nothing, it's not a good idea.As for the rest, K/D and W/L were already the stats that your skill level was dependent on (in halo 2 & 3), You have a bad K/D in a game, you lose... You lose, it effects your W/L and that would bring down your rank. You just spent a lot of time writing exactly how halo 2 & 3 ranking worked.. But I'll end by saying this is EXACTLY what I want in Halo 4. ("This" being Halo 3s ranking system) lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollowpts Posted October 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 I understand where you guys are coming from but here's the thing. Halo is a competitive game and i believe that most of the competitive population would want a true skill-based ranking system. That being said those casual players that that feel like this excludes them from enjoying the game are just being childish. Its the kind of mentality that says "if i cant have it then no one can". Your not forced to look at your rank and your not forced to even care about it but for those who do want a skill-based system, it definitely makes the game better for them. If your a strictly casual player you have to understand that with a skill-based ranking system, the gameplay in halo 4 is going to be the same with or without a rank. Maybe even include an option to hide your skill rank so you dont have to deal with any scrutiny. I just feel like its selfish for one part of the community to be against what another part of the community wants just because they cant have it ("it" being a good skill rank). As far as those of you who disagree with ppm being a factor in this system, again i understand where your coming from but ive put a lot of thought into this system and will stick by what i originally planned and here's why. Stats such as k/d would mean nothing if you hid behind your teammates, waited in secluded spots for ambush kills, and backed away from any less-favorable battles to get achieve that stat. Ppm is a very good indicator of how active you are in matches and you will find that those who are truly skilled at this game will be very active in matches, going out and trying to win not sitting back waiting for the perfect opportunities. As long as your playing the game like your supposed to, going out there and trying to get kills, capturing objectives, helping teammates, etc. you wont have to worry about ppm dragging you down. However, if your sitting back, playing for yourself, and trying to distort your stats by camping, then rightfully so your rank will suffer. Thats the beauty of this system, you have to have a good k/d AND be out there fighting to have a good rank. Thats why we need ppm in this system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rizotic Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 the only thing i dont like here is the ability to lose your rank simply by taking time off or not playing which is discouraging or not being able to rank up even from winning alot because you just havent played as much as the top 5 percent have even though you could go toe to toe.. i do however really want the old h3 or even h2 ranking system back where like the last 6 lvls you get actual symbols instead of numbers and it was really hard to get to a high level.. i really like h3 too i just think there should always be a lvl system implemented in halo.. is damn halo for cryin out loud.. in halo reach there are too many games where i am the only person on my team to go positive, in playlist that are clearly for competitive gamers like mlg playlist... its like i am lvl 50 getting lvl 30s on my team and that **** would never happin in h2 or h3 it just sucks knowing it would be alot more fun if you actually got same calibur players as you on your team every time.. Just listen to what this guy said, it's all that needs to be said. OP 3rd part is just .. nothing, it's not a good idea.As for the rest, K/D and W/L were already the stats that your skill level was dependent on (in halo 2 & 3), You have a bad K/D in a game, you lose... You lose, it effects your W/L and that would bring down your rank. You just spent a lot of time writing exactly how halo 2 & 3 ranking worked.. But I'll end by saying this is EXACTLY what I want in Halo 4. ("This" being Halo 3s ranking system) lol ^^^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.