A ranking system we can all agree upon

[Skittlze]

 

 

 

I want the same thing as you. I dont know how to make it any clearer. WINNING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THIS SYSTEM. You really think some people are going to try and get extra kills and dont care about losing? That'd be stupid when if you win you can take that bonus exp and add that on to your exp from the win. If a slayer game is up to 50 and I go 49-0 and lose 50-49, I am still losing exp. I am not losing as much as my teammates because I am getting a little bonus because of my performance. Maybe I should change the percentages, say 75% or 80% for a win. How would that sound?

 

Still all you have is people gaining exp so how do they rank down?

[Rooster Teeth]

I like it But, not for Invasion. Thats has no form of skill. I think It shouldn't even be on a playlist, if so then social. Then its all good, Because Halo reach should not be counted right after Halo 3, it just wont make sense. But your on the right track.

[Destroyaaa]

They rank down by losing... You just wont rank down as much as in halo 2, permitting that you are going positive. As for invasion notice I wrote "Invasion?" because I am trying to get a feel as to what everyone thinks of it. I like it personally, but I know many people dont.

[DoctorB77]

How about the social for the gold and ranked for the silver like halo 3. Then cR for money and for buying armor. But this doesn't affect your rank.

 

Then challenges will both give you cR and points towards your rank.

[Destroyaaa]

How about the social for the gold and ranked for the silver like halo 3. Then cR for money and for buying armor. But this doesn't affect your rank.

 

Then challenges will both give you cR and points towards your rank.

 

What do you mean by gold and silver? Everything else you said is included.

[CAVEMANcr]

We should be ranked based on our most recent games only. (Last 50 or 100 games)

 

I like the idea to combine the ranking systems of H2, H3 and Reach. Credits can be used to purchase items, but not count toward rank. I also like ranked and social playlists.

 

For ranked playlists I think there should be different formulae for different gametypes.

 

Heres a list of the factors that should effect ranks:

 

Team Slayer variants (TS, BTB, SS): Win% and (K+0.5A)/D

Team Swat / Snipers: Win% and (K-A)/D

Team Objective: Win % only

FFA: Win % and (K-A)/D

 

In all cases Win % should count more toward rank than other factors.

 

Here is my reasoning behind the different formulae:

 

Team Slayer: Kills and Assists help your team, but kills are ultimately better.

Team Swat: 1 HS = 1 Kill, if you are getting many assists your'e not a great shot.

Team Objective : Many different gametypes which don't include slayer aspects (at least for the most part)

FFA: Mostly slayer gametypes with some objective. Kills help you win, assists help others win.

 

Getting back to the Reach credit system, I would like to see an updated commendation system as well which would better reflect a player's skill and style. Maybe different ranks for number per hour or something. (assist /hr, HS/hr, grenade kills/hr, etc.) This should also be determined by a players latest games.

[Destroyaaa]

We should be ranked based on our most recent games only. (Last 50 or 100 games)

 

I like the idea to combine the ranking systems of H2, H3 and Reach. Credits can be used to purchase items, but not count toward rank. I also like ranked and social playlists.

 

For ranked playlists I think there should be different formulae for different gametypes.

 

Heres a list of the factors that should effect ranks:

 

Team Slayer variants (TS, BTB, SS): Win% and (K+0.5A)/D

Team Swat / Snipers: Win% and (K-A)/D

Team Objective: Win % only

FFA: Win % and (K-A)/D

 

In all cases Win % should count more toward rank than other factors.

 

Here is my reasoning behind the different formulae:

 

Team Slayer: Kills and Assists help your team, but kills are ultimately better.

Team Swat: 1 HS = 1 Kill, if you are getting many assists your'e not a great shot.

Team Objective : Many different gametypes which don't include slayer aspects (at least for the most part)

FFA: Mostly slayer gametypes with some objective. Kills help you win, assists help others win.

 

Getting back to the Reach credit system, I would like to see an updated commendation system as well which would better reflect a player's skill and style. Maybe different ranks for number per hour or something. (assist /hr, HS/hr, grenade kills/hr, etc.) This should also be determined by a players latest games.

 

 

You can't implement levels in playlists if your ranked by your recent games. Other than that, we have similar ideas. Your idea is something that would make the Reach ranking system better. Also I think you made it too complicated with different ranking systems for different playlists. Just make it differentiate slayer and objective, doesnt matter if its FFA or team or swat.

[haloman 2]

I don't care.

[TerribleTimbo]

Alrighty, I don't like the idea of dividing up "bonus exp" among winning team members based on their k/d ratio. You win as a team or you lose as a team. I would much rather have a team with guys whose k/d + assist spread went something like

 

15 - 10 with 8 assists

13 - 5 with 7 assists

12 - 10 with 8 assists

10 - 11 with 6 assists

 

than

 

15 - 2 with 1 assist

12 - 5 with 0 assists

12 - 10 with 2 assists

11 - 14 with 0 assists

 

Granted the second team might have some good people but none of them are team players. But based off the way suggested, the 15-2-1 guy from the second team would get more exp than the 15-10-8 person, which doesn't quite make sense since I'd consider the latter to be the more valuable player.

 

There would have to be some other determining factor other than strictly k/d to divide up bonus exp if there is a system like that in Halo 4.

 

For ranked playlists I think there should be different formulae for different gametypes.

 

Heres a list of the factors that should effect ranks:

 

Team Slayer variants (TS, BTB, SS): Win% and (K+0.5A)/D

Team Swat / Snipers: Win% and (K-A)/D

FFA: Win % and (K-A)/D

As for this, why are assists frowned upon in everything except regular team slayer? If you helped kill someone in swat/snipers why should you be penalized for it? Yeah someone should probably be getting headshots in swat or be able to pick someone off before help in snipers, but you shouldn't be frowned upon for helping the team in those gametypes. In FFA, all that matters is if you win or not (or in some tournaments, place high enough to go onto the next round). Granted you probably will have a positive k/d but assists shouldn't matter.

[CAVEMANcr]

You can't implement levels in playlists if your ranked by your recent games. Other than that, we have similar ideas. Your idea is something that would make the Reach ranking system better. Also I think you made it too complicated with different ranking systems for different playlists. Just make it differentiate slayer and objective, doesnt matter if its FFA or team or swat.

 

If you get ranked by your last 50 games in a playlist then yes you can be ranked by your recent games. Players have a tendancy to evolve so that is why I only want my recent games to count toward my rank. Another way for this to work is if they use seasons like the Reach arena. If seasons were used it would show your overall rank in a playlist on your service record, and your current rank for the season in progress. When the next season starts your overall rank (or rank from the last season) could be used as a starting point.

[CAVEMANcr]

 

For ranked playlists I think there should be different formulae for different gametypes.

 

Heres a list of the factors that should effect ranks:

 

Team Slayer variants (TS, BTB, SS): Win% and (K+0.5A)/D

Team Swat / Snipers: Win% and (K-A)/D

Team Objective: Win % only

FFA: Win % and (K-A)/D

 

In all cases Win % should count more toward rank than other factors.

 

Here is my reasoning behind the different formulae:

 

Team Slayer: Kills and Assists help your team, but kills are ultimately better.

Team Swat: 1 HS = 1 Kill, if you are getting many assists your'e not a great shot.

Team Objective : Many different gametypes which don't include slayer aspects (at least for the most part)

FFA: Mostly slayer gametypes with some objective. Kills help you win, assists help others win.

 

 

As for this, why are assists frowned upon in everything except regular team slayer? If you helped kill someone in swat/snipers why should you be penalized for it? Yeah someone should probably be getting headshots in swat or be able to pick someone off before help in snipers, but you shouldn't be frowned upon for helping the team in those gametypes. In FFA, all that matters is if you win or not (or in some tournaments, place high enough to go onto the next round). Granted you probably will have a positive k/d but assists shouldn't matter.

 

I understand what you are saying about assists being frowned upon, but in swat / snipers, most people don't get many assists anyway so it wouldn't have much effect. Its just something to help seperate people of higher skill. (in 32 games of SWAT i have: 463 kills, 7 assists, 274 deaths and 56.25 win %) Also if you do get assists you are helping your team win, which should have the biggest effect on ranks anyway (in the long run assists will help to raise your rank more than lowering it)

[Mr Biggles]

want to have a ranking system we can all agree on? simple enough, Starcraft 2's is the closest we have to PERFECT, as it punishes people who try to abuse the system, the only problem with the Sc2 system is farmers.

[CAVEMANcr]

want to have a ranking system we can all agree on? simple enough, Starcraft 2's is the closest we have to PERFECT, as it punishes people who try to abuse the system, the only problem with the Sc2 system is farmers.

 

Can you please elaborate? I'm assuming not everyone plays starcraft and knows how the ranking systems work (myself included). Thanks

[Zamio]

How about this

 

Social:

Level with the reach credit system

(And maybe be able to use them to unlock armour by spending the credits)

Ranked:

Level with the halo 3 EXP system (why not halo 2 I dont like that one)

(and maybe have special rank based armour unlocks)

 

I would very much like this. I did not really like the Halo 3 leveling system, so the Reach ranking system could be there too.

[Destroyaaa]

Timbo I think you bring up a good point. I honestly don't know how to answer that. You stumped me :thumbdown: . Lets think of a way we can modify that.

[TerribleTimbo]

Well one way is to strictly leave ranking to just win/loss. Make the ranking progress similar to Starcraft 2's would be a big plus as well. If you're doing great in your "division" you play people in the division higher to see if you need to be moved up. Though there would be no placement matches to throw you in a beginning division.

 

That post is kinda all over the place but I'm trying to type quickly since I'm in class.

 

Oh and each division has multiple leagues or something (I may be confusing the terms) that each have 100 players I think. So someone could be ranked 23rd overall in _____ league in the bronze division, if that makes sense to anyone.

[ShockGazm]

I'm just going to say I think we should keep Ranked and Social seperate, it's for the best of both worlds.

[Destroyaaa]

@Mr biggles and Timbo, can one of you (when you get a chance) explain the starcraft ranking system in detail? I am curious as to how it works/how it could apply to halo.

 

Timbo also as for making it purely based off win/loss, I would love that but that isn't the definition of a ranking system. (see original post) Also the idea that someone gets 15 kills, 8 assists, and 10 deaths getting less EXP than someone who went 15-2-2 still makes sense if you look at it in a different way. I know they didnt really help the team out in terms of team shooting, but they certainly didnt hurt the team (only 2 deaths!). You could argue that the 2nd player helped out the team more or less than the 1st one, and I cannot see a clear winner. Tough spot we've hit here.

[CAVEMANcr]

^{The system from H2 seems quite popular, so how about this: A refinement of H2's system using elements from H3 and Reach.}

 

^{1 Win = 500 points}

^{1 Loss = -500 points}

^{additional points awarded for individual performance}

^{Winning Team:}

^{Top player 100 points}

^{2nd 75 points}

^{3 rd 50 points}

^{4th 25 points}

^{Less than 4th 0 points}

^{Losing Team:}

^{Top player 50 points}

^{2nd 25 points}

^{3rd or lower 0 points}

 

^{Ranking would be based on a cumulative point system like Reach.}

^{Point Requirements: Skill level 1 = 0 points, Skill level 2 = 1200 points, Skill level 3 = 2900 points..... The fastest way to go from skill 1 to skill 2 is to win 2 games and be the top player on your team in each game.}

[TerribleTimbo]

I don't know the exact details but I think I know enough to give a decent run down on everything. Before I start though, this kind of system would need to be implemented in practically every ranked playlist which may cause some problems on 343's end.

 

But everyone starts off playing placement matches (most likely wouldn't be in Halo 4 for obvious reasons) and depending on how well you play, you get an initial placement into a league (bronze, silver, gold, platinum, diamond, and "newly" made masters and grandmasters). From my understanding, there is only one masters and one grandmasters division per region for sc2 (since it has american, european, and asian...uh...player bases I guess you'd call it, in order to avoid major lag I think). But all the other leagues have a ton of different divisions.

 

Each division holds 100 players, each of whom are ranked within their own division which doesn't necessarily reflect their ranking in the league though. You move up in leagues by climbing to the top in your division, and then I think you start getting shots to play against people in the league above yours to see if you move up. If you get to move up then you get placed into a new division in that league and start the process over. If you do bad then you start to climb down in your division and will eventually get placed in the league below yours.

 

Now masters, I think, and grandmasters only have one division for each league (I know it's true for grandmasters but unsure about masters). The people in these leagues can pretty much consider themselves the best of the best.

 

I think the whole process of ranking up/down is based off of a point system. You get points for winning (more if the person is ranked higher or in a higher league than yours) and lose points if you lose (more are lost if the person is ranked below you or in a league below yours).

 

Now starcraft doesn't really have any major stats besides win/loss so this system works fairly flawlessly for the game. Since stats in halo can be fairly bad at determining a players skill more so than their win/loss, I don't see why this system wouldn't be good for it. It's simple, you play well and show you can beat people "better" than you then you'll rank up faster and if you play bad then you'll derank. People are never "locked" in a certain league and can always rank up or rank down depending on how well their points are at a certain time.

 

There you have it from how I understand the system. I may be wrong about a couple things but for the most part it's a decent brief explanation of the system.

[Mr Biggles]

"Starcraft 2 has one of the most robust systems for ranking players of all skill levels and giving them fair games and a sense of progression. Blizzard doesn’t want to reveal too much detail about the way the rankings work as to prevent gaming of the system, and as such, a lot of speculation has caused a lot of misunderstanding among the player base. Still, we know that the ladder system is based around a few core principles and we have a lot of information that can be pieced together, so let’s examine the inner workings of the ladder system.

First, let’s tackle something a lot of people don’t know: the only thing that affects your ranking is winning or losing. Any good rating system for a competitive game must operate in this way. If it was based on how long the match takes, actions-per-minute (APM), or other factors, players could easily inflate those numbers to artificially increase their rating. Like

ELO, the chess rating system on which Blizzard’s rating systems are based, each player has an associated number representing their skill level. In addition, there is an important second statistic called volatility that represents the algorithm’s confidence that your matchmaking rating (MMR) is accurate. This innovation allows players to be ranked very quickly and jump right into a range close to their skill. In other systems, like Warcraft III and even WoW’s arena system (to a degree), players must start at the bottom and work their way upward. The Starcraft 2 system prevents “n00b stomping” by creating new accounts and other abuses.

If you’ve tried the Starcraft 2 multiplayer, you are familiar with the process of acquiring a ranking. It asks you if you first want to play some practice games, which are played on a slower speed with “no rush” rules enforced. It is unclear if this data is incorporated into your early MMR, but I suspect that it is, as there is no drawback to starting players with an accurate rating. You then play 5 “placement” matches, where it chooses opponents from across the spectrum to try to get a general idea of your MMR. Keep in mind that it is only looking at win/loss data, and there are a lot of variables that go into deciding victory in a Starcraft 2 game. As such, with just five data points, the MMR it approximates for you is going to have a very high volatility.

Another key point to keep in mind going forward is that MMR is the sole factor in determining your opponents. League, rank and other factors have absolutely no hand. A high-ranked silver player could be playing a low ranked platinum player. If you have recently played an opponent, the system may shy away from matching you with them again, but this is just a theory I have carried over from Warcraft III’s matchmaking system.

With an MMR now associated with a new player, Battle.net will place players in a league. While your MMR is always hidden, the system seems to use only this number to place players into leagues. There are 5 leagues that players can be placed into, and in descending order of quality and approximate player base, they are:

• Diamond (top 10%)
  
• Platinum (10-25%)
  
• Gold (25-45%)
  
• Silver (45-70%)
  
• Bronze (70-100%)
  

The system will never place a new player into the Diamond league after their placement matches.

Within each league are divisions. Each division is a small group of 100 people against whom members are ranked against. For example, one of my 2v2 teams is in the Gold Mutalisk November division. I can see all of the other players in this division, which gives me a ballpark idea of where I rank globally, but I do not play anyone in my division more or less than anyone else close to my MMR. The purpose of the division is simply to give players a sense of progression with a number that has less variance and more weight than a global ranking six digits long.

There are certain points at which Battle.net re-evaluates your league placement. The number of games or time-frame is not disclosed, but occasionally after a game, you will be placed into a new league. This can even occur after a loss. Players can be promoted or demoted to higher or lower leagues based on their performance. This is the only way to access the diamond league, as the system does not want 5 data points adding players into Diamond only to quickly remove them. Diamond status should be an “elite” league and carry some weight. During the initial rush of unranked players that occurred in the past week since release, the system has had very little data and, in my limited experience, low accuracy. My placement matches put me in the silver league, but after about 25 games, I’ve been promoted to gold and then to platinum, where I’m holding the top 10 in my division pretty well."

 

 

This sums up the Sc2 system pretty well

 

 

ALL FROM: http://lorehound.com/starcraft/starcraft-2s-battle-net-leagues-ladders-and-rankings-explained/

[Destroyaaa]

Thanks guys, thats a neat system.

[Lᴜᴋᴇ]

"Starcraft 2 has one of the most robust systems for ranking players of all skill levels and giving them fair games and a sense of progression. Blizzard doesn’t want to reveal too much detail about the way the rankings work as to prevent gaming of the system, and as such, a lot of speculation has caused a lot of misunderstanding among the player base. Still, we know that the ladder system is based around a few core principles and we have a lot of information that can be pieced together, so let’s examine the inner workings of the ladder system.

First, let’s tackle something a lot of people don’t know: the only thing that affects your ranking is winning or losing. Any good rating system for a competitive game must operate in this way. If it was based on how long the match takes, actions-per-minute (APM), or other factors, players could easily inflate those numbers to artificially increase their rating. Like

ELO, the chess rating system on which Blizzard’s rating systems are based, each player has an associated number representing their skill level. In addition, there is an important second statistic called volatility that represents the algorithm’s confidence that your matchmaking rating (MMR) is accurate. This innovation allows players to be ranked very quickly and jump right into a range close to their skill. In other systems, like Warcraft III and even WoW’s arena system (to a degree), players must start at the bottom and work their way upward. The Starcraft 2 system prevents “n00b stomping” by creating new accounts and other abuses.

If you’ve tried the Starcraft 2 multiplayer, you are familiar with the process of acquiring a ranking. It asks you if you first want to play some practice games, which are played on a slower speed with “no rush” rules enforced. It is unclear if this data is incorporated into your early MMR, but I suspect that it is, as there is no drawback to starting players with an accurate rating. You then play 5 “placement” matches, where it chooses opponents from across the spectrum to try to get a general idea of your MMR. Keep in mind that it is only looking at win/loss data, and there are a lot of variables that go into deciding victory in a Starcraft 2 game. As such, with just five data points, the MMR it approximates for you is going to have a very high volatility.

Another key point to keep in mind going forward is that MMR is the sole factor in determining your opponents. League, rank and other factors have absolutely no hand. A high-ranked silver player could be playing a low ranked platinum player. If you have recently played an opponent, the system may shy away from matching you with them again, but this is just a theory I have carried over from Warcraft III’s matchmaking system.

With an MMR now associated with a new player, Battle.net will place players in a league. While your MMR is always hidden, the system seems to use only this number to place players into leagues. There are 5 leagues that players can be placed into, and in descending order of quality and approximate player base, they are:

• Diamond (top 10%)
  
• Platinum (10-25%)
  
• Gold (25-45%)
  
• Silver (45-70%)
  
• Bronze (70-100%)
  

The system will never place a new player into the Diamond league after their placement matches.

Within each league are divisions. Each division is a small group of 100 people against whom members are ranked against. For example, one of my 2v2 teams is in the Gold Mutalisk November division. I can see all of the other players in this division, which gives me a ballpark idea of where I rank globally, but I do not play anyone in my division more or less than anyone else close to my MMR. The purpose of the division is simply to give players a sense of progression with a number that has less variance and more weight than a global ranking six digits long.

There are certain points at which Battle.net re-evaluates your league placement. The number of games or time-frame is not disclosed, but occasionally after a game, you will be placed into a new league. This can even occur after a loss. Players can be promoted or demoted to higher or lower leagues based on their performance. This is the only way to access the diamond league, as the system does not want 5 data points adding players into Diamond only to quickly remove them. Diamond status should be an “elite” league and carry some weight. During the initial rush of unranked players that occurred in the past week since release, the system has had very little data and, in my limited experience, low accuracy. My placement matches put me in the silver league, but after about 25 games, I’ve been promoted to gold and then to platinum, where I’m holding the top 10 in my division pretty well."

 

 

This sums up the Sc2 system pretty well

 

 

ALL FROM: http://lorehound.com...ings-explained/

Nice one. I'm not sure whether I agree with just winning or losing affecting ranking.

What if I was playing with complete Noobs, and went 24 - 2, but still lost?

[Mr Biggles]

then it wouldn't matter in a sc2 case, because W/L doesn't matter in the lower leagues in SC2, only in the top Leagues (Semi pros and pros in halo case) it matters.

[Destroyaaa]

I cant see this ever being implemented in a halo game because of how drastically different its been from ranking systems theyve used in the past. However I do like it and would support it if it was ever implemented.