Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

Arena Rankings Make No Sense - Could a Dev Comment

OP LittleOgre

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2
So last night my group of friends and I decided to get ranked in slayer. We played our ten games and at the end two were ranked platinum, I was ranked Diamond and another was ranked Onyx. So far so good, this is how we expect the game to work, players are ranked based on their contribution to the game. The problem is that in all but two games as far as I can tell I felt my contribution was the highest and in several cases by a large margin. Let's not go based on feelings though lets use numbers. Since the system is undoubtedly based on those numbers but they haven't told us which ones.

Now that sort of lack of transparency is a good and a bad thing. On one hand it means that people won't change their behavior in an attempt to game the system. On the other hand it means that we have no clue how it works. Which means that we can't tell if it's working properly and we can't help make the game better.

Enter the data! So I have no idea what data is important but let's pretend the system is sort of similar to Halo reach where Kills Deaths and Assists are all important. This game also gives you a KDA rating which is kills plus 1/3 of assists minus deaths. So I included that number because they have it listed so maybe it's important.

So here's a link to a spreadsheet that contains the stats for myself, OGRE and my onyx partner SKIPPER. If you don't believe the data please feel free to check our stats on our service record.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UUodwJytJ7Johu4BxDQEJvz3czho9o18LlZTNdu6Z44/edit?usp=sharing

What you'll notice is that outside of two games, GAME 1 and GAME 8 I had the better stat line. Honest to god this is not a complaint and I'm not here to cry about it. I am just having a ton of fun playing this game and the Arena ranking system is a huge part of that fun. I want the game to make sense and for players to be ranked by metrics that make sense. I know that who you are playing against and their rank relative to yours makes a difference in how your performance is evaluated. However I do not think that offers up enough of an explanation. So I think that either the system is broken or it is inherently flawed. I would love for others to weigh in on their experiences and for a developer to comment if possible. I think a huge part of this games success as an esport will revolve around Arena rankings so it's important to get it right.

Thank you for your time.
Also I'm really sorry but I'm not a high enough level to create links. So you'll have to do it the old fashioned way and copy paste it. Here it is once more.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UUodwJytJ7Johu4BxDQEJvz3czho9o18LlZTNdu6Z44/edit?usp=sharing
Lazy Link there you go OP. In regards to the ranks though right now it seems ever so random. I have seen a few threads now where by people play together the better overall player in the majority of matches is getting ranked lower so I have no idea how the system works and right now just seems after 10 matches the game randomly says to itself okay just because I feel like I will put player A in Silver and B in Onyx trololololol.
I was also playing Arena with my mate. 10 matches together to qualify. I outscored him in every measurable way in each match... accept perhaps "distance traveled." He gets platnium, I get gold.

My only concern is that he'll skew are matches toward better players. The adrenaline spiking edge of your seat fun I crave comes from even matches. :) Although if the ranking system is truly made of jank right now then I guess my worries are misplaced. Everyone will be ending up in semi-random ranks.
Would be nice to get some clarity on the ranking
I don’t think you’ll see a clear explanation from them.

The designer of the ranking system, who no longer works on the game, says there’s some voodoo going on during initial placement.

Quote:
because there's other stuff taken into account besides just wins while in placement for acceleration.
Quote:
it is after placement. During placement, there's a touch of tangy sauce that is still undisclosed but causes that.
Play the objectives
Play the objectives
This isn't very specific, could you please elaborate? Do you mean you rank higher for playing the objectives? If you're saying that.. i'll have to say it's inaccurate. It really does seem random either way.
Back before we had to try every system other than the one that always worked...we just had the one that always worked. 1-50. It worked...always. How it functioned was pretty clear to everyone from the very start.

Now, we're revisiting and reattempting Halo Reach's style ranks (which failed miserably). Granted, in theory, H5's version of the Sonic the Hedgehog emerald valuation rank system is a bit improved when compared to Reach's, but it's still not going to hold players' attention, and the reasons for this are as obvious as why a return to the real 1-50 ranking system (not to be found in MCC) is now long, long, long, LONG overdue:

If ranks constantly reset, people won't care.
If ranks are confusing (meaning, not able to be understood basically at a glance), people won't care.
If ranks are calculated in anything less than transparent manners, people won't care because...
If rank calculations are not extremely easy to understand, people won't know how to track their performance...therefore they won't care.

There is no excuse for the rank system not to be 1-50, and there's no excuse because IT WORKS and all these failed attempts to do new style ranks have ALL FAILED. 343 really has their heads in the sand with regards to ranks, and this is especially frustrating because the excuse they've always touted essentially boiled down to "casuals need love too - we don't want to alienate the casual gamer".

Well, now that 343 has purposely divided the community and alienated the casual gamer into ONE playlist, those excuses are no longer even valid by their own terms...so....343 - How about you put the Halo rank system (1-50) into Halo 5, and quit trying to reinvent the working wheel in excellent condition that is the 1-50 rank system?

It's long -Yoinking!- overdue now.
Back before we had to try every system other than the one that always worked...we just had the one that always worked. 1-50. It worked...always. How it functioned was pretty clear to from the very start. Now, we are reattempting the Halo Reach rank style which failed miserably. Granted, in theory, this version of the Sonic the Hedgehog emerald valuation rank system is a bit improved when compared to Reach's, it's still not going to hold players' attention, and the reasons for that are as obvious as why a return to a the real 1-50 system (not found in MCC) is now long, long overdue:

If ranks constantly reset, people won't care.
If ranks are confusing (meaning, not able to be understood basically at a glance), people won't care.
If ranks are calculated in anything less than transparent manners, people won't care because...
If rank calculations are not extremely easy to understand, people won't know how to track their performance...therefore they won't care.

There is no excuse for the rank system not to be 1-50, and there's no excuse because IT WORKS and all these failed attempts to do new style ranks have ALL FAILED. 343 really has their heads in the sand with regards to rank, and it's frustrating because the excuse they've always touted essentially boiled down to "casuals need love too - we don't want to alienate the casual gamer". Well, now that 343 has purposely divided the community and alienated the casual gamer into ONE playlist, those excuses are no longer even valid by their own terms...so....

343 - How about you put the Halo rank system (1-50) into Halo 5, and quit trying to reinvent a perfectly working wheel? It's long -Yoinking!- overdue now.
I would no doubt prefer the 1-50 system.

the reason is will never come back is because it's easily exploitable. Unfortunately, the unsavory types ruined it for everyone.
I would agree that the ranking is kind of suspicious. I'm new to Halo multiplayer (played a few matches in Master Chief Collection before H5). I completed my 10 games in Team Arena, doing not very well. I may have gotten top of the team once, maybe twice; but for the most part stayed in the lower half of the scoreboard. At the end of my 10 games I got ranked as Diamond 1. I seriously doubt I deserve this, and now I'm afraid I'm just going to be matched against opponents who are much better than I am and not have as much of a good time.

If ranks constantly reset, people won't care.

Not all ranks reset.

And I actually think ranking resets give you the impetus to work harder within that month to try to reach that level you want. I was ranked platinum in SWAT on Tuesday night, and a I bust my -Yoink- the last two night to make sure that I won games because I want to get to Onyx. Last night I made it to diamond and I intend to keep pushing myself to get better.

If the month ends and SWAT gets re-ranked, then I'll push myself to be better during those initial ten games, but there does need to be a bit more transparency with how those original ranks are calculated.
Back before we had to try every system other than the one that always worked...we just had the one that always worked. 1-50. It worked...always. How it functioned was pretty clear to from the very start. Now, we are reattempting the Halo Reach rank style which failed miserably. Granted, in theory, this version of the Sonic the Hedgehog emerald valuation rank system is a bit improved when compared to Reach's, it's still not going to hold players' attention, and the reasons for that are as obvious as why a return to a the real 1-50 system (not found in MCC) is now long, long overdue:

If ranks constantly reset, people won't care.
If ranks are confusing (meaning, not able to be understood basically at a glance), people won't care.
If ranks are calculated in anything less than transparent manners, people won't care because...
If rank calculations are not extremely easy to understand, people won't know how to track their performance...therefore they won't care.

There is no excuse for the rank system not to be 1-50, and there's no excuse because IT WORKS and all these failed attempts to do new style ranks have ALL FAILED. 343 really has their heads in the sand with regards to rank, and it's frustrating because the excuse they've always touted essentially boiled down to "casuals need love too - we don't want to alienate the casual gamer". Well, now that 343 has purposely divided the community and alienated the casual gamer into ONE playlist, those excuses are no longer even valid by their own terms...so....

343 - How about you put the Halo rank system (1-50) into Halo 5, and quit trying to reinvent a perfectly working wheel? It's long -Yoinking!- overdue now.
I would no doubt prefer the 1-50 system.

the reason is will never come back is because it's easily exploitable. Unfortunately, the unsavory types ruined it for everyone.
That's not a good excuse. For starters, if your ranking system has a small minority (yes, even in Halo 3, the exploitation was carried out by a small minority) attempting to exploit it, this likely means you have something great on your hands.

People don't bother to try to exploit a rank system nobody cares about....period. The fact that Halo 2 and 3 had people trying to exploit it means there was a sense of status to go along with particular rank levels. All the developer (343 in this case) must do is continue to fine-tune the system and come up with some new and creative ways to REWARD honest, fair play. Again...a 1-50 system has once existed alongside an excellent EXP system, and it would have no trouble coexisting alongside a SR and REQ system.

If I were 343, and I was trying to revive the competitive aspect of Halo (as they claim they are with H5), I'd be ecstatic to see people care enough about our rank system to bother trying to exploit it. Sure, it means we'd have work to do to ensure the exploitation didn't become rampant...but it'd be a hell of a lot better than what Halo ranks have been since the 1-50 disappeared when Reach launched.

The excuse that "bad boys and girls ruined for everyone" is kindergarten -Yoink- that's never been a valid or good excuse. Now, it's just an obviously childish and lame excuse.
Didn't read half of the above, but a #1-50 rank is almost no different to what we have now, and what we have now is better I say. Instead of chasing some magical 50 and never losing a game, which is simply down to bad luck sometimes...

We essentially have a number of ranks from 1-6 through each tier.. count them and you will get 30 (up to Onyx, which will then have an elo number attached, the higher the skill the higher the rating.. this is the best way to do this, as done in many other games/sports/etc)...

So these are your #'d ranks to progress through. Keep winning, and you'll keep climbing...

Ranking based on 10 matches will never be perfect, no matter the metrics. If you are not accurately placed (high enough is typically the complaint) then just go beat everybody at your current rank, and you will see yourself rising until that no longer happens, arriving at the rank you "deserve."

This is all teething a brand new measuring system, using comparisons between brand-new players' statistics, ranking people against each other with literally 0-50 games, it is going to become more accurate as time goes on, there is no way around this.

Just relax and keep playing.. you're going to end up playing people matched up with your skill level.. data doesn't lie.
If ranks constantly reset, people won't care.

Not all ranks reset.

And I actually think ranking resets give you the impetus to work harder within that month to try to reach that level you want. I was ranked platinum in SWAT on Tuesday night, and a I bust my -Yoink- the last two night to make sure that I won games because I want to get to Onyx. Last night I made it to diamond and I intend to keep pushing myself to get better.

If the month ends and SWAT gets re-ranked, then I'll push myself to be better during those initial ten games, but there does need to be a bit more transparency with how those original ranks are calculated.
Ranking resets do, in theory, offer the most incentive and challenge to players. However, if you want your game to be a first choice on game nights throughout the entire duration of the dev cycle (meaning, if you want H5 to be the game to play until you launch H6...let's hope 343 wants this), then you need to offer one BIG rank challenge...a rank which will take the majority of players the entire H6 dev cycle to max out. This is precisely what the 1-50 system did...especially H2's 1-50 system.

These monthly ranks (or however long the seasons last) should be used for rotational playlists. It's too confusing to cause any hardcore competition that might scare off casuals, and it would motivate players to try out temporary, rotational playlists, and take advantage of them before the next one comes through. There are many ways to offer incentive and 343...sorry...but 343 sucks so very bad in this department. They have yet to even come close to establishing a worthwhile competitive rank, and they've honestly failed to offer an EXP type system that bests the one in H3.

343 has some good ideas SR, REQ, and this Sonic the Hedgehog emerald valuation rank system...all are decent systems...just not for competitive skill ranking. That's just not what those systems are for, and even though that was so very obvious after Reach...here they go trying it all over again. It's really quite embarrassing.
I see a lot of people posting that eventually it will even out. I even saw someone tell me to play the objectives, but if you read the OP it clearly says this was in slayer. I figure slayer is the easiest of the gametypes to use our given data to determine placement.

While I agree that being placed lower is less of a problem than being placed too high the real issue is that anyone who has to play against a good player ranked improperly is going to have less fun. Similarly that good player may not have as much fun playing in blow out matches. Now that's not going to be the case here but still I think the data I provided makes a strong argument that we're not being placed properly.
iMCCOOL wrote:
Didn't read half of the above, but a #1-50 rank is almost no different to what we have now, and what we have now is better I say. Instead of chasing some magical 50 and never losing a game, which is simply down to bad luck sometimes...

We essentially have a number of ranks from 1-6 through each tier.. count them and you will get 30 (up to Onyx, which will then have an elo number attached, the higher the skill the higher the rating.. this is the best way to do this, as done in many other games/sports/etc)...

So these are your #'d ranks to progress through. Keep winning, and you'll keep climbing...

Ranking based on 10 matches will never be perfect, no matter the metrics. If you are not accurately placed (high enough is typically the complaint) then just go beat everybody at your current rank, and you will see yourself rising until that no longer happens, arriving at the rank you "deserve."

This is all teething a brand new measuring system, using comparisons between brand-new players' statistics, ranking people against each other with literally 0-50 games, it is going to become more accurate as time goes on, there is no way around this.

Just relax and keep playing.. you're going to end up playing people matched up with your skill level.. data doesn't lie.
Ah...seems like just yesterday I was reading posts almost exactly like ^^^ after Reach had just introduced the first Halo presents: sonic the hedgehogs emerald valuation rank system.

You don't get it...people either can understand the rank system without trying or they won't care because they're not going to try to learn it. We can debate whether that's dumb on the gamers' part all day long...but that'd be pointless. It's not that this H5 system is literally too complicated to understand (same goes for Reach's rank system). It's that it's just not transparent enough to be understood at a glance by the first-time gamer.

You need a lot of people going for the main prize in order for a rank system to be worth a damn. That's what Reach, Halo 4, and now Halo 5 don't have. They don't have a bunch of people going for one thing. Halo 2 and 3 had everyone in awe of the 50 rank. If you can find a way to create that same scenario with a new system...go for it...but I truly believe a working rank system will always be as simple as the 1-50 system which NEVER failed to work. NEVER.
If ranks constantly reset, people won't care.

Not all ranks reset.

And I actually think ranking resets give you the impetus to work harder within that month to try to reach that level you want. I was ranked platinum in SWAT on Tuesday night, and a I bust my -Yoink- the last two night to make sure that I won games because I want to get to Onyx. Last night I made it to diamond and I intend to keep pushing myself to get better.

If the month ends and SWAT gets re-ranked, then I'll push myself to be better during those initial ten games, but there does need to be a bit more transparency with how those original ranks are calculated.
Ranking resets do, in theory, offer the most incentive and challenge to players. However, if you want your game to be a first choice on game nights throughout the entire duration of the dev cycle (meaning, if you want H5 to be the game to play until you launch H6...let's hope 343 wants this), then you need to offer one BIG rank challenge...a rank which will take the majority of players the entire H6 dev cycle to max out. This is precisely what the 1-50 system did...especially H2's 1-50 system.

These monthly ranks (or however long the seasons last) should be used for rotational playlists. It's too confusing to cause any hardcore competition that might scare off casuals, and it would motivate players to try out temporary, rotational playlists, and take advantage of them before the next one comes through. There are many ways to offer incentive and 343...sorry...but 343 sucks so very bad in this department. They have yet to even come close to establishing a worthwhile competitive rank, and they've honestly failed to offer an EXP type system that bests the one in H3.

343 has some good ideas SR, REQ, and this Sonic the Hedgehog emerald valuation rank system...all are decent systems...just not for competitive skill ranking. That's just not what those systems are for, and even though that was so very obvious after Reach...here they go trying it all over again. It's really quite embarrassing.
I just don't understand the comparison to the Reach system. Reach was strictly based upon playtime. You could be terrible and reach Inheritor. That's not how it works in Halo 5. In the Halo 5 system your team has to win. And through this system we are matched with people that are on our level. I have yet to play someone who is ranked below platinum. This helps me elevate my game. The Reach system was arbitrary, just because you were a Reclaimer doesn't mean you wouldn't get matched against a general.
If ranks constantly reset, people won't care.

Not all ranks reset.

And I actually think ranking resets give you the impetus to work harder within that month to try to reach that level you want. I was ranked platinum in SWAT on Tuesday night, and a I bust my -Yoink- the last two night to make sure that I won games because I want to get to Onyx. Last night I made it to diamond and I intend to keep pushing myself to get better.

If the month ends and SWAT gets re-ranked, then I'll push myself to be better during those initial ten games, but there does need to be a bit more transparency with how those original ranks are calculated.
Ranking resets do, in theory, offer the most incentive and challenge to players. However, if you want your game to be a first choice on game nights throughout the entire duration of the dev cycle (meaning, if you want H5 to be the game to play until you launch H6...let's hope 343 wants this), then you need to offer one BIG rank challenge...a rank which will take the majority of players the entire H6 dev cycle to max out. This is precisely what the 1-50 system did...especially H2's 1-50 system.

These monthly ranks (or however long the seasons last) should be used for rotational playlists. It's too confusing to cause any hardcore competition that might scare off casuals, and it would motivate players to try out temporary, rotational playlists, and take advantage of them before the next one comes through. There are many ways to offer incentive and 343...sorry...but 343 sucks so very bad in this department. They have yet to even come close to establishing a worthwhile competitive rank, and they've honestly failed to offer an EXP type system that bests the one in H3.

343 has some good ideas SR, REQ, and this Sonic the Hedgehog emerald valuation rank system...all are decent systems...just not for competitive skill ranking. That's just not what those systems are for, and even though that was so very obvious after Reach...here they go trying it all over again. It's really quite embarrassing.
I just don't understand the comparison to the Reach system. Reach was strictly based upon playtime. You could be terrible and reach Inheritor. That's not how it works in Halo 5. In the Halo 5 system your team has to win. And through this system we are matched with people that are on our level. I have yet to play someone who is ranked below platinum. This helps me elevate my game. The Reach system was arbitrary, just because you were a Reclaimer doesn't mean you wouldn't get matched against a general.
Ah well I see where we're losing each other . . .

Reach had an "Arena" subset of playlists too, which offered a ranking system very much like the one seen in H5. It failed...miserably.

Edit: To clarify - You're thinking of Reach's XP level system. I'm referring to Reach's Arena Skill Ranks.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2