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
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.
I never really played Arena in Reach too often.
Too busy trying to get to Inheritor...haha
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.
Okay, let's talk about this some more... I also believe transparency is important, and this is something currently lacking with this new system in H5.. I have not seen a comprehensive review on how the initial ranking works or generally how much it boosts/drops your "elo" within a given Tier when you win or lose.. I am sure they are protecting some of the metrics from people gaming the system.. You can't blame them for this... And there will have to be compromises, we have to understand this..

However, it's kinda funny you think I don't get it... I'm not sure what you are implying I do not get... I believe you are holding on to a 1-50 system because that's what you are used to and like, of which there are many who feel the same way. That system has its flaws as well, and did have its failures, no system is perfect. Just because a majority may like the old system does not mean it is the answer going forward. Another Comment: I hardly believe they are going to switch to a #1-50 system at this point no matter what people have to say.

The current/new CSR system as far as I understand is an elo system like many others that rank players in a literal order of magnitude. This is simply a different way of putting people into ranks, just not #1-50. We are not seeing the "elo" number for the lesser players below Onyx, but it is there I think.. I also believe each tier has a CSR range tied to it, players are given an "elo" within a range and that puts them into that Tier (Bronze/Silver/Gold/Plat/Dia/Onyx). This would make perfect logical sense...

Only when reaching Onyx does a player see their literal "elo" number representation, similar to Quake Live's now-retired ELO system which I am very familiar with. Please see qlranks.com/ca/player/mccool for an example... Something QLRANKS does do better is show the quantifiable result + / - for every match and how many "elo" were gained or lost. The higher the player ELO in a given game type, the higher (or lower numbered) the player is.Also, on QLRANKS, a player is assigned a "Ladder" or "Tier" depending on where they fall within global rankings in that game type. You can drop as high or low as your performance dictates.. no fail safes here..

In summation, nothing is perfect yet I really like the system in place, it has done a pretty good job of matching me up in almost every one of my games after the initial 10, with very few lopsided games for or against.. It's working for me. Maybe we should try it before we bash it.

[EDIT] The BAIT at the end of the tunnel you're referring to, that's called Onyx and/or Champion. It's a very clear target for people to hit in my opinion. And a better one than Level #50. You will literally SEE your global rank compared to any other player in the game, on the sliding scale of unlimited #### values.
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.
I don't understand your reference to this sonic the hedgehog thing, but the ranking system is essentially no different than 1-50. Understanding the basic progression of rank from bronze-silver-gold-platinum-diamond is becoming fairly pervasive through gaming (starcraft 2 is identical). They've just replaced numbers with equally logical pictures. The only fundamental difference from 1-50 is the inability to rank down a "tier" (i.e. gold to silver). This is kind of silly and results in a non zero-sum system, but at the end of the day does promote inflation through the month-long period, which I guess motivates people in the middle tiers because they can theoretically achieve higher ranks than they would have in a zero-sum system, like the 1-50.

You're also wrong about level 50 being something to shoot for over the entire generation. Top players could hit level 50 in an extremely short period of time (days) with high win percentages. If it took you the whole cycle to reach 50, you are experiencing a combination of (1) your skill increasing and (2) higher skilled players exiting the pool by not playing the game any longer. The new system provides the same incentive, (i.e. to reach champion), it just resets periodically and the scale of games required to hit champion is lower than the 1-50. I don't really see a major problem with that. The system should never award purely for time spent playing, because that does not represent skill after a minimum number of games have been played to eliminate variance.
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.
I feel bad that you have to bust your -Yoink- for it. I had a 5/5 WL and was on top of the leaderboard maaaybe 3-4 times? I got put straight into Onyx and I'm immediately getting torn a new one. I would kill to be in Platinum right now.
Only specific playlists will reset monthly, based on statements from devs I have seen. This is for "Seasons" and Championships, this makes perfect sense, QUALIFYING for an open tournament so to speak...

You will however never "Tier" down an entire Tier (Bronze/Silver/Gold/etc) in normal playlists.
Once you're in a division, the ranks will normalize. Every ELO based system works this way.
A few potential factors that could cause the behavior seen:

- Severe weighting to teamwork (Assist) during placement.
- Diminishing rank impact after first game.
- Increased impact on first Win or First Loss.

I think it's probably significant that the first game you each Won, Skipper performed better.
The first game you Lost, Skipper also performed better.

Performance during a loss could have a big impact.

Another potential factor, Kill to Assist disparity. They could easily be using some sort of ratio that increases your rank faster if your Kill to Assist ratio is closer.
Again, this would be emphasizing teamwork during the placements, as opposed to stealing the last shots.
Atrum wrote:
Once you're in a division, the ranks will normalize. Every ELO based system works this way.
A few potential factors that could cause the behavior seen:

- Severe weighting to teamwork (Assist) during placement.
- Diminishing rank impact after first game.
- Increased impact on first Win or First Loss.

I think it's probably significant that the first game you each Won, Skipper performed better.
The first game you Lost, Skipper also performed better.

Performance during a loss could have a big impact.

Another potential factor, Kill to Assist disparity. They could easily be using some sort of ratio that increases your rank faster if your Kill to Assist ratio is closer.
Again, this would be emphasizing teamwork during the placements, as opposed to stealing the last shots.
These are good ways to explain what is happening and that is what I was asking for. I just think there is a significant enough statistical difference in all the games that we won that I'm still shocked by the disparity. Especially since the only two times that he out performed me were by such small margins.

If we make the assumption that any or all of those things you brought up are true I would argue that the data I've presented makes a strong argument that the weight they've placed on certain elements is flawed.
Atrum wrote:
Once you're in a division, the ranks will normalize. Every ELO based system works this way.
The problem is that it's impossible to drop down divisions. In a good ELO system, if you have a few fluke games and get placed too high you'll lose until your rank levels out to where it should be.

Even if it eventually evens out and starts placing people more accurately, those guys that somehow got dropped into diamond with a 0.5 kd are literally there forever. They can lose 20 matches in a row and be miserable and will still be in diamond. I'm really hoping that when seasons start the current playlists will reset and we won't just be playing a special "seasonal" one
.
Right now placement is skewing far, far too high considering how few matches we've played. I would much rather have them err on the low side and place everyone in bronze-gold and then let us rank up from there. Working up through the divisions would feel a lot more like the old 1-50 system and be a better carrot-on-a-stick than dropping half the playerbase into platinum-onyx immediately.
Galimore wrote:
Atrum wrote:
Once you're in a division, the ranks will normalize. Every ELO based system works this way.
The problem is that it's impossible to drop down divisions. In a good ELO system, if you have a few fluke games and get placed too high you'll lose until your rank levels out to where it should be.

Even if it eventually evens out and starts placing people more accurately, those guys that somehow got dropped into diamond with a 0.5 kd are literally there forever. They can lose 20 matches in a row and be miserable and will still be in diamond. I'm really hoping that when seasons start the current playlists will reset and we won't just be playing a special "seasonal" one
.
Right now placement is skewing far, far too high considering how few matches we've played. I would much rather have them err on the low side and place everyone in bronze-gold and then let us rank up from there. Working up through the divisions would feel a lot more like the old 1-50 system and be a better carrot-on-a-stick than dropping half the playerbase into platinum-onyx immediately.
I agree with this, placement matches to diamond is likely a bit aggressive, even capping at platinum would be reasonable. This keeps higher skilled players from stomping lesser skilled players early on. 10 games really isn't enough to normalize for variance, so there should be a cap on the top end placement, especially in a system you can't drop down in.

I had a similar situation to the OP, all 10 placement games played together for four of us, no other team arena games played by anyone. Two ended up platinum and two ended up gold, a fifth joined later and place diamond when one guy left. The fifth guy certainly got the benefit of us knowing the maps better and actually understanding the objectives of the game type ("I don't think this mode has headshots??", "It looks like you have to hold two of three to get points guys") The crazy part is we're not really that different in skill level, and all take turns leading the team to victory or crushing us into defeat. But, now two guys are six levels behind two of us and twelve behind the fifth guy, which seems excessive. In a system where you can't tier down, it's going to take a lot longer for us to normalize to our proper ranks than it would in a zero-sum system (assuming it's probably somewhere around platinum based on the range of placements).
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.
You are aware that these ranks are actually very similar to another competitive game, that is actually even more competitive and renown than Halo at this point; right? Take a look at League of Legend's Rank System. Albeit, Halo's is more forgiving. But, it isn't that hard to understand; this type of ranking system works, and has been proven to work in the most competition centric game in years.

The only reason the ranks seem somewhat random and sporadic right now, is literally because this is day two after release.
I've really noticed a flaw in ranking in FFA...
I don't think I won a single FFA placement and got Onyx. Granted I was playing against Champ 30-50's in 3 of my placement games but still, going barely positive and never winning? Doesn't make sense to get Onyx yet at the same time I'm not complaining lol.
iMCCOOL wrote:
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.
Okay, let's talk about this some more... I also believe transparency is important, and this is something currently lacking with this new system in H5.. I have not seen a comprehensive review on how the initial ranking works or generally how much it boosts/drops your "elo" within a given Tier when you win or lose.. I am sure they are protecting some of the metrics from people gaming the system.. You can't blame them for this... And there will have to be compromises, we have to understand this..

However, it's kinda funny you think I don't get it... I'm not sure what you are implying I do not get... I believe you are holding on to a 1-50 system because that's what you are used to and like, of which there are many who feel the same way. That system has its flaws as well, and did have its failures, no system is perfect. Just because a majority may like the old system does not mean it is the answer going forward. Another Comment: I hardly believe they are going to switch to a #1-50 system at this point no matter what people have to say.

The current/new CSR system as far as I understand is an elo system like many others that rank players in a literal order of magnitude. This is simply a different way of putting people into ranks, just not #1-50. We are not seeing the "elo" number for the lesser players below Onyx, but it is there I think.. I also believe each tier has a CSR range tied to it, players are given an "elo" within a range and that puts them into that Tier (Bronze/Silver/Gold/Plat/Dia/Onyx). This would make perfect logical sense...

Only when reaching Onyx does a player see their literal "elo" number representation, similar to Quake Live's now-retired ELO system which I am very familiar with. Please see qlranks.com/ca/player/mccool for an example... Something QLRANKS does do better is show the quantifiable result + / - for every match and how many "elo" were gained or lost. The higher the player ELO in a given game type, the higher (or lower numbered) the player is.Also, on QLRANKS, a player is assigned a "Ladder" or "Tier" depending on where they fall within global rankings in that game type. You can drop as high or low as your performance dictates.. no fail safes here..

In summation, nothing is perfect yet I really like the system in place, it has done a pretty good job of matching me up in almost every one of my games after the initial 10, with very few lopsided games for or against.. It's working for me. Maybe we should try it before we bash it.

[EDIT] The BAIT at the end of the tunnel you're referring to, that's called Onyx and/or Champion. It's a very clear target for people to hit in my opinion. And a better one than Level #50. You will literally SEE your global rank compared to any other player in the game, on the sliding scale of unlimited #### values.
Look, everything you say is reasonable and practical. What I meant by "you still don't get it" is that you still don't get that the overwhelmingly vast majority of players will never reach a level 50, and what that simple little system did was offer immediate and longer-termed goals for every player to shoot for at all times: Win the next game...level up. Keep winning to get to ___ level. Keep moving up, keep getting better by playing better people...win and move up.

I know, I know...this is exactly what the H5 system offers, and if that's what you want to reply with...you don't need to bother. I'm well aware of the similarities between the two ranking systems. What I'm also well aware of is that if something NEVER fails to do it's intended job...and in fact NEVER fails to do that job quite well...then why the hell change it? Why? Has anything worked since? NO. Maybe go back to what worked before trying new model that MIGHT work like 1-50 used to version 3.

I am extremely confident that bait at the end of the tunnel will not work. This system has been tried before...almost literally this exact same system was in Halo Reach. People don't even remember it being there because nobody gave a damn about it. You know what rank system worked...every single time? The 1-50 rank system. IT WORKED. It's so simple it's borderline stupid, but it worked and it did it's job very well. Give me a rank system that works...then tweak it as needed. I'm not saying 1-50 was perfect. I'm pointing out that it never failed...whereas everything since 1-50 has done nothing but fail.
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.
You are aware that these ranks are actually very similar to another competitive game, that is actually even more competitive and renown than Halo at this point; right? Take a look at League of Legend's Rank System. Albeit, Halo's is more forgiving. But, it isn't that hard to understand; this type of ranking system works, and has been proven to work in the most competition centric game in years.

The only reason the ranks seem somewhat random and sporadic right now, is literally because this is day two after release.
You realize that it's been since 2007 that a Halo game had a competitive rank system that did it's intended job? League of Legends is not Halo. Halo had an excellent ranking system that did it's job. Bungie decided to abandon it in favor of something "fresh", "new", and less likely to be exploited. That system failed so hard. Yet, it's back in Halo 5.

So when H5's ranks fail, can we finally go back to the 1-50 system that always worked? Or must we go try what _______ or _______ games have been doing? When can we just use and build upon what always worked from the past Halo games? Why is it a crime to use and build off of what was GREAT?
Really don't like how if you que solo you get vs a team of 4
Its just placements if you are oynx you will eventually climb anyway since all you have to do is win
II Epok II wrote:
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.
I don't understand your reference to this sonic the hedgehog thing, but the ranking system is essentially no different than 1-50. Understanding the basic progression of rank from bronze-silver-gold-platinum-diamond is becoming fairly pervasive through gaming (starcraft 2 is identical). They've just replaced numbers with equally logical pictures. The only fundamental difference from 1-50 is the inability to rank down a "tier" (i.e. gold to silver). This is kind of silly and results in a non zero-sum system, but at the end of the day does promote inflation through the month-long period, which I guess motivates people in the middle tiers because they can theoretically achieve higher ranks than they would have in a zero-sum system, like the 1-50.

You're also wrong about level 50 being something to shoot for over the entire generation. Top players could hit level 50 in an extremely short period of time (days) with high win percentages. If it took you the whole cycle to reach 50, you are experiencing a combination of (1) your skill increasing and (2) higher skilled players exiting the pool by not playing the game any longer. The new system provides the same incentive, (i.e. to reach champion), it just resets periodically and the scale of games required to hit champion is lower than the 1-50. I don't really see a major problem with that. The system should never award purely for time spent playing, because that does not represent skill after a minimum number of games have been played to eliminate variance.
When did 1-50 fail to do it's job? Has Halo ever had a rank system do that job better than the 1-50 system?

I'm sure we'll cross paths again once this tried and failed rank system currently in H5 has been tried and has failed again. Maybe then we can all agree that 3 strikes is an out and it's time to actually implement what always worked...then make subtle adjustments as needed and build around that proven system to ensure the overwhelming minority you alluded to when pointing to those whom are capable of quickly grabbing a lvl 50 rank aren't being forgotten about and left holding their overnight 50's for a couple years with no motivation to compete.

There are millions of ways to supplement a working system to better the overall quality of experience. 1-50 is not perfect, but it damn sure works...which is a hell of a lot more than any other Halo rank system can say.
II Epok II wrote:
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.
I don't understand your reference to this sonic the hedgehog thing, but the ranking system is essentially no different than 1-50. Understanding the basic progression of rank from bronze-silver-gold-platinum-diamond is becoming fairly pervasive through gaming (starcraft 2 is identical). They've just replaced numbers with equally logical pictures. The only fundamental difference from 1-50 is the inability to rank down a "tier" (i.e. gold to silver). This is kind of silly and results in a non zero-sum system, but at the end of the day does promote inflation through the month-long period, which I guess motivates people in the middle tiers because they can theoretically achieve higher ranks than they would have in a zero-sum system, like the 1-50.

You're also wrong about level 50 being something to shoot for over the entire generation. Top players could hit level 50 in an extremely short period of time (days) with high win percentages. If it took you the whole cycle to reach 50, you are experiencing a combination of (1) your skill increasing and (2) higher skilled players exiting the pool by not playing the game any longer. The new system provides the same incentive, (i.e. to reach champion), it just resets periodically and the scale of games required to hit champion is lower than the 1-50. I don't really see a major problem with that. The system should never award purely for time spent playing, because that does not represent skill after a minimum number of games have been played to eliminate variance.
When did 1-50 fail to do it's job? Has Halo ever had a rank system do that job better than the 1-50 system?

I'm sure we'll cross paths again once this tried and failed rank system currently in H5 has been tried and has failed again. Maybe then we can all agree that 3 strikes is an out and it's time to actually implement what always worked...then make subtle adjustments as needed and build around that proven system to ensure the overwhelming minority you alluded to when pointing to those whom are capable of quickly grabbing a lvl 50 rank aren't being forgotten about and left holding their overnight 50's for a couple years with no motivation to compete.

There are millions of ways to supplement a working system to better the overall quality of experience. 1-50 is not perfect, but it damn sure works...which is a hell of a lot more than any other Halo rank system can say.
Hey man, I get what you're saying. Abandoning the 1-50 system is why I barely played Reach and Halo 4, I used to live for ranking up in that system. Rather than ask for sweeping changes, I think our efforts are better focused on understanding and improving what's been implemented.

You're basically asking for a red apple in exchange for a green apple right now. Maybe you prefer the sourness of green over the tartness of red, but it's still an apple.
same thing here. I ran MVP almost every single one of my ten games for swat and I got diamond and my friend who did far worse than me got onyx. Makes no sense and it is frustrating.
The ranks system is amazing actually. Thank you 343, finally. Placement matches are perfect, allows you to quickly get placed approximately based on 10 games, then you move based on wins or losses. Wins or losses is the only metric that should be measured to force teamwork, halo 4 had no teamwork because of individual metric rankings. If you want to go solo, play FFA. Also, resetting ranks every season is also great to allow keeping the system fresh. The system should not be burdened and averaged with multi-year old data. I hated my rank being averaged with old data when I was at a lower skill level... People learn at different rates and some of the old data causes fast learners to be underranked. Resetting the system seasonally and using placement matches allows you to freshen up you rank and the placement matches quickly replaces you. It's perfect. Remember the system is applied over millions of random people, some new, some old, and current system is perfect balance. One thing I would changes is I think they should not put a lower cap in which you cannot rank below..for example now, if you are in gold 3 the system will not let you derank below gold 1, it should simply let you can up down with no limit based on wins/losses..but even this is ok, since they remove this low cap in the higher onyx ranks and since they reset ranks seasonally. Just hope you can still reference your old season ranks earned for bragging rights! I love the halo 5, this is a great system and game!!
The ranks system is amazing actually. Thank you 343, finally. Placement matches are perfect, allows you to quickly get placed approximately based on 10 games, then you move based on wins or losses. Wins or losses is the only metric that should be measured to force teamwork, halo 4 had no teamwork because of individual metric rankings. If you want to go solo, play FFA. Also, resetting ranks every season is also great to allow keeping the system fresh. The system should not be burdened and averaged with multi-year old data. I hated my rank being averaged with old data when I was at a lower skill level... People learn at different rates and some of the old data causes fast learners to be underranked. Resetting the system seasonally and using placement matches allows you to freshen up you rank and the placement matches quickly replaces you. It's perfect. Remember the system is applied over millions of random people, some new, some old, and current system is perfect balance. One thing I would changes is I think they should not put a lower cap in which you cannot rank below..for example now, if you are in gold 3 the system will not let you derank below gold 1, it should simply let you can up down with no limit based on wins/losses..but even this is ok, since they remove this low cap in the higher onyx ranks and since they reset ranks seasonally. Just hope you can still reference your old season ranks earned for bragging rights! I love the halo 5, this is a great system and game!!
this is the best possible explanation i've read.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2