Forums / Games / Halo: The Master Chief Collection (Xbox)

How to recreate Ranked system

OP PIasmaArch3r

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3
LethalQ wrote:
Well they put objective in every ranked playlist and heavily weighted it toward objective games. Objective doesn't appeal to a large proportion of the population, so by November the ranked population dropped enough that 343 adjusted weighting towards slayer, but by that point the damage was done.

Ultimately though the MCC population is unlikely to rebound. That means not enough people for ranked playlists to work. If I'm going to play unbalanced games, I might as well play unranked, where I can play the game type of my choice. The other challenge with the MCC is the age of the player base. Alot of us are in our 30s, and we don't have the time or interest to grind ranks like we did in high school or college.
I can say I have no desire to play ranked in MCC. They are old games and I just want to play for fun. Match composer is awesome as I can play stictly slayer in the titles I want. Not to mention the only rank I ever cared about is FFA and we dont have it in MCC.
Same here. Turned 31 this year and I play maybe 1 or 2 sessions a week for a few hours. I don't care to rank anymore. Social playlists have given me enough variety of good players and noobs alike that the 2v2 and 4v4 games are generally pretty balanced out but on Halo 2 8v8 I see way too many elites wielding SMGs on BR starts. I play this game to relive the old feelings I got on the maps and gametypes, not to be super competitive. I don't speed-run when I replay Mario 3 or Donkey Kong Country 2... I simply play them to enjoy them.
Ranked matches should not be taken out at all. People need to get accustomed to playing ranked whether it’s at an advantage or disadvantage. Skill ranks are pinnacle for Halo.
Mr Vacha wrote:
Ranked matches should not be taken out at all. People need to get accustomed to playing ranked whether it’s at an advantage or disadvantage. Skill ranks are pinnacle for Halo.
But I'm not talking about removing ranks; just of including them in the Composer in a different way than it used to be. That would improve the balance and also will increase the Composer population to allow for more combinations.
I think hidden ranks for match composer would really help with balance. One rank per game. As a CE player match composer is just shooting fish in a barrel and at rank 22 in doubles I can no longer get matches. So it's either play against AR flashlight noobs or don't play at all.
I played a Lonewolves game against a rank 19, when everyone else were a rank 1 including me. The highest rank I should be going up against is a 5. 343 get your act together.
IXI FalcoN wrote:
I think hidden ranks for match composer would really help with balance. One rank per game. As a CE player match composer is just shooting fish in a barrel and at rank 22 in doubles I can no longer get matches. So it's either play against AR flashlight noobs or don't play at all.
Yes that might be a possible solution as we discussed before, which would combine match composer and ranked without widing the system so much. But I'm more for a per size rank or per size and per game.
Hello. This time I want to talk about the ranked section of matchmaking, which has been forgotten since the last update that introduced the Match Composer.

Currently, the new feature provides a way to get the games you enjoy, however you don't get any kind of reward for spending time on it, such as an individual/global rank indicator or experience. But the issue is worse: when there is no ranking system, players are matched randomly, so they end up in completely unbalanced games.

This leads a common player to leave the Composer section and to search matches in one of the ranked playlists, because he's not rewarded by any means and can't even play fair matches. Then, he has lost the ability to choose his favourite gamemodes and needs to spent a lot of time searching there due to the low population that uses the ranked playlists.

Although the situation is even harder: he won't be able to get a balanced match because the matching rules had to be changed to adjust the population between the Composer and Ranked. So he might end up in two different ways: he leaves games until he gets banned or he gets tired of Halo MCC. Both cases leads to leaving the game. Then the process is repeated until casual players forget about Halo, and suddenly the competitive ones will experience a similar situation: the population in ranked dissapears and they get unbalanced and long matches too, so they will end up playing Social without filling the competitive purpouse.

So, in my opinion, the only way to keep the game alive for casual and professional/competitive players is to remove the ranked section and to include it in a different way in the Composer. For example, make a rank based in combinations: if you usually success in Halo 2 Classic Flag matches, you get a better rank in that choice, and your highest combination rank could be seen in your profile (player 1: very good at Halo 3 King of the Hill). There is another option, such as make a ranking systen like Halo Reach where you get a social rank based in all gamemodes. They could even be mixed. By this way, you'll get balanced, enjoyable (you get the games you like), varied and easy to find matches (the population will be focused just in the Composer).

What's your opinion? Do you think Ranked playlists are still able to survive without getting completely unbalanced and empty? But don't act as if this situation were a problem of the future, it is happening yet; for example, the Halo 2 Anniversary playlist is very lowly populated and the Lone Wolves one is really unbalanced. Also, friends of mine liked the Composer firstly, but then they realized how random is the balance so they left the game again, just like 4 years ago.
NO!
What you want is: Remove the good and competitive ranking system that was awesome in Classic Halo 2/3 and give us the really really unpopular, unbeliveable uncompetitive ranking system from Halo: Reach/Halo 5.
That is absolutely NOT what we need in this classic-game-based MCC!

BUT!
I see your problem and I want to make another suggestion: There could be some kind of "hided ranking" in the match composer. What I mean is: If a player wins 3 matches in a row he should not be matched with a player who lost 3 matches in a row before. Fro example the system could divide people into three groups: "Winners" > 70 % win-rate, "commons" 70 - 30 % win-rate and "starters" <30 % win-rate. As we do not have any population statistics I can not say if this would cause crazy population problems as it divides the players and makes finding people even harder. Maybe the system could reopen the search to all three groups after 60 seconds of unsuccessful search.
Maybe this is an idea that can give an impulse towards a solution...
"I see your problem and I want to make another suggestion: There could be some kind of "hided ranking" in the match composer. What I mean is: If a player wins 3 matches in a row he should not be matched with a player who lost 3 matches in a row before. Fro example the system could divide people into three groups: "Winners" > 70 % win-rate, "commons" 70 - 30 % win-rate and "starters" <30 % win-rate. As we do not have any population statistics I can not say if this would cause crazy population problems as it divides the players and makes finding people even harder. Maybe the system could reopen the search to all three groups after 60 seconds of unsuccessful search.
Maybe this is an idea that can give an impulse towards a solution..."

Interesting. In my opinion, this would work right. I'll add it to the main post.
Now there are 4 possible ways to fix this issue, based on player's feedback and my thoughts. You can see them in the main post as I've stated before.
Social matchmaking is supposed to have loosened skill matching. My suggestion was to add a voting or vetoing option to Competitive Games.
omarlotrc wrote:
Social matchmaking is supposed to have loosened skill matching. My suggestion was to add a voting or vetoing option to Competitive Games.
I don't agree with your statement. I think Social should have at least a way to avoid completely unbalanced matches, and even more if the Composer is the main and favourite players option right now due to the freedoom it leads to.

Also, how would vetoing or voting help with balancing, variety and population? In my opinion it would just make it worse because people will just start avoiding the minority maps and would only play the same ones over and over, leading to quits and that means decreasing population. It was removed to resolve an actual issue. At first, I thought vetoing would be different, but I finally realized that it fills essentially the same purpouse and leads to the same consecuences.
omarlotrc wrote:
Social matchmaking is supposed to have loosened skill matching. My suggestion was to add a voting or vetoing option to Competitive Games.
I don't agree with your statement. I think Social should have at least a way to avoid completely unbalanced matches, and even more if the Composer is the main and favourite players option right now due to the freedoom it leads to.

Also, how would vetoing or voting help with balancing, variety and population? In my opinion it would just make it worse because people will just start avoiding the minority maps and would only play the same ones over and over, leading to quits and that means decreasing population. It was removed to resolve an actual issue. At first, I thought vetoing would be different, but I finally realized that it fills essentially the same purpouse and leads to the same consecuences.
The purpose of Competitive Games is to allow players to play balanced matches. I do not see a point in having Social Games be 1:1 with Competitive Games. Besides, the population is not large enough for tightened MMR matching in Social Games.

My suggestion to include voting/vetoing was to ensure players had some choice in Competitive Games.
omarlotrc wrote:
omarlotrc wrote:
Social matchmaking is supposed to have loosened skill matching. My suggestion was to add a voting or vetoing option to Competitive Games.
I don't agree with your statement. I think Social should have at least a way to avoid completely unbalanced matches, and even more if the Composer is the main and favourite players option right now due to the freedoom it leads to.

Also, how would vetoing or voting help with balancing, variety and population? In my opinion it would just make it worse because people will just start avoiding the minority maps and would only play the same ones over and over, leading to quits and that means decreasing population. It was removed to resolve an actual issue. At first, I thought vetoing would be different, but I finally realized that it fills essentially the same purpouse and leads to the same consecuences.
The purpose of Competitive Games is to allow players to play balanced matches. I do not see a point in having Social Games be 1:1 with Competitive Games. Besides, the population is not large enough for tightened MMR matching in Social Games.

My suggestion to include voting/vetoing was to ensure players had some choice in Competitive Games.
But right now ranked modes doesn't allow you to play balanced matches. So, taking the 3rd option (you can see it in the main post) into account, you get ranks, balance (which is currently impossible due to the population division between Social and Ranked) and a decent population (people is just focused in the Composer, which provides a much better and varied experience).
omarlotrc wrote:
omarlotrc wrote:
Social matchmaking is supposed to have loosened skill matching. My suggestion was to add a voting or vetoing option to Competitive Games.
I don't agree with your statement. I think Social should have at least a way to avoid completely unbalanced matches, and even more if the Composer is the main and favourite players option right now due to the freedoom it leads to.

Also, how would vetoing or voting help with balancing, variety and population? In my opinion it would just make it worse because people will just start avoiding the minority maps and would only play the same ones over and over, leading to quits and that means decreasing population. It was removed to resolve an actual issue. At first, I thought vetoing would be different, but I finally realized that it fills essentially the same purpouse and leads to the same consecuences.
The purpose of Competitive Games is to allow players to play balanced matches. I do not see a point in having Social Games be 1:1 with Competitive Games. Besides, the population is not large enough for tightened MMR matching in Social Games.

My suggestion to include voting/vetoing was to ensure players had some choice in Competitive Games.
But right now ranked modes doesn't allow you to play balanced matches. So, taking the 3rd option (you can see it in the main post) into account, you get ranks, balance (which is currently impossible due to the population division between Social and Ranked) and a decent population (people is just focused in the Composer, which provides a much better and varied experience).
Adding ranks to Match Composer will not create balanced matches. If anything, it'll make it that much harder to find matches. Social is not meant for balance, but Competitive is. If Competitive is not generating fair matches, then that's what needs to be revisited, not Social.

Just my two cents.
omarlotrc wrote:
omarlotrc wrote:
omarlotrc wrote:
Social matchmaking is supposed to have loosened skill matching. My suggestion was to add a voting or vetoing option to Competitive Games.
I don't agree with your statement. I think Social should have at least a way to avoid completely unbalanced matches, and even more if the Composer is the main and favourite players option right now due to the freedoom it leads to.

Also, how would vetoing or voting help with balancing, variety and population? In my opinion it would just make it worse because people will just start avoiding the minority maps and would only play the same ones over and over, leading to quits and that means decreasing population. It was removed to resolve an actual issue. At first, I thought vetoing would be different, but I finally realized that it fills essentially the same purpouse and leads to the same consecuences.
The purpose of Competitive Games is to allow players to play balanced matches. I do not see a point in having Social Games be 1:1 with Competitive Games. Besides, the population is not large enough for tightened MMR matching in Social Games.

My suggestion to include voting/vetoing was to ensure players had some choice in Competitive Games.
But right now ranked modes doesn't allow you to play balanced matches. So, taking the 3rd option (you can see it in the main post) into account, you get ranks, balance (which is currently impossible due to the population division between Social and Ranked) and a decent population (people is just focused in the Composer, which provides a much better and varied experience).
Adding ranks to Match Composer will not create balanced matches. If anything, it'll make it that much harder to find matches. Social is not meant for balance, but Competitive is. If Competitive is not generating fair matches, then that's what needs to be revisited, not Social.

Just my two cents.
I understand what you're trying to say. However, you're not realizing that Ranked right now is really dependent of Social; you can try to fix the Ranked parameters, for example limiting the skill matching or parties, but this competitive section is now lacking a consistent population (due to not having freedoom in terms of game modes, aswell as many limitations which I explained in the main post), so it would just result into a stronger decrease of the ranked community. To clarify: the ranked parameters were made wider to keep it alive, and it not only didn't worked, but destroyed the objective of it: balance.

But, if you fix Social, by mixing it with Ranked (as I stated in the 3rd option), population is no longer an issue, and there's actual balance (skill levels will be kept, just in another way), aswell as variety and freedom (which should be the main purpouse in a game). I shouldn't have changed the title of the topic, because when I think of the situation, it makes me consider Ranked even more useless (I can't even find a match, doesn't matter if it's fair or not, and I'm definitely not the only one) due to the Composer. Just look at that section: limited games (Halo 3 Lone Wolves only), random modes (no vote/veto system, although that's a benefit for variety) and unacceptable search times.
What I think will be a good solution is to lower the weight of br starts in all games in the match composer. currently from my experience, h3 arena is the highest populated competitive playlist, and part of it is because that's where one can get consistent br starts for games (h3 hardcore might be the second choice but not everyone likes mlg settings). If 343 change the majority of h2 and h2a matches in the composer to smg starts, I think a lot of players will be more inclined to play ranked since br starts are the norms there. (currently matches in h2a composer and arena are almost identical if you put 4v4, and gametypes slayer, flag, hill, and assault)

this is just my solution for solving the population problem. as for the balancing, more players would probably have more numbers inn each rank which might narrow the rank range in ranked right now.
What I think will be a good solution is to lower the weight of br starts in all games in the match composer. currently from my experience, h3 arena is the highest populated competitive playlist, and part of it is because that's where one can get consistent br starts for games (h3 hardcore might be the second choice but not everyone likes mlg settings). If 343 change the majority of h2 and h2a matches in the composer to smg starts, I think a lot of players will be more inclined to play ranked since br starts are the norms there. (currently matches in h2a composer and arena are almost identical if you put 4v4, and gametypes slayer, flag, hill, and assault)

this is just my solution for solving the population problem. as for the balancing, more players would probably have more numbers inn each rank which might narrow the rank range in ranked right now.
This is a grade A way to destroy what good was done ehen composer was released.

People don't play ranked for many reasons. Some of it is age (many of us who played h1 and H2 are now in our 30/40s with other obligations). The second, at least for me, is that I dislike objective games and composer now allows me to play my game of choice without getting stuck in 3 games of assault in a row. I'm sure some people avoid ranked just because they're poor players who don't want to get stomped more than they already do in social...
What I think will be a good solution is to lower the weight of br starts in all games in the match composer. currently from my experience, h3 arena is the highest populated competitive playlist, and part of it is because that's where one can get consistent br starts for games (h3 hardcore might be the second choice but not everyone likes mlg settings). If 343 change the majority of h2 and h2a matches in the composer to smg starts, I think a lot of players will be more inclined to play ranked since br starts are the norms there. (currently matches in h2a composer and arena are almost identical if you put 4v4, and gametypes slayer, flag, hill, and assault)

this is just my solution for solving the population problem. as for the balancing, more players would probably have more numbers inn each rank which might narrow the rank range in ranked right now.
This is a grade A way to destroy what good was done ehen composer was released.

People don't play ranked for many reasons. Some of it is age (many of us who played h1 and H2 are now in our 30/40s with other obligations). The second, at least for me, is that I dislike objective games and composer now allows me to play my game of choice without getting stuck in 3 games of assault in a row. I'm sure some people avoid ranked just because they're poor players who don't want to get stomped more than they already do in social...
Then, which is the problem with mixing Ranked with Social in a way where ranks are hidden and only treated as a skill matching tool, to allow for balanced games? You'll still have the freedom of the Composer (in terms of modes and Halos), combined with the fairness of the old Ranked system.
What I think will be a good solution is to lower the weight of br starts in all games in the match composer. currently from my experience, h3 arena is the highest populated competitive playlist, and part of it is because that's where one can get consistent br starts for games (h3 hardcore might be the second choice but not everyone likes mlg settings). If 343 change the majority of h2 and h2a matches in the composer to smg starts, I think a lot of players will be more inclined to play ranked since br starts are the norms there. (currently matches in h2a composer and arena are almost identical if you put 4v4, and gametypes slayer, flag, hill, and assault)

this is just my solution for solving the population problem. as for the balancing, more players would probably have more numbers inn each rank which might narrow the rank range in ranked right now.
I don't see it a suitable solution, because it basically forces players to play Ranked if they want BR starts and Social if they want SMG/AR starts. Unfortunately, as the majority of people prefer BR starts, the Composer population would drastically decrease, and it should be the main option, not the second one, due to the freedom it provides.

That would just invert the situation, in my opinion.
What I think will be a good solution is to lower the weight of br starts in all games in the match composer. currently from my experience, h3 arena is the highest populated competitive playlist, and part of it is because that's where one can get consistent br starts for games (h3 hardcore might be the second choice but not everyone likes mlg settings). If 343 change the majority of h2 and h2a matches in the composer to smg starts, I think a lot of players will be more inclined to play ranked since br starts are the norms there. (currently matches in h2a composer and arena are almost identical if you put 4v4, and gametypes slayer, flag, hill, and assault)

this is just my solution for solving the population problem. as for the balancing, more players would probably have more numbers inn each rank which might narrow the rank range in ranked right now.
This is a grade A way to destroy what good was done ehen composer was released.

People don't play ranked for many reasons. Some of it is age (many of us who played h1 and H2 are now in our 30/40s with other obligations). The second, at least for me, is that I dislike objective games and composer now allows me to play my game of choice without getting stuck in 3 games of assault in a row. I'm sure some people avoid ranked just because they're poor players who don't want to get stomped more than they already do in social...
Then, which is the problem with mixing Ranked with Social in a way where ranks are hidden and only treated as a skill matching tool, to allow for balanced games? You'll still have the freedom of the Composer (in terms of modes and Halos), combined with the fairness of the old Ranked system.
I don't have a problem with that. Whether the population outside h3 can support it is another story...
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3