Support NeoGAF

[Celestia]

Your gold friend won against better people.

i'm not arguing its without faults, but supposedly the system bares in mind the opponents you face as well as win/loss. so, presumably, the gold friend faced tougher opponents, hence the higher ranking.

That makes sense to me, what doesn't though is they did the majority of their placements together when we played last night. Is a few games really the difference between Silver 2 and Gold 3?

yeah it makes no sense. My friend went like 4/10 and got Silver. I went much higher and I'm stuck in bronze. I'm a much better player yet I can't get out of Bronze. I actually won 10 games in a row last night - started at Bronze II, ended at Bronze II.

Yeah, it's a little confusing. I hope the final product is a little more straightforward.

 

[Natiko]

Read Natiko's post. The Ranking system makes no sense as it currently exists.

It really baffles me even now. We played exactly ten matches, all of them together. Neither of us lost connection or had anythjng funny happen. At the end of our first ten he was Onyx I and I was Gold III.

 

[mcfrank]

That makes sense to me, what doesn't though is they did the majority of their placements together when we played last night. Is a few games really the difference between Silver 2 and Gold 3?



Yeah, it's a little confusing. I hope the final product is a little more straightforward.

It is random and broken, just like every system 343 makes. Fortunately for them the game is good enough.

 

[JaggedSac]

Read Natiko's post. The Ranking system makes no sense as it currently exists.

I think they mentioned breakout taking more personal performance into account. I could be wrong on that. If that isn't the case, that would be considered a bug and needs to be fixed as it goes against how they want ranking to work.

 

[JaggedSac]

It really baffles me even now. We played exactly ten matches, all of them together. Neither of us lost connection or had anythjng funny happen. At the end of our first ten he was Onyx I and I was Gold III.

Did he do better than you in the matches? Please be honest That rank is pretty close though.

 

[Chitown B]

I'm pissed off too. I'm constantly teamed up with kids going 0.2 KD while I pull 2.0 and we lose. However, I'm hoping that it's chalked up to the fact that it's a beta and they just want a mix to test. I really hope and believe that once it's out next fall the ranking will be fixed so you actually rank more based on your contribution than simply W/L. And that we won't be playing in games with randoms who are not ranked.

This is the type of shit I'm dealing with.

 

[jem0208]

It will level out. Ranks are initially wonky while people head to their proper placements. Matchmaking levels out. Just as often will the other team have the shitty folks too. Wish we had match data online to lol at.

It's still not an actual representation of your skill though. Currently the ranking system doesn't tell you anything about the skill of a player, only that they've either been lucky or unlucky with matchmaking.

Even if it does eventually level out, that won't be a product of your skill, it'll be a product of your grind through the matchmaking system. Play enough games and hopefully you'll have more games with good people than bad. That's not a system which accurately represents skill.

I don't think the ranking system is necessarily broken (though it does appear to have some quirks that need to be worked out). I think the skill based matchmaking is broken. I've seen games where I got matched with such bad people and out up against such good people that I only lost a point. Proper skill based matchmaking shouldn't even setup such a one sided match. When I'm with people either unranked or below silver while I'm a gold, and the opponents have two more onyxes, a semipro, and a pro something has gone wrong.

I think both need fixing at the moment, the matchmaking has some clear issues, however I'd chalk that up to beta being beta. However the ranking system has some core design decisions that I don't think work at all. It's a rank that ignores your performance in a match, it's a rank that entirely relies on the matchmaking system working perfectly every time, otherwise it's completely unfair.

 

[Natiko]

Did he do better than you in the matches? Please be honest That rank is pretty close though.

I believe he did slightly better. We did fairly similar but his KDA ended up being a little higher.

 

[mcfrank]

This is the type of shit I'm dealing with.

Same. No reason a gold or onyx should ever get teamed with an unplaced. Put them matches with bronze and iron. If they dominate place them in silver or gold, if not they stay playing with iron and bronze. Everyone works their way up to onyx. Problem solved.

 

[JaggedSac]

It's still not an actual representation of your skill though. Currently the ranking system doesn't tell you anything about the skill of a player, only that they've either been lucky or unlucky with matchmaking.

Even if it does eventually level out, that won't be a product of your skill, it'll be a product of your grind through the matchmaking system. Play enough games and hopefully you'll have more games with good people than bad.



I think both need fixing at the moment, the matchmaking has some clear issues, however I'd chalk that up to beta being beta. However the ranking system has some core design decisions that I don't think work at all. It's a rank that ignores your performance in a match, it's a rank that entirely relies on the matchmaking system working perfectly every time, otherwise it's completely unfair.

If players are bad every game, they will eventually not get matched with you as they will be ranked lower. A good ranking and matchmaking system should result in you having a 50% win/loss rate as you play against people of equal skill.

 

[JaggedSac]

I believe he did slightly better. We did fairly similar but his KDA ended up being a little higher.

Well there we go. Looks like breakout takes a bit more personal performance into consideration.

 

[mcfrank]

If players are bad every game, they will eventually not get matched with you as they will be ranked lower. A good ranking and matchmaking system should result in you having a 50% win/loss rate as you play against people of equal skill.

That breaks down if onyx and gold are teamed with un ranked players who are terrible or playing their first match. Also I have seen terrible onyx players so something Is wrong with their placement to begin with, so they will drag down 30-40 games as they fall to silver where they belong. That is not fun for anyone.

 

[3DShovel]

Was 4-4 in Breakout. Duel. SMG fight. Guy on my team throws a plasma grenade. Gets the stick.

OHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[JaggedSac]

Same. No reason a gold or onyx should ever get teamed with an unplaced. Put them matches with bronze and iron. If they dominate place them in silver or gold, if not they stay playing with iron and bronze. Everyone works their way up to onyx. Problem solved.

Large fluctuation of hidden rank behind the scenes during placement matches is a good idea. Would be interesting to see how they are handling it.

 

[Natiko]

Well there we go. Looks like breakout takes a bit more personal performance into consideration.

That makes sense considering he ended up low Onyx I and I was high on Gold III, but it's a bit strange to tweak the system from playlist to playlist, especially since there seems to be no justification or explanation as to why. That being said if they have a system designed to take slight personal performance into account they might want to use that for all of them going forward. It seems like many people would at least be a bit happier.

 

[tootsi666]

That breaks down if onyx and gold are teamed with un ranked players who are terrible or playing their first match. Also I have seen terrible onyx players so something Is wrong with their placement to begin with, so they will drag down 30-40 games as they fall to silver where they belong. That is not fun for anyone.

Placement matches definitely need some tweaking.

 

[VinFTW]

Lmao Jem. Give it a rest. Cover your CSR with duct tape or something and only look at your SR.

CSR should never in a million years be decided by anything other than wins/losses. You take a risk of losing your rank when you MM by yourself.

This is how it's been done in Halo. If you want an individually based ranking system go play CoD.

 

[JaggedSac]

That makes sense considering he ended up low Onyx I and I was high on Gold III, but it's a bit strange to tweak the system from playlist to playlist, especially since there seems to be no justification or explanation as to why. That being said if they have a system designed to take slight personal performance into account they might want to use that for all of them going forward. It seems like many people would at least be a bit happier.

It is definitely different between playlists, they have said as much regarding at least BTB.

 

[jem0208]

Lmao Jem. Give it a rest. Cover your CSR with duct tape or something and only look at your SR.

CSR should never in a million years be decided by anything other than wins/losses. You take a risk of losing your rank when you MM by yourself.

This is how it's been done in Halo. If you want an individually based ranking system go play CoD.

I don't want an individually based ranking system, I want one which actually represents your skill.

Neither the CSR or the SR succeed in doing that.


Also why should you risk losing your rank if you MM by yourself? Any system which punishes you for not queuing with people you know is a bad system, regardless of whether that's how Halo has always done it or not.

 

[Poodlestrike]

That makes sense considering he ended up low Onyx I and I was high on Gold III, but it's a bit strange to tweak the system from playlist to playlist, especially since there seems to be no justification or explanation as to why. That being said if they have a system designed to take slight personal performance into account they might want to use that for all of them going forward. It seems like many people would at least be a bit happier.

The problem with personal performance modifiers in Team Slayer is that it encourages poor behavior. You want to be working with your team, not competing against them. Breakout is a bit different because of the low TTK and round based nature, though I would be interested in seeing the exact justification.

Speaking more broadly, they'd have to modify the ranking criteria for each playlist. The most obvious example is an FFA playlist vs a team one.

 

[VinFTW]

I don't want an individually based ranking system, I want one which actually represents your skill.

Neither the CSR or the SR succeed in doing that.

Halo is largely a team game. You are playing the wrong game. Find a good team, be social, make friends, and own the noobs.

If not enjoy the ranked FFA playlists. TEAM slayer requires a good team. SR will reward you for playing a lot/kills/w.e else.

 

[MarauderShields]

Lmao Jem. Give it a rest. Cover your CSR with duct tape or something and only look at your SR.

CSR should never in a million years be decided by anything other than wins/losses. You take a risk of losing your rank when you MM by yourself.

This is how it's been done in Halo. If you want an individually based ranking system go play CoD.

Winning should be the most important thing but it should be more sophisticated than basing it 100% on whether you win. Sometimes there is just nothing you can do to make that happen.

 

[mcfrank]

Lmao Jem. Give it a rest. Cover your CSR with duct tape or something and only look at your SR.

CSR should never in a million years be decided by anything other than wins/losses. You take a risk of losing your rank when you MM by yourself.

This is how it's been done in Halo. If you want an individually based ranking system go play CoD.

There is no reason it can't take both win loss and personal performance into consideration.

Say if you lose and you would have lost 20 pts in the current system do this:

Kills +.3assists/deaths = 2.0 then You don't lose any pts. 1.0 you lose the full 20. .5 you lose 25. .3 you lose 30 etc. it is not that hard to make individual performance and win loss matter.


You could do the same with wins. Peoples ranks would get to their actual levels much much faster this way.

 

[Natiko]

It is definitely different between playlists, they have said as much regarding at least BTB.

Well BTB is a bit different considering it sounds like it might be vastly different than arena based on speculation.

The problem with personal performance modifiers in Team Slayer is that it encourages poor behavior. You want to be working with your team, not competing against them. Breakout is a bit different because of the low TTK and round based nature, though I would be interested in seeing the exact justification.

Speaking more broadly, they'd have to modify the ranking criteria for each playlist. The most obvious example is an FFA playlist vs a team one.

The personal modifiers don't have to be so great that it encourages the poor behavior you're referring to. If you still ensure that you can only go up for a win and down for a loss, and the impact your performance has on how much is minor then it shouldn't play out how you describe.

 

[VinFTW]

Start rewarding individual play in TEAM slayer and you can say goodbye forever to Halo as it is. NO randoms will ever play as a team. Everybody will be gung-ho all over the place and it will turn Halo further into CoD.

I'm sorry, it's team slayer, stop trying to ruin it for everybody because you don't want to find a good team.

The ONLY thing that needs to change is a punishment reduction if your teammates quit or are AFK.

 

[mcfrank]

Start rewarding individual play in TEAM slayer and you can say goodbye forever to Halo as it is. NO randoms will ever play as a team. Everybody will be gung-ho all over the place and it will turn Halo further into CoD.

I'm sorry, it's team slayer, stop trying to ruin it for everybody because you don't want to find a good team.

The ONLY thing that needs to change is a punishment reduction if your teammates quit or are AFK.

That is bullshit. This game punishes lone wolf game play so they would have a terrible ratio. Therefore this would hurt thier individual performance.

 

[antigoon]

Start rewarding individual play in TEAM slayer and you can say goodbye forever to Halo as it is. NO randoms will ever play as a team. Everybody will be gung-ho all over the place and it will turn Halo further into CoD.

I'm sorry, it's team slayer, stop trying to ruin it for everybody because you don't want to find a good team.

The ONLY thing that needs to change is a punishment reduction if your teammates quit or are AFK.

I think we could fix this somewhat by introducing separate rankings for when you queue by yourself and when you queue with one or more person.

Dota 2 has this type of ranking system (separate solo MMR and party MMR) and I think it works pretty well.

I also wouldn't be entirely opposed to factoring in K/D at least somewhat in team slayer rank only.

 

[VinFTW]

That is bullshit. This game punishes lone wolf game play so they would have a terrible ratio. Therefore this would hurt thier individual performance.

How do you expect to push objectives when no one wants their K/D to be shit? Everybody wants to be the slayer...

Face it, what you are suggesting has never been done in Halo, and for good reason. It'll ruin the entire point of the game.

FFA is for you, NOT team slayer.

OR, as Antigoon suggested above me, a lone-wolf TS hopper w/ seperate rankings. You can only MM by yourself on that one though.

 

[mcfrank]

How do you expect to push objectives when no one wants their K/D to be shit? Everybody wants to be the slayer...

Face it, what you are suggesting has never been done in Halo, and for good reason. It'll ruin the entire point of the game.

FFA is for you, NOT team slayer.

OR, as Antigoon suggested above me, a lone-wolf TS hopper w/ seperate rankings. You can only MM by yourself on that one though.

When did we start talking about objectives? You said "team slayer". Don't move the goal posts when you lose the argument.

For objectives make objective points and kills matter. Halo MCC does this with their oddball and koth scoring systems. Not that hard.

 

[antigoon]

OR, as Antigoon suggested above me, a lone-wolf TS hopper w/ seperate rankings. You can only MM by yourself on that one though.

I don't necessarily think there should be separate hoppers, just that you'll have a different rank when you go into games by yourself. Maybe 343 could make it so that people who go in by themselves will never face a full party of four.

Edit: Thinking about this further - it's possible this might make it too hard for full parties to find matches. But I think it's worth considering.

 

[mcfrank]

I don't necessarily think there should be separate hoppers, just that you'll have a different rank when you go into games by yourself. Maybe 343 could make it so that people who go in by themselves will never face a full party of four.

Halo 2 already did this If I recall. It wouldn't match make a team of 4 against anything less than a team of 3.

 

[JaggedSac]

I don't necessarily think there should be separate hoppers, just that you'll have a different rank when you go into games by yourself. Maybe 343 could make it so that people who go in by themselves will never face a full party of four.

I could get behind that.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Well BTB is a bit different considering it sounds like it might be vastly different than arena based on speculation.

The personal modifiers don't have to be so great that it encourages the poor behavior you're referring to. If you still ensure that you can only go up for a win and down for a loss, and the impact your performance has on how much is minor then it shouldn't play out how you describe.

Disagreed. You'd always be at risk of a team in the lead dissolving into infighting, especially with randoms. Keeping it as a purely team-based exercise removes the incentive, and thus the risk.

 

[antigoon]

Halo 2 already did this If I recall. It wouldn't match make a team of 4 against anything less than a team of 3.

Oh, really? Didn't know that. That could also work.

 

[VinFTW]

When did we start talking about objectives? You said "team slayer". Don't move the goal posts when you lose the argument.

For objectives make objective points and kills matter. Halo MCC does this with their oddball and koth scoring systems. Not that hard.

I didn't change the goal posts, and if I did, I didn't mean to because I don't have to. Individual performance should never be evaluated in TS. Period. Never has and it never should.

Maybe Halo isn't for you?

 

[Natiko]

Start rewarding individual play in TEAM slayer and you can say goodbye forever to Halo as it is. NO randoms will ever play as a team. Everybody will be gung-ho all over the place and it will turn Halo further into CoD.

I'm sorry, it's team slayer, stop trying to ruin it for everybody because you don't want to find a good team.

The ONLY thing that needs to change is a punishment reduction if your teammates quit or are AFK.

You do realize the old Halo rankings took personal performance into account right? Don't try and paint with such broad strokes. You also sit there and talk about how you should only play with an established team then turn around and complain about how randomly matched people would perform. Supposedly that shouldn't matter to you if you only play with friends. Finally, stop trying to draw comparisons to CoD. CoD is purely a progression meter - not a skill based ranking system. Comparing them is asinine.

 

[MarauderShields]

I didn't change the goal posts, and if I did, I didn't mean to because I don't have to. Individual performance should never be evaluated in TS. Period. Never has and it never should.

Maybe Halo isn't for you?

Halo Reach?

 

[VinFTW]

You do realize the old Halo rankings took personal performance into account right? Don't try and paint with such broad strokes. You also sit there and talk about how you should only play with an established team then turn around and complain about how randomly matched people would perform. Supposedly that shouldn't matter to you if you only play with friends. Finally, stop trying to draw comparisons to CoD. CoD is purely a progression meter - not a skill based ranking system. Comparing them is asinine.

I didn't say you should only play w/ an established team. I'm saying don't whine and cry if you lose the game even if you do good b/c your teammates when the player took the risk of going in MM by himself.

There has never been a good ranking system on Halo that depends heavily on personal performance. It doesn't work... (except FFA).

 

[JaggedSac]

You do realize the old Halo rankings took personal performance into account right? Don't try and paint with such broad strokes. You also sit there and talk about how you should only play with an established team then turn around and complain about how randomly matched people would perform. Supposedly that shouldn't matter to you if you only play with friends. Finally, stop trying to draw comparisons to CoD. CoD is purely a progression meter - not a skill based ranking system. Comparing them is asinine.

I don't believe TrueSkill took personal performance into account.

 

[mcfrank]

I didn't change the goal posts. I don't have to. Individual performance should never be evaluated in TS. Period. Never has and it never should.

Maybe Halo isn't for you?

Dude, you are not the arbiter of what halo is. I played halo CE on the tournament circuit (AGP and MLG) and did pretty well (round of 16 MLG Dallas and AGP Chicago). I have been playing halo at a decent level for a long time. Multiple people in this thread have outlined a system which could take individual performance and win loss into account when assigning ranking points. You just keep ignoring logic and digging in. Try using some logic (not switching from talking about ts to objectives) to outline why win loss is a better system.

 

[Natiko]

Disagreed. You'd always be at risk of a team in the lead dissolving into infighting, especially with randoms. Keeping it as a purely team-based exercise removes the incentive, and thus the risk.

With how minor it appears to be in Breakout and the fact that going off by yourself appears to often be suicide in this game I don't see how they'd be able to put their performance over the team's while also going off by themselves. To each their own though. I'm far more concerned with the lack of working skill based matching.

 

[LiLSnorpSnorp]

I didn't like the chatter before playing the beta, I do now. Most of the time people are in a party/just don't talk in the games and it is helpful when I hear a Spartan say x enemy is in x zone or we have the energy sword/sniper

 

[VinFTW]

Dude, you are not the arbiter of what halo is. I played halo CE on the tournament circuit (AGP and MLG) and did pretty well (round of 16 MLG Dallas). I have been playing halo at a decent level for a long time. Multiple people in this thread have outlined a system which could take individual performance and win loss into account when assigning ranking points. You just keep ignoring logic and digging in. Try using some logic (not switching from talking about ts to objectives) to outline why win loss is a better system.

Never said I was the arbiter of what Halo is (icwydt). There are plenty of people on HaloGAF who feel the same way... This isn't just my personal opinion. It's a sentiment shared on multiple Halo fan-sites across the web.

A loss is a loss...

I am of the opinion that the best person on the losing team should have a chance to avoide losing exp if they meet certain requirements. For example they must have above 10 kills and above 5 assists.

How do you know he wasn't playing selfishly? Not sticking by his team-mates? Maybe he cleaned up a lot of kills? Should the person w/ most assists avoid losing points too? Then whats the point of winning/losing?

This'll just promote people blaming players, causing a toxic community (worse than it already is).

You are sure outnumbered here, and the sentiment on r/halo seems to also be that the system as it currently stands is broken.

Most of the arguments regarding the ranking system is the inconsistencies with placement matches and point values for winning/losing against higher/lower ranked players. For instance, sometimes I win and get +4 against an all Onyx team, but lose against Semi-pros and go down -19.

 

[Fatmanp]

I am of the opinion that the best person on the losing team should have a chance to avoide losing exp if they meet certain requirements. For example they must have above 10 kills and above 5 assists.

 

[mcfrank]

Never said I was the arbiter of what Halo is (icwydt). There are plenty of people on HaloGAF who feel the same way... This isn't just my personal opinion. It's a sentiment shared on multiple Halo fan-sites across the web.

A loss is a loss...

You are sure outnumbered here, and the sentiment on r/halo seems to also be that the system as it currently stands is broken.

 

[cardsbasebal]

The only thing I hate is it constantly puts me in games I'm suppose to lose when playing alone. I just got worked but my skill only took a minus 7 hit

 

[mcfrank]

Here are logical reasons why vin is wrong:


1.) win loss only leads to less accurate rankings. If you are matched with team mates better or worse than you for a long time they can pull you down or carry you up to a ranking you don't deserve. This could take 10-20 games to be corrected with the current system.

2.) win loss only discourages people from playing if their friends are not online. This lowers the overall population.

3.) win loss only discourages good players from playing with their friends who are not as good. It separates social groups by skill level.

All of these issues are resolved if it is a combo of win loss an individual performance.

Now, logically, please try to tell me why I am wrong.

 

[Natiko]

I don't believe TrueSkill took personal performance into account.

I seem to recall it doing exactly that. The entire point of TrueSkill is that it had a hidden evaluation of what your actual skill was, an evaluation that was more than just 1-50. I don't think anyone's saying then or now it was or should be so individually skewed you could go down for a win or up on a loss, just that it can be taken into account in ways that do not reward lone wolf play. If they want to only focus on teamwork then they should probably remove all personal stats from the service record such as KDA, considering people will care just as much about that.

 

[VinFTW]

Dude, you are not the arbiter of what halo is.

Here are logical reasons why vin is wrong:

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

By the way, I just checked that r/Halo thread... most of those issues are due to lower player count and beta problems.

2)... this is a ridiculous assumption. You're reaching... There will be social/unranked playlists, which also nullifies your 3rd point. As for point 1, if the placement matches are fixed/tuned for launch, you won't have these issues. Play as a team, and you'll win. Sometimes, people are better and will beat you. Sometimes, you will have bad games and bring your team down too.

It seems like you guys just want to level easily and not worry about winning/losing. I'd hope if you advocate for a performance increase even at a loss, you should lose more points if you're 3rd or 4th on your team for a loss and gain less points for being 3rd/4th on your team for a win.

 

[HTupolev]

I don't believe TrueSkill took personal performance into account.

It's implementation dependent, but Truskill is certainly designed to do that.