Halo 5: Guardians Beta Thread | Hot Red on Blue Action

Natiko said:
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.
Click to expand...

Trueskill was definitely win/loss based.

Wikipedia and all that but:

On Xbox Live, players start with \mu = 25 and \sigma = 25/3; \mu always increases after a win and always decreases after a loss. The extent of actual updates depends on each player's \sigma and on how "surprising" the outcome is to the system. Unbalanced games, for example, result in either negligible updates when the favorite wins, or huge updates when the favorite loses surprisingly.
Click to expand...

Surprise is determined based on comparative ranks between the teams.
 
VinFTW said:
Hypocrisy at it's finest.

By the way, I just checked that r/Halo thread... most of those issues are 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.
Click to expand...

I am saying why you are wrong on this point, not telling you that "halo isn't for you" if you cannot see that distinction there is no real point debating with you. Multiple posts here have shown how you are wrong and why it should count both win loss and individual performance. More data going into your rank is always better. You are arguing for each game just being a binary up or down on your ranking. We are saying there is no reason to ignore all of the other stats that are in this game.
 
mcfrank said:
I am saying why you are wrong on this point, not telling you that "halo isn't for you" if you cannot see that distinction there is no real point debating with you. Multiple posts here have shown how you are wrong and why it should count both win loss and individual performance. More data going into your rank is always better.
Click to expand...

But I just responded to your "logical reasons"...

And lol@ showing me why I'm wrong in here. Must have missed that.
 
mouzaihem said:
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
Click to expand...

i just said the same thing to my friends recently. Thought it was dumb at first but it's actually sort've useful since I'm running solo and people don't talk.

I wouldn't be opposed though to an option to turn it off. If I'm with a full party of friends I shouldn't need it.
 
VinFTW said:
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.
Click to expand...
Again, I don't think anyone is advocating for being able to see an increase from a loss or decrease on a win. Say right now in an all a onyx match a win would take everyone up 15 points. We're saying it could be tweaked so that the person that did best goes up say 20 and the guy in fourth that went -10 only goes up 5. This is an example obviously, the formula wouldn't be that simplistic, but you get the idea.
 
VinFTW said:
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.
Click to expand...

What people want is for their ranking to accurately represent their skill and to be matched against similarly skilled people. That is happening right now. That should be the main goal of the ranking system.
 
Natiko said:
Again, I don't think anyone is advocating for being able to see an increase from a loss or decrease on a win. Say right now in an all a onyx match a win would take everyone up 15 points. We're saying it could be tweaked so that the person that did best goes up say 20 and the guy in fourth that went -10 only goes up 5. This is an example obviously, the formula wouldn't be that simplistic, but you get the idea.
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying, but there's a lot more that goes into TS at high level play than just K/Ds. I'd love for this to be a thing, and when you get a bad connection to a server, i'd LOVE to see how you guys react to that.

"This is such BS, my connection sucked and missed a lot of kills and went up only +5 where as all my teammates went up +19"...
 
Individual performance ranking is a distaster. I guess most of you guys advocating for it weren't around for the first season or two of Halo Reach's Arena.

In Arena individual performance mattered. This led to people turtling to avoid deaths and only firing when they could get a guaranteed kill. People would be a detriment to their team and lose the game but still get a good performance.

MAYBE a system that took into account SOME performance but was primarily win/loss might work. But performance metrics lead to people playing like assholes.

Only thing I could see being acceptable is if you met some criteria being on the losing team like if you were LEAGUES above them in kills and less deaths. If that happened you should just get 0 points/
 
More on TrueSkill:

Q: I am always playing together in the same team with my friend JoeDoe. Will the TrueSkill ranking system be able to differentiate between us two in terms of skills? In other words, is the TrueSkill ranking system capable of finding that I am the more skilled player of us two?

A: If both you and your friend only play ranked team games together then the TrueSkill ranking system cannot distinguish between you two; it always compares the team's skills (sums of the player's skills in the teams) and 'distributes' the gain/loss proportional to the individual player's uncertainties (see detailed description). But note: if your friend also plays team games with anyone other than you then the TrueSkill ranking system will be able to identify the more skilled player of your two. Also, if both of you always only play together, you might consider forming a clan.
Click to expand...
 
I see a lot of whining on here about the ranking system. Look, the bottom line is that you cannot have a ranking system that incentivizes a selfish play style in a team game like Halo. It would be counterproductive to the entire experience. KDA ratios can be easily abused, and are a misleading representative of an individuals skill at anything but the lowest skill levels.

What I mean is that, do I believe Silver rank players are using teamwork and doing the intangibles that cannot be tracked by KDA? Probably not. Here, KDA is a decent indicator.

Get to Onyx and above, and now that system falls apart. For example I play a very passive game and abuse power weapons. My teammate and good friend naturally plays an aggressive support role. I will always have a higher KDA than him, but that's a direct result of his playstyle.

So I know it sucks to dominate a game yet still lose. Seriously, I get it. But I still believe this is most likely a symptom of the ranking system still working everybody into place. Although things could certainly be done to tighten the matchmaking parameters so that parties of 4 cannot face solo queue players which seems to exacerbate the problem and cause frustration.
 
Tawpgun said:
Individual performance ranking is a distaster. I guess most of you guys advocating for it weren't around for the first season or two of Halo Reach's Arena.

In Arena individual performance mattered. This led to people turtling to avoid deaths and only firing when they could get a guaranteed kill. People would be a detriment to their team and lose the game but still get a good performance.

MAYBE a system that took into account SOME performance but was primarily win/loss might work. But performance metrics lead to people playing like assholes.

Only thing I could see being acceptable is if you met some criteria being on the losing team like if you were LEAGUES above them in kills and less deaths. If that happened you should just get 0 points/
Click to expand...

Said it better than I could have.
 
tootsi666 said:
It's ROF is too low to get two shots of while scoped consistently against skilled players and ADS animation is too slow to re-scope during a duel. DMR and BR have more consistent kill times. Light Rifle is more of a support weapon while your teammates draw enemy fire.


Edit. Ranking system is fine. Maybe 50-49 wins shouldn't give as much points as 50-10 wins though. It's all about winning. It's not about your performance and personal skill, it's about your matchmaking performance in a team.
Click to expand...

Yup I get a lot of assist using the light rifle. It actually serves a purpose now, you can sit back and drop the enemies shield while your teammates pick up the kills.
 
lol, funny how these same arguments and questions were documented 5 years ago.

Q: I am playing a team game and all the players in my team drop out of the game. Of course, I lose the game. Will I lose as many skill points as all the people who left me standing in the rain?

A: Unfortunately, yes. All alternative options are possible exploits for cheating:

If the TrueSkill ranking system does not count the game at all then the losing team can always ensure not to lose points by dropping out early (entirely).
If the TrueSkill ranking system only uses the team configurations at the end of the game then both the players that dropped would not be penalised and the remaining player can be arbitrarily boosted (that is, shortly before the end of the game all but one player drop from a team; for the update equation it would now seem that a single player has won against a team of, say, 4 players and would apply a massive positive update).
If the TrueSkill ranking system would introduce an arbitrary lowest rank in which every player falls that drops before the end of the game, then, again, the remaining player(s) in a team can be arbitrarily boosted (he won against the losing team and all the players that dropped. This approach would penalise the players that drop, though.

But: Players who drop regularly from a team would eventually be identified by the TrueSkill ranking system as having a negative impact on the team skill and will eventually be matched with other players of that have a negative team impact. So, you should not see this happening to often if you are a player of average skill.



Q: You are saying that the TrueSkill ranking system assumes that the skill of a team is the sum of the skills of its players. I think this model is not appropriate: I am usually playing much better with people from my friends list rather than with random players. Will this assumption lead to incorrect rankings?

A: The assumption that the team skill is the sum of the skills of its players is exactly that: an assumption. The TrueSkill ranking system will use the assumption to adopt the skill points of individual players such that the team outcome can be best predicted based on the additive assumptions of the skills. Provided that you and your friends also play team games with other players now and then, the TrueSkill ranking system will assign you a skill belief that is somewhere between the skill when you are playing with your friends and the skill when you are playing as an individual. So, in the worst case, every other game is not with your friends: then you are slightly ranked too high when you play with random team players and slightly ranked too low when you play with your friends. But, if you mostly play with your friends only the system will identify your skill correctly for most of your games.



Q: Does the TrueSkill ranking system reward individual players in a team game?

A: The only information the TrueSkill ranking system will process is:

Which team won?
Who were the members of the participating teams?

The TrueSkill ranking system takes neither the underlying exact scores (flag captures, kills, time etc.) for each team into account nor which particular team member performed how well. As a consequence, the only way players can influence their skill updates is by promoting the probability that their team wins. Hence, "ball bitches", "hill whores", "flag fruits", "territory twits", and "bomb bastards" will hurt their individual TrueSkill ranks unless what they are doing helps their team. Obviously, it is difficult to update individual players' skills from team results only. To understand the difficulty and the solution consider the following analogy: Suppose you have four objects (players), each having an unknown weight (skill). Suppose further that you have a balance scale (game) to measure weight (skill) but are always only allowed to put two objects on each side of the balance. If you always combine the same pair of objects, the only information you can get is which pair of objects is heavier. But if you recombine the players into different pairs you can find out about their individual skills. As a consequence, the TrueSkill ranking system will be able to find out about individual players' skills from team outcomes given that players not only play in one and the same team all the time but in varying team combinations.
Click to expand...
 
TrounceX said:
I see a lot of whining on here about the ranking system. Look, the bottom line is that you cannot have a ranking system that incentivizes a selfish play style in a team game like Halo. It would be counterproductive to the entire experience. KDA ratios can be easily abused, and are a misleading representative of an individuals skill at anything but the lowest skill levels.

What I mean is that, do I believe Silver rank players are using teamwork and doing the intangibles that cannot be tracked by KDA? Probably not. Here, KDA is a decent indicator.

Get to Onyx and above, and now that system falls apart. For example I play a very passive game and abuse power weapons. My teammate and good friend naturally plays an aggressive support role. I will always have a higher KDA than him, but that's a direct result of his playstyle.

So I know it sucks to dominate a game yet still lose. Seriously, I get it. But I still believe this is most likely a symptom of the ranking system still working everybody into place. Although things could certainly be done to tighten the matchmaking parameters so that parties of 4 cannot face solo queue players which seems to exacerbate the problem and cause frustration.
Click to expand...

No one is saying individual performance should be the only thing. Win loss should still matter. But it should not be the only data point. If your friend goes 10-18 and you go 4-1 and you lose by 7 then your friends playstyle is the reason you lost so he should lose more points than you.


Just answer me this, will the rankings be more accurate with more data or less data?
 
JaggedSac said:
Trueskill was definitely win/loss based.

Wikipedia and all that but:



Surprise is determined based on comparative ranks between the teams.
Click to expand...
I never said it wasn't based on wins/losses overall, in fact I said the opposite. Yes, you only go up for a win and only down for a loss, but when determining how much it takes more into account than just your 1-50 rank (referring to Halo specifically here). There's a reason you can stall out after tons of matches. After that much individual data it has a much more solid idea of what your individual skill is, making it much harder to rise or fall purely through wins or losses. I also believe Bungie stated multiple times that they altered the TrueSkill system for their purposes as opposed to using the pure system. Furthermore, I don't believe Halo 2 used TrueSkill at all in their rankings. Whatever Halo 2 did also took individual statistics into account from what I recall.
 
VinFTW said:
There has never been a good ranking system on Halo that depends heavily on personal performance. It doesn't work... (except FFA).
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting it should heavily rely on your personal performance. I'm saying it should take it into account. Because currently the Competitive Skill Rating, doesn't take your skill into account.

MarauderShields said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes. The system can still be:

Win = gain points
Lose = lose points

However completely ignoring your performance is silly.
 
Tawpgun said:
Individual performance ranking is a distaster. I guess most of you guys advocating for it weren't around for the first season or two of Halo Reach's Arena.

In Arena individual performance mattered. This led to people turtling to avoid deaths and only firing when they could get a guaranteed kill. People would be a detriment to their team and lose the game but still get a good performance.

MAYBE a system that took into account SOME performance but was primarily win/loss might work. But performance metrics lead to people playing like assholes.

Only thing I could see being acceptable is if you met some criteria being on the losing team like if you were LEAGUES above them in kills and less deaths. If that happened you should just get 0 points/
Click to expand...

Isn't that what everyone is talking about?
 
Natiko said:
I never said it wasn't based on wins/losses overall, in fact I said the opposite. Yes, you only go up for a win and only down for a loss, but when determining how much it takes more into account than just your 1-50 rank (referring to Halo specifically here). There's a reason you can stall out after tons of matches. After that much individual data it has a much more solid idea of what your individual skill is, making it much harder to rise or fall purely through wins or losses. I also believe Bungie stated multiple times that they altered the TrueSkill system for their purposes as opposed to using the pure system. Furthermore, I don't believe Halo 2 used TrueSkill at all in their rankings. Whatever Halo 2 did also took individual statistics into account from what I recall.
Click to expand...

http://halo.bungie.net/stats/content.aspx?link=h2statoverview

First off, the only thing that matters for experience and level calculations is your current experience points and your team's final standing, your place at the end of the game. It doesn't matter how you got there, and it doesn't matter whether you were the one that planted the flag or that got the most kills on your team. All that matters is the end result that your team achieved.
Click to expand...
 
mcfrank said:
No one is saying individual performance should be the only thing. Win loss should still matter. But it should not be the only data point. If your friend goes 10-18 and you go 4-1 and you lose by 7 then your friends playstyle is the reason you lost so he should lose more points than you.


Just answer me this, will the rankings be more accurate with more data or less data?
Click to expand...

Well, more data isn't going to help if that data is fundamentally inaccurate. I wish there was a metric that could better define an individuals performance, but there simply isn't.
 
MarauderShields said:
Isn't that what everyone is talking about?
Click to expand...

Read after the bold...

mcfrank said:
But win loss is inaccurate as a measure of skill, no?
Click to expand...

Your RANK in TEAM slayer should be a visual representation of your win/loss record, yes...

MarauderShields said:
I read it. Its irrelevant. People already play like assholes.
Click to expand...

Let's not make it worse. This ranking system could only improve it, especially at higher up levels when people get smarter and more coordinated.
 
JaggedSac said:
http://halo.bungie.net/stats/content.aspx?link=h2statoverview
Click to expand...
Duly noted, as I said I was just going off of memory and it has been quite some time since Halo 2. Either way, I don't mind leaving the system exactly as is though the differentiation between playlists still strikes me as odd. All I want fixed is the matching of players. If you want to base it all around team performance then don't have it create such lopsided matches.
 
Natiko said:
Duly noted, as I said I was just going off of memory and it has been quite some time since Halo 2. Either way, I don't mind leaving the system exactly as is though the differentiation between playlists still strikes me as odd. All I want fixed is the matching of players. If you want to base it all around team performance then don't have it create such lopsided matches.
Click to expand...

I think the main problem with that are the unranked players. I would rather them do like the older Halos and have everyone start at the bottom and quickly work their way up until they pretty much converge on their expected rank. From reading about these ranking systems, it can sometimes take 50 - 100 team games to get to where a system is confident about a player's skill.

It would certainly remove these cases where people are confused why they are placed where they are.
 
Everyone would stop playing it competitively if it was individually ranked...honestly. Everyone tries to be Rambo and brag about their KDR while losing the game by 20 points.

Teamwork requires skill, knowing how to play together is crucial and something most modern day FPS fans don't use. Part of the reason is because they don't use a mic...I don't blame many people on this because I do the same. The older I get the less I want to communicate with people online due to them being or acting like kids.

Regardless, that's my fault...even if I go 30 and 0 on TEAM Slayer and lose the game due to my teammates, then part of me deserves it. After all I'm playing TEAM Slayer. No one should rely on matchmaking...never will there be a perfect system that works for everyone.

Just like all sports out there, it's all about the W.

If you're a lone wolf, the game will have separate rankings for separate playlists.
 
A-One said:
Everyone would stop playing it competitively if it was individually ranked...honestly. Everyone tries to be Rambo and brag about their KDR while losing the game by 20 points.

Teamwork requires skill, knowing how to play together is crucial and something most modern day FPS fans don't use. Part of the reason is because they don't use a mic...I don't blame many people on this because I do the same. The older I get the less I want to communicate with people online due to them being or acting like kids.

Regardless, that's my fault...even if I go 30 and 0 on TEAM Slayer and lose the game due to my teammates, then part of me deserves it. After all I'm playing TEAM Slayer. No one should rely on matchmaking...never will there be a perfect system that works for everyone.

Just like all sports out there, it's all about the W.

If you're a lone wolf, the game will have separate rankings for separate playlists.
Click to expand...

How on earth is a loss your fault if you go 30-0? That makes no sense.
 
mcfrank said:
But win loss is inaccurate as a measure of skill, no?
Click to expand...

When you solo queue...yeah, it's not the best indicator either. There is no perfect solution here. I will maintain it is better than any metric involving KDA though. I've seen too much Halo in my day to be swayed now, especially Halo Reach Arena which is essentially exactly what you want. It didn't work. At all.
 
JaggedSac said:
I think the main problem with that are the unranked players. I would rather them do like the older Halos and have everyone start at the bottom and quickly work their way up until they pretty much converge on their expected rank. From reading about these ranking systems, it can sometimes take 50 - 100 team games to get to where a system is confident about a player's skill.

It would certainly remove these cases where people are confused why they are placed where they are.
Click to expand...
That would be a fine decision IF they aren't planning to go the season route.
 
Just realized, there is no soft-scoping(When you push in the right stick, but instead of clicking it in and releasing you just hold it down and it scopes out as you release.) Instead it is just a normal hard scope where even if you release the click in it stays scoped.

Did H4 also have this?
 
mcfrank said:
How on earth is a loss your fault if you go 30-0? That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

True I'm stretching that remark a bit too far.

But I'm choosing team slayer and I'm relying on matchmaking to place me on a good team. You can't rely on matchmaking. It's been like that for a while.

IMHO, if anyone cares so much about rank, then team up with some good people, communicate, become friends and go on a rampage.
 
The other issue is they'd need a seperate ranking metric for objective games.

If there's performance is gonna be implemented in CSR It needs to be like 20-15% or less of the total input.

or

If you go like 5+ K/D in a slayer match and the rest of your team goes negative and you lose, you get 0 points. A sympathy for BK teammates token.

If you really care about rank that much keep playing, trueskill should eventually put you with good teammates. If it doesn't play with friends. The halo community on neogaf is pretty big. Halo is only on one system. Just post in the Halo OT that you want to party up and just get people.
 
A-One said:
True I'm stretching that remark a bit too far.

But I'm choosing team slayer and I'm relying on matchmaking to place me on a good team. You can't rely on matchmaking. It's been like that for a while.

IMHO, if anyone cares so much about rank, then team up with some good people, communicate, become friends and go on a rampage.
Click to expand...

But the point of ranking is to be an accurate representation of your skill. look at this scenario - if I were to play 10 games with 3 afk players who each go 0-13 and I go 25-11 in those games, according to halo 5 I am exactly the same skill as 3 afk players (disregard that afk players should be kicked). Any system which says that someone who is playing is exactly the same skill as an afk player is a fundamentally broken ranking system.
 
mcfrank said:
But the point of ranking is to be an accurate representation of your skill. look at this scenario - if I were to play 10 games with 3 afk players who each go 0-13 and I go 25-11 in those games, according to halo 5 I am exactly the same skill as 3 afk players (disregard that afk players should be kicked). Any system which says that someone who is playing is exactly the same skill as an afk player is a fundamentally broken ranking system.
Click to expand...

True, they need to fix a lot of things related to the ranking system. For one, you shouldn't rank down as much as those AFK players. They should be penalized way more. Hopefully that's just in place for the beta and not the actual game.

However, at the end of the day, players losing should ALWAYS lose points in rank. How much the top player in the losing team drops in rank is debatable. Maybe just a couple points to keep it fair... The reason why I want this is because losing and winning means something. Every other FPS game including Reach and Halo 4 that came out in the last 7 years ago, winning or losing online didn't mean anything. Made many of those games boring.
 
A-One said:
True, they need to fix a lot of things related to the ranking system. For one, you shouldn't rank down as much as those AFK players. They should be penalized way more. Hopefully that's just in place for the beta and not the actual game.

However, at the end of the day, players losing should ALWAYS lose points in rank. How much the top player in the losing team drops in rank is debatable. Maybe just a couple points to keep it fair... The reason why I want this is because losing and winning means something. Every other FPS game including Reach and Halo 4 that came out in the last 7 years ago, winning or losing online didn't mean anything. Made many of those games boring.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree. But if I go +10 in a game we lose by 2, then maybe I lose a point or 2 and the guy who went - 18 loses 30. We are on the same page. You should not rank up by losing or rank down by winning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Final Fantasy VIII was released 26 years ago today, on February 11, 1999! Does the Final Fantasy franchise still hold a special place for you?
2 3
100
2K
adamsapple replied
Small games in between big ones as palate cleansers - recommendations?
36
552
TwiztidElf replied
  • Poll
Let's settle this once and for all. The Jim Ryan controller picture...
2
52
1K
JaxarGT replied
Top Bottom