Support NeoGAF

[GhaleonEB]

Reverting ranks. What's the point of buying a 50 if you lose it in a month or 2?

Arena had a great idea, but the playlist was marred by shitty management and a complete lack of understanding of what the people in Arena wanted.

I'd like a more in depth, clear version of what Arena has. Show divisions, but have different symbols for standing within that division. Make it win/loss based. Include it in a Team Hardcore/MLG playlists.

Valid ideas. My personal issue with Arena (the ranking system, not the playlist) was how opaque it was. The numerical ranking (1422! Yay, I think....) was relative to your peer group, which is stuff like "Gold, Top 30%", which is borderline abstract. I always thought they should have pushed the performance ranking away from 1,000 to 1,500 and into 1-50, and made the divisions represent blocks of 10 ranks (Bronze = 50-41, etc). People know what that means and have a point of reference for it.

Not sure eroding/resetting ranks is a full solution, since that would just keep booster busier. It might lower the market price of them, knowing they're temporary. Still not sure it's all worth it, though.

 

[kylej]

Why rehash the same points you've been making for months? Do you not agree at how boosters and co ruined ranked play for 3? Do you not see how it negatively impacted on the system? Do you not see how a 50 boosting an account cheated the players with skills less than 45 out of fair games?

Find a post of mine discussing boosters and the viability of the 1-50 ranking system at any point this year. Hell, last year. Get off my nuts already jesus christ.

Boosters didn't affect any part of ranked play. Not one. If you were good enough to play at level 50, it doesn't matter if you boosted to that point or not. Skill doesn't care about numerical stratification.

 

[Tashi]

SC2 has the luxury of 1 gametype. Sure there are teams on the ladder but there's no slayer, objective, snipers, swat, none of that stuff. It's the same game but with different amounts of players and maps.

There are tons of other custom made gametypes either made by fans or blizzard but theyre left for custom games and searches. It's different and a direct port won't work. I do think seasons will help with the boosting issue though. You could buy a max level account but it won't mean shit when the season ends.

 

[zap]

No global ranks.

There is no specific "arena" or "ranked" playlist. You go to the Waypoint website and create a leaderboard, then pick which playlist you want to track. Invite gamertags from there, or people can do a search for it from the in-game leaderboard browser (if you allow it to be searchable).

You can change the privacy settings for the leaderboard you create:
Open (Anyone can join instantly. Anyone can see the ranks.)
Closed (Anyone can request to join but must be approved. Anyone can see the ranks.)
Private (Invite only. Only members can see the ranks.)

The system then assigns the leaderboard members a rank using a 1-50 scale, distributing them according to a bell curve. This rank is determined by your trueskill.

An XBL Gold account can only create one leaderboard, but may be a member of up to three. Your leaderboard memberships have no bearing on how matchmaking works.

There is no limit to how many gamertags a leaderboard can hold. The creator has the ability to kick anyone off. The leaderboard lists your stats for the playlist including K/D, number of games played, win ratio, and date of last game played. This helps the admins see if anyone is being boosted or has stopped playing.

You can set the ranks to reset on a specific time interval (1 month, 2 months, etc.) or decide to reset them manually on your own schedule. This doesn't affect trueskill, but each player will be listed as unranked until they complete the requisite number of games in the selected playlist.

Crazy? Probably. I'm sure there are plenty of holes to poke in it. Just started typing and this is what I came up with. I think I just want clans back.

I'd say that this would be kinda cool alongside a global ranking system, but it shouldn't replace it. I want ranks to encourage games to be really competitive - this doesn't achieve that. It makes it even more niche than Arena.

People boosting!= 1-50 has no merit. So what if people got to 50 without any skill? They would lose it immediately if they played against the majority of people at that level. Proclaiming boosters to be such a problem that the whole system needs to be scrapped is a false premise. A few accurately placed, lesser skilled people might get beat up on the booster's climb up the ranks, but it doesn't last, and the wheat taking an occasional pounding from the chaff is a part of every ranking system.

Frankie's posts read solely like a not-so-subtle warning to prepare people that 343 won't be bringing back that system.

I'm torn, I liked the 1-50, but the problem was that when playing doubles at level ~35 we would get put against boosters one of whom was a lot better than a 35. We got so many losses due to that. It wasn't that we weren't good enough for that level, (I would have thought I would be around a 45 judging on games played against that rank throughout Halo 3). It became really frustrating. I don't want that level of boosting again...

 

[Hydranockz]

I don't see the big deal about boosting or buying an account for a 50. I mean, it's pathetic, but it actually has the potential to give me easier matches down the road when those scrubs enter matchmaking and get railed.

I think having a 1-50 is better than the current system as well. I don't know the solution to fixing the problems, either, but we have some bright minds at 343.

You're a highly skilled player. You're forgetting that players will not have fun if they are put up against a 50. Yeah, there'll be bad 50s for better players to pick off, but in order to boost that account, the system had to match this 'new' player against the genuinely less skilled players. Truskill at least was great in that regard. There was a lot of boosters. I'd wager that it intimidated many players from ranked. Why play when that guy with a skill of 4 is actually boosting his third account?

Boosting wasn't good for the system or the middle to lower skilled players.

 

[kylej]

You're a highly skilled player. You're forgetting that players will not have fun if they are put up against a 50. Yeah, there'll be bad 50s for better players to pick off, but in order to boost that account, the system had to match this 'new' player against the genuinely less skilled players. Truskill at least was great in that regard. There was a lot of boosters. I'd wager that it intimidated many players from ranked. Why play when that guy with a skill of 4 is actually boosting his third account?

Boosting wasn't good for the system or the middle to lower skilled players.

So... what exactly is the difference between a booster, and someone legitimately playing their way up the ranks for the first time?

 

[Hydranockz]

Find a post of mine discussing boosters and the viability of the 1-50 ranking system at any point this year. Hell, last year. Get off my nuts already jesus christ.

Boosters didn't affect any part of ranked play. Not one. If you were good enough to play at level 50, it doesn't matter if you boosted to that point or not. Skill doesn't care about numerical stratification.

I ain't on your nuts. You said you'd rather talk about framerate, gameplay and maps. I wanted you to discuss something else for a change of pace. Lol, get off your nuts. I didn't realise you worked for 343. Hey-o! Good times :,)

 

[HiredN00bs]

Or simply making a valid point. I know you're concerned about things like the Halo Reach credit economy being cheated by people using an obtuse loophole to gain an extra 4 credits per day, but I'd rather discuss things like framerate, matchmaking, and map quality. There is no internet bullying in account boosting. Not one person is being cheated out of anything. A Starcraft ranking system seems ideal, but there probably aren't enough resources for something like that.

So a 25 getting pounded on by 50 after 50 on new accounts isn't being cheated? But let's be frank, here. There are many players that want a number to lord over other players whose number is lower than theirs. Play Arena and you'll hear it there too, and thankfully such assholish behavior is confined in Reach.

Starcraft had a similar problem, even worse because players could make new Battle.net accounts for free. It sounds like they designed Starcraft II to account for the flaws, much as Bungie did with Reach after 3. Unfortunately, I think Halo players are somewhat of a different beast than Starcraft players, and Arena wasn't attractive enough to most Halo players to keep them playing.

Uh, back to Halo 4? 7 months is still a long time, last I checked.

Less than 6 months, friend!

 

[Poker Face]

So a 25 getting pounded on by 50 after 50 on new accounts isn't being cheated? But let's be frank, here. There are many players that want a number to lord over other players whose number is lower than theirs. Play Arena and you'll hear it there too, and thankfully such assholish behavior is confined in Reach.

But Reach has this problem multiplied by 586494765 because you get paired with anyone. Yea of course people will make new accounts, but as kyle mentioned, whats the difference of that guy, or someone who just got the game and is naturally good? At least 1-50 (in my experience) put me in exciting matches that ended 47-50, not 4-50.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Are people donging tonight?

Eh, I was playing, definitely not donging. I need an industrial strength can of WD-40.

 

[Kuroyume]

How good of a PC do you need for DayZ? Wasn't the original game (that the mod is for) released years ago? Graphics look like poop.

I want to try the mod and just go around killing random players but I'm waiting for it to go on sale next time Steam does one.

 

[Tashi]

So a 25 getting pounded on by 50 after 50 on new accounts isn't being cheated? But let's be frank, here. There are many players that want a number to lord over other players whose number is lower than theirs. Play Arena and you'll hear it there too, and thankfully such assholish behavior is confined in Reach.

Starcraft had a similar problem, even worse because players could make new Battle.net accounts for free. It sounds like they designed Starcraft II to account for the flaws, much as Bungie did with Reach after 3. Unfortunately, I think Halo players are somewhat of a different beast than Starcraft players, and Arena wasn't attractive enough to most Halo players to keep them playing.

From what I understand each new account in SC2 essentially requires the person to repurchase the game. Bungie totally botched ranks after Halo 3. They stripped them, made matchmaking restrictions in playlists outside of Arena totally loose and then fucked up Arena by giving it shitty gametypes, not being able to implement objective gametypes and on and on and on.

I think games like these should have long internal betas. Who cares if video leaks. You gotta tweak that shit to perfection. Let thousands of people break the maps, break the weapons and break the ranking system. Easier said than done I know though because Blizzard has the luxury of doing whatever the fuck they want.

 

[Hydranockz]

So... what exactly is the difference between a booster, and someone legitimately playing their way up the ranks for the first time?

The amount of times the player is matched with such a gap in skill. Quite simple really. If I play legitimately, I'll pass the lower levels quickly. I can't remember how fast levelling was so we'll say 50 matches gets me up to 35. If I never boosted, I'd never play such low players again. As it should, it keeps a challenge. Boosting accounts simply adds to the amount of possible times lower levelled players will get falsely matched. When boosting is as rampant as that of Halo 3, the number ranks are worthless and the player pool becomes muddied.

 

[Havok]

Finished up my H2V Legendary run, Press Start to Continue, "Player profile has been damaged and cannot be loaded--Would you like to delete this profile?" Great stuff.

Legendary in this game is moronic, also. I'm way out of practice.

 

[heckfu]

Finished up my H2V Legendary run, Press Start to Continue, "Player profile has been damaged and cannot be loaded--Would you like to delete this profile?" Great stuff.

Legendary in this game is moronic, also. I'm way out of practice.

Halo 2 legendary was a real piece of work, I tell ya.

 

[Hydranockz]

Halo 2 legendary was a real piece of work, I tell ya.

That first level...

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

How good of a PC do you need for DayZ? Wasn't the original game (that the mod is for) released years ago? Graphics look like poop.

I want to try the mod and just go around killing random players but I'm waiting for it to go on sale next time Steam does one.

It looks like shit because the game is massive. You need more of a good processor than video card to run Arma II due to the AI. Nothing is scripted.

 

[FyreWulff]

Finished up my H2V Legendary run, Press Start to Continue, "Player profile has been damaged and cannot be loaded--Would you like to delete this profile?" Great stuff.

Legendary in this game is moronic, also. I'm way out of practice.

JACKAL SNIPERS

 

[Poker Face]

Finished up my H2V Legendary run, Press Start to Continue, "Player profile has been damaged and cannot be loaded--Would you like to delete this profile?" Great stuff.

Legendary in this game is moronic, also. I'm way out of practice.

Playing Halo 2 on legendary a second time?

do not want.

 

[kittens]

That first level...

I remember rolling into Halo 2 Legendary on launch day, all confident from my Halo CE skills. That boarding room quickly put me in my place.

Also: where'd my party go? :-(

 

[HiredN00bs]

But Reach has this problem multiplied by 586494765 because you get paired with anyone. Yea of course people will make new accounts, but as kyle mentioned, whats the difference of that guy, or someone who just got the game and is naturally good? At least 1-50 (in my experience) put me in exciting matches that ended 47-50, not 4-50.

The difference is that one is legitimate and infrequent, and the other is illegitimate and very frequent. Big differences, no?

And Reach is just as capable of finding close matches with as good or better frequency if Bungie or 343 so desired. Arena playlists had all the ingredients, no guests, strong skill matching requirements, and visible skill ranks to motivate players to win and improve. So why don't you like The Arena?

 

[Franklinator]

I remember rolling into Halo 2 Legendary on launch day, all confident from my Halo CE skills. That boarding room quickly put me in my place.

Also: where'd my party go? :-(

Lol everyone left so I figured I would too. I gotta go pick my brother up from work in a bit anyway. I'll be back in about 30 minutes though if you want to play then.

 

[kylej]

So a 25 getting pounded on by 50 after 50 on new accounts isn't being cheated? But let's be frank, here. There are many players that want a number to lord over other players whose number is lower than theirs. Play Arena and you'll hear it there too, and thankfully such assholish behavior is confined in Reach.

Starcraft had a similar problem, even worse because players could make new Battle.net accounts for free. It sounds like they designed Starcraft II to account for the flaws, much as Bungie did with Reach after 3. Unfortunately, I think Halo players are somewhat of a different beast than Starcraft players, and Arena wasn't attractive enough to most Halo players to keep them playing.

False premise, that doesn't happen. If you really think the majority of people ranked below 50 spent their time getting mercilessly dumped on by new accounts more often than not, I don't know what to tell you. Go look at the skill distribution charts in every ranked playlist for proof that there was an ideal balance between 1-50. This idea that the Halo 3 ranking system was obliterated by torrents of new accounts is hilarious. A few nerds spent money to get boosted, and it was most frequently seen in Doubles, where occasionally you would get crapped on by a new account. The vast majority of the time, ranked matchmaking got you into close games. Nobody got cheated out of anything, no systems got ruined. At worst you were occasionally annoyed. Welcome to ranking systems; especially ones that are trying to stratify millions of people.


The solution is 1-50 with smarter algorithms. Oh, there's a new account playing with two 5-star generals? Base matchmaking pairing off the highest rank in the group. Hell, even the Halo 3 system made it tough as is on new account boosters. Boosting with 50s as a new account in a team of 4 would frequently match you with other teams of 4 at level 50. Not good enough to hang? You're going to get your shit pushed in.

From what I understand each new account in SC2 essentially requires the person to repurchase the game. Bungie totally botched ranks after Halo 3. They stripped them, made matchmaking restrictions in playlists outside of Arena totally loose and then fucked up Arena by giving it shitty gametypes, not being able to implement objective gametypes and on and on and on. Don't get rid of the system, make the system smarter.

I think games like these should have long internal betas. Who cares if video leaks. You gotta tweak that shit to perfection. Let thousands of people break the maps, break the weapons and break the ranking system. Easier said than done I know though because Blizzard has the luxury of doing whatever the fuck they want.

The difference is Blizzard actively looks for feedback, whereas Halo developers believe in some pure vision of the franchise that they deem off limits for fans (see: Reach beta, matchmaking control). Didn't people internally have to fight with Sage to get more rounds in the pistol's clip? What the fuck is that?

 

[Hydranockz]

I remember rolling into Halo 2 Legendary on launch day, all confident from my Halo CE skills. That boarding room quickly put me in my place.

We used to have a copy set up for the lads to play in university. Two would sit down and get as far as they could. They'd eventually give up and two more would carry on. Always fun to watch and easily a better example of how good AI is great for players.

 

[Havok]

That first level...

Cairo is actually one of the easiest levels if you play it normally and know the turret trick for Hangar Bay 2. The beginning of Gravemind was where I ended up dying the most--it differs from the Heroic progression very significantly. Instead of 3 waves of guys, there's like 8, including 2 Carbine Brute waves that will rip your shit apart.

JACKAL SNIPERS

Rooftopped most of Outskirts and the Delta Halo sniper valley, only ever had the Jackal Sniper Experience (TM) on Metropolis, but they were less of a factor than stuff like Drones, and Gravemind Council Chamber Opening Fuckfest.

Here's a needler, have fun.

I probably only died like 40 or so times this playthrough. Which maybe says something about the design of that difficulty.

Playing Halo 2 on legendary a second time?

do not want.

This is something like the tenth time I've done it (though usually it's not an entire playthrough), but it's been probably 6 years since the last time I tried.

 

[kittens]

Lol everyone left so I figured I would too. I gotta go pick my brother up from work in a bit anyway. I'll be back in about 30 minutes though if you want to play then.

Cool, I'll still be on, probably.

 

[Tashi]

I think it was the DMR clip. I remember hearing that and bugging out lol. That shit should be automatic.

 

[xxjuicesxx]

Stop talking about H4 and come play Reach Kylie J Cyrus.

Lets face it Frankie confirmed Arena is back and theres no 1-50 again. No advancement in H4. We get it.


Can I please be hired for playlist management?

 

[Hydranockz]

False premise, that doesn't happen. If you really think the majority of people ranked below 50 spent their time getting mercilessly dumped on by new accounts more often than not, I don't know what to tell you. Go look at the skill distribution charts in every ranked playlist for proof that there was an ideal balance between 1-50. This idea that the Halo 3 ranking system was obliterated by torrents of new accounts is hilarious. A few nerds spent money to get boosted, and it was most frequently seen in Doubles, where occasionally you would get crapped on by a new account. The vast majority of the time, ranked matchmaking got you into close games. Nobody got cheated out of anything, no systems got ruined. At best you were occasionally annoyed. Welcome to ranking systems; especially ones that are trying to stratify millions of people.


The solution is 1-50 with smarter algorithms. Oh, there's a new account playing with two 5-star generals? Base matchmaking pairing off the highest rank in the group. Hell, even the Halo 3 system made it tough as is on new account boosters. Boosting with 50s as a new account in a team of 4 would frequently match you with other teams of 4 at level 50. Not good enough to hang? You're going to get your shit pushed in.

A few people boosted? Lol. That's a hyperbole of batshit proportions.

 

[Poker Face]

The difference is that one is legitimate and infrequent, and the other is illegitimate and very frequent. Big differences, no?

And Reach is just as capable of finding close matches with as good or better frequency if Bungie or 343 so desired. Arena playlists had all the ingredients, no guests, strong skill matching requirements, and visible skill ranks to motivate players to win and improve. So why don't you like The Arena?

I think we've both had very different experiences. I've stopped playing Reach because I can't get a fun match anymore. I never ran into boosters in Halo 3, maybe 1/100 matches were derankers or boosters.

I don't like Arena because I don't want to invest 5 games a day, for x amount of days to be placed in a division. Not to mention my division could potentially change if I can't continue to play games every single day.

 

[kylej]

The amount of times the player is matched with such a gap in skill. Quite simple really. If I play legitimately, I'll pass the lower levels quickly. I can't remember how fast levelling was so we'll say 50 matches gets me up to 35. If I never boosted, I'd never play such low players again. As it should, it keeps a challenge. Boosting accounts simply adds to the amount of possible times lower levelled players will get falsely matched. When boosting is as rampant as that of Halo 3, the number ranks are worthless and the player pool becomes muddied.

What is being falsely matched? All the person on the other end knows is they got beat. There is zero difference between someone good legitimately ranking up and someone boosting a new account. The person on the other team knows no difference. And the idea that you'll pass lower ranks quickly if you play legitimately is also wrong, you move up quicker if you have a new account and someone higher skill who's raking in tougher opponents (which you yourself say is better). Ranks were never worthless and the player pool was never muddied.

Looking at your account, you were a 42. I didn't realize there were tens of thousands of falsely ranked people at 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, and 50 just to keep Hydranockz from achieving his true numerical potential.

 

[heckfu]

Can guests please be relegated to their own playlist? I mean, shit.

 

[kittens]

Lets face it Frankie confirmed Arena is back and theres no 1-50 again.

Wait, did that actually happen?

 

[HiredN00bs]

I don't like Arena because I don't want to invest 5 games a day, for x amount of days to be placed in a division. Not to mention my division could potentially change if I can't continue to play games every single day.

So don't. You could still enjoy the closer skill matcking, even more with a close skill search modifier, although if Reach is like 3, it will abandon those modifiers after a certain amount of time of failing to find a qualifying match. Your rank is completely based on your Trueskill which is completely based on wins/losses and the relative Trueskills of your teammates/opponents. The only problem is that you can't see your rank and progress until you meet the current 5 days of 4 games requirement.

I think Super Slayer also might have tighter skill matching requirements than the default Reach setting.

 

[Hydranockz]

What is being falsely matched? All the person on the other end knows is they got beat. There is zero difference between someone good legitimately ranking up and someone boosting a new account. The person on the other team knows no difference. And the idea that you'll pass lower ranks quickly if you play legitimately is also wrong, you move up quicker if you have a new account and someone higher skill who's raking in tougher opponents (which you yourself say is better). Ranks were never worthless and the player pool was never muddied.

Looking at your account, you were a 42. I didn't realize there were tens of thousands of falsely ranked people at 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, and 50 just to keep Hydranockz from achieving his true numerical potential.

I was a 42. I was never going to reach 50. I was as good as those around me. That's why people got skill locked. The system was designed to slot players in where they belong. The game doesn't reward players by letting everyone get to 50 and that's why it was so good. Way to miss the point though You probably thought my jimmies would have been russled by digging through my highest skill of all things heh.

 

[Deputy Moonman]

False premise, that doesn't happen. If you really think the majority of people ranked below 50 spent their time getting mercilessly dumped on by new accounts more often than not, I don't know what to tell you. Go look at the skill distribution charts in every ranked playlist for proof that there was an ideal balance between 1-50. This idea that the Halo 3 ranking system was obliterated by torrents of new accounts is hilarious. A few nerds spent money to get boosted, and it was most frequently seen in Doubles, where occasionally you would get crapped on by a new account. The vast majority of the time, ranked matchmaking got you into close games. Nobody got cheated out of anything, no systems got ruined. At worst you were occasionally annoyed. Welcome to ranking systems; especially ones that are trying to stratify millions of people.


The solution is 1-50 with smarter algorithms. Oh, there's a new account playing with two 5-star generals? Base matchmaking pairing off the highest rank in the group. Hell, even the Halo 3 system made it tough as is on new account boosters. Boosting with 50s as a new account in a team of 4 would frequently match you with other teams of 4 at level 50. Not good enough to hang? You're going to get your shit pushed in.

Dude Kyle is on a roll tonight and I think everything he said has made far more sense than what anyone else has said. Ranks from 1-50 had some issues, but not on the scale that people are making it out to be. What we have in Reach is laughable. If that's the solution we have to boosters, bring back the boosters. Playing against people of greater skill is how you improve. I don't see a problem with it. It's not always fun, but no more so than the system in Reach.

And that bolded part would completely discourage the issue. Make boosting difficult by matching teams based on the highest rank in the party. No more lolwut easy matches, making it not worth people's time to try and boost other players.

 

[Tashi]

I just got my first overkill with the MLG controller. It was pretty nice. Here it is!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_yHcsPjkLY

 

[BackdoorBeauty]

I think Super Slayer also might have tighter skill matching requirements than the default Reach setting.

The lack of feedback here is the problem. Players are left guessing what skill level they are matching with.

Edit: I can't believe I'm the only one that thinks not being able to see your trueskill value, or some representation of it, is somewhat of a problem.

If you can't show the precise true-skull level, how about a range? 35-40, 40-45 etc. Or a symbol that represents your range. Getting the 50 symbol should be a combination of trueskill and matchmaking games completed. This would eliminate the boosting problem.. new accounts would not be able to get the 50 without a pre-defined minimum number of matches in a given playlist. Just give me a vauge IDEA about where I stand with respect to the rest of the community. I want to know. It gives me motivation to improve, and adds that competitive edge to a match.

There should also be no such thing as negative exp. Booster accounts in H3 would quit hundreds of games or more to skew the rating system. This behavior could be detected and those accounts devalued from trueskill influence on other players in a match.

The only problem that cannot be solved is network manipulation from host to host. Hard ranks, like H3, definitely encouraged people to DDoS/Firewall block IP addresses in the middle of a match, etc.

 

[HiredN00bs]

The lack of feedback here is the problem. Players are left guessing what skill level they are matching with.

There isn't one problem, just like there isn't one solution. These are complex systems that have to be developed on a large scale, based on statistics and logic, not anecdotes and forum-poster intuition.

There is zero difference between someone good legitimately ranking up and someone boosting a new account.

Ranks were never worthless and the player pool was never muddied.

I hereby crown kylej king of false premises. Stick to belittling others, that's your real expertise.

 

[zap]

I just got my first overkill with the MLG controller. It was pretty nice. Here it is!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_yHcsPjkLY

Dat kill stealing

 

[The Real Napsta]

I just got my first overkill

Congrats!

 

[MrGreencastle]

What is being falsely matched? All the person on the other end knows is they got beat. There is zero difference between someone good legitimately ranking up and someone boosting a new account. The person on the other team knows no difference. And the idea that you'll pass lower ranks quickly if you play legitimately is also wrong, you move up quicker if you have a new account and someone higher skill who's raking in tougher opponents (which you yourself say is better). Ranks were never worthless and the player pool was never muddied.

Looking at your account, you were a 42. I didn't realize there were tens of thousands of falsely ranked people at 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, and 50 just to keep Hydranockz from achieving his true numerical potential.

I don't know why you keep bringing it up when Frank and the people at 343 have the data, and your entire argument is based on anecdotal evidence at best. It was already stated that it was a big problem, and frankly, his word is better than yours in this case, sorry.

 

[kittens]

Congrats!

LOL.

 

[BackdoorBeauty]

There isn't one problem, just like there isn't one solution. These are complex systems that have to be developed on a large scale, based on statistics and logic, not anecdotes and forum-poster intuition.

Or simply not developed and hidden from view entirely, like Reach. Which has been very successful, competitively.

 

[Tashi]

Congrats!

Bastard

 

[wwm0nkey]

Dem tears

 

[zap]

The lack of feedback here is the problem. Players are left guessing what skill level they are matching with.

Edit: I can't believe I'm the only one that thinks not being able to see your trueskill value, or some representation of it, is somewhat of a problem.
If you can't show the precise true-skull level, how about a range? 35-40, 40-45 etc. Or a symbol that represents your range. Getting the 50 symbol should be a combination of trueskill and matchmaking games completed. This would eliminate the boosting problem.. new accounts would not be able to get the 50 without a pre-defined minimum number of matches in a given playlist. Just give me a vauge IDEA about where I stand with respect to the rest of the community. I want to know. It gives me motivation to improve, and adds that competitive edge to a match.
There should also be no such thing as negative exp. Booster accounts in H3 would quit hundreds of games or more to skew the rating system. This behavior could be detected and those accounts devalued from trueskill influence on other players in a match.

The only problem that cannot be solved is network manipulation from host to host. Hard ranks, like H3, definitely encouraged people to DDoS/Firewall block IP addresses in the middle of a match, etc.

You're not the only one, we all want to see 'ranks' - I keep saying how Arena would be better if every playlist showed your arena rank (or prominently on your service record) - it motivates people to improve.

The problem with 1-50 (as it was in H3) is that you eventually get rank locked and it takes an ungodly number of wins in a row to rank up. Therefore new accounts get made to let the player feel progression again.

The other thing with a visible skill, is that it hurts your ego unless you're at the top. A lot of people don't want to be told how bad they are - so the visible rank will motivate some players and put off others.

 

[Karl2177]

You're not the only one, we all want to see 'ranks' - I keep saying how Arena would be better if every playlist showed your arena rank (or prominently on your service record) - it motivates people to improve.

The problem with 1-50 (as it was in H3) is that you eventually get rank locked and it takes an ungodly number of wins in a row to rank up. Therefore new accounts get made to let the player feel progression again.

The other thing with a visible skill, is that it hurts your ego unless you're not at the top. A lot of people don't want to be told how bad they are - so the visible rank will motivate some players and put off others.

lol rank lock

 

[HigherLevel]

Random, but Frankie, please get a achievement tracker like in ODST included in this game please.

 

[MrGreencastle]

You're not the only one, we all want to see 'ranks' - I keep saying how Arena would be better if every playlist showed your arena rank (or prominently on your service record) - it motivates people to improve.

The problem with 1-50 (as it was in H3) is that you eventually get rank locked and it takes an ungodly number of wins in a row to rank up. Therefore new accounts get made to let the player feel progression again.

The other thing with a visible skill, is that it hurts your ego unless you're not at the top. A lot of people don't want to be told how bad they are - so the visible rank will motivate some players and put off others.

One of the few sane posts I've read here over the past while.

Arena is the way to go, have a rating for every playlist, that takes into account your performance in game, and measures it against a win or a loss. I don't know the algorithm, but it can exist. Combine that with a history of past ratings throughout "seasons" and an overall rank/rating. More importantly, make performing poorly, or losing lower your rank. Currently, Arena doesn't do this, but it should.