JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

#Halo

11/12/2007 9:22:18 PM
2607

In depth explanation of the Halo 3 skill ranking system.

[b]I am NOT an employee of Bungie nor one of Microsoft, and my views and opinions do not necessarily reflect those of either of the aforementioned entities. Also, thanks for sticking this Bungie, I hope it is useful.[/b] There is one caveat to consider before we get under weigh. Bungie is not likely, nor or ever, to release the true inner workings of the Halo 3 ranking system, but as it is based somewhat on the Microsoft Trueskill system, this is a fair approximation of the way skill ranking works in Halo 3. [quote][i][b]What is the Trueskill system?[/b][/i][/quote] The Trueskill system is a player skill rating system for Xbox Live. Halo 3 uses a version of the Trueskill system in order to make the matches fairly even. [quote][i][b]How Does Trueskill Work?[/b][/i][/quote] Trueskill assigns skills on a normal distribution (bell curve, Gaussian). The Trueskill system has two main variables to consider. They are your player skill level ([b]Mu[/b]) and your uncertainty factor ([b]Sigma[/b]). [b]Mu[/b] is an approximation of your skill level based upon past performance. Win games to raise Mu, and lose games to lower Mu. [b]Sigma[/b] is the numerical representation of the range in which your [i]true[/i] skill could lie. Play really consistently, and you have a low Sigma. Play streakily, and you have a higher Sigma. After a win, the Trueskill system adjusts your skill ranking based upon the Mu and Sigma of all the players in the game. We'll go deeper into [i]how much[/i] it is adjusted later. Trueskill systems use a conservative ranking [b]Ranking = mu - (K * Sigma)[/b] so your skill is likely to be higher than the actual number represented in your Halo 3 highest skill level. K is a constant assigned an arbitrary value by the developers of the game. [quote][i][b]Why don't I level up after winning X games in a row? / Why does my friend go up three levels a game and I don't?[/b][/i][/quote] Mu increases after a win. Always. [b]The increase is proportional to the winner's Sigma and the Mu difference between the winner and the loser.[/b] So, if your Sigma is high, you will proceed faster through the ranking system (in BOTH directions). If your Sigma is low, you will both gain and lose rank more slowly. [quote][i][b]So, I want a high Sigma value?[/b][/i][/quote] While it sounds as though a high Sigma value is desirable, it CAN be a double edged sword. A high Sigma can mean you increase by one level for every win. It also means you decrease by one level for every loss. In addition, a high Sigma means that your skill ranking will be significantly lower than your actual skill owing to the conservative nature of the [b]Ranking = mu - (K * Sigma)[/b] ranking equation. Also, Sigma value starts out VERY high. So, if this is your friend's first time in a particular ranked hopper, and he wins consistently, his rank will rise meteorically due to his high Sigma. [quote][i][b]Myth Busting[/b][/i][/quote] Trueskill DOES NOT take into evaluation performances inside the game. The ONLY statistics that Trueskill takes from a game are the Mu and Sigma values of all the players, and how you placed. This means that out of all of these statistics: Getting the MVP Having a High K/D ratio Getting the most medals Skill levels of those you killed / killed you Weapons you used Headshots Captures, detonations, stops, ousts, etc. NONE of them matter when calculating the Mu increase/decrease. Any link between any of these and the skill ratings are purely correlative and not causative. For example. When I play Team Slayer with my buddies on my alternate gamertag, much of the time I end up carrying the team. I created this tag to play with my buddies, and as such, have only ever played on that party with that tag. I ranked up to the level of my friends within 20 or so games, while it had taken them 50 to 100 games to reach their level. My friends thought that it was because of my frequent MVP status and my high K/D ratio that I leveled up so fast. Wrong. I leveled up fast because [b]A)[/b] I initially had a very high Sigma, making my Mu more variable after each win, [b]B)[/b] Starting out at a 1 and playing people in the mid teens gave me a considerable boost every time I won, and [b]C)[/b] We won more frequently than they had in the past. [quote][i][b]Summation[/b][/i][/quote] If you're worried that you're not getting your fair shake in the ranking system, look at the last 50 games that you've played in that hopper. (If you haven't played 50 games, play more. The system needs more data.) Take your win/loss average. If it's 65% or above, and you've been in that playlist for a while, you've probably increased in level 2 or more times over the last 50 games (or you will in the next 20 or so). Otherwise you are going to be hovering around the same level or dropping in rank. [quote][i][b]Addendum, Opinion, and Technical Notes[/b][/i][/quote] In strict Trueskill systems, Sigma only decreases. I believe the "momentum" system in Halo 3 means that Sigma can be increased through consistent winning or losing. This is total conjecture, but I think that Sigma in Halo 3 matchmaking hoppers is proportional to the absolute value of the win/loss ratio of your last X number of games. The formula probably looks a little like: [b]Sigma = C ( | wins - losses | )[/b] where C is an arbitrary constant. This would explain why when some people go on a win streak with two or more different parties, their skill goes up faster than their teammates' skill. I also believe that the system is weighted so that the peak of the normal distribution is around level 20, not level 25. That means it will take more wins to level through 1-25 than it will 25-50. Which makes a bit of sense, if you don't want the highest levels too terribly crowded. [b]The higher the Sigma of your opponents, the less Mu you gain from beating them.[/b] Predictable outcomes (e.g. win against a lower ranked opponent) are treated as statistically less significant. Upsets are given more weight. So, winning against lower ranked opponents doesn't do much for your Mu rating. Neither does losing against higher ranked ones. But beat a team that's 6 or more ranks above you and at least someone on your team will rank up. Trueskill ratings have no discernable correlation from hopper to hopper. When you play on a hopper you've never played on before, you are starting with a fresh Mu and a high Sigma. Team Mu and Team Sigma are the summation of the Mu and Sigma values of all the players on the team. When calculating the skill of an opponent in a team game, the system uses the Team Mu and Team Sigma values in calculation wherever rational. *Removed equations for space. They can be found in the link below.* [url=http://research.microsoft.com/mlp/apg/Details.aspx#How_to_Update_Skills]The rest of the equations and a less Halo 3 centric analysis of the Trueskill system can be found here.[/url] _________________________________________________________ [b]Important additions, Appendices, and Member Questions Answered[/b] _________________________________________________________ [url=http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=14457003]In-depth response to a post LoveNub made later in this thread. Should clear things up for some.[/url] [url=http://www.bungie.net/Forums/createpost.aspx?postID=14504550]More data analyzed, and a request for help with research[/url] [url=http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=14451163&postRepeater1-p=4#14471689]Kudos to Jay120171 for finding the post detailing the Mixed Party Bug in matchmaking.[/url] [quote][i][b]"Why do I win 10 games and not level up, then delevel when I lose 2? Help!"[/b][/i][/quote] There are several possible explanations for this. The easiest one, and the one that fits the Trueskill system EXACTLY as explained by Microsoft, is that losing against a team that is X (I believe 6 or more, but experimentation is needed to determine the true value) skill points below you can cause you to lose as much as [b]5 times[/b] the Mu value that winning against even level teams gains you. Of course, winning against a team that has X [i]more[/i] skill levels than you can net you as much as 5 times the Mu gain. The reverse is true as well. Winning against a weak team can count as little as 1/5th of an even skill win. Second, and this is enlightened conjecture, your Sigma value was low at the beginning of your streak, and since your win streak is raising it, the conservative ranking system (Remember, Rank = Mu MINUS (K times Sigma)) is kicking in to reduce your apparent skill level. Your real Mu is higher, but your higher Sigma is having a negative impact. [quote][b]mo0vaf00 writes:[/b] (edited to clarify intent) So is there some kind of value that requires you to be inconsistent to rank up? If I win 1 game going even and win the next going +10 do I have more of a chance of ranking up than just winning 2 games getting the same score?[/quote] This conclusion is popping up fairly frequently. The answer is no. The system does not look at "In Match" statistics. At all. These stats are all included in a list above. The game only looks at your wins and your losses, and the strength of the opponents you play against. Also, the system does not "reward" you for having a high Sigma value. There is ONE positive associated with high Sigma, and there are TWO negatives. Positive: Your level can move up faster through winning. Negative: Your level can move down faster through losing. Negative: The conservative ranking system ranks you lower when your Sigma is higher. Higher Sigma simply means your level is more fluid. Sigma is good to have high when you are still reaching your appropriate skill level, but good to have low once you've reached it and are working on improving. [Edited on 11.24.2007 11:54 PM PST]
English
#Halo #Halo3

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • quick question howcome on my bungie Halo 3 account it says that My next promotion willbe at 500 Exp/Highest Skill 45 but on halo 3 it says next promotion will be at 600 Exp? Which one is correct?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] UntouchableHero Is it still true if you beat them when the opposing team has 25 or lower you get double the exp?[/quote]That has never been the case, even in Halo 2. So no.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Is it still true if you beat them when the opposing team has 25 or lower you get double the exp?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • I'm no mathematician, but I actually understood that. XD

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] pissed of gamer yeah i dont like the ranking system in halo 3 at all. its bull actually i have been at a 49 for a while now.... ended up winin 22 games in a ROW yes 22 an i didnt rank up to my 50 ..... so i did also end up leveling down to a 48 after i lost ONLY 4 games in a row..... and for some reason i cant get my 49 again an its pissin me off.... halo 2 rankin system was better in a sence, for people who were actually talented at the geme. but halo 3, its not all about skill which kinda sucks but i will get it soon...... i hope[/quote]What gamertag did this happen on? I checked the one you have linked and you did get to 49 in Team Slayer and you did drop to 48, but other then that it doesn't match what you've said at all. How is Halo 2's system better for "talanted" players? Also you say Halo 3's system isn't all about skill. In what way? [Edited on 12.05.2007 11:58 AM PST]

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] sesquipadelian i am not demanding or expecting anything, but i am curious. my guess (and this is mere conjecture) is that streakiness is not a factor in the ranking system. you and the thread creator seem to understand the system completely and can grasp how different elements of the trueskill system affect ranks in different ways, so i am eager to know if either of you have any concrete reasons to suppose that streakiness is a factor. [/quote] OK, so there was a discussion about winning and losing streaks affecting sigma/skill. So, at that time I decided to email MS about it and ask. As it turns out, in the Xbox Live TrueSkill system, it DOES NOT take streaks in to account. Now, we know Bungie uses a modified version of TrueSkill so we can't say with 100% certainty one way or another but still this is useful info. Here is the email response I received: [quote]TrueSkill as used on Xbox Live stores one mu and one sigma value for each game, game mode; as such, it only takes into account the current game but never considers a streak of wins. BTW, we are currently attending the NIPS conference where we present a paper and an analysis on the game of Chess were we do take whole streaks of wins and losses into account! Best wishes, Ralf Herbrich [/quote]

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • yeah i dont like the ranking system in halo 3 at all. its bull actually i have been at a 49 for a while now.... ended up winin 22 games in a ROW yes 22 an i didnt rank up to my 50 ..... so i did also end up leveling down to a 48 after i lost ONLY 4 games in a row..... and for some reason i cant get my 49 again an its pissin me off.... halo 2 rankin system was better in a sence, for people who were actually talented at the geme. but halo 3, its not all about skill which kinda sucks but i will get it soon...... i hope

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • 0
    I would like to know why I would lose a level after a game that I had just gotten experience on?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] KeYzErSoZe03 Okay, I just thought I would throw in my two cents after reading the original explanation and tons of these posts. First off, I would like to say that I dislike this ranking system in practice. Second, I would like to double-check the master formula you provided, because I don't believe it makes any sense mathematically. Also, you fail to clearly define K. Mu - (K*sigma) = rank. This is the master formula you provided. In statistics, mu = mean, and sigma = standard deviation, or in some cases volatility. You say, "Mu increases after a win. Always. The increase is proportional to the winner's Sigma and the Mu difference between the winner and the loser. So, if your Sigma is high, you will proceed faster through the ranking system (in BOTH directions). If your Sigma is low, you will both gain and lose rank more slowly." I will assume that the "Mu difference between the winner and loser" becomes a factor for determining K, the unknown constant. For your rank to increase slowly, you would have to have a HIGH sigma, according to the formula, because you are subtracting a greater amount from Mu (which just increased because you won). If you had a LOW sigma, you would be subtracting a lesser amount from your Mu (which just increased because you won), which would result in a greater net increase in your rank. You claim that by winning, all you are doing is increasing your Mu value. If that is the case, then this would make much more sense: Rank = Mu Rank after a win = Mu + (K*sigma) Rank after a loss = Mu - (K*sigma) I believe this is a correct formula that you meant to provide. Your formula doesn't make any sense, and this one does. Also, you mentioned that Mu = rank in one part of your explanation, but then you are also using it in your formula to calculate rank. Wtf? Please, somebody respond to this post and verify that this revised formula is actually correct. I don't see why you are subtracting anything from Mu unless you are losing (unless K can be negative), and I think it should be clarified that Mu is actually your rank, not some arbitrary number. [/quote]The formula the OP provided is correct. The formula you are questioning is used to determine the visible skill level (the one that actually appears next to gamertag). For every player Mu and Sigma are tracked. These values are stored behind the scenes. The skill level you actually see is a conservative estimate and is calulated by: [b]Skill Level = Mu - K*Sigma[/b] K in that formula is a constant that is chosen by the developer and the OP did mention that. Microsoft's paper on the subject states that K is typically 3, but we don't actually know what Bungie is using. Sigma is the deviation and Mu can be thought of as a players skill level (but not the one we see) If you want to know exactly how Mu and Sigma are changed after each win/loss you can check out the this [url=http://research.microsoft.com/mlp/apg/Details.aspx#How_to_Update_Skills]link[/url] which the OP provided. I hope that cleared things up. Just out of curiosity what about the system in practice don't you like? [Edited on 12.05.2007 3:23 AM PST]

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Okay, I just thought I would throw in my two cents after reading the original explanation and tons of these posts. First off, I would like to say that I dislike this ranking system in practice. Second, I would like to double-check the master formula you provided, because I don't believe it makes any sense mathematically. Also, you fail to clearly define K. Mu - (K*sigma) = rank. This is the master formula you provided. In statistics, mu = mean, and sigma = standard deviation, or in some cases volatility. You say, "Mu increases after a win. Always. The increase is proportional to the winner's Sigma and the Mu difference between the winner and the loser. So, if your Sigma is high, you will proceed faster through the ranking system (in BOTH directions). If your Sigma is low, you will both gain and lose rank more slowly." I will assume that the "Mu difference between the winner and loser" becomes a factor for determining K, the unknown constant. For your rank to increase slowly, you would have to have a HIGH sigma, according to the formula, because you are subtracting a greater amount from Mu (which just increased because you won). If you had a LOW sigma, you would be subtracting a lesser amount from your Mu (which just increased because you won), which would result in a greater net increase in your rank. You claim that by winning, all you are doing is increasing your Mu value. If that is the case, then this would make much more sense: Rank = Mu Rank after a win = Mu + (K*sigma) Rank after a loss = Mu - (K*sigma) I believe this is a correct formula that you meant to provide. Your formula doesn't make any sense, and this one does. Also, you mentioned that Mu = rank in one part of your explanation, but then you are also using it in your formula to calculate rank. Wtf? Please, somebody respond to this post and verify that this revised formula is actually correct. I don't see why you are subtracting anything from Mu unless you are losing (unless K can be negative), and I think it should be clarified that Mu is actually your rank, not some arbitrary number. [Edited on 12.05.2007 2:38 AM PST]

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Thanks for the help, I'm still not entirely sure why I have so much trouble ranking up, but since ive got a good team of friends now, i think i should start going up very soon. More consistent winning streaks. As well this will win me a slurpee bet with one of my friends, its nice to hold all of the cards. -D

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • now i think you keep refering to playing in team slayer, but does lone wolves go the same way?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Fair enough...everything you said makes sense. I guess any detrimental effects of losing early on apply to all the playlists anyways, not just TS.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Baaaaaaaaaaaaah Thanks for the clarification on Halo 2 ranking. I didn't play it too much and my theory on the ranking was only from my own observations. I do disagree with you on one point. You say that over time in Team Slayer that everyone will will receive their fair share of "muppets" (I'm one half the time) and that things will average out. However, you can rank up very quickly in your first 50-100 games and then start to avoid that part of the population...or at least encounter them less often. You may argue that 50-100 is a big enough sample size to give people an equal opportunity to get bad teams...but if you are someone that plays with a close group of guys (yet switch it up a bit), you have likely reducing the muppet variable substantially. Basically your probability of getting bad teams is slightly dependant on your first sample set. You are assuming each person has a relatively equal chance of playing with anyone else at the same level, when that is not necessarily true. I would hypothesize the amount of people that play with structured teams are not an insignificant portion of the population. Regardless, your performance over your first 100 or so games will determine whether you will need to play 200 or 2,000 games to achieve your true rank. In a perfect world where people play 10,000 games that may not matter, but I suspect many players get disheartened much quicker because they have to grind rank from the bottom of the barrel due to low sigma. I dunno, just my two cents. [/quote]Well I don't know that I understand your defintion of "muppet" but let me put it this way. A person who is trully a 10 is there for a reason. They in theory are equal in skill to other 10's. A 30 is also equal in skill to other 30's. When you get paired with a 10 your partners will on average break even because they are competing against other 10's. The same holds true for 30's. It doesn't matter wheather you get paired with 10's or 30's, your random partners are going to do exactly the same. They're at there level and thus the odds of them going positive or negative should be about equal. The only difference between 10's and 30's is your ability. Someone destined to be a 40 will be so much better then 10's that there teams are almost guaranteed to win. However, as they rise in ranks there personal influence on the team becomes less drastic. That's why people generally fly by the lower ranks and then slow down as they approach there true skill level. Slowing down has FAR more to do with and individuals ability to control the game (there skill) then it does Sigma. Yes I concede a team of 4 who may all be 40's won't get paired with random people and thus should be able to win just about every game at the lower levels. This is in contrast to a 40 who goes in alone and does very well but ultimatly will lose a few games (most likely no fault of his). However, you are under the impression the early losses will drastically change how fast you can level. This isn't really the case. A great player will be so good there teams in the lower ranks are unlikely to lose. They won't lose much at all and they will level very fast. Perhaps a few more losses then the team of 4 but not enough to be noticable. I think that's where you and I disagree here. You won't slow down terribly until you get near your level. At that point you're so close to your level that it doesn't matter if it takes an extra 20-40-60 games to get that final rank. A few more early losses are insignificant. It's just not going to make such a drastic change in speed that you seem to believe it will. I'm a 44 in Team Objective. When I finally hopped into the Team Slayer playlist it was fairly mature. I went from a 1 to a 38 in only 50 games. Games were pretty easy for me too. Currently I'm a 45. Those next 7 ranks took me about 49 more games. However, this had so much more to do with my skill then the few extra losses I might have gotten earlier on. Truth be told as a 38 my performances were more normal. Competition was better and despite eventually pushing up to a 45 the skill difference between me and the competition was much closer. Games were far more fun and competative. If I was better I wouldn't have slowed down as early. A better player would probably fly up to the 44's before starting to show any signs of slowing. Could a team of 45's make it there sooner. Maybe. But is 100 games so unreasonable for an individual, especially when I was playing competativly for half of them. I dont' think so. This is where I'm coming from. I don't think the difference is as drastic as you think. Those early losses just don't do as much damage as you are hypothesizing. I've seen a lot of people complain about not getting passed a rank and blaming the "muppets". In EVERY single case I've looked at there last 50 games and seen the exact same outcome. The person in question only won about half there games and there k/d spread was effectvily ZERO. I have seen absolutly no evidence to show the system is capable of making it frustratingly slow to level do to random partners performance. Can a team do it faster? Yes, it's absolutly possible. But so much so that it makes a difference. No. That's just my opinion based on a lot of data that I've seen, the little knowledge I have of the system and my own experiences. Maybe I'm wrong but I've yet to see evidence of a problem. Then again I concede I don't care about my skill level for any other reason other then matching me up in fun competative games. Could 40 extra games to get to a 45 piss people off who actually care about the 45...ya maybe, but odds are those people aren't quitting because of it and I bet they'll deal with it. [Edited on 12.04.2007 8:08 PM PST]

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Thanks for the clarification on Halo 2 ranking. I didn't play it too much and my theory on the ranking was only from my own observations. I do disagree with you on one point. You say that over time in Team Slayer that everyone will will receive their fair share of "muppets" (I'm one half the time) and that things will average out. However, you can rank up very quickly in your first 50-100 games and then start to avoid that part of the population...or at least encounter them less often. You may argue that 50-100 is a big enough sample size to give people an equal opportunity to get bad teams...but if you are someone that plays with a close group of guys (yet switch it up a bit), you have likely reducing the muppet variable substantially. Basically your probability of getting bad teams is slightly dependant on your first sample set. You are assuming each person has a relatively equal chance of playing with anyone else at the same level, when that is not necessarily true. I would hypothesize the amount of people that play with structured teams are not an insignificant portion of the population. Regardless, your performance over your first 100 or so games will determine whether you will need to play 200 or 2,000 games to achieve your true rank. In a perfect world where people play 10,000 games that may not matter, but I suspect many players get disheartened much quicker because they have to grind rank from the bottom of the barrel due to low sigma. I dunno, just my two cents.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Baaaaaaaaaaaaah The thing that was good about Halo 2's system (correct me if I am wrong), was that the MVP got treated like they got 2 wins and the 4th place guy on the losing team got treated like he got 2 losses. I also believe the guys that got 4th (winning team) and 5th (losing team) had no effects on the ranking. Maybe if this small adjustment was added back into the system (True Skill would still be the system), it might fix a lot of the gripes.[/quote]No, in Halo 2 all the members of the winning and losing teams were treated equally. So it didn't matter if you came in 4th on the winning team or 1st and similiarly it didn't matter if you were 5th or 8th. The "problem" you speak of was existent in Halo 2 as well and there were certainly people who complained. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Baaaaaaaaaaaaah However, In Team Slayer over the long term, you eventually get teamed with your fair share of guys that may be good players, but cannot play well on a team. What's flawed here is that guys that know each other and play slayer are less likely to experience this vs. the average player that just lets the system pick his teammates. In the short term, you lose your fair share of game sbecause of these guys, and your sigma drops quick. Over the long run that average player quite simply will have a large number of losses due to "muppets" on their team, even if they personally are kicking arse. Obviously the higher you rank, the less muppets are likely to end up on your team....but in the very important beginning of your ranking process, People that get stalled out early due to sigma are less likely to keep playing ranked. So you end up having a situation where the guys that start of slow quit playing team slayer early, and skewing the overall ranking process.[/quote]For the sake of dicussion lets say we have a mature playlist. In other words most people are at there skill level and the system is pretty certain it's correct. Now lets look at two people who are both equally skilled. They are new to the playlist and we'll say they are destined to be 45's. They go into matchmaking seperatly. It's true do to the randomness of events one player may lose more then the other, but this has no overall effect. The system is designed to judge you based on many games played. Randomness will average out and there is no way a few more losses for one will stall them to the point they would notice any difference. For every player you get matched up with that does poorly you are going to get matched with someone who does well. The same holds true for the teams you play against. They are equally likely to draw the short straw. In the end the only variable is the individuals skill. Those that get stuck get stuck because there skill isn't good enough to go higher. Those that gripe about the issue you speak of don't understand things average out. They tend to be overly concerned with that one game they went positive but lost and went down a rank. Of course you're unlikely to see that person saying they should be penalized when they go negative, but win. Seems people want it both ways. I understand the perception here but those people need to understand that there is no overall consequence to that loss. For anyone who says individual performance should be considered I pose the follwing question. What makes a player good? Remember we have multiple different gametypes so the definintion of good may very from gametype to gametype. I guarantee the resulting answer will be debatable. If Bungie tried to judge people based on individual performance I guarantee the solution would be inacurate, frustrating, and very messy. People who do play together all the time pose a problem. They can't be judged indepentently. This is a true shortcoming of the system. However, the problem only manifests itself if the team decides to play seperatly. I find this to be an acceptable problem. Halo 2's system did no better in this regard. [Edited on 12.04.2007 6:07 PM PST]

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • I'm no statistician, although I have taken my fair share of stats courses back in University...so hopefully I don't make any flawed assumptions here. Also, I know this thread is for explaining True Skill, rather than critcize it. I'm not going to criticize it here, but rather suggest a small tweak that may fix some problems. I could be totally wrong, but I'll give it a shot: It seems one of the biggest gripes about the True Skill system comes down to Team Slayer. In the perfect world of Lone Wolves, you pretty much control your own destiny (with the exception of a poor matchup which happens from time to time and dropped connections). After the system collects enough info on everyone, sigmas will plummet. People's Lone Wolves rank should somewhat fall into place . It won't be perfect due to new players or players that retired before playing enough, but pretty damn close. However, In Team Slayer over the long term, you eventually get teamed with your fair share of guys that may be good players, but cannot play well on a team. What's flawed here is that guys that know each other and play slayer are less likely to experience this vs. the average player that just lets the system pick his teammates. In the short term, you lose your fair share of game sbecause of these guys, and your sigma drops quick. Over the long run that average player quite simply will have a large number of losses due to "muppets" on their team, even if they personally are kicking arse. Obviously the higher you rank, the less muppets are likely to end up on your team....but in the very important beginning of your ranking process, People that get stalled out early due to sigma are less likely to keep playing ranked. So you end up having a situation where the guys that start of slow quit playing team slayer early, and skewing the overall ranking process. So basically you have a situation where the system is trying to come up with your personal rank, but in reality it is severley watered down by the rest of the populations performance. In other words, you can't rank super high in Team Slayer unless you actually have an official team of guys. Maybe that is Bungie's point to Team Slayer? I don't know....but something tells me if you can be the best guy on the losing team, you should at minimum not be penalized. Been reading the forums a lot lately, and this seems to be the biggest ranking gripe against the system. The thing that was good about Halo 2's system (correct me if I am wrong), was that the MVP got treated like they got 2 wins and the 4th place guy on the losing team got treated like he got 2 losses. I also believe the guys that got 4th (winning team) and 5th (losing team) had no effects on the ranking. Maybe if this small adjustment was added back into the system (True Skill would still be the system), it might fix a lot of the gripes.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Stslimited84 so ive done some in depth reading of this thread and other info about trueskill, and I cannot seem to find a good answer to my question. My friend and I just started playing Team Doubles. We are currently 24-1, and we both are skill level 18. At the current rate, we are destroying the competition. Should we intentionally lose a game to keep the system guessing, and then go on a winning streak again? Or should we just continue winning? What is the better way to skill up? Does losing once in a while aid in our quest to get lvl 50's? or should we just win as much as we can?[/quote]From my observation of way to many peoples stats then I care to admit winning to often is going to slow you down. There have been numerouse examples of people that go undefeated and win 100+ games but get stuck at 15 or 20. Bungie has recognized this problem. I believe to a lesser degree the same problem effects those that win 90% or more. The observed result is slow ranking. I've seen people win most of there games and if you average there levels per game I've seen anywhere between 3-7 which is in the range of somewhat slow to really slow. I'd monitor your average level gains per game and if it starts to climb over 2 or 3 and you aren't getting any competition you might want to consider breaking up the team or losing some games. My observations seem to show that 80% win rate is roughly optimal, but as long as you feel you are climbing and not "stuck" I wouldn't worry about it. Like I said this knowledge is from observation of the current system and not really backed by specific technical knowledge. At the moment 18 levels in 25 games is a good rate and doesn't warrent any change in behavior. At this point just keep winning and see what happens. [Edited on 12.04.2007 1:33 PM PST]

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • cool, thanks for the advice.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • The whole issue becomes how do you define faster. The idea is to get you to your skill quickly but things like only playing in the same team, not having good quality match-ups so your win doesn't mean much and the fact that once you get to a certain point it takes increasingly more wins to go up a level. Most of these things are out of your control so you can't do much about it. Like I said, the only thing is if you and your team mate only play DT with each other, you may get stalled and should play with a few randoms.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • ah. but shouldnt it be faster due to the constant winning? Winning indicates that you are better than the people playing, and thus need to move to a higher skill level to find possible competition.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Stslimited84 thanks for the reply, but im not sure how that applies to my situation?[/quote] you mentioned wanting to rank up and not wanting to get caught in the kinks of the rank system. if you want to rank up and you win loads of games, then it will happen. the only problem that you may experience is that it may take you a little more time than you would like.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • This helpes my anger problem a lot as far as getting MVP and top medals every game and still not leveling up.All in all nice info!

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • thanks for the reply, but im not sure how that applies to my situation?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Stslimited84 thanks for the reply. Any other thoughts from anybody? In essence, we should keep winning then, and not lose intentionally. I did not intend for it to seem like we were stuck at a skill level, i was just wondering what the best course of action is to ensure continually leveling up since we are winning so much. Thoughts? i just dont want to get caught up in one of the querks of the system. You know? since we are working so hard at domination in doubles...[/quote] as long as we keep playing, this problem will be eliminated. as we all play more games against opponents who have played more games, we will get accurate ranks. getting accurate ranks simply takes time and data, and the game is still new and each and every one of us are playing with little history against opponents with little history.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • thanks for the reply. Any other thoughts from anybody? In essence, we should keep winning then, and not lose intentionally. I did not intend for it to seem like we were stuck at a skill level, i was just wondering what the best course of action is to ensure continually leveling up since we are winning so much. Thoughts? i just dont want to get caught up in one of the querks of the system. You know? since we are working so hard at domination in doubles... [Edited on 12.04.2007 11:45 AM PST]

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

You are not allowed to view this content.
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon