[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]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] My Own Religion no one answered my question.. bottom of previous page[/quote] Playing consistantly better (i.e winning 3 games per losing 1 game) is better then playing streakily (i.e winning 10 games, losing 5 winning 3 losing 7 etc)
-
The ranking system is so annoying, why should I be penalized for being consistently good?
-
no one answered my question.. bottom of previous page
-
yea if figured we just needed to play more. thx for clearing that up.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Redpwranger so i have a 2v2 team we are mario and luigi2v2..... we have done like 80 something social and 42 doubles. we were doing 80 social doubles till it ended now we do multi to warm up. http://www.bungie.net/Stats/Halo3/Default.aspx?player=Luigi2v2 our record. ok so my question is from our record its not bad...for little games only lost 6 times. 3 times outa the ranked doubles. so while we are ranking its going slow....we rank every 5-6 games but we rank 2-3 times which is good. but in our 1 outa 3 loses we derank 2 times...ok just means dont lose right haha. well takes us again 5 games to rank up just once. then we lose again and derank 3 times. but we ranked 2 times after the 3rd match. after that we play once and win... then we lsoe cause we got frustrated bad move but we lost and we deranked twice again....whats up with that...cause we dont paly much need more sigma or somthin im sure u said it some were in here my apologies for being anoying but im a little confused on that so we made it to 24 then down to 21 and stoped for the day....any ideas why we got screwed over? just play more or what? thx[/quote]It looked like you two were going up on average 1 level every 2 games which isn't bad. At this stage the system is a bit uncertain where you belong. That works in two directions. It's more willing to jump you a couple levels but it's also more willing to knock you down a knotch. As far as the last drop it appears that you lost to an 18 that last match so the system counted that against you more then someone of equal skill. You also beat a few people lower then you just before you moved up and that generally doesn't count for you as much. So that's probably why it kicked you down after the loss. At this stage it's definitly not a big deal. Just keep playing and winning and the system will jump you up again in no time. [Edited on 11.27.2007 5:50 PM PST]
-
so i have a 2v2 team we are mario and luigi2v2..... we have done like 80 something social and 42 doubles. we were doing 80 social doubles till it ended now we do multi to warm up. http://www.bungie.net/Stats/Halo3/Default.aspx?player=Luigi2v2 our record. ok so my question is from our record its not bad...for little games only lost 6 times. 3 times outa the ranked doubles. so while we are ranking its going slow....we rank every 5-6 games but we rank 2-3 times which is good. but in our 1 outa 3 loses we derank 2 times...ok just means dont lose right haha. well takes us again 5 games to rank up just once. then we lose again and derank 3 times. but we ranked 2 times after the 3rd match. after that we play once and win... then we lsoe cause we got frustrated bad move but we lost and we deranked twice again....whats up with that...cause we dont paly much need more sigma or somthin im sure u said it some were in here my apologies for being anoying but im a little confused on that so we made it to 24 then down to 21 and stoped for the day....any ideas why we got screwed over? just play more or what? thx
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] z0su I was a level 21 undefeated in about 15 games... I played with my friend who was a level 35. I got to level 43 by the time he got to 37. I went undefeated with him for another 15 games or so in less than 2 hours; I understand how trueskill works but it seems slightly unfair that it started giving me 3 levels a game and he only leveled twice after I more than doubled my level! Currently this name is probably just a couple away from 50.[/quote]I wouldn't say it's really unfair. Two things about that situation. You had gotten to your level with a great winning record so the system was ready and willing to move you. By pairing with your friend of higher rank you were able to take on people of higher rank and when you won the system was smart enough to regonize you should be moving up because you were beating people higher then you. That's why you got to jump ranks. Your friend on the other hand was actually playing 1 person at his level and 1 person below it just about every game. When he wins that doesn't really prove he should go anywhere because the system expects him to win. If a 45 played 20's all day you would expect him to win so he's really not proving he should move up. Really your friend ended up taking on a roll that wasn't going to allow him to move very much. It looks like after you got up to his level your record was around 10-5 and your friend ended up moving 2 more levels. I think had you continued to win your friend would finally start moving because only after you caught up to him did he really have a chance to prove himself. I think this makes a lot of sense the way it worked. What might be unfair is that becaues the system is trying to make it fair and you guys had a lower rank in your party the higher rank really never gets the opportunity to prove they should move up.
-
thanks for the info
-
I was a level 21 undefeated in about 15 games... I played with my friend who was a level 35. I got to level 43 by the time he got to 37. I went undefeated with him for another 15 games or so in less than 2 hours; I understand how trueskill works but it seems slightly unfair that it started giving me 3 levels a game and he only leveled twice after I more than doubled my level! Currently this name is probably just a couple away from 50. My other name got to 50(zosu) after I went on two 5 game win streaks from 48 to 50.. seems fair. My brothers name is trapped at 48 (chobofied). He got both my names from 47 to 49/50. We won 8 games twice in a row against players ranging from 46 to 50 and he did not level up. I like how the ranking system is, but it seems like it unfairly traps people at a level if they end up playing too many games at it. At this rate it looks like it will take his him 20 games in a row to get from 48 to 50, even though we are constantly beatting 49s and 50s We are just going to make new names, it only takes like 35-40 wins to get to 45 if we play with mid 30s and dont lose any games. I am sure he will level from 47-50 faster than it is leveling him from 48-49. BYT I do like the explanation of the original post, however he omitted a lot of the details from the official trueskill ranking system, about how it calculates their "trueskill" and depending on the trueskill of both your teammates, oppononents, and everyone thats played online... how it ranks you up compared to that. I guess I really had nothing to say, just wanted to comment on how the ranking system is good, but unfair in penalizing people at high levels who can get "trapped"
-
Thx for the help =P [Edited on 11.27.2007 3:14 PM PST]
-
Ok don't the words streakily and consistently mean the same thing if I'm winning a lot? Unless I'm consistent at losing. What's your definition of streakily?
-
i have a Q. lets say i raise my level up to 40 for just a game or 2 and then i go down to 39 for the rest of eternity. once i gain the EXP to become a colonel will my highest level reached (40) allow me to be promoted? in laimens terms... is the true skill part of rank based on highest level achieved or current level? thank you very much in advance. (im sure this question has been asked b4 but i never use the forums and am not sure how to find my answer in any other way other than asking it myself)
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] somdowns I've read through this thread and the ranking system. It's not much different than H2. But, none of this explains why after 3 or 4 wins, you would not level up, in say Lone Wolves, even against player 2-3 levels above you, and then suddenly de-level after 1 loss to players who are your same level. According to the system, you should have leveled up in those first 2-3 matches. I mean just now, I won 3 games in a row where I was in the middle of the levels (38 to 42), and I didn't level up. Then I just lost a game against people all my level and I de-leveled. My point is that I think the system itself says one thing, but in actual practice, something else is happening.[/quote]If you would like an explanation please list the range of games you are questioning and I'm sure someone will try to help explain it. I just looked at your games of Lone wolves. I don't see anything that looks unexpected. On the first page you pretty much alternate between 4/5/6 finish and 1/2/3 finish. Your rank through that period also was alternating between 38/39. Assuming 3rd or better counts as a win you have 20 wins and 18 losses in lone wolves on the first two pages. That's occured mostly at skill level 38 but some of those games you were a 39. Looking at it from a broader perspective does that really seem like you should be moving up. Just looking at a small number of games doesn't always give you the real picture. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] somdowns In teams, I agree - leveling should be based on performance of the player, not the team. In understand that the system rewards you more for winning the match, but does that mean the player who made 25 kills on the losing team shouldn't level up, or isn't at a higher skill level? I can't count how many times I've carried a team just to lose in the end and then de-level. If I am in last place on the team, I understand, but if you get more single kills that anyone else in the whole match? Come on...[/quote]On page 13 of this thread I posted a semi long post discussing why I think it's impossible to use individual performance's as part of the equation. I also discuss why only using wins/losses works perfectly fine for determining your skill level and why those games you carried your team but lost shouldn't be a concern. Check out my post and see if it makes sense to you. I really don't think it's possible to use individual performance in a ranking system. [Edited on 11.27.2007 2:44 PM PST]
-
I've read through this thread and the ranking system. It's not much different than H2. But, none of this explains why after 3 or 4 wins, you would not level up, in say Lone Wolves, even against player 2-3 levels above you, and then suddenly de-level after 1 loss to players who are your same level. According to the system, you should have leveled up in those first 2-3 matches. I mean just now, I won 3 games in a row where I was in the middle of the levels (38 to 42), and I didn't level up. Then I just lost a game against people all my level and I de-leveled. My point is that I think the system itself says one thing, but in actual practice, something else is happening. In teams, I agree - leveling should be based on performance of the player, not the team. In understand that the system rewards you more for winning the match, but does that mean the player who made 25 kills on the losing team shouldn't level up, or isn't at a higher skill level? I can't count how many times I've carried a team just to lose in the end and then de-level. If I am in last place on the team, I understand, but if you get more single kills that anyone else in the whole match? Come on...
-
That was a very in-depth explanation of the ranking systems,it helped me out alot,and i'm sure you helped out alot more people who didn't quite understand the ranking system either.
-
very nice. thanks.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] The Trunk Munky Wow. Instead of all that crap, Bungie should use a system where: If a player is consistently winning games, well, he must be doing [i] something [/i] right for his team, therefore he levels up easily. [/quote] That's how the system currently works. Well, depending on your definition of easily. Yes there are a few exceptions to this regarding mixed skilled parties and teams that only play together but these specific issues are being investigated. They do not affect the majority of players. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] The Trunk Munky Levelling up is also related to positivity in a game, as well as assists (but to a lesser extent). Don't know how many games I've lost while playing really well, and gone down levels.[/quote] It's been stated numerous times in this thread and in others that individual performance does not matter in a team game. Being rewarded for loosing is not and should not happen. Your team lost.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] The Trunk Munky Wow. Instead of all that crap, Bungie should use a system where: If a player is consistently winning games, well, he must be doing [i] something [/i] right for his team, therefore he levels up easily. Levelling up is also related to positivity in a game, as well as assists (but to a lesser extent). Don't know how many games I've lost while playing really well, and gone down levels. p.s. Is it just me or is MVP simply given to the player with most kills, regardless of deaths?[/quote] So people can simply go into Team Slayer and just run around on their own and get kills and go up? It is called [b]Team[/b] Slayer for a reason, and that reason isn't so people just run around without their team.
-
Wow. Instead of all that crap, Bungie should use a system where: If a player is consistently winning games, well, he must be doing [i] something [/i] right for his team, therefore he levels up easily. Levelling up is also related to positivity in a game, as well as assists (but to a lesser extent). Don't know how many games I've lost while playing really well, and gone down levels. p.s. Is it just me or is MVP simply given to the player with most kills, regardless of deaths?
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] II THING 2 II well that is does not make any sense at all...you are telling me i have to lose to rank up faster?? Thats absolutely ridiculous! I have now won 54 in a row and i'm only a 31....this system needs to be fixed so that i don't have to embarrass the casual players and finally get a challenge![/quote]Honestly I don't really understand what you are complaing about. You are ranking up at a rate of about 1 level every 1.7 games. That's a very reasonable speed and nothing worth complaining about. I don't see the problem. It would be nice if the system would just put you at 50 and see how well you do but it's not going to do that. It is going to take a little time for it to find your level, but it seems to be going along smoothly.
-
well that is does not make any sense at all...you are telling me i have to lose to rank up faster?? Thats absolutely ridiculous! I have now won 54 in a row and i'm only a 31....this system needs to be fixed so that i don't have to embarrass the casual players and finally get a challenge!
-
I kind of understand your explanation and I know you say its not perfect. In fact, this ranking system is very unfair. I have a roommate that played 19 consecutive games and won all the way to game 18, he ranked up 1 time. His teammate (they were in team doubles) ranked up all the way to 50 from 46 in the exact same games. They lost there last game and my friend went from 48 to 47 with one loss, his teammate stayed at 50. If this system is in fact "working as intended" it is a stupid system and does not reward a gamer for skill. Bungie, please choose another system or make some tweaks to the existing one.
-
Do you lose a 50 after 1 loss or does the experience accumulate like it does with all other number levels? I want to know because I am near getting a 50 but do not want to stop playing team slayer until my friend gets his as well (he has a 47).
-
Nice explanation man
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] maximus_asinus My Problem: Usually I'm not one to rant about these types of things but after reading through the explanation on the ranking system I still have questions and complaints. To me the system favors a player with a high Sigma rating. A player who consistantly plays well shouldn't be the person on the short end of the stick. I've been hovering around level 35 in Team Slayer for about a month now. I have lost games and won games but always played well. I have come to the conclusion that basing the player's Trueskill on wins and losses is the fatal flaw in the system. If Player A performs well (in comparison to the Player B-H) but is on the losing team, Player A shouldn't be penalized. It is obvious that Player A is playing at a higher skill level than the opposing team. The way I see it is you're punishing one person because of the play of the rest of the team. Then I question why Player A is placed on a poor team. Is it because of this ranking system? Yes and no. Playing alone, the single player falls victom to the ranking system, being paired with people who aren't up to par to their level. The ideal solution is to party up--you can guarantee getting a decent matchup if you play with a group that you know will play well. The downfall to this is that you can abuse the party system by including a person with a lower rank (not too much lower), because you'll start playing people slightly under your skill range but close enough where every player can still gain rank. My Solution: I think the best scenerio would be to take actual game performance into account when selecting a team and when deciding whether or not a player should level up. I'm no mathmatical genius but I'd image it'd work something like this: mu and sigma would retain their values but the introduction of a third variable would be introduced to keep track of the map goal and then compared to your ability to complete the map goal. So for example you're playing CTF and you score twice, the variable 'y' would track this in some way and in the final formula add it to your final score. For Slayer games I'd expect it to keep track of kills but that could be difficult because a player could get 18 kills and 20 deaths, which isn't that good. It could keep track of your kill/death spread (not to be confused with ratio). Again, the variable 'y' would be applied to your final score. I'd expect the formula for objective games to be different then Slayer games. So yeah I kind of went off track, with my point, but ultimately I want you to see what I'm talking about. The system should place more emphasis on a single player's ability to complete a specific goal, not the team's. I don't know how many people will get this comparison but I compare this to the yesteryears of the NHL. Lets say the '97 Red Wings is Red Team and Blue Team is the '07 Penguins. The Red Wings have all the star players while the Penguins have all mediocre players for the exception of one. The Red Wings inevitablely win 5-3 but the Penguin's star player was able to get all 3 goals for their team. In my system this player gets credited with a place on the 3 stars post game. In Bungie's system, the player gets no recognition whatsoever. [/quote]This is my take on personal performance: You can't use it. It can't be part of the equation because the evaluation is not uniform across all gametypes and playlists. Take Lone Wolves for instance. Assists are bad. Assists are kills that got away so the lower the better in that playlist. K/D ratio is meaningless. The goal is to get the most kills, not to have the best K/D ratio. I've played games of rumble pit (back in halo 2) and gone 20/10, but I came in 3rd or 4th because other people got out there and made the kills. Even though they ended up going 22/24 they knew how to get more kills then me. How about Objective game types. Who should be rewarded more the guy who scored the flag? The guy who stole the flag? or the guy who covered the flag carrier? Do you give credit for a great K/D ratio. Should the flag scorer get more credit or less credit then someone who sat back and slayed all game allowing you to get that flag and score it. What about the person who lead the team and created the plan to get that flag? How do you quantify that? In my opinino personal performance cannot be used. It just can't be quantified and just about every gametype has a different and debatable measure of good performance. As far as a player being penalized for playing well but losing: They really aren't. The system can't be judged on a per game basis. Think about a person playing many games. Sometimes you'll be matched with players who do well. Other times you'll be matched with players that don't. If you go into matchmaking alone this will even out. The only variable that's left is the individual. Thus if you do well you will rank up because that positive contribution to the team will allow your teams to win more. As you move up your contribution slowly drops to nuetral. That's when you are at your level. So you see the skills of your random teammates has to average out. The only thing left that effects whether you go up or down is the individual. If you team up you might be able to get a little higher, but that's expected. If you play with people you know you are going to be familiar with them and there skills/strategies. Communication will generally be better. It's natural for a team that plays together to perform better then a team that is randomly put together. Even if they are all the same skill level. Random teams will always be worse off then teams that practice together. **EDIT** Okay, I looked over your last 51 games (one more then I planned :) ) and I noted all your K/D spreads. When you total it all up you are positive 61 kills. Since you played 51 games take 61/51 and on average you go positive 1.19 kills per game. It looks like on average you are contributing positivly, but not by very much. Based on that number I would conclude you are near your level. Will you ultimatly move up to a 36 or a 37...maybe, but you probably aren't heading up much further. From what I can see you aren't being held back by the random people you play with. The reason you aren't moving much has more to do with you then them. As I said in time you may inch up a bit further but by the looks of it not very far. "Playing alone, the single player falls victom to the ranking system, being paired with people who aren't up to par to their level." Almost everyone is up to par with there level. Only individuals who play with a team could possibly make it higher then they "should". (I'm talking by more then a couple of ranks here) So those random people you get paired with are playing at there level. The other team is paired up using the same system. This means it has to average out. There is no way you can suffer more then the next person. If you get "bad" teammates then the other team also has to get "bad" teammates from time to time. The same holds true for "good" teammates. The only variable that's left is the individuals skill. So my conclusion is that based on your data you appear to be around your level. Not because you are being held back, but because of your own performance. I don't think using just wins/losses is a problem of the system. Individual performance can't be used because it's just impossible to quantify with any degree of accuracy and each gametype will change what a good performance is. [Edited on 11.26.2007 8:57 PM PST]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] II THING 2 II This is not true... i made a new account named "nub booster"...i won 27 games in a row on team slayer with 567 kills 230 deaths and 260 head shots...i am a lvl 16 after all of that....thats some bull[/quote]What's not true? The OP's original post? We have a very good understanding of the system. Pretty much what we can know is known and there hasn't been an unexplainable circumstance yet based on our understanding of the system. First the pretty numbers you threw out there about your performance don't mean anything to the system. So don't expect to rank faster because of it. You ranked up to 16 in only 27 games. That's pretty fast, but here is the thing. Your undefeated. I checked your stats. That's going to cause issues. You are in fact going to rank slower if you continue to play undefeated. This issue is discussed in this thread. So if you want to know more about it and why it happens look at page 5 where it's explained. Bungie may find a way to fix this issue but that won't happen until the next patch at the earliest. For now to rank fast you can't win to much. If you are winning 90% of the time or better you are going to slow your progress. [Edited on 11.26.2007 7:56 PM PST]