My take on why ppl aren't ranking up...

[tiskoe]

Ok so TrueSkill determines whether or not a player ranks up based on data gathered from gameplay.

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/trueskill/faq.aspx

TrueSkill makes a prediction at the start of each match on which players it thinks should win a particular match based on their rank ie. a rank 4 would be expected to beat a rank 1.

If the rank 4 does beat the rank 1 then TrueSkill has been correct in it's prediction and the rank 4 only makes a marginal gain [or no gain] towards ranking up because they were expected to win. The rank 1 makes no gain because they lost and were expected to lose. If the rank 1 beats the rank 4 then they make a huge gain towards ranking up because they were not expected to win and the rank 4 loses points towards ranking up because they were expected to win.

This is fine and the system seems to work in other games.

But here's the problem and why I think ppl aren't ranking up when they think they should be.

Example:
Say there's an execution match, 5 players a side of varying skill.

Team 1:
Rank 1
Rank 1
Rank 3
Rank 3
Rank 3

Team 2:
Rank 2
Rank 2
Rank 4
Rank 4
Rank 4

Now the rank 4s are expected to beat the rank 1s and 3s, the rank 3s are expected to beat the ranks 2s etc.

Ok now say the score is 4-2 to Team 1 and the 7th round has started. A few players on Team 2 that have died quit because they think their team is going to lose and they don't want a loss counting against them. Team 1 ends up winning the match and these are the players that are left at the end of the match:

Team 1:
Rank 1
Rank 1
Rank 3
Rank 3
Rank 3

Team 2:
Rank 2
Rank 2

This is the stage where TrueSkill logs the results of the game; who won and who lost compared with who was expected to win or lose. It then makes the necessary adjustments to the players rank.

In this scenario even though Team 1 won the match only the Rank 1s will gain anything towards ranking up because they were not expected to beat the Rank 2s left on Team 2. Because the Rank 4s quit from Team 2 before the end of the game Trueskill does not register that they lost to the Rank 1s and 3s on Team 1 meaning that their rank is unaffected. It also means that it doesn't register that the Rank 1s and 3s from Team 1 beat the Rank 4s on Team 2 meaning that they won't gain anything towards ranking up even though they won the match.

So I think this is the main reason that a lot of ppl are complaining about winning 'x' number of games in a row and having an awesome K/D ratio but not ranking up. Because by the time they win a particular match there might not be any players left on the opposing team that have a higher rank. Therefore they gain a win, but they don't gain anything towards ranking up.

Thoughts?

[Endless77]

We knew this already.

[tiskoe]

Still seems to be a bunch of ppl posting complaining about not ranking up.

[-LockOut-]

We knew this already.

i agree wth the OP that not everyone actually knows bout this.

I think that EPIC should make sure that the people on the team that is not predicted to win but they do win the match should rank up based on the predictions made at the start of the match. Because if it is based on the rankings of the people at the end of the match - its not fair on those people who keep winnin but they dont rank up cos of high ranks quittin everytime

[Gisixone]

Someone who understood the wiki page on the elo system thanks this should hopefully help a lot of people

[SOL27]

There's a couple of things you might want to add to this.

First, is that the longer you've got your rank, and don't rank up, the harder it'll be to rank up. This is because Trueskill doesn't look at the rank like we see it. It determines everything based on numbers. So the more numbers you give it to crunch, the more accurate the prediction. If you want to get a high rank quickly, then make a new gamertag and start fresh. You'll be predicted to lose almost everything, and when you crush everybody, you'll get that prescious rank.

Secondly, your rank isn't a whole number. It's more likely it's decimals. So while your rank is 2, you may be 2.89. Which means if you beat a rank 3 (3.0) you may not rank up as fast as expected. This is especially true for long time players, but low ranks. If you've played 1000 matches in execution, but you've got a rank 2, and you play against a rank 3 who's got some 200 matches, you still actually may be expected to win because overall you've played more, got more kills, more revives etc. then the "noob" you're playing against.

[kratoskills]

Just make the Rank invisible like in Gears 1 since that would help alot with quitters.
I dont give a ratsass about rank since it does not show any individual skill unlike most of the people think.
YOU ARE JUST AS GOOD AS YOUR TEAM.

[devmac85]

Invisible Rank would be awesome. K/D ratio is generally the best way to gauge a good gears player. IMO.

[Razorspur2008]

my take on this is because the stupid ass ranking system is broke. I ranked to 4 the other day won 5 wingman matches in a row all of which my team was not the highest ranked therefore not picked to win then i come in 2nd on the 5th game and lose my rank. Total bull**** I would rather them take that **** away. So irritating to play your ass off get that rank you have been wanting then win match after match come in 2nd and lose it.

[Pufflelumps]

I think its against me, I was playing mad matches and won mad games for a week straight like i would win 5 - 8 games in a row, now in this week i've been teamed up with really bad people and i keep losing....ill get 13 to 15 kills a match and 4 or 5 deaths and my team mates wont break 5 kills

[Glossia]

To me, rank means nothing.

Too many bugs in the game, glitchers and switchers to worry myself with it. stfu and wait for the patch already!

[kratoskills]

To me, rank means nothing.

Too many bugs in the game, glitchers and switchers to worry myself with it. stfu and wait for the patch already!

Trust me,
kids dont know if they are good unless there is a indicator.
just look at this thread and one of the links it contains..

http://gearsforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=651723&page=2

..Unreal stuff..

[x626x Edw4rd]

Invisible Rank would be awesome. K/D ratio is generally the best way to gauge a good gears player. IMO.

QFT

I don't really understand why they chose Win/Loss as their criteria for calculations. A good player can get teamed up with the dumbest people alive and lose the game, but have 15 kills and 5 deaths. He can have an overall K/D of 2.0 and a W/L of 1.3 or something and not be a rank 4 or rank 5 when he consistently beats those ranked players in game, but his team doesn't come out on top.

Makes no sense.

[x626x Edw4rd]

"Q: I bought a 360 for my son for Xmas, and both of us have become seriously addicted to Halo 3 on XBox Live, particularly Team Slayer matches. Basing the skill change only on the team performance yields pretty counterintuitive results. For example, I often play a string of team slayer games where I am MVP (Most Valuable Player), which means I outscore everyone. But if my team loses those games, I gain no skill. Then, I can play poorly, but if my team wins I gain skill. This lack of feedback from individual performance is frustrating and makes your skill level beholden to the performance of the rest of your team, which is usually not under your control unless you explicitly team up with friends

A: Great that you are enjoying your 360 and Halo 3.

The question you are asking has indeed been raised by quite a few people and we had many discussions about it. However, we always return to our point of view that in a team game the only way to assess someone's skill towards the team objective is to consider the team objective only. Any auxiliary measurements such as number of flags carried, number of kills, kill-death spread, etc, all have the problem that they can be exploited thereby compromising the team objective and hence the spirit of the game. If flag carries matter, players will rush to the flag rather than defend their teammates or their own flag. Some may even kill the current flag carrier of their own team to get the flag. If it is number of kills, people will mindlessly enter combat to maximise that metric. If it is K-D spread they may hold back at a time when they could have saved a team mate. Whichever metric you take, there will be people trying to optimise their score under that metric and this will lead to distortions.

Another problem is, of course, that we would like to use the skill ratings for matchmaking. The current system essentially aims at a 50:50 win loss ratio for each team. It is unclear, how individual skill ratings based on individual achievements would change the calibration of such a system.

Of course, one might use a weighted combination of team and individual measurements. However, whenever individual measurements enter the equation there will be trouble, maybe less trouble if the weight is less, but that is not really good enough."

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/trueskill/faq.aspx

Microsoft research team = fail

If K/D spread is incorporated in the calculation and people attempt to improve their K/D spread, they become better players. If you and your teammates are able to obtain more kills and less deaths for any gametype, you'll win. If you're playing objective, and you die less and kill a lot more, your team has more opportunity to complete the objective while keeping the enemy team away and scattered.

And WOW are they dumb. Considering Halo matchmaking and the Slayer gametype, they think K/D is mindless and not important? If every player on Team A gets a 1.5 - 2.0 K/D spread they will ANNIHILATE the other team.

Gears2 - Execution: Players who are driven to die less and kill more yield better results. Isn't this f'ing common sense?