1-50 RANK please!!!

the 1-50 ranking is what made Halo 2 so addictive it was always about getting that next rank. I never was a good player but I would get pumped when a 40 or 50 rank player would join my game and go up against them and even more satisfying owning them (rarely)lol… 343 dont make the mistake of pleasing the casual player we need that competitive feeling back in Halo just look at other franchise who abandon their roots to please the casual player total fail

No! We need a rank 3-37 system! Or a rank 17-154 system! Or even a rank 1-banana system!

and once again, I don’t like how it’s another “casual” versus “competitive” debate. Not giving a clear reason as to what one side or the other is and thinking everybody falls into either.

> the 1-50 ranking is what made Halo 2 so addictive it was always about getting that next rank. I never was a good player but I would get pumped when a 40 or 50 rank player would join my game and go up against them and even more satisfying owning them (rarely)lol… 343 dont make the mistake of pleasing the casual player we need that competitive feeling back in Halo just look at other franchise who abandon their roots to please the casual player total fail

I must agree.

With reach the ranking sytem just didnt do the job. I am almost always stuck with those way worse than me, or stuck on a horrible team against a well stacked team.

That isnt what should happen.

I am not saying go back to halo 3’s “If you lose, then you lose a rank.” Idea, but a better ranking system we do neeed.

I disagree that the game will be a total fail otherwise however, but it will be less enjoyable.

Remember these are all opinions though,

Silent

No.

A 1-50 ranking system is completely unnecessary, and the “Halo 2 was so popular” argument is about as invalid as it gets.

343 is making Halo 4, not Halo 2 Anniversary.

Let Halo 4 be its own game, not a cheap re-hash of another Halo. I’d much prefer that they tweak the True Skill system that works so well in Halo 3 and Reach (you know, the algorithm that runs behind the scenes), and implement a few new features to it while streamlining its effectiveness. That’ll be ideal in my opinion.

But any mention of Halo 2 is both redundant as well a boring and tired. Halo 2 has been done, let Halo 4 stand on its own.

1-50 rank thread number: 1,032,032,958,209,385,029,384,912,019,849,328,059,328,948

bringing back a ranking system that worked is that a bad thing?.

> bringing back a ranking system that worked is that a bad thing?.

Yes, apparently. I don’t understand either. A system based on win and go up lose and go down. Promotes teamwork and discourages stat -Yoink!- because people are actually trying to win. It’s beyond me why people would just rather go to the progression system when the 1-50 system has worked so well.

> No.
>
> A 1-50 ranking system is completely unnecessary, and the “Halo 2 was so popular” argument is about as invalid as it gets.

Halo 2 wasn’t popular? I’m fairly sure it was the MOST popular of all the Halo games so far, with Halo 3 in second place for the ‘popularity’ run. Both had real RANKING systems. Not some play for 8 hours a day and you get some cheesy picture that doesn’t define anything about how good you are.

And let’s face it, without Halo 2, you wouldn’t have 4 incoming.

> 343 is making Halo 4, not Halo 2 Anniversary.
>
> Let Halo 4 be its own game, not a cheap re-hash of another Halo. I’d much prefer that they tweak the True Skill system that works so well in Halo 3 and Reach (you know, the algorithm that runs behind the scenes), and implement a few new features to it while streamlining its effectiveness. That’ll be ideal in my opinion.

You seem to be forgetting that the title and whole series is still called HALO, correct? Just because it’s the NEXT game in the series doesn’t mean they should COMPLETELY overhaul everything in the game so it bears next to no resemblance to previous games.

> But any mention of Halo 2 is both redundant as well a boring and tired. Halo 2 has been done, let Halo 4 stand on its own.

Again, Halo 2 is one of the reasons you can even HAVE Halo 4. I would think the developers would want to make the game the way fans would expect for a new game in the series: A similar game with some new innovations, nothing to change the game too much.

Alas, it doesn’t matter what anyone in this thread thinks, cry about people wanting the game to be more like Halo 2 instead of Call of Duty if you want, and vice versa. You, nor can anyone else, change the way they want to make the game at this point.

I believe they would have looked at how bad the new ‘Arena’ system was and realized they need to go back to something they KNOW more players would enjoy. Besides, even if it was 1-50 like 2/3, all you ‘casuals’ out there would still play it anyway, because you all take whatever is thrown at you. Not to say I’m a ‘lolpro’ gamer, but I would like some amount of competition in this game, not just start up your 360 and let the game rank up for you.

Make another poll, numbers don’t lie

I approve of this highly original thread subject.

> > No.
> >
> > A 1-50 ranking system is completely unnecessary, and the “Halo 2 was so popular” argument is about as invalid as it gets.
>
> Halo 2 wasn’t popular? I’m fairly sure it was the MOST popular of all the Halo games so far, with Halo 3 in second place for the ‘popularity’ run. Both had real RANKING systems. Not some play for 8 hours a day and you get some cheesy picture that doesn’t define anything about how good you are.
>
> And let’s face it, without Halo 2, you wouldn’t have 4 incoming.

Read my post again, I never claimed that Halo 2 was unpopular. Simply that popularity is no reason to make a cheap copy of a popular thing.

> 343 is making Halo 4, not Halo 2 Anniversary.
>
> Let Halo 4 be its own game, not a cheap re-hash of another Halo. I’d much prefer that they tweak the True Skill system that works so well in Halo 3 and Reach (you know, the algorithm that runs behind the scenes), and implement a few new features to it while streamlining its effectiveness. That’ll be ideal in my opinion.

> You seem to be forgetting that the title and whole series is still called HALO, correct? Just because it’s the NEXT game in the series doesn’t mean they should COMPLETELY overhaul everything in the game so it bears next to no resemblance to previous games.

You enjoy reading way more into peoples’ posts than is really there, don’t you? But everyone seems to think that if the newest game isn’t Halo 2, then it’s crap. And that’s just wrong.

> But any mention of Halo 2 is both redundant as well a boring and tired. Halo 2 has been done, let Halo 4 stand on its own.

> Again, Halo 2 is one of the reasons you can even HAVE Halo 4. I would think the developers would want to make the game the way fans would expect for a new game in the series: A similar game with some new innovations, nothing to change the game too much.
>
> Alas, it doesn’t matter what anyone in this thread thinks, cry about people wanting the game to be more like Halo 2 instead of Call of Duty if you want, and vice versa. You, nor can anyone else, change the way they want to make the game at this point.
>
> I believe they would have looked at how bad the new ‘Arena’ system was and realized they need to go back to something they KNOW more players would enjoy. Besides, even if it was 1-50 like 2/3, all you ‘casuals’ out there would still play it anyway, because you all take whatever is thrown at you. Not to say I’m a ‘lolpro’ gamer, but I would like some amount of competition in this game, not just start up your 360 and let the game rank up for you.

This is so full of biased opinion that it’s ignorant. No one refutes the fact that there wouldn’t be a Halo 4 without Halo 2. But to say that fan demand > developer plan is just… dumb. You wouldn’t have any other Halo games if it weren’t for the innovations from one installment to the next. If they didn’t change and update the way things work, then Halo would have never gone far. It would have gotten very boring and very played out well before Halo 3.

So I restate, we don’t need a cheap re-hash of Halo 2, or even Halo 2 Anniversary. What we need is continued innovation based upon all that has come before, but with new freshness that only introducing new things can bring. Copying Halo 2’s ranking system just isn’t the way to go. While it might be nice for nostalgia, it would fail at capturing interest in the minds of the public at large.

Halo 2’s ranking system was great for its day, and Halo 3 and Reach each built upon their predecessors and drove the series forward and each game was better than the one before it because of that innovation.

We don’t need Halo 2 again. We need Halo 4.

What ever the system that is used it has to be more competitive then the halo reach and cod system of getting exp and ranking up. Maybe not the halo 3 system as it made no sense sometimes but something that makes you aim and compete to get your rank up. i agree that the halo 3 ranking system help teamwork and that is what is missing tin so many of todays games.

> No.
>
> A 1-50 ranking system is completely unnecessary, and the “Halo 2 was so popular” argument is about as invalid as it gets.
>
> 343 is making Halo 4, not Halo 2 Anniversary.
>
> Let Halo 4 be its own game, not a cheap re-hash of another Halo. I’d much prefer that they tweak the True Skill system that works so well in Halo 3 and Reach (you know, the algorithm that runs behind the scenes), and implement a few new features to it while streamlining its effectiveness. That’ll be ideal in my opinion.
>
> But any mention of Halo 2 is both redundant as well a boring and tired. Halo 2 has been done, let Halo 4 stand on its own.

You can’t be serious can you? New doesn’t automatically equal better.

1-50 benefits both casual and competitive players.

It puts both sets of players against and with people of their equal skill. What’s the problem?

first of all, can anyone give a reason not to have a 1-50 ranking system? an answer that’s agreeable and not saying that it’s whorish. i can do to the progression system because i do think it’s unfair to do good and still lose. however, 1-50 ranks were something achievable. it’s not fun to achieve the highest rank in progression alone. 1-50 ranks will bring back the fun and it could be done along with progression if 343i makes it work.

another thing is that casual players don’t care about having ranks. that’s what makes them casual players, players that play the game cuz it’s fun not to rank up. tired of people saying competitive vs casual. casuals play either way.

> No.
>
> A 1-50 ranking system is completely unnecessary, and the “Halo 2 was so popular” argument is about as invalid as it gets.
>
> 343 is making Halo 4, not Halo 2 Anniversary.
>
> Let Halo 4 be its own game, not a cheap re-hash of another Halo. I’d much prefer that they tweak the True Skill system that works so well in Halo 3 and Reach (you know, the algorithm that runs behind the scenes), and implement a few new features to it while streamlining its effectiveness. That’ll be ideal in my opinion.
>
> But any mention of Halo 2 is both redundant as well a boring and tired. Halo 2 has been done, let Halo 4 stand on its own.

If they add spartan points, even if they have nothing to do with ranking, does that make a Reach Anniversary by your logic?

But I agree when you say that Halo 4 should be its own thing. As for the ranking system, every online Halo has had an skill based ranking system, even Reach had that fail called arena.

It could be a 1-50, but if it works in a different way than Halo 2 and 3, will it make the game a copy of another game? No!!

> No.
>
> A 1-50 ranking system is completely unnecessary, and the “Halo 2 was so popular” argument is about as invalid as it gets.
>
> 343 is making Halo 4, not Halo 2 Anniversary.
>
> Let Halo 4 be its own game, not a cheap re-hash of another Halo. I’d much prefer that they tweak the True Skill system that works so well in Halo 3 and Reach (you know, the algorithm that runs behind the scenes), and implement a few new features to it while streamlining its effectiveness. That’ll be ideal in my opinion.
>
> But any mention of Halo 2 is both redundant as well a boring and tired. Halo 2 has been done, let Halo 4 stand on its own.

This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not flame or attack other members.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

Watch out guys, we got a noob over here.

> > No.
> >
> > A 1-50 ranking system is completely unnecessary, and the “Halo 2 was so popular” argument is about as invalid as it gets.
> >
> > 343 is making Halo 4, not Halo 2 Anniversary.
> >
> > Let Halo 4 be its own game, not a cheap re-hash of another Halo. I’d much prefer that they tweak the True Skill system that works so well in Halo 3 and Reach (you know, the algorithm that runs behind the scenes), and implement a few new features to it while streamlining its effectiveness. That’ll be ideal in my opinion.
> >
> > But any mention of Halo 2 is both redundant as well a boring and tired. Halo 2 has been done, let Halo 4 stand on its own.
>
> Watch out guys, we got a noob over here.

Noob? lmfao

I’ve been playing Halo since you were in grade school.

> > No.
> >
> > A 1-50 ranking system is completely unnecessary, and the “Halo 2 was so popular” argument is about as invalid as it gets.
> >
> > 343 is making Halo 4, not Halo 2 Anniversary.
> >
> > Let Halo 4 be its own game, not a cheap re-hash of another Halo. I’d much prefer that they tweak the True Skill system that works so well in Halo 3 and Reach (you know, the algorithm that runs behind the scenes), and implement a few new features to it while streamlining its effectiveness. That’ll be ideal in my opinion.
> >
> > But any mention of Halo 2 is both redundant as well a boring and tired. Halo 2 has been done, let Halo 4 stand on its own.
>
> If they add spartan points, even if they have nothing to do with ranking, does that make a Reach Anniversary by your logic?
>
> But I agree when you say that Halo 4 should be its own thing. As for the ranking system, every online Halo has had an skill based ranking system, even Reach had that fail called arena.
>
> It could be a 1-50, but if it works in a different way than Halo 2 and 3, will it make the game a copy of another game? No!!

Even in the regular matchmaking for Reach, the same True Skill system was working behind the scenes as it did in Halo 3. I think there is room for improvement, yes, but I also don’t want a cheap clone of the Halo 2 system like OP mentions.

I think that’s the point that people are choosing to ignore in my posts. Improve upon what Halo 2, 3, and Reach have done and give us something better, something new. Improve upon the True Skill system. Don’t just copy/paste.

> > the 1-50 ranking is what made Halo 2 so addictive it was always about getting that next rank. I never was a good player but I would get pumped when a 40 or 50 rank player would join my game and go up against them and even more satisfying owning them (rarely)lol… 343 dont make the mistake of pleasing the casual player we need that competitive feeling back in Halo just look at other franchise who abandon their roots to please the casual player total fail
>
> I must agree.
>
> With reach the ranking sytem just didnt do the job. I am almost always stuck with those way worse than me, or stuck on a horrible team against a well stacked team.
>
> That isnt what should happen.
>
> I am not saying go back to halo 3’s “If you lose, then you lose a rank.” Idea, but a better ranking system we do neeed.
>
> I disagree that the game will be a total fail otherwise however, but it will be less enjoyable.
>
> Remember these are all opinions though,
>
> Silent

I hate loosing a rank in Halo 3 from all the hackers. If it is a loose rank thing in Halo 4 i think i’ll shoot myself. 343 don’t let me shoot myself

Let me put this simply. Halo: Reach multiplayer is complete garbage. Not having a competitive aspect to the ranking system will mean that players who play more often can be a higher rank than players with greater skill who don’t play as often. H4 needs to have a skill-based ranking system to drive the competitive side so that players will actually try to win instead of AFKing for experience. Halo: 3 multiplayer was quite efficient and the ranked playlists and highest skill made people TRY to win games for the bragging rights no matter what they were playing. To put it frankly, If there isn’t a system implemented that allows players to compete in a ranked setting the game will finish off the last connection left behind by how horrible Reach was.