it appears that rank in halo 4 is going to be based on time played again, sigh, but, sound like they are only awarded for performing actions which is a positive and doesn’t reward AFCing, spartan points will be used to purchase upgrades and probably earning a certain amount will rank you up.
but, a skill based system can be and should be incoperated into this, and, if it isn’t already then it should, it is as simple as people who get better at the game progress through the ranks faster then just playing as a casual, there effort and dedication isn’t going unnoticed and is being rewarded for it, instead of it being “unlocked at -rank-” it would be “unlocked at -rank- or -skill level-”, so, players who are good at the game can unlock and upgrade sooner then people who aren’t so good.
the buety of this is that it will encourage players to improve at the game, they will want to get better so they can unlock that upgrade sooner then they would just playing bad, but, if they are bad and can’t improve they can still unlock, it just takes longer, this also can provide a direct visual representation of peoples skill from upgarde combonations to rank, better players would be using higher level updagrades at a lower rank while lesser skilled would be a higher rank using the same stuff.
its simple, should be effective and hopefully something along these lines is going to be in halo 4, halo has primarily being a competitive skill based game re-inforced by halo 2 and 3, it should not be ignoerd but imbraced further because it caters to both sides, the casuals and the hardcore.
> > really, no one has any opinions on this? sad face
>
> It’s too late now, you’re stuck with me.
>
> Arena > 1-50
Arena is a terrible decision they need to bring back the 1-50 ranking system to keep players playing and to those that dont like it there is such a thing called social play-lists so shut up and go play those
So what you’re saying is… players that are better than other players should get stuff to help them do even better against those bad players? I see no way possible that terrible people will quit the game…
I’ve always hated the CoD system and Battlefield system. If you’re a new player and you come in late in the games life not only does it take you a long time to unlock cool things but you also get to be killed a bunch by vet players with awesome setups.
Different things should unlock but those things should be be very very miniscule boosts. And they should be rewarded for people that play the game in general. Better players already have an advantage why give them early access to stuff that is going to help them even more?
> So what you’re saying is… players that are better than other players should get stuff to help them do even better against those bad players? I see no way possible that terrible people will quit the game…
they get it sooner, being able to get it sooner will encourage players to get better at the game, if they can’t get better then they can still get it just at a later date.
> > > > Arena > 1-50
> > >
> > > It appears you got your “<” sign the wrong way round.
> >
> > + 100 xD Get OWNED! Noob 1-50>Arena RandyKids
>
> arenas problem is just a lack of players, with a much larger player base it should proove to be better then 1-50.
The arena idea they implemented in halo reach was horrible they need to bring back 1-50 ranking system to keep players playing and not get bored like most people did and i did in halo reach
No, I don’t want the 1-50 ranking system. I don’t want Reach’s ranking system either.
I rather have something that’s not easily or not boostable, and not AFKable too. Halo 3 and Reach had something in common, and they both were achieved through experiences. I’m not saying that they were the same thing, which they aren’t!
Halo 3’s ranking system was more believable if a high ranked player was good. On the other side, Reach didn’t preserve the bad reputation of high ranked player who is consistently beaten by a lower ranked player.
Both of the games had their flaws, but somewhere in the between, you could have a much better ranking system.
Now, the skill matchmaking is entirely based how good you are. If you do terrible, the skill rating goes down. If you do good, you get a good rating. That was Reach’s Arena and Halo 3 ranked playlist. I would say that the skill matchmaking makes the most difference.
> Arena is a terrible decision they need to bring back the 1-50 ranking system to keep players playing and to those that dont like it there is such a thing called social play-lists so shut up and go play those
Why is it a terrible decision?
Arena has been based off your TrueSkill since Season 3(?) it’s basically 1-50 with an additional 58 ranks that have a theme to the rest of the game and ranking based off the players and not a yardstick.
> > > > > Arena > 1-50
> > > >
> > > > It appears you got your “<” sign the wrong way round.
> > >
> > > + 100 xD Get OWNED! Noob 1-50>Arena RandyKids
> >
> > arenas problem is just a lack of players, with a much larger player base it should proove to be better then 1-50.
>
> The arena idea they implemented in halo reach was horrible they need to bring back 1-50 ranking system to keep players playing and not get bored like most people did and i did in halo reach
yes, because you say so is such a compelling argument.
arena is better simply because it puts you in a devision that takes skill to reach, then shows you how well you stack up against other people at your level, its much greater and more accurate, it also goes up and down so you have to keep playing to maintain it overwise you go down, it just needs a large player base to work and arena in reach had a small player base.