I like the 1 to 50 number representing my skill, but I like how Reach tried to remove cheaters and bad players from the system by making the ‘ranking up’ about the 4 best players in the 8 player slayer system, instead of the winning team ( which more often had 1 or 2 good players and 2 bad ones ) … In H3 many people would rank up by playing with others better then they are… thus making it true that the number doesn’t represent the true skill - at least in Halo 3’s system.
In other words… they could use the 1 to 50 number system with the current Reach system of ranking up the 4 best players… giving it the best of both worlds… Reach removed much of the ‘Halo 3 type of boosting’ because the team losing had no effect on 1 or 2 that played well…
If 343i wanted to do it even BETTER they could use a 1 thru 50 rank number system that was a hybrid… How about If you’re the best players you get some points towards ranking up -AND- if you’re on the winning team you get some points for ranking up… THUS - If you’re one of the best players AND on the winning team you get the most points - causing you to rank up a bit faster… If you’re on the winning team YOU STILL get some points towards ranking up… but the quickest move up would be the best players: the ONE’s that are consistantly good and consistantly causing their team to win…
To me this does THREE IMPORTANT things… 1) it gives motivation to work as a team [like good teams in Halo 3] since you get points for winning as a TEAM - even if you’re not the best player. 2) If you’re one of the BEST PLAYER(s) you have motivation to play good cuz you get points for that too !! So you could still be on the losing team and get points as one of the best 4 players… but be motivated to win [as a team] by knowing you get the MOST POINTS by playing well and winning together as a team… 3) If you’re on of the players who is good, but not great you won’t rank up much on the backs of others…but you’ll get enough points to place you around a 35 ( in example ) but be more accurately rated !
Lastly what also needs tweaked is the points you get for kills versus deaths… You curently get a point for a kill and only a third (.33) points taken awak for a death… It needs to be more like (.5) removed…
Example A: If you get 20 kills ( 20 points ) and you die 21 times ( 6.93 points removed ) - You END THE GAME NEGATIVE 1 - YOU HAD A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON YOUR TEAM AND you still have end up with 13 POINTS…
EXAMPLE B: If you get 10 kills ( 10 points ) and you die 6 times ( 1.98 points removed ) - You WERE POSITIVE 4 at then end of the game - YOU HAD A POSITIVE IMPACT ON YOUR TEAM - but you end up with 8 points …
The guy in exampe B is the better player… the point of the game is to win and the only way to win is to have a team with more PLUSES then NEGATIVES… Being a good player means for the most part being a player that is more in the plus when looking at 100 games then in the negative…
Yet the ranking system rewards players with more kills even if they suck ? Even if they are more negative ? Thats why you see players who are sometimes in higher divisions and have a worse K/d… Worse K/d ? Meaning 1 on 1 they would get their butt kicked…
Yet the guy in example A is hailed as the better player point-wise in Reach … In Halo 3/ Halo 2 or any Custom game you NEVER WANT this guy with NEGAVTIVE…
The better player counts their kills and deaths and combines reckless play/ with careful play at the appropriate times… and does their best to be plus at the end of the game… the point system needs to reflect and support this