It just hit me … if 1-50 is really not going to be in Halo 4’s matchmaking then what will become of things such as this? What are your thoughts?
They are putting a better ranking system…
A-7
^^^^^This small collection of characters brings up alot of questions.
They make new one’s? About the credit system or rank? I don’t see the problem here.
If 1-50 isn’t in Halo 4, that’s a good thing. The system did nothing good and did a lot of bad.
> A-7
>
> ^^^^^This small collection of characters brings up alot of questions.
All this. A better system, albeit.
> If 1-50 isn’t in Halo 4, that’s a good thing. The system did nothing good and did a lot of bad.
I don’t see how it did anything bad. It was the best system imo as it catered to both casual and competitive players. Please don’t tell me that Reach was better …
> If 1-50 isn’t in Halo 4, that’s a good thing. The system did nothing good and did a lot of bad.
I agree with you. Reach’s system of pairing people who’ve never even played Halo against people who had 50s in Halo 3 is sooooooo much better.
> They are putting a better ranking system…
That’s what Bungie said about Reach and no one even plays that game and ranks mean nothing.
There are more important things than a ranking system you know. The lack of one was not what ruined Reach.
> > If 1-50 isn’t in Halo 4, that’s a good thing. The system did nothing good and did a lot of bad.
>
> I agree with you. Reach’s system of pairing people who’ve never even played Halo against people who had 50s in Halo 3 is sooooooo much better.
> > If 1-50 isn’t in Halo 4, that’s a good thing. The system did nothing good and did a lot of bad.
>
> I don’t see how it did anything bad. It was the best system imo as it catered to both casual and competitive players. Please don’t tell me that Reach was better …
Obviously, my dislike of Halo 3’s system automatically means I liked Halo Reach’s. Solid use of deductive reasoning, my friends.
On a serious note, I did not like Reach’s system either. They threw out Trueskill matchmaking, so finding decent matches became near impossible. There is always the skill search restriction, but that only works if there is a large enough population (1-50 and any skill based system would also suffer from this, incidentally).
The problem with 1-50 is that it uses a skill based system mixed with a progression system. These two systems do not work well together. If any sort of skill rating system were to appear in Halo 4, it should only rate a player’s skill, nothing more. It should not be used as a ranking system, only as a way of ensuring players of similar skill are matched together. Incidentally, this can be accomplished without visible skill ratings.
> > They are putting a better ranking system…
>
> That’s what Bungie said about Reach and <mark>no one even plays that game</mark> and ranks mean nothing.
>
>
90,000-120,00 people would beg to differ.
Rank reflects experience in the game, time spent playing. This is because, on the two occasions that Bungie tried a skill based progressing system, it suffered from a lot of problems.
> There are more important things than a ranking system you know. The lack of one was not what ruined Reach.
Yeah armour abilities, lack of meaningful ranks, bloom, grey maps, vehicles are useless, grenades are overpowered, sprint + sword, having to fully destroy someone’s shield to beat them down, overpowered banshee, easy to use sniper rifle, and overpowered plasma pistol. That’s all fine and dandy but the video is supposed to be sarcastic. I mean who didn’t love to strive for a higher rank in Halo’s 2 and 3 to compete with their friends? That was fun. I hope to see something better than Lolarena in Halo 4.
> > > They are putting a better ranking system…
> >
> > That’s what Bungie said about Reach and <mark>no one even plays that game</mark> and ranks mean nothing.
> >
> >
>
> 90,000-120,00 people would beg to differ.
>
> Rank reflects experience in the game, time spent playing. This is because, on the two occasions that Bungie tried a skill based progressing system, it suffered from a lot of problems.
That’s only during peak hours and that is an abysmal population size when compared to Halo 3’s population after it was out for two years. If I’m correct this would be the days where we approached Bungie day and would get to play in Bungie vs world for a chance at recon helmet. I think we also got Cold storage for free but that might have been 08 and I clearly remember the population being well over 300,000 + at minimum.
Okay, let’s break this down…
> > There are more important things than a ranking system you know. The lack of one was not what ruined Reach.
>
> Yeah armour abilities,
> lack of meaningful ranks,
> bloom,
> grey maps,
> vehicles are useless,
> grenades are overpowered,
> sprint + sword,
> having to fully destroy someone’s shield to beat them down,
> overpowered banshee,
> easy to use sniper rifle,
> and overpowered plasma pistol.
- Added to gameplay mechanics
- True
- Debatable.
- Agreed
- True
- Radius is a bit OP but fine otherwise
- Kind of cheap but somewhat of a valid tactic as not everyone had Sprint
- THANK GOD!!!
- True
- True
- lolwut?
OT: Look, 343i had a very long time to look at Reach, what the problems were and how to fix them.
Let them revel more on the ranking system before saying it needs changing.
I could care less. IMO you cant spell crap without rap
As for your argument no one plays reach. Compare the 90-120k of today’s Reach to the 3-9k of todays halo 3, surely if no one played reach and prefered 3, these numbers would be reversed.
> > > > They are putting a better ranking system…
> > >
> > > That’s what Bungie said about Reach and <mark>no one even plays that game</mark> and ranks mean nothing.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > 90,000-120,00 people would beg to differ.
> >
> > Rank reflects experience in the game, time spent playing. This is because, on the two occasions that Bungie tried a skill based progressing system, it suffered from a lot of problems.
>
> That’s only during peak hours and that is an abysmal population size when compared to Halo 3’s population after it was out for two years. If I’m correct this would be the days where we approached Bungie day and would get to play in Bungie vs world for a chance at recon helmet. I think we also got Cold storage for free but that might have been 08 and I clearly remember the population being well over 300,000 + at minimum.
Yes, the average population of Halo 3 was a lot larger than Halo Reach’s currently is. However, there are other possible explanations for this, many far more likely than the lack of a ranking system or the new additions to the game.
For example: did you know that, at the time Reach had released, the Xbox 360 gaming market had more than tripled since the time Halo 3 had release. The number of shooters and game with online multiplayer had also dramatically increased, and let’s not forget the sudden explosion in popularity of the COD franchise.
> They are putting a better ranking system…
> I could care less. IMO you cant spell crap without rap
>
> As for your argument no one plays reach. Compare the 90-120k of today’s Reach to the 3-9k of todays halo 3, surely if no one played reach and prefered 3, these numbers would be reversed.
You obviously missed this.
“That’s only during peak hours and that is an abysmal population size when compared to Halo 3’s population after it was out for two years. If I’m correct this would be the days where we approached Bungie day and would get to play in Bungie vs world for a chance at recon helmet. I think we also got Cold storage for free but that might have been 08 and I clearly remember the population being well over 300,000 + at minimum.”
Halo 3 is been out now for 5 years of course it will have a lower population, I’m sure we’ve all finished the fight now at least 20 times, acquired a 50 in every possible playlist, played enough custom games of infection/SWAT/MLG, etc. Halo 3 doesn’t even get updates anymore such as double XP weekends so what is there left to do on Halo 3 that hasn’t been done yet lol? That was the worst point to make. People are looking for something new and hopefully Halo 4 will deliver.
Lets put some rumors to rest, shall we?
TrueSkill rankings are amazing. Don’t agree? You’re wrong. That’s that.
TrueSkill ranking was created by MICROSOFT. It’s a Microsoft thing. It’s not Bungie’s and never was. Many games use the 1-50 ranking system.
Reach used the TrueSkill system to MM. You just didn’t get to see it. It was invisible. Just like it is in many other games on Xbox. Don’t believe me? GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND.
The Halo 3 1-50 TrueSkill ranking system is a slightly modified version of the original MS version. It was crap. Bungie’s admitted to screwing up a good thing. The idea, you see, was to draw out the process of obtaining your “TrueSkill” for the purpose of replayability. It’s too complicated to explain all of it here. Once again, Google is your friend.
That beig said, I hope the system returns in Halo 4 as it was from Reach, the way Microsoft intended it to be.
However, I’d like it to be visible and contribute to rank as it did in Halo 3. It gave you something to work towards, and rank actually had purpose and meaning.
The best I ever got was Commander in H3. Because I’m only as good as a Commander. Rightfully so.
And an afterthought, if an unmodified version of TrueSkill is at work in H4, and it’s visible, many people will be sorely dissapointed to find out that obtaining a 50 will be nearly impossible.
That’s that.