Let me just get right into why our game NEEDS a system SOLELY based on winning.
The thing is the 1-50 system put the most emphasis on the most important thing in any competition or game where there is a winner, winning. A player went up or down based on if he WON or LOST. No other factors were present. If someone wins a whole bunch of games, bravo to him , BUT no one else’s wins effected yours unless you played that person and won or lost. This is the beauty of 1-50 that makes Arena pale in comparison. (that and it does not update instantly)A player should only be penalized if that player loses, someone else winning games should never affect another person’s rank unless they play each other.
To the person that retorts with SC2’s rank system, it only affects your rank between 100 players in a set division. If you never play (after being put into a division) you will also never be demoted from the division that you were placed in.
This next bit is dedicated to people that view 1-50 as a sub-par system.
This bar none is what Reach lacks a system in; a system where winning first and foremost is held with the most importance. Individual performance is NEVER the most important factor in a team game. The most important factor is if the team wins or not.
Having a system that promotes individual performance over team performance in a (note when I say this) TEAM GAME is flawed. It promotes selfish play that does not in turn promote teamwork and undermines the team aspect of the TEAM GAME. AFKers and derankers are annoying but EVERY player has to deal with them, you are not the only one. Furthermore a deranker or AFKer will never hold back a player in the 1-50 system from achieving a certain rank. This is why an individual continues to play more games. People also have problems with boosters. Well regardless of how annoying they are they are still BETTER than you. If you go into the ranked section of matchmaking (there in this scenario should be social playslists as well) you better be prepared to play the best you can, you aren’t in the kiddie pool anymore.
Halo over the years has placed great importance in 2 and 3 on the team winning the game. If your team lost you lost, why? Because you were a part of that team. Call of duty and other games place less importance on if your team wins but rather how well you do. This creates a system of first if I must say, campers (in objective gametypes) who only boost k/d because winning simply means nothing.
Your mother might have said that winning doesn’t mean everything… Which might lead you to believe that becoming focused on winning is something only for the obsessed. Let me challenge this belief. The phrase “winning isn’t everything” means a lot of things. First off if a person cheats to win they truly do not win. Second if a person does not win it is not the end of the world. This person can learn from mistakes which in turn will improve this person. This is true for every activity that we partake in during our lifetime. But does that mean that he/she did not try and win? Of course not we all try to win, it is human nature. Failing to win is not failure, failure is not learning why you lost. This is at the heart of what “winning isn’t everything” truly means, no one is expected to win all the time, we are however during our lifetime expected to learn and improve from instances and situations that we did not win in.
I make this post as a challenge to 343 and the community and ask you why not? Halo is a game. A game requires competition. Rank facilitates competition and allows it to prosper. Competition can not be had if the best players are not allowed to play the best of the best. Also how is an aspiring competitor to get good if he/she doesn’t have the chance to play people of his/her own skill level. If you don’t want to compete stay in the kiddie pool. (Social side of matchmaking)
P.S.- no shame of going to the kiddie pool, I know I did in Halo 3 after some rough losses. Sometimes its good to be able to relax, but why not have the choice?