A reverse in the ranking system

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

Now the argument of this game for when it comes to the ranking system is why isnt CSR in game? Clearly, people would be more happy with it being next to their name, but it is also a motivational thing. I’m less inclined to WANT to get to say, a 50 if I don’t know where I’m at without getting out of Halo and going to Waypoint.

So clearly that was a bust.

My next topic is the entire ranking system in general.

Was anyone happy with the SR 1-50 and then all those other double letter ranks?

Or did you guys feel the disappointment with the lack of actual, military ranks from the previous games like me?

I don’t find anything threatening about being a SR-110 or whatever I am now. and I don’t find 130’s to be frightening either, partly due to the lack of time and skill it took to GET to 130, and also because, its just a number. a Visible CSR would be the only thing I would gauge an opponent with, since there is no “Rank” per say.

343 People loved seeing the gleaming emblem of Lieutenant or General, or even the rapid improvement from Private to Gunnery Sergeant from Halo 3. I’m not saying everyone did, that would be a lie, no matter what the subject was.

But I haven’t heard anyone say how much they LOOOOoooovvee this SR stuff.

So in my mind, you should take the Halo 3 ranking system, with it’s multiple ways of ranking up, either by a win game scenario, or a however high into your 1-50 skill rank you are. However, I don’t think it should BE based on if your team wins. Because you could have a fantastic game and still lose because you had either idiots or derankers playing with you. It should be based on K/D if your on a losing team. So if you go positive, but your team loses, you get a point, but the winners get like, 2 or something. Clearly not the best point scaling, but I would find that better then, of, you did fantastic this game, 2800 points. Oh you did okay this game, but won, 2800 points. You sucked this game, but you still one, 2800 points. Oh you sucked this game, and you lost? 2300 points.

It’s just silly.

2

Halo 2 had it correct, this used an algorithm that took into account every player in the game’s rating, which team won and where they placed in the game.

if a level 20 beat a level 30, the level 20 got a base win value, + an additional % value for beating a better player. If the team average on the team with the level 20 was lower than 20, another % value was added to the win.

The values weren’t crazy high like Halo 3, you can’t jump from levels 4-20.

If a level 40 were to have beaten a team of 20s, the level 40 gets the win value, but since he was suppose to win he gains no additional value, could even take a reduction in value if a lower level on his team placed higher.

It wasn’t overly complicated, just took some logic putting the system together. It worked perfectly.

3

I miss being Mythic or a Legend …

4

I have problems with progressive systems. No skill is needed. So while I liked Reaches amount of ranks, and the time it took to get them, there wasnt much to it.

I only played Halo 2 for a little bit, and I was a kid back them, SO I had forgotten or not even noticed the rank system in that game.

But I agree, that is a pretty good system. I just liked that Halo 3 had that system essentially, and the social playlist was just ranks, not skill rank.