Bring back old ranking system

Games Other Halo
1

To anyone who has the power to make a change:

Please bring back the halo 2/3 ranking system of 1-50 or implement your own. Don’t use that stupid trueskill system that a lot of games use, it doesn’t work.

Note: Anyone who says halo reach does have a hidden trueskill system is wrong IMO. Bungie might have implemented some sort of matchmaking skill system into the game, but it doesn’t work - ever. Want proof of how bad the matchmaking system is? Try playing 10 games of the MLG playlist. It’s the most inconsistent experience you will ever have. High skill players match with people who don’t know the controls all the time. This is how 50-0s happen.

Another Note: The Halo Reach Arena ranking system is a joke. Don’t mention it. It is outright an embarrassment. It was the result of players complaining about bad teammates, so Bungie made a system (that doesn’t work) to rate players on individual performance. Basically it ranks players on who gets the most kills. But that limits the playlist to only slayer, which can get boring. Also it takes deaths and assists into a very low consideration.(i.e. People who get a perfection +15 will be ranked lower then someone who got a few more kills and the same amount of assists but only went like +7. My example could be wrong since I’m remembering games from a long time ago.) People who complain about bad teammates just need to make friends and play with people of their own skill level. Also a lot of people who complain about bad teammates are usually not consistent themselves, placing well in some games and bad in others. But I’m not going to spend my time criticizing (the very terrible) arena rating system, because many people have done that well already.

Note: If you wish to appease the people that enjoy the arena system, you can just keep the arena playlist, and implement a ranking system into the other playlists.

Halo 2 and 3 had great competitive multiplayer, that always brought players back for more with the addictive leveling system. A lot of players are playing games like Starcraft 2, not only because its a competitive game but because it has a great online ranking system that has players constantly wanting to get a higher rank.

Stop appealing to casuals, it doesn’t work. You can market to casuals, but keep the game competitive, with a casual option. This isn’t call of duty, please stop making the multiplayer stupid and dull. The credits system that Bugnie made is terrible. Do not repeat their mistake.

A great competitive multiplayer with a ranking system, with a non ranked section for casual players is the best choice. Casusal players can stick to casual playlists, while players seeking a challenge will play ranked. It worked great on Halo 2, it will work just as well on Reach (or the next halo game).

Use Halo 2 and 3 as a standard for a ranking system. I’m talking about how it had social(casual) and ranked(competitive) playlists.

IMO the Halo 2 ranking system was the best so far, but it was a bit difficult. Personally I’m looking for something between Halo 2 and 3 as a difficulty. In Halo 3 it was too easy to get a 50 and in Halo 2 it was impossible(unless you are a pro or a cheater.)

Implement a ranking system that is competitive and is based on winning/loosing. Do not use anything close to the arena system. Do not use the trueskill system. Make something of your own or do what halo 2 did. Please look at what games like SC2 are doing right to get such a huge fanbase.

343 I’m counting on you to make things right again.

P.S. Don’t forget to use a hitscan weapon for true competitive gameplay, and check out the MLG forums for what people are looking for in a good competitive game.

2

> To anyone who has the power to make a change:
>
> Please bring back the halo 2/3 ranking system of 1-50 or implement your own. Don’t use that stupid trueskill system that a lot of games use

Oye ve…

H3 used TrueSkill. 1-50 was your raw TrueSkill rank displayed for everyone to see.

H2 used what’s called an ELO system. H2’s data, read that as inability to match skilled players against each other, is what lead Microsoft to the implementation of TrueSkill and it’s requirements in pretty much every game that features a competitive online component.

> , it doesn’t work.
>
> Note: Anyone who says halo reach does have a hidden trueskill system is wrong IMO. Bungie might have implemented some sort of matchmaking skill system into the game, but it doesn’t work - ever.

And your proof?

> Want proof of how bad the matchmaking system is? Try playing 10 games of the MLG playlist. It’s the most inconsistent experience you will ever have. High skill players match with people who don’t know the controls all the time. This is how 50-0s happen.

Oye ve…

First of all, TrueSkill looses it’s ability to function the less players there are in a playlist. Any matchmaking system will. If you have eight people in a room and their skills are 12, 23, 28, 36 and 50, 50, 50, 50 what do you do? Make a balanced game from those resources. Please.

> Another Note: The Halo Reach Arena ranking system is a joke. Don’t mention it. It is outright an embarrassment. It was the result of players complaining about bad teammates, so Bungie made a system (that doesn’t work) to rate players on individual performance.

Oye ve…

Arena isn’t based on individual performance anymore. It’s based off of W/L now. It has been based of W/L since Season 8 I believe?

> Halo 2 and 3 had great competitive multiplayer, that always brought players back for more with the addictive leveling system.

I hear that get thrown around alot. Addictive.

If H2 and H3 weren’t addictive. They were liars. Leading players to believe that if they poured enough time into the game that they would eventually get a 50. Only because their skill wasn’t improving this would never happen. Thus players got disenfranchised and upset with the system. Leading to the black market of buying and selling 50s.

> Stop appealing to casuals, it doesn’t work. You can market to casuals, but keep the game competitive, with a casual option. This isn’t call of duty, please stop making the multiplayer stupid and dull. The credits system that Bugnie made is terrible. Do not repeat their mistake.

Before you make a statement of how things should be, please actually know how things are right now.

Also: cR is for everyone who can’t or doesn’t want try and compete for a skill based rank.

> IMO the Halo 2 ranking system was the best so far, but it was a bit difficult. Personally I’m looking for something between Halo 2 and 3 as a difficulty. In Halo 3 it was too easy to get a 50 and in Halo 2 it was impossible(unless you are a pro or a cheater.)

I think we need less nostalgia. H2’s system was massively flawed.

3

If you’re referring to Reach, it’s already been said that it won’t happen.

4

Ranking system? More like “ranting” system :stuck_out_tongue:
All ranking systems to date has been flawed, they don’t take in account enough data and are way to easy to abuse. “True skill” in Halo is and has always been miserably bad, funny things I’ll always find even matches in other games (Homefront for example) but in Halo, never, I’ll have to try to keep my team from loosing since most of my teammates are having second thoughts about winning at all.
Then again, “connections” is and has always been THE major factor in Halo, connection is more important to MM then “skill” or “even teams”. Despite that, the connection is often bad due to randomly chosen foreign hosts and mixed teams from all over the world. Games with dedicated server never have these issues, and hence they can focus on skill/even teams instead.

5

halo reach’s ranking system is perfect. the population in the playlist is proof of its perfection…

just look at the playlist numbers, halo reach’s arena system is so far superior than that of halo 2 and 3’s, the population in the playlist is clearly better than either of those 2 games combined…

how could you even defend the terribly created ranking system of halo 2 and 3 (which lead to such low popularity) to the perfection that is reach

remember, if you have a ranking system based on actual skill, the only people that will play it are cheaters, that is why bungie made sure to not let skill determine what rank you get.

6

> Before you make a statement of how things should be, please actually know how things are right now.

My response is pretty much this.

You can trace every feature and change in Arena to demonstrable problems with Halo 3’s system.

This is not to say Arena is perfect, or the best way to approach it, but it is a logical progression from Halo 3’s broken 1-50 system. Those that understand the systems realise this.

7

> halo reach’s ranking system is perfect. the population in the playlist is proof of its perfection…
>
> just look at the playlist numbers, halo reach’s arena system is so far superior than that of halo 2 and 3’s, the population in the playlist is clearly better than either of those 2 games combined…
>
>
> how could you even defend the terribly created ranking system of halo 2 and 3 (which lead to such low popularity) to the perfection that is reach
>
> remember, if you have a ranking system based on actual skill, the only people that will play it are cheaters, that is why bungie made sure to not let skill determine what rank you get.

So yeah, not sure if serious.

8

How can any of you possibly begin to defend the arena, this is complete lunacy. It is a failure people, when the plalist population ranges from 200-1000 people IT IS A FAILURE. Ranked halo has always been the more popular of the halo games, now it’s non-existent. The notion that there was a few cheaters here and there so we should scrap the whole system is crazy. I can tell you from years of experience, 99% of the time you would get a legit matchup. Maybe the complainers are upset because they couldnt get past level 30 or something, i just dont get it. You fools realize that the arena forces people to cheat just so they can play in a party of 4 don’t you? The system literallly requires a group of 4 to cheat and you are -Yoinking!- that there was a few cheaters in previous games

*facepalm

9

> Maybe the complainers are upset because they couldnt get past level 30 or something, i just dont get

The catch 22… having visible ranks makes people see the ranks as the point if the game. If you haven’t achieved the highest rank then you haven’t beaten the game right? But without visible ranks people don’t/can’t appreciate their personal achievement in winning and cant evaluate the matchmaking process.

In H2 I think 27 was the highest I got in Team Slayer before getting bored with the dooshy attitudes of the hyper-competitive people I was running into. I never thought of my rank as a superior achievement but a measure of where I was in relation to other players.

For me, I prefer visible ranks. They just gave me a greater satisfaction when it came to my matchmaking. I never played H3 much, so have no opinion on it, but I can say that visible ranks never ruined my H2 games- no boosters or account buyers…

10

> > Maybe the complainers are upset because they couldnt get past level 30 or something, i just dont get
>
> The catch 22… having visible ranks makes people see the ranks as the point if the game. If you haven’t achieved the highest rank then you haven’t beaten the game right? But without visible ranks people don’t/can’t appreciate their personal achievement in winning and cant evaluate the matchmaking process.
>
> In H2 I think 27 was the highest I got in Team Slayer before getting bored with the dooshy attitudes of the hyper-competitive people I was running into. I never thought of my rank as a superior achievement but a measure of where I was in relation to other players.
>
> For me, I prefer visible ranks. They just gave me a greater satisfaction when it came to my matchmaking. I never played H3 much, so have no opinion on it, but I can say that visible ranks never ruined my H2 games- no boosters or account buyers…

I was a 43 in h3 and I met plenty of dooshy higher ranked people too, but guess what if they owned me then that’s my own fault. There is no such thing as a second winner. if you can’t take the pressure of losing than play social, nobody is forcing you to play ranked. Instead you prefer that everyone plays social.

On the boosting/account buying situation, people are just blowing it out of proportion. Did people do it? yes. Did it affect many people? No. If anything, running into a bought 50 account was funny because they were terrible. Sure it was annoying that somebody on your team may have been a deranker, but that was rare and no reason to scrap the whole system. Instead we have a broken system where cheating is required for parties larger than 2

11

This is likely not goin to happend…not in Halo Reach anyways.

12

As people have already mentioned, it isn’t going to happen in Reach. Not even globalized Arena ranks. 343i is putting the majority of their focus on H4 (as they should), so they don’t necessarily have the resources/time to create another TU for Reach that would include such a thing.

13

Am I the only one who remembers all the yelling screaming swearing insulting kids from Halo 2? That game brought out the worst of Xbox Live and I think that stupid ranking system that made it nearly impossible to get up to 30 was a big part of that.

Horrible Idea.

14

> How can any of you possibly begin to defend the arena, this is complete lunacy. It is a failure people, when the plalist population ranges from 200-1000 people IT IS A FAILURE.

And exactly why is it a failure?

Is it because of the system itself? Or the stigma that’s attached to the playlist? I’m willing to bet that many, like yourself when you first posted, are still completely clueless to the fact that Arena was changed over to W/L.

The other reason is subpar competitive gametype settings. And you can blame 343 for not doing more.

> Ranked halo has always been the more popular of the halo games, now it’s non-existent.

And in Reach, we finally have a viable alternative to a skill based Rank.

H2 had nothing but it’s ELO rank. H3 didn’t launch with playlist ranks. Those were added in latter via a TU. Even then since they were buried online in the player’s stats and not visible except in their respective playlists, nobody gave two fraks about them so in effect Global Rank was the only thing that mattered.

Is it really that Arena’s actual premise is so flawed? Or that now that the casuals have something to pour themselves into, the competitives really see how alone they are?

> I can tell you from years of experience, 99% of the time you would get a legit matchup.

This has nothing to do with the visual rank you get for your skill. Magically removing Arena from Reach and making TrueSkill visible will not fix anything. At all.

> You fools realize that the arena forces people to cheat just so they can play in a party of 4 don’t you? The system literallly requires a group of 4 to cheat and you are -Yoink!- that there was a few cheaters in previous games
>
> *facepalm

How and why does the system require you to cheat to play in a party of four?

15

Have you ever tried to get a match with a party of 4 in arena… Obviosly not.

You have to do the 2 tems of 2 in 4 peron party chat trick

The arena was fixed to some extent, but the complete lack of competitive settings has made the other change pointless

The visible ranks we have in reach (and in h3 from the TU) are pointless. Rank should not be handed out for time played. It should be earned for skill one had achieved. A general should be a skilled opponent, not a newb who runs around trying to AR me from 50 ft away. This isn’t peewee soccer where the losing team gets ice cream after the game, it’s halo.

16

My only hate towards the old system is this:

If you didn’t have a General in Halo 3, you were bad. That’s how a lot of people saw it. I didn’t play enough to hit General, ergo I am bad at Halo 3. You remember what happened to H3? Boosters and derankers. Yeah, that’s what Reach needs, right? 90% of the Generals in H3 didn’t get there with skill. With Reach, at the very least, if I see an Inheritor, my instinct says he should be half decent because of how long it takes to get there.

17

> My only hate towards the old system is this:
>
> If you didn’t have a General in Halo 3, you were bad. That’s how a lot of people saw it. I didn’t play enough to hit General, ergo I am bad at Halo 3. You remember what happened to H3? Boosters and derankers. Yeah, that’s what Reach needs, right? 90% of the Generals in H3 didn’t get there with skill. With Reach, at the very least, if I see an Inheritor, my instinct says he should be half decent because of how long it takes to get there.

so kids going neg 20 because they matched my team is better? please. i seen terrible high rankslol

18

> Have you ever tried to get a match with a party of 4 in arena… Obviosly not.
>
> You have to do the 2 tems of 2 in 4 peron party chat trick

Why should a team of 4 get matched against randoms?

> The visible ranks we have in reach (and in h3 from the TU) are pointless. Rank should not be handed out for time played. It should be earned for skill one had achieved. A general should be a skilled opponent, not a newb who runs around trying to AR me from 50 ft away. This isn’t peewee soccer where the losing team gets ice cream after the game, it’s halo.

Why?

19

> > Have you ever tried to get a match with a party of 4 in arena… Obviosly not.
> >
> > You have to do the 2 tems of 2 in 4 peron party chat trick
>
> Why should a team of 4 get matched against randoms?
>
>
>
> > The visible ranks we have in reach (and in h3 from the TU) are pointless. Rank should not be handed out for time played. It should be earned for skill one had achieved. A general should be a skilled opponent, not a newb who runs around trying to AR me from 50 ft away. This isn’t peewee soccer where the losing team gets ice cream after the game, it’s halo.
>
> Why?

If you go into arena with a party of 4, you will never get a match, it will search endlessly, that’s why you have to cheat in order to get a match.

The current ranking system is pointless. your rank has nothing to do with your skill, it is only time played. Why have rank if it doesn’t mean anything?

20

> My only hate towards the old system is this:
>
> If you didn’t have a General in Halo 3, you were bad. That’s how a lot of people saw it. I didn’t play enough to hit General, ergo I am bad at Halo 3. You remember what happened to H3? Boosters and derankers. Yeah, that’s what Reach needs, right? 90% of the Generals in H3 didn’t get there with skill. With Reach, at the very least, if I see an Inheritor, my instinct says he should be half decent because of how long it takes to get there.

90% really? Are you smoking crack? I’ve played 4000+ games of halo 3 and from my experience I would say maybe 5%. And if it makes you cry so much than don’t play ranked, your obviosly not playing it now so what do you care anyway.