Fair ranking system?

There is an obvious split on how Halo 5’s ranking system should work. I think the majority want 1-50 back, but the split then becomes what to do with an EXP system.

It would start with splitting the playlists between ranked and social. Ranked has the 1-50 system in place, exactly the same as Halo 3 (except obviously fix the glitches that allowed boosting). Social would be the same as Halo 3 as well.

So, EXP. I liked Halo 3’s EXP system of a win gets you 1 EXP, a loss get 0, and a quit gives you -1. However, I understand that people like a progression system because they do well but lose most of their games. To solve this, I’ve came up with an MVP reward system. If the person did that well but was still on the losing team, they probably deserve an MVP award of some kind.

The idea is that if a player on the losing team meets the criteria to be qualified as the undoubtedly most valuable player, then they should earn this award. So if the player gets 50% of the total possible score (ie, 3 of a possible 5 flag caps, 25 of 50 kills, etc) and they lose the game, then they earn this reward. This would be 1 EXP, so winning would still be a priority. Only 1 person in a game could get this. This is not a guaranteed point of EXP. There could be no one who qualifies for it.

Another option is that regardless of the team, the MVP gets 1 extra EXP. MVP being the person with the most score (score being the same a Halo 3, in CTF 1 flag cap= 1 score, none of this points for medal crap) That way, if it so happened that the best person in the game was still on the losing team, they would get recognized for being good despite a bad team. Note: If the score between 2 players is tied, it will go to whoever was on the losing team (rewarded for playing well despite a bad team). Guaranteed to happen at the end of the game.

That seems to me like either of those solutions would satisfy those who would like EXP to be rewarded for only winning, while also satisfying the rare occasion where a person is the best player in the game yet still looses.

Should a matchmaking system work properly and accurately to match players of similar skill, there shouldn’t be too many occasions where 1 player will dominate completely.

I’d also like to see the 1-50 and EXP system combine to rank up. So to reach the very best rank you need to be a 50. You should still be able to rank up without playing ranked, however to be at the very top, you should have to be at the very top of skill as well. Even in a system that requires wins to get EXP, you can still rank get to the best as long as you grind. There should be a distinction. (Note: any armour unlocks should be available without playing ranked) Maybe similar to Reach’s ranks, up until general you could earn by just winning games and getting EXP, but when it comes the the “special” ranks (Hero, Noble, Eclipse, Inheritor, etc) those would require you to play ranked.

So, what do you guys think? Do you think this is a fair ranking system?

The Halo 3 ranked/social along with a experience system from Reach.

DONE

> The Halo 3 ranked/social along with a <mark>experience system from Reach.</mark>
>
> DONE

Why should people get rewarded just for participating?

Experience for unlocking armor etc.

> Experience for unlocking armor etc.

You can do that without that system. You can unlock armour just the same with an experience system that requires wins to get EXP.

I agree with AStreamOfCream.

There should be a skill/winning-based ranking system similar like you Symmetrik explained in your OP in all playlists, primarily to match people and create teams that are on par and to ‘test’ yourself, in my opinion.

Aside that, I think there should be a simple progression system, something between Reach and Halo 4, for unlocking/purchasing aesthetical items (armor, skins, emblems, stances, etc.).

I think unlocking armor with a skill/winning-based exp system would end up really frustrating for many people.

I love the ideas, but I definitely agree with the experience system from Reach.

Why?

I’m not a skilled player. I haven’t played very many games in Halo 3 (I think < 100 in all playlists combined), but I would never approach a 50. It would have probably be a struggle for me to get to 30.

But I love playing campaign (co-op, for daily/weekly challenges, etc.) and I loved (in Reach) playing Firefight (I liked Spartan Ops, but mostly for the story - it isn’t as fun to replay as Reach’s Firefight was).

I also enjoy matchmaking, despite not being very good.

I played Reach (all modes) until I got to Inheritor. Did that mean I was good? No, but it meant I put in time in the game.

Now imagine if next to my Inheritor emblem if there was my Silver Arena rank, or a 25 in a given playlist. People could see that I put in a lot of time in the game, and that I’m still struggling to be average.

The incentive for me to keep playing is the get to Inheritor while trying to get a better 1-50 rank.

That said, I think, like Reach, it should take a LONG time to get to the top (Inheritor took me nearly a year).

I look at Inheritor as a “Global Rank” which can be increased by ALL aspects of the game.

I look at 1-50 ranks as a skill indicator in a specific playlist, but I certainly could be wrong as I had this incorrect in the other thread about it.

> I think unlocking armor with a skill/winning-based exp system would end up really frustrating for many people.

Many people did not find it frustrating in Halo 3. And that had no compromise for being the best player on a bad team.

The average player should win 50% of their games (1.00 W/L), based on probability. Typically it will actually be a little less (0.80 W/L). As long as the gameplay itself is enjoyable, winning every other game should not be frustrating.

The only players who become frustrated by it are those who are simply not skilled at all. And they probably shouldn’t be higher than that level.

Of course, an EXP system doesn’t even have to be the armour-unlocking system. There could be another commendation system purely to unlock armour (no EXP reward). That way, even if you are unskilled and can’t win a significant portion of your games, you could still unlock armour. If you still aren’t skilled enough to do that, then you probably don’t deserve the armour. Nothing should just be handed out. Currently you get a bigger reward for just playing rather than your performance. Which is just wrong.

Either a commendation system to unlock armour or an EXP (which only gives EXP for a win) will require skill to unlock armour. Both are pretty easily accessible to the average player, and are still accessible for below average players.

When it comes to which system frustrates people more, it will come down to how enjoyable the gameplay is. Hopefully it will be. That would make it not frustrating in a winning only EXP system, and it would make it an enjoyable ranking system for those who enjoy competition.

>

Why should the multiplayer rank be affected by campaign, or firefight? Your’re Master Chief in the campaign - you can’t change his armour. Why should you be able to farm kills in campaign to get armour for multiplayer, while I battle through other players in MM to get the same things?

The different areas of the game should not cross over to create one rank all of a sudden in MM. How would you feel if you were the highest rank, after play 10,000 MM games, only to see someone else at the highest rank, without a single MM game played?

Your rank should be earned by being better than other people. You should have to proved that you deserve that title. Playing Campaign, SpOps, or FF don’t do that. It’s easy for anyone to do that. It’s a lot easier to slaughter Covenant then it is to kill other players.

First off great post .
Second above post is 100% correct in my mind .

My best input into this xp/exp/SR/credits/what ever halo 5 will use

Here it is from another thread

> Hands Down best system so far (IN MY MIND)
>
>
>
> The system has 3 things
>
>
> XP = How you rank up - Only given to the WINNING TEAM
>
> EXP = xp per playlist - Only Given to the WINNING TEAM
>
>
> CR/Points = MM or campaign/ FF or Spartan ops
> For Unlocking - armor - emblems - Stances - weapons if load outs come back :frowning: - And stuff like that = You get cr for kills and Flag caps stuff like that win or loss
> ^^^^ so no matter what you play or how u play it you still get reward.
>
>
>
>
> So what do you think ?

How about when unit certain levels 1-50 u unlock certain parts of the armor like helmets and chest and then in a social ranking system after u win a certain amount of games or gain a lot of exp u can unlock visors forearms legs.halo 3 ranking system would work idk why some people can’t admit that

> >
>
> Why should the multiplayer rank be affected by campaign, or firefight? Your’re Master Chief in the campaign - you can’t change his armour. Why should you be able to farm kills in campaign to get armour for multiplayer, while I battle through other players in MM to get the same things?
>
> The different areas of the game should not cross over to create one rank all of a sudden in MM. <mark>How would you feel if you were the highest rank, after play 10,000 MM games, only to see someone else at the highest rank, without a single MM game played?</mark>
>
> Your rank should be earned by being better than other people. You should have to proved that you deserve that title. Playing Campaign, SpOps, or FF don’t do that. It’s easy for anyone to do that. It’s a lot easier to slaughter Covenant then it is to kill other players.

I wouldn’t care and I don’t think many other people would that much care either .

Let’s say that it does take 10,000 match games to reach max level, that doesn’t mean that playing campaign wouldn’t take just as long. Anyway your idea makes that you have to compete against your own team to rank faster , especially since it is essentially to rank faster. Basically it isn’t “doing well” it is doing the best on your team . What if I had 16 kills 10 deaths 4 assists , but the guy that got MVP had 17 kills 9 deaths 4 assists I did well enough but because I got one less kill and one more death I shouldn’t get extra XP? Or what if I’m the player that protects my flag the carrier, and drives my flag runner to the enemy base and back to ours because of my support we wouldn’t have won so should I get the MVP? Now about the commendation system since unlocks is tied to that why should one care about the ranks if the the commendation is basically what I need to progress to get unlocks and it being the only way to get unlocks?

The reason RPG like progression systems are popular in FPS games is because players generally feel rewarded by playing their playstyles and its usually addicting and fun for many people to unlock weapons and armor through the system . Often teams the system rewards players to support their team(in BF3 a good medic usually places first) and good players often times get more points anyway. Since AAA games target a board audience and RPG like progression systems(like BF,COD,Halo,GTA,any RPG)appeals to different types of players the next halo will most likely use a similar system.

The problem is you shouldn’t be rewarded for losing or just playing a long time people win and rank up competitiveness is lacking reach bothered me cuz I knew eventually all I had to do was play and keep playing no matter if I win or lose and rank up and that’s bs

> How about when unit certain levels 1-50 u unlock certain parts of the armor like helmets and chest and then in a social ranking system after u win a certain amount of games or gain a lot of exp u can unlock visors forearms legs.halo 3 ranking system would work idk why some people can’t admit that

Requiring people to reach a SKILL RANK
(1-50) AS you said to unlock basic things is a bad idea not everyone has that high of a Skill.

But requiring people to play and Win is possible sure faster for some but still possible for even the very unskilled.

Again I think my idea of a system is great for all types of players…

>

And all I’m saying is that people play the games for different reasons - and “ranking up” (from Recruit to Inheritor) is a huge incentive for those who aren’t that skilled in MM.

Which is why having a Global Rank works for people like me - I enjoy Halo just as much as the next guy, but for vastly different reasons. The idea of having a Rank, Commendations, Achievements, etc. is to keep me playing the game. Why should it matter if I keep coming back to play 4 hours a day of Campaign, FF, SpOps instead of 2 hours a day of matchmaking?

And Reach already had where playing Campaign didn’t get as many XP toward the global rank as multiplayer.

I’m not trying to be a jerk, I just honestly don’t understand why it is a big deal.

Translating my Global Rank to matchmaking - in Social, it wouldn’t matter; in Ranked, I might be a 20 skill Inheritor - and everyone could see my lack of skill.

> > The Halo 3 ranked/social along with a <mark>experience system from Reach.</mark>
> >
> > DONE
>
> Why should people get rewarded just for participating?

Not for participating, just for not quitting. Its better to have a player that’s not very good than no player at all (especially objective games) > Cannon Fodder.

> First off great post .
> Second above post is 100% correct in my mind .
>
>
> My best input into this xp/exp/SR/credits/what ever halo 5 will use
>
>
> Here it is from another thread
>
>
> > Hands Down best system so far (IN MY MIND)
> >
> >
> >
> > The system has 3 things
> >
> >
> > XP = How you rank up - Only given to the WINNING TEAM
> >
> > EXP = xp per playlist - Only Given to the WINNING TEAM
> >
> >
> > CR/Points = MM or campaign/ FF or Spartan ops
> > For Unlocking - armor - emblems - Stances - weapons if load outs come back :frowning: - And stuff like that = You get cr for kills and Flag caps stuff like that win or loss
> > ^^^^ so no matter what you play or how u play it you still get reward.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > So what do you think ?

That is interesting. I think I like that.

CR has no effect on your rank, correct?

> And all I’m saying is that people play the games for different reasons - and “ranking up” (from Recruit to Inheritor) <mark>is a huge incentive for those who aren’t that skilled in MM.</mark>
>
> Which is why having a Global Rank works for people like me - I enjoy Halo just as much as the next guy, but for vastly different reasons. The idea of having a Rank, Commendations, Achievements, etc. is to keep me playing the game. Why should it matter if I keep coming back to play 4 hours a day of Campaign, FF, SpOps instead of 2 hours a day of matchmaking?
>
> And Reach already had where playing Campaign didn’t get as many XP toward the global rank as multiplayer.
>
> I’m not trying to be a jerk, I just honestly don’t understand why it is a big deal.
>
> Translating my Global Rank to matchmaking - in Social, it wouldn’t matter; in Ranked, I might be a 20 skill Inheritor - and everyone could see my lack of skill.

That’s where it’s a problem. It takes way more skill & way more work to reach the top level by play MM. It’s pretty easy to waltz through a FF game and get 100 kills & no deaths.

There can still be commendations, achievements & such for playing Campaign, FF and SpOps. However it should not affect your muliplayer rank.

I think there are a lot of good ideas here. What I think is that for match making to mean anything there needs to be a skill based system where you can progress by winning matches. That number represents your skill and it should be your badge of honor. The skill based MM is more balanced and you are teamed up with players who are of a similar rank and who want to rank up. It fosters team chat and teamwork.

I have never really been on board with the commendation system and unlocks. I’ve tried but it’s too much of a grind for me due to family, work etc. But I’m ok with having it and see the need for it. But it needs to be separate from a skill ranking. Players of a higher skill should still progress faster if just playing slayer or whatever since the should be performming more rewardable acts per game.

I guess i would like to see a return to the skill ranking while keeping the commendation system as a nice to have feature to allow people to get rewared periodically. The most important part is to fix MM and make winning mean something.

Here are my thoughts on Ranks. I try to address the things that were good in each game, while eliminating some of the bad things.