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?