FIX THE RANKING SYSTEM!!!

The ranking system in Halo 4 is just stupid. It’s just like COD and isn’t rewarding at all. It simply rewards those that have more time to play and not the skillful players. If the system went back to having separate social and ranked playlists and had the 50 in the ranked playlist it would make the game competitive again for those who want it to be while still offering the laid back social playlist for more casual gameplay. It would encourage people to keep playing and might even dig the franchise out of this sickening grave that has been being dug. Please return this system in Halo 5.

> It simply rewards those that have more time to play and not the skillful players.

Could argue that it rewards more than just players with time on their hands. Most playlists are easy to rank up if you get a team on mics and co-ordinate together.

For a ranking system like Halo 3 use to have they need the playlist to be highly populated. Halo 3 ranking system was exploited a lot though so I can see why Bungie changed it with Reach.

> > It simply rewards those that have more time to play and not the skillful players.
>
> Could argue that it rewards more than just players with time on their hands. Most playlists are easy to rank up if you get a team on mics and co-ordinate together.
>
> For a ranking system like Halo 3 use to have they need the playlist to be highly populated. Halo 3 ranking system was exploited a lot though so I can see why Bungie changed it with Reach.

I think he was referring to the 130 level “spartan rank” system. I’m not sure who that system benefited. Well… I say that but there are clearly people that play for the daily challenges and attempt to farm experience. There is someone out there that enjoys grinding a system that has no rewards past your first specialization (assuming you want a perk from a specialization).

> I think he was referring to the 130 level “spartan rank” system.

I was referring to the CSR ranking. Which can be grinded to 50 if you play a lot of games but if your skill level is low it will take awhile even with a team carrying you.

> > I think he was referring to the 130 level “spartan rank” system.
>
> I was referring to the CSR ranking. Which can be grinded to 50 if you play a lot of games but if your skill level is low it will take awhile even with a team carrying you.

Untrue. CSR is based very closely on TrueSkill, just like Halo 3’s ranks were. If you’re not good enough to get a 50, you won’t get one.

To OP, I replied to your other, similar thread in the Halo 4 forum:

> There is a ranking system, it’s just not in-game:
>
> https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/players/kkdudexcore/halo4
>
> CSR stands for Competitive Skill Rank.
>
> I believe 343i left out in-game skill ranks on purpose because of the boosting from previous games.

> The ranking system in Halo 4 is just stupid. It’s just like COD and isn’t rewarding at all. It simply rewards those that have more time to play and not the skillful players. If the system went back to having separate social and ranked playlists and had the 50 in the ranked playlist it would make the game competitive again for those who want it to be while still offering the laid back social playlist for more casual gameplay. It would encourage people to keep playing and might even dig the franchise out of this sickening grave that has been being dug. Please return this system in Halo 5.

While I personally know that Vektor is correct, I recommend you test your theory. Grind away in Big Team. Report back when, through sheer accumulation of playing time, you raise your CSR from the current 29 to the max of 50.

We eagerly await your report.

> > I think he was referring to the 130 level “spartan rank” system.
>
> I was referring to the CSR ranking. Which can be grinded to 50 if you play a lot of games but if your skill level is low it will take awhile even with a team carrying you.

You’ve played 3k games. I would think that is the kind of volume playing you are referring to… CSR raises OR LOWERS your rank based on how your game score (or team win/loss) compared to the other players in the game. You can definitely get a high score without winning game play through being overly aggressive, but the system does not reward volume play once it hits equilibrium.

So as you play more games, your CSR should trend upwards since it starts at the bottom instead of calculating from a void, but it will not continue to rise beyond where your performance warrants (based on the formula, which imo is flawed) just because of bulk of games played.

> > > I think he was referring to the 130 level “spartan rank” system.
> >
> > I was referring to the CSR ranking. Which can be grinded to 50 if you play a lot of games but if your skill level is low it will take awhile even with a team carrying you.
>
> You’ve played 3k games. I would think that is the kind of volume playing you are referring to… CSR raises OR LOWERS your rank based on how your game score (or team win/loss) compared to the other players in the game. You can definitely get a high score without winning game play through being overly aggressive, but the system does not reward volume play once it hits equilibrium.
>
> So as you play more games, your CSR should trend upwards since it starts at the bottom instead of calculating from a void, but it will not continue to rise beyond where your performance warrants (based on the formula, which imo is flawed) just because of bulk of games played.

Ok I stand corrected on that matter then. I must be just improving because even sometimes when I think I’m at equilibrium I can still manage to gain another couple of csr as I keep playing.

> Ok I stand corrected on that matter then. I must be just improving because even sometimes when I think I’m at equilibrium I can still manage to gain another couple of csr as I keep playing.

Well, you can feel like you’re playing poorly and still game the system into thinking you are doing well. Let’s say you are just a very aggressive player in Infinity slayer and have by fare the most activity on your team.

You get 25 kills and get killed 10 times each by the enemy team. You will almost certainly have the highest score in the game (you had nearly half the available kills for your team and the other team will average 15 kills each), but a -15 spread certainly isn’t winning game play. That high score means that CSR is ranking you first in the game, irrespective of the negative impact you had on your team.

Furthermore, the scoring system actually indirectly rewards those deaths. Comeback kill, revenge, retribution, and kill from the grave can add up to give you many points for essentially accumulating deaths. Medals like multikills and sprees don’t receive any heavier weighting despite representing positive achievements that don’t require being killed first.

The Reach scoring system did a much better job of evaluating performance even with all its flaws simply because it had a moderate penalty for dieing and ignored “style” since it didn’t use medals.

> The ranking system in Halo 4 is just stupid. It’s just like COD

I stopped reading here. Not everything needs to be compared to Call of Duty.

It is genuinely disheartening to see how many people demand the scrapping of the current ranking system and a return to the Halo 3 standard when most of these same people display a complete lack of understanding as to how either one works. Admittedly they are not at all easy to understand, but just the same…

> > The ranking system in Halo 4 is just stupid. It’s just like COD
>
> I stopped reading here. Not everything needs to be compared to Call of Duty.

Funnily enough, the CSR system is basically that of Halo 3. Pretty sure.

> It is genuinely disheartening to see how many people demand the scrapping of the current ranking system and a return to the Halo 3 standard when most of these same people display a complete lack of understanding as to how either one works. Admittedly they are not at all easy to understand, but just the same…

The general principle of the current one is pretty simple. Score higher than the other people in the game and you will move up. There is an adjuster to account for relative skill of your opponents, but the basic idea is pretty simple.

The Halo 3 system actually used a pretty complex system that took into account many things both visible and invisible to determine gain or loss in experience. The essence of it was essentially: play well regardless of if you are winning or losing, and win more often than you lose.

> > > The ranking system in Halo 4 is just stupid. It’s just like COD
> >
> > I stopped reading here. Not everything needs to be compared to Call of Duty.
>
> Funnily enough, the CSR system is basically that of Halo 3. Pretty sure.

The 1-50 display is obviously derivative of Halo 2 and 3, but the actual formula is vastly different.

> The 1-50 display is obviously derivative of Halo 2 and 3, but the actual formula is vastly different.

Explain please?

> It is genuinely disheartening to see how many people demand the scrapping of the current ranking system and a return to the Halo 3 standard when most of these same people display a complete lack of understanding as to how either one works. Admittedly they are not at all easy to understand, but just the same…

I only understand it from how it feels when it plays. I have no idea of the mathematics in use.

> > The 1-50 display is obviously derivative of Halo 2 and 3, but the actual formula is vastly different.
>
> Explain please?

Halo 3 took into account kills, deaths, assists, and team performance in what was a pretty complex formula that attempted to use stats to measure game impact (how effective it was has been debated).

Halo 4 takes into account essentially only your medal count and the medal count of your opponents. Instead of trying to take into account the context of the game to measure performance, it essentially just measures how active you were and how well you game the medal system.

> It is genuinely disheartening to see how many people demand the scrapping of the current ranking system and a return to the Halo 3 standard when most of these same people display a complete lack of understanding as to how either one works. Admittedly they are not at all easy to understand, but just the same…

I’ve never really paid attention to any of it. Go figure. The only thing I really worry about is my K/D. The other stats and stuff I could care less excluding winning. I always want to win and that would be regardless if they placed importance on it or not. Just me.

I will have to say that here of late I have been taking a beating. I took about a month off and have been playing again for a little over a week. I guess I got a little rusty or something. Today I did a little better. I found myself just trying to rush in and blast everyone. Had to check that and be a little more patient. Still had fun and even got a new friend out of the deal.

I place more on having fun and meeting friends than killing myself to try and get the best numbers. Although it has it’s place. I just don’t place the importance on it that others do.

> > It simply rewards those that have more time to play and not the skillful players.
>
> Could argue that it rewards more than just players with time on their hands. Most playlists are easy to rank up if you get a team on mics and co-ordinate together.
>
> For a ranking system like Halo 3 use to have they need the playlist to be highly populated. Halo 3 ranking system was exploited a lot though so I can see why Bungie changed it with Reach.

But if it had the ranking system the population would be higher. People have been clamoring for it since Reach. It is a very common concern. And for the record I played H3 more than any game ever, only ranked. It was not exploited very much. People exaggerate that because they are bad and need an excuse.

> It was not exploited very much. People exaggerate that because they are bad and need an excuse.

Deranking, lag switching, modding, and several other behaviors were directly because of visible rank. In my experience they weren’t overwhelmingly prevalent, but they were quite common. To dismiss these behaviors and describe it as “not exploited very much” makes me think that time has dulled your memory.

I haven’t seen anyone deranking since Halo 3 even though the method still works in terms of how the game treats you in matchmaking.

I think the benefits of visible rank outweigh the negatives, but I acknowledge the problems that were there because it allows an honest conversation.