What many other halo players and I want is a “skilled” system where time played isn’t a factor.
Simple, yet people can’t get their head around that we don’t want another halo 3 (1-50).
We want a “skilled” playlist we don’t care how it is, preferable in a way that isn’t like halo reaches “arena” which is laughable, but to my point, “skilled”.
Yet, I do understand why they wouldn’t employ a system, I don’t think it’s because of the cheaters, I believe it’s the “less skilled” players (which outnumber the skilled) crying about how they can’t get a high rank, and how it’s unfair. So I guess majority rules, a shame a damn shame.
I miss the old days where it was fair, legit and honest,(cheaters here and there) now it’s all about catering to the crybabies.
Also this isn’t just me saying this, most of my old halo buddies think the same, so I am speaking for them as well, also for many other people who have tried. I understand 343 has made up their mind and won’t create a skilled based system in under a month but you can’t make a difference by doing nothing.
Honestly I felt that having the ranks only added a little emphasis for competitiveness. I don’t know if anyone else forgot, but modders were running rampant on Halo 2. That was probably the worst aspect of the multiplayer for how illegitimate it actually was. Ranks meant nothing in Halo 2 as barely anyone was actually legitimate. Halo 3 was a much closer step into the right direction, but still suffered many problems. I want Halo to have the option to be more competitive, but the old ranking system was not the way to go. It’ never guaranteed skill and most were just carried by good teams. Make it about personal achievements: kill/death ratio, awards received, etc.
I agree, for the most part. I’m saying of course making something new, but don’t add the Time-factor portion into it.
You only have a certain “rank” if you can prove yourself for that rank in skill, not because you live in your parents basement and that’s all you do all day and everyday is play halo and you become the highest ranked person in halo, all because you have “time”.
I agree to an extent. The problem with the “prove your rank” system is that after a while it killed any replay value and rewarding satisfaction in the multiplayer to an unbearable point, which is exactly what happened with me in Halo 3.
> Honestly I felt that having the ranks only added a little emphasis for competitiveness.
How did it only add a minimal emphasis on competitiveness? In the Ranked playlists of H3 practically every game I participated in post low 40s was incredibly competitive.
> Halo 3 was a much closer step into the right direction, but still suffered many problems.
What problems did it suffer from?
> I want Halo to have the option to be more competitive, but the old ranking system was not the way to go. It’ never guaranteed skill and most were just carried by good teams.
That’s a very bold generalization of the populace, don’t you think? Being a member of a team means helping each other; I can have a bad game but my three teammates can preform well and we can still victorious and then the next game someone is off and I am on point we can still come out on top.
> Make it about personal achievements: kill/death ratio, awards received, etc.
Rank should never be about KDR, awards, etc. because it leads to self-focused game play. When victory means less than my personal performance, well, why would I ever put myself in a situation where victory may be guaranteed but my personal performance will or may suffer?
> I agree to an extent. The problem with the “prove your rank” system is that after a while it killed any replay value and rewarding satisfaction in the multiplayer to an unbearable point, which is exactly what happened with me in Halo 3.
Yea that was one little issue with halo 3, but the progression system combined with a skilled based one (emphasizing the time don’t matter issue) there should be tons of replay value.
Halo 3 had a near perfect Matchmaking in my eyes. There was a 1-50 rank for the competitive and then there was social for the non competitive.
Halo: Reach was just one big social party with a ranking system that doesnt show skill, but how long you’ve spent on Reach. The only thing remotely close was Arena and that was farther away than any other thing.
1-50 isnt perfect, but no system is, and its the best system in my eyes.
I am a fan of the 1-50 system, but I can and do see some faults with it. Due to cheating, for instance in Halo 2. Or DDoS attacks, boosting and account selling, i.e Halo 3. The problem isn’t though in the fact we have a ranking system, though. The problem, and this should have been noted by everyone before it was assessed, is the availability and the ease it was to cheat in those games. How often do you see those “cheating” in Reach? I’ve encountered it twice. Ever. I haven’t been hit offline once while playing Reach, and I’ve only faced “Halo 2 styled” modders once in Halo: Reach. Cheating is more quickly dealt with nowadays so I don’t hold that as a valid excuse for no ranking system. The only validity in the idea of not having the traditional 1-50 is it demoralized those who cannot attain a coveted “50” even through long periods of play. At one end I don’t mind this as that is, essentially, how the world works. Sometimes doing something for length doesn’t mean you deserve prestige. How well you do should cater to what you deserve, but alas I know that is also not fair and may kill the enjoyment in the long run for people who just plain enjoy the weird, quirkiness that Halo also offers besides the competitive aspect.
Now, from what I’ve read so far it pretty much fits into what I was assuming would be the case. I am not disappointed because I knew that we weren’t going to get a traditional system, at least to my knowledge so far. To be honest, as a competitive, semi-professional Halo 2 and 3 player I can safely say that I am more excited about this ranking/progression system than I was expecting. It’s better than Reach’s, but you can’t really get worse on that note. However it has the possibility to be better than our traditional system because we do not not all the details as of yet.
At the end of the day I don’t want a system in which ‘time-in’ can be a factor in achieving the higher of ranks. I believe it should be 100% skill based. I do like a number next to my name, but I like being matched up against those in my skill level even more. I do not like playing players who are much less skilled than me. Where is the fun in that? Where is the challenge? If I am playing someone who is the same rank a year and a half down the line, yet they are only that rank due to a constant grind of play rather than a constant consistency of winning and skill based display than the “ranking” system is not working properly.
Now, if the ‘time-in’ system is in place I can only hope that to achieve the higher ranks without my idea of necessary skill it would take a monotonous amount of grinding that could not be exploited. An amount that you could only achieve within a year or two of straight play. This, at least, would cater to the idea that you can get up there without ever needing the skill, but still pander to the notion that unless you are skilled you shouldn’t have the rank. It’s almost a win-win.
I can only infer that there is still more clarification to come, however I can happily say that I am more pleased with this information than I wholly expected.
I don’t care what the ranking system is, but it shouldn’t affect social playlists.
Nothing like being a 45-50 and playing with 3 guests who are new to Halo. The joys of them getting beat by veterans while they’re wondering what button do you press to throw a grenade.
> > Make it about personal achievements: kill/death ratio, awards received, etc.
>
>
> Rank should never be about KDR, awards, etc. because it leads to self-focused game play. When victory means less than my personal performance, well, why would I ever put myself in a situation where victory may be guaranteed but my personal performance will or may suffer?
THIS! Arena was a joke. I don’t understand why 343i wouldn’t be able to have most playlists social and then have a ranked slayer, a ranked objective, and a ranked BTB playlist. That’s all I’d ever want yet it seems like IM the -Yoink- for wanting that b.c. I do enjoy a close, intense battle instead of playing games where my team destroys 90% of the teams I play, like in Reach.
Bad kids don’t understand how it’s not fun to play 15 matches in a night and only have 1-2 teams, on a good night lol, put up any semblance of a fight. All social all the time made Reach real lame. Nearly every game, or at least every other, of H2 and H3 was intense b.c. people cared about their rank, and b.c. you were usually put against similar skilled people. Go ahead, call people that need a rank pathetic… or be open minded and realize some people enjoy competition and comparing their accomplishments to others.
Incentive to win > skill based ranking. This is coming from a total rank -Yoink!-. Well, a former one. If the Exp system made a return in some way I’d be ecstatic. If you win all the time, you rank up much faster. In the long run, the game is way more fun when everyone actually cares about the W. But nothing beats a rank system that includes both progressive rank, and skill rank. Making both visible at all times would shut everyone up. ex: “Dancing Panda - lvl 50 Inheritor”
> > I agree to an extent. The problem with the “prove your rank” system is that after a while it killed any replay value and rewarding satisfaction in the multiplayer to an unbearable point, which is exactly what happened with me in Halo 3.
>
> Yea that was one little issue with halo 3, but the progression system combined with a skilled based one (emphasizing the time don’t matter issue) there should be tons of replay value.
Another thing that killed it for me was how easy it was to rank DOWN, it was frankly depressing xD
I agree on that. Also I believe that Halo 3 got it right with it’s split between “Ranked” and “Social” playlist groupings. That way competative players will not as easily get mixed with goofy players, while giving the freedom of switching if you’re having a bad day.
Keep the progression system so that i wouldn’t have any walls that would prevent me leveling up and gaining new ranks, weapons, armour, etc. and have the exp system function how it is.
But for each playlist (snipers, team slayer, swat) have its own individual BPR applied to it which is visible only to you and also goes up and down depending on your skill like halo 3. That way I can see how I am increasing in skill but wouldn’t be bullied by the higher ups. I got a lot of flack for being in the 40s in halo 3.
My reason for loving halo 3’s ranked was not for comparison with my halo peers but the thrill of leveling up when doing great and the fear of losing my level when i mess up/ have an off day. Yet at the same time, I enjoyed the exp system of reach and unlocking stuff with each rank i got. The exp plus commendations got me to try the entire sandbox and also experiment with skills outside simply sticking to my comfort zone of DMR/pistol combo.
they should try to bring back the 1-50 from H2. It’s wat was stated before. Cheaters are being handled more quickly now. And if you don’t look at the cheaters from h2 but how the ranking system operated in general it is the best ranking system there is.
> Yet, I do understand why they wouldn’t employ a system, I don’t think it’s because of the cheaters, I believe it’s the “less skilled” players (which outnumber the skilled) crying about how they can’t get a high rank, and how it’s unfair. So I guess majority rules, a shame a damn shame.
>
> I miss the old days where it was fair, legit and honest,(cheaters here and there) now it’s all about catering to the crybabies.
That right there.
That’s the reason the majority looks upon the minority with disdain.
Because you present your point of view as often as possible, dismiss all reasoned arguments made by people who disagree with you, then smugly look down on them for not having your tastes.
I was a massive fan of halo 2 1-50, even though there were cheaters so i never got higher than 37 it was extremely competitive and you felt yourself improve. I remeber before the first ever stat reset i got to rank 16 and got my “horns” and felt like i had improved my gameplay and earned it. (kinda like how in Starcraft 2, if you improve your game you will get promoted)
I didnt enjoy reach as much simply because the only competitve element i really saw was howmuch Creds you could grind. Im only a Brigadier but have beaten so many higher ranks its unreal.
I honestly believe its just the way the industry has gone. No console game i can think of ranks people in terms of skill anymore and just in time invested.
IMO this is probably due to gaming becoming much more mainstream than the halo 2 days and people like to feel like “the boss” so gaming companies offer that experience to people (surely people must realise how much easier single player games are these days even on the hardest setting.)
I have’nt posted much here but do read quite often and have played halo since day 1. I really wish there was a ranking system which was similar to a 1-50 system, people tend to flame this, but i really dont see myself sticking around too much past new year if its just another daily grind (this aint no MMO!)
TLDR: 1-50 was good, why wouldn’t people want 1 playlist to have a similar system? You don’t have to play it!
Complaining about people who complain about people who complain about the game. This is gonna get big!
The point isn’t that people think you guys want another 1-50, the point is that it seems it is everything you care about. It seems like you actually think that a ranking system is the only thing that can make Halo good, like it’s the most important part of the game…
It has been mentioned multiple times that there will be a ranking system for the people who are “obsessed with their rank”. But there are still hundreds of threads asking for it, it just gets so annoying.