Going back to Halo 3's Social Ranking System

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

To refresh the minds, in Halo 3 after completing an online game, players are awarded EXP as follows:

  • Win(Players would receive a win if they were on the top half of the leaderboard in games like FFA): +1 EXP
  • Tie (in team games): +1 EXP
  • Loss: 0 EXP
  • Leaving from a match before it ends (this includes being booted): -1 EXP

To get to General Grade 1 one would have to have 600 EXP(600 wins/ties) with a 50 and to get to General Grade 4(5-Star General) the player would need 5000 EXP and a 50.

A problem with Halo 4’s Social Ranking System was that a lot people got to SR130 within a couple of months of the game’s launch and there wasn’t much an incentive to win. You were going to get EXP win or lose and the only punishment was a quit ban after quitting out of the game so many times.

This system rewards the winners and doesn’t necessarily punish the losers. It does punish the early quitters and people booted from the game. The 1 EXP you can earn for winning sounds like nothing but means so much to a lot of people trying to get to the next rank. Bringing the system back can also be the perfect reason to being back Double EXP Weekends. Even with double EXP it takes time to advance ranks especially compared to how it was in Halo 4.

What do you think? Are there any changes you would make to Halo 3’s ranks to make it better or is it perfect and 343i should implement it in their next game?

2

> Going back to Halo 3’s Social Ranking System

No.

> A problem with Halo 4’s Social Ranking System was that a lot people got to SR130 within a couple of months of the game’s launch and there wasn’t much an incentive to win. You were going to get EXP win or lose and the only punishment was a quit ban after quitting out of the game so many times.

Yes.

H4’s ranking system was far too easy and 343’s attempts at braking the beast were undercut by MS but that’s no reason to effectively swing from one bad extreme to another bad extreme.

> This system rewards the winners and doesn’t necessarily punish the losers.

It does punish the losers.

Effort expended, nothing gained.

Sure they don’t get minus one point but they are spinning their wheels.

Nobody likes that.

> What do you think?

I think that H3’s ranking system should stay with H3 because it is ridiculous that I should have to play, more or less, ten thousand games to reach the end rank.

Instead changes are needed to H4’s progression system as a whole, mainly to lengthen it. Reach’s ranking system had a nice sweet spot to it. The rewards and unlocks need to be more spaced out and tied to relevant acts.

How points are rewarded should be applied intelligently so that the focus is about winning the game: No points or little points for just plain kills in objective games with points being earned for assisting in the objective. And points shouldn’t be handed out blindly for long games, a bad problem with Reach.

Finally: Winning the game should give a multiplier to further make the objective about winning the game.

3

> How points are rewarded should be applied intelligently so that the focus is about winning the game: <mark>No points or little points for just plain kills in objective games with points being earned for assisting in the objective.</mark> And points shouldn’t be handed out blindly for long games, a bad problem with Reach.

No thanks. I dislike Assassin’s Creed for that reason.

4

I want a mix between Halo 3 and Reach/4.

Have two main playlists- Social and Competitive

In competitive playlists- you are tasked to attain 70 or whatever number, with each win counting as +1 rank exp point and each loss counting as -1 exp point. These stats will count solely towards your rank level. However, at the same time, you are also gaining cR that will help you unlock armor, weapon customs, etc. Your rank stats, I feel, should be able to be reset, should you want to go through it again.

Then there’s social- everything you do here doesn’t impact your rank or the exp points you’ve worked so hard to achieve in your competitive career. However, you will also be gaining cR here with each game (you win- get huge cR, lose, you still get cR but a less amount). In addition, your Spartan/elite will be assigned an overall/global exp stat that shows off how many total games out of all playlists that you’ve won- this way, you can keep playing forever (even after you have maxed out in all rank playlists and armor unlocks) and continue to show off to your friends how many games you’ve won throughout your career.

Then, just as a bonus, I think there should be a monthly tournaments playlist where you are competing with everyone playing in that playlist to become number one each month. You make #1 or somewhere in the top 10 or top 5, you’ll be rewarded.

Anyways, that’s just something quick I think would be perfect for Halo 5 ranking.

5

> > Going back to Halo 3’s Social Ranking System
>
> No.
>
>
>
> > A problem with Halo 4’s Social Ranking System was that a lot people got to SR130 within a couple of months of the game’s launch and there wasn’t much an incentive to win. You were going to get EXP win or lose and the only punishment was a quit ban after quitting out of the game so many times.
>
> Yes.
>
> H4’s ranking system was far too easy and 343’s attempts at braking the beast were undercut by MS but that’s no reason to effectively swing from one bad extreme to another bad extreme.
>
>
>
> > This system rewards the winners and doesn’t necessarily punish the losers.
>
> It does punish the losers.
>
> Effort expended, nothing gained.
>
> Sure they don’t get minus one point but they are spinning their wheels.
>
> Nobody likes that.
>
>
>
> > What do you think?
>
> I think that H3’s ranking system should stay with H3 because it is ridiculous that I should have to play, more or less, ten thousand games to reach the end rank.
>
> Instead changes are needed to H4’s progression system as a whole, mainly to lengthen it. Reach’s ranking system had a nice sweet spot to it. The rewards and unlocks need to be more spaced out and tied to relevant acts.
>
> How points are rewarded should be applied intelligently so that the focus is about winning the game: No points or little points for just plain kills in objective games with points being earned for assisting in the objective. And points shouldn’t be handed out blindly for long games, a bad problem with Reach.
>
> Finally: Winning the game should give a multiplier to further make the objective about winning the game.

Why not use both? To those who want rank to display more than time played, H3’s system was preferred over a cR grind like Reach. The progression system can be kept for unlocks and such.

6

>

How about keeping Halo 3’s social ranks and throwing in the currency from Reach for cosmetics?

You lose, you don’t get exp but you’ll get credits through completing the game(this will include anything done through objectives and kills), potential MVP, slot machine, etc). You win, you get 1 EXP point and double the amount of credits or a win bonus.

7

What about this for a ranking system

  • Halo 2 1-50 Skill rank system because it was more difficult to rank up in, now the reason why i think is important is because the higher skilled players need to have some separation between them, not all Halo 3 50’s are equally skilled.

  • Halo 3 Progression system where you win or tie you get 1EXP, you lose you don’t gain EXP, you quit you lose EXP. But now it is not tied to your skill rank so everyone can reach max rank. I would also like to see the playlist ranks come back but each playlist will have its own unique max rank insignia.

I think that the progression rank should have a subtle border around it that will have change color with rank.

1-10 Iron
11-20 Bronze
21-30 Silver
31-40 Gold
41-50 Onyx

This is just to show where you generally stand in the population, and if don’t play ranked at all then it just stays greyed out, but i know some will not like that people will see where you stand rank wise but if there is a Ranked/Social split it shouldn’t matter. I also would like to see almost a 50/50 split in ranked and social.

  • Halo Reach credit system with kills/assist’s/and objectives being a set amount of credits. You win you get a bonus multiplier, you lose you don’t get a multiplier but you still get the credits that you earned during the match. I don’t know if quitting should make you lose all or most of your credits, im leaning towards losing credits. Getting the majority of armor will be through challenges but there will be a lot of armor accessories like in Reach that you can buy with credits.

Just my take on the ranking system debate.

8

> > How points are rewarded should be applied intelligently so that the focus is about winning the game: <mark>No points or little points for just plain kills in objective games with points being earned for assisting in the objective.</mark> And points shouldn’t be handed out blindly for long games, a bad problem with Reach.
>
> No thanks. I dislike Assassin’s Creed for that reason.

The alternative is to let people holding the objective to nearly time out the game while they pad kills to boost their rank. At the very least it doesn’t encourage people to play the objective and encourages them to treat the game like another slayer match.

Removing or heavily undercutting the value of just raw kills in such a situation discourages one reason to even hold the objective in the first place. The other one, just plain griefing because you can, is dare I say impossible to remove. It also incentivizes players to actually assist in the objective if their sole method of getting points is by assisting in the objective in some fashion.

> >
>
> How about keeping Halo 3’s social ranks and throwing in the currency from Reach for cosmetics?

Assuming Social/Ranked playlists? Progression for Social, 1-50 for Ranked. Both given equal visibility.

Ideally an improved progression system, like I suggested, would be implemented. I’m also partial to Arena type ranking but I know that players actually interested in their skill ranks want 1-50 and it’s not my cup of tea so I say let them have what they want.

> You lose, you don’t get exp but you’ll get credits through completing the game(this will include anything done through objectives and kills), potential MVP, slot machine, etc). You win, you get 1 EXP point and double the amount of credits or a win bonus.

I still can’t agree with this because I’m still getting blocked by the system.

I could put up a great game, come just a little bit short, and be treated the exact same as someone who went -18 even though we clearly are not.

It’s just really disheartening and frustrating.

9

I don’t want a ranking system like Reach’s/4’s. It’s completely terrible. Use something that’s like 2/3.

10

> I could put up a great game, come just a little bit short, and be treated the exact same as someone who went -18 even though we clearly are not.
>
> It’s just really disheartening and frustrating.

That’s sports and just competition in general. Win as a team. Lose as a team.

11

I’d like to see a marriage of Halo 3 and Reach.

In other words, the social rank should be a calculation of win/loss and playing time.

But the in-game rank should not be a number – leave the numbers for the competitive crowd. Give the social crowd a cool nomenclature, like Reach’s Noble, Nova, Eclipse, Inheritor.

12

> > I could put up a great game, come just a little bit short, and be treated the exact same as someone who went -18 even though we clearly are not.
> >
> > It’s just really disheartening and frustrating.
>
> That’s sports and just competition in general. Win as a team. Lose as a team.

That’s a rare occurance after people found out that there is, in fact, an ‘I’ in team. By that, I’m referring to how NO ONE uses their mic’s anymore, and having forced Kinect will only serve to add a horrible matchmaking experience in which you can hear fifteen other TVs from your speakers.

13

Nevermind. I missed the topic and was wandering off.

14

> > > I could put up a great game, come just a little bit short, and be treated the exact same as someone who went -18 even though we clearly are not.
> > >
> > > It’s just really disheartening and frustrating.
> >
> > That’s sports and just competition in general. Win as a team. Lose as a team.
>
> That’s a rare occurance after people found out that there is, in fact, an ‘I’ in team. By that, I’m referring to how NO ONE uses their mic’s anymore, and having forced Kinect will only serve to add a horrible matchmaking experience in which you can hear fifteen other TVs from your speakers.

An everybody wins mentality is a poor way to reward players.

15

> It does punish the losers.
>
> Effort expended, nothing gained.

An incentive for winning is, by extension of the definition, a punishment for losing. No punishment for losing means no incentive to win. More incentive to win means more punishment for losing.

One of the things that frustrates me most about Titanfall is that there is zero punishment for losing. Too often, I notice players (teammates and opponents alike) doing stupid things because they seemingly don’t care, not paying attention to the game, and playing selfishly (e.g. camping in a low-traffic corner to gain kills with a particular weapon for a Challenge).

In an XP-based progression ranking system, I think the losers should be awarded no more than half the XP that the winners get. Preferably none.

16

You win, you go up. You lose, you go down.
That’s all I care about.

You go positive 23 and still lose, you go down. You failed as a team. Maybe you only got those kills because your teammates sacrificed themselves for you all match.

17

> > > > I could put up a great game, come just a little bit short, and be treated the exact same as someone who went -18 even though we clearly are not.
> > > >
> > > > It’s just really disheartening and frustrating.
> > >
> > > That’s sports and just competition in general. Win as a team. Lose as a team.
> >
> > That’s a rare occurance after people found out that there is, in fact, an ‘I’ in team. By that, I’m referring to how NO ONE uses their mic’s anymore, and having forced Kinect will only serve to add a horrible matchmaking experience in which you can hear fifteen other TVs from your speakers.
>
> An everybody wins mentality is a poor way to reward players.

It’s also a HEALTHY way to sustain players who are easily frustrated.

18

> > > > > I could put up a great game, come just a little bit short, and be treated the exact same as someone who went -18 even though we clearly are not.
> > > > >
> > > > > It’s just really disheartening and frustrating.
> > > >
> > > > That’s sports and just competition in general. Win as a team. Lose as a team.
> > >
> > > That’s a rare occurance after people found out that there is, in fact, an ‘I’ in team. By that, I’m referring to how NO ONE uses their mic’s anymore, and having forced Kinect will only serve to add a horrible matchmaking experience in which you can hear fifteen other TVs from your speakers.
> >
> > An everybody wins mentality is a poor way to reward players.
>
> It’s also a HEALTHY way to sustain players who are easily frustrated.

Then why did people love to play Halo 3 so much if they weren’t rewarded for losing?

19

> > I could put up a great game, come just a little bit short, and be treated the exact same as someone who went -18 even though we clearly are not.
> >
> > It’s just really disheartening and frustrating.
>
> That’s sports and just competition in general. Win as a team. Lose as a team.

You’ll also note that I don’t play Halo competitively.

> > > > > > I could put up a great game, come just a little bit short, and be treated the exact same as someone who went -18 even though we clearly are not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It’s just really disheartening and frustrating.
> > > > >
> > > > > That’s sports and just competition in general. Win as a team. Lose as a team.
> > > >
> > > > That’s a rare occurance after people found out that there is, in fact, an ‘I’ in team. By that, I’m referring to how NO ONE uses their mic’s anymore, and having forced Kinect will only serve to add a horrible matchmaking experience in which you can hear fifteen other TVs from your speakers.
> > >
> > > An everybody wins mentality is a poor way to reward players.
> >
> > It’s also a HEALTHY way to sustain players who are easily frustrated.
>
> Then why did people love to play Halo 3 so much if they weren’t rewarded for losing?

A laundry list of reasons that include more than just H3’s ranking setup.

20

I hate those dumb challenges that cause people to play differently from the usual (kill ten ppl with this random gun, etc.), and they only exist because of these garbage XP leveling systems (and achievements, which also annoy me for the same reason).
Titanfall is full of it, so I can’t take the game seriously.
To me, a good challenge is ‘win 5 games in a row’, or ‘win 20 games within 3 days’, or ‘win 1000 games’, or ‘win a Slayer game with more than double the opponents’ kills’, etc., because the game would then be played properly.