Is it possible to implement ranks as it was in halo2? I’m tired of this military ranks, their just so corny and shouldn’t be on Halo. This isn’t COD or BF. The Halo ranks, added more competitive gaming and try-hards into the game. And that I will miss from halo2. Making make it a possible playlist of halo 2 ranking with same system of taking 3 wins to rank up or as you are a higher level takes 4 or 5 games in win a row to level up. Having a playlist for Team Slayer, Team Objective, MLG, and Rumble Pit with these settings? Maybe this playlist doesn’t touch your ranking and doesn’t involve cR. Just regular ol’ H2 style ranking up to 50.
At low ranks (1-15 or so) it can take 1-2 games to rank up
at 16 - 20 about 2-3 games
21-40 3-5+
41 - 46 4+
47-50 can take 4 games, or it can take a lot like 15 straight games (depending on how good you do)
and 1 lost can equal 4 - 6 wins so it’s almost impossible to get to a 50 legit without a constant win streak
"Rank can be gained or lost depending on not only the final score of a game, but also on the individual’s statistics, and the opposing team’s individual ranks. The system responsible for assigning how many experience points a player is awarded is a very complex algorithm. " - Halo.wiki.
Maybe 343i will do this since they are trying to get to the ‘old feel’ of Halo and this is one of them!
I definitely agree. The current ranking system (wait, what system?) is awful and it really gives me no motivation to play well. Casual playlists still need to stay social though, for obvious reasons.
I think the whole concept of rank is limited anyways and fosters the wrong kind of environment for Halo. I’d prefer to have an element of mystery in not knowing how good the players are or how much they have played the game. Let CoD have the kids competing for ranks and prestiges and all that BS. This is Halo and I just wanna kill/blow stuff up.
> I definitely agree. The current ranking system (wait, what system?) is awful and it really gives me no motivation to play well. Casual playlists still need to stay social though, for obvious reasons.
Yup. have it with the classical playlist style with no armor ability but add in some speed! This will make the competitive type players get more intact within’ the game itself. Within my opinion will show the difference between real skilled players to the weak skilled players. I will love to see this implemented within’ the TU.
> I think the whole concept of rank is limited anyways and fosters the wrong kind of environment for Halo. I’d prefer to have an element of mystery in not knowing how good the players are or how much they have played the game. Let CoD have the kids competing for ranks and prestiges and all that BS. This is Halo and I just wanna kill/blow stuff up.
H2 started all the REAL ranking style of skill to fighting to the top. H2 had meaning for playing MM. That was too reach level 50, and it was just so hard due to how to system was. It really showed independent and team skill.
I thought we all played Halo for fun. At least I do. Couldn’t give a carp about rank or w/e. I’m not bashing the ranking system itself but rather the tendency of people to focus on their rank above all else leading to all kinds of derp moments. (Looking at you Reach!)
I mean look at how much rage there was over the rank cap on Reach! That kind of behavior should be discouraged and IMO the ranking system does the exact opposite. I think that you should only be ranked by your stats and not some arbitrary rank based on how long/much you’ve been playing the game. Just my two cents…
I agree completely. Halo 2 and 3s ranking system may have been flawed, but it was still so much better than Reach. I like being able to see rank as a indicator of skill (for the most part) rather than showing how much time a person has put into a game. There are so many generals and above in Reach that are just completely terrible.
I would love to see this idea implemented in either a playlist or in Halo 4! Possibly a test in a playlist to see the communities reactions?
> I thought we all played Halo for fun. At least I do. Couldn’t give a carp about rank or w/e. I’m not bashing the ranking system itself but rather the tendency of people to focus on their rank above all else leading to all kinds of derp moments. (Looking at you Reach!)
>
> I mean look at how much rage there was over the rank cap on Reach! That kind of behavior should be discouraged and IMO the ranking system does the exact opposite. I think that you should only be ranked by your stats and not some arbitrary rank based on how long/much you’ve been playing the game. Just my two cents…
Stats wouldnt be right because some people play different gametypes to just joke around in. So if your saying that as a ‘good idea’ is showing that the casual players wouldn’t really ranked up because of their ‘stats’
> You’re upset that a militaristic game is using militaristic ranks? wha…?
No, military rank should not be implemented into a game that’s more fantasy based like. At least make their own type of ‘rank’ like the way they did after “General Grade 4”.
> I agree completely. Halo 2 and 3s ranking system may have been flawed, but it was still so much better than Reach. I like being able to see rank as a indicator of skill (for the most part) rather than showing how much time a person has put into a game. There are so many generals and above in Reach that are just completely terrible.
> I would love to see this idea implemented in either a playlist or in Halo 4! Possibly a test in a playlist to see the communities reactions?
\
I completely agree. This playlist will show just as much skill they have within MLG or just this playlist a lone. You will know someone is good by the playlist level.
The ranking system is the not the problem with Reach. Arena is a fine alternative to 1-50, the problem is it’s implementation. There’s only one ranked playlist… there needs to be more of a balance like we had in Halo 2 and 3 with Ranked and Social.
> The ranking system is the not the problem with Reach. Arena is a fine alternative to 1-50, the problem is it’s implementation. There’s only one ranked playlist… there needs to be more of a balance like we had in Halo 2 and 3 with Ranked and Social.
I don’t like the way Arena’s implement of skills. Because you can still suck and get up their just by being in the good team winning constantly. When Onyx you can still suck at the game.
> > The ranking system is the not the problem with Reach. Arena is a fine alternative to 1-50, the problem is it’s implementation. There’s only one ranked playlist… there needs to be more of a balance like we had in Halo 2 and 3 with Ranked and Social.
>
> I don’t like the way Arena’s implement of skills. Because you can still suck and get up their just by being in the good team winning constantly. When Onyx you can still suck at the game.
How is that any different from Halo 2 or 3’s ranking systems?
> At low ranks (1-15 or so) it can take 1-2 games to rank up
> at 16 - 20 about 2-3 games
> 21-40 3-5+
> 41 - 46 4+
> 47-50 can take 4 games, or it can take a lot like 15 straight games (depending on how good you do)
> and 1 lost can equal 4 - 6 wins so it’s almost impossible to get to a 50 legit without a constant win streak
I’m going to completely disagree on this point. Unbounded Trueskill can narrow your rank down in a few dozen games. The whole concept of rank in video games is there in order to match you against people of similar skill as fast as possible. Why you want to slow down this process is beyond me.
> “Rank can be gained or lost depending on not only the final score of a game, but also on the individual’s statistics, and the opposing team’s individual ranks. The system responsible for assigning how many experience points a player is awarded is a very complex algorithm.”
As much as I’d like individual skill playing a role in your rank, it just isn’t going to happen due to the rampant abusing the system is going to get. We have seen it in the first few seasons of the Arena, where players would betray teammates to increase their chances of ranking up. Here’s a quote from Microsoft’s Trueskill team in regards to individual skill being in the calculations:
“The question you are asking has indeed been raised by quite a few people and we had many discussions about it. However, we always return to our point of view that in a team game the only way to assess someone’s skill towards the team objective is to consider the team objective only. Any auxiliary measurements such as number of flags carried, number of kills, kill-death spread, etc, all have the problem that they can be exploited thereby compromising the team objective and hence the spirit of the game. If flag carries matter, players will rush to the flag rather than defend their teammates or their own flag. Some may even kill the current flag carrier of their own team to get the flag. If it is number of kills, people will mindlessly enter combat to maximise that metric. If it is K-D spread they may hold back at a time when they could have saved a team mate. Whichever metric you take, there will be people trying to optimise their score under that metric and this will lead to distortions.”
