Halo 3 or Halo 5 ranking system?

Games Halo Infinite
1

Which would you prefer?

I personally like the gradual progression of Halo 3 where you could come back a month or two later and carry on your progress and play at a higher level. Trying to improve your rank in every playist was great. Halo MCC using Halo 2s system is too slow for me so you get too many good players at lower level which completely discourages newer players. By ranking up faster at the beginning you can ensure that newer players are matched with newer players more consistently. The better players can fight it out at 40-50. Not playing full parties when you aren’t in a full party is also so important for any ranked based game. Can see why people don’t want to stick with MCC ranked when it takes them 40 wins to rank up to level 15 or whatever and they’re playing against strong competition for that privilege.

The arena style bummed me out a bit as I couldn’t play enough in a season as I wanted to then when I came back I had to play 10 games before being able to play more competitive games. So I just got a bit disheartened with it. But overall it’s a pretty good system, because it does separate players into skill brackets far quicker, just doesn’t reward players who can’t or don’t play as often.

Really liked the one win is one exp style from h3 too. Made every game feel like it had something on the line. I think Gears of War had a system where you get exp for playing but a huge exp boost for staying in consecutive social matches and winning. I really like that system, very good for encouraging community play and teamwork.

Anyway enough about my thoughts, what do you guys want from a new Halo game?

2

Halo 3’s by far. The resetting ranks don’t foster longevity like you think they would. Halo 3’s ranking system is very enticing. You get to rank up in every playlist, and it’s addictive. Players loved it so much that they would create new accounts just to do it all again. Hell, they still do it in MCC.

3

Halo 5 uses the same underlying ranking system as Halo 3, just with the top end opened up (past 50) and named tiers instead of numbers. Also has the added benefit of Trueskill 2 which is more efficient at predicting skill ranks than its predecessor. This thread is a little out of date now (as population and time has progressed in Halo 5), but it’s fairly accurate: https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/58b8518e005f432381ab99fbcaf931e0/topics/matchmaking-feedback-update-%e2%80%93-march-27/7d7a1605-3aab-41ff-9950-95a9afbc29bc/posts?page=1#post2

Based on the improvements I’ve seem coming from the Microsoft Research team and 343’s own team for matchmaking, I’d 100% go with Halo 5’s skill ranking above all else. Also worth noting that the same guy designed both systems :slight_smile:

4

> 2533274813317074;3:
> Halo 5 uses the same underlying ranking system as Halo 3, just with the top end opened up (past 50) and named tiers instead of numbers. Also has the added benefit of Trueskill 2 which is more efficient at predicting skill ranks than its predecessor. This thread is a little out of date now (as population and time has progressed in Halo 5), but it’s fairly accurate: https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/58b8518e005f432381ab99fbcaf931e0/topics/matchmaking-feedback-update-%e2%80%93-march-27/7d7a1605-3aab-41ff-9950-95a9afbc29bc/posts?page=1#post2Based on the improvements I’ve seem coming from the Microsoft Research team and 343’s own team for matchmaking, I’d 100% go with Halo 5’s skill ranking above all else. Also worth noting that the same guy designed both systems :slight_smile:

Some people prefer the number ranks as opposed to being put in tiers

5

> 2533274813317074;3:
> Halo 5 uses the same underlying ranking system as Halo 3, just with the top end opened up (past 50) and named tiers instead of numbers. Also has the added benefit of Trueskill 2 which is more efficient at predicting skill ranks than its predecessor. This thread is a little out of date now (as population and time has progressed in Halo 5), but it’s fairly accurate: https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/58b8518e005f432381ab99fbcaf931e0/topics/matchmaking-feedback-update-%e2%80%93-march-27/7d7a1605-3aab-41ff-9950-95a9afbc29bc/posts?page=1#post2Based on the improvements I’ve seem coming from the Microsoft Research team and 343’s own team for matchmaking, I’d 100% go with Halo 5’s skill ranking above all else. Also worth noting that the same guy designed both systems :slight_smile:

<p></p>

That’s super informative, thank you. Would be very nice to see the longetivity of set ranks as another user posted, but it’s cool to know that’s how the playlists are worked out in Halo 5. I’d quite happily just have more ranks also as getting all the way up to 70+ would give people a lot of incentive to keep going to increase it.

If they didn’t reset I think I’d find myself playing it far more, as I only got a big gaming sesh about once a month currently. I suppose it’s what keeps more people playing at the end of the day so I’m sure they’ll find what the majority want.

6

Whatever system they have I just hope there aren’t seasons.

7

> 2533275031939856;6:
> Whatever system they have I just hope there aren’t seasons.

Yeah I’d prefer no seasons too. I just don’t think it promotes longetivity in a game. Maybe market research disagrees, but I really don’t think most seasonal ranking have lasted the test of time outside Overwatch.
Maybe it’s just nostalgia goggles booting in, but it really felt like Halo 3 have a mammoth population for the longest time. Could get a game in any playlist at any rank almost straight away. I can’t even get a game of Halo 5 arena unfortunately.

Halo MCC may have been a powerhouse for online gaming if it wasn’t so riddled with issues at launch. Developers have won me over with their post game support, definitely.

8

I didn’t play a whole lot of Halo 3 ranked, I think I played far enough to get Lieutenant so I could unlock the Rogue helmet because of Carolina from Red vs Blue. But one thing I never liked about it was that I could win several games and get nowhere, but lose one and I lost a rank. While I understand progression and am fully accepting of it, I don’t think it’s very fair when games put you in positions where you almost don’t want to play because there always seems to be a greater chance you’ll lose rather than win. And that losing has much greater stakes at hand because winning means you get closer to ranking up, but losing means losing the rank you’ve fought so hard just to hold onto.

Games that function like this don’t put players where they truly belong, especially if there are any smurf accounts in play. Because you can often have players who are the equivalent of Plat or Diamond players pitting against Bronze and Silver level players all because someone who probably belongs in say Onyx was playing at a Gold level and just kept getting matched with them, carrying their team to victory, so the losers end up in a spiraling streak of just falling down the ladder.

I don’t speak as though I completely understand how the whole ranking structure works, I merely speak from experience; for as little as I have experienced.

That being said, I stepped into Halo 5’s ranking once to get the achievement and ended up in Gold so I can’t say too much there either.

For which I prefer? Halo 3 I suppose, I’m indifferent to both to be honest.

9

> 2533274879757912;8:
> I didn’t play a whole lot of Halo 3 ranked, I think I played far enough to get Lieutenant so I could unlock the Rogue helmet because of Carolina from Red vs Blue. But one thing I never liked about it was that I could win several games and get nowhere, but lose one and I lost a rank. While I understand progression and am fully accepting of it, I don’t think it’s very fair when games put you in positions where you almost don’t want to play because there always seems to be a greater chance you’ll lose rather than win. And that losing has much greater stakes at hand because winning means you get closer to ranking up, but losing means losing the rank you’ve fought so hard just to hold onto.
>
> Games that function like this don’t put players where they truly belong, especially if there are any smurf accounts in play. Because you can often have players who are the equivalent of Plat or Diamond players pitting against Bronze and Silver level players all because someone who probably belongs in say Onyx was playing at a Gold level and just kept getting matched with them, carrying their team to victory, so the losers end up in a spiraling streak of just falling down the ladder.
>
> I don’t speak as though I completely understand how the whole ranking structure works, I merely speak from experience; for as little as I have experienced.
>
> That being said, I stepped into Halo 5’s ranking once to get the achievement and ended up in Gold so I can’t say too much there either.
>
> For which I prefer? Halo 3 I suppose, I’m indifferent to both to be honest.

This is a whole lot of text for a non-answer?

Halo 3 had a longer progress with ranks that didn’t reset, but a quicker downfall. Halo 5 has tiers, which people seem to not like, and it resets, but it seems more balanced in how you progress and regress in ranking.

10

> 2533274795938680;9:
> > 2533274879757912;8:
> > I didn’t play a whole lot of Halo 3 ranked, I think I played far enough to get Lieutenant so I could unlock the Rogue helmet because of Carolina from Red vs Blue. But one thing I never liked about it was that I could win several games and get nowhere, but lose one and I lost a rank. While I understand progression and am fully accepting of it, I don’t think it’s very fair when games put you in positions where you almost don’t want to play because there always seems to be a greater chance you’ll lose rather than win. And that losing has much greater stakes at hand because winning means you get closer to ranking up, but losing means losing the rank you’ve fought so hard just to hold onto.
> >
> > Games that function like this don’t put players where they truly belong, especially if there are any smurf accounts in play. Because you can often have players who are the equivalent of Plat or Diamond players pitting against Bronze and Silver level players all because someone who probably belongs in say Onyx was playing at a Gold level and just kept getting matched with them, carrying their team to victory, so the losers end up in a spiraling streak of just falling down the ladder.
> >
> > I don’t speak as though I completely understand how the whole ranking structure works, I merely speak from experience; for as little as I have experienced.
> >
> > That being said, I stepped into Halo 5’s ranking once to get the achievement and ended up in Gold so I can’t say too much there either.
> >
> > For which I prefer? Halo 3 I suppose, I’m indifferent to both to be honest.
>
> This is a whole lot of text for a non-answer?
>
> Halo 3 had a longer progress with ranks that didn’t reset, but a quicker downfall. Halo 5 has tiers, which people seem to not like, and it resets, but it seems more balanced in how you progress and regress in ranking.

The long post was meant to be a slight explanation as to why I feel about the ranking structure the way that I do. Unfortunately, I have a bad habit of rambling and I do apologize for that.

11

> 2533274879757912;10:
> > 2533274795938680;9:
> > > 2533274879757912;8:
> > > I didn’t play a whole lot of Halo 3 ranked, I think I played far enough to get Lieutenant so I could unlock the Rogue helmet because of Carolina from Red vs Blue. But one thing I never liked about it was that I could win several games and get nowhere, but lose one and I lost a rank. While I understand progression and am fully accepting of it, I don’t think it’s very fair when games put you in positions where you almost don’t want to play because there always seems to be a greater chance you’ll lose rather than win. And that losing has much greater stakes at hand because winning means you get closer to ranking up, but losing means losing the rank you’ve fought so hard just to hold onto.
> > >
> > > Games that function like this don’t put players where they truly belong, especially if there are any smurf accounts in play. Because you can often have players who are the equivalent of Plat or Diamond players pitting against Bronze and Silver level players all because someone who probably belongs in say Onyx was playing at a Gold level and just kept getting matched with them, carrying their team to victory, so the losers end up in a spiraling streak of just falling down the ladder.
> > >
> > > I don’t speak as though I completely understand how the whole ranking structure works, I merely speak from experience; for as little as I have experienced.
> > >
> > > That being said, I stepped into Halo 5’s ranking once to get the achievement and ended up in Gold so I can’t say too much there either.
> > >
> > > For which I prefer? Halo 3 I suppose, I’m indifferent to both to be honest.
> >
> > This is a whole lot of text for a non-answer?
> >
> > Halo 3 had a longer progress with ranks that didn’t reset, but a quicker downfall. Halo 5 has tiers, which people seem to not like, and it resets, but it seems more balanced in how you progress and regress in ranking.
>
> The long post was meant to be a slight explanation as to why I feel about the ranking structure the way that I do. Unfortunately, I have a bad habit of rambling and I do apologize for that.

Eh it’s ok, it’s early morning and my coffee-intake is low: I was overly crass. I’m sorry brother; hope you have a great day!

12

> 2533274795938680;11:
> > 2533274879757912;10:
> > > 2533274795938680;9:
> > > > 2533274879757912;8:
> > > > I didn’t play a whole lot of Halo 3 ranked, I think I played far enough to get Lieutenant so I could unlock the Rogue helmet because of Carolina from Red vs Blue. But one thing I never liked about it was that I could win several games and get nowhere, but lose one and I lost a rank. While I understand progression and am fully accepting of it, I don’t think it’s very fair when games put you in positions where you almost don’t want to play because there always seems to be a greater chance you’ll lose rather than win. And that losing has much greater stakes at hand because winning means you get closer to ranking up, but losing means losing the rank you’ve fought so hard just to hold onto.
> > > >
> > > > Games that function like this don’t put players where they truly belong, especially if there are any smurf accounts in play. Because you can often have players who are the equivalent of Plat or Diamond players pitting against Bronze and Silver level players all because someone who probably belongs in say Onyx was playing at a Gold level and just kept getting matched with them, carrying their team to victory, so the losers end up in a spiraling streak of just falling down the ladder.
> > > >
> > > > I don’t speak as though I completely understand how the whole ranking structure works, I merely speak from experience; for as little as I have experienced.
> > > >
> > > > That being said, I stepped into Halo 5’s ranking once to get the achievement and ended up in Gold so I can’t say too much there either.
> > > >
> > > > For which I prefer? Halo 3 I suppose, I’m indifferent to both to be honest.
> > >
> > > This is a whole lot of text for a non-answer?
> > >
> > > Halo 3 had a longer progress with ranks that didn’t reset, but a quicker downfall. Halo 5 has tiers, which people seem to not like, and it resets, but it seems more balanced in how you progress and regress in ranking.
> >
> > The long post was meant to be a slight explanation as to why I feel about the ranking structure the way that I do. Unfortunately, I have a bad habit of rambling and I do apologize for that.
>
> Eh it’s ok, it’s early morning and my coffee-intake is low: I was overly crass. I’m sorry brother; hope you have a great day!

Thanks, you too! And I hope you finally get that coffee and that it tastes amazing! :slight_smile:

13

> 2533274801036271;7:
> > 2533275031939856;6:
> > Whatever system they have I just hope there aren’t seasons.
>
> Yeah I’d prefer no seasons too. I just don’t think it promotes longetivity in a game. Maybe market research disagrees, but I really don’t think most seasonal ranking have lasted the test of time outside Overwatch.
> Maybe it’s just nostalgia goggles booting in, but it really felt like Halo 3 have a mammoth population for the longest time. Could get a game in any playlist at any rank almost straight away. I can’t even get a game of Halo 5 arena unfortunately.
>
> Halo MCC may have been a powerhouse for online gaming if it wasn’t so riddled with issues at launch. Developers have won me over with their post game support, definitely.

IMO seasons kill the game, I do my 10 placement matches and I rarely touch the playlists again. Why? because no matter what happens I have to restart in 3 months. I feel absolutely no accomplishment what so ever playing Halo 5 matches because of the resets. In Halo 3, were you had to work your way up to 50 in a playlist, it gave me a reason to keep playing that playlist (lonewolves). Because I wanted to get General.

Whichever system they choose, please don’t bring seasons back.

14

I’m mixed on this. I like things about Halo 5 system, even TS2, But there are definitely things I don’t like.

I don’t really like placement matches at all. I like the everyone starts at the bottom and works your way up. I understand why they do placement matches though. Maybe a better idea is get ride of seasons. Again, I understand what they’re going for, but I can’t play every night anymore and I’m always around onyx every season but can never get to champ as the ranks reset. Then you have all these people who are champ or hit champ and it’s on their profile and that’s what most people want, just because they can play more right when the ranks reset. It’s dumb! If I had to choose between seasons and placement matches I would get rid of seasons.

I also don’t like some aspects of the TS2 system. I don’t agree that skill is based on kills and deaths only. Since TS2, I’ve literally had people get made at me for “stealing” there kills, people tell me if they don’t get x power weapon they won’t be playing, I’ve had a guy say he won’t pick up the PP as it’s an assist only weapon and he wants kills to get a higher rank and so on…beccause they know that if you win AND get the most kills, you get more CSR.

I don’t like how assists aren’t included in this. To me it’s ridiculous! I don’t care what there “data” says, I’m sorry but assists DO and should matter. It also makes drivers of vehicles get no recognition for what they do.

For example, I had a 4-4 ranked team slayer game yesterday where I was bottom of my team in kills, top in assists with 10+, fewest deaths on the team and I had the highest damage by far on the team…yet according to TS2, I did the worst out of the four of us and got the lowest amount of CSR. Now, I’m a team player and all I care about is the win, but it is frustrating that I don’t feel my rank is where it should be. Now I know this doesn’t happen every game either, but that isn’t the point.

I think TS2 is more suited in FFA modes as it measures individual skill pretty good (not perfect though) but in game modes like TEAM Slayer, it should be based on the TEAM I feel.

This is why I think Halo 6 ranked playlists should have two ranks per playlist. A team rank and I individual rank. Yeah, maybe someone isn’t the be all end all in 1-1 conflict, but maybe they might be one of the best team players out there. So for example, in Team Slayer your Team Tank might be Diamond 6 but your individual rank might be Diamond 1.

Also I like military or interesting names as ranks (aka like Reach) instead of gold, diamond, onyx etc. Honestly what sounds better, I’m I diamond 4 in team slayer or I’m a Brigadier general in team slayer. Come on!

15

> 2533274801036271;1:
> Which would you prefer?
>
> I personally like the gradual progression of Halo 3 where you could come back a month or two later and carry on your progress and play at a higher level. Trying to improve your rank in every playist was great. Halo MCC using Halo 2s system is too slow for me so you get too many good players at lower level which completely discourages newer players. By ranking up faster at the beginning you can ensure that newer players are matched with newer players more consistently. The better players can fight it out at 40-50. Not playing full parties when you aren’t in a full party is also so important for any ranked based game. Can see why people don’t want to stick with MCC ranked when it takes them 40 wins to rank up to level 15 or whatever and they’re playing against strong competition for that privilege.
>
> The arena style bummed me out a bit as I couldn’t play enough in a season as I wanted to then when I came back I had to play 10 games before being able to play more competitive games. So I just got a bit disheartened with it. But overall it’s a pretty good system, because it does separate players into skill brackets far quicker, just doesn’t reward players who can’t or don’t play as often.
>
> Really liked the one win is one exp style from h3 too. Made every game feel like it had something on the line. I think Gears of War had a system where you get exp for playing but a huge exp boost for staying in consecutive social matches and winning. I really like that system, very good for encouraging community play and teamwork.
>
> Anyway enough about my thoughts, what do you guys want from a new Halo game?

I prefer Halo 3’s by a mile.