By now, arguably high rank doesn’t necessarily dictate high skill in Reach, its more a factor of time played. However, in previous Halo titles, this wasn’t the case for rank was determined solely by skill (let’s set aside the boosting dilema for now). In Halo 4, should ranks be determined by credits, or by skill like previous titles?
Here’s my idea:
Keep the credit system (hear me out). The credit system is a great incentive to keep people in the game, however the credit system should only serve the armory, no other purposes. Make the armory more expansive, and have various items at various credit amounts.
However rank should be determined by skill, so a return of the 1-50 ranking system would be idealistic. For instance, in Halo 3, one would ultimately need to level up in the ranking system to move overall ranks, however one could level up in small amounts based on experience, but that would be halted and an increase in the ranking system would be necessary at one point.
Here’s an example to make it easier to understand. Let’s say I’m a 35 in Halo 3, which is a commander. To move up in grades, I’d need a certain amount of experience, for instance from commander grade 3 to commander grade 4, you would need a total of 1800 experience points. In Halo 4, instead of experience points, use credits. That way there’s an incentive to play and rank up, but one would ultimately need skill to move up in a larger gap and credits wouldn’t be the determining factor.
tl;dr Instead of experience points, use credits. Credits would be used in the armory as well (it would be their main purpose). Use the 1-50 ranking system as the main determination of skill.
I prefer leaderboard-style placements. This way it tells you who is the best. For those of the community that are too afraid to be judged on their stats, they could choose to remain unranked.
> > I didn’t read all of this idea but what I do know is I don’t want the Halo 3 Ranking System back where you needed to win to get up 1 XP.
>
> This
Please read the length of the post before commenting your idea.
However, it doesn’t make sense to gain anything from losses. Why would you get rewarded for losing?
I understand the circumstances of having a lackluster team, and if you’re the only one doing well you should be rewarded; rewarded with credits. If you read my entire post, this goes for you as well, Notioned, I said do away with the experience points. Again, I thank you for attempting to counterargument a point I’ve already made, had you read the entirety of my post.
I don’t see why we can’t have both. Skill-based and game and challenge completion credits along with truskill and trurank like Halo 3 had. You need a certain amount of credits to buy armor, but in some cases you will need a certain truskill or rank to unlock armor for purchase.
> I don’t see why we can’t have both. Skill-based and game and challenge completion credits along with truskill and trurank like Halo 3 had. You need a certain amount of credits to buy armor, but in some cases you will need a certain truskill or rank to unlock armor for purchase.
You may not see it, but Trueskill plays a part of each match. Sure, sometimes it throws you a random lopsided game. But usually it is a fair, even, and close match.
I think users are expecting a certain skill associated with a high skill which is definitely not the case. But that’s not a flaw with the cR system, that’s a flaw in our thinking.
Now, if the point is to have an accurate visual representation of someone’s skill, then I can see why a numbered or pictured system would be desirable.
> You guys realize we do have both in place, right?
>
> You may not see it, but Trueskill plays a part of each match. Sure, sometimes it throws you a random lopsided game. But usually it is a fair, even, and close match.
>
> I think users are expecting a certain skill associated with a high skill which is definitely not the case. But that’s not a flaw with the cR system, that’s a flaw in our thinking.
>
> Now, if the point is to have an accurate visual representation of someone’s skill, then I can see why a numbered or pictured system would be desirable.
I’m aware that Trueskill is working in the background, but a visual representation is much more suitable for competitive play. The purpose of my post was that rank needs to be more dependent on skill, rather than play time. I’m nearly a mythic rank, however if rank were based on skill, I wouldn’t nearly be this high of a rank. Credits and a ranking system can coexist, credits merely being the XP seen in Halo 3 and usable in the armory, however moving in up in ranks require different skill levels in the ranking system.
Yea, I like the idea as well, but I’m much more interested in seeing how much a player has invested rather than how good they think they are.
From a competitive aspect, there really isn’t much need for a ton of different ranks. In Halo 2/3 I only looked at the first number. And even then, that meant nothing. I stopped playing Lone Wolves early in the game when I hit 46. Trying to get to 50 seemed like a silly thing to do when really I just enjoyed playing with my buddies in BTB anyways.
In Reach, it’s kind of interesting to be able to instantly compare how much someone has played compared to me.
Maybe there is a way to combine the two with a color/picture representation. Mixing the 1-50 style from Halo 2/3 with the pictures from Reach. 1-10 Green, 11-20 Blue, 21-30 Yellow, 31-40 Orange, 41-50 Red and combine those with the pictures we see in Reach. Imagine seeing a General with sort of an orangish glow around his emblem. That way you can know how much the person has invested and a bit more about how “good” they actually are.
> Yea, I like the idea as well, but I’m much more interested in seeing how much a player has invested rather than how good they think they are.
>
> From a competitive aspect, there really isn’t much need for a ton of different ranks. In Halo 2/3 I only looked at the first number. And even then, that meant nothing. I stopped playing Lone Wolves early in the game when I hit 46. Trying to get to 50 seemed like a silly thing to do when really I just enjoyed playing with my buddies in BTB anyways.
>
> In Reach, it’s kind of interesting to be able to instantly compare how much someone has played compared to me.
>
> Maybe there is a way to combine the two with a color/picture representation. Mixing the 1-50 style from Halo 2/3 with the pictures from Reach. 1-10 Green, 11-20 Blue, 21-30 Yellow, 31-40 Orange, 41-50 Red and combine those with the pictures we see in Reach. Imagine seeing a General with sort of an orangish glow around his emblem. That way you can know how much the person has invested and a bit more about how “good” they actually are.
> ALL of halo’s ranking systems have been combinations of skill + time played. ALL of them.
>
> This will not change in Halo 4. I guarantee it.
Not necessarily, you could become a 50 in a small amount of time compared to what it takes to become an Inheritor in Reach.
To become a General in Halo 3 (the highest rank), you need to be a 50 and have at least 600 XP.
If each game is roughly ten minutes, that’s roughly 100 hours of gameplay, give or take from losses.
In Reach, to reach Inheritor, that’s roughly 9,000 games, or 1500 hours of gameplay.
In previous Halo titles, skill is more heavily weighed than time committed, as it should be.
We have a 1-50 Trueskill system in place for every playlist. This functions exactly as Halo 2/3 did.
We also have EXP for a universal rank across all playlists. This also functions very similarly to Halo 3.
On top of that, we have cR. Nobody can see them except for you. The only reason for them is buying armor. However, you can’t buy that armor until you’ve unlocked it through an achievement.
Finally, we have leaderboards. Categories would include Kills, Win/Loss, Highest Rank, Time Played, etc.
This would please everyone. It would also add a huge layer of replayability to MM.
> Here’s my idea:
>
> We have a 1-50 Trueskill system in place for every playlist. This functions exactly as Halo 2/3 did.
>
> We also have EXP for a universal rank across all playlists. This also functions very similarly to Halo 3.
>
> On top of that, we have cR. Nobody can see them except for you. The only reason for them is buying armor. However, you can’t buy that armor until you’ve unlocked it through an achievement.
>
> Finally, we have leaderboards. Categories would include Kills, Win/Loss, Highest Rank, Time Played, etc.
>
>
> This would please everyone. It would also add a huge layer of replayability to MM.
Not a fan of leaderboards, but a good idea nonetheless.
> > ALL of halo’s ranking systems have been combinations of skill + time played. ALL of them.
> >
> > This will not change in Halo 4. I guarantee it.
>
> Not necessarily, you could become a 50 in a small amount of time compared to what it takes to become an Inheritor in Reach.
>
> To become a General in Halo 3 (the highest rank), you need to be a 50 and have at least 600 XP.
> If each game is roughly ten minutes, that’s roughly 100 hours of gameplay, give or take from losses.
> In Reach, to reach Inheritor, that’s roughly 9,000 games, or 1500 hours of gameplay.
>
> In previous Halo titles, skill is more heavily weighed than time committed, as it should be.
Why are you ignoring the Arena ranks? You can get to onyx in (theoretically, depending on the rest of the population) as little as 20 games.
> Here’s my idea:
>
> We have a 1-50 Trueskill system in place for every playlist. This functions exactly as Halo 2/3 did.
>
> We also have EXP for a universal rank across all playlists. This also functions very similarly to Halo 3.
>
> On top of that, we have cR. Nobody can see them except for you. The only reason for them is buying armor.
You’ve just described Halo Reach’s system exactly apart from the TrueSkill in Reach is hidden.
Would something like… Arena style ranks in every playlist be pleasing?
> > > ALL of halo’s ranking systems have been combinations of skill + time played. ALL of them.
> > >
> > > This will not change in Halo 4. I guarantee it.
> >
> > Not necessarily, you could become a 50 in a small amount of time compared to what it takes to become an Inheritor in Reach.
> >
> > To become a General in Halo 3 (the highest rank), you need to be a 50 and have at least 600 XP.
> > If each game is roughly ten minutes, that’s roughly 100 hours of gameplay, give or take from losses.
> > In Reach, to reach Inheritor, that’s roughly 9,000 games, or 1500 hours of gameplay.
> >
> > In previous Halo titles, skill is more heavily weighed than time committed, as it should be.
>
> Why are you ignoring the Arena ranks? You can get to onyx in (theoretically, depending on the rest of the population) as little as 20 games.