The flaw with H3’s was if you had a lot of experience outside of the playlist you were trying to rank up in, the harder it was for you to rank up. However if you created a 2nd account, it was possible to rank up rather quickly if you only played one ranked playlist. I’ve heard as fast as 18 straight wins to go from 1-50.
The Arena system in reach would work IMO if the MM servers constantly paired you against player within a certain rating range (overall, not daily). That way the “top” players would always be battling each other for the high ranks in the playlists, with everyone else fighting against players there own skill, much like H3’s system.
Disclaimer to previous post. I DO NOT know the H3 ranking system formula. My opinion in the previous post is based on what i have read in other forums and personal experience. I apologize in advance if my evaluation of H3 ranking system is incorrect.
Your right on the Halo 3 ranking up, new accounts could do it real fast but if you had alot of experience you seemed to stay on one or tow levels and not move. If they made the rank so only you saw it maybe it would make boosters less inclined to boost, or not.
It was my understanding that the halo 4 ranking system would work in a way where you’d be able to rank up in different catergories, like the different parts of the military. This ranking would then give you specilisations at some point. I don’t know much detail and I only briefly remember this being mentioned online. Personaly it sounds like a cool system to me.
OT: They should bring back 1-50. I know they won’t, but it was a good system that was able to accurately display someone’s skill the overwhelming majority of the time. It’s “flaws” we’re negligible enough that the only players who seem to complain about the system all have one thing in common…no 50.
I wasn’t a 50 in H3, and i never felt the need to complain about how the system wasn’t fair, or how it it was running rampant with cheaters just because of my own shortcomings.
> This is in the wrong forum.
>
> OT: They should bring back 1-50. I know they won’t, but it was a good system that was able to accurately display someone’s skill the overwhelming majority of the time. It’s “flaws” we’re negligible enough that the only players who seem to complain about the system all have one thing in common…no 50.
>
> I wasn’t a 50 in H3, and i never felt the need to complain about how the system wasn’t fair, or how it it was running rampant with cheaters just because of my own shortcomings.
1-50 wasn’t so good : You get horrible teammates, you lose your playlist skill even if you go positive with 20+ kills per game.
> > This is in the wrong forum.
> >
> > OT: They should bring back 1-50. I know they won’t, but it was a good system that was able to accurately display someone’s skill the overwhelming majority of the time. It’s “flaws” we’re negligible enough that the only players who seem to complain about the system all have one thing in common…no 50.
> >
> > I wasn’t a 50 in H3, and i never felt the need to complain about how the system wasn’t fair, or how it it was running rampant with cheaters just because of my own shortcomings.
>
> 1-50 wasn’t so good : You get horrible teammates, you lose your playlist skill even if you go positive with 20+ kills per game.
Thats true for any win/loss based skill system. It’s a risk you run if you decide to go in solo. The same is true in Arena.
> > This is in the wrong forum.
> >
> > OT: They should bring back 1-50. I know they won’t, but it was a good system that was able to accurately display someone’s skill the overwhelming majority of the time. It’s “flaws” we’re negligible enough that the only players who seem to complain about the system all have one thing in common…no 50.
> >
> > I wasn’t a 50 in H3, and i never felt the need to complain about how the system wasn’t fair, or how it it was running rampant with cheaters just because of my own shortcomings.
>
> 1-50 wasn’t so good : You get horrible teammates, you lose your playlist skill even if you go positive with 20+ kills per game.
in the end though if you are good 50 will come naturally. I never once played on an account in Halo 3 that didn’t eventually get to 50 regardless of how much bad luck I had certain nights with random teammates.
1-50 was brilliant. We will probably never see a visible skill based ranking system ever again in our lifetime in a game anyone would care to play which is sad.
> This is in the wrong forum.
>
> OT: They should bring back 1-50. I know they won’t, but it was a good system that was able to accurately display someone’s skill the overwhelming majority of the time. It’s “flaws” we’re negligible enough that the only players who seem to complain about the system all have one thing in common…no 50.
>
> I wasn’t a 50 in H3, and i never felt the need to complain about how the system wasn’t fair, or how it it was running rampant with cheaters just because of my own shortcomings.
Also they’ve had plenty of time to come up with ideas to limit de-ranking/boosting. There will always be flaws but they could easily improve upon the Halo 3 system and we’d have a great ranking system.
in regards to the boosting/deranking, it never bother me because i refused never to play a playlist without a full team. Any boosted or De-ranking accounts only helped me when i played h3. And even if you cant get a team on, FFA (lone wolves) is one of the best way to improve your shooting and map placement. I seriously dont understand why 343/microsoft has a problem with boosted/deranking. The frequency of either of the two accounts happening when h3 was in its prime never showed to me. And if everyone just makes sure that they fill out their team with the required number of players for a playlist, the problem would solve itself.
This is just my opinion though, I dont claim to be able to see the future or anything like that.
> OT: They should bring back 1-50. I know they won’t, but it was a good system that was able to accurately display someone’s skill the overwhelming majority of the time. It’s “flaws” we’re negligible enough that the only players who seem to complain about the system all have one thing in common…no 50.
>
> I wasn’t a 50 in H3, and i never felt the need to complain about how the system wasn’t fair, or how it it was running rampant with cheaters just because of my own shortcomings.
The only real problem with the H3 1-50 system was the name. Calling it skill-based when it had nothing to do with skill. Especially individual skill. The formula calculates the statistical odds that you will be on the winning team. If you’re a 50 that just means you are way more statistically likely to be on the winning team than a 1. That’s why it’s so easy to manipulate, especially when it includes every game you play, be it SWAT or Grifball.
We don’t care if they bring back 1-50. Just don’t call it a skill-based rank.
halo without a trueskill ranking system is not halo anymore…
in halo reach you only need to play hours and hours to get the highest rank…and it s***s because if you have not enough time or if you want to play other games it is really hard to earn credits in order to buy some stuff in the armory…and furthermore it does not give an idea of your skill level…
i also recognize that in halo 3, playing legit, it was really hard to rank up until level 50…
i would suggest a triple ranking-up system:
a military degree system that show how much you play (you earn points just playng at halo 4)
a trueskill (0-50) system that show how you play (like in halo 3 if you win a lot you rank up…)
and credit earning system that allows you to purchase perks, armor abilities, weapons, armor customization and stuff like that…
at the end there will be players with: a lot of skill and not too much time spent on halo 4
a lot of skill and a lot of time spent on halo 4
a low skill level but a lot of time spent on halo 4
a low skill and not too much time spent on halo 4
but, earning enough credits, they all will be able to purchase cool stuff from the loadout section.
Personally i’d be fine with a 1-50 for each playlist, your halo reach ranking system so people have an overall idea of how much time you’ve put into it, and Your BPR as well. then i would be happy. i don’t however generally like the idea of only you being able to see your rank.
I absolutely think that there needs to be a skill-based aspect to the rank. Even if it is credit based, there is a way to make it work.
I thought that Halo 2 was phenomenal; challenging, competitive, exciting. I played it both before and after H3 came out. Afterwards, when a lot of the cheaters left due to lack of a population, it was the greatest game that there ever will be. The ranking system was complex enough to change based on who you were playing, but simple enough that it was easy to predict what your level would do.
MY SUGGESTION STARTS HERE:
In Halo 4, I think that the best compromise would be the use of a credit based system where the winning bonus was huge and there was also a DEDUCTION FOR LOSING. Those that play long enough will be able to level up so they don’t get stuck, and the people who win the majority of the games will increase their rank way more quickly. It allows the casual player to earn stuff over time, and the competitive player can watch their rank increase faster.
Obviously there still needs to be some variation of TruSkill for matchmaking, but I think it should work that way for the level that you see.
In case you don’t like to read, I labeled what I think should be implemented.
EDIT: The losing team would get the points that they earned, but if they lost, the total might drop from 500 xp to 100 xp. The winning team might go from 500 xp to 1000 xp.
The main problem is that people just care for the rank, not skill or fair games. Sorry, but rank is about so much more then a shiny 50, it’s about competitive games and fair games, about meeting equally skilled or better opponents to improve!
All you need is a system that lets you meet good opponents, aka working True Skill, then any “rank”/progression system to give winning a meaning. Even a pure exp system would do, win = 1 exp, loose = nothing, the rank itself shows if you can win or not in your “skill range” while the true skill gives you fair games no matter what progression rank you got.
Only thing you loose in such system is the ability to boost your self esteem by getting an easy 50, while you gain fair games, competitive games, no matter your true skill. It’s not about the number, it’s about the game.
Then again, those who just want another easy 50 will always ask for the 1-50 system back because it’s easy to use/abuse. Skilled players don’t care for such thing, they want good games instead. A 50 is fun for a week, but tight, well matched games for 3+ years is worth a lot more, to true gamers at least.
> > OT: They should bring back 1-50. I know they won’t, but it was a good system that was able to accurately display someone’s skill the overwhelming majority of the time. It’s “flaws” we’re negligible enough that the only players who seem to complain about the system all have one thing in common…no 50.
> >
> > I wasn’t a 50 in H3, and i never felt the need to complain about how the system wasn’t fair, or how it it was running rampant with cheaters just because of my own shortcomings.
>
> The only real problem with the H3 1-50 system was the name. Calling it skill-based when it had nothing to do with skill. Especially individual skill. The formula calculates the statistical odds that you will be on the winning team. If you’re a 50 that just means you are way more statistically likely to be on the winning team than a 1. That’s why it’s so easy to manipulate, especially when it includes every game you play, be it SWAT or Grifball.
>
> We don’t care if they bring back 1-50. Just don’t call it a skill-based rank.
WTF are you talking about? Did you web play Halo 3?
> > OT: They should bring back 1-50. I know they won’t, but it was a good system that was able to accurately display someone’s skill the overwhelming majority of the time. It’s “flaws” we’re negligible enough that the only players who seem to complain about the system all have one thing in common…no 50.
> >
> > I wasn’t a 50 in H3, and i never felt the need to complain about how the system wasn’t fair, or how it it was running rampant with cheaters just because of my own shortcomings.
>
> The only real problem with the H3 1-50 system was the name. Calling it skill-based when it had nothing to do with skill. Especially individual skill. The formula calculates the statistical odds that you will be on the winning team. If you’re a 50 that just means you are way more statistically likely to be on the winning team than a 1. That’s why it’s so easy to manipulate, especially when it includes every game you play, be it SWAT or Grifball.
>
> We don’t care if they bring back 1-50. Just don’t call it a skill-based rank.
WTF are you talking about? Did you even play Halo 3?
IMO, it should be based 100% on win/lose, but I also feel Halo 3’s is not the way to go because when I got to 47 in Halo 3, for example, I couldn’t move it any further.
I would literally win 4 games in a row, lose 1, win another 3, lose 1, and magically drop down to 46. I couldn’t get it to move up to 48, regardless of how well I was doing.
I feel that maybe a system similar to this will be pretty decent:
1-10
Progress if you win 1 out of every 3 games
11-20
Progress if you win 2 out of every 5 games
21-30
Progress if you win 1 out of every 2 games
31-40
Progress if you win 3 out of every 5 games
41-50
Progress if you win 2 out of every 3 games
(The actual total number of games required to advance will have to be determined by 343; I’m just speaking of the ratios)
