Halo 4 Ranking System

Now I understand that many people like the way Reach levels players up. I for one really enjoyed the 1 to 50 system. I miss the old halo ranking system. I loved the feeling of getting that new rank!!! Now I just feel as though it’s just another rank and a few more credits…

I think that there should be a way to have the 1-50 ranking structure and maybe even the halo reach ranking structure as well. We could have a Ranked playlist with the 1-50 and a social Playlist with the Reach structure.

These are just my thoughts. I just miss the 1-50 structure.

I see no reason why a ranking system cannot be implemented in Reach and/or Halo 4. It gave the game more competition and more fun in my opinion. All we really need is for there to be a Ranked TS, TO, DT, and BTB playlist and I would be perfectly content… I also think it would bring a lot of the ‘older’ halo crowd back as well.

Agreed. Halo Reach doesn’t really have a true competetive side in my opinion. Some people may bring that argument to the table that the Arena is considered a competetive playlist but I just don’t like how it is set up. I really enjoyed the 1-50.

I disagree, in Halo 3 I got to level 40 in TS, and I lost the next game and it reduced me to 39. I HATE THAT. And when your set up with bad or mediocre players, it ruins the “team” feeling in Halo. And I would hold up the team with my kills and that’s not fair for me.

I liked the Reach ranking system, because I felt more compelled to work harder for my rank. In Halo 3, I would fool around because I didn’t care for ranks in that game, because of it’s lame system. I’m a skilled player who should be put up with and against players of skill.

Halo 4 should be a hybrid of both systems, ranks went from 1-50, but you need a certain amount of credits (or whatever new currency) to get from level 8 to 9 or 20 to 21.

I don’t mind numbered ranks, rank 23 Captain grade 2, but I don’t want to earn XP anymore to level up. Credits worked, but the ranks sucked in Reach (not that I disliked the fake ranks, but their was no general). But Reach encouraged me to care about my rank, and now I do.

without the rank displayed by my gamertag i dont have that sense of achievement as i would have in h3.

> I disagree, in Halo 3 I got to level 40 in TS, and I lost the next game and it reduced me to 39. I HATE THAT.

How can you possibly consider immediate feedback rather than “once per day” to be worse?
You will rank down if you lose in Arena just the same as H3, only the system is slower to update.
And if you lose, you deserve to rank down anyway.

> And when your set up with bad or mediocre players, it ruins the “team” feeling in Halo. And I would hold up the team with my kills and that’s not fair for me.

If you only got a 40 then no, you weren’t “holding up the team.” You got the rank you deserved, you’re just looking for an excuse by blaming the system.

> I liked the Reach ranking system, because I felt more compelled to work harder for my rank. In Halo 3, I would fool around because I didn’t care for ranks in that game, because of it’s lame system.

The system is exactly the same, the only thing that is different is the way in which it’s displayed.
H3 showed your trueskill rounded to a max of 50 and Reach shows your trueskill in relation to the rest of the population.

You are arguing about two systems when you clearly have no idea how they work. We don’t need ignorant people like you spreading rubbish feedback to 343. Until you actually know all the facts, you should just stop posting.

> I’m a skilled player who should be put up with and against players of skill.

H3 did a much better job of giving you even matches than Reach does. Why do you think your K/D is so much better in Reach? It’s not because you improved but simply that your opponents in Reach are much worse than anyone you matched in H3.

Something that shows me how good I am and not just how much I’ve played because the two are not the same.

> I disagree, in Halo 3 I got to level 40 in TS, and I lost the next game and it reduced me to 39. I HATE THAT. And when your set up with bad or mediocre players, it ruins the “team” feeling in Halo. And I would hold up the team with my kills and that’s not fair for me.
>
> I liked the Reach ranking system, because I felt more compelled to work harder for my rank. In Halo 3, I would fool around because I didn’t care for ranks in that game, because of it’s lame system. I’m a skilled player who should be put up with and against players of skill.
>
> Halo 4 should be a hybrid of both systems, ranks went from 1-50, but you need a certain amount of credits (or whatever new currency) to get from level 8 to 9 or 20 to 21.
>
> I don’t mind numbered ranks, rank 23 Captain grade 2, but I don’t want to earn XP anymore to level up. Credits worked, but the ranks sucked in Reach (not that I disliked the fake ranks, but their was no general). But Reach encouraged me to care about my rank, and now I do.

This. I would carry my team every game but because I got stuck with bad kids and my friends didn’t care about their ranks. I got stuck as a Staff Captain. Just because my team mates suck doesn’t mean I need to be seen as bad.

> Now I understand that many people like the way Reach levels players up. I for one really enjoyed the 1 to 50 system. I miss the old halo ranking system. I loved the feeling of getting that new rank!!! Now I just feel as though it’s just another rank and a few more credits…
>
> I think that there should be a way to have the 1-50 ranking structure and maybe even the halo reach ranking structure as well. We could have a Ranked playlist with the 1-50 and a social Playlist with the Reach structure.
>
> These are just my thoughts. I just miss the 1-50 structure.

I believe that in Halo 4 the games of classification need from the 1-50, since towards in Halo 2, if odmito is fustrante to go down level but, when you manage to raise to a level that really you cost feels very well and does that the game mas competitive for that the moyoria wants to rise and the social ones that are of ranked, since now in Halo Reach but only that you face those of the same ranked. It make that lists them of game they were better and to the pleasure of all ;D

> > I disagree, in Halo 3 I got to level 40 in TS, and I lost the next game and it reduced me to 39. I HATE THAT.
>
> How can you possibly consider immediate feedback rather than “once per day” to be worse?
> You will rank down if you lose in Arena just the same as H3, only the system is slower to update.
> And if you lose, you deserve to rank down anyway.
>
>
>
>
> > And when your set up with bad or mediocre players, it ruins the “team” feeling in Halo. And I would hold up the team with my kills and that’s not fair for me.
>
> If you only got a 40 then no, you weren’t “holding up the team.” You got the rank you deserved, you’re just looking for an excuse by blaming the system.
>
>
>
>
> > I liked the Reach ranking system, because I felt more compelled to work harder for my rank. In Halo 3, I would fool around because I didn’t care for ranks in that game, because of it’s lame system.
>
> The system is exactly the same, the only thing that is different is the way in which it’s displayed.
> H3 showed your trueskill rounded to a max of 50 and Reach shows your trueskill in relation to the rest of the population.
>
> You are arguing about two systems when you clearly have no idea how they work. We don’t need ignorant people like you spreading rubbish feedback to 343. Until you actually know all the facts, you should just stop posting.
>
>
>
>
> > I’m a skilled player who should be put up with and against players of skill.
>
> H3 did a much better job of giving you even matches than Reach does. Why do you think your K/D is so much better in Reach? It’s not because you improved but simply that your opponents in Reach are much worse than anyone you matched in H3.

Wow, another troll who has also taken form of a -Yoink-. You’ve never played with me or against me, so don’t criticize me with your pathetic comments.

You want to say something rude, then go to your parents and ask them “why didn’t you a$$hole$ teach me manners!?”

I have the right to give feedback on game game that probably means more to me than you. I’ve observed how things go and circulate through this game, throughout the years. “Trueskill” was an added feature that was released after Halo 3’s initial release, maybe you are the one that needs to chill and let us real gamers do our thing.

And the people that played H3 migrated to Reach, and simply alternate games here and there, so my “K/D” (which real gamers like myself don’t care about) is maybe better or the same. Like I said, I’m a skilled gamer and I play for competition and fun. My skill could only get better.

So watch your mouth next time you criticize someone who is most likely better than you and knows the game more efficiently than you troll.

Okay guys let’s be civil lol! I’m just really in to the 1-50 system. That is why I go back and play Halo 3 so much. I love trying to rank up. Yes I rank down many times but that just motivates me even more to push forward and try to level up again. I believe they should have a “Ranked Playlist” with the 1-50 system and a “Social Playlist” with a more halo reach style ranking structure.

NOTE: A person would be able to gain credits from all game playlists. These credits would go towards the armor and such.

> Now I understand that many people like the way Reach levels players up. I for one really enjoyed the 1 to 50 system. I miss the old halo ranking system. I loved the feeling of getting that new rank!!! Now I just feel as though it’s just another rank and a few more credits…
>
> I think that there should be a way to have the 1-50 ranking structure and maybe even the halo reach ranking structure as well. We could have a Ranked playlist with the 1-50 and a social Playlist with the Reach structure.
>
> These are just my thoughts. I just miss the 1-50 structure.

So: Remove 58 additional ranks to further seperate good and bad players and remove the additional meaning by ranking players against each other rather than some yardstick?

Doesn’t sound very good.

Halo2 & 3’s ranking just sucked balls. It was far too easy to get bunked down due to terrible team-mates or a simple mistake. It was also far too easy to abuse. Granted jerks still abuse Reach’s rankings, but at least it isn’t done as often/bad as in past Halo games.

I like that we level up either due to our own experiance or credits. It gives me a sence of having control without really giving it. The only thing I would like to see concerning ranks is that players never be bitted with/agenst high levels. I just started playing online again and was teamed up with low ranked and lousey players constently. Even worse, the other team always seemed to have much higher ranks on their team. I just made Field Marshell and it’s pitting me agenst teams of Reclaimers?!! Come On! It’s not fair to my (random) low ranked team-mates nor to me. Needless to say I keep getting slaughtered until the teams are finally balanced out…4 + Hours Later!!!
I also don’t think Credits should determin a player’s rank. Even cheaters get credits for playing agenst their team. If anything it incourages jerks to betray, quit, or idel. Why wouldn’t they? It’s not like they have to do anything to level up.

Like I said, I like the Credit system. It gives me a since of accomplishment. However, I don’t like that it also levels lousey players up or give jerks reason to be…well jerks.

Personally, I feel Halo4’s MP ranking should be completely seperate Credits. I also feel players should NEVER be teamed with/agenst someone 2+ ranks/skills higher then they are. Keep the current ranks for Halo4 but wide their true rank. Keep it internal so jerks can’t target normal players.

Example: If I play Frankie, I don’t want to see he’s a level 50/Reclaimer while I’m a 35/Field Marshal. It’s incredibly depressing. If I don’t see it, then I have no choice but to assume he’s either better or cheating. Of course, with him being such a high rank, I should never play him to begin with.

BUT I DO WANT TO SEE MY RANK!

I’d like to see a mix of Halo 2 and Reach. Have the military rank to show how much actual experience you have with the game (how long you’ve played), and a number (1-50) right beside that to show your actual skill with the game.

LMAO at all the people saying they didn’t get the rank they deserve due to team mates.

CypressSmurf, your ranked K/D is 1.17 with 1000 games played. That means on average you get 1.17 kills for every death. You are performing a little better than your peers, but hardly “holding up the team.” You are perhaps a few levels short of what you deserve, which in reality does not make the much of a difference.

NILLOC 916, it is pretty much the same exact situation with you as you have a 1.18 K/D.

SEspider, you however, have a .96 K/D which means you are performing a little below your peers. You are perhaps have too high of a level.

It looks to me like TrueSkill is doing a decent job placing you guys where you deserve to give the fairest matches.

> I have the right to give feedback on game game that probably means more to me than you. I’ve observed how things go and circulate through this game, throughout the years. “Trueskill” was an added feature that was released after Halo 3’s initial release

That is simply false. TrueSkill (which was developed by a team of mathematicians) was around before Halo 3’s release, and Bungie used a modified version of it right from the start.

If you are going to bash other people for being ignorant, don’t be a hypocrite.

> rage rage rage

You post misinformation about a system which you don’t even understand and I’m the troll? “Ok.”

> LMAO at all the people saying they didn’t get the rank they deserve due to team mates.
>
> CypressSmurf, your ranked K/D is 1.17 with 1000 games played. That means on average you get 1.17 kills for every death. You are performing a little better than your peers, but hardly “holding up the team.” You are perhaps a few levels short of what you deserve, which in reality does not make the much of a difference.
>
> NILLOC 916, it is pretty much the same exact situation with you as you have a 1.18 K/D.
>
> SEspider, you however, have a .96 K/D which means you are performing a little below your peers. You are perhaps have too high of a level.
>
> It looks to me like TrueSkill is doing a decent job placing you guys where you deserve to give the fairest matches.

This.

Cypress, you averaged 10 kills per game and just barely managed to go positive… in what world is that “holding up your team?” You’re delusional.

Honestly, you were lucky to even get a 40 in the first place (hence why you weren’t able to keep it).

The current system serves nobody’s interest. Why? Because in the long term, games are more fun when both sides competing are approximately equal. Although there is a hidden trueskill in Reach, it is not the highest priority when matching teams–time is. I would rather sit in a playlist searching for a match for an extra 2, 3, 5 minutes, or realize that there’s nobody that can compete even searching in that playlist right now, then get in matches that don’t challenge me. Only Arena offers any kind of consistent competition. In previous Halos, any ranked playlist would allow you to compete against players at or above your level. In Reach, there is only one Ranked playlist: Arena–and its typically low population creates a suboptimal experience anyways.

But the truth is, a game needs to have a big player base to make the strict 1-50 ranking system successful in providing a good matchmaking experience. And the fact seems to be that Reach does not have that player base. Reach’s playlist population numbers are much smaller than Halo 3’s. The question is, is it the bad matchmaking system that pushed people away, or did they just never get into the game in the first place? I don’t know, because I’d need to compare Reach’s early population numbers–which I seem to remember being told were “skewed by flawed data reporting” or something like that–to its current numbers. Which came first–the chicken or the egg? It’s the game’s creators that have the responsibility to find the answer and solve the problem, whether it was unsuccessful marketing or flawed gameplay.

For all the flaws in the 1-50 system (boosters, cheaters, rank elitism, etc.), the good outweighed the bad. It created intensely competitive matches that allowed players of any skill to play on an even field most of the time without looking to external sources like Gamebattles. Bring visible 1-50 back for Halo 4, or at the very least don’t let your “Competitive” playlist hoppers match players with Trueskill in the top 5% get matched with players with Trueskill in the lowest 25%. Second accounters may have been able to play a few games against lower ranked players at the beginnings or their new accounts, but now people don’t even need second accounts to play against players that they can dominate. As a result, these new players get discouraged by matchmaking that is frequently utterly uneven, and they move on to other games, which loses the company future customers and which loses the game its current and future player base.

> The current system serves nobody’s interest. Why? Because in the long term, games are more fun when both sides competing are approximately equal. Although there is a hidden trueskill in Reach, it is not the highest priority when matching teams–time is. I would rather sit in a playlist searching for a match for an extra 2, 3, 5 minutes, or realize that there’s nobody that can compete even searching in that playlist right now, then get in matches that don’t challenge me. Only Arena offers any kind of consistent competition. In previous Halos, any ranked playlist would allow you to compete against players at or above your level. In Reach, there is only one Ranked playlist: Arena–and its typically low population creates a suboptimal experience anyways.
>
> But the truth is, a game needs to have a big player base to make the strict 1-50 ranking system successful in providing a good matchmaking experience. And the fact seems to be that Reach does not have that player base. Reach’s playlist population numbers are much smaller than Halo 3’s. The question is, is it the bad matchmaking system that pushed people away, or did they just never get into the game in the first place? I don’t know, because I’d need to compare Reach’s early population numbers–which I seem to remember being told were “skewed by flawed data reporting” or something like that–to its current numbers. Which came first–the chicken or the egg? It’s the game’s creators that have the responsibility to find the answer and solve the problem, whether it was unsuccessful marketing or flawed gameplay.
>
> For all the flaws in the 1-50 system (boosters, cheaters, rank elitism, etc.), the good outweighed the bad. It created intensely competitive matches that allowed players of any skill to play on an even field most of the time without looking to external sources like Gamebattles. Bring visible 1-50 back for Halo 4, or at the very least don’t let your “Competitive” playlist hoppers match players with Trueskill in the top 5% get matched with players with Trueskill in the lowest 25%. Second accounters may have been able to play a few games against lower ranked players at the beginnings or their new accounts, but now people don’t even need second accounts to play against players that they can dominate. As a result, these new players get discouraged by matchmaking that is frequently utterly uneven, and they move on to other games, which loses the company future customers and which loses the game its current and future player base.

Spot on brother. There’s no way I’m letting this go. I’ll fight this tooth and nail! Please sign this petition and share it with your friends who also care: http://www.change.org/petitions/343-industries-bring-back-the-1-50-ranking-system-that-made-halo-great

> The current system serves nobody’s interest. Why? Because in the long term, games are more fun when both sides competing are approximately equal. Although there is a hidden trueskill in Reach, it is not the highest priority when matching teams–time is. I would rather sit in a playlist searching for a match for an extra 2, 3, 5 minutes, or realize that there’s nobody that can compete even searching in that playlist right now, then get in matches that don’t challenge me. Only Arena offers any kind of consistent competition. In previous Halos, any ranked playlist would allow you to compete against players at or above your level. In Reach, there is only one Ranked playlist: Arena–and its typically low population creates a suboptimal experience anyways.
>
> But the truth is, a game needs to have a big player base to make the strict 1-50 ranking system successful in providing a good matchmaking experience. And the fact seems to be that Reach does not have that player base. Reach’s playlist population numbers are much smaller than Halo 3’s. The question is, is it the bad matchmaking system that pushed people away, or did they just never get into the game in the first place? I don’t know, because I’d need to compare Reach’s early population numbers–which I seem to remember being told were “skewed by flawed data reporting” or something like that–to its current numbers. Which came first–the chicken or the egg? It’s the game’s creators that have the responsibility to find the answer and solve the problem, whether it was unsuccessful marketing or flawed gameplay.
>
> For all the flaws in the 1-50 system (boosters, cheaters, rank elitism, etc.), the good outweighed the bad. It created intensely competitive matches that allowed players of any skill to play on an even field most of the time without looking to external sources like Gamebattles. Bring visible 1-50 back for Halo 4, or at the very least don’t let your “Competitive” playlist hoppers match players with Trueskill in the top 5% get matched with players with Trueskill in the lowest 25%. Second accounters may have been able to play a few games against lower ranked players at the beginnings or their new accounts, but now people don’t even need second accounts to play against players that they can dominate. As a result, these new players get discouraged by matchmaking that is frequently utterly uneven, and they move on to other games, which loses the company future customers and which loses the game its current and future player base.

Yeah, well said.

Just from my experiences, I would agree that the lack of proper ranking/matching had a huge impact to the population. Just under half my friend’s list stopped playing because they were just bored of stomping on guests all day. It’s not fun!

For the rest, it was the huge gameplay changes which drew them away… obviously a new game needs new elements in order to sell, but Reach took this way too far and changed the entire flow of the game. Even the player movement itself feels completely different from Halo.

Now of course the population will probably go down a bit after so many games, but the poor execution of Reach propelled this degradation forward… and that’s really sad because probably 80% of the issues were pointed out as far back as the original Beta.

The competitive community has known all along what would hold back Reach, as they truly understand the game and what it is that draws fans towards Halo. Yet here we are a year later and 343 is trapped in this position in which they do not want to drive away those who came to be accustomed to Reach. I believe that Reach at its core is a good game and could have been saved before it was even released, but it seems that Bungie just wanted to get it shipped out the door and end finish their contract as soon as possible.