Halo 5 hybrid ranks

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

I propose and I’m probably not the first, that Halo 5 has a hybrid of a true skill 1-50 ranking system and a progressive ranking system with actual military/navy ranks whatever is canonically correct not “SR 34”.

I happen to play a lot of anniversary classic slayer on reach and this playlist is in desperate need of a competitive ranking system. Now before you get the wrong idea, I don’t consider myself competitive but I do prefer the controlled, balanced, predictability of classic halo. And the pistol is my favourite weapon.

It’s annoying losing a game I deserved to win because of teammates who only want to fool around killing themselves. It’s annoying losing a game because you get matched against a team of 4 inheritors with a 3.5 KD each, and all your teammates quit ( I usually quit in this situation too). It’s boring beating people who have no interesting in winning or have no idea what they’re doing. It’s no fun going -18.

I think that it’s only logical (unless someone can give a convincing argument against it) that we see a return of a true skill ranking system and an end to unbalanced match ups.

Now for the second part. There are a lot of things I feel Halo Reach did right. (not everything of course) I think the ranks are good and I like the progressive ranking system. I’d like to see a return to unlocking armour through progressing in rank and unlocking certain achievements, although not achievements that require dumb luck. I’d prefer to earn credits to XP because I see no reason for the switch especially since they are really the same thing. Calling it credits was unique instead of copying other games that say XP. Credit jackpots > double XP weekend (that’s supposed to be a greater symbol not an arrow). And whats up with it taking a month to achieve SR 130?

To rap it up, I think Halo 5 should have a true skill ranking system that determines matches and a progressive ranking system for unlocks. Some people might argue that you could do away with the true skill ranking system and just have your progressive rank determine who you play with (legends play against legends, generals play against generals). But a progressive ranking system is not indicative of your actual skill at the game and it is possible to reach max rank and play poorly at the game compared to others who share your rank.

I’ve played very little Halo 3 and was to young to play halo 2 so if anybody could explain to me the specific details of how ranking up in those games works that’d be appreciated.

2

> I’ve played very little Halo 3 and was to young to play halo 2 so if anybody could explain to me the specific details of how ranking up in those games works that’d be appreciated.

It’s exactly as you expect it to be. You level up by winning. Although I hope they improve on the consequences of losing a match. I remember the days when you would win 30 matches and level up 3 ranks. But if you lose just ONE match you drop 4 ranks…it was pretty ridiculous.

3

With dedicated servers 343 have NO excuse at all to not put true skill ranking system with it visible in game.

4

> > I’ve played very little Halo 3 and was to young to play halo 2 so if anybody could explain to me the specific details of how ranking up in those games works that’d be appreciated.
>
> It’s exactly as you expect it to be. You level up by winning. Although I hope they improve on the consequences of losing a match. I remember the days when you would win 30 matches and level up 3 ranks. But if you lose just ONE match you drop 4 ranks…it was pretty ridiculous.

That was super annoying. I remember in Halo 3 I was going for brigadier and I won like 3 straight games of lone wolves, but the game decided that I was the one who was supposed to win so I didn’t rank up.

Then I play with people who are all ranked higher than I am and lose (go figure), but apparently Halo 3 expected me to win again so I dropped 2 levels or so.

I liked the 1-50, but it wasn’t perfect.

5

> I propose and I’m probably not the first, that Halo 5 has a hybrid of a true skill 1-50 ranking system and a progressive ranking system with actual military/navy ranks whatever is canonically correct not “SR 34”.
>
> I happen to play a lot of anniversary classic slayer on reach and this playlist is in desperate need of a competitive ranking system. Now before you get the wrong idea, I don’t consider myself competitive but I do prefer the controlled, balanced, predictability of classic halo. And the pistol is my favourite weapon.
>
> It’s annoying losing a game I deserved to win because of teammates who only want to fool around killing themselves. It’s annoying losing a game because you get matched against a team of 4 inheritors with a 3.5 KD each, and all your teammates quit ( I usually quit in this situation too). It’s boring beating people who have no interesting in winning or have no idea what they’re doing. It’s no fun going -18.
>
> I think that it’s only logical (unless someone can give a convincing argument against it) that we see a return of a true skill ranking system and an end to unbalanced match ups.
>
> Now for the second part. There are a lot of things I feel Halo Reach did right. (not everything of course) I think the ranks are good and I like the progressive ranking system. I’d like to see a return to unlocking armour through progressing in rank and unlocking certain achievements, although not achievements that require dumb luck. I’d prefer to earn credits to XP because I see no reason for the switch especially since they really the same thing. Calling it credits was unique instead of copying other games that say XP. Credit jackpots > double XP weekend. And whats up with it taking a month to achieve SR 130?
>
>
> To rap it up, I think Halo 5 should have a true skill ranking system that determines matches and a progressive ranking system for unlocks. Some people might argue that you could do away with the true skill ranking system and just have your progressive rank determine who you play with (legends play against legends, generals play against generals). But a progressive ranking system is not indicative of your actual skill at the game and it is possible to reach max rank and play poorly at the game compared to others who share your rank.
>
> I’ve played very little Halo 3 and was to young to play halo 2 so if anybody could explain to me the specific details of how ranking up in those games works that’d be appreciated.

The first part of your post describes basically every competitive game I play.

I don’t want to sound like a -Yoink-, but I consider myself good at video games. Most shooters I tend to have a 2.0 K/D or higher and I pride myself on not using weapons that I find broken or overpowered, but I digress.

I was actually playing Titanfall the other day and went 22-0 or 23-0 in a round of pilot hunter (team death match to 50 for those who don’t know).

Anyway, my team still lost the game 45-50 despite me getting almost half the points required to win. I remember I had a teammate who was like 1-12 and 2-8. In fact, I think I only had one teammate besides myself who went positive, but everyone else only got one or two kills.

I immediately just flew into a rage because this is my typical experience with shooters. No matter how well I do, the games just find the worst people to put me with. I have no doubt my team would have won if I had been given anywhere near half decent teammates.

I suppose it is my problem though. I’m very skeptical of people on the internet so I don’t really make friends online so I don’t have people to party up with because whenever my cousin and I play, we usually win.

On topic: it would be nice to have a closely matched system where there aren’t people who just drag the team down because they aren’t good or goof off, but I feel like there’s no way to fix it, only alleviate it.

6

I don’t know why this was ever removed. The true skill can ensure balanced game play across certain playlist. And the progressive ranks give incentive to keep playing the game even if you hit max true skill.

They’re both concepts that I hope become implemented back into Halo.

Halo 3 had it right. It wasn’t perfect, but it was good. True skill that gave you some what balanced games and progressive ranks. Actually 2 progressive ranks. Your overall rank and a rank in each playlist showing how much you’ve won in that playlist.

343i make it happen.

7

> > I’ve played very little Halo 3 and was to young to play halo 2 so if anybody could explain to me the specific details of how ranking up in those games works that’d be appreciated.
>
> It’s exactly as you expect it to be. You level up by winning. Although I hope they improve on the consequences of losing a match. I remember the days when you would win 30 matches and level up 3 ranks. But if you lose just ONE match you drop 4 ranks…it was pretty ridiculous.

I remember winning a match in Halo 3 and going down a level haha. I still prefer that to a boring progression system.

8

> > > I’ve played very little Halo 3 and was to young to play halo 2 so if anybody could explain to me the specific details of how ranking up in those games works that’d be appreciated.
> >
> > It’s exactly as you expect it to be. You level up by winning. Although I hope they improve on the consequences of losing a match. I remember the days when you would win 30 matches and level up 3 ranks. But if you lose just ONE match you drop 4 ranks…it was pretty ridiculous.
>
> I remember winning a match in Halo 3 and going down a level haha. I still prefer that to a boring progression system.

yeah, I don’t know how that works out. You would think that true skill would be calculated much the same way as your waypoint BPR in halo Reach which factors, win,losses,kills,deaths, and the amount of games you quit. So I don’t understand why you would win just to rank down that doesn’t make much sense

9

> > > > I’ve played very little Halo 3 and was to young to play halo 2 so if anybody could explain to me the specific details of how ranking up in those games works that’d be appreciated.
> > >
> > > It’s exactly as you expect it to be. You level up by winning. Although I hope they improve on the consequences of losing a match. I remember the days when you would win 30 matches and level up 3 ranks. But if you lose just ONE match you drop 4 ranks…it was pretty ridiculous.
> >
> > I remember winning a match in Halo 3 and going down a level haha. I still prefer that to a boring progression system.
>
> yeah, I don’t know how that works out. You would think that true skill would be calculated much the same way as your waypoint BPR in halo Reach which factors, win,losses,kills,deaths, and the amount of games you quit. So I don’t understand why you would win just to rank down that doesn’t make much sense

Halo 3’s system calculated the odds of whether or not you should win or lose based on your stats and those you were playing against.

If you were supposed to lose and won, you were more likely to move up and vice versa.

That is why some matches you wouldn’t go anywhere even if you won or lost. It was a weird system for sure, but it kept people coming back didn’t it? I would improve it though since that system could get very irritating.

10

I agree with the Op. We should have both. I also like that they want them to be separated. I do not ever want to step foot in a single ranked game, but I want to still progress as time goes on. I have never really cared about my TS rank and I do not see that changing. No amount of population charts, videos from MLG pros or Trilogy Elites bashing me are going to change my mind. I understand there are people on the opposite end of the spectrum compared to me as well. I see no problem in giving everyone what they want. I do not understand why this idea has not been brought up earlier (unless I missed it). People only think of Halo 2/3 or Reach/4 and have endless arguments with no compromises.