I saw that if you win in a game then you get alot of xp and if you complete a match objective then you also get alot of xp this means alot more people getting involved in actually winning matches which is great as i felt that reach drew away from that
what do you guys think?
It’s an okay start, though it remains to be seen if xp will matter and for how long. If it’s like reach credits, where you run out of things that you’d care about using them on fairly quickly… then getting more xp won’t matter and people might just care about their stats and go for those rather than winning.
Halo 3’s EXP system is far superior.
1 win = 1 EXP
1 loss = 0 EXP
Greatest incentive to win right there, as well as putting a much higher value on EXP. Seeing a player with 10,000+ legitimate EXP is impressive.
But AAA developing dictates that BIGGER numbers are better, like something shiny catching a simpletons attention .
I don’t care for it, it can only work if there is armor FOR EVERY LEVEL/RANK. The final rank would have to have a huge cool helmet or something.
> Halo 3’s EXP system is far superior.
>
> 1 win = 1 EXP
>
> 1 loss = 0 EXP
>
> Greatest incentive to win right there, as well as putting a much higher value on EXP. Seeing a player with 10,000+ legitimate EXP is impressive.
>
> But AAA developing dictates that BIGGER numbers are better, like something shiny catching a simpletons attention .
Halo 3’s exp system is inferior. Even though you may be doing really good in a match, your teammates could all suck. Which would lead to a loss and 0 EXP for you. You should rank up depending on how good you play, not how good your teammates play. Halo Reach matchmaking is 7 times better than Halo 3 matchmaking.
More objective play is always a good thing condenses the battle for more close quarters combat and now people will actually try to win. This could be a great thing in getting rid of players only going for kills.
> > Halo 3’s EXP system is far superior.
> >
> > 1 win = 1 EXP
> >
> > 1 loss = 0 EXP
> >
> > Greatest incentive to win right there, as well as putting a much higher value on EXP. Seeing a player with 10,000+ legitimate EXP is impressive.
> >
> > But AAA developing dictates that BIGGER numbers are better, like something shiny catching a simpletons attention .
>
> Halo 3’s exp system is inferior. Even though you may be doing really good in a match, your teammates could all suck. Which would lead to a loss and 0 EXP for you. You should rank up depending on how good you play, not how good your teammates play. Halo Reach matchmaking is 7 times better than Halo 3 matchmaking.
Huh? You can’t measure individual skill in a team game. Halo is a team game. Honestly, I would have preferred a halo 3 style system but with the option to create teams.
So a player could create a team with 3 other people and have exp count when they play together. The same player could set up another team for him and another buddy who are randomly put with 2 others, and have yet another team for just playing with 3 random players. So the exp would be broken down statistically between each team.
So if you are actually good and you know it’s the random teammates, then your rank would be significantly better on the team with your 3 friends.
Not a perfect system, but a million times better than reach.
> > Halo 3’s EXP system is far superior.
> >
> > 1 win = 1 EXP
> >
> > 1 loss = 0 EXP
> >
> > Greatest incentive to win right there, as well as putting a much higher value on EXP. Seeing a player with 10,000+ legitimate EXP is impressive.
> >
> > But AAA developing dictates that BIGGER numbers are better, like something shiny catching a simpletons attention .
>
> Halo 3’s exp system is inferior. Even though you may be doing really good in a match, your teammates could all suck. Which would lead to a loss and 0 EXP for you. You should rank up depending on how good you play, not how good your teammates play. Halo Reach matchmaking is 7 times better than Halo 3 matchmaking.
First, MM has nothing to do with the ranking system.
Second,if you want to be judged on individual performance, there is lone wolves, other wise Halo is a TEAM game. Rewarding nothing but the WIN makes players cooperate and try. You say Reach’s MM is better, yet I have never been betrayed so much for power weapons in my life. I have 42,000 games of Halo played and 1700 of them are in Reach, yet I have been betrayed for the sniper in Reach more than all the other games combined.
Third of all, people have selective memory. They remember all the times where their teammates lost it for them, but never when their teammates won it for them. It all averages out in the end, so that is an irrelevant “problem” with the system.
The benefits of creating the incentive to try and to cooperate far outweigh the negatives of not getting EXP every now and then when you do well but your team mates don’t. (which again is an irrelevant problem).
> > Halo 3’s EXP system is far superior.
> >
> > 1 win = 1 EXP
> >
> > 1 loss = 0 EXP
> >
> > Greatest incentive to win right there, as well as putting a much higher value on EXP. Seeing a player with 10,000+ legitimate EXP is impressive.
> >
> > But AAA developing dictates that BIGGER numbers are better, like something shiny catching a simpletons attention .
>
> Halo 3’s exp system is inferior. Even though you may be doing really good in a match, your teammates could all suck. Which would lead to a loss and 0 EXP for you. You should rank up depending on how good you play, not how good your teammates play. Halo Reach matchmaking is 7 times better than Halo 3 matchmaking.
I had to sign in just to tell you how wrong you are. Anyone, and I mean anyone can get to an Inheritor in Reach. It takes zero skill, just time. It’s catered for casuals. In Halo 3, it takes skill to get to a 50, you have to actually play and win to rank up. Halo 3’s ranking system will always be better than Reach’s system.
Unlocking weapons with credits just doesn’t seem like Halo to me. It goes against Halo’s most basic rule: all players have the same gear, it’s skill that determines the victor. I hope you can use any weapon you want in custom games and forge. I also don’t really like the whole matchmaking weapon system, how the weapons aren’t there at the beginning. I’m willing to keep an open mind (and if I like what I see, I’ll buy the game), but it just doesn’t feel like Halo so far. Anyone else agree?
> > > Halo 3’s EXP system is far superior.
> > >
> > > 1 win = 1 EXP
> > >
> > > 1 loss = 0 EXP
> > >
> > > Greatest incentive to win right there, as well as putting a much higher value on EXP. Seeing a player with 10,000+ legitimate EXP is impressive.
> > >
> > > But AAA developing dictates that BIGGER numbers are better, like something shiny catching a simpletons attention .
> >
> > Halo 3’s exp system is inferior. Even though you may be doing really good in a match, your teammates could all suck. Which would lead to a loss and 0 EXP for you. You should rank up depending on how good you play, not how good your teammates play. Halo Reach matchmaking is 7 times better than Halo 3 matchmaking.
>
> I had to sign in just to tell you how wrong you are. Anyone, and I mean anyone can get to an Inheritor in Reach. It takes zero skill, just time. It’s catered for casuals. In Halo 3, it takes skill to get to a 50, you have to actually play and win to rank up. Halo 3’s ranking system will always be better than Reach’s system.
http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=14414600
Technically, Halo 3’s TrueSkill system was nowhere near perfect either (I did like it better though, lol) because it interpreted wins as a “skill increase” and didn’t factor in quits or how well you actually performed in game.
> Trueskill DOES NOT take into evaluation performances inside the game. The ONLY statistics that Trueskill takes from a game are the Mu and Sigma values of all the players, and how you placed.
>
> This means that out of all of these statistics:
> Getting the MVP
> Having a High K/D ratio
> Getting the most medals
> Skill levels of those you killed / killed you
> Weapons you used
> Headshots
> Captures, detonations, stops, ousts, etc.
>
> NONE of them matter when calculating the Mu increase/decrease. Any link between any of these and the skill ratings are purely correlative and not causative.
Now, if 343 actually made a system that actually tracks skill, more power to them, but I think everyone should know TrueSkill isn’t true skill.
> Halo Reach matchmaking is 7 times better than Halo 3 matchmaking.
Hahahahahahahahah hold on I’m not done yet hahahaha. Reach was a fail compared to other Halos and everybody knows it. Where the hell have you been. Hahahahahahahahah Halo Reach better than Halo 3 hahahahaha.
Anyways I don’t think that this system is at all better than Halo 3’s nothing beats it.
> > > > Halo 3’s EXP system is far superior.
> > > >
> > > > 1 win = 1 EXP
> > > >
> > > > 1 loss = 0 EXP
> > > >
> > > > Greatest incentive to win right there, as well as putting a much higher value on EXP. Seeing a player with 10,000+ legitimate EXP is impressive.
> > > >
> > > > But AAA developing dictates that BIGGER numbers are better, like something shiny catching a simpletons attention .
> > >
> > > Halo 3’s exp system is inferior. Even though you may be doing really good in a match, your teammates could all suck. Which would lead to a loss and 0 EXP for you. You should rank up depending on how good you play, not how good your teammates play. Halo Reach matchmaking is 7 times better than Halo 3 matchmaking.
> >
> > I had to sign in just to tell you how wrong you are. Anyone, and I mean anyone can get to an Inheritor in Reach. It takes zero skill, just time. It’s catered for casuals. In Halo 3, it takes skill to get to a 50, you have to actually play and win to rank up. Halo 3’s ranking system will always be better than Reach’s system.
>
> http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=14414600
>
> Technically, Halo 3’s TrueSkill system was nowhere near perfect either (I did like it better though, lol) because it interpreted wins as a “skill increase” and didn’t factor in quits or how well you actually performed in game.
>
>
> > Trueskill DOES NOT take into evaluation performances inside the game. The ONLY statistics that Trueskill takes from a game are the Mu and Sigma values of all the players, and how you placed.
> >
> > This means that out of all of these statistics:
> > Getting the MVP
> > Having a High K/D ratio
> > Getting the most medals
> > Skill levels of those you killed / killed you
> > Weapons you used
> > Headshots
> > Captures, detonations, stops, ousts, etc.
> >
> > NONE of them matter when calculating the Mu increase/decrease. Any link between any of these and the skill ratings are purely correlative and not causative.
>
> Now, if 343 actually made a system that actually tracks skill, more power to them, but I think everyone should know TrueSkill isn’t true skill.
Making a system that actually tracks skill is insanely hard.
We try to do it in real life, with sports, yet there is endless debate on who is the greatest. (think MJ vs Kobe vs LeBron) Now an algorithm to interpreting stats in a video game to tell you actual skill would be quite the accomplishment.
Which is why win/loss is acceptable, since any beneficial “skill” will only go towards the win.
> > > > > Halo 3’s EXP system is far superior.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 win = 1 EXP
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 loss = 0 EXP
> > > > >
> > > > > Greatest incentive to win right there, as well as putting a much higher value on EXP. Seeing a player with 10,000+ legitimate EXP is impressive.
> > > > >
> > > > > But AAA developing dictates that BIGGER numbers are better, like something shiny catching a simpletons attention .
> > > >
> > > > Halo 3’s exp system is inferior. Even though you may be doing really good in a match, your teammates could all suck. Which would lead to a loss and 0 EXP for you. You should rank up depending on how good you play, not how good your teammates play. Halo Reach matchmaking is 7 times better than Halo 3 matchmaking.
> > >
> > > I had to sign in just to tell you how wrong you are. Anyone, and I mean anyone can get to an Inheritor in Reach. It takes zero skill, just time. It’s catered for casuals. In Halo 3, it takes skill to get to a 50, you have to actually play and win to rank up. Halo 3’s ranking system will always be better than Reach’s system.
> >
> > http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=14414600
> >
> > Technically, Halo 3’s TrueSkill system was nowhere near perfect either (I did like it better though, lol) because it interpreted wins as a “skill increase” and didn’t factor in quits or how well you actually performed in game.
> >
> >
> > > Trueskill DOES NOT take into evaluation performances inside the game. The ONLY statistics that Trueskill takes from a game are the Mu and Sigma values of all the players, and how you placed.
> > >
> > > This means that out of all of these statistics:
> > > Getting the MVP
> > > Having a High K/D ratio
> > > Getting the most medals
> > > Skill levels of those you killed / killed you
> > > Weapons you used
> > > Headshots
> > > Captures, detonations, stops, ousts, etc.
> > >
> > > NONE of them matter when calculating the Mu increase/decrease. Any link between any of these and the skill ratings are purely correlative and not causative.
> >
> > Now, if 343 actually made a system that actually tracks skill, more power to them, but I think everyone should know TrueSkill isn’t true skill.
>
> Making a system that actually tracks skill is insanely hard.
>
> We try to do it in real life, with sports, yet there is endless debate on who is the greatest. (think MJ vs Kobe vs LeBron) Now an algorithm to interpreting stats in a video game to tell you actual skill would be quite the accomplishment.
>
> Which is why win/loss is acceptable, since any beneficial “skill” will only go towards the win.
Unless you’re a skilled teamkiller.
> Halo 3’s EXP system is far superior.
>
> 1 win = 1 EXP
>
> 1 loss = 0 EXP
>
> Greatest incentive to win right there, as well as putting a much higher value on EXP. Seeing a player with 10,000+ legitimate EXP is impressive.
>
> But AAA developing dictates that BIGGER numbers are better, like something shiny catching a simpletons attention .
Now don’t get me wrong, I liked Halo 3’s ranking system better than Reach’s, but that might only be because I hadn’t reached as far as I could have on the rank scale before Reach came out.
In Halo 3’s system though, you’d work to get to a certain rank and one of two things would happen . . . you’d eventually get rank locked, or you’d get your 50. What happens after that? There isn’t really any incentive anymore except for your XP portion of the ranks but even that get’s old quickly.
Even in a progression system, players will eventually it a point where they have gotten everything in the Armory that they wanted, and ranking up becomes extremely slow. Then they don’t want to do anything anyway.
Both systems had their flaws, to be honest, although I never played Halo 2 on my own account, I like it’s ranking system because you were always working to keep it up.
To be honest when it comes to re-playability I think 343i hit the jackpot when they thought of Spartan Ops. Genius idea.
> > Halo 3’s EXP system is far superior.
> >
> > 1 win = 1 EXP
> >
> > 1 loss = 0 EXP
> >
> > Greatest incentive to win right there, as well as putting a much higher value on EXP. Seeing a player with 10,000+ legitimate EXP is impressive.
> >
> > But AAA developing dictates that BIGGER numbers are better, like something shiny catching a simpletons attention .
>
> In Halo 3’s system though, you’d work to get to a certain rank and one of two things would happen . . . you’d eventually get rank locked, or you’d get your 50. What happens after that? There isn’t really any incentive anymore except for your XP portion of the ranks but even that get’s old quickly.
Rank lock can be eliminated, or reduced to a less annoying degree. Regardless, if you truly got better you would rank up. I can get any account to level 50, because I am a true level 50.
And as for incentive if you do have a 50…I got my 50 17 days after Halo 3 came out and I still play it today.
I do agree, though that 50’s should be harder to obtain. It should be reserved for the best of the best. The skill gap in 50’s now is equivalent to the skill gap between a level a brig and a commander, or even worse.
> > > > > Halo 3’s EXP system is far superior.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 win = 1 EXP
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 loss = 0 EXP
> > > > >
> > > > > Greatest incentive to win right there, as well as putting a much higher value on EXP. Seeing a player with 10,000+ legitimate EXP is impressive.
> > > > >
> > > > > But AAA developing dictates that BIGGER numbers are better, like something shiny catching a simpletons attention .
> > > >
> > > > Halo 3’s exp system is inferior. Even though you may be doing really good in a match, your teammates could all suck. Which would lead to a loss and 0 EXP for you. You should rank up depending on how good you play, not how good your teammates play. Halo Reach matchmaking is 7 times better than Halo 3 matchmaking.
> > >
> > > I had to sign in just to tell you how wrong you are. Anyone, and I mean anyone can get to an Inheritor in Reach. It takes zero skill, just time. It’s catered for casuals. In Halo 3, it takes skill to get to a 50, you have to actually play and win to rank up. Halo 3’s ranking system will always be better than Reach’s system.
> >
> > http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=14414600
> >
> > Technically, Halo 3’s TrueSkill system was nowhere near perfect either (I did like it better though, lol) because it interpreted wins as a “skill increase” and didn’t factor in quits or how well you actually performed in game.
> >
> >
> > > Trueskill DOES NOT take into evaluation performances inside the game. The ONLY statistics that Trueskill takes from a game are the Mu and Sigma values of all the players, and how you placed.
> > >
> > > This means that out of all of these statistics:
> > > Getting the MVP
> > > Having a High K/D ratio
> > > Getting the most medals
> > > Skill levels of those you killed / killed you
> > > Weapons you used
> > > Headshots
> > > Captures, detonations, stops, ousts, etc.
> > >
> > > NONE of them matter when calculating the Mu increase/decrease. Any link between any of these and the skill ratings are purely correlative and not causative.
> >
> > Now, if 343 actually made a system that actually tracks skill, more power to them, but I think everyone should know TrueSkill isn’t true skill.
>
> Making a system that actually tracks skill is insanely hard.
>
> We try to do it in real life, with sports, yet there is endless debate on who is the greatest. (think MJ vs Kobe vs LeBron) Now an algorithm to interpreting stats in a video game to tell you actual skill would be quite the accomplishment.
>
> Which is why win/loss is acceptable, since any beneficial “skill” will only go towards the win.
Yeah, I know. I just always thought that TrueSkill was flawed because of in-game quitting and such, but I see your point. Still, it would amazing to see a true TrueSkill in a Halo game, though.
> > > Halo 3’s EXP system is far superior.
> > >
> > > 1 win = 1 EXP
> > >
> > > 1 loss = 0 EXP
> > >
> > > Greatest incentive to win right there, as well as putting a much higher value on EXP. Seeing a player with 10,000+ legitimate EXP is impressive.
> > >
> > > But AAA developing dictates that BIGGER numbers are better, like something shiny catching a simpletons attention .
> >
> > Halo 3’s exp system is inferior. Even though you may be doing really good in a match, your teammates could all suck. Which would lead to a loss and 0 EXP for you. You should rank up depending on how good you play, not how good your teammates play. Halo Reach matchmaking is 7 times better than Halo 3 matchmaking.
>
> Huh? You can’t measure individual skill in a team game. Halo is a team game. Honestly, I would have preferred a halo 3 style system but with the option to create teams.
>
> So a player could create a team with 3 other people and have exp count when they play together. The same player could set up another team for him and another buddy who are randomly put with 2 others, and have yet another team for just playing with 3 random players. So the exp would be broken down statistically between each team.
>
> So if you are actually good and you know it’s the random teammates, then your rank would be significantly better on the team with your 3 friends.
>
> Not a perfect system, but a million times better than reach.
in halo 3 if you did say amazing yet your team lost since they suck why should you not get awarded
this mean that you’ll get rewarded for doing good even if you lost but if you win you get a better bonus. its like an improvement upon reachs ranking system