Now that the game is out and i’m SR-130 i wish the ranking system is was a lot more like Halo Reach than Halo 2/3.
What i don’t get is there are all these people on the forums bagging on the Halo2/3 ranking but yet everyone is saying how those two were the best games, were the most fun, had the best maps, had the players. So why are you contradicting yourself.
No worries everyone using Halo 4 forums will play Halo 4 for a few months regardless of how much we like it, but it’s just sad that after several months most of us will likely move on, as the majority of us did with Halo Reach. Whereas in Halo 2/3 players stuck around for years. A lot of people myself included still play Halo 3 because it was such a kick -Yoink!- game.
Also in Halo 2/3 winning actually meant something and with reach, in every objective gametype it was about who could farm the most noobs trying to play the game the way it’s supposed to be played.
I never even got to a skill of 50 in either Halo 2 or Halo 3 my best was only a 45, and i was very good at Halo Reach so I’m not complaining cause i wasn’t good nor because i am a Halo 3 tryhard.
I want a Halo 2 and 3 one.
Maybe the reason they’re doing something like Reach’s is because they don’t want people playing for that long? Because they may want to pump out Halo games every year like CoD?
> I want a Halo 2 and 3 one.
>
> Maybe the reason they’re doing something like Reach’s is because they don’t want people playing for that long? Because they may want to pump out Halo games every <mark>1 or 2 years</mark> like CoD?
*once a year
^ This is why I’ll be moving to Battlefield if Halo 4 isn’t to my liking. :3
EXP should equal your rank, True skill should equal you max rank.
EX:
100 Ranks,
Trueskill/BPR max = 100.
If your TS/BPR is 50, you can’t go past 50. (Unless you “day earn double the amount of exp to rank up” or something like that).
> I want a Halo 2 and 3 one.
>
> Maybe the reason they’re doing something like Reach’s is because they don’t want people playing for that long? Because they may want to pump out Halo games every 1 or 2 years like CoD?
pff, don’t be ridiculous. most good players could get a 50 in a day if they wanted. reach’s progression system required every player to put the time in, regardless of skill. which is why it got stale and boring, along with other gameplay factors.
> > I want a Halo 2 and 3 one.
> >
> > Maybe the reason they’re doing something like Reach’s is because they don’t want people playing for that long? Because they may want to pump out Halo games every 1 or 2 years like CoD?
>
> pff, don’t be ridiculous. most good players could get a 50 in a day if they wanted. reach’s progression system required every player to put the time in, regardless of skill. which is why it got stale and boring, along with other gameplay factors.
I’m sure some people probably could do that but you couldn’t just be good you had to be friggen awesome.
I liked halo 3 ranking better.halo reach get a bit boring after a bit.
> > I want a Halo 2 and 3 one.
> >
> > Maybe the reason they’re doing something like Reach’s is because they don’t want people playing for that long? Because they may want to pump out Halo games every <mark>1 or 2 years</mark> like CoD?
>
> *once a year
>
> ^ This is why I’ll be moving to <mark>Battlefield</mark> if Halo 4 isn’t to my liking. :3
Ironic since EA has been pulling a Activision with BF3 and MoH for awhile.
BF: BC2- early 2010
MoH- late 2010
BF3- late 2011
MoH: WF- late 2012
BF4- late 2013/early 2014
BF3 goes through a two-year development cycle just like a CoD game, but their interaction with Danger Close using Frostbite engine to develop their games mirrors Infinity Ward and Treyarch releasing their games in intervals.
@omegas battlefield comment:
people just like to complain. the same people that say they hate reach are novas and forerunners if not inheritors. people will play halo 4, and they will say they hate it, but they will play it anyway.
> I want a Halo 2 and 3 one.
>
> Maybe the reason they’re doing something like Reach’s is because they don’t want people playing for that long? Because they may want to pump out Halo games every year like CoD?
they’ve already explained that the 1-50 type ranking found in Halo 2/3 often lead to cheating. There is also a website describing in full detail why the 1-50 system is broken. 343 took the initiative and went with the more sound ranking system rather than risk it with the Halo 2/3 one
> @omegas battlefield comment:
>
> people just like to complain. the same people that say they hate reach are novas and forerunners if not inheritors. people will play halo 4, and they will say they hate it, but they will play it anyway.
Because we love Halo, it takes more than one bad game to make Halo fans quit on Halo. It’s one of the best game series’s out there.
There is a major problem to your comparison : They are 2 entirely different things.
Reach, and Halo 4’s Progression system NEVER was a reflection of trueskill at any point in either game’s lifetime. You can forge your way to Max rank if you wanted to, and is shared throughout every playlist.
Halo 2/3 was based on wins and losses on that specific playlist. Your rank in there does not carry over to other playlists, regardless of how similar they are.
There is technically nothing wrong with a progression ranking system itself. There is nothing wrong with a ranking system either. However, it is much harder to make a good ranking system when there is absolutely no moderators keeping the community in check.
> > @omegas battlefield comment:
> >
> > people just like to complain. the same people that say they hate reach are novas and forerunners if not inheritors. people will play halo 4, and they will say they hate it, but they will play it anyway.
>
> Because we love Halo, it take more than one bad game to make Halo fans quit on Halo. It’s one of the best game series out there.
I understand the meaning
it’s Omeggos, BTW
But Reach was never a bad game in my opinion. I found it to be more enjoyable than Halo 3 to be honest, but not as amazing as Halo 2.
> > I want a Halo 2 and 3 one.
> >
> > Maybe the reason they’re doing something like Reach’s is because they don’t want people playing for that long? Because they may want to pump out Halo games every year like CoD?
>
> they’ve already explained that the 1-50 type ranking found in Halo 2/3 often lead to cheating. There is also a website describing in full detail why the 1-50 system is broken. 343 took the initiative and went with the more sound ranking system rather than risk it with the Halo 2/3 one
Oh so a ranking system we’ve used for 2 games is risky? And who cares about Cheaters? There will always be hackers and cheaters in multiplayer games, this won’t stop them. Sound logic.
You can’t compare the halo 3 trueskill ranking system to the progression system because they are not the same thing.
> There is a major problem to your comparison : They are 2 entirely different things.
>
> Reach, and Halo 4’s Progression system NEVER was a reflection of trueskill at any point in either game’s lifetime. You can forge your way to Max rank if you wanted to, and is shared throughout every playlist.
>
> <mark>Halo 2</mark>/3 was based on wins and losses on that specific playlist. Your rank in there does not carry over to other playlists, regardless of how similar they are.
>
> There is technically nothing wrong with a progression ranking system itself. There is nothing wrong with a ranking system either. However, it is much harder to make a good ranking system when there is absolutely no moderators keeping the community in check.
Halo 2’s was a bit more specific to detail. You got invisible EXP based on the position you held rather than if you purely won or not.
> You can’t compare the halo 3 trueskill ranking system to the progression system because they are not the same thing.
Yeah let’s compare two things that are exactly the same that makes perfect sense, you certainly can compare two things that are different.
> > You can’t compare the halo 3 trueskill ranking system to the progression system because they are not the same thing.
>
> Yeah let’s compare two things that are exactly the same that makes perfect sense, you certainly can compare two things that are different.
You don’t compare trueskill to the progression system, because they don’t achieve the same goal. You compare two different styles of progression systems or two different styles of trueskill that aren’t the same but try to achieve the same end result.
From your logic you don’t compare a Mercedes to a Lexus (because they are both cars). You compare a Mercedes to a Cheeseburger.
> EXP should equal your rank, True skill should equal you max rank.
>
> EX:
> 100 Ranks,
> Trueskill/BPR max = 100.
>
> If your TS/BPR is 50, you can’t go past 50. (Unless you “day earn double the amount of exp to rank up” or something like that).
Wtf that limited. If you SUCK at using ARs (I don’'t know if thats possible but still) you’re going to be stuck with that AR forever because you can’t rank up.
> > > You can’t compare the halo 3 trueskill ranking system to the progression system because they are not the same thing.
> >
> > Yeah let’s compare two things that are exactly the same that makes perfect sense, you certainly can compare two things that are different.
>
> You don’t compare trueskill to the progression system, because they don’t achieve the same goal. You compare two different styles of progression systems or two different styles of trueskill that aren’t the same but try to achieve the same end result.
>
> From your logic you don’t compare a Mercedes to a Lexus (because they are both cars). You compare a Mercedes to a Cheeseburger.
I was simply stating you could compare two things that aren’t the same, besides two forms of ranking are basically the same as two cars, not exactly the same but close enough to compare.