How I feel the ranking system should work

Ok I’m not going to go over why I think the ranking system has to be better in Halo 5 because we all know this. This is just a suggestion as to how it should be implemented. Ok I feel that the ranking system should be broken down into three completely separate styles: casual rank, skill/competitive rank, and a clan rank. Each style will take the best of previous ranking systems (Halo2, Halo3, and Reach) and put them together to make one amazing ranking system that will cater to all Halo players.

Casual Rank
I feel the casual rank should take from what reach did and combine it with Halo3’s causal ranking system. What made Reach’s ranking system good (in my opinion) was just the sheer length of it. It took forever to reach max rank. This is a good thing because it always gave you the feeling of accomplishment after each game months and months after the game came out. This was something Halo4 was lacking, most people reached max rank 1-2 months after launch. Now what Halo3’s casual ranking system did right was that it was based around winning. If you won you got an exp point, if you lost you received nothing. This I feel heavily influenced how the game played, especially when the game first came out. Everyone, regardless of the game type, went all out for the win. No one cared about K/D ratios, people cared about winning. Even if they weren’t good at the game people would still go for the oddball, or for the flag, and try to work together to win. Because winning was the difference between ranking up or staying the same rank. So how I would put all of this together is by having the longevity of Reach’s ranking system and the winning aspect from Halo3. For example at the end of the game you would receive 1000 points for winning, a rank between 1-1000 based on your in-game performance, a 5000 point bonus for winning (it would be 0 for losing obviously), and finally a slot machine point counter. Also there will be a bonus for winning streaks. Every 3 wins in a row will add a 1.5x multiplier to your overall post game score. So yes you will still rank up if you lose game after game after game. However it will just make way more sense go for the win.

Skill/Competitive Rank
The skill rank should be similar to Halo2 and Halo3’s skill based ranking system. 1-50 for each playlist, however I want it to be extremely difficult like Halo2’s ranking system was. There should also be an in game way of checking how close you are to achieving the next rank, similar to that little blue bar that was in Halo2 but better. It should be based on winning and losing strictly (except Lone wolves; 1st and 2nd place is winning), no individual ranking. Also I don’t want people to be able to jump ranks. If you’re a level 1 and you play in a lobby full of lvl 4’s and win, the most you could rank up to is to level 2. So let’s say you get a 5 point standard for winning a game, and little bonuses based on how much better or worse you are compared to your opponents. You are a level one and you need a total of 5 points (the winning standard) to achieve level 2. However like I said before you receive bonuses because you won in a lobby full of lvl 4’s. In this case since by winning you received the necessary amount to rank up just for winning (5 points) all of those extra points received for winning would be void ( if they weren’t they would probably cause you to reach level 3). I hope I explained it in a way that’s understandable. I also want the ranks to be displayed in game (on the person’s service record) so people can feel good about the fact that they just grinded out a 50 in team snipers by showing it off. And it will not only show their highest skill achieved, but all of their skill ranks (similar to how Halo4’s CSR rank is displayed on Waypoint) from each playlist. In addition to bragging rights for achieving a 50 you will also be rewarded with a playlist specific stance. So for example if you achieve a 50 in Team snipers, you will unlock a stance that shows you’re your Spartan holding a sniper aimed at the screen or something. Team objective would have him holding a flag and maybe team doubles would have him aiming two pistols at the screen. This will let people know right away that you are a 50 in the lobby (which I feel should go back to Halo reach’s user interface) and is just a cool way of showing it off.

Clan Rank
Clans are something that Halo has never really implemented properly into their games. Halo2 had it but it really never served any purpose, it was just there. I feel it should work kind of similar to Reach’s arena ranking system. Every month will be a season and after every season it will be a fresh start. Ok once a group of people makes their clan (Max amount of players: 8, Min amount of players: 4) they will have to play at least 8 games. After each game they will receive a rank as a team based on how well they performed. The rank will be based on whether or not they won, how much they won by, how fast they won, and whatever other things 343 can think of. After you finish 8 games you will be placed in one of 6 divisions based on your clan’s average rank: tin (you get this rank for just entering), bronze (top 75%), silver (top 50%), gold (top 25%), onyx (top 10%), and diamond (top 3%). Once you are placed it will be a battle to either stay in your division or to move up a division. It will work in a leaderboard fashion, and it will be displayed on waypoint. It will show what division you were placed in (what division your in will also be displayed in-game with a little emblem next to your clan’s name) and a point total next to your clan’s name. This point total will determine how close you are to moving up a division and will also determine which clans the game will try to match you up against.

So for example you play 8 games and you are placed in silver division. Once in silver division you will be given a number on the leaderboard of 50. Everyone placed in silver starts with a 50 point total, and everyone in gold starts with a 75 point total. After each game you win your clan will be awarded 3 points for winning and after each loss will be subtracted 2 points. Let’s say the person at the bottom of the gold division (who has 75 points) never plays again after being placed. Once your clan which was in silver division wins enough games and surpasses 75 points you will knock that person out of Gold into silver and replace them. Obviously based on this it will be extremely difficult to jump from bronze to diamond. Since being placed in bronze would only start you off with 25 points and you would need 125 points to get diamond. Also the people in diamond will be winning and adding to that 125 base point total meaning by the end of the season the lowest team in diamond could have as much as 200 points. The clan will be 4v4, and objective and slayer game types. Also you will only be able to input wins and losses as a clan on the weekends (Friday to Sunday night). This will stop people who have all the time in the world, no job no school, no responsibilities, from having a huge advantage over people who do not have all that time to play. At the end of the month whatever division you end up in will determine your prize. And each prize will be unique per season and won’t be offered again after that season. So maybe season one will give you a chest plate representing the division you placed in (gold chest plate, onyx chest plate etc.).

Also you can only be in one clan per season (no clan hopping). If you enter late you will be given the base amount of points awarded for the division (50 for silver 75 for gold etc.). So there will be an advantage to entering the season as soon as it starts.

I know this isn’t perfect but I am very interested if anyone has any suggestions as how to improve this or any constructive criticism in general. It will be greatly appreciated. I feel this really caters to all types of Halo players, giving each part of the community plenty of room to work with. No one will feel like they are confined to only a few playlists.

What about about a more competitive ranking?
This would work as follow.
The system would take into account you kills, death assists and the relation between games won and lost.It would also take in consideration the ranks of players you kill. Then after some games a rank would be assigned to you.
Bronze
silver
Gold
Onix
Forerunner

This is very similar to reach arena ranking system, But making it the standard system for all playlist would give it real relevance.
Players who are Forerunner level should be capped at a certain percentage of the players population. For example only 10% of all players can be ranked as Forerunners. This would make the game really competitive and give a reason to keep playing to really improve and get to the Onix or Forerunner league.
Of course this has a problem: Going sown a league could be really frustrating for new players. So a season system should be implemented. In every season players can go up a league but cannot go down a league. At the beginning of each seasons a series of test games should be implemented to assign a new league, and yes at the beginning of each season you can get transferred to a worst league. The idea is that at the beginning of each of this seasons the percentages of players assigned to a league are reset.
(Yes this is absolutly like starcraft XD) But Starcraft is a very competitive game that has managed to keep players playing the same game for years.

> What about about a more competitive ranking?
> This would work as follow.
> The system would take into account you kills, death assists and the relation between games won and lost.It would also take in consideration the ranks of players you kill. Then after some games a rank would be assigned to you.
> Bronze
> silver
> Gold
> Onix
> Forerunner
>
> This is very similar to reach arena ranking system, But making it the standard system for all playlist would give it real relevance.
> Players who are Forerunner level should be capped at a certain percentage of the players population. For example only 10% of all players can be ranked as Forerunners. This would make the game really competitive and give a reason to keep playing to really improve and get to the Onix or Forerunner league.
> Of course this has a problem: Going sown a league could be really frustrating for new players. So a season system should be implemented. In every season players can go up a league but cannot go down a league. At the beginning of each seasons a series of test games should be implemented to assign a new league, and yes at the beginning of each season you can get transferred to a worst league. The idea is that at the beginning of each of this seasons the percentages of players assigned to a league are reset.
> (Yes this is absolutly like starcraft XD) But Starcraft is a very competitive game that has managed to keep players playing the same game for years.

The problem I feel with your suggestion is that not everyone that plays halo wants to play it competitively. some people want to just play it casually. even competitive people like myself want to take a break from playing so seriously. having a ranking system thrown over the entire game is just a bad idea I feel. what I suggested gives players plenty of room to enjoy themselves regardless of their interest. if you wanna play casual, you social slayer, social skirmish, rumble pit and so on. if you want to play ranked you have ranked playlists, not just one playlist. and each playlist comes with its own unique rank. except the casual rank, that will progress regardless of the playlist you are in.

however I do like the forerunner name instead of calling it diamond. sounds better and goes with the lore more than diamond does

I agree with most of it but winning only in casual. Winning should be the primary method of ranking up but you shouldnt have to win to level up since it screws many people over when their team does nothing and they have the best player in the lobby.

Winning should offer a huge xp bonus but alongside standard xp gained through kills, assists and medals

I think a ranking system (be it “competitive” or “casual”) that is solely build around win/loss is flawed.

I think a “casual” ranking system, or how I would call it a progressive ranking system, has the purpose to reward a player for his/her dedication to the game (unlocking aesthetical items through ranking up i.e.). Making it win/loss based will make it quite unattractive and frustrating, especially when you combine it with the massive length of Reach’s system, because when you are not that good you will rarely receive any form of reward for playing.

On the other hand, I think a skill-based ranking system that is solely based on win/loss is flawed because it does not reflect the individual skill of each player correctly. The “true rank” of a player can get falsified, either because it gets oppressed or gets carried by team mates.

Besides, I don’t think a ranking system, and in this case one that is solely based on win/loss, does significantly encourage team play in any way but I rather see people blame their team mates when they lose.
A skill-based ranking system does encourage you to do your personal best but it doesn’t make you a team player nor does it teach you team play, in my opinion

Nonetheless, just like you I would prefer two separate ranking systems as well:

A simple progressive rank, similar to Reach, solely for unlocking most of the aesthetical customization and to offer a system where everybody can rank up and reach the highest rank and gets primarily rewarded for his/her dedication to the game.

The other should be a skill-based ranking system that incorporates factors such as win/loss as well as individual performance, primarily to build a well-working MM system that matches people and creates teams that are on par and to “test” yourself.

In addition, I like your idea about rewarding a player, who achieved a 50, with a specific and unique stance.
But I think a 50 should not have to be grinded (hard to achieve nonetheless), since the main purpose of a skill-based rank is to form a proper MM system.

> I think a ranking system (be it “competitive” or “casual”) that is solely build around win/loss is flawed.
>
> I think a “casual” ranking system, or how I would call it a progressive ranking system, has the purpose to reward a player for his/her dedication to the game (unlocking aesthetical items through ranking up i.e.). Making it win/loss based will make it quite unattractive and frustrating, especially when you combine it with the massive length of Reach’s system, because when you are not that good you will rarely receive any form of reward for playing.
>
> On the other hand, I think a skill-based ranking system that is solely based on win/loss is flawed because it does not reflect the individual skill of each player correctly. The “true rank” of a player can get falsified, either because it gets oppressed or gets carried by team mates.
>
> Besides, I don’t think a ranking system, and in this case one that is solely based on win/loss, does significantly encourage team play in any way but I rather see people blame their team mates when they lose.
> A skill-based ranking system does encourage you to do your personal best but it doesn’t make you a team player nor does it teach you team play, in my opinion
>
>
>
> Nonetheless, just like you I would prefer two separate ranking systems as well:
>
> A simple progressive rank, similar to Reach, solely for unlocking most of the aesthetical customization and to offer a system where everybody can rank up and reach the highest rank and gets primarily rewarded for his/her dedication to the game.
>
> The other should be a skill-based ranking system that incorporates factors such as win/loss as well as individual performance, primarily to build a well-working MM system that matches people and creates teams that are on par and to “test” yourself.
>
>
> In addition, I like your idea about rewarding a player, who achieved a 50, with a specific and unique stance.
> But I think a 50 should not have to be grinded (hard to achieve nonetheless), since the main purpose of a skill-based rank is to form a proper MM system.

I used to think the way you did. I honestly believed that rewarding people for individual skill was better than win/loss but I was proved wrong. In Halo3 it was all win/loss and yes I did blame my team plenty for my losses. However the benefit of it was that it made me want to find better people to play with instead of just randoms I meet by goin in solo. I started partying up with people who were as good or better than me. This resulted in me having a better experience with the game, causing me to meet new people as well as increase my skill by playing with better people.

Reach’s arena ranking and “progressive” ranking promoted individual success rather than team success as u weren’t penalized in anyway for losing. the result was terrible. Every game at least 1 or 2 kids would completely ignore the objective and just go all out for kills. They were worried more about their K/D because they felt that was the only was they could show off their individual skill. If you make so that team success is the true measure of skill, that’s what people will care about. A lot of kids, especially competitive people just want to show off that they are better than everyone else. If make it so that everything revolves around win/loss, they themselves will go all out for the win.

> > I think a ranking system (be it “competitive” or “casual”) that is solely build around win/loss is flawed.
> >
> > I think a “casual” ranking system, or how I would call it a progressive ranking system, has the purpose to reward a player for his/her dedication to the game (unlocking aesthetical items through ranking up i.e.). Making it win/loss based will make it quite unattractive and frustrating, especially when you combine it with the massive length of Reach’s system, because when you are not that good you will rarely receive any form of reward for playing.
> >
> > On the other hand, I think a skill-based ranking system that is solely based on win/loss is flawed because it does not reflect the individual skill of each player correctly. The “true rank” of a player can get falsified, either because it gets oppressed or gets carried by team mates.
> >
> > Besides, I don’t think a ranking system, and in this case one that is solely based on win/loss, does significantly encourage team play in any way but I rather see people blame their team mates when they lose.
> > A skill-based ranking system does encourage you to do your personal best but it doesn’t make you a team player nor does it teach you team play, in my opinion
> >
> >
> >
> > Nonetheless, just like you I would prefer two separate ranking systems as well:
> >
> > A simple progressive rank, similar to Reach, solely for unlocking most of the aesthetical customization and to offer a system where everybody can rank up and reach the highest rank and gets primarily rewarded for his/her dedication to the game.
> >
> > The other should be a skill-based ranking system that incorporates factors such as win/loss as well as individual performance, primarily to build a well-working MM system that matches people and creates teams that are on par and to “test” yourself.
> >
> >
> > In addition, I like your idea about rewarding a player, who achieved a 50, with a specific and unique stance.
> > But I think a 50 should not have to be grinded (hard to achieve nonetheless), since the main purpose of a skill-based rank is to form a proper MM system.
>
> I used to think the way you did. I honestly believed that rewarding people for individual skill was better than win/loss but I was proved wrong. In Halo3 it was all win/loss and yes I did blame my team plenty for my losses. However the benefit of it was that it made me want to find better people to play with instead of just randoms I meet by goin in solo. I started partying up with people who were as good or better than me. This resulted in me having a better experience with the game, causing me to meet new people as well as increase my skill by playing with better people.
>
> Reach’s arena ranking and “progressive” ranking promoted individual success rather than team success as u weren’t penalized in anyway for losing. the result was terrible. Every game at least 1 or 2 kids would completely ignore the objective and just go all out for kills. They were worried more about their K/D because they felt that was the only was they could show off their individual skill. If you make so that team success is the true measure of skill, that’s what people will care about. A lot of kids, especially competitive people just want to show off that they are better than everyone else. If make it so that everything revolves around win/loss, they themselves will go all out for the win.

But why should people be forced to play with people just to level up, if anything most people would just rely on their team more and become more dependent upon them. People dont always have friends to play with and shouldnt have to just to have a good game and be rewarded for it. And on top of that being first place in FFA is difficult for many players resulting in less people playing it since the odds are so low.

You should get xo taken from you if you lose but it wouldnt be able to set you back just slow your progress by taking xp of the xp you earned through kills etc.

And extra xp (enough to actually mean something) could be given to the winners

> But why should people be forced to play with people just to level up, if anything most people would just rely on their team more and become more dependent upon them. People dont always have friends to play with and shouldnt have to just to have a good game and be rewarded for it. And on top of that being first place in FFA is difficult for many players resulting in less people playing it since the odds are so low.
>
> You should get xo taken from you if you lose but it wouldnt be able to set you back just slow your progress by taking xp of the xp you earned through kills etc.
>
> And extra xp (enough to actually mean something) could be given to the winners

FFA 1st and 2nd will count as winning. I mentioned that in the first post. And most people won’t rely on their teammates. Because the game will have a legitimate skill based ranking system, most people will end up playing with people that hav a similar skill level as them. Meaning it won’t feel as if they are playing against people who are way better than them. And I didn’t say you have to have friends to play with in order to have a good game. I said that when I played halo3 I met people as I was playing. I met new people who were good game after game. People partyed up more because everyone knew that if you played with better people your chances of winning increased. Halo is a team based game. that is when the game is most competitive. making the game about individual stats and success doesn’t make the game any more competitive. It just motivates people to play really conservative e.g. hididng in the back of the map with a sniper and active camo worrying about getting kills instead of going for the flag.

> > But why should people be forced to play with people just to level up, if anything most people would just rely on their team more and become more dependent upon them. People dont always have friends to play with and shouldnt have to just to have a good game and be rewarded for it. And on top of that being first place in FFA is difficult for many players resulting in less people playing it since the odds are so low.
> >
> > You should get xo taken from you if you lose but it wouldnt be able to set you back just slow your progress by taking xp of the xp you earned through kills etc.
> >
> > And extra xp (enough to actually mean something) could be given to the winners
>
> FFA 1st and 2nd will count as winning. I mentioned that in the first post. And most people won’t rely on their teammates. Because the game will have a legitimate skill based ranking system, most people will end up playing with people that hav a similar skill level as them. Meaning it won’t feel as if they are playing against people who are way better than them. And I didn’t say you have to have friends to play with in order to have a good game. I said that when I played halo3 I met people as I was playing. I met new people who were good game after game. People partyed up more because everyone knew that if you played with better people your chances of winning increased. Halo is a team based game. that is when the game is most competitive. making the game about individual stats and success doesn’t make the game any more competitive. It just motivates people to play really conservative e.g. hididng in the back of the map with a sniper and active camo worrying about getting kills instead of going for the flag.

Winning should be more meaningful, that I agree on but people shouldnt have to party up to win which shouldnt be the only way to level up since it throws commendations and challenges out of the window since they cant exactly give you any xp if it was win/loss based.

Also games make you vs people of the same skill level, this isnt guaranteed and even then why shouldn’t I be able to level up because someone is AFK. If I cant level up I will remain at the same skill level due to my win/loss rate and not move up. Win/loss should be significant but not at all the only way since many people despised it. Xp ranking (with winning bonus) plus skill ranking is the way forward.

> I used to think the way you did. I honestly believed that rewarding people for individual skill was better than win/loss but I was proved wrong. In Halo3 it was all win/loss and yes I did blame my team plenty for my losses. However the benefit of it was that it made me want to find better people to play with instead of just randoms I meet by goin in solo. I started partying up with people who were as good or better than me. This resulted in me having a better experience with the game, causing me to meet new people as well as increase my skill by playing with better people.

I did say though that the system should incorporate individual performance as well as win/loss. Focusing on only a single variable is flawed, since results can get falsified, hence you have to incorporate various variables.
Also the player should not have to search for players with similar skill him/herself, that should be handled by the MM system, otherwise we wouldn’t have to think about implementing a skill-based ranking system.
It matches you with people with equal or similar rank (skill). When you stand out of that specific group you will rank up and it will match you with people of equal or similar skill again and so on until you reach your limit and your rank levels off.

> Reach’s arena ranking and “progressive” ranking promoted individual success rather than team success as u weren’t penalized in anyway for losing. the result was terrible. Every game at least 1 or 2 kids would completely ignore the objective and just go all out for kills. They were worried more about their K/D because they felt that was the only was they could show off their individual skill. If you make so that team success is the true measure of skill, that’s what people will care about. A lot of kids, especially competitive people just want to show off that they are better than everyone else. If make it so that everything revolves around win/loss, they themselves will go all out for the win.

The issue you are addressing, that people aren’t going for the objective, is a personal mentality though and primarily isn’t caused by the ranking system itself.
I am of the opinion that significantly penalizing a player for losing isn’t a good idea, especially in a progression rank that represents and should reward dedication. Rather give the people who win a meaningful bonus in xp.

Like I’ve said, building it solely around win/loss will likely falsify the results in a skill-based ranking system, since your rank can get either oppressed or carried by team mates. Besides, how do you want to determine a player who is an average 3. place and a player who is an average 4. place in FFA with a solely win/loss system?
On the other hand such a system will cause frustration in the skill-based rank as well as in the progressive rank, when the outcomes are extremely close or you was the overall best player in the game but in the “wrong” team and therefore all the effort or dedication you put into the game will not be considered or rewarded.

In addition, I am only arguing against a solely win/loss system for regular skill and progressive ranks. For a clan rank it makes sense since there you play with and against organised teams anyway. Hence you rate the teams and not the individuals.

I like the XP-based casual rank. Reach really nailed that aspect - you knew that someone with Inheritor had put in the time and earned it. It reflects playing time more than anything else, so it allows for silly gametypes like race, action sack, etc. This is what casual should be: long in duration, and very cool sounding (inheritor/reclaimer, etc - it’s just fun, and it doesn’t take itself too seriously).

All ranks should be visible in-game. That omission from H4 was a real head-scratcher.

> Winning should be more meaningful, that I agree on but people shouldnt have to party up to win which shouldnt be the only way to level up since it throws commendations and challenges out of the window since they cant exactly give you any xp if it was win/loss based.
>
> Also games make you vs people of the same skill level, this isnt guaranteed and even then why shouldn’t I be able to level up because someone is AFK. If I cant level up I will remain at the same skill level due to my win/loss rate and not move up. Win/loss should be significant but not at all the only way since many people despised it. Xp ranking (with winning bonus) plus skill ranking is the way forward.

I don’t think you read my first post. In my example of the post game experience you would receive, you still receive exp regardless of winning or losing so challenges and commendations are not out of the window. I just heavily weighted the post game exp to winning. You will rank up way faster for winning. And I disagree with your opinion that many people despised it. but maybe to compensate your opinion since I’m sure many people do feel the way you do, maybe give an MVP bonus regardless of who wins and loses. it won’t be as much as the win bonus. but maybe 2500 for being MVP, and 5000 for winning.

> > Winning should be more meaningful, that I agree on but people shouldnt have to party up to win which shouldnt be the only way to level up since it throws commendations and challenges out of the window since they cant exactly give you any xp if it was win/loss based.
> >
> > Also games make you vs people of the same skill level, this isnt guaranteed and even then why shouldn’t I be able to level up because someone is AFK. If I cant level up I will remain at the same skill level due to my win/loss rate and not move up. Win/loss should be significant but not at all the only way since many people despised it. Xp ranking (with winning bonus) plus skill ranking is the way forward.
>
> I don’t think you read my first post. In my example of the post game experience you would receive, you still receive exp regardless of winning or losing so challenges and commendations are not out of the window. I just heavily weighted the post game exp to winning. You will rank up way faster for winning. And I disagree with your opinion that many people despised it. but maybe to compensate your opinion since I’m sure many people do feel the way you do, maybe give an MVP bonus regardless of who wins and loses. it won’t be as much as the win bonus. but maybe 2500 for being MVP, and 5000 for winning.

That I would see as being perfect going of 2000 ish xp being the average xp a upper middle tier player earned in reach. But I would also like to propose a best player of a team 500xp (MVP doesnt get this since its already included

> The issue you are addressing, that people aren’t going for the objective, is a personal mentality though and primarily isn’t caused by the ranking system itself.
> I am of the opinion that significantly penalizing a player for losing isn’t a good idea, especially in a progression rank that represents and should reward dedication. Rather give the people who win a meaningful bonus in xp.
>
> Like I’ve said, building it solely around win/loss will likely falsify the results in a skill-based ranking system, since your rank can get either oppressed or carried by team mates. Besides, how do you want to determine a player who is an average 3. place and a player who is an average 4. place in FFA with a solely win/loss system?
> On the other hand such a system will cause frustration in the skill-based rank as well as in the progressive rank, when the outcomes are extremely close or you was the overall best player in the game but in the “wrong” team and therefore all the effort or dedication you put into the game will not be considered or rewarded.
>
>
> In addition, I am only arguing against a solely win/loss system for regular skill and progressive ranks. For a clan rank it makes sense since there you play with and against organised teams anyway. Hence you rate the teams and not the individuals.

But I never said to significantly penalize the player for losing. I said exactly what you said, significantly reward players for winning. And the progressive rank will still reward people for dedication as you will still receive XP for losing just no where near as much for winning. I think you guys took my example of how Halo3 worked for how i felt Halo5 should work. I think you still rank up if you lose, just much slower than someone who goes for the win.

And I disagree with it being frustrating in skill rank. that is how Halo2 worked and Halo3 where ranked playlists were very popular. As soon as they made it about individual success in reach, nobody really played arena. Now I know that wasn’t the main reason nobody played it but I feel it definitely contributed to the lack of success arena had.

> That I would see as being perfect going of 2000 ish xp being the average xp a upper middle tier player earned in reach. But I would also like to propose a best player of a team 500xp (MVP doesnt get this since its already included

Wait can you explain this further, I don’t understand what you’re trying to say

> > That I would see as being perfect going of 2000 ish xp being the average xp a upper middle tier player earned in reach. But I would also like to propose a best player of a team 500xp (MVP doesnt get this since its already included
>
> Wait can you explain this further, I don’t understand what you’re trying to say

As you said the MVP gets a bonus

But the person who did the best on each team gets a small bonus (already included in the MVP bonus) which would be around 500xp for example

Team one: losers

P1 MVP bonus of 2500xp (includes best team member xp)
P2
P3
P4

Team two: winners

P5 best team member bonus of 500xp + winner xp of 5000xp
P6 winner xp of 5000xp
P7 winner xp of 5000xp
P8 winner xp of 5000xp

Basically the best person on each team gets a bonus which included in the MVPs bonus since he has to be the best on his team if he’s MVP. Sorry it’s kind of difficult to explain

> But I never said to significantly penalize the player for losing. I said exactly what you said, significantly reward players for winning. And the progressive rank will still reward people for dedication as you will still receive XP for losing just no where near as much for winning. I think you guys took my example of how Halo3 worked for how i felt Halo5 should work. I think you still rank up if you lose, just much slower than someone who goes for the win.

Oh my fault, apparently I skipped that part or misunderstood something.
I think then we agree on the progressive system. :slight_smile:

> And I disagree with it being frustrating in skill rank. that is how Halo2 worked and Halo3 where ranked playlists were very popular. As soon as they made it about individual success in reach, nobody really played arena. Now I know that wasn’t the main reason nobody played it but I feel it definitely contributed to the lack of success arena had.

Well, that’s subjective. For some people it is frustrating and for some people it isn’t. Personally, I’ve never found it fair to not getting rewarded even though I was the or an outstanding player in the game but I lost because of a single point in the worst case. I mean, it’s totally fair when you play with a constant team because then you are one unit. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
But when you are often playing alone and (want to) get matched with randoms your individual performance has to be considered as well or your rank (true skill) will likely be falsified.
I simply think that rating individuals with a system that solely consideres win/loss isn’t the proper way to determine someones “true skill”.

> As you said the MVP gets a bonus
>
> But the person who did the best on each team gets a small bonus (already included in the MVP bonus) which would be around 500xp for example
>
> Team one: losers
>
> P1 MVP bonus of 2500xp (includes best team member xp)
> P2
> P3
> P4
>
> Team two: winners
>
> P5 best team member bonus of 500xp + winner xp of 5000xp
> P6 winner xp of 5000xp
> P7 winner xp of 5000xp
> P8 winner xp of 5000xp
>
> Basically the best person on each team gets a bonus which included in the MVPs bonus since he has to be the best on his team if he’s MVP. Sorry it’s kind of difficult to explain

No i get what you’re saying perfectly now, and I think it is a good idea. Even if you are on a bad team and losing terribly (which is going to happen, it is inevitable) you still have something to shoot for. Either being the best person in the whole game (MVP) or just your team’s best player. I like it.

For the competitive ranking system I think you should be giving grades along side with ranks. The grades will be from A to F for how well you performed in each game. For example if your team wins but you are away from the console you still rank up but you get an F for not doing anything, if you do negative, have little assists and a few medals you get a D.
The game will tell you what grade you need to maintain or reach and if you don’t your rank drops. So say your team wins 5 games but you always get an F rating, the game will prevent you from ranking up until your grades go up, if the next game you get a C your rank will go up.

Maybe the lowering your rank thing is a bad idea but I think having grades will encourage players to perform better. What do you all think of my idea?