This is of course just an idea, but I believe it would work very, very well.
How it would work is like this- Implement a system similar to Cr/Credits and make them the basis of the rank, just like in Reach. Everyone can get these, and you earn them simply by playing. Just like Reach.
That is the first part.
For the second part, the part that appeals to the “competitive” players. Implement the 1-50 (I think a 1-90 would be cooler, but that is irrelevant.), just like in H3, or something vary similar and number based. This applies to rank also, by adding an extra word.
As an example, let me use the Halo Reach ranks. Lets say some one is the rank of Hero in Halo 4. Now, depending on their highest skill, that rank would change like so:
I obviously skipped 35-49 because I am uncreative, but I hope that illustrated my point.
With this system, everybody could still reach to the highest rank without being a skilled player/playing MM, but for those who do play competitively get their deserved skill based rank.
It doesn’t really matter what the specifics are as long as they have a progression system that is not tied to the skill based system. The skill based system should be across as many playlists as possible.
> > What do you guys think?
>
> Why are people so hung up on numbered ranks? Specifically 1-50 from Halos past?
>
> cR Ranks and Arena Ranks, display them both on player nameplates. Done.
I don’t care if they use the divisions or 1-50, I just don’t want my rank to fluctuate because it is based on a percentage.
> > What do you guys think?
>
> Why are people so hung up on numbered ranks? Specifically 1-50 from Halos past?
>
> cR Ranks and Arena Ranks, display them both on player nameplates. Done.
People like the 1-50 ranks, why not give them what they want while keeping people who don’t care about them also happy?
It was more solid and simple, imo. And like the other person said, the Arena required you constantly play it, and it fluctuated. Number ranks just seemed to work better.
> People like the 1-50 ranks, why not give them what they want while keeping people who don’t care about them also happy?
Why though?
I’m more inclined to believe it’s nostalgia or the misguided notion that “It worked in H3 so it’ll work now even though it’s three years later.”
> It was more solid and simple, imo. And like the other person said, the Arena required you constantly play it, and it fluctuated.
Nope.
If you managed to skyrocket your TrueSkill to 50 in the first couple days of play time you would be a 1% Onyx for the rest of the season since nobody else could be better than you and knock you out of position. It wouldn’t fluctuate from that and you didn’t need to play anymore games after that.
> > I just don’t want my rank to fluctuate because it is based on a percentage.
>
> ?
>
> Arena ranks fluctuate because you’re being ranked against everyone else playing it rather than just a simple scale.
Yeah, and they rank you by percentage.
I’d rather not have to maintain several ranks because will most likely decay after not playing them for a while.
> Nope.
>
> If you managed to skyrocket your TrueSkill to 50 in the first couple days of play time you would be a 1% Onyx for the rest of the season since nobody else could be better than you and knock you out of position. It wouldn’t fluctuate from that and you didn’t need to play anymore games after that.
That is just false. Most people could keep their percentage because not that many people played Arena, especially not that many good players. It will drop, especially with a larger population, and especially if it doesn’t reset every 3 months.
> I’m more inclined to believe it’s nostalgia or the misguided notion that “It worked in H3 so it’ll work now even though it’s three years later.”
Understandably so, but it did work and people liked it. I don’t see how it being three years later really makes a difference.
> It was more solid and simple, imo. And like the other person said, the Arena required you constantly play it, and it fluctuated.
> Nope.
>
> If you managed to skyrocket your TrueSkill to 50 in the first couple days of play time you would be a 1% Onyx for the rest of the season since nobody else could be better than you and knock you out of position. It wouldn’t fluctuate from that and you didn’t need to play anymore games after that.
I don’t think that is the case, but it may be that way. But I earned a 20% Gold only to earn a 40% gold at the end of the season because I stopped playing arena. So playing only for a few days doesn’t work. (Unless maybe in that scenario were you would have to be a top 1%, but I don’t think that statement is accurate.)
> Number ranks just seemed to work better.
How did they work better?
[/quote]
They were “Solid”(Explained above, I wouldn’t loose my 45 unless I lost while playing on it), and gave an instant representation of skill. (As in right after one game you could see your rank go up, down, or stay the same, unlike arena).
Adding that all together, I think it should be included into Halo 4’s matchmaking.
1-50 rank for each playlist.
Not based on Cr, but on performance.
(not that I am a 1-50 fan, but this would please all self proclaimed “competative” gamers)
Named (Reach) rank overall.
Made up from Cr, performance in each playlist and time spend in the game overall.
Cr would then be changed more towards a system to save “cash” to buy things, instead of a ranking device. And two seperate ranks (similar to what H3 had with it’s different ranks per playlist, and highest as overall rank) would give more bragging rights, make for better matching, and would give people a better indication of the actual skill of somebody (an Inheritor with lvl 45-50 in Slayer, SWAT and BTB for instance is obviously a more experienced player than a Commander with lvl 50 in SWAT).
Earning certain milestone levels in each playlist would then also unlock special things in the Armory, so that people are gently “forced” to play more different playlists and advance in rank (to get those special things they like to have, but can’t get simply by earning Cr)
> I still stand by this:
>
> 1-50 rank for each playlist.
> Not based on Cr, but on performance.
> (not that I am a 1-50 fan, but this would please all self proclaimed “competative” gamers)
>
> Named (Reach) rank overall.
> Made up from Cr, performance in each playlist and time spend in the game overall.
>
> Cr would then be changed more towards a system to save “cash” to buy things, instead of a ranking device. And two seperate ranks (similar to what H3 had with it’s different ranks per playlist, and highest as overall rank) would give more bragging rights, make for better matching, and would give people a better indication of the actual skill of somebody (an Inheritor with lvl 45-50 in Slayer, SWAT and BTB for instance is obviously a more experienced player than a Commander with lvl 50 in SWAT).
>
> Earning certain milestone levels in each playlist would then also unlock special things in the Armory, so that people are gently “forced” to play more different playlists and advance in rank (to get those special things they like to have, but can’t get simply by earning Cr)
Many “casuals” wouldn’t like that. I don’t think the system should give them the cold shoulder, but it shouldn’t give it to “hardcore” players either. I think my idea works well in this regard. What do you think of my idea?
> > What do you guys think?
>
> Why are people so hung up on numbered ranks? Specifically 1-50 from Halos past?
>
> cR Ranks and Arena Ranks, display them both on player nameplates. Done.
The awkward moment when you claim Arena to be a good representation of skill, and a Credit system to be an effective ranking system.
Arena doesn’t work because no-one plays it first and foremost.
For arena to work, you have to play approx. 50 games without real player balancing until it can start to balance teams.
Also Arena is only one playlist, and all the others are just
Credits are good, but does not represent the skill of the player, just how long they have ‘played’/‘credit boosted’/‘wasted their life in Firefight Arcade’.
Though a 1-50 isn’t perfect, it’s better than the pile of -Yoink- mentioned above.
> > > What do you guys think?
> >
> > Why are people so hung up on numbered ranks? Specifically 1-50 from Halos past?
> >
> > cR Ranks and Arena Ranks, display them both on player nameplates. Done.
>
> The awkward moment when you claim Arena to be a good representation of skill, and a Credit system to be an effective ranking system.
>
> 1) Arena doesn’t work because no-one plays it first and foremost.
> 2) For arena to work, you have to play approx. 50 games without real player balancing until it can start to balance teams.
> 3) Also Arena is only one playlist, and all the others are just
> 4) Credits are good, but does not represent the skill of the player, just how long they have ‘played’/‘credit boosted’/‘wasted their life in Firefight Arcade’.
>
> Though a 1-50 isn’t perfect, it’s better than the pile of Yoink! mentioned above.
I still don’t understand why they cant have 1-50 in everything like they did in halo 2??? I mean yeah casuals (whatever you want to call them) wont be bothered because they wont care in the first place, and more importantly they will be matched with players that are either bad OR don’t care as well. While the competitive players compete for the upper thirties and pros compete in the upper 40’s (if done right! No “i’m working on my 50” 50 should be reserved for the best, not gained by playing alot like people did in halo 3)