I fixed the flaws of 1-50 [WITH PICTURES!!!]

H4 rank system 1 of 2

H4 rank system 2 of 2

SEE LINKS FOR OUTLINED PROPOSAL AND PICTURES!

  1. You will have a bar similiar to the credit bar in reach made up of X amount oF cubes. for discussion purposes lets say 20.

  2. Each win gives you one point and one cube is filled. 20 wins and you rank up.

  3. Loses remove a point (cube)

  4. say you just get 20 wins to reach lvl 30, you now have a clean bar of 20 pts needed to rank up. You lose 5 games straight. But instead of becoming 29 again you stay 30 and still need 20 wins to make it to lvl 31.

  5. This prevents derankers from spoiling lower levels fun just for lols.

  • Once you reach a clear bar any further loses DO NOT DERANK YOU
  • This prevents de-rankers since de-ranking is literally impossible
  • Allows you to enjoy serious matches without the stress of losing a rank
  • Could possibly allow for the removal of social since you can play relaxed but you just wont rank up thus leading to larger pools of players and faster player matching times

6)Eliminating the need for new accounts

Could make many many wins needed to reach 50 (just a possibility) so there would be less desire to start a new account

Once at 50 you are level locked but at EVERY level an arena rank is placed behind the number that works via W/L. The top 5% of players with best win loss are onyx, next top 20 gold, then silver, bronze and steel (percentages could be when you click on service record)

  • Resets every 3 months
  • Indicates plays skill within the number level they are in
  • Will be at every level not just 50
  • WILL CLEARLY INDICATE WHO BOUGHT THEIR 50 AND WHO DID NOT/ WHAT LEVEL OF 50 YOU ARE

****IDEA

MAYBE A SYSTEM WHERE IF YOU GO POSITIVE (OR MAYBE ACHIEVE A 2 KD FOR FOR THE GAME BUT STILL LOSE) A WIN IS NOT SUBTRACTED BUT ALSO NOT GAINED?
JUST A THOUGHT

TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK GUYS!!!

Not terrible but 20 wins/rank? Bit much sir.

I like it, but what about the armor? I think it should use a completely separate Credit system just for armor unlocks.

> Not terrible but 20 wins/rank? Bit much sir.

WEL I used 20 just for discussion purposes.

but a large number could discourage second accounters

> Not terrible but 20 wins/rank? Bit much sir.

That’s between level 45 and 46, so it is acceptable.

I actualy like this idea, being able to see how many wins you need to rank up is a good thing. Not so sure about 20 wins to one rank up. Maybe a lower number like 5 wins, then when you get to a higher level it should increse to 10 or something. But on the whole it looks like a good idea.

I like it, as far as 20 wins being too many to rank up…what if it scaled with rank as well?

So lower ranks require less wins and higher ranks require more wins?

Thoughts?

Really good idea. This would take care of those pain in the -Yoink- derankers in Halo 3.

Thanks

Not bad idea, not at all.

> I like it, as far as 20 wins being too many to rank up…what if it scaled with rank as well?
>
> So lower ranks require less wins and higher ranks require more wins?
>
> Thoughts?

I really like this idea.

1 win to go from 1–> 2

20 wins to go from 20–>21

46 wins to go from 45–>46

ranks will really mean something,

or you could cut the number in half so 25 wins on 49 gets you a 50. But you have to remember guys there IS NO DERANKING PERIOD!!

If you make it too easy to rank up ranks would mean nothing and would do a poorer job at placing people to play against similarly skilled opponents

either way the good players will rise to the top in no time, many in H3 had thousands of games under their belt?

whats 50 wins compared to that?

I know you already answered and said it was only for discussion purposes but I think only like four or five wins between rank ups. Also I think it defeats the purpose of having a ranking system if it’s impossible to lose your level. But aside from that I like everything else especially the competitiveness beyond level 50 in that arena rank. Something I think would be cool is an unlockable playlist for level 50’s so that when you’re at that highest skill and can’t improve your rank anymore you can test your metal against the other 50s and continue improving. This would also allow the worse players to improve their skills against eachother before really running into the good players. But that’s just me, flame away.

I liek it. Only possible problem is with your level not going down… The general population seems to get better at the game the longer it’s been out, and someone could get their level to 50 early on, then after some time they might not be as good anymore compared with everyone else but their level stays at 50 forever so wouldn’t accurately measure their skill anymore. I had a friend in halo 3 who got a 46 in the first couple of months then pretty much stopped playing halo. A year later he really wasn’t good enough to be 46, but at least it would go down if he played that playlist.
Not a very significant problem I know, just poking holes

> > I like it, as far as 20 wins being too many to rank up…what if it scaled with rank as well?
> >
> > So lower ranks require less wins and higher ranks require more wins?
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> I really like this idea.
>
> 1 win to go from 1–> 2
>
>
> 20 wins to go from 20–>21
>
> 46 wins to go from 45–>46
>
>
>
> ranks will really mean something,
>
>
>
> or you could cut the number in half so 25 wins on 49 gets you a 50. But you have to remember guys there IS NO DERANKING PERIOD!!
>
> If you make it too easy to rank up ranks would mean nothing and would do a poorer job at placing people to play against similarly skilled opponents
>
>
>
> either way the good players will rise to the top in no time, many in H3 had thousands of games under their belt?
>
>
> whats 50 wins compared to that?

46 wins in a row to rank up once is a little far fetched don’t you think?

I like everything except for the Arena Style ranking where your level locked at 50. I prefer the old system with your progression system where it says how many wins you need to level up. Very well done though

> > I like it, as far as 20 wins being too many to rank up…what if it scaled with rank as well?
> >
> > So lower ranks require less wins and higher ranks require more wins?
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> <mark>I really like this idea.</mark>
> <mark>1 win to go from 1–> 2</mark>
> <mark>20 wins to go from 20–>21</mark>
> <mark>46 wins to go from 45–>46</mark>

That is a terrible idea, if that was implemented, it would take 1275 wins in a row in order to get to 50. And that’s not including the losses.

> I liek it. Only possible problem is with your level not going down… The general population seems to get better at the game the longer it’s been out, and someone could get their level to 50 early on, then after some time they might not be as good anymore compared with everyone else but their level stays at 50 forever so wouldn’t accurately measure their skill anymore. I had a friend in halo 3 who got a 46 in the first couple of months then pretty much stopped playing halo. A year later he really wasn’t good enough to be 46, but at least it would go down if he played that playlist.
> Not a very significant problem I know, just poking holes

Well if you get your 50 early on and you suck later you will be a steel or bronze 50

everyone will know you are either not that good or you purchased an account

Either way you have to see that we live in COD REACH ranking world where people only want to go up.

This system is a compromise where you indeed can only go up but at the same time you earn every level and even then earn a level within the level. If you truly become a bad 50 its still displayed in your rank, you will be below silver and be bronze or iron. But like H3 your accomplishment of reaching 50 is never taken away but at the same time your current abilities are still portrayed accurately.

Also IMO if you were once a 50 you can be one again, it only takes practice with good players and this system allows you to have that practice without the hassel of setting up customs.

> > > I like it, as far as 20 wins being too many to rank up…what if it scaled with rank as well?
> > >
> > > So lower ranks require less wins and higher ranks require more wins?
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > <mark>I really like this idea.</mark>
> > <mark>1 win to go from 1–> 2</mark>
> > <mark>20 wins to go from 20–>21</mark>
> > <mark>46 wins to go from 45–>46</mark>
>
> That is a terrible idea, if that was implemented, it would take 1275 wins in a row in order to get to 50. And that’s not including the losses.

Like I said you could also half that number. But either way I have no idea how many games would be good to level up. maybe 5, 10, 20?

the point is to counter the fact that de-ranking isn’t a possibility.

But do you like the concept of my system?

Also I dont think that it should reset every 3 months because that would be really dumb

> > > I like it, as far as 20 wins being too many to rank up…what if it scaled with rank as well?
> > >
> > > So lower ranks require less wins and higher ranks require more wins?
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > I really like this idea.
> >
> > 1 win to go from 1–> 2
> >
> >
> > 20 wins to go from 20–>21
> >
> > 46 wins to go from 45–>46
> >
> >
> >
> > ranks will really mean something,
> >
> >
> >
> > or you could cut the number in half so 25 wins on 49 gets you a 50. But you have to remember guys there IS NO DERANKING PERIOD!!
> >
> > If you make it too easy to rank up ranks would mean nothing and would do a poorer job at placing people to play against similarly skilled opponents
> >
> >
> >
> > either way the good players will rise to the top in no time, many in H3 had thousands of games under their belt?
> >
> >
> > whats 50 wins compared to that?
>
> 46 wins in a row to rank up once is a little far fetched don’t you think?

I don’t think the op meant win x amount of games in a row to rank up, just that you had to win x amount of games more than you lost at that rank.

So if I need 25 to rank up and I win 5 in a row, I still need another 20. Then I lose 2 games in a row, now I need to win another 23 before I rank up.

That is what I got from the op, which if true, would mean that in order to rank up at any rank…you would have to have a win percentage of atleast 67 percent (since if I lose a game, i lose a win needed to rank up, so a 2:1 ratio is needed).

> Also I dont think that it should reset every 3 months because that would be really dumb

only the arena rank in the background resets not the number

the point is to kill the desire to buy accounts and accurately portray skill level when deranking isnt possible.

buy an account and in 3 months time your an iron 50 and ppl send you “how much did your 50 cost” pictures

It also allows for returning rusty players who maxed out at 50 to have a clean slate once they have improved again