I like Reach's Ranking System More than Halo 3's But....

I hate how long it takes to level up in Reach. It’s ridiculous. I know Halo 3’s took a while, too, seeing as how you had to win or tie to level up.

I’m not against the 1-50 Trueskill System. I like it, as long as it’s legit. What I want is the same kind of ranking system as Reach’s, similar to Call of Duty, but also have a separate 1-50 rank achieveable only through Ranked playlists, in which you can still level up just like in Social playlists, but your skill level only rises in Ranked.

But isn’t that just like Halo 3’s ranking system, which you don’t like as much?

Not exactly. The same aspect, but you don’t have to win or tie to level up. You earn cR/XP, whatever it will be, in every playlist, every match, regardless of whether you win or lose. But in Ranked, your 1-50 level only rises through victory. But, like I just said, you still rank up your overall rank just like in Social and your Ranked rank when you win enough that the 1-50 level increases.

I also don’t want a certain Trueskill level to be required to rank up like in Halo 3. You should be able to be max rank in Halo 4 without ever having to touch the Ranked playlists, but they are there for those who want to play them and show their, well, true skill.

And, if we still unlock armor/abilities through ranking up, the ranks shouldn’t take nearly as long as Reach’s take so that players can unlock new stuff faster and easier, but since there is supposed to be more armor this time around, make more ranks. This allows for more itmes to be unlocked over a larger span and will allow players to unlock things quicker because you unlock more things and go through ranks that slowly progress in the amount of time/cR/XP it takes to rank up, but not too slow; fast enough that the higher your level, the more and more noticable the amount of time/cR/Xp it takes to rank up again becomes.

I’m one of those players who, of course, plays for fun, but is also very competitive and I care A LOT about my rank. I just feel like in Reach, I don’t unlock thongs I want fast enough because of how long my ranks take to get through them, and I LOVE ranking up and unlocking new stuff in MP games. I like how in Halo 3, most of the armor was achieved through your Achievments. So instead of showing off your cool General armor that many players may have and be using(Reach’s Security helmet, cool, but overused), you can be showing off that badass helmet you just got from getting a hard Achievement.

Does anyone agree/disagree with me? Anything you like/dislike in particular about my setup? Thoughts?

While the Arena system in Halo: Reach truely was flawed, with some fixes with new additions here and there it could be the RANKED playlist Ranks. While you still have your typical Reach style ranks that increases regardless of what playlists you’re on. OP You made some very interesting statements.

I dont. But i dont mind merging them.

I think a 1-50 skill level is a must for H4. But gaining cR or something else for participating, regardless of winning or losing, should also be added. So really a combination of the H3 and Reach matchmaking systems.

> I think a 1-50 skill level is a must for H4. But gaining cR or something else for participating, regardless of winning or losing, should also be added. So really a combination of the H3 and Reach matchmaking systems.

If 343i did it like that, Halo 4 would have the best ranking system ever developed for a video game IMO.

Fair points. I too want a 1-50 rank system or something similar, i do not care if they make something similar to cR for social list’s but i do dislike being rewarded for losing. Why bother winning if you get rewarded either way?

lost me at similar to call of duty.

I agree that Rank and Trueskill should be kept separate. All you get when you associate the two is reason to boost, or buy accounts. Trueskill should be used purely for matching players up fairly. Oh, and have a much bigger gap between the reward for losing and the reward for winning. In Reach you’ll only get about 100cR less if you lose, hence why ranking feels like a grind.

> Fair points. I too want a 1-50 rank system or something similar, i do not care if they make something similar to cR for social list’s but i do dislike being rewarded for losing. Why bother winning if you get rewarded either way?

You get more cR in Reach for winning BTW. Therefore, even in Reach, you still benefit from winning. Also, dpending on what kind of player you are, you gain bragging rights from a victory.

Like I said, if you want a ranking system based soley on skill/winning, then play Ranked. While you still have your overall rank increasing whether you win or lose, your Trueskill rank only goes up from winning.

The 1-50 ranking system is a whole other ranking system working alongside your overall rank as you play in Ranked playlists. Obviously, if you are playing Ranked, then you care about your Trueskill rank, and possibly not your overall rank. For me, however, it would be both.

Wait somebody explain to me why arena wasn’t the best ranking system to date post-patch. 1-50 doesn’t hold a candle to showing skill like the division/percentage system does.

> lost me at similar to call of duty.

You don’t agree that Reach’s ranking system in similar to Call of Duty’s? How is it not similar? It’s almost the same.

> > lost me at similar to call of duty.
>
> You don’t agree that Reach’s ranking system in similar to Call of Duty’s? How is it not similar? It’s almost the same.

It IS the exact same system. Play and rank up.

> Wait somebody explain to me why arena wasn’t the best ranking system to date post-patch. 1-50 doesn’t hold a candle to showing skill like the division/percentage system does.

Because hardly anyone plays it, so having a high Arena rank is purely for self-befinit. In fact, more people cared about their Trueskill rank in Halo 3 then their Arena rank in Reach, hence why the population of the Arena playlist is so low compared to that of Halo 3’s Ranked playlists, which were all much more populated than Arena has ever been. Shoot, even now, more people play Team Slayer on Halo 3 (Ranked playlist) than Arena, when most of Halo 3’s original population is gone and playing something else.

> > Wait somebody explain to me why arena wasn’t the best ranking system to date post-patch. 1-50 doesn’t hold a candle to showing skill like the division/percentage system does.
>
> Because hardly anyone plays it, so having a high Arena rank is purely for self-befinit. In fact, more people cared about their Trueskill rank in Halo 3 then their Arena rank in Reach, hence why the population of the Arena playlist is so low compared to that of Halo 3’s Ranked playlists, which were all much more populated than Arena has ever been. Shoot, even now, more people play Team Slayer on Halo 3 (Ranked playlist) than Arena, when most of Halo 3’s original population is gone and playing something else.

Being less popular isnt a problem with the ranking system though. Just because arena itself was unbalanced jetpack-dominated trash doesn’t take away from the fact that it was the most precise, consistent, and difficult to manipulate ranking system to date. I agree that it wasn’t popular enough, but that can be changed by giving greater incentives to play ranked. Or just making more than one ranked playlist.

> > > Wait somebody explain to me why arena wasn’t the best ranking system to date post-patch. 1-50 doesn’t hold a candle to showing skill like the division/percentage system does.
> >
> > Because hardly anyone plays it, so having a high Arena rank is purely for self-befinit. In fact, more people cared about their Trueskill rank in Halo 3 then their Arena rank in Reach, hence why the population of the Arena playlist is so low compared to that of Halo 3’s Ranked playlists, which were all much more populated than Arena has ever been. Shoot, even now, more people play Team Slayer on Halo 3 (Ranked playlist) than Arena, when most of Halo 3’s original population is gone and playing something else.
>
> Being less popular isnt a problem with the ranking system though. Just because arena itself was unbalanced jetpack-dominated trash doesn’t take away from the fact that it was the most precise, consistent, and difficult to manipulate ranking system to date. I agree that it wasn’t popular enough, but that can be changed by giving greater incentives to play ranked. Or just making more than one ranked playlist.

I respect you opinion about Arena, but I enjoy Halo 3’s 1-50 ranking more than Arena’s ranking system.

inb4theyarepracticallythesame

> > > > Wait somebody explain to me why arena wasn’t the best ranking system to date post-patch. 1-50 doesn’t hold a candle to showing skill like the division/percentage system does.
> > >
> > > Because hardly anyone plays it, so having a high Arena rank is purely for self-befinit. In fact, more people cared about their Trueskill rank in Halo 3 then their Arena rank in Reach, hence why the population of the Arena playlist is so low compared to that of Halo 3’s Ranked playlists, which were all much more populated than Arena has ever been. Shoot, even now, more people play Team Slayer on Halo 3 (Ranked playlist) than Arena, when most of Halo 3’s original population is gone and playing something else.
> >
> > Being less popular isnt a problem with the ranking system though. Just because arena itself was unbalanced jetpack-dominated trash doesn’t take away from the fact that it was the most precise, consistent, and difficult to manipulate ranking system to date. I agree that it wasn’t popular enough, but that can be changed by giving greater incentives to play ranked. Or just making more than one ranked playlist.
>
> I respect you opinion about Arena, but I enjoy Halo 3’s 1-50 ranking more than Arena’s ranking system.
>
> inb4theyarepracticallythesame

What do you like better about 1-50? I maintain that arena divisions are unequivocally better than 1-50. Not trying to argue just legitimately wondering.

> > > > > Wait somebody explain to me why arena wasn’t the best ranking system to date post-patch. 1-50 doesn’t hold a candle to showing skill like the division/percentage system does.
> > > >
> > > > Because hardly anyone plays it, so having a high Arena rank is purely for self-befinit. In fact, more people cared about their Trueskill rank in Halo 3 then their Arena rank in Reach, hence why the population of the Arena playlist is so low compared to that of Halo 3’s Ranked playlists, which were all much more populated than Arena has ever been. Shoot, even now, more people play Team Slayer on Halo 3 (Ranked playlist) than Arena, when most of Halo 3’s original population is gone and playing something else.
> > >
> > > Being less popular isnt a problem with the ranking system though. Just because arena itself was unbalanced jetpack-dominated trash doesn’t take away from the fact that it was the most precise, consistent, and difficult to manipulate ranking system to date. I agree that it wasn’t popular enough, but that can be changed by giving greater incentives to play ranked. Or just making more than one ranked playlist.
> >
> > I respect you opinion about Arena, but I enjoy Halo 3’s 1-50 ranking more than Arena’s ranking system.
> >
> > inb4theyarepracticallythesame
>
> What do you like better about 1-50? I maintain that arena divisions are unequivocally better than 1-50. Not trying to argue just legitimately wondering.

Well, first off, if I remember correctly Arena ranks reset every new season. I don’t like that. If I earned Onyx, I want to stay Onyx. It also seemed more… rewarding to me when my Trueskill rank went up another number than it did when my Arena rank went up. The only reason I ever played Arena after trying it for the first time was when they had the mega jackpot in arena last summer. It just didn’t seem as fun as regular Team Slayer. In Halo 3, I played Ranked all the time.

I’ve had an idea for a while now that kinda combines the two ranking systems and makes it fair for both the heavily competitive and the relatively casual, I plan to post it this weekend.

> I’ve had an idea for a while now that kinda combines the two ranking systems and makes it fair for both the heavily competitive and the relatively casual, I plan to post it this weekend.

Keep me posted, sound interesting.

> I’ve had an idea for a while now that kinda combines the two ranking systems and makes it fair for both the heavily competitive and the relatively casual, I plan to post it this weekend.

I look forward to reading it.