After a game in halo reach, every player was given a rating; this rating was based on number of kills, deaths, assists, and (correct me if I’m wrong on this one) objective points.
It considered all theses factors and was highly accurate in judging exactly how well a player did that game. I would like to see game ratings make a return in halo 5. How about you?
I liked it too, but it felt too relative. If you played against a bunch of players who were lesser skilled than you, your rating could easily shoot up to 1700. Then in the very next game, if you get matched against a bunch of players who were slightly better than you, your rating would be more like 990.
I see Reach’s rating system as somewhat redundant because I can already tell how well a player did by looking at his kills/assists/deaths.
Yes, was a quicker way than looking at each persons k/d etc.
> It considered all theses factors and was highly accurate in judging exactly how well a player did that game.
Meh, there’s always mitigating circumstances and subjective matters of opinion that make the question “how GOOD are you” one which can’t be satisfied with just one number.
Take the -Yoink- sitting in the base with a sniper trying to max out his K/D in a game. Sure he’s “contributing” but in a way that’s ultimately self-centered and inappropriate for the gametype at hand. Worse, he may even get a couple of captures in bringing the flag the last 20ft. if the enemy can push hard enough in the final leg of a flag run. Both of those aspects would make his rating a very high one indeed but how good of a player was he?
He wasn’t, he simply played the most conservative game possible to leverage gross imbalances in the sandbox and circumstance to max out his stats relative to others who might have lost out on the deaths, kills, or points but by using riskier, and thereby less “productive” strategies that none-the-less take more skill/ability/gonads to play effectively.
This is just one example so don’t get hung up on the details about “oh well its technically harder to aim at a target 200m away” since just as easily one can retort “well those targets can’t really shoot back either” and lead to an entirely irrelevant discussion about how we ultimately rate different player traits. The point is that however you assign worth to behavior its a subjective process and the use of numbers doesn’t change that simply because they are selected according to a particular value set.
Thus bringing the condensed Reach ratings back won’t contribute to the quality of multiplayer. All they’ll do is encourage a particular playstyle that best corresponds to the ideals of the selected statistics which may in itself be detrimental to the greater depth and diversity of the game. I’d rather see 343 try to develop a single rating system that has many different facets to it to simply describe a range of behaviors that one may see as good or bad according to their own tastes (see. the classic pokemon stat pentagons.)
> > It considered all theses factors and was highly accurate in judging exactly how well a player did that game.
>
> Meh, there’s always mitigating circumstances and subjective matters of opinion that make the question “how GOOD are you” one which can’t be satisfied with just one number.
>
> Take the -Yoink!- sitting in the base with a sniper trying to max out his K/D in a game. Sure he’s “contributing” but in a way that’s ultimately self-centered and inappropriate for the gametype at hand. Worse, he may even get a couple of captures in bringing the flag the last 20ft. if the enemy can push hard enough in the final leg of a flag run. Both of those aspects would make his rating a very high one indeed but how good of a player was he?
>
> He wasn’t, he simply played the most conservative game possible to leverage gross imbalances in the sandbox and circumstance to max out his stats relative to others who might have lost out on the deaths, kills, or points but by using riskier, and thereby less “productive” strategies that none-the-less take more skill/ability/gonads to play effectively.
>
> This is just one example so don’t get hung up on the details about “oh well its technically harder to aim at a target 200m away” since just as easily one can retort “well those targets can’t really shoot back either” and lead to an entirely irrelevant discussion about how we ultimately rate different player traits. The point is that however you assign worth to behavior its a subjective process and the use of numbers doesn’t change that simply because they are selected according to a particular value set.
>
> Thus bringing the condensed Reach ratings back won’t contribute to the quality of multiplayer. All they’ll do is encourage a particular playstyle that best corresponds to the ideals of the selected statistics which may in itself be detrimental to the greater depth and diversity of the game. I’d rather see 343 try to develop a single rating system that has many different facets to it to simply describe a range of behaviors that one may see as good or bad according to their own tastes (see. the classic pokemon stat pentagons.)
People that do that though, that is camp in the back with a sniper the whole time, will find themselves getting hardly any kills against decent players. I catch on very fast when someone tries that and simply never give them a clear shot. They can just sit back there with that sniper doing nothing for all I care, I’m not going to expose myself.
The key to good sniping is to move from place to place. That’s how you keep them guessing and get some clear shots.
If they took anything from Reach, it should be the Experience-based progression system. Inheritor might have only meant you played for many, many hours… but you earned it. None of this SR130 junk.
I only look at K/D in slayer games, anyway. If there is any element of objective to a gametype, then K/D becomes secondary.
Like everyone else here has said, the system is somewhat flawed. One match you could be playing against the best, but before than that, the worse, while you are an average player…that is a major difference.
I don’t know why, but I personally like the way CSR is built(mostly).
W/L isn’t always the best for EVERYTHING , for maybe objective or slayer variants?
K/D makes some “campers”(the annoying types) and power weapon hogs higher skilled(in terms of the ‘ranking’)
The only Reach Rating I personally would like back is the Private to Inheritor system.
Better idea. Bring back the 1-50.
> Better idea. Bring back the 1-50.
Even better, a system like this plus Reach progressive for unlocking stuff.
> People that do that though, that is camp in the back with a sniper the whole time, will find themselves getting hardly any kills against decent players. I catch on very fast when someone tries that and simply never give them a clear shot. They can just sit back there with that sniper doing nothing for all I care, I’m not going to expose myself.
>
> The key to good sniping is to move from place to place. That’s how you keep them guessing and get some clear shots.
And if the “decent” player is the one sniping he can do a LOT of damage. You’ve already brought in other qualities of the player and completely missed the point even after I warned you guys that having a discussion about the finer points of sniping strategy WAS NOT my intention. It’s just to show that in deciding how good a player is there are always many other factors to consider than kills, death, except that ultimately correspond to some particular set of values.
It’s subjective so lets avoid the pretense of a single “objective” skill rank. It can only mislead people.
> > Better idea. Bring back the 1-50.
>
> Even better, a system like this plus Reach progressive for unlocking stuff.
I agree with these IF the progressive system is use to only unlock things like different armours, gun skins, colours etc. Things that don’t affect the game.
As far as “Ranks” for ex Captain, General etc They should be obtain by winning ONLY!!! Not by simply just playing the game.
> > > Better idea. Bring back the 1-50.
> >
> > Even better, a system like this plus Reach progressive for unlocking stuff.
>
> I agree with these IF the progressive system is use to only unlock things like different armours, gun skins, colours etc. Things that don’t affect the game.
>
> As far as “Ranks” for ex Captain, General etc They should be obtain by winning ONLY!!! Not by simply just playing the game.
That’s what I meant by the progressive system. As for your comment about the “ranks”, I disagree. That is part of the social playlist and should also be an experience type deal.
EDIT: Sorry for going off-topic a bit. I do miss Reach’s rating post-game, yes it had flaws, but flaws can be adjusted 
> > > Better idea. Bring back the 1-50.
> >
> > Even better, a system like this plus Reach progressive for unlocking stuff.
>
> I agree with these IF the progressive system is use to only unlock things like different armours, gun skins, colours etc. Things that don’t affect the game.
>
> As far as “Ranks” for ex Captain, General etc <mark>They should be obtain by winning ONLY!!!</mark> Not by simply just playing the game.
I hated Halo 3 for that system, it made me get very angry when I ended losing the game at the last second. (I have anger management problems, and I did, in fact, lose several controllers to Halo 3’s absurd ranking system.)
> > > > Better idea. Bring back the 1-50.
> > >
> > > Even better, a system like this plus Reach progressive for unlocking stuff.
> >
> > I agree with these IF the progressive system is use to only unlock things like different armours, gun skins, colours etc. Things that don’t affect the game.
> >
> > As far as “Ranks” for ex Captain, General etc They should be obtain by winning ONLY!!! Not by simply just playing the game.
>
> <mark>That’s what I meant by the progressive system.</mark> As for your comment about the “ranks”, I disagree. That is part of the social playlist and should also be an experience type deal.
>
> EDIT: Sorry for going off-topic a bit. I do miss Reach’s rating post-game, yes it had flaws, but flaws can be adjusted
k just making sure, then I agree with you but I think the ranks should be like Halo 3 if you remember that.
If I recall right You can only get something like Brigadier by first winning it in ranked play. Then If you play a lot of social you can get something like Brigadier General, but you couldn’t ever get General by playing social. You had to get it in ranked play first. I think I explain that right. To me this was a great system.
It showed both exp. and winning in one shot. If I was a Brigadier General for ex you would be like ok he’s won a lot and he’s pretty dam good but not the best, but he’s played a ton so he’s battlefield harden! Anyone who dismisses someone who has played a lot but has a low rank is a fool because it doesn’t mean that there a bad player.
It was the Perfect system in my mind
> > > > Better idea. Bring back the 1-50.
> > >
> > > Even better, a system like this plus Reach progressive for unlocking stuff.
> >
> > I agree with these IF the progressive system is use to only unlock things like different armours, gun skins, colours etc. Things that don’t affect the game.
> >
> > As far as “Ranks” for ex Captain, General etc <mark>They should be obtain by winning ONLY!!!</mark> Not by simply just playing the game.
>
> I hated Halo 3 for that system, it made me get very angry when I ended losing the game at the last second. (I have anger management problems, and I did, in fact, lose several controllers to Halo 3’s absurd ranking system.)
This is what I meant by I like CSR the best out of those three.
The Halo 3 ranking still was flawed like the other systems.
W/L still doesn’t majorly determine skill nor team work.
While it may ‘encourage’ it, it still isn’t the best.
More skilled enemy team? Fine then.
Team of campers with shotguns in Bravo Base in Longbow Dominion? NO.
So, FFAs you are first place so you rank up but others don’t? Total bull.
Objective W/L? Fine.
W/L doesn’t always provide the best ranking, but it is a semi effective one.
Although I would like to say that this is mostly my opinion about fairness.
> > > > Better idea. Bring back the 1-50.
> > >
> > > Even better, a system like this plus Reach progressive for unlocking stuff.
> >
> > I agree with these IF the progressive system is use to only unlock things like different armours, gun skins, colours etc. Things that don’t affect the game.
> >
> > As far as “Ranks” for ex Captain, General etc <mark>They should be obtain by winning ONLY!!!</mark> Not by simply just playing the game.
>
> I hated Halo 3 for that system, it made me get very angry when I ended losing the game at the last second. (I have anger management problems, and I did, in fact, lose several controllers to Halo 3’s absurd ranking system.)
No offence, but just because you got mad and have anger problems, doesn’t make it a bad system. Sorry you broke so many controllers…
Think about it, Do you think the UNSC would promote you to General because you’ve been in a lot of battles? no…you would get promoted but you would never get that high rank of say General. Those kind of ranks are for those individuals who do out standing things, time and time again, who always win, they always get the job done. Makes sense to me.
I didn’t play halo reach as much as other past halo games. I still played a lot thought. I can honesty say 75% of the time I ALWAYS played against people who were higher “ranks” then me aka just played more but they were terrible!!! ranks meant NOTHING in Halo reach. Do you not remember everyone always just saying before the games and after “ranks mean nothing in reach bro! you suck” or whatever and it was So true!! they didn’t! It just meant you played a lot and ya sometimes they were really good, but most of the time they were not. Hence Halo 3 system to me was better because it combine the two. Just my opinion.
> > > > > Better idea. Bring back the 1-50.
> > > >
> > > > Even better, a system like this plus Reach progressive for unlocking stuff.
> > >
> > > I agree with these IF the progressive system is use to only unlock things like different armours, gun skins, colours etc. Things that don’t affect the game.
> > >
> > > As far as “Ranks” for ex Captain, General etc They should be obtain by winning ONLY!!! Not by simply just playing the game.
> >
> > <mark>That’s what I meant by the progressive system.</mark> As for your comment about the “ranks”, I disagree. That is part of the social playlist and should also be an experience type deal.
> >
> > EDIT: Sorry for going off-topic a bit. I do miss Reach’s rating post-game, yes it had flaws, but flaws can be adjusted
>
> k just making sure, then I agree with you but I think the ranks should be like Halo 3 if you remember that.
>
> If I recall right You can only get something like Brigadier by first winning it in ranked play. Then If you play a lot of social you can get something like Brigadier General, but you couldn’t ever get General by playing social. You had to get it in ranked play first. I think I explain that right. To me this was a great system.
>
> It showed both exp. and winning in one shot. If I was a Brigadier General for ex you would be like ok he’s won a lot and he’s pretty dam good but not the best, but he’s played a ton so he’s battlefield harden! Anyone who dismisses someone who has played a lot but has a low rank is a fool because it doesn’t mean that there a bad player.
>
> <mark>It was the Perfect system in my mind :)</mark>
Close to it anyways
If the ratings are used simply as another stat on the postgame leaderboard I support the idea. However the ratings as a form of a ranking system can never work unless they are team based/ W/L based. Although simply looking at W/L (such as Halo 2/3 did) may not be the most fair system possible (bad teammates losing you matches etc), an individual ranking system simply becomes an 8 person FFA vs your teammates for points. I really think the idea of a seasonal divisional rank as in Reach could work if it was team based and for all ranked playlists.