Is the Ranking System set?

Games Other Halo
1

I know that it’s based much more on winning this time, but the ranking system set Halo 3 apart from other games way of ranking up. It was dependent on winning and affected the competitiveness immensely. I don’t see why the 1-50 ranking system was the most wanted and most asked for addition to Halo 4 after they failed to add it in Reach, yet 343 decided they would disappoint us and leave it out.

I’ve been very positive about the additions to Halo 4. When they don’t take advice from their fans though, even though so many have suggested it, it bothers me a little. I’ve heard so many people say that bringing the 1-50 into Reach with a Title Update, would bring it back to life. More people would play it again because they want to get to 50.

People buying and selling accounts doesn’t even affect 343 in any major way. That was just a BS excuse.

2

We don’t know what the ranking system is yet (Besides the SR exp ranks), apparently boosting and cheating was a large enough issue with 1-50 that it warranted taking it out.

3

No deranking and still a good reward even if we lose. That’s all I want.

4

> We don’t know what the ranking system is yet (Besides the SR exp ranks), apparently boosting and cheating was a large enough issue with 1-50 that it warranted taking it out.

This.

I don’t know about you, OP, but if I spent many hours of shedding blood, sweat, and tears, creating a game, just to have people cheat and boost and ruin the game for others, I would want to get rid of the problem, too.

5

I have given up on an in game, visible, skill based ranking system. I just hope Halotracker has the API access that they need for the best stat gathering possible.

6

<mark>Is the Ranking system set ?</mark>

Yes it is .
Although we have NO idea how it works or what it goes off of .

Im hopeful
But only time will tell if its good or bad .

7

1-50 was a flawed system. You can’t argue against that. Boosting, de-ranking, alt accounts, selling accounts, etc. If you can fix those issues, MAYBE they would put it in. But then again, why make the majority of players feel like crap because they have NO way of accomplishing that feat.

Oh blah blah, catering to casuals. No, a ranking system that stops your progress and labels your skill is flawed. It segregates and alienates people. Not to mention the logical fallacies that plague the forums afterwards.

You’re not a 50, your K/D isn’t higher than 2, how can you be right about any of the games mechanics, you’re bad at the game so your opinion and input doesn’t matter.

This happened in Halo 3, and if you put the 1-50 or anything system like it in Halo 4, you’ll see the same problems arise.

8

> 1-50 was a flawed system. You can’t argue against that. Boosting, de-ranking, alt accounts, selling accounts, etc. If you can fix those issues, MAYBE they would put it in. But then again, why make the majority of players feel like crap because they have NO way of accomplishing that feat.
>
> Oh blah blah, catering to casuals. No, a <mark>ranking system that stops your progress and labels your skill is flawed</mark>. It segregates and alienates people. Not to mention the logical fallacies that plague the forums afterwards.
>
> You’re not a 50, your K/D isn’t higher than 2, how can you be right about any of the games mechanics, you’re bad at the game so your opinion and input doesn’t matter.
>
> This happened in Halo 3, and if you put the 1-50 or anything system like it in Halo 4, you’ll see the same problems arise.

High School football, college football, semi-pro football, and the NFL. A skill system that stops progress and labels your skills. So, is this system flawed? Why don’t we get a couple guys together and play against the Baltimore Ravens Defense lets just ignore skill. Sounds awesome (sarcasm)

9

> I have given up on an in game, visible, skill based ranking system. I just hope Halotracker has the API access that they need for the best stat gathering possible.

They already confirmed that there is a skill based ranking and they’re hinting strongly that it’s only visible to you, so it shouldn’t have an affect on anyone except for the dirtbags who brag and trash talk they’re teammates and think that it means a lot in real life to have the highest rank in a video game…

10

> > I have given up on an in game, visible, skill based ranking system. I just hope Halotracker has the API access that they need for the best stat gathering possible.
>
> They already confirmed that there is a skill based ranking and they’re hinting strongly that it’s only visible to you, so it shouldn’t have an affect on anyone except for the dirtbags who brag and trash talk they’re teammates and think that it means a lot in real life to have the highest rank in a video game…

Ironic.

11

> > 1-50 was a flawed system. You can’t argue against that. Boosting, de-ranking, alt accounts, selling accounts, etc. If you can fix those issues, MAYBE they would put it in. But then again, why make the majority of players feel like crap because they have NO way of accomplishing that feat.
> >
> > Oh blah blah, catering to casuals. No, a <mark>ranking system that stops your progress and labels your skill is flawed</mark>. It segregates and alienates people. Not to mention the logical fallacies that plague the forums afterwards.
> >
> > You’re not a 50, your K/D isn’t higher than 2, how can you be right about any of the games mechanics, you’re bad at the game so your opinion and input doesn’t matter.
> >
> > This happened in Halo 3, and if you put the 1-50 or anything system like it in Halo 4, you’ll see the same problems arise.
>
> High School football, college football, semi-pro football, and the NFL. A skill system that stops progress and labels your skills. So, is this system flawed? Why don’t we get a couple guys together and play against the Baltimore Ravens Defense lets just ignore skill. Sounds awesome (sarcasm)

It is when you’re trying to sell a product.

Edit: The point is, trueskill still works in the background. You’ll be facing players of your skill.
Edit 2: So instead of limiting the progress a player can make and making them feel bad (very bad decision making), we have this exp progression system. Why is this better for overall longevity of the game? If it were the 1-50 ranking system, and I got locked off at say level 28, and no matter how much I won, I couldn’t rank up, or it was impossibly hard to rank up, I would no longer have fun playing, because the thing I’m working towards is impossible to get.

Now, I remember seeing people who were level 50, getting there within 20 games, obviously boosting. But the point is you can get to level 50 rather quickly, a week or 2. After they have accomplished that, what incentive do THOSE players have to keep playing? They don’t. They reached the pinnacle of matchmaking. They either get a new account and just play the social playlists, stat padding, OR do it all over again. Sell their accounts and what not.

An EXP system gives players an achieveable goal, that can’t be reached TOO SOON. Keeps all players around longer.

Edit 3: A player who sells their account to start over is directly affecting players in a negative way, just like de-rankers did. Their trueskill would be reset to 0, so they would pair up with the lower skilled players and totally dominate them for a while until his trueskill picked back up to where it is suppose to be.

12

  • Says visible 1-50 is flawed

  • Is okay with 1-50 progression system

Nice logic!

13

I see what you’re saying with flaws of the halo 3 true-skill, i didn’t like how in many cases where that player was frozen at a level and could only go down no matter how many games they played, but then again there were many different rank gametypes, than just the one to rank up in.

You can’t fail that many times and still think that its the system holding you back.

14

There’s SR 1-50 (like ranks from Reach), but we still haven’t heard anything about a skill-based ranking system. Supposedly there is one, though, so we’ll just have to wait and see.

15

Not saying 1-50 was perfect or that we should have it back but just a heads up EVERY SINGLE FLAW THAT HALO 3’s 1-50 Had HALO REACH’S ARENA ALSO HAD + a few more

Hopefully Halo 4’s system is great and will keep people coming back .

16

> Not saying 1-50 was perfect or that we should have it back but just a heads up EVERY SINGLE FLAW THAT HALO 3’s 1-50 Had HALO REACH’S ARENA ALSO HAD + a few more

I usually agree with your posts but not this. Arena demoted the ideas of cheating, boosting, and selling accounts because of Seasons. Arena was not even near as exploitable as 1-50. It was a solid system but population levels were always low and it never got to show it’s true potential because lots of competitive players didn’t like the gameplay including me (the gameplay is much better now though).

17

> > Not saying 1-50 was perfect or that we should have it back but just a heads up EVERY SINGLE FLAW THAT HALO 3’s 1-50 Had HALO REACH’S ARENA ALSO HAD + a few more
>
> I usually agree with your posts but not this. Arena demoted the ideas of cheating, boosting, and selling accounts because of Seasons. Arena was not even near as exploitable as 1-50. It was a solid system but population levels were always low and it never got to show it’s true potential because lots of competitive players didn’t like the gameplay including me (the gameplay is much better now though).

Arena is broken, It gives you a crappy rank even if you dominate, i’ll take a ranking system that a few can exploit than one that doesnt work at all.

18

> > Not saying 1-50 was perfect or that we should have it back but just a heads up EVERY SINGLE FLAW THAT HALO 3’s 1-50 Had HALO REACH’S ARENA ALSO HAD + a few more
>
> I usually agree with your posts but not this. Arena demoted the ideas of cheating, boosting, and selling accounts because of Seasons. Arena was not even near as exploitable as 1-50. It was a solid system but population levels were always low and it never got to show it’s true potential because lots of competitive players didn’t like the gameplay including me (the gameplay is much better now though).

The way Arena “solved” selling accounts also made no one care about Arena ranks since they reset. Not a good solution.

19

If you compare Reach’s population at this point in its life time to Halo 3’s at the same point, I’m pretty sure Halo 3’s was higher. 1 - 50 certainly kept me playing for longer, even if I wasn’t achieving much, I was building up a rank in each playlist. Reach takes ages to get up one rank, and when you get there you get a crappy helmet attachment. Wasn’t rewarding at all for me.

20

Still dont understand why 1-50 was ever taken out.

Dont tell me, Oh no derankers, boosters and selling accounts. Because they are minor flaws. And I would only encounter a deranker once every 50 games.

Not having a 1-50 is one of the MAIN reasons why reach failed. I dont understand why we cant have the Halo 2 ranking system?