Let me just start off by saying i think the Halo 3 ranking system was the best and I wish it were to come back. Anyway this idea of mine may sound terrible or it may be decent so here goes:
Similar to the old ranking system with the actual ranks instead of the numbers, but ranking up incorporates mainly wins and your K/D within one match. By that I mean you need a certain amount of wins before you can rank up OR if you have a good enough K/D in a match, that can also rank you up. For example, you’re around the half way mark to max level, so to rank up to the next rank lets say you need 20 wins OR a K/D in a match of +20 or so. So even if you lose that game but get that +20 K/D you rank up and now the amount of wins for the next rank you need goes up to say 22 wins or you can go +24 in a match to rank up. And you keep winning to reduce the number amount of wins needed to rank up, but if you lose it goes back up by 1 each loss.
I know alot of people dont care about K/D so im prepared to receive hate for this…
> 2533274822232286;1:
> Let me just start off by saying i think the Halo 3 ranking system was the best and I wish it were to come back. Anyway this idea of mine may sound terrible or it may be decent so here goes:
> Similar to the old ranking system with the actual ranks instead of the numbers, but ranking up incorporates mainly wins and your K/D within one match. By that I mean you need a certain amount of wins before you can rank up OR if you have a good enough K/D in a match, that can also rank you up. For example, you’re around the half way mark to max level, so to rank up to the next rank lets say you need 20 wins OR a K/D in a match of +20 or so. So even if you lose that game but get that +20 K/D you rank up and now the amount of wins for the next rank you need goes up to say 22 wins or you can go +24 in a match to rank up. And you keep winning to reduce the number amount of wins needed to rank up, but if you lose it goes back up by 1 each loss.
> I know alot of people dont care about K/D so im prepared to receive hate for this…
that sounds interesting. I also have a problem with the ranking system of H5. especially with all these quitters around…
I think if you play 3 vs 4 you should at leas keep your rank and it would be nice if the KD ratio would also play a role. if it is >1.0 you should also keep your rank.
The other problem i have is that i often get matched with unranked player against diamond or platinum players ( i am gold 3 in slayer). Or the overall rank of my team is very low compared to the enemy team.
I am not a fan of the playlist ranking in general, it crutches your overall game play I find when your a certain Spartan Rank but due to bad luck, your rank is only like Gold 1 or somewhere in between. I’ve played Halo online since 3, and I just see it as a label versus overall skill. Even I can admit that the way the game controls is still somewhat foreign to me. I dunno maybe I’m exaggerating, but I’d like to think that I still play for the sake of playing, not just where I stand above or below others.
> 2533274844531789;4:
> I’d like to think that I still play for the sake of playing, not just where I stand above or below others.
Since you said you played since 3 that makes sense, because Halo 2 the system actually worked. The average players were around a 25-30 which is perfectly fine. When games started everyone was +/- 1-3 levels at max (until population dropped). The rating system took into account win or loss, who you beat and where you placed in every game.
You really didn’t trash talk too much about rank because you didn’t have 50s plays 25s. When you were a 30 you played 28-33, that’s about it. Games were also generally pretty close more often than not. These blow out games were only a few and far between during the initian placements were being figured out.
Rankiny numbers only because a big deal in Halo 3 because 50s were so easy to get. Yes, you got made fun of for not reaching one or using the “LEVEL LOCKED” phrase which wasn’t a thing.
> 2535461654479046;3:
> Halo 2’s system was hands down the best, took into multiple attributes and it was next to impossible to reach a level 50. (which is what is should be)
>
> The logic for the ranking system is online but it was extremely complex but it worked amazingly well.
>
> Halo 3 had way too many 50s.
Ill take your word for it since i never played halo 2 back in the day