Old School Ranks

I don’t know if it’s the E-Sports atmosphere, or what, but Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum, etc., just doesn’t seem satisfying. Who else misses the old school ranks or Recruit, Apprentice, Private, Corporal, Sergeant, Gunnery Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain, Major, Commander, Colonel, Brigadier and General in Halo 3? Because back in the day, if you finished as the top 2 players on your team (I think that’s the way it was, it’s been so long I can’t remember) then you still got xp, even if you lost. So, the ranks were more based on your skill, rather than just your team winning or losing. I remember my friends and I would -Yoink!- are pants when we went up against a bunch of 1-5 Star Generals. Now, it’s almost like standardized tests; it doesn’t represent true skill or anything. Maybe I’m crazy, I don’t know. Thoughts?

Yes. I miss them. The numbers are stupid. Reach had the coolest ranks. Like it spun off of Halo 3, where max rank was general.

> 2533274872013539;2:
> Yes. I miss them. The numbers are stupid. Reach had the coolest ranks. Like it spun off of Halo 3, where max rank was general.

Most definitely. I also miss the armor from Halo 3 and the way you unlocked them. Nowadays, everything is just micro-transactions. It’s just disappointing. The Hayabusa armor was the best armor in all of Halo games, in my opinion at least.

I think the e-sports thing could have an effect, yes.
I miss the old ranks too :frowning:

I find the Halo 5 system quite a bit easier to understand in where a player lies in the ranking scale, to that effect I’m happy with keeping ranks as they are. Never really liked the military scale. Short and sweet works best for me

I don’t have an issue with current setup. The current system plays out like the 1-50 but just differs in appearance. Example being bronze could be 1-5 silver being 6-15, gold being 16-25, platinum being 26-40. It’s really there to just simplify the ranks to my understanding, correct me if I’m wrong as well.

i also believe the reach ranks with names I.E. lieutenant, grenadier, general, etc etc were xp ranks, they’re at the bottom of my list since it’s all about play time on those and not actual skill.

what really needs to happen (and they’ve already started it in a sense and hopefully it translates to H6) is making the ranks become harder to achieve, it’s where they will then start to matter cause for the most part you can rank up high by simple grinding, not so much involved. I also don’t think they should go to individual stats dictating ranks as I don’t feel like playing with -yoinks- out for their own glory rather than trying to get the win or being a team player. Skill AND team play needs to be incorporated into the ranks for me.

> 2533274800165333;1:
> Because back in the day, if you finished as the top 2 players on your team (I think that’s the way it was, it’s been so long I can’t remember) then you still got xp, even if you lost. So, the ranks were more based on your skill, rather than just your team winning or losing.

You’re thinking of Halo 3. That was the time when ranks were tied to both skill and experience. Which sucked because, progression-wise, you couldn’t pass a certain rank no matter how much you played if you weren’t skilled enough (which is why there were grade 4 ranks like Master Sergeant and Field Major).
In Reach, progression was entirely dependent on how much you played. Which meant that, theoretically, everyone could achieve the highest rank of Inheritor. This was much better because of accessibility. Now in Halo 5, we have 2 types of rank: progression and skill. One displays how much you have played, and the other is a representation of how good you are. I like the degree of separation; it would suck if I couldn’t progress my SR because it was based on skill.

> 2533274817408735;7:
> > 2533274800165333;1:
> > Because back in the day, if you finished as the top 2 players on your team (I think that’s the way it was, it’s been so long I can’t remember) then you still got xp, even if you lost. So, the ranks were more based on your skill, rather than just your team winning or losing.
>
> You’re thinking of Halo 3. That was the time when ranks were tied to both skill and experience. Which sucked because, progression-wise, you couldn’t pass a certain rank no matter how much you played if you weren’t skilled enough (which is why there were grade 4 ranks like Master Sergeant and Field Major).
> In Reach, progression was entirely dependent on how much you played. Which meant that, theoretically, everyone could achieve the highest rank of Inheritor. This was much better because of accessibility. Now in Halo 5, we have 2 types of rank: progression and skill. One displays how much you have played, and the other is a representation of how good you are. I like the degree of separation; it would suck if I couldn’t progress my SR because it was based on skill.

Yeah, sorry, I was referring to the “old school” as in Halo 3. I should’ve mentioned that. I edited the OP to reflect that.

But, see, I like the skilled base progression, rather than just playing constantly and achieving the highest rank. In Halo 3, if you went up against a commander grade 4 and saw how long he/she has been playing, you could tell how good they were. But if you just completely sucked then you were more than likely going to stay a Corporal or Sergeant because either you finished in the bottom three of your team and/or you lost. Yet, if you were a high tier player, but got stuck on a -Yoink!- team, you could still rank up because you would still get xp from finishing in the top 2 of your team.

In Halo 5, it doesn’t matter if you finished 1st on your team, if you lose then you’re not going to rank up to gold, platinum, diamond, whatever; you’ll actually get demoted. I just believe everyone shouldn’t be able to achieve the highest rank just because they’ve grinded out game after game. I like the skill based progression. But that’s just my opinion. The degree of separation, like you said, is nice, but I’d like the number rank to be changed to that of Halo 3 ranks. The number rank is just boring, in my opinion.

Hopefully, that made sense.

> 2533274923562209;6:
> i also believe the reach ranks with names I.E. lieutenant, grenadier, general, etc etc were xp ranks, they’re at the bottom of my list since it’s all about play time on those and not actual skill.

If I remember correctly, those were based on skill. Like I was telling Chimera30, it didn’t matter how much you played, if you didn’t finish in the top 2 of your team (if you lost) then you weren’t ranking up. So, essentially, you could play for years and years, but if you sucked, then chances are you were not going to get higher than an enlisted rank (recruit, apprentice, private, corporal, sergeant and gunnery sergeant). I could be wrong because it’s been almost 6 or 7 years since I’ve played Halo 3 (god, I’m getting old), but that’s the way I remember it. If I’m wrong then do correct me.

Another point I’m trying to get at is just any game that’s involved with E-Sports, the ranking system is always bronze, silver, gold, etc. There isn’t a game anymore that seems original and sticks to their roots.

I’ve always loved competitive multiplayer games with a balanced, well-rounded ranking system. Halo 3’s lended a very accomplished feeling of completion to its ranks, thanks to the XP and ranked playlists. Not only was it built for ranked and competitive players, but also from a social perspective for those who don’t take it as seriously, but still look for fun out of each game.

I capped off my Halo 3 career as a Lieutenant Colonel, Grade 3, all because I couldn’t win enough Rumble Pit games simultaneously to advance to Brigadier. But I still had a blast with it, even if I wasn’t earning anything past my current rank.

Sadly, I haven’t dived into Halo 5’s multiplayer yet, because I have a hard time letting go of the slower, methodical pacing of Halo 3’s multiplayer. but also because I appreciate the ranking system still to this day to where I don’t think I’ve got the patience to try a new one out.

I like the skill ranks, but the progression system ranking is boring and the XP grind at the last ranks are ridiculous.

I don’t find anything special about them being named after military ranks. It all has the same purpose.

> 2533274802196931;10:
> I’ve always loved competitive multiplayer games with a balanced, well-rounded ranking system. Halo 3’s lended a very accomplished feeling of completion to its ranks, thanks to the XP and ranked playlists. Not only was it built for ranked and competitive players, but also from a social perspective for those who don’t take it as seriously, but still look for fun out of each game.
>
> I capped off my Halo 3 career as a Lieutenant Colonel, Grade 3, all because I couldn’t win enough Rumble Pit games simultaneously to advance to Brigadier. But I still had a blast with it, even if I wasn’t earning anything past my current rank.
>
> Sadly, I haven’t dived into Halo 5’s multiplayer yet, because I have a hard time letting go of the slower, methodical pacing of Halo 3’s multiplayer. but also because I appreciate the ranking system still to this day to where I don’t think I’ve got the patience to try a new one out.

Don’t try halo 5. The speed and frustration I’d not with it. Not to mention armor abilities.

> 2533274864708567;13:
> > 2533274802196931;10:
> > I’ve always loved competitive multiplayer games with a balanced, well-rounded ranking system. Halo 3’s lended a very accomplished feeling of completion to its ranks, thanks to the XP and ranked playlists. Not only was it built for ranked and competitive players, but also from a social perspective for those who don’t take it as seriously, but still look for fun out of each game.
> >
> > I capped off my Halo 3 career as a Lieutenant Colonel, Grade 3, all because I couldn’t win enough Rumble Pit games simultaneously to advance to Brigadier. But I still had a blast with it, even if I wasn’t earning anything past my current rank.
> >
> > Sadly, I haven’t dived into Halo 5’s multiplayer yet, because I have a hard time letting go of the slower, methodical pacing of Halo 3’s multiplayer. but also because I appreciate the ranking system still to this day to where I don’t think I’ve got the patience to try a new one out.
>
> Don’t try halo 5. The speed and frustration I’d not with it. Not to mention armor abilities.

I’m not really a fan of the direction 343i is taking Halo with its multiplayer. I hate how developers think Halo needs to catch up aesthetically to Call of Duty and Battlefield, like it’s the standard. The thing is Halo set its own standards, it was way more chill and laid back with its multiplayer presentation. I don’t mind jogging instead of sprinting, or using equipment over armor abilities. It’s way too gimmicky.

I don’t mind Halo 4’s multiplayer, it’s actually fun when it’s at its peak. But after seeing footage of Halo 5’s, I’m not on board with it.

Skill and team both need to be a factor in ranking. H5 is just about winning so these vanilla ranks don’t mean a whole lot.

Old school ranks are definitely cooler, but I can understand why there is a focus on making the ranks Bronze, Silver, Gold… - it’s just simple and straightforward especially from a leaderboard standpoint. Skill-based players do need to be properly rewarded despite being stuck in bad fireteam etc…