The current ranking system that causes weak players to reach high rank on the backs of their stronger team members should be replaced with an individual player rating that takes everything into account.
kills, deaths, accuracy,playing the obj or ignoring it, ASSISTS, quitting.
All these things should be used to generate a rating number representative of a players performance in the game. As it is you often are teamed up with players who all quit or cant hit the broadside of the Infinity even though their “rank” indicates that they are strong players.
Or just have Reach sized ranks. Never a noob who was an inheritor, they just can’t enjoy a game that long.
I have to agree with this, but I don’t agree with Reach ranks. I think it should be based on single player performance AND team performance.
> 2533274938678576;3:
> I have to agree with this, but I don’t agree with Reach ranks. I think it should be based on single player performance AND team performance.
By single player do you mean FFA or campaign?
> 2533274850939632;4:
> > 2533274938678576;3:
> > I have to agree with this, but I don’t agree with Reach ranks. I think it should be based on single player performance AND team performance.
>
>
> By single player do you mean FFA or campaign?
He just means a good mix of what you said and team cooperation, some of whats already in place.
> 2533274891841289;5:
> > 2533274850939632;4:
> > > 2533274938678576;3:
> > > I have to agree with this, but I don’t agree with Reach ranks. I think it should be based on single player performance AND team performance.
> >
> >
> > By single player do you mean FFA or campaign?
>
>
> He just means a good mix of what you said and team cooperation, some of whats already in place.
You can almost go afk and rank up a ton. I’d really like to see assists count the same as kills too. I think assists are critically underewarded for a game as heavily team focused as Halo.
> 2533274850939632;6:
> > 2533274891841289;5:
> > > 2533274850939632;4:
> > > > 2533274938678576;3:
> > > > I have to agree with this, but I don’t agree with Reach ranks. I think it should be based on single player performance AND team performance.
> > >
> > >
> > > By single player do you mean FFA or campaign?
> >
> >
> > He just means a good mix of what you said and team cooperation, some of whats already in place.
>
>
> You can almost go afk and rank up a ton. I’d really like to see assists count the same as kills too. I think assists are critically underewarded for a game as heavily team focused as Halo.
That’s stupid because you won’t rank up if you AFK.
> 2533274809432820;7:
> > 2533274850939632;6:
> > > 2533274891841289;5:
> > > > 2533274850939632;4:
> > > > > 2533274938678576;3:
> > > > > I have to agree with this, but I don’t agree with Reach ranks. I think it should be based on single player performance AND team performance.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > By single player do you mean FFA or campaign?
> > >
> > >
> > > He just means a good mix of what you said and team cooperation, some of whats already in place.
> >
> >
> > You can almost go afk and rank up a ton. I’d really like to see assists count the same as kills too. I think assists are critically underewarded for a game as heavily team focused as Halo.
>
>
> That’s stupid because you won’t rank up if you AFK.
Thats why i said almost. As in almost have no impact on the game. How bout you read the post next time before you comment.
> 2533274891841289;2:
> Or just have Reach sized ranks. Never a noob who was an inheritor, they just can’t enjoy a game that long.
Are you serious. Plenty of Inheritors that were terrible at the game, you don’t have to be good at a game to like it and continue playing it. As far as rankings are concerned, well after 8 years of talking about ranks on Bungie.net and this forum, I don’t really have it in me to talk about it anymore.
Give me ranks and make them work. Nuff Said.
Its not perfect, but I don’t agree that that will happen, because it will group a team of similar skilled players in their skill rank (Something like bronze, silver, and gold 1, 2, and 3, then semi pro and pro). That way (hopefully) the teammate will on average contribute as much as the rest of their team. They also have afk systems in place to kick afk players. Sure there will be a top and bottom of each rank, but a loss by a team will cause their skill rank to fall. the ones that try can then rank up again with a team that cares, leaving the dysfunctional one behind. I feel like having it team based slows it down, but everyone will eventually sort out into the same place.
ranking system has been explained. Its very skill based check it out on google halo 5 ranking system.
> 2533274804826315;9:
> > 2533274891841289;2:
> > Or just have Reach sized ranks. Never a noob who was an inheritor, they just can’t enjoy a game that long.
>
>
> Are you serious. Plenty of Inheritors that were terrible at the game, you don’t have to be good at a game to like it and continue playing it. As far as rankings are concerned, well after 8 years of talking about ranks on Bungie.net and this forum, I don’t really have it in me to talk about it anymore.
>
> Give me ranks and make them work. Nuff Said.
Yes to this. Ranking has consistently sucked in every halo title in so far as it has never represented actual player skill.
> 2533274850939632;4:
> > 2533274938678576;3:
> > I have to agree with this, but I don’t agree with Reach ranks. I think it should be based on single player performance AND team performance.
>
>
> By single player do you mean FFA or campaign?
As in, the multiplayer. In team modes.
I jump into games solo, I rarely ever, as in 1 out of 1000 games have a team. I don’t like people.
I want my team mode to actually rank ME for my performance. Not JUST if I won/lost. If I had 40 kills, and 3 deaths, and lost the game, I still lose. I lose rank, yet the people who are negative 30 on the winning team, still progress up. That’s just ridiculous.
I think it should be more like this 75% of your ranking should be from your performance. 25% should be if you win. If you lose, you lose the 25%, and you can’t have it.
The other 75% is if you are actually good. Assists, kills, headshots, medals, time with ball or hill, etc. Obviously the percentages can be changed, but it’s just a suggestion.
Using this sort of thing, is if I lost the game, but had the best kill/death, or the most points, whatever, I won’t lose a rank. I might even gain a SMALL amount. I’m not saying you should rank up regardless if you lost, I’m saying you shouldn’t derank when you actually did well.
> 2533274850939632;6:
> > 2533274891841289;5:
> > > 2533274850939632;4:
> > > > 2533274938678576;3:
> > > > I have to agree with this, but I don’t agree with Reach ranks. I think it should be based on single player performance AND team performance.
> > >
> > >
> > > By single player do you mean FFA or campaign?
> >
> >
> > He just means a good mix of what you said and team cooperation, some of whats already in place.
>
>
> You can almost go afk and rank up a ton. I’d really like to see assists count the same as kills too. I think assists are critically underewarded for a game as heavily team focused as Halo.
You won’t even get past rank 5 most likely if you AFK.
Neither kills or assists counts for anything statistically. Win and you’re golden.
@Triple Zro
OG H2 tried. It based XP gained from winning and performance on your team. AKA the placing you received. That’s why if you look at Bungie.net stats in a game of H2 is labels 1st - 8th instead just 1st or 2nd.
It’s a weird deal, because I believe winning should be the main factor of ranking up. However I understand that individual performance should matter to some degree. If someone goes 30 - 3 in a TS game and loses. Is it really fair to that player to lose rank? Same with some one who wins a game of TS, but goes 2 - 16. Should that person really deserve to rank up?
Perfect ranking system probably can’t be obtained as we all have our own opinions on what it should be. At this point I just want a decent fair ranking system and that’s all.
> 2533274938678576;13:
> > 2533274850939632;4:
> > > 2533274938678576;3:
> > > I have to agree with this, but I don’t agree with Reach ranks. I think it should be based on single player performance AND team performance.
> >
> >
> > By single player do you mean FFA or campaign?
>
>
> As in, the multiplayer. In team modes.
> I jump into games solo, I rarely ever, as in 1 out of 1000 games have a team. I don’t like people.
> I want my team mode to actually rank ME for my performance. Not JUST if I won/lost. If I had 40 kills, and 3 deaths, and lost the game, I still lose. I lose rank, yet the people who are negative 30 on the winning team, still progress up. That’s just ridiculous.
>
> I think it should be more like this 75% of your ranking should be from your performance. 25% should be if you win. If you lose, you lose the 25%, and you can’t have it.
> The other 75% is if you are actually good. Assists, kills, headshots, medals, time with ball or hill, etc. Obviously the percentages can be changed, but it’s just a suggestion.
> Using this sort of thing, is if I lost the game, but had the best kill/death, or the most points, whatever, I won’t lose a rank. I might even gain a SMALL amount. I’m not saying you should rank up regardless if you lost, I’m saying you shouldn’t derank when you actually did well.
Couldnt agree more. Personally id put win/loss at more like 10%.
> 2533274850939632;1:
> The current ranking system that causes weak players to reach high rank on the backs of their stronger team members should be replaced with an individual player rating that takes everything into account.
> kills, deaths, accuracy,playing the obj or ignoring it, ASSISTS, quitting.
> All these things should be used to generate a rating number representative of a players performance in the game. As it is you often are teamed up with players who all quit or cant hit the broadside of the Infinity even though their “rank” indicates that they are strong players.
Easier said than done.
Win/loss is the best method for gauging skill. It would require a lot of work to parse through all the in-game activities and then accurately determine skill based on these performances. Some things carry over and some dont.
Kills are generally good, but if objective games measured skill using kills you could have (and likely would have) scores upon scores of players padding ranks in objective without actually being good at objective.
Basic things like k/d might be a good mitigating statistic in the face of a loss though.
the game needs to promote players to not quit rather than correct for instances of quitting.
> 2533274855279867;17:
> > 2533274850939632;1:
> > The current ranking system that causes weak players to reach high rank on the backs of their stronger team members should be replaced with an individual player rating that takes everything into account.
> > kills, deaths, accuracy,playing the obj or ignoring it, ASSISTS, quitting.
> > All these things should be used to generate a rating number representative of a players performance in the game. As it is you often are teamed up with players who all quit or cant hit the broadside of the Infinity even though their “rank” indicates that they are strong players.
>
>
> Easier said than done.
>
> Win/loss is the best method for gauging skill. It would require a lot of work to parse through all the in-game activities and then accurately determine skill based on these performances. Some things carry over and some dont.
>
> Kills are generally good, but if objective games measured skill using kills you could have (and likely would have) scores upon scores of players padding ranks in objective without actually being good at objective.
>
> Basic things like k/d might be a good mitigating statistic in the face of a loss though.
>
> the game needs to promote players to not quit rather than correct for instances of quitting.
All the things mentioned (accuracy/assists etc) are stats the game already tracks. How would it be hard to generate a rating using known data?
Individual ranking systems don’t work. They tried it in reach and it was such a disaster that they patched it out mid game.
In order to rank someone individually in a ranked game youd need a team of scouts to pour over thier game films. Stats dont tell the whole story.
> 2535454922044856;19:
> Individual ranking systems don’t work. They tried it in reach and it was such a disaster that they patched it out mid game.
Reach was almost entirely based on time played. Nothing like what i described.