So far my only plea for Halo 4 is to make winning actually count. In Reach you could easily obtain the rank of Inheritor without winning a single game. I’m not asking for a 1-50 or anything. I just would like winning to matter.
If there is a cR progression system like in Reach, the losing team should receive 50% (or even 75%) of their cR earned while the winning team retains 100%.
You mean you want winning to matter in a skillful way?
What you said is true, theoretically you could go negative each game, and never win one, and still reach the highest rank in Reach. Rank isn’t necessarily an indicator of skill, and winning is solely viewed in a personal way, for the only thing you accomplish by winning is feeling good and a gaining few more credits.
Thus, your argument should be “Rank Needs to Indicate Skill”.
so what if you personally dominate get your positive kd, get the top medals and still lose because your team was dead wait? do you suffer the lose of credits.
I think we should just have a 1-50 
In particular something like this. .
Competitive Playlists - Halo 2’s Ranking System
Social Playlists - Reach’s Ranking System
Agreed. You should earn a bonus for winning, and an even bigger bonus if you win and the opposing team has less than half of the total points.
Using the cR system as an example- Your team wins 88-100 in a game, you receive 750 cR as a bonus for winning. Now say the final score was 46-100, you obliterated them, you shound receive 1250 cR as a bonus for winning and keeping them below 50 total kills.
> You mean you want winning to matter in a skillful way?
>
> What you said is true, theoretically you could go negative each game, and never win one, and still reach the highest rank in Reach. Rank isn’t necessarily an indicator of skill, and winning is solely viewed in a personal way, for the only thing you accomplish by winning is feeling good and a gaining few more credits.
>
> Thus, your argument should be “Rank Needs to Indicate Skill”.
Hmmm you make a good point…
> Agreed. You should earn a bonus for winning, and an even bigger bonus if you win and the opposing team has less than half of the total points.
>
> Using the cR system as an example- Your team wins 88-100 in a game, you receive 750 cR as a bonus for winning. Now say the final score was 46-100, you obliterated them, you shound receive 1250 cR as a bonus for winning and keeping them below 50 total kills.
Basically if you get the equivalent to the old “steaktacular” medal you get bonus credits that would be a good one also depending on the gametype if its BTB slayer than yeah 50 more kills def deserves more creds
> I think we should just have a 1-50
>
> In particular something like this. .
>
> Competitive Playlists - Halo 2’s Ranking System
>
> Social Playlists - Reach’s Ranking System
>
>
No, that simply wouldn’t work.
2 different ranking systems is possible, but having them for seperate playlists is unneccecarily difficult for a lot of people.
It’s better to have 1-50 in the Matchmaking playlists, and just no ranking in Socials.
Those 1-50’s would be based purely on performance.
Then, you could/should have an overall “Reach rank” that’s build up from performance, time spend in the game, Forge, Firefight, Campaign, Commendations and Challenges. (non of which would impact the 1-50 levels)
This overall rank would then allow for even better matching (being a 50 in Slayer doesn’t make you an overall great player, while an overall rank on top of the 1-50’s can be a good second indicator of general “skill”), and could be used to unlock stuff in the Armory.
That would mean there will be some sort of hierarchy in the ranking systems, instead of having 2 in the same area of the game.
> so what if you personally dominate get your positive kd, get the top medals and still lose because your team was dead wait? do you suffer the lose of credits.
I see what you mean there, I run into that situation quite often. The system unfortunately is not perfect.
> > so what if you personally dominate get your positive kd, get the top medals and still lose because your team was dead wait? do you suffer the lose of credits.
>
> I see what you mean there, I run into that situation quite often. The system unfortunately is not perfect.
games like these make the game so intense thoe however I completely understand your frustrations thoe.
When you say overall Reach rank are you referring to BPR?
Really when it comes down to it, i obviously want separate playlists (competitive and social). What i also want is a system that can match me against someone else of simliar skill, something Halo 2 did extremely well at. If you were a 29 playing a against a 28, 29, or 30, you were going to be in for a great, close game. I think getting to 50 was somewhat of an impossible feat and never saw someone who did it legit. We all remember the amount of modding that went into the game, it sucked. It’s been about 7 years since then though, and i’m sure we wouldn’t have anywhere near the same problems as we did in Halo 2.
Halo 3 did an okay job, getting to 50 was something too easy to do and it brought about the selling of accounts. Seeing a 50 not only didn’t mean anything to me but it also didn’t tell me anything. Yes there were greatly skilled people that had 50’s but it got out of hand as time went on.
I think we can agree that the two main groups of players are competitive and casual. I think 1-50 is the best thing that will cater to competitive players and i think Reach’s system is perfect for people that want “rank” to reflect how much they play.
I haven’t heard of anything like you proposed yet. I kinda like it, but i think casual players need something in it for them like getting “General” and whatnot.
Put more personal emphasis on winning then.
> May I suggest, True Medals…
>
> Please read it…
I was going to suggest something like this earlier and had to leave. Just as well because this is quite possibly the best answer. Medals (and therefore, rank) that reflect your individual skill, regardless of whether your team wins or loses.
I didn’t read the thread and I know that something like this may lead to some players going after the medals at the expense of the team, but that happens now. It’s always happened. Perhaps medals for team-oriented things like assists that are more heavily weighted might help, but this takes the team w/l out of the picture. Your team could lose and you could still rank up if you do your best.
I dunno… this might work.
What about the guy on the losing team that has over half the kills on the losing team? What does he get? Its not fair if he doesn’t get diddley squat
For me, winning in itself is reason enough to win, but that doesn’t seem to be the case for most people.
When there’s a clear incentive to win, people want to keep winning. When Trueskill is introduced to this, people have to improve if they want to keep winning against the ever toughening opposition.
There should be a decent w/l based ranking system and one’s rank should be easily and immediately visible to anyone you meet, just like it was in Halo 3.
In Reach you have to go through several menus just to see their Arena division placement.
Also, Arena is just one playlist with bad, uncompetitive settings. No wonder barely anyone plays it anymore.
> When you say overall Reach rank are you referring to BPR?
>
> Really when it comes down to it, i obviously want separate playlists (competitive and social). What i also want is a system that can match me against someone else of simliar skill, something Halo 2 did extremely well at. If you were a 29 playing a against a 28, 29, or 30, you were going to be in for a great, close game. I think getting to 50 was somewhat of an impossible feat and never saw someone who did it legit. We all remember the amount of modding that went into the game, it sucked. It’s been about 7 years since then though, and i’m sure we wouldn’t have anywhere near the same problems as we did in Halo 2.
>
> Halo 3 did an okay job, getting to 50 was something too easy to do and it brought about the selling of accounts. Seeing a 50 not only didn’t mean anything to me but it also didn’t tell me anything. Yes there were greatly skilled people that had 50’s but it got out of hand as time went on.
>
> I think we can agree that the two main groups of players are competitive and casual. I think 1-50 is the best thing that will cater to competitive players and i think Reach’s system is perfect for people that want “rank” to reflect how much they play.
>
> I haven’t heard of anything like you proposed yet. I kinda like it, but i think casual players need something in it for them like getting “General” and whatnot.
The idea basically is this:
You got ranked playlists (probably Team Slayer, Team Objectives, Lone Wolfs, SWAT and MLG for instance), and a bunch of social playlists (BTB, Invasion, Infection etc).
Ranked playlists would get a 1-50 rank for each playlist. So that the “hardcore” gamers get their incentive in those playlists they apparantly care for that much. So that would please them.
Socials wouldn’t have ranks.
But then there is a step above the 1-50 system: the “overall rank”.
1-50 would be made up from winning games, k/d, just pure performance, but it won’t be your “overall rank” (like how in H2/H3 you were whatever your highest rank was).
Overall rank would be made up from everything you do in Halo.
So basically, each game awards you Cr, and also lets you rank in certain playlists. The Cr will work just like in Reach, just not to rank up per playlist, but in overall rank.
This would mean you can get level 50 Admirals for instance, or lvl. 40 Generals etc.
Basically, this is more catered to the “casual” community, as it would reward everything you do in the game. BUT: the fact that 1-50 ranks also weight into the overall rank means it also has some incentive to hardcore gamers. Esspecially if you tie different/new Armory items to certain overal ranks. You might even want to tie certain Armory items to certain levels in ranked playlists as an extra incentive.
Now, Social games could then be matched based upon overall rank (which would be a combination of skill and “dedication” (AKA: time spend playing), instead of just either one of those = better ranking in theory).
Also: Yes, getting to level 50 should be hard. H2 style. Not the “easy” route H3 gave a lot of players.