Halo 3 had way too many derankers/quitters due to this system, and It almost made playing online not even fun (which is a shame, because 3, like all the other games, was really great). I can’t tell you how many times I would get in a game only to have half a team quit.
I’m not saying Reach’s ranking system is perfect (even though I love Reach), but I would much rather have that than 1-50, I think.
That being said, a 1-50 ranking system won’t stop me from playing. I just hope that if it is in the game, they find a way to prevent the derankers. Maybe by using Reach’s temp ban system?
> Halo 3 had way too many derankers/quitters due to this system, and It almost made playing online not even fun (which is a shame, because 3, like all the other games, was really great). I can’t tell you how many times I would get in a game only to have half a team quit.
>
> I’m not saying Reach’s ranking system is perfect <mark>(even though I love Reach)</mark>, but I would much rather have that than 1-50, I think.
>
> That being said, a 1-50 ranking system won’t stop me from playing. I just hope that if it is in the game, they find a way to prevent the derankers. Maybe by using Reach’s temp ban system?
Halo just isn’t the same without the 1-50 ranking system for Multiplayer. Don’t let others boosted rankings ruin your fun. It’s always a challenge to get your ranking as high as you can legitimately and it shouldn’t matter to you what some others are out there doing to inflate their rankings.
> Halo just isn’t the same without the 1-50 ranking system for Multiplayer. Don’t let others boosted rankings ruin your fun. It’s always a challenge to get your ranking as high as you can legitimately and it shouldn’t matter to you what some others are out there doing to inflate their rankings.
See, I don’t care about what the derakners are doing that they are illegitimately ranking up. Its that, when they are doing it, they are ruining the experience for others by quitting games and leaving people without teammates. They don’t ruin my fun, but they certainly put a damper on it.
I don’t mind 1-50 as a system, I just would prefer not to have others ruin the experience for people who just want to hop on and have a bit of fun like I do. Reach’s ranking system at least catered to the individual player rather than the team. Like 1-50, the cR system wasn’t perfect, but at least the majority of the games had everyone playing.
You can still have a cR system to go along with a numbered ranking system as well. Remember all the different rankings you had over game types in Halo 2 and 3? I think it would be nice to have your player ranking back Halo 2 style (the pinnacle of Halo online multiplayer imo) as well as having the credit system that we see in reach and other games like CoD.
The credits reward you for playing, while the ranking as merely a visible indicator of your general skill across game types. I miss my little rank symbols from Halo 2 and I remember how satisfying it was to climb the rankings. So you could be a Lt. Colonel/Major/Captain Grade 2/whatever while still rising to the rank of say a 43 in Team Slayer with no bearing on what your title and UNSC rank symbol you wear, and if it’s back H2 style then the cheaters won’t be such an issue (though I for one have never had much of an issue coming across many of these players). You will simply have two different symbols to mark your Halo 4 experience. One for your cR reward and on for your game type ranking which can be kept to only certain game types.
No. We need a 1-50 system. It separated the good from the bad like a ranking system is supposed to. Halo is a game that requires skill, so we can’t have a system solely based on time spent playing.
I know you’re probably just upset about not being able to get a 50, but for the sake of the community, get over it. Deranking and boosting wasn’t nearly as big of a problem as you make it out to be.
> <mark>I know you’re probably just upset about not being able to get a 50, but for the sake of the community, get over it.</mark> Deranking and boosting wasn’t nearly as big of a problem as you make it out to be.
Umm, no, not at all. Sure, I don’t have a 50, but I’m not complaining about that at all. I’m not good enough to get a 50, and I’m not ashamed to admit it, either. I just want to be able to play to the best of my ability without other people ruining the experience.
You were able to do that in Halo 3. Boosting and deranking was barely an issue. If you really feel so strongly about boosters, 343 can work on creating ways to stop people from being able to. But getting rid of one of the best ranking systems because of boosting is stupid. We need the 1-50.
> You were able to do that in Halo 3. Boosting and deranking was barely an issue. If you really feel so strongly about boosters, 343 can work on creating ways to stop people from being able to. But getting rid of one of the best ranking systems because of boosting is stupid. We need the 1-50.
As I said in an earlier post, I don’t mind if the 1-50 system stays, as long as they do something to prevent quitting/deranking. If boosting remains a problem in 1-50 in H4, then I would rather them swap the ranking system with something else that is more player-friendly.
> > You were able to do that in Halo 3. Boosting and deranking was barely an issue. If you really feel so strongly about boosters, 343 can work on creating ways to stop people from being able to. But getting rid of one of the best ranking systems because of boosting is stupid. We need the 1-50.
>
> As I said in an earlier post, I don’t mind if the 1-50 system stays, as long as they do something to prevent quitting/deranking. If boosting remains a problem in 1-50 in H4, then I would rather them swap the ranking system with something else that is more player-friendly.
Even if they don’t fix boosting, they should still keep the 1-50. People will exploit any system developers can put in. At least the people boosting in Halo 3 had to be good.
a) Don’t take the ranks of your teammates into account; only compare them to that of your opponents and whether you won or lost.
or
b) Any teammate who is outside the skill range that you are searching in gets automatically counted as the lowest/highest possible skill. So if you were searching as a 35 with a 1, and the skill range was from 30-40, the game would consider the 1 to be a 30.
Either of these and the game’s certainty factor of your rank decreasing much slower and it solves all the problems that Halo 3’s 1-50 had. 1-50 MUST return. Reach’s leaderboard system is even worse. It’s exploited, and it’s impossible to reach the high ranks simply because they are already taken by people who boosted their way there. In Halo 3, if someone boosted to their 50, it didn’t affect my ability to get one. In Reach, I can’t reach the highest % because someone has already taken them with a booster and their trueskill is so high that I’m unable to displace them without doing the same.
Halo: Reach doesn’t have a ranking system, it has a “You’ve played for X amount of time.” No way to see skill level. Let’s use Halo 2’s system and call it a day?
> How about no.
>
> Halo: Reach doesn’t have a ranking system, it has a “You’ve played for X amount of time.” No way to see skill level. Let’s use Halo 2’s system and call it a day?
Reach does have the Arena system, which isn’t actually a bad idea, though as with seemingly all good ideas, Reach butchered it with pisspoor implementation. But a system which gave a running rank depending on your wins and losses in your last X games in each playlist, taking into account the skill of your opponents, could be pretty good.
1-50 should stay. People will exploit any system. The credit system is heavily exploited= AFKers, Betrayers, Firefight spammers, and so many quitters. It is far worse than Halo 3’s ranking.
Just bring back Halo 2 1-50 and bring back the Credit system… but make it not count towards rank.
> You were able to do that in Halo 3. Boosting and deranking was barely an issue. If you really feel so strongly about boosters, 343 can work on creating ways to stop people from being able to. But getting rid of one of the best ranking systems because of boosting is stupid. We need the 1-50.
I agree with this.
Also, why not just mix the Reach cR system with the 1-50 system as suggested by several others. The cR can go towards unlocking armor while the 1-50 system goes towards ranks.
> > How about no.
> >
> > Halo: Reach doesn’t have a ranking system, it has a “You’ve played for X amount of time.” No way to see skill level. Let’s use Halo 2’s system and call it a day?
>
> Reach does have the Arena system, which isn’t actually a bad idea, though as with seemingly all good ideas, Reach butchered it with pisspoor implementation. But a system which gave a running rank depending on your wins and losses in your last X games in each playlist, taking into account the skill of your opponents, could be pretty good.
Add to that the fact the Arena system doesn’t slow down my progression through ranks (especially the initial ranks) so much I have to keep reminding myself I’m not playing WoW.
