Possible fix for 1-50 boosting

They should make it so you can have a limit of 1 or 2 accounts allowed to play

ranked matchmaking per xbox. This would stop people from creating 1 month booster

accounts. They could also have something like bf3 where you have to pay to be able to play

ranked matchmaking if you want to add aditional accounts. Maybe like $20 so no one would

make a one month and also pay $20 just to boost. Another idea is to exclude 1 month cards

from competitive matchmaking. People with 1 month cards could play social and this would

get rid of the boosting for the most part. Just thinking out loud right now.

> They should make it so you can have a limit of 1 or 2 accounts allowed to play ranked matchmaking per xbox. This would stop people from creating 1 month booster accounts.

It also causes problems for families that play Halo, or in any situation where more than two people who enjoy Halo share an Xbox. :\

> They could also have something like bf3 where you have to pay to be able to play ranked matchmaking if you want to add aditional accounts. Maybe like $20 so no one would make a one month and also pay $20 just to boost.

Is this a per-console thing? Then it suffers from the same problem as the first idea, but to an even more severe extent: now only one person gets to play Halo (without spending money they ought not have to spend).

> Another idea is to exclude 1 month cards from competitive matchmaking. People with 1 month cards could play social and this would get rid of the boosting for the most part.

That sounds like it would work very well (except for the small minority of people that go card-to-card for their Gold membership). I’m not sure if Xbox LIVE is set up to provide that sort of data to games, though. :\

People need to let 1-50 go, it is NOT coming back. It’s unbelievable that people want it so bad they come up with ridiculous ideas to try to have it back, it’s sad.

Excluding 1 month subscribers, REALLY?

This is just a bad idea all around. Why would 343i purposely limit the amount of people their game just to stop a couple boosters? Online passes would kill the population. Nobody wants to pay $10 (or $20 in your case just to play a game they bought. I know that I would never have played UC3 and several other games MP if I didn’t buy them new.

343i said that the new ranking system would help the boosting problem, and even if it doesn’t, it’ll still be better than having an online pass.

Well they could make it so up to 4 accounts could play ranked per console and then boosters would run out of accounts after a while. I think xbox live does support the membership data thing because i remember in halo 3 you could only play social with 48 hour trials and not ranked.

Edit: And to clarify I’m saying that you would have to buy an online pass if you wanted more than the set number of accounts allowable to play ranked per console. And you wouldnt need it for social…

> Well they could make it so up to 4 accounts could play ranked per console and then boosters would run out of accounts after a while.

Which brings us to the next problem: how do we reliably track this statistic when accounts are not immutably tethered to consoles? Can 343i anticipate every weird or exploitative behavior and ensure that such a limitation couldn’t be worked around?

> I think xbox live does support the membership data thing because i remember in halo 3 you could only play social with 48 hour trials and not ranked.

Interesting…

Excluding 1 month from RANKED… I doubt anyone who had a one month would be too into competitive…

> Excluding 1 month from RANKED… I doubt anyone who had a one month would be too into competitive…

And you’d be wrong I bought 1 months all the time because I didn’t want my credit card on my account.

So, we go from 1 month boosting, to 3 month boosting accounts…all they’ll do is adjust the price accordingly. :confused:

The main issue is that with a cap, there’s an end. That’s what they’re selling: A shortcut to the end.

None of these ideas would actually stop the problem. Just causes major inconvinences to those that don’t boost on top of the boosting the system provided.

1-50 isnt coming back, boo hoo.

Since we see it so often on the forums it is quite obvious to me that people loved the 1-50 system. I don’t understand why the system was removed in the first place because so many people loved it.

Argue all you want about the downfalls of 1-50 or sing its praises. The truth of the matter is that many many many people would like to see it reinstalled into them game but for some reason they will not be doing this.

Honestly, boosting was not an actual problem in Halo 3. Besides, people will cheat no matter what. At least with the 1-50 you actually had to be good to boost. It didn’t really affect other players. Worst case scenario, you had to play a 50 in a game of 35s (example). He/she wins, but second and third were still obtainable. Even more so, if you were trying to get to a 50, you would have to play these players anyways on their mains.

> They should make it so you can have a limit of 1 or 2 accounts allowed to play
>
> ranked matchmaking per xbox. This would stop people from creating 1 month booster
>
> accounts. They could also have something like bf3 where you have to pay to be able to play
>
> ranked matchmaking if you want to add aditional accounts. Maybe like $20 so no one would
>
> make a one month and also pay $20 just to boost. Another idea is to exclude 1 month cards
>
> from competitive matchmaking. People with 1 month cards could play social and this would
>
> get rid of the boosting for the most part. Just thinking out loud right now.

or u could make it so if you quit 3-5 games in a row u go down a rank

> or u could make it so if you quit 3-5 games in a row u go down a rank

That has nothing to do with what’s being discussed in this thread. :\

> Honestly, boosting was not an actual problem in Halo 3. Besides, people will cheat no matter what. At least with the 1-50 you actually had to be good to boost. It didn’t really affect other players. Worst case scenario, you had to play a 50 in a game of 35s (example). He/she wins, but second and third were still obtainable. Even more so, if you were trying to get to a 50, you would have to play these players anyways on their mains.

Take the worst case scenario and apply it to everyone before rank 50, and have it go on in a daily basis, with alot of people boosting accounts.

And if it isn’t a problem, why did Frankie, the guy who has access to the information, say it is an actual problem?

> > Honestly, boosting was not an actual problem in Halo 3. Besides, people will cheat no matter what. At least with the 1-50 you actually had to be good to boost. It didn’t really affect other players. Worst case scenario, you had to play a 50 in a game of 35s (example). He/she wins, but second and third were still obtainable. Even more so, if you were trying to get to a 50, you would have to play these players anyways on their mains.
>
> Take the worst case scenario and apply it to everyone before rank 50, and have it go on in a daily basis, with alot of people boosting accounts.
>
> And if it isn’t a problem, why did Frankie, the guy who has access to the information, say it is an actual problem?

That clearly was not the case. The 1-50 did an amazing job at providing even matches. I always got players of my skill level. People honestly just don’t like being told they’re bad. Besides, like I said before, second was still obtainable, and you would have to play these guys/girls at some point.

What’s wrong with having to play good players? I don’t understand. You actually had to work for your rank. That was the point of playing competitively.