Ranking System Thoughts

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

Before anyone rants, I would like to say, I will only be using the Halo 2/3’s 1-50 ranking system as an example or reference because it relates to the Halo community much easier than per se, Starcraft’s. Theses are also MY opinions, as well as close friend’s that I have compiled together.

To start, I personally saw nothing wrong with Halo 3’s ranking system, yet many people did. Yes, people could “boost” but you had to win in order for the boosting to even work, and to win…YOU HAD TO BE GOOD. So in all fairness, the boosters we’re going to get to 50 anyways.

I’ve also done some personal research to “Microsoft’s TrueSkill” Ranking System. Here’s a link to one of many sites that go in depth of how it works. TrueSkill™ Ranking System - Microsoft Research (Halo 2 & 3, did in fact use this method, but tweaked it to be “Halo’s” Ranking System)

What I highly suggest 343i do, is add Social & Ranked Playlists back in to the game. They should DEFINITELY get rid of “Kill for EXP.” With that sort of ranking system that has now been implemented since Halo: Reach, it takes away from the core of Halo which is tactical play, and teamwork. Instead, it gives everyone a mentality of wanting their own kills, and if someone steals your kill, less EXP for you, thus longer time 'til rank up. This topic is solely about the Ranking System, and for me, if they had kept the old ranking system or made a new one that justifies rank based upon winning then all these new features wouldn’t have been so harmful to the game. Just take a second and think about that. Sure, I dislike Sprint, ALL Armor Abilities, No Descope, Flinch, etc. But with a better Ranking System most those features wouldn’t have harmed the game as much. Just look back for a second, when Halo 3 came out and had equipment added, that was HUGE to Halo. Most people were furious. In the end though, the Ranking System held up the Matchmaking portion of the game. The Social players had fun in Social, and us competitive players had fun, win or lose trying to get that 50. Heck, I even had friend’s who were terrible at Halo 2 or 3 and their highest legit rank was a 23 or so, and they liked the old ranking system better. It wasn’t just people like me who had 50’s that prefer it.

I personally stopped playing Reach and 4 quite soon after both released, and I blame the ranking system to be a HUGE factor.

Anyways, if you do keep “Kill for EXP,” add a second ranking system on top of that based upon wins. Halo 3’s updated ranking system is a good example of what I’ll explain. Halo 3 had overall EXP, playlist EXP, and TrueSkill. If you changed winning for EXP to Kill for EXP and kept TrueSkill, it would please quite a bit of players. For one, people would still have to win for that TrueSkill, yet they could progress ALSO due to their performance in game based on Kill EXP.

So 343i, I ask that you add a decent ranking system based upon wins, because that’ll encourage teamwork. Don’t add it to Halo Waypoint like you were with Halo 4, put it next to our names, in the lobby.

P.S. Revert to the old lobby menu. Halo 4’s is atrocious.

2

A combination of 2/3’s, and Reach. Everybody wins.

3

Definitely Halo: Reach’s cR system as the main progressive rank, but also a 1-to-50 skill based rank as well.

Halo 3’s win-based EXP system was terrible, in my opinion. While it did promote the incentive to win, it caused extreme frustration for people who aren’t really that good at the game. Not only did it cause extreme frustration, but it also was especially annoying for people that despite having very high performance, ended up losing the game at the very last second and thus gaining ZERO reward.

Halo Reach’s cR system, on the other hand, was performance based. Regardless if you won or lost the game, the contributions that you did to your team didn’t go unrewarded. If I scored three Flag Captures in a game of CTF, but still lost the game, I’d be awarded a decent amount of credits. However, if that same scenario were to happen in Halo 3, not only would I feel that all that I did just went to waste, but I’d also slowly begin to grow in anger at the few team members that came up too short in the end.

Halo Reach awarded your performance REGARDLESS if you won or lost, which in my opinion, was a better system than one that made me grow in rage once all of my hard work went to waste.

4

1-50 system was always the most simple and easiest for everyone to understand, a ladder system like starcraft would also be a good option and this time it needs to be in game :frowning:

5

> Halo Reach awarded your performance REGARDLESS if you won or lost, which in my opinion, was a better system than one that made me grow in rage once all of my hard work went to waste.

As I understand your point, I party agree and disagree. For me, that ranking system made me feel as if I hadn’t accomplished anything. My friends and I manipulated Reach’s ranking system to hell and back. We’d commit suicide as many times as possible in the game, I think out team score was -225 in 4v4 as our record. We gained just as much, if not more cR by doing so, than actually playing. I agree you should be rewarded for what you do in game, but with the way Reach’s system was set up, it took away team work and other aspects that helped you WIN.

6

> 1-50 system was always the most simple and easiest for everyone to understand, a ladder system like starcraft would also be a good option and this time it needs to be in game :frowning:

I definitely agree. It promotes teamwork too, which is a Halo must.

7

> Definitely Halo: Reach’s cR system as the main progressive rank, but also a 1-to-50 skill based rank as well.
>
> <mark>Halo 3’s win-based EXP system was terrible, in my opinion. While it did promote the incentive to win, it caused extreme frustration for people who aren’t really that good at the game. Not only did it cause extreme frustration, but it also was especially annoying for people that despite having very high performance, ended up losing the game at the very last second and thus gaining ZERO reward.</mark>
>
> Halo Reach’s cR system, on the other hand, was performance based. Regardless if you won or lost the game, the contributions that you did to your team didn’t go unrewarded. If I scored three Flag Captures in a game of CTF, but still lost the game, I’d be awarded a decent amount of credits. However, if that same scenario were to happen in Halo 3, not only would I feel that all that I did just went to waste, but I’d also slowly begin to grow in anger at the few team members that came up too short in the end.
>
> Halo Reach awarded your performance REGARDLESS if you won or lost, which in my opinion, was a better system than one that made me grow in rage once all of my hard work went to waste.

If I get zero reward, it motivates me, to improve and try even harder next time. I’ve come to believe that all my past failure and frustration have been laying the foundation for the understanding of Halo that I have today.

In Halo 5 I want to have an even stricter ranking system. I want to fail more, when I try my best. Really: because 1-50 Halo 3 style doesn’t cut it anymore. I can’t improve because I rarely gets challenging matches (Often only 1 or 2 out of 10 matches).

Going from:

To this (DeMoNCaaT):


If I can do it, you can do it. Failure is nothing more than fingerprints on the road to success.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87fZSCHMITc
8

Halo 3’s skill system was perfectly fine and gave the most balanced, competitive matches I’ve ever had. Some people think that the ranking was too easy but in reality, this is a pretty small portion of the population… making it as difficult as Halo 2 inherently encourages cheating no matter what you do to circumvent it. Somewhere in the middle might also work, though I don’t think it’s necessary.

Yes there were some issues but many of them could have been fixed with simple tweaks …
(ex. limit the games that count towards your skill to the last 200-500, that way having booster accounts with 5k losses won’t do anything and people don’t complain about “rank lock” after playing 5k games as a level 40)

…or weren’t even an issue in the first place.
(Ex: Kids crying about things that don’t actually affect them (people buying 50’s), kids crying about thinking they deserved a higher rank (hint: they didn’t).)

Change just for the sake of change, or to appease crybabies is sure to fail (which it did in Reach, tremendously).

As for the progression stuff, I found CR to be more “fun” (dunno why… bigger numbers maybe? lol) but I think they definitely should have put more emphasis on rewarding people for winning, like EXP did. There was a huge difference in the team play of Halo 3 vs. Reach… many more Sniper betrayals etc. in Reach since it was primarily about individual performance. And rewarding the win also encouraged people to use mics & work together a lot more in Halo 3, I miss that.

9

> Definitely Halo: Reach’s cR system as the main progressive rank, but also a 1-to-50 skill based rank as well.
>
> <mark>Halo 3’s win-based EXP system was terrible, in my opinion. While it did promote the incentive to win, it caused extreme frustration for people who aren’t really that good at the game.</mark> Not only did it cause extreme frustration, but it also was especially annoying for people that despite having very high performance, ended up losing the game at the very last second and thus gaining ZERO reward.
>
> Halo Reach’s cR system, on the other hand, was performance based. Regardless if you won or lost the game, the contributions that you did to your team didn’t go unrewarded. If I scored three Flag Captures in a game of CTF, but still lost the game, I’d be awarded a decent amount of credits. However, if that same scenario were to happen in Halo 3, not only would I feel that all that I did just went to waste, but I’d also slowly begin to grow in anger at the few team members that came up too short in the end.
>
> Halo Reach awarded your performance REGARDLESS if you won or lost, which in my opinion, was a better system than one that made me grow in rage once all of my hard work went to waste.

I agree with this, however having a social playlist along side it would suite these people.

10

I would prefer two separate ranking systems.

A simple progressive rank, similar to Reach, solely for unlocking most of the aesthetical customization and to offer a system where everybody can rank up and reach the highest rank.

The other should be a skill-based ranking system that incorporates factors such as win/loss as well as individual performance, primarily to build a well-working MM system that matches people and creates teams that are on par and to “test” yourself.

In addition, I think a ranking system that is solely based on win/loss is flawed because it does not reflect the individual skill of each player correctly (except in FFA playlists perhaps). The “true rank” of a player can get falsified, either because it gets oppressed or gets carried by team mates.
Besides, I don’t think a ranking system, and especially one that is solely based on win/loss, does significantly encourage team play in any way but I rather see people blame their team mates when they lose.
A skill-based ranking system does encourage you to do your personal best but it doesn’t make you a team player nor does it teach you team play, in my opinion.

> if they had kept the old ranking system or made a new one that justifies rank based upon winning then all these new features wouldn’t have been so harmful to the game. Just take a second and think about that. Sure, I dislike Sprint, ALL Armor Abilities, No Descope, Flinch, etc. But with a better Ranking System most those features wouldn’t have harmed the game as much

How would a ranking system have allayed or solved the issues that some of the current implementations are causing? Could you elaborate on that?

11

I voted for a Halo 2/3 system, but in reality I think Halo 5 can have an even better ranking system. I think some form of seasonal rank is a good idea - something like League Play from Black Ops 2 would work well. In any kind of competitive based shooter the worst ranking system is an XP based one (e.g. Halo 4) - XP systems simply don’t give players enough incentive to keep playing and take away the competitive nature of the game. Why care about the score if you rank up whatever happens? Even social slayer gave players an incentive to try and win matches.

Whatever happens with Halo 5, some form of skill based ranking system is 100% necessary.

12

Lets bring back the old Halo 2 and Halo 3 ranking system. Skill should be involved in the ranking not just by how much you play.