Ranks and Experience System

Games Halo 5: Guardians
#1

So while I was playing Halo 4 today (for the first time in months), I came up with this interesting idea that I think would be pretty cool.

Most people were pretty unsatisfied with the 130 ranks that 343 put, as it was extremely easy to reach that high rank. Also because it was only based on how much you played, people knew that it didn’t really mean much. I managed to go 27-0 one game, and then looked at my commendations because that was the first perfection I has gotten in a while. I saw that I would get xp for getting more perfections. And then my epiphany happened.

Here is my idea:
There are two systems, a 1-50 skill based system, and a 1-(whatever, lets just say 100) xp based system. Instead of making the xp system work off of how much you play, why not make it so that you only get xp from completing commendations. That way people with a better overall skill, and a bit of luck, will have a higher commendation rank. It will basically be a status of how good you are at using all of the weapons as well as doing random things. And more or less each rank is how much percentage you have completed.

What do you guys think?

#2

Edited by Moderator - Please do not post discriminatory comments.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

I think we should go back to Halo 3’s style of progression ranks, where you only get EXP (whether that is 1 or 1000) for winning. Losing nets you zero EXP. If you think humanity has down syndrome and absolutely must be rewarded for every game they play, do it with a currency that is used solely for unlocking aesthetics (from skins to armor).

Halo 3 hands down had the best ranking system overall for any game on console, let alone Halo.

#3

The xp or credit system should be like Reach took about 100k kills. It should be 3 times the credits for a win then a loss.

The competitive system I will leave up to Josh I trust him.

#4

Or maybe have one persistent XP rank and a skill rank that resets every month and people can only see your highest skill rank.

#5

> Or maybe have one persistent XP rank and a skill rank that resets every month and people can only see your highest skill rank.

Why would you want a skill rank that resets every month? That would be horrible for anyone that’s a regular player trying to work up to 50, everytime you got close and the next month started they would need to do everything all over again. You can say that if they’re really that deserving of the rank they’ll get back up there, but that doesn’t change that it’s going to take them far longer than it should.

#6

I have to agree, OP. I was very dissatisfied with the ranking system in Halo 4, however, in the next title. I hope for Halo: Reach’s ranking system, but not get too dramatic with cR’s, b/c once you hit past Mythic, it just gets tiresome. Halo 3 ranking system, I wasn’t too crazy about either, b/c it literally confused me in a way, but I would like to see the ranking system of both Reach and 3 work similar, like match up with players equal to your rank, instead of being paired up with someone lower or higher. Even the playing field a bit, if you know what i mean.

#7

> Halo 3 hands down had the best ranking system overall for any game on console, let alone Halo.

It was a ranking system that equated and rewarded playing extremely well, but just not well enough to win, with sitting on your hands with your pants on your head the exact same: Nothing is earned.

How can that be the best ranking system overall of any game on a console if it treats a player who did his best and overall played exceptionally good the exact same as a person who tried to see how many times he could stick himself in the face with a grenade?

OT: Reach’s cR system hit a good level for length, the amounts at the high end to level up should have been reduced a tad.

Other than that, any sort of progression system needs to reward winning with a score multiplier (or at the very least a very significant amount of points, possibly more than could ever be earned by just playing lone wolf in a team game,) be based on participation and in objective modes, not reward kills and instead reward actions which speed the game to victory.

#8

> > Halo 3 hands down had the best ranking system overall for any game on console, let alone Halo.
>
> It was a ranking system that equated and rewarded playing extremely well, but just not well enough to win, with sitting on your hands with your pants on your head the exact same: Nothing is earned.
>
> How can that be the best ranking system overall of any game on a console if it treats a player who did his best and overall played exceptionally good the exact same as a person who tried to see how many times he could stick himself in the face with a grenade?

Because you don’t judge the system based off individual games, you judge it based off the career of a player, and H3’s system most certainly did not treat those two players you listed the same over each ones career.

Also the system was simple and made sense. One EXP per one win is so much more elegant to me than arbitrary numbers in the hundreds to thousands. More of a subjective argument, but whatever.

#9

> Because you don’t judge the system based off individual games,

Why?

> you judge it based off the career of a player,

In that case, H3 comes out as worse because it’s holding him back and failing to reward a player for hundreds if not thousands of games all because his best was a bit worse than the winners.

#10

> > Because you don’t judge the system based off individual games,
>
> Why?
>
>
>
> > you judge it based off the career of a player,
>
> In that case, H3 comes out as worse because it’s holding him back and failing to reward a player for hundreds if not thousands of games all because his best was a bit worse than the winners.

Who says that isn’t perfectly acceptable? What is inherently wrong with a ranking system that doesn’t reward a player who’s best was a bit worse than the winners?

#11

>

W/L is the worst ranking system ever since good players get kept back, bad ones who do nothing progress and people’s efforts mean nothing. It was terrible.

Its not a bad thing to be wanting a reward after you’ve just played your heart out and lost by one or two points or due to a lazy team. Plus the good players get the same reward for playing well as those who play bad which doesnt reward skill at all. Winning should net a large amount of xp but having it as the only rank up method besides 1-50 would be ridiculously stupid.

Reach had the best xp system on that it took ages to do, but it needed tweaking heavily to make winning and other medals give more xp

#12

Halo 3 is the best. It showed a players true skill. It also gave players a reason to play the game, to get that next lvl. I will probably never play a game that put me on the edge on a 2v2, 24/24 games. And why? Because I new if I lost I will lose what I worked so hard for, but if I win I get the reward in proceeding in lvling. Thats why I love halo 3. The others would be just as good if they took out all the special abilities. Then have the halo 3 ranking system

#13

Halo X1 should have no less than 5 ranking systems:

  1. the first ranking is whatever pro players thing best measures e-pen

  2. the second is a ranking system akin to the BCS so that a good player kills alot of bad players and only get a little better rank where as if a noob drops a pro the noobs rank gets a lot better

  3. the third ranking is the Caboose ranking which tracks how stupid your play style is such as suicides, betrayals, and AFKs

  4. the fourth ranking is the team work rank which tracks objective attempts, successes, failures, and non-contributions

  5. the fifth rank is Spartan appearance ranking because looking cool is a thing and it would be based on user feed back

#14

Isn’t the point of a game being skilled and showing your skill off?

#15

> > Or maybe have one persistent XP rank and a skill rank that resets every month and people can only see your highest skill rank.
>
> Why would you want a skill rank that resets every month? That would be horrible for anyone that’s a regular player trying to work up to 50, everytime you got close and the next month started they would need to do everything all over again. You can say that if they’re really that deserving of the rank they’ll get back up there, but that doesn’t change that it’s going to take them far longer than it should.

That’s what Black Ops 2 had. You played 5 matches, after those you were put into a division based on your skill/wins from those 5 matches. You were put on a ladder with everybody around your skill level and you battled for the top spot. If you got there too easily you were ranked up to the next division. Every month the ladder reset and the new season began. On your character you had a box that said e.g. “League Best - Master Rank 57”. It wasn’t too bad, I liked it. But it would be different if it was 1-50 ranking instead of individual ranks within a division.

#16

> Isn’t the point of a game being skilled and showing your skill off?

A long long time ago Halo CE was about having fun lan parties with friends, it was a simpler and purer time

#17

We should have two systems… not to appease both parties… but rather to show specifics, like overall game loyalty and time played; and your skilled compared to, the rest of the populace. The systems should be cosmetic and true skill in nature…

Cosmetic Ranking
The cosmetic ranking system should be that akin to Halo: Reach, which engages players through purchasing their own armor and weaponry… as well as perhaps weapon and armor skins, which are now silhouettes, or outlines on the object, and can be colored via the coloring pan…

The levels could expand quite a while, going from spartan rank 1 to spartan rank 100 and be given a title that symbolizes UNSC ranks… private to admiral, for example. This system could even integrate a re-up/prestige system to reward loyal players, for reaching the end of the system, and be given a weapon/armor skin if they choose to go through again.

This is solely for the casual gamer who loves getting rewards but doesn’t have time to hone their skills accordingly… it should be complimented by commendations achieved and in-game medals; so to level this up, you finish commendations and get-medals in games and use that experience.

True Skill Ranking
The true skill system should be a combination of players kills to deaths, medals awarded and wins to losses, in various matches, but it should also depend on the game type… For objective matches, I found that win/loss system was poorly done… perhaps a teamwork medal calculator could be in place, and could show who performed the most team-based actions, and objective criteria? This way your better played matches are weighed fairly… even if you lost. So the systems should be relative to the ‘objective to win’, in other words:

- Free For All… (Get kills) [Wins/Losses, Kills/Death, Medals]
- Team Slayer… (Get kills) [Kills/Deaths, Medals]
- Capture The Flag… (Capture the flag) [Kills/Deaths, Win/Losses, Medals]
- Dominion… (Capture and hold bases) [Kills/Deaths, Win/Losses, Medals]
- Flood/Infection… (Survive the flood or Infect the survivors) [Kills/Death, Time Alive, Medals]
- Race… (Race through the checkpoints) [Wins/Losses]
- Grifball… (Plant the ball in the enemy goal) [Wins/Losses, Medals]
- Richochet… (Score the ball in the enemy goal) [Win/Losses, Medals]
- Invasion… (Progress through objectives or lock them down) [Kills/Deaths, Medals]
- King Of The Hill… (Capture and hold hills) [Kills/Deaths, Win/Losses, Medals]
- Oddball… (Hold the ball) [Kills/Deaths, Win/Losses, Medals]
- Assault… (Plant the bomb) [Kills/Deaths, Win/Losses, Medals]
- VIP… (Defend the VIP) [Kills/Deaths, Medals]

Perhaps instead of a wins/losses type deal we should get a bad match/good match… this way is shows your competency, with a lot less ambiguity… so even when losing due to failed team mates… you still your rank up accordingly. This system could also stop boosters and ‘away from keyboard’ (AFK)?

#18

I really don’t like the idea for 2 ranks only since:

  1. one rank as a experience meter is nice but not really a measure of skill

  2. the false/positive skill ranking based on how well you do against everybody is always misleading and leads to a justification for boosting, de-leveling, and other misconducts. Skill should reflect against how you play against people with lesser skill differently than your peers and superiors, but putting all the eggs in this one basket creates a corrupt quantifier in my opinion do to the fact that the true skills of all players really reflects a bell curve scale model whereas most players are average and some are truly skilled or completely skill deficient.

on the subject of the completely skill deficient it used to be really astounding when grade schools let out and nothing but children were online.

#19

I agree that there should be a skill based ranking system and a progression ranking system.

Skill based rank:

I often see people suggesting that it should took a player ages to reach a “50”. They basically suggest another form of a progression rank.
But the purpose of a skill based rank isn’t to make the player grind, it’s purpose is to create a proper match making system that matches people and creates teams that are on par.
Therefore it shouldn’t take the system decades to determine that a player belongs in the top ranks or is an actual “50”.

Besides, I think you should lose a “50” just as well as you can lose every other rank, otherwise the system will be flawed.
I mean, when I manage it to reach a 50 and then get matched against other 50’s and suddenly start losing more games then I win then I definitely do not belong in this “class” and the system should correct that.
To show off that you once reached a 50 in a certain playlist you could just as well reward the player with a certain decoration and stance for his player card.

Also, I think the skill based rank shouldn’t be solely based on win/loss that makes no sense when you rate and eventually match individuals and want to determine someone’s personal skill.
It should be a combination of win/loss and personal performance, how much those variables are weighted could differ from playlist to playlist though.
When you base an individual skill based rank solely on win/loss you will get falsified results since people’s “true ranks” could either be carried or oppressed by team mates.
A sole win/loss system does only work when you want to rate and match set teams.

Progression Rank:

I think the purpose of a progression rank is primarily to reward the dedication to the game.
It should unlock most of the aesthetical customization.
Nonetheless you could incorporate significant multipliers for winning/performance.

I think I would not really like a progression system that is solely linked to commendations like suggested in the OP.
Personally I am not so much of a “commendation hunter” there are a few I like going after, some I take a look on from time to time but the rest gets unlocked unintentionally by simply playing my games or I do not care at all for them because to achieve them I would have to put the fun aside.

#20

> 5. the fifth rank is Spartan appearance ranking because looking cool is a thing and it would be based on user feed back

I think that is a nice idea for a rank, but wouldn’t it have to be reset everytime you change something?