Skill Vs. Rank

Remember this is all just my opinion. For Halo 4, skill (1-50) and rank (Recruit-?) should be implemented in a way that would satisfy both the casuals and the pros. How? Well, Halo 2 and 3 were very good at detecting skill, but do to the fact that skill was tied to rank, a large majority of the population could never achieve the rank.

Reach was a great way to even allow casuals achieve the highest rank, but the pros don’t like it because they see it as if there is no reason to play because it’s just a game where anyone can look the best (and also because of gameplay).

In order to appeal to both sides we need to find an even balance between the two. Skill should still be tied to rank, but shouldn’t prevent the rest of the population from reaching the highest rank. So like if I had a skill of 25 and another player had a skill of 15 and we are both captain rank, I would be able to get to the next rank quicker because it would require less EXP, but the player with the lower skill could still get to that rank and beyond. The difference would be in the amount of EXP the lower skilled player would need.

This way skilled players could compete for a high skill level, but the casuals could still reach the highest rank.

Again it’s just my opinion. What do you think?

Bad people shouldn’t be max rank.

I’m ok with your opinion, but should work like this, then it would take them longer to actually achieve MAX rank. That way casuals can have MAX rank, but not necessarily MAX skill. And those who are skilled could achieve MAX skill. I don’t know. It just seemed like a good idea in theory.

The problem was that the system was exploited. How many second accounter 50s or boosters did you know? I’m not sure what the best solution is to this, but I for one miss the old skill and rank days. Reach was a fine Halo game, but the lack of skill level means I wasn’t competing as hard as I used to during 2 and 3.

[der flatulator6s post
my post](http://halo.xbox.com/Forums/yaf_postst46309_Skill--Rank--Experience--Credits--click-for-more.aspx)

Yes, exactly! I honestly never had seen any boosters or level 50s at all. If they got this kind of system to work, then it would there could be a nice balance where casuals could get to the highest rank, but only the skillful players could compete for that level 50. I agree that Reach’s ranking system wasn’t built well for the competitive players, but more for the casuals. That being said, if something similar to this were set up then just maybe…

Why would a bad player be rewarded, especially in a competitive game like Halo?That’s stupid.

@A Haunted Army Ah…I see you beat me to it.

> Why would a bad player be rewarded, especially in a competitive game like Halo?That’s stupid.

to keep them playing.

no game is competitive, it is the people who play it that are competitive.

You do have to remember that Halo has both the competitive and casual community. Reach is the only Halo game that truly allowed the casuals to have a high rank. Now what I’m thinking is that for Halo 4 there needs to be a modified ranking system where skill is tied to rank and allows skilled players to reach the highest rank at a much faster pace, while it will take casuals longer.

But the skill of players will still be shown and only attainable through ranked playlists. And only skilled players can have a high skill level (1-50). This way the casuals could still have the highest rank, but may not ever be able to obtain that level 50.

> > Why would a bad player be rewarded, especially in a competitive game like Halo?That’s stupid.
>
> to keep them playing.
>
> no game is competitive, it is the people who play it that are competitive.

Halo 3 was perfect. It had ranked and social. Bad people still played even though they couldn’t rank up. If they wanted to rank up, they would keep on playing to achieve that goal.

Reach failed and the ranking system was a part of that failure. Why play if you always get rewarded? It gets boring.

> Halo 3 was perfect.

Halo 3 was far from perfect. The True Skill ranking system is flawed and is based solely on win/loss, which is not how people should be rated on skill. The Halo 2 ranking system was superior, in my opinion, but could be tweaked to make it even better.

> > > Why would a bad player be rewarded, especially in a competitive game like Halo?That’s stupid.
> >
> > to keep them playing.
> >
> > no game is competitive, it is the people who play it that are competitive.
>
> Halo 3 was perfect. It had ranked and social. Bad people still played even though they couldn’t rank up. If they wanted to rank up, they would keep on playing to achieve that goal.
>
> Reach failed and the ranking system was a part of that failure. Why play if you always get rewarded? It gets boring.

halo 3 wasn’t perfect, it punnished players who choose not to play in certain playlists and this is bad.

rewarding players for playing your game is good, but having this as the only means of ranking up is bad, read the 2 posts i linked, they have everything explained and better examples of how to go about things.

I’m going to have to disagree and maybe i’m biased because i am a good player, but i don’t think that players who lack the skill should be able to achieve the highest rank. (Besides gameplay issues and imo terrible maps) the fact that my rank only depended on how many credits i accumulated really drove me to stop playing.

In halo 3 when i first started playing i was garbage. Generals destroyed me and tbh i deserved to be the brigadier grade 3 that i was. But i didn’t complain about how they got to be generals because their skill was higher; i just kept playing, honed my skills, got some awareness, and i ended up leaving halo 3 with a 5 star general rank, 5 different 50’s and in reach i -Yoink- on dam near everybody regardless the playlist or game type Why? because i wanted to get better and did. End of story.

And if there has to be some sort of middle ground then sort of like Halo 3 did in the TU2 update have a social and ranked devision. Then to get the colored in ranks that later only appeared in your service record on reach those show all the time, but if you are playing social playlists then that rank can either disappear to you service record or be joined by a white version of the rank that everyone could achieve via credits or exp alone. Whereas the ranked playlists would have your skill lvl and the colorful rank.

> > > > Why would a bad player be rewarded, especially in a competitive game like Halo?That’s stupid.
> > >
> > > to keep them playing.
> > >
> > > no game is competitive, it is the people who play it that are competitive.
> >
> > Halo 3 was perfect. It had ranked and social. Bad people still played even though they couldn’t rank up. If they wanted to rank up, they would keep on playing to achieve that goal.
> >
> > Reach failed and the ranking system was a part of that failure. Why play if you always get rewarded? It gets boring.
>
> halo 3 wasn’t perfect, it punnished players who choose not to play in certain playlists and this is bad.
>
> rewarding players for playing your game is good, but having this as the only means of ranking up is bad, read the 2 posts i linked, they have everything explained and better examples of how to go about things.

Halo 3 was casual and competitive. The casuals enjoyed Halo 3 and so did the competitive people. Halo 3 didn’t punish people for not playing ranked playlists.

> > > > > Why would a bad player be rewarded, especially in a competitive game like Halo?That’s stupid.
> > > >
> > > > to keep them playing.
> > > >
> > > > no game is competitive, it is the people who play it that are competitive.
> > >
> > > Halo 3 was perfect. It had ranked and social. Bad people still played even though they couldn’t rank up. If they wanted to rank up, they would keep on playing to achieve that goal.
> > >
> > > Reach failed and the ranking system was a part of that failure. Why play if you always get rewarded? It gets boring.
> >
> > halo 3 wasn’t perfect, it punnished players who choose not to play in certain playlists and this is bad.
> >
> > rewarding players for playing your game is good, but having this as the only means of ranking up is bad, read the 2 posts i linked, they have everything explained and better examples of how to go about things.
>
> Halo 3 was casual and competitive. The casuals enjoyed Halo 3 and so did the competitive people. Halo 3 didn’t punish people for not playing ranked playlists.

if you didn’t play ranked then you didn’t rank up, this punishes people who chose not to play ranked for what ever reason but it is still punishing.

the only thing about halo 3 that was casual was custom games, everything about halo 3s matchmaking punished players for not playing competitively.

I think I may of lost you around the end, but I can see what you’re getting at. I love being competitive which is why I love Halo 3, but then when it just started to get too hard for me, I just went to play in Social for a while.

It was still fun, but eventually I looked at my service record and saw that in order to get to the next rank, I would need to increase my skill. It wouldn’t of mattered how many EXP I got because it was my skill that was keeping me from obtaining that next rank. I got it eventually, but it showed me that if you weren’t good, then you couldn’t get. I mean bad players still can’t get level 50, but atleast for their effort and hard time, they should be able to get to that final rank.

We all love Halo, so we all should be rewarded, even if it takes some of those who aren’t as good, and who would rather not compete, a longer time to get there.

> rewarding players for playing your game is good, but having this as the only means of ranking up is bad

I disagree. Why should someone be allowed to rank up (With the intentions of a rank indicating skill) if they are terrible players? Simply put, they shouldn’t be able to. I’ve had plenty of high ranked players in my games on Halo Reach who go pretty negative and contribute nothing to the team while I, currently a Legend, usually have a 2 K/D or above and I’m usually fighting for the objective and yet they are the higher rank? The ones who drag my team down? That makes absolutely no sense.

There needs to be ranks based on a players individual skill as well as his team skill.

> > > > > > Why would a bad player be rewarded, especially in a competitive game like Halo?That’s stupid.
> > > > >
> > > > > to keep them playing.
> > > > >
> > > > > no game is competitive, it is the people who play it that are competitive.
> > > >
> > > > Halo 3 was perfect. It had ranked and social. Bad people still played even though they couldn’t rank up. If they wanted to rank up, they would keep on playing to achieve that goal.
> > > >
> > > > Reach failed and the ranking system was a part of that failure. Why play if you always get rewarded? It gets boring.
> > >
> > > halo 3 wasn’t perfect, it punnished players who choose not to play in certain playlists and this is bad.
> > >
> > > rewarding players for playing your game is good, but having this as the only means of ranking up is bad, read the 2 posts i linked, they have everything explained and better examples of how to go about things.
> >
> > Halo 3 was casual and competitive. The casuals enjoyed Halo 3 and so did the competitive people. Halo 3 didn’t punish people for not playing ranked playlists.
>
> if you didn’t play ranked then you didn’t rank up, this punishes people who chose not to play ranked for what ever reason but it is still punishing.
>
> the only thing about halo 3 that was casual was custom games, everything about halo 3s matchmaking punished players for not playing competitively.

Oh please. Casuals didn’t complain about ranking up or highest skill in Halo 3. They were too busy playing custom games or social. If you wanted to rank up or tried to then you are competitive. If you keep on trying then you will get better. It separates the bad players from the good ones. The only problem was the derankers and boosters. I only have a 46 on “Defective” because of them. 343 could improve that system because it worked well. You just want to be able to get max rank because you were bad at Halo 3.

> > rewarding players for playing your game is good, but having this as the only means of ranking up is bad
>
> I disagree. Why should someone be allowed to rank up (With the intentions of a rank indicating skill) if they are terrible players? Simply put, they shouldn’t be able to. I’ve had plenty of high ranked players in my games on Halo Reach who go pretty negative and contribute nothing to the team while I, currently a Legend, usually have a 2 K/D or above and I’m usually fighting for the objective and yet they are the higher rank? The ones who drag my team down? That makes absolutely no sense.
>
> There needs to be ranks based on a players individual skill as well as his team skill.

if you don’t reward someone for playing your game then you are going to be pushing away potential customers and besides, there is nothing that says rank has to be about skill, rank can be about anything as long as it is earned from playing the game.