For those that may have missed it, there is a great thread here showing what seems to be evidence of a new ranking system (likely skill based):
http://forums.halo.xbox.com/yaf_postst88740_Two-Ranking-Systems-Confirmed.aspx
Based on what we’re seeing, I’m very happy. But several questions began popping into my head about how this could work. Just some thoughts:
- I’m assuming the rank shown (letter + number) works as a progression where letter = earned rank and number = progression within the letter rank. Meaning, you would start as an “A-1”. As you play and do well, you move through the “A” rank such as “A-2”, “A-3”, “A-4” etc… Once you get to “A-10”, you eventually “rank up” and move to a “B-1”. So with this known, could we assume that a player who eventually reaches the “X, Y, Z” mark would be truly formidable?
Is this logical? Does anyone have any other thoughts on how it could work or evidence to the contrary? Also, there is a thought that once you achieve a letter rank, you cannot lose it while the number rank can fluctuate up and down based on current play. That sounds like a good idea in theory but what if a player reaches a high letter rank but then takes 6 months off of playing? When he/she returns they are unlikely to still be playing at that level no? Maybe letter rank is retained only with semi-constant play or a time period at which it can begin to degrade?
- In regards to matchmaking, one of the largest challenges for the major multiplayer games is to make the players in a match be somewhat equal in skill level. This is always a hot topic for my friends and I as me and a few others play more often and take it more seriously, while others are very casual players. Yet we are all in one party at least once a week.
How can 343i make a system that matches more efficiently based on TEAM or PARTY skill level? The simple or obvious answer is to average the skill rankings among the entire party but wouldn’t that cause issues as well? The higher skilled players in the party would always have an advantage where the lower skilled players would always be at a disadvantage no?
- The other topic that’s been discussed is going back to a break out of “social” versus “ranked” games. I’m sure this will be a debated topic as people have fond memories of Halo 3, but let’s try to think ahead a bit more without arguing about the past.
Is breaking the two out truly beneficial? Would it not be a more ideal situation to keep the population together, with both ranks active in every game, while offering an improved PLAYLIST selection to meet our wants/needs? As an example, Team Slayer versus Infinity Slayer where Infinity Slayer is less competitive due to lack of friendly fire and other features but BOTH playlists apply to normal and skill rank.
Also, does it still make sense to have a skill rank per playlist? Or should “skill” be more global so that you don’t have a high level player shown as low skill simply because he/she is trying something new? I’m sure we can all agree that good Halo players are good in almost all playlists regardless of the objective.
Just some discussion points for us all to think about. While most of this is speculation, it can still make for a positive discussion.
