The Great cR Imbalance

Simply put: The Credit system is WHACK.

With Firefight Limited being REMOVED (Which is a terrible, terrible decision by 343i, even though I know the reasons), the cR situation continues to deteriorate into total nonsense. The way cR is earned in Reach is almost totally random when put into the proper context, and it badly needs reformation. A few examples:

A quickly-won, expertly-played Objective game where one team quickly captures all the flags, or arms the bomb over and over; Any situation where one team blows out the other team…This game is rewarded with far, far fewer credits than a slayer game, because there were fewer kills involved in the objective game.

When Firefight Limited was still a THING, Firefight Arcade provided not only a quicker, but usually a higher payout because death did not matter, and you would always complete your set/round. Despite Limited being more of an actual skill challenge, you also had to survive through the entire round on a life pool. The more challenging gametype is rewarded the least. Bass-ackward logic.

Playing Team Slayer and playing the Arena gives the user the same amount of cR. Arena is Ranked Halo. Team Slayer is unranked. Ranked Halo has always be incentivised over unranked…Yet in Reach we have the exact same level of incentive for each. In fact, since Team Slayer is easier than Arena, the player has further incentive to NOT play Arena, and instead opt for a casual game of Team Slayer.

All playlists earn the player the same rate of credits. Go play Grifball and get 15 kills. Go play Team Slayer and get 15 kills. Your payout will be very, very similar.

Those who do not participate can still earn credits. Someone can get no kills in a Team Slayer game, or go AFK in Firefight can still earn credits. This one explains itself.

These are just a few examples of how incredibly messed up the cR payout system is in Reach. The solution?

Award more cR to more difficult playlists, lower the cR payout in less challenging playlists, and if a player is not participating, award them 0 cR.

Discuss.

I don’t think the progression in Halo:Reach is ideal. I hope they put a lot of time in for the progression system in Halo 4.

Credits are awarded based of individual stats during the game. The more kills, assists, sprees, etc., the higher payout. If you win a game in a minute, the payouts should be less. It’s not “whack”, it makes logical sense.

Also, the payouts in your grifball/team slayer example is not true whatsoever. Team Slayer normally provides me with over 2,000 cR, Grifball with rarely over 1,000, with roughly the same medals earned in each respect game. The credit payouts do take into account the difficulty of each gametype. Please do your research before making claims such as this.

> Award more cR to more difficult playlists, lower the cR payout in less challenging playlists, and if a player is not participating, award them 0 cR

Is this about creating an imbalance?
I fail to see the balance of the system if it works as such:
A player who plays hundreds of hours of FF or Griffball should be treated as an equal with a person who puts in half the time on a pure slayer or objective list?

about the only thing i’d like to see, credit wise, is some sort of incentive to win Objective game types otherwise, most of the time they turn into straight up kill fests.

> A quickly-won, expertly-played Objective game where one team quickly captures all the flags, or arms the bomb over and over; Any situation where one team blows out the other team…This game is rewarded with far, far fewer credits than a slayer game, because there were fewer kills involved in the objective game.

That’s the fault of the matchmaking system. You should be getting games where you can cap over and over again so easily. Though given the population of Team Objective it’s actually a problem with the population of the playlist.

> Award more cR to more difficult playlists, lower the cR payout in less challenging playlists, and if a player is not participating, award them 0 cR.
>
> Discuss.

I agree that non-participants should receive 0 cR. But how do we determine participation? A player already proved over in the Reach forums that the BanHammer treats 0 kill players as idle, even if they are moving. So it would have to be based on kills and/or medals. But then where’s the cutoff point?

I am also not particularly fond of the idea of being punished for playing something that isn’t my cup of tea. I also realize that cR rewards are what drives players in the game. The Super Jackpot Weekends made that abundantly clear.

> Credits are awarded based of individual stats during the game. The more kills, assists, sprees, etc., the higher payout. <mark>If you win a game in a minute, the payouts should be less.</mark> It’s not “whack”, it makes logical sense.
>
> Also, the payouts in your grifball/team slayer example is not true whatsoever. Team Slayer normally provides me with over 2,000 cR, Grifball with rarely over 1,000, with roughly the same medals earned in each respect game. The credit payouts do take into account the difficulty of each gametype. Please do your research before making claims such as this.

That doesn’t work for Objectives though. The shorter the Objective game (Offense), the better your team is…

Hello and welcome to last year.

Hadn’t we all already agreed on this?

Yes the cR system is terrible and they should give you less cR for fiefight and more for actual multiplayer matchmaking. Seriously I get like 5000 cR for not trying in firefight in a 20 min. game, while I only get like 3,000cR for a 20 min. game in multiplayer matchmaking while I’m trying.

Players should get rewarded more for playing matchmaking, not firefight. Plus if they do that, then more people will play in multiplayer matchmaking. It just doesn’t make sense to give more credits for something that’s easy and you don’t have to try at all. It should be the other way around. More credits for multiplayer matchmaking and less for firefight.

> > Credits are awarded based of individual stats during the game. The more kills, assists, sprees, etc., the higher payout. <mark>If you win a game in a minute, the payouts should be less.</mark> It’s not “whack”, it makes logical sense.
> >
> > Also, the payouts in your grifball/team slayer example is not true whatsoever. Team Slayer normally provides me with over 2,000 cR, Grifball with rarely over 1,000, with roughly the same medals earned in each respect game. The credit payouts do take into account the difficulty of each gametype. Please do your research before making claims such as this.
>
> That doesn’t work for Objectives though. The shorter the Objective game (Offense), the better your team is…

True, however since the cR is based off individual rating, medals, and game stats, it makes sense that a shorter game pays out fewer credits.

Unfortunately the cR system wasn’t designed to reward skill. It was designed to reward time spent playing.

It’s just a dumb way to design a ranking system. The only way to speed up your progression is to exploit the easy gametypes.

Frankly, the credit system needs to be revamped so that losing teams earn WAY less than 4% less than the winning team. There’s no incentive to play to win if I make the same as the winning team, less 4% (and the jackpot bonus).

I’d say losing teams should make at least 50% less than winning teams in EVERY playlist except Action Sack (since it’s supposed to be an ultra-casual/no XP playlist). That’s one way to encourage competition.

> Unfortunately the cR system wasn’t designed to reward skill. It was designed to reward time spent playing.
>
> It’s just a dumb way to design a ranking system. The only way to speed up your progression is to exploit the easy gametypes.

This,

IMO credits are a novelty, They serve two purposes to unlock armor and increase your rank.
-Rank just shows you how long someone has played even if credits was more based on skill it wouldn’t change the fact that rank just shows how long you have played for.
-Unlocking armor is something that any one who plays an average amount of halo will eventually unlock all armor(except haunted) and then after that credits are only for rank.

So it would be nice if credits rewarded skill but it’s not really that much of a issue because credits are not a serious or skillful stat.

BUT! I would like them to reward winning so people who wanted credits would try to win instead of farming kills.(But that’s a personal issue which i want done anyway possible not necessarily though credits but that’s one way to motivate people to win instead of getting a high k/d)

> > > Credits are awarded based of individual stats during the game. The more kills, assists, sprees, etc., the higher payout. <mark>If you win a game in a minute, the payouts should be less.</mark> It’s not “whack”, it makes logical sense.
> > >
> > > Also, the payouts in your grifball/team slayer example is not true whatsoever. Team Slayer normally provides me with over 2,000 cR, Grifball with rarely over 1,000, with roughly the same medals earned in each respect game. The credit payouts do take into account the difficulty of each gametype. Please do your research before making claims such as this.
> >
> > That doesn’t work for Objectives though. The shorter the Objective game (Offense), the better your team is…
>
> True, however since the cR is based off individual rating, medals, and game stats, it makes sense that a shorter game pays out fewer credits.

Yeah, it works for Slayer based games, but kills shouldn’t be the focus for Objective games. It’s a big reason that Objectives don’t work in Reach…

> > > > Credits are awarded based of individual stats during the game. The more kills, assists, sprees, etc., the higher payout. <mark>If you win a game in a minute, the payouts should be less.</mark> It’s not “whack”, it makes logical sense.
> > > >
> > > > Also, the payouts in your grifball/team slayer example is not true whatsoever. Team Slayer normally provides me with over 2,000 cR, Grifball with rarely over 1,000, with roughly the same medals earned in each respect game. The credit payouts do take into account the difficulty of each gametype. Please do your research before making claims such as this.
> > >
> > > That doesn’t work for Objectives though. The shorter the Objective game (Offense), the better your team is…
> >
> > True, however since the cR is based off individual rating, medals, and game stats, it makes sense that a shorter game pays out fewer credits.
>
> Yeah, it works for Slayer based games, but kills shouldn’t be the focus for Objective games. It’s a big reason that Objectives don’t work in Reach…

It’s tough to come up with cR system that really works, I certainly wouldn’t want to be the one at 343i that has to do it. I’m actually a fan of the idea of cR, yet I really like the 1-50 ranking system in 3. I think Halo 4 should incorporate both, yet make it balanced.

> > > > > Credits are awarded based of individual stats during the game. The more kills, assists, sprees, etc., the higher payout. <mark>If you win a game in a minute, the payouts should be less.</mark> It’s not “whack”, it makes logical sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, the payouts in your grifball/team slayer example is not true whatsoever. Team Slayer normally provides me with over 2,000 cR, Grifball with rarely over 1,000, with roughly the same medals earned in each respect game. The credit payouts do take into account the difficulty of each gametype. Please do your research before making claims such as this.
> > > >
> > > > That doesn’t work for Objectives though. The shorter the Objective game (Offense), the better your team is…
> > >
> > > True, however since the cR is based off individual rating, medals, and game stats, it makes sense that a shorter game pays out fewer credits.
> >
> > Yeah, it works for Slayer based games, but kills shouldn’t be the focus for Objective games. It’s a big reason that Objectives don’t work in Reach…
>
> It’s tough to come up with cR system that really works, I certainly wouldn’t want to be the one at 343i that has to do it. I’m actually a fan of the idea of cR, yet I really like the 1-50 ranking system in 3. I think Halo 4 should incorporate both, yet make it balanced.

The only way to really make it balanced is to not give the losing team credits. Sure, it’d be wrong to the better players on the losing team, but they didn’t win. It’s an “Everybody’s a winner!” mentality and I personally, don’t like it.

Sure, Halo 4 can still have cR, but don’t have it deal with rank. Let it be like Black Ops’ CoD cash and used for armor and what not. Go back to Halo 3’s playlist EXP and what not.

> Yes the cR system is terrible and they should give you less cR for firefight and more for actual multiplayer matchmaking. Seriously I get like 5000 cR for not trying in firefight in a 20 min. game, while I only get like 3,000cR for a 20 min. game in multiplayer matchmaking while I’m trying.
>
> Players should get rewarded more for playing matchmaking, not firefight. Plus if they do that, then more people will play in multiplayer matchmaking. It just doesn’t make sense to give more credits for something that’s easy and you don’t have to try at all. It should be the other way around. More credits for multiplayer matchmaking and less for firefight.

Quote of the year.

Increase the victory bonus.

> I don’t think the progression in Halo:Reach is ideal. I hope they put a lot of time in for the progression system in Halo 4.

I hope Halo 4 doesn’t have a progression system and goes back to the 1-50 skill range.

I really don’t care about cR’s, armor, or rank in Reach because it’s all pointless which in turn made me care less about Reach.

The Imbalance is to the Highier Ranked people who play in longer games.

Higher Rank - Longer Game - More cR.
This is why people AFK in FF.

Although. In my Experiences. I’ve gotten MVP in Slayer. And A friend who was away for bits and pieces of a game. He got more cR… Weridly enough I was so much highier then him in Rank. A Captin getting more then a Hero. When the Captin didn’t even get Half of my kills.

I can see your points. And I hope with Halo 4. They fix this. I don’t mind leveling up the way we do on Reach. Aslong as you can tell how good someone truly is. Other then having to go through their Service Record and seeing their K/DRatio. For Instence. You see a Mythic. And Next to their name in. Ranked/Area it would say “45” so you know he would be a Solid Player.