130 was unacceptable.
Inheritor was great, but halotracker’s ranking system that went up to 55 million credits for max rank on halo reach was lengendary.
I also think that competitive ranks should have 50 grades just like on HTR, e.g. 50G1, etc.
Social rank?
Honestly I don’t want to have to worry about rank in social.
Competitive ranks have already been revealed as 7 divisions with 5 of them having 3 tiers and the top 2 divs with rating.
As for social rank? No
It was way too easy to rank up in 4. There were too many ranks, and you just blew past them really quickly. Reach’s progression system was much better, if a bit too difficult (I also prefer military ranks over boring numbers).
Basically, a player like me shouldn’t ever reach the top rank in the MP, and I managed to get through them in a year
> 2533274798774028;3:
> Competitive ranks have already been revealed as 7 divisions with 5 of them having 3 tiers and the top 2 divs with rating.
>
> As for social rank? No
Competitive ranks are per playlist. I assume there is also an overarching progression system.
> 2533274824175624;2:
> Social rank?
>
> Honestly I don’t want to have to worry about rank in social.
You won’t have to. What OP means is the level system from Reach and 4, not skill ranking.
> 2533274824175624;2:
> Social rank?
>
> Honestly I don’t want to have to worry about rank in social.
A social rank is EXP based, like inheritor from reach. Not skill based.
Reach’s and H4’s progression ranking system just encouraged mindless grinding. There was nothing difficult about it, nor meaningful. It really just reflected how much you ground for it. Boring, pointless and doesn’t add anything if you ask me.
3xp for win, 1xp for tie and 0xp for loss would be a proper level system for a “social rank” in my opinion.
> 2533274965837334;8:
> Reach’s and H4’s progression ranking system just encouraged mindless grinding. There was nothing difficult about it, nor meaningful. It really just reflected how much you ground for it. Boring, pointless and doesn’t add anything if you ask me.
>
> 3xp for win, 1xp for tie and 0xp for loss would be a proper level system for a “social rank” in my opinion.
Some people find mindless grinding fun
> 2533274965837334;8:
> Reach’s and H4’s progression ranking system just encouraged mindless grinding. There was nothing difficult about it, nor meaningful. It really just reflected how much you ground for it. Boring, pointless and doesn’t add anything if you ask me.
>
> 3xp for win, 1xp for tie and 0xp for loss would be a proper level system for a “social rank” in my opinion.
We’ll, if we’re getting into the actual mechanics… I think there should definitely be a massive bonus for winning a match (because as is in Reach and 4 people care more about getting kills than winning, even in Objective gametypes). But they really shouldn’t just base it on winning/losing because then there won’t really be a big difference between the Skill Rank and the Progression Rank (which would make the latter pointless).
> ran and shai said:
> We’ll, if we’re getting into the actual mechanics… I think there should definitely be a massive bonus for winning a match (because as is in Reach and 4 people care more about getting kills than winning, even in Objective gametypes). But they really shouldn’t just base it on winning/losing because then there won’t really be a big difference between the Skill Rank and the Progression Rank (which would make the latter pointless).
The difference between skill rank and progression rank would still be there.
In a skill rank you can level up (progress), level down (regress) or eventually level off depending on your performance/skill.
In a progression rank you can only level up (progress) until you hit the maximum, yet how fast will depend on your performance/skill.
However, I think you can ask for what kind of purpose you actually want to implement a progression rank.
To reflect your progress in a certain task (in my example wins) and the effort you put into it or to unlock stuff like all kinds of aesthetics?
For the latter you don’t need a ranking system. For the latter you could simply implement a currency system or a achievement/challenge system or even combine both. For the latter I would however still only reward/encourage proper/skillful play.
> 2533274887428223;9:
> Some people find mindless grinding fun
Is it really fun to grind the same old and boring SpOps mission to gain easy and fast xp?
Is it really fun to play nothing but grifball matches in Reach not because it is your favorite multiplayer playlist/gametype but because you can fast and easy earn credits with them?
Is it really fun to run around and try to kill opponents with nothing but a Plasma Pistol to try to max out a more than absurd commendation?
Is it really fun to play to level up instead of leveling up while playing or rather what is more fun?
That is what I consider “mindless grinding” because it doesn’t have much to do with actually playing the game anymore in my opinion and why I have a hard time believing that anyone has really (much) fun doing that.
In addition, you could basically still grind the rank I suggested previously but in order to do so you would have to grind for wins and eventually you could firstly play whatever playlist/gametype you like to play and secondly you would play the game like it is intended to get played what also your co-players will appreciate.
> 2533274824175624;2:
> Social rank?
>
> Honestly I don’t want to have to worry about rank in social.
Oh, like the silver ranks that where added in halo 3?
Meh, I don’t really think they are necessary. Halo 4 only had a low level cap because game play was affected by rank, and If they made it take anywhere near as long as reach, then many people wouldn’t have unlocked half the spec’s
> 2533274965837334;11:
> > ran and shai said:
> > We’ll, if we’re getting into the actual mechanics… I think there should definitely be a massive bonus for winning a match (because as is in Reach and 4 people care more about getting kills than winning, even in Objective gametypes). But they really shouldn’t just base it on winning/losing because then there won’t really be a big difference between the Skill Rank and the Progression Rank (which would make the latter pointless).
>
>
> The difference between skill rank and progression rank would still be there.
> In a skill rank you can level up (progress), level down (regress) or eventually level off depending on your performance/skill.
> In a progression rank you can only level up (progress) until you hit the maximum, yet how fast will depend on your performance/skill.
>
> However, I think you can ask for what kind of purpose you actually want to implement a progression rank.
> To reflect your progress in a certain task (in my example wins) and the effort you put into it or to unlock stuff like all kinds of aesthetics?
> For the latter you don’t need a ranking system. For the latter you could simply implement a currency system or a achievement/challenge system or even combine both. For the latter I would however still only reward/encourage proper/skillful play.
>
>
>
> > 2533274887428223;9:
> > Some people find mindless grinding fun
>
>
> Is it really fun to grind the same old and boring SpOps mission to gain easy and fast xp?
> Is it really fun to play nothing but grifball matches in Reach not because it is your favorite multiplayer playlist/gametype but because you can fast and easy earn credits with them?
> Is it really fun to run around and try to kill opponents with nothing but a Plasma Pistol to try to max out a more than absurd commendation?
> Is it really fun to play to level up instead of leveling up while playing or rather what is more fun?
>
> That is what I consider “mindless grinding” because it doesn’t have much to do with actually playing the game anymore in my opinion and why I have a hard time believing that anyone has really (much) fun doing that.
>
> In addition, you could basically still grind the rank I suggested previously but in order to do so you would have to grind for wins and eventually you could firstly play whatever playlist/gametype you like to play and secondly you would play the game like it is intended to get played what also your co-players will appreciate.
Problem is you could be the MVP and still lose a match (because of the rest of your team). Modern progression systems bypass that issue by giving each player a due reward. And again, there should definitely be a major boost to those who win a match or try to score (be it with kills in Slayer, flags in CTF and so on). Basically I think each mode should reward the players that try to win, even if their team loses. Protecting the flag should earn you points and dearming the bomb, definitely not just kills. But not just wins either.
I want ranked for when I’m feeling competitive and unranked when I want to screw around. That is all.
> 2533274846978810;14:
> Problem is you could be the MVP and still lose a match (because of the rest of your team). Modern progression systems bypass that issue by giving each player a due reward. And again, there should definitely be a major boost to those who win a match or try to score (be it with kills in Slayer, flags in CTF and so on). Basically I think each mode should reward the players that try to win, even if their team loses. Protecting the flag should earn you points and dearming the bomb, definitely not just kills. But not just wins either.
I know where you are aiming at but my idea of a progression rank was basically a rank that reflects a specific progress and in my case that was wins.
Therefore it wouldn’t make much sense to give xp when losing a match even when you were actually the best player in the match. It is unfortunate when playing with randoms, I know, but after all it is still a team game. You win as a team and you lose as a team.
Anyway, when it wouldn’t be about reflecting some kind of progress but about unlocking things like armor etc. then I would say yes, you can give out i.e. a certain and appropriate amount of credits for the team performance as well as for the individual performance but then I think it would be kind of unfitting to wrap that into a ranking system since it is more of a currency system.
As long as I don’t max out my S.R. rank as quickly as I did in Halo 4 I will be happy with whatever they do in Halo 5