This is why 1-50 is necessary

Games Other Halo
1

This is why we need 1-50.

I’m not sure how this is arguable…

EDIT: My point, is they all just got the game, it’s essentially level 1s VS level 30s

2

Looks at scoreboard

O_O

EDIT: Never mind, they were all beginners(Blue team).

3

And this. This too.

4

It is very annoying to fight against a weak team. or a team where you dont stand a chance

5

Which is why Social playlists are social players’ biggest enemy.

6

We need a 1-50 ranking system, but not for this reason. I can show you thousands of games on H3 that had such a score.

Looks to me like you just want to show of a game you had, not impressive.

7

> We need a 1-50 ranking system, but not for this reason. I can show you thousands of games on H3 that had such a score.
>
> Looks to me like you just want to show of a game you had, not impressive.

Yea I definitely posted it to show off…

I’m trying to prove a point to all of the “WE NEED CR IN DA HALO 4 GAME ITZ SSOOO GOOD 1-50 IZ BROKEEN” kids…=

8

Cause you know, the ranking system in Halo 3 was so perfect…

and wow, nice work on alienating new players and making them not enjoy the game.

9

> Cause you know, the ranking system in Halo 3 was so perfect…
>
> and wow, nice work on alienating new players and making them not enjoy the game.

Actually the Halo 2 system was quite good, and that’s the one I’m referring to. Since the banhammer is quite effective I’m sure it could find derankers, or cheaters with no problem.

And as for alienating them, it’s not my fault our team happened to be better then theres, I didn’t know I was supposed sacrifice my fun for theirs.

10

> Cause you know, the ranking system in Halo 3 was so perfect…

I’m sure you and I can get along very nicely. Provided you read the topic. And the replies.

> and wow, nice work on alienating new players and making them not enjoy the game.

Blame the terrible matchmaking system for matching good players against bad ones. Social playlists are a social player’s worst enemy. If those players wanted a good time, they would play Arena. That way, they would get fair competition.

11

> > Cause you know, the ranking system in Halo 3 was so perfect…
>
> I’m sure you and I can get along very nicely. Provided you read the topic. And the replies.
>
>
>
> > and wow, nice work on alienating new players and making them not enjoy the game.
>
> Blame the terrible matchmaking system for matching good players against bad ones. Social playlists are a social player’s worst enemy. If those players wanted a good time, they would play Arena. That way, they would get fair competition.

Of course forgetting to mention how broken and deserted arena is. :stuck_out_tongue:
But yeah I agree with you. Social playlists really aren’t good for new players. Its the same thing they do with individual skill. They decrease the individual skill gap to accomodate newer players, yet new players will only focus on themselves, and won’t have teamwork. Reach is full of this illogical BS.

12

When there is a 1-50 ranking system it helps spread out the different skill levels accordingly. The only reason Credits are used is because of the popularity of the CoD system and the feeling of accomplishment with each point you get, however, it does a horrible time at spreading out different skill levels making it sometimes unplayable for less skilled players, and not fun for better skilled players. The current ranking system appeals to a larger audience because not everyone is going to dedicate their time and effort into becoming good at a game, but they still want the same amount of fun and accomplishment. So, a ranking system with two different playlists would essentially make it so everyone gets what they want. One with the 1-50 ranking system for the more serious players, and one with credits for the people that don’t want to try as hard, but still want to be rewarded.

13

1-50 needs to come back

14

I’d agree that the 1-50 ranking system was much more engaging that of reach by providing a reason for competitive play, but it’s pretty obsolete and definitely has its flaws. All we can hope for is a ranking/exp system that rewards both the competitive and the casual audiences (a dual layered system, maybe?) and of course, that successfully matches together equally skilled people/balanced teams (in the case that one person in a party is less skilled than the other).

15

> I’d agree that the 1-50 ranking system was much more engaging that of reach by providing a reason for competitive play, but it’s pretty obsolete and definitely has its flaws.

Why is it obsolete?