I would like to know the communities opinion on Halo 5’s ranking systems. Personally I really hate them, both of them. I think the CSR system is awful. We don’t all have big badass teams to play with 24/7 and I say ‘‘24/7’’ because you’d probably be more likely to lose a game if your not playing with your team which results in you being ranked down. Even if you did have an amazing team, who would want to play with them24/7 anyway? Back to when I was talking about not having a team. Your rank shouldn’t be decided on how ‘randomers’ play. Furthermore, the SR system is boring. In the good old days people would say ‘‘Oh, I can’t wait to be a General Grade 4’’ and so on. Nobody in history has even uttered the words ‘‘Oh, I can’t wait to be SR44’’.
I would LOVE for a ranking system similar to Reach’s to return. It took ages to rank up and when you did, it felt so good and rewarding
What do you guys think of Halo 5’s ranking systems? Thank you!
> 2533274882999606;2:
> Why not both? You can have a skill rank, AND an experience point based rank.
The CSR system has a HUGE amount of spotlight over the SR systems. I think they really need changing in the ways that they work not their foundations, If you know what I mean
My days of grinding for a rank, skill-based or experience-based, are over. No matter what they come up with it will be both grindy and flawed, -Yoink!- off a lot of people. I’m just not willing to go down that road anymore. I’ll play for fun, but I won’t play ranked and I won’t grind for “Inheritor.” It’s not supposed to be a job.
> 2533274858646258;1:
> I would like to know the communities opinion on Halo 5’s ranking systems. Personally I really hate them, both of them. I think the CSR system is awful. We don’t all have big badass teams to play with 24/7 and I say ‘‘24/7’’ because you’d probably be more likely to lose a game if your not playing with your team which results in you being ranked down. Even if you did have an amazing team, who would want to play with them24/7 anyway? Back to when I was talking about not having a team. Your rank shouldn’t be decided on how ‘randomers’ play. Furthermore, the SR system is boring. In the good old days people would say ‘‘Oh, I can’t wait to be a General Grade 4’’ and so on. Nobody in history has even uttered the words ‘‘Oh, I can’t wait to be SR44’’.
>
> I would LOVE for a ranking system similar to Reach’s to return. It took ages to rank up and when you did, it felt so good and rewarding
>
> What do you guys think of Halo 5’s ranking systems? Thank you!
If you find grinding a rewarding experience go play CoD and Destiny. I want my rank to have some degree of meaning other than “I have no life.”
Reach was fun, but most “Inheritors” were garbage at Halo and couldn’t even go positive in anything other than Crazy King in Multiteam. The ranks didn’t mean a thing.
Neither reach nor 4s exp ranking system gave me incentive to win nor gratification upon ranking up. You will gett here eventually, justt akes time.
Not that I didnt try to win, I certainly did. Why not have an exp AND skill based systems? Social and ranked just like 3 did. Hopefully whatever max skill rank there is, be it 50 or watever, I hope its hard as hell to get. Never got to 50 before, Ill be trying my damndest now.
Didn’t the 1-50 ranks use more or less the same criteria? Go up if you win, down if you lose? What’s the major difference, other than how its expressed to us?
As for SR, having number-only ranks doesn’t bother me, but the linear unlock system attached to it for armor is kinda boring.
I bet the only reason he hates the ranking system in Halo 5 is because he can’t get a high skill-based rank. In Reach, anyone can get to “Inheritor” if they play long enough, you don’t even have to do well in your games.
The only thing that ticked me off was when I lost a game that I was good in & my rank still dropped. I believe that the ranking system should be purely based on how well the individual does. A player shouldn’t get penalized if they lose a match & still do well.
> 2535458654857735;9:
> It’s better than not having skill based ranks at all. So it’s the best system since H3. I still prefer H2 and H3’s systems though.
i like that in h2 and h3 it took longer to get to the high ranks
> 2533274815147687;5:
> > 2533274858646258;1:
> > I would like to know the communities opinion on Halo 5’s ranking systems. Personally I really hate them, both of them. I think the CSR system is awful. We don’t all have big badass teams to play with 24/7 and I say ‘‘24/7’’ because you’d probably be more likely to lose a game if your not playing with your team which results in you being ranked down. Even if you did have an amazing team, who would want to play with them24/7 anyway? Back to when I was talking about not having a team. Your rank shouldn’t be decided on how ‘randomers’ play. Furthermore, the SR system is boring. In the good old days people would say ‘‘Oh, I can’t wait to be a General Grade 4’’ and so on. Nobody in history has even uttered the words ‘‘Oh, I can’t wait to be SR44’’.
> >
> > I would LOVE for a ranking system similar to Reach’s to return. It took ages to rank up and when you did, it felt so good and rewarding
> >
> > What do you guys think of Halo 5’s ranking systems? Thank you!
>
>
> If you find grinding a rewarding experience go play CoD and Destiny. I want my rank to have some degree of meaning other than “I have no life.”
>
> Reach was fun, but most “Inheritors” were garbage at Halo and couldn’t even go positive in anything other than Crazy King in Multiteam. The ranks didn’t mean a thing.
> 2533274826534201;6:
> Neither reach nor 4s exp ranking system gave me incentive to win nor gratification upon ranking up. You will gett here eventually, justt akes time.
> Not that I didnt try to win, I certainly did. Why not have an exp AND skill based systems? Social and ranked just like 3 did. Hopefully whatever max skill rank there is, be it 50 or watever, I hope its hard as hell to get. Never got to 50 before, Ill be trying my damndest now.
That’s actually how they did it in the beta. They had a base experience leveling system across all boards that used the SR#. And then thier was the tiered competitive ranking system, that went from bronze to pro, the pro tier only having the best of the leader boards on it. This system existed within all the different multi-player game modes, similar to the way each game mode had a rank in Halo’s 2 and 3.
> 2533274882999606;2:
> Why not both? You can have a skill rank, AND an experience point based rank.
thats what halo 5 is. i love it. i personally got to ramk pro during the beta, and yes the beta was broken where i got matched up against some irons and silvers, but i got matched with other pros nad semi pros too
> 2533274802469862;15:
> > 2533274882999606;2:
> > Why not both? You can have a skill rank, AND an experience point based rank.
>
>
> thats what halo 5 is. i love it. i personally got to ramk pro during the beta, and yes the beta was broken where i got matched up against some irons and silvers, but i got matched with other pros nad semi pros too
Yeah, I got to pro in Breakout but I was only Onyx in Team Slayer (I went down to semi-pro in Breakout because I stopped playing it, wasn’t as fun as TS) . My older brother got stuck at Gold because we didn’t know that your first 10 games were based on your performance, not your team’s. So he was being a real team player and getting a lot of assists but only got Gold, which was really confusing because he won 7/10 of his first 10 games, but I only won 4/10 and still got Onyx. Changing your rank in the Beta was really hard once it was set, so ultimately that’s why he stopped playing.
Overall I liked it fine. I think the brackets were a nice addition, rather then a generic 1-50. I also liked the 10 game placement process to quickly put you into a bracket.
If I have any complaint about the ranking system it is this:
“Philosophically we believe that in a team sport the only thing that should matter is wins and losses. […] The simplest and best way to assess performance within a team sport, is the team’s success.”
I would argue that because teams are non-persistent and assembled by matchmaking on-the-fly. It seems amiss that a team outcome (win/loss) remains as a permanent mark on my individual rank, whereas the team itself is only a temporary construct and is disbanded after the game. A team-outcome-only rank makes sense in a clan based league or tournament, because the team is a persistent unit game-over-game. But for general matchmaking, individuals carry the rank game-over-game NOT the team, so why is it that the temporary construct of the team and its subsequent win/loss completely determines my individual rank?
I like that there is heavy team focus for rank, which is great. BUT - there needs to be some degree of individual performance factored into the rank ESPECIALLY for team slayer, where contribution to the game score is easily measurable. You can literally quantify an individuals contribution to a win/loss : How many kills did you provide your team, how many assists, how many deaths? These are easy to measure performance elements which drive win/losses for team slayer. Objective games, clearly become more complex to quantify.