There NEEDS to be visible ranked for this game to last over a few months and it needs to be based of off wins, not solely on player performance.
There is no reason not to have visible ranks other than: boohoo a player called me out for being bad…This happens in every game. It is up to 343 to fix the issue of boosters and derankers.
I player thousands of games of Halo 3 and they were mostly ranked. I only got to 42 but I played for hours on end just to try raise it once as did all of my friends.
Ranks should always be based off of team-play. This is a team game, its not CoD. There are other factors other than kill/assist/death ratio. If your team loses the game but you scored all its points…its still a loss, your performance was pointless. Losing because of a bad team is inevitable, deal with it.
TLDR
I had always thought that the reason nobody played Reach was because of the drastic change and lame gameplay, but now I think it is because it had a lack of a solid ranking system.
> You can’t rely on randoms to be good. So i hate getting deranked because my team sucks.
Exactly.
Though if you want to win and take the game a bit more seriously in that regard, you would play with people you know. It’s such a simple solution, not sure why more don’t follow it.
By doing the above, you avoid derankers and greifers. Playing with randoms is ALWAYS a bad idea if you want to win a majority of your games.
Of course even those who play for “fun” might want to go full party as the game is always better if you are playing with friends (even if your goal isn’t to dominate).
I agree with the OP, the ranking system in Reach isn’t the way to go. While i am not saying participation shouldn’t count for something, there should be rewards for players who actually play the game instead of being rewarded for jumping off cliffs, afking, and betraying.
> I hate this post unless they won’t allow demoting then I agree. That is why I play more of Reach and not Halo 3
demoting is what makes it work. if i play 5 games in a row and lose them all, why shouldn’t I go down? It keeps it balanced and doesn’t allow a player to rank up solely because he plays a lot.
Alien space ship comes down to take you as an ambassador of your species to their queen. They ask you what you need to survive the trip. You say: Pizza, beer, recliner, and a huge pile of movies.
They transport you into your room. The room devoid of shelter, water, heat and air.
No video game NEEDS a ranking system based off wins. You only want H4 to have one. Despite conflicting evidence that games can have long lives without one.
A ranking system is essential for this game to survive. Reach is a prime example of what happens when the incentive to come back and play day after day isn’t there. The arena was a failure.
> ITT: People confusing wants with needs.
>
> Don’t understand what I’m saying?
>
> Alien space ship comes down to take you as an ambassador of your species to their queen. They ask you what you need to survive the trip. You say: Pizza, beer, recliner, and a huge pile of movies.
>
> They transport you into your room. The room devoid of shelter, water, heat and air.
>
> No video game NEEDS a ranking system based off wins. You only want H4 to have one. Despite conflicting evidence that games can have long lives without one.
> A ranking system is essential for this game to survive. Reach is a prime example of what happens when the incentive to come back and play day after day isn’t there. The arena was a failure.
What are you talking about? There was plenty of “reason to keep playing” Arena: To earn a better rank.