…that was based on how many games you win?
Hear me out here. This idea just popped into my head. What would think of a ranking system that is based on how many games you win and loose. No not trueskill, but something more like a “record.” Here’s how it would look.
Rank:
1-10 (win 10 games for each level)
21-30 (win 20 games for each level)
31-40 (win 30 games for each level)
41-45 (win 40 games for each level)
46-50 (win 50 games for each level)
To better explain, you need to win X amount of games to progress to the next level. Example, your a level 5, you win 8 games in a row, you loose game number 9. you have to win 2 more games to rank up.
What this does:
-Promotes “playing as as team” because you are all fighting for the same goal, to add wins to your record.
-Cannot be “boosted” because it is based on wins so you still have to play the games and requires your own skill level to win.
-Will not stop people from playing because you cannot rank down.
-You won’t see as much account selling because the process of getting a 50 is a very long process in which cannot be earned as quickly as Halo 3’s.
-Low rank people and high rank peopel can play together without the worry of getting “destroyed” as long as their skill levels are there.
This is just and idea and I would really like to hear your opinions on it.
I like the basic idea of this system. However, i don’t like the idea of not being able to lose your rank. It would take out a little bit of the competitiveness from the game because instead of absolutely not wanting to lose due to the fact that you could lose your rank, you could just kind of shrug off a loss as no big deal.
I think that this could work though if you implemented a part where if you dropped below the amount of games you had won on a certain rank with losses, you would drop down to the previous rank. I don’t know… lol
> Isn’t this something similar to ranked in Halo 3?
>
> You get ranks for winning games there, right?
A little different, Halo 3’s was base on percentages plus the amount of exp. you had came into factor. If you won alot and had low exp, you would boost right to 50. In this case, there is no exp., no percentages, just you and winning the games.
> > Isn’t this something similar to ranked in Halo 3?
> >
> > You get ranks for winning games there, right?
>
> A little different, Halo 3’s was base on percentages plus the amount of exp. you had came into factor. If you won alot and had low exp, you would boost right to 50. In this case, there is no exp., no percentages, just you and winning the games.
This would kind of encourage camping on some maps, and in Slayer. Also, if you were AFK, your team could do all the work and you would still benifit. I believe their needs to be a balance of time spent, wins, and how well YOU actually do.
> I like the basic idea of this system. However, i don’t like the idea of not being able to lose your rank. It would take out a little bit of the competitiveness from the game because instead of absolutely not wanting to lose due to the fact that you could lose your rank, you could just kind of shrug off a loss as no big deal.
> I think that this could work though if you implemented a part where if you dropped below the amount of games you had won on a certain rank with losses, you would drop down to the previous rank. I don’t know… lol
its a game your supposed to shrug off losing because its for fun and the system does sound like it could work instead of reaches
Thats not a ranking system its a progression system.
The point of ranks is to match players of similar skill so you get games that are close and fun. This would eventually defeat that purpose as every one would reach the highest rank.
Not to rain on your parade, but this is exactly like the exp system in Halo 3, only this time the highest ranks are not related/locked due to another rank (aka true skill).
In Halo 3 you got 1 ex for winning, and nothing when you loose. Get enough exp, and you get a new rank. Same thing really…not that it would be bad, but it would make no real/big difference to the cR system.
> Thats not a ranking system its a progression system.
>
> The point of ranks is to match players of similar skill so you get games that are close and fun. This would eventually defeat that purpose as every one would reach the highest rank.
It is a ranking system, but it’s not one based on skill but one based on winning. It’s a progressive one, sure, but you still a system where you earn a rank, hence a ranking system.
True skill is what you’re thinking about, since it’s true skill and not rank that matches you with other people. However, as long as it’s p2p host and connection will matter just as much, hence any and all “skill systems” in Halo are bound to fail. True skills only purpose is to (and I quote you): “match players of similar skill so you get games that are close and fun”. True skill, not rank.
Rank is just a visual gimmic added to make people try harder, an “extra” reward for winning. But if you ban guests from social and adds OPs system, you get the same thing. As long as true skill works, you’ll get even games and progress (eventually), but due to the high number of required wins before you get a new rank, only the best will get the highest rank within a reasonable time. A bad player will never get high, since the chance they win a game is low, hence progression takes forever…
