I see a lot of people objecting to a competitive ranking system but nobody will say why.
The only reason I’ve seen so far is “because I don’t like it when I rank down”.
Needless to say, that made me want to rage. So my question is what exactly is wrong with a competitive 1-50 ranking system to represent your skill level as a player? The only reason I could think of is that you just don’t want to be labeled “bad”, but if you can’t get your rank up then you are bad and you don’t need a rank to see that
Edit:
I’d like to reword my question to this - What’s wrong with having a competitive ranking system (wins bring it up losses bring it down) as opposed to a play time system (games played brings it up)
Edit:
Another thing that seems to be common is that everyone seems to think the 1-50 system did not take into account your personal performance which is not the case. See this article (hint: ctrl+f “kills”)
> I see a lot of people objecting to a competitive ranking system but nobody will say why.
> The only reason I’ve seen so far is “because I don’t like it when I rank down”.
>
> Needless to say, that made me want to rage. So my question is what exactly is wrong with a competitive 1-50 ranking system to represent your skill level as a player? The only reason I could think of is that you just don’t want to be labeled “bad”, but if you can’t get your rank up then you are bad and you don’t need a rank to see that
There is nothing wrong with it and it is not flawed one bit.
People dont get that if they dont want to rank down that they can just play social.
One problem with a 1-50 system is that people will derank themselves on purpose to play against lower levels. Also some people make second accounts which causes some problems.
sorry, but it works better than the credit system, which is based off of playing time, not overall performance.
Maybe we just should say add 1XP per kill, take one away per death, and make it 10 XP to level up and then progressivly make it longer and longer.
Or capturing the flag gives you 3 XP, etc etc.
> One problem with a 1-50 system is that people will derank themselves on purpose to play against lower levels. Also some people make second accounts which causes some problems.
The only real problem you have is boosters, which is easily fixed and something Microsoft can do with the way trueskill works internally with LIVE.
> > One problem with a 1-50 system is that people will derank themselves on purpose to play against lower levels. Also some people make second accounts which causes some problems.
>
> The only real problem you have is boosters, which is easily fixed and something Microsoft can do with the way trueskill works internally with LIVE.
I don’t think thats “the only real problem”. Deranking is annoying as -Yoink- and it is a real problem. I guess there’s not really anything that can be done about that except just make sure you join with a full party in the high ranks
> > based off of winning, not overall performence
>
> sorry, but it works better than the credit system, which is based off of playing time, not overall performance.
> Maybe we just should say add 1XP per kill, take one away per death, and make it 10 XP to level up and then progressivly make it longer and longer.
> Or capturing the flag gives you 3 XP, etc etc.
i like that idea (minus the death losing exp thing).
but honestly i think Reach’s rank is geared more towards overall performance than Halo 3’s. the big problem with it is Bungie overlooked the fact that it is really easy to boost. but the better you do in a game the more cR you earn, hence the performance bonus. the other cR is earned so that noobs dont feel left out
> > > based off of winning, not overall performence
> >
> > Thats how its suppose to be.It suppose to be based off winning.
>
> but basing it off of winning isnt a good idea.
Actually it is because thats how a 1-50 Ranking System works.
Halo is a TEAM game.A game loses its complete competitive feel once it doesnt matter if you win or lose.Reach is a perfect example.
> > based off of winning, not overall performence
>
> sorry, but it works better than the credit system, which is based off of playing time, not overall performance.
> Maybe we just should say add 1XP per kill, take one away per death, and make it 10 XP to level up and then progressivly make it longer and longer.
> Or capturing the flag gives you 3 XP, etc etc.
I like it. You get XP for doing things that benefit the team (kills, captures), and lose points for being a detriment. It’s actually a really good idea. If you play solo, you don’t lose a rank because your team was full of morons; as long as you at least go positive, you can do nothing but go up.
We’d need to make kills worth more in Slayer variants, than in Objective ones, though. That’s the only thing.
my problem with it is that for example, in big team battle a few times I have gotten over 40 kills (slayer), and still loss. this penalizes me for carrying my team. I don’t like that.
Most times in BTB I get at least 20 kills.
and bittererprawn, thanks. Just seemed like a good idea to me because if you have a positive KD ratio, you get experience.
I like the 1-50 level to a point… I don’t normally play rank matches with friends because of this I would end up with bad teammates and I would lose but I would end up being MVP or something close to it. My rank would go down and its total bull crap. That’s my problem with it.
I would like to see a new system based on K/D, wins, assists, and medals. I feel as a gamer I am cheated out of my efforts into a match if I end up with 25 kills and 4 deaths (random numbers) and still losing the match. I know a lot of gamers might feel the same because I do. I hope they do something new for Halo 4 with both 1-50 and Reach system and something else.
> my problem with it is that for example, in big team battle a few times I have gotten over 40 kills (slayer), and still loss. this penalizes me for carrying my team. I don’t like that.
> Most times in BTB I get at least 20 kills.
>
> and bittererprawn, thanks. Just seemed like a good idea to me because if you have a positive KD ratio, you get experience.
You mean Social Big Team?
Thats social,why does it matter if you win or not?
> I like the 1-50 level to a point… I don’t normally play rank matches with friends because of this I would end up with bad teammates and I would lose but I would end up being MVP or something close to it. My rank would go down and its total bull crap. That’s my problem with it.
>
> I would like to see a new system based on K/D, wins, assists, and medals. I feel as a gamer I am cheated out of my efforts into a match if I end up with 25 kills and 4 deaths (random numbers) and still losing the match. I know a lot of gamers might feel the same because I do. I hope they do something new for Halo 4 with both 1-50 and Reach system and something else.
So youre saying as long as you go positive but yet you still lose you should still rank up? Wrong.Thats how Reach is.Is that a good system? No.It is horrible for competitive play.
Just gonna quote what i typed on a different thread:
> > K/D ratio needs to be apart of the ranking directly or indirectly.
>
> No, this is a terrible idea, do you remember when Reach Arena was based on Ratings? (K/D/A) do you remember how seriously flawed that was?
>
> K/D based ranking can only work perfectly in a ranked FFA playlist, in team games W/L only is a must as the whole point is to win as a team and lose as a team, allowing K/D to affect ranking in ranked team based games just turns the entire game into a FFA as you are competing against both the opposing team AND your own team mates, there is also no incentive to win the game either.
>
> I have played alone in Halo 3 mostly, while i do despise randoms in most case :p, i was good enough to get 50’s in Team slayer, Team Sniper’s, Team double’s and MLG (Hate SWAT so thats staying as 46, loved Team Throwback and Objective, had 49 and 46 in those lists) i strongly believe if your not good enough for a higher rank then you dont deserve it, there is nothing wrong with being a certain rank, you should be proud of yourself no matter how high you get.
>
> I will admit Halo 3’s rank locking was a little harsh, but very few player’s i have come across are actually not much better than the rank they are currently ‘stuck’ on.
>
> Anyway, long story short - 1-50 system (with tweaks such as anti-boost/derank, less harsh rank locking but still added) = good, Arena system and rank based on K/D/A = bad, bad, bad!
Long story short, any ranking system based on K/D/A simply does not work for team based game’s, infact that particular system is perfect for FFA gametypes and nothing more.
