Enough said. Needless to say, Reach’s ranking system was not nearly as successful as Halo 3’s. 1-50 is the perfect ranking system, and it needs to return. Not only is it perfectly simple, but it also works because players receive instant gratification. The general public doesn’t want to play 4 games a day for 5 days before they can finally figure out where they’re ranked. Halo 3’s was great because you could hop on, pick a playlist, win a game and potentially rank up instantly after the game was over. New players and seasoned veterans alike both love 1-50. And it needs to stay strictly win/loss based. No lone wolf, it-only-matters-how-you-did crap.
In addition to that, there needs to be more ranked playlists, and a variety of them. One ranked playlist in Reach is awful. Halo 3’s set up was great, and it was about 40% ranked 60% social. Obviously I’m guestimating those percentages, but Halo 3 was perfect.
I can honestly say that whether the core, default gameplay is good or bad, more people will play it if there’s a 1-50 ranking system. There’s something addicting about it, much more-so than the Arena ranking system. I would have played 3 times as much Reach as I played if it would have had 1-50, for the sole reason that it would have been 1-50. I know a lot of players with the same mindset as me. 1-50 has to be in Halo 4. It would be mind boggling if they don’t bring back 1-50.
And let’s keep this thread discussion civil. No need to be a forum tryhard.
> T4R
>
> 1-50 needs to come back.
>
> Enough said. Needless to say, Reach’s ranking system was not nearly as successful as Halo 3’s. 1-50 is the perfect ranking system, and it needs to return. Not only is it perfectly simple, but it also works because players receive instant gratification. The general public doesn’t want to play 4 games a day for 5 days before they can finally figure out where they’re ranked. Halo 3’s was great because you could hop on, pick a playlist, win a game and potentially rank up instantly after the game was over. New players and seasoned veterans alike both love 1-50. And it needs to stay strictly win/loss based. No lone wolf, it-only-matters-how-you-did crap.
>
> In addition to that, there needs to be more ranked playlists, and a variety of them. One ranked playlist in Reach is awful. Halo 3’s set up was great, and it was about 40% ranked 60% social. Obviously I’m guestimating those percentages, but Halo 3 was perfect.
>
> I can honestly say that whether the core, default gameplay is good or bad, more people will play it if there’s a 1-50 ranking system. There’s something addicting about it, much more-so than the Arena ranking system. I would have played 3 times as much Reach as I played if it would have had 1-50, for the sole reason that it would have been 1-50. I know a lot of players with the same mindset as me. 1-50 has to be in Halo 4.
>
> And let’s keep this thread discussion civil. No need to be a forum tryhard.
For me and a lot of other players, this is THE most important part of the game.
You can have an amazing game, but if I’m getting matched up with XxSn1p3rCh1ef420 every game, it’s not going to be enjoyable for too long. Hell, I’d even play CoD if it had a proper 1-50 ranking system.
No, no, no, you must be confusing what the OP meant. He is talking about an actual ranking system, not some “the longer you play, the higher rank you are” system a la Reach (aside from Arena).
XP Progression will -never- be a suitable ranking system, we need something akin to the 1-50 system and badly. Whether or not they use that system in particular doesn’t really matter to me, but we need a system that is actually capable of pairing people up based on skill and not play time.
What the OP means is a skill-based ranking system.
An XP ranking system to go along with this is fine and dandy, but it doesn’t allow the game to create competitive matches because XP does not always correlate with skill.
I feel kinda silly admitting it, but I would have been playing Reach competitively even today if it had 1-50, as the settings would reflect the player based at large which was attracted to it.
> > Hahaha! You think the 1-50 ranking system was perfect.
>
> No ranking system is perfect, smartass.
> But I’d like you to name a better system for FPS’s than the 1-50 that was used in Halo 2-3.
I’d like a system that is easier than 2s, but harder than 3s.
If I can almost get a 50 in a game I never played before + I’m terrible, it’s too easy.
> > > Hahaha! You think the 1-50 ranking system was perfect.
> >
> > No ranking system is perfect, smartass.
> > But I’d like you to name a better system for FPS’s than the 1-50 that was used in Halo 2-3.
>
> I’d like a system that is easier than 2s, but harder than 3s.
>
> If I can almost get a 50 in a game I never played before + I’m terrible, it’s too easy.
Honestly, I thought Halo 2’s was best. It kept people humble, and only the best of the best were high ranked.
The xp/spartan points/armor/loadout progression system does not need to be related to the matchmaking system. They could use trueskill and match people up like in halo 2 or 3 without putting a little number next to your gamertag.
> The xp/spartan points/armor/loadout progression system does not need to be related to the matchmaking system. They could use trueskill and match people up like in halo 2 or 3 without putting a little number next to your gamertag.
Very true, but that number fosters a lot of competitive spirit and keeps people coming back, wanting to improve.