This post has been edited by a moderator. Creating alternate accounts to bypass temporary forum bans result in permanent forum bans.
> 1-50 was a near perfect rank system.
Hardly.
As a system it locks out large amounts of the population from ever reaching it’s end.
Agreed. 1-50 needs to make a return. Not because it was a better ranking system than Arena, but because it was fun.
skill-based rank discourages part of the audience from playing. They want to keep people on the game and they want to sell more copies. They don’t tailor only to the fans. Wish they would, sometimes.
> > 1-50 was a near perfect rank system.
>
> Hardly.
>
> As a system it locks out large amounts of the population from ever reaching it’s end.
Actually, it doesn’t, and that was the problem. Reaching 50 wasn’t that hard for a decent player, and skilled players could reach it in a week. I knew a guy who created a new account almost weekly, and would get 50’s in every playlist. 1-50 presented no real challenge.
In addition, 1-50 promoted boosting, de-ranking, multiaccounters, and started a dedicated black market. It was not based on skill, it was based on wins and losses. Arena was originally based on individual skill, but nobody liked that.
1-50 was a horrible and unreliable system that should never, never make a return. It was nothing but a trophy, and honestly served no purpose.
> > 1-50 was a near perfect rank system.
>
> Hardly.
>
> As a system it locks out large amounts of the population from ever reaching it’s end.
> > 1-50 was a near perfect rank system.
>
> Hardly.
>
> As a system it locks out large amounts of the population from ever reaching it’s end.
You mean reaching 50?
Technically TrueSkill was (after a while of it being used on an account) designed to match players with similar players for fair games. But a serious problem came in. The whole idea of ranked is to try and reach the highest level. People with an ‘accurate’ TrueSkill were forced to win tonnes of games to rank up just 1 level at a time. This meant even if people improved drastically and winning against opponents, were ranking up far too slow. So people made new accounts, over and over and over.
TrueSkill should be abolished completely. Players should have nothing against their account, and should start fresh each new game. It’s a good system in a perfect world, but too many people were abusing it. Plus it didn’t give an accurate depiction of a player’s slayer skill because of pure win/loss.
Slayer games: Win/loss. Rewards players who contributed the most based on their kill death spread and assists and penalties for the ones who contributed least.
Objective games : Win/loss, same above with the contribution level, ball time, captures, grabs etc and kills.
People who have contributed most will be rewarded the most. No more carrying, boosting, or being suppressed from ranking up due to other’s performance. Still has penalties for losing and still encourages team gameplay.
The game should feature the following on their service records;
Skill: x (Press A for more details)
Experience: x (Press A for more details)
Percentile: x%(Press A for more details) (eg: Top 5% of all Halo players - based on Skill, exp, medals, k/d and wins)
Skill details:
Team Slayer: x
Team doubles: x
Team SWAT: x
etc.
Experience details:
Team Slayer EXP: x
Team doubles EXP: x
etc.
Percentile details:
Total Kills Percentile: x
Kills over 1000 Percentile K/D: x
Total Medals Percentile: x
etc…
> > 1-50 was a near perfect rank system.
>
> Hardly.
>
> As a system it locks out large amounts of the population from ever reaching it’s end.
Those players earned the ranks that they deserved. No one is ever fully “locked” from gaining rank. It just takes them longer to rank up due to their poor w/l. They can’t blame the system because they didn’t want to put in the extra time it would have taken rank up.
> > > 1-50 was a near perfect rank system.
> >
> > Hardly.
> >
> > As a system it locks out large amounts of the population from ever reaching it’s end.
>
> In addition, 1-50 promoted boosting, de-ranking, multiaccounters, and started a dedicated black market.
I disagree. Boosting alone encourage 3/4 of the reasons you listed. Getting to 50 needs to be made slightly harder. Not impossibly hard like Halo 2 but not easy like Halo 3. A 1-50 system can definitely work.
> skill-based rank discourages part of the audience from playing. They want to keep people on the game and they want to sell more copies. They don’t tailor only to the fans. Wish they would, sometimes.
What is this statement based on? When Bungie practically deleted the skill gap from Halo, with reach, and basically got rid of ranked entirely, the game died in less than a year. How do you explain H2 and H3 being so popular for several years each when they both used ranking systems you claim will discourage playing?
> > skill-based rank discourages part of the audience from playing. They want to keep people on the game and they want to sell more copies. They don’t tailor only to the fans. Wish they would, sometimes.
>
> What is this statement based on? When Bungie practically deleted the skill gap from Halo, with reach, and basically got rid of ranked entirely, the game died in less than a year. How do you explain H2 and H3 being so popular for several years each when they both used ranking systems you claim will discourage playing?
To be fair, Halo had hardly any competition back then and CoD was no where near as popular.
> > > skill-based rank discourages part of the audience from playing. They want to keep people on the game and they want to sell more copies. They don’t tailor only to the fans. Wish they would, sometimes.
> >
> > What is this statement based on? When Bungie practically deleted the skill gap from Halo, with reach, and basically got rid of ranked entirely, the game died in less than a year. How do you explain H2 and H3 being so popular for several years each when they both used ranking systems you claim will discourage playing?
>
> To be fair, Halo had hardly any competition back then and CoD was no where near as popular.
I’m glad someone else sees this. In addition, the market is getting flooded with more and more games. I mean, dozens of games are released every week these days.
You can say that about H2 but H3 had to compete against CoD4, MW2, and GoW2 still.
> > skill-based rank discourages part of the audience from playing. They want to keep people on the game and they want to sell more copies. They don’t tailor only to the fans. Wish they would, sometimes.
>
> What is this statement based on? When Bungie practically deleted the skill gap from Halo, with reach, and basically got rid of ranked entirely, the game died in less than a year. How do you explain H2 and H3 being so popular for several years each when they both used ranking systems you claim will discourage playing?
-
More FPS games came out, more options for gamers with different tastes.
-
Has stayed (pretty much) the same throughout many installments. Eventually gets boring to some players.
-
People have stopped playing FPS’s or videogames in general.
> You can say that about H2 but H3 had to compete against CoD4, MW2, and GoW2 still.
And Halo Reach has to compete with MW2, MW3, Black Ops, Battle Field 3, Gears of War 3, and those are just the major multiplayer titles. Don’t think Skyrim, Saint’s Row, Arkham City, and single player titles like that don’t present any competition.
> > > skill-based rank discourages part of the audience from playing. They want to keep people on the game and they want to sell more copies. They don’t tailor only to the fans. Wish they would, sometimes.
> >
> > What is this statement based on? When Bungie practically deleted the skill gap from Halo, with reach, and basically got rid of ranked entirely, the game died in less than a year. How do you explain H2 and H3 being so popular for several years each when they both used ranking systems you claim will discourage playing?
>
> 1) More FPS games came out, more options for gamers with different tastes.
>
> 2) Has stayed (pretty much) the same throughout many installments. Eventually gets boring to some players.
>
> 3) People have stopped playing FPS’s or videogames in general.
These are some legit reason but they’re definitely no the reason Reach did so bad on xbl. The multiplayer was terrible.
Basically all I want from the H4 ranking system.
1-50.
NO TRUESKILL.
Win Loss, but rewards players who contribute more to a win, and penalizes players who contribute less.
Pretty much perfect.
> Basically all I want from the H4 ranking system.
>
> 1-50.
> NO TRUESKILL.
> Win Loss, but rewards players who contribute more to a win, and penalizes players who contribute less.
>
> Pretty much perfect.
It can’t be based on purely w/l though, obviously. They should also account for assists but not screw it up like Bungie did, where an assist is worth more than a kill.
>
Reach was out for all of two months before Black Ops, and was already competing with MW2, the two most popular games on XBL at that point. Again, this is still just the major multiplayer titles. To take into account the massive game releases that the last few year have seen, the amount of competition Reach has compared to before is staggering.
And yet, Reach is still alive and well. I don’t see how 75,000 players at peak hours, let alone its previous 150,000, is anything to be ashamed of. Most games can’t hope for that kind of popularity.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not flame or attack other members or post spam.
>
What are you talking about? Reach does peak at 75,000. That’s not what it is right now, but what it is at peak hours. Halo 3 was 250,000 at peak hours, but not all day.