Why Halo needs it's old ranking system back (1-50)

When I refer to “1-50” skill ranks, I’m referring to the old Halo 2/3 style of ranking. You basically started as a rank 1 in every playlist, and you went up or down based on winning and losing, and your performance played a small part also. Ranking up was more difficult as you progressed. You had to win more and lose less, and sometimes you feel as if you were hard done by, but it made finishing a game to see that you had ranked up far more sweeter and satisfying. It kept players coming back year after year.

It was a harsh system, but the best one for all involved, and here’s why -

Reasons -

1. In the older ranking system, you felt like you were more often playing against people of the same skill level as you.

Ranking up took it’s time in older halo’s. Sure, there were players that stood out often in games, but as you were making your way up the ranks, you felt like you were being challenged, but not overwhelmed. You felt like you were against players of a similar skill level as you, in the same boat as you, trying to get better to make it up the ranks.

You also got matched up with players who’s ranks weren’t too far apart from yours, so there wasn’t level 35’s against level 20’s. Similar to how Diamonds get matched up against Un-ranked players in Halo 5…

2. It will stop people from quitting because they aren’t as often getting decimated.

There is, of course, a lot of casuals/mild-intensity competitive players quitting because their teams are often getting decimated. Too often games are not very close, and are being separated by too many kills due to horribly imbalanced teams. This didn’t happen nearly as much in older Halos.

I believe we’d see far less quitters if people were playing more often against people of their own skill level. I know you might argue “this is what social playlists are about”, but some people are new to the competitive scene, and maybe want to start getting better, and would be far more inclined to stay until the end of the match if they felt they had a cats chance in hell!

3. Ranking up felt far more satisfying.

It really did m8. Ask anyone who played a lot of Halo 2 or 3. In this game, the ranks feel meaningless because people are just handed high ranks after 10 games. You could literally be an Onyx, the highest rank available, after 10 matches. Which sucks.

In older Halos, you started from scratch, and it took time to get up to the higher ranks. The system was harsh, but it made the higher ranks seem like amazing achievements, and in halo 2 especially, only a small percentage of people made it to the later ranks. I personally never made it past a 34 in Halo 3, and only got to 44 in Halo 3.

There was an issue with boosters sometimes, but that could easily be worked around.


Anyone agree or disagree!

100% agree, bring the old ranks back!!! It was so much fun grinding to the higher levels.

I partially agree… But the ranking system does but you against like skilled players. I’ve only play a few times where I was matched against lower ranks in Swat.

> 2533274872013539;3:
> I partially agree… But the ranking system does but you against like skilled players. I’ve only play a few times where I was matched against lower ranks in Swat.

Even if it put you against people of the same “rank” in this game, you are given your rank after 10 games and didn’t work your way through them, so you’ll have many people around the same rank, but a massive gap in skill because of this ineffective way of ranking people.

In Halo 5, to get to the high ranks you had to work your way right through them with time, and often got matched against people of similar skill.

The main problem is that nobody’s able to rank down.

> 2535471005338414;1:
> When I refer to “1-50” skill ranks, I’m referring to the old Halo 2/3 style of ranking. You basically started as a rank 1 in every playlist, and you went up or down based on winning and losing, and your performance played a small part also. Ranking up was more difficult as you progressed. You had to win more and lose less, and sometimes you feel as if you were hard done by, but it made finishing a game to see that you had ranked up far more sweeter and satisfying. It kept players coming back year after year.
>
> It was a harsh system, but the best one for all involved, and here’s why -
>
> Reasons -
>
> 1. In the older ranking system, you felt like you were more often playing against people of the same skill level as you.
>
> Ranking up took it’s time in older halo’s. Sure, there were players that stood out often in games, but as you were making your way up the ranks, you felt like you were being challenged, but not overwhelmed. You felt like you were against players of a similar skill level as you, in the same boat as you, trying to get better to make it up the ranks.
>
> You also got matched up with players who’s ranks weren’t too far apart from yours, so there wasn’t level 35’s against level 20’s. Similar to how Diamonds get matched up against Un-ranked players in Halo 5…
>
> 2. It will stop people from quitting because they aren’t as often getting decimated.
>
> There is, of course, a lot of casuals/mild-intensity competitive players quitting because their teams are often getting decimated. Too often games are not very close, and are being separated by too many kills due to horribly imbalanced teams. This didn’t happen nearly as much in older Halos.
>
> I believe we’d see far less quitters if people were playing more often against people of their own skill level. I know you might argue “this is what social playlists are about”, but some people are new to the competitive scene, and maybe want to start getting better, and would be far more inclined to stay until the end of the match if they felt they had a cats chance in hell!
>
> 3. Ranking up felt far more satisfying.
>
> It really did m8. Ask anyone who played a lot of Halo 2 or 3. In this game, the ranks feel meaningless because people are just handed high ranks after 10 games. You could literally be an Onyx, the highest rank available, after 10 matches. Which sucks.
>
> In older Halos, you started from scratch, and it took time to get up to the higher ranks. The system was harsh, but it made the higher ranks seem like amazing achievements, and in halo 2 especially, only a small percentage of people made it to the later ranks. I personally never made it past a 34 in Halo 3, and only got to 44 in Halo 3.
>
> There was an issue with boosters sometimes, but that could easily be worked around.
>
> -------------
>
> Anyone agree or disagree!

Yes yes and yes!!!

> 2535471005338414;1:
> 1. In the older ranking system, you felt like you were more often playing against people of the same skill level as you.
>
> 2. It will stop people from quitting because they aren’t as often getting decimated.
>
> 3. Ranking up felt far more satisfying.

#1: The older system quite often paired mismatched teams too. H5’s has better potential over time. Early on, rank levels won’t be a good indication of skill but after enough games it will even out.

#2: There is less incentive to quit out in H5 than there was in H2 and H3. Unfortunately, quitting will always be a problem. Not to mention, with the “always online” way that games are moving toward, poor connections can make it look like they quit out but really just got booted.

#3: Ranking up is as or more satisfying in H5 because there are more levels for one, and in H2 or H3 you either got locked at your level and couldn’t go up or you started a new gamertag to get your precious, meaningless level 50. To be honest, using a combination of exp + skill level to make it appear you are always going up is best way to go; something like how COD does it even though it’s more casual, it gives players incentive to play.

I could write a much better formula for 343 to use, but it is what it is and they need to accommodate many things, few of which their customers understand. So you need to trust that the system works to the best with the limitations that 343 and developers have when designing it.

> 2760465307323250;7:
> > 2535471005338414;1:
> > 1. In the older ranking system, you felt like you were more often playing against people of the same skill level as you.
> >
> > 2. It will stop people from quitting because they aren’t as often getting decimated.
> >
> > 3. Ranking up felt far more satisfying.
>
>
> #1: The older system quite often paired mismatched teams too. H5’s has better potential over time. Early on, rank levels won’t be a good indication of skill but after enough games it will even out.
>
> #2: There is less incentive to quit out in H5 than there was in H2 and H3. Unfortunately, quitting will always be a problem. Not to mention, with the “always online” way of games moving toward, poor connections can make it look like they quit out but really just got booted.
>
> #3: Ranking up is as or more satisfying in H5 because there are more levels for one, and in H2 or H3 you either got locked at your level and couldn’t go up or you started a new gamertag to get your precious, meaningless level 50. To be honest, using a combination of exp + skill level to make it appear you are always going up is best way to go; something like how COD does it even though it’s more casual, it gives players incentive to play.
>
> I could write a much better formula for 343 to use, but it is what it is and they need to accommodate many things, few of which their customers understand. So you need to trust that the system works to the best with the limitations that 343 and developers have when designing it.

  1. Well, from my personal experience, the teams weren’t nearly as imbalanced as Halo 5. It almost always felt like a competition as you got your rank higher.

  2. No there isn’t less incentive, and this is proven by the fact that more people are quitting Halo games than ever, DESPITE there being a quit ban in action, unlike previous Halo games!

  3. There actually aren’t more levels in Halo 5, and how can it be satisfying if you can basically jump to the highest ranks after 10 games in a basic, estimated projection?

Anyway, we’ll just have to agree to disagree and see what others say.

> 2535471005338414;1:
> When I refer to “1-50” skill ranks, I’m referring to the old Halo 2/3 style of ranking. You basically started as a rank 1 in every playlist, and you went up or down based on winning and losing, and your performance played a small part also. Ranking up was more difficult as you progressed. You had to win more and lose less, and sometimes you feel as if you were hard done by, but it made finishing a game to see that you had ranked up far more sweeter and satisfying. It kept players coming back year after year.
>
> It was a harsh system, but the best one for all involved, and here’s why -
>
> Reasons -
>
> 1. In the older ranking system, you felt like you were more often playing against people of the same skill level as you.
>
> Ranking up took it’s time in older halo’s. Sure, there were players that stood out often in games, but as you were making your way up the ranks, you felt like you were being challenged, but not overwhelmed. You felt like you were against players of a similar skill level as you, in the same boat as you, trying to get better to make it up the ranks.
>
> You also got matched up with players who’s ranks weren’t too far apart from yours, so there wasn’t level 35’s against level 20’s. Similar to how Diamonds get matched up against Un-ranked players in Halo 5…
>
> 2. It will stop people from quitting because they aren’t as often getting decimated.
>
> There is, of course, a lot of casuals/mild-intensity competitive players quitting because their teams are often getting decimated. Too often games are not very close, and are being separated by too many kills due to horribly imbalanced teams. This didn’t happen nearly as much in older Halos.
>
> I believe we’d see far less quitters if people were playing more often against people of their own skill level. I know you might argue “this is what social playlists are about”, but some people are new to the competitive scene, and maybe want to start getting better, and would be far more inclined to stay until the end of the match if they felt they had a cats chance in hell!
>
> 3. Ranking up felt far more satisfying.
>
> It really did m8. Ask anyone who played a lot of Halo 2 or 3. In this game, the ranks feel meaningless because people are just handed high ranks after 10 games. You could literally be an Onyx, the highest rank available, after 10 matches. Which sucks.
>
> In older Halos, you started from scratch, and it took time to get up to the higher ranks. The system was harsh, but it made the higher ranks seem like amazing achievements, and in halo 2 especially, only a small percentage of people made it to the later ranks. I personally never made it past a 34 in Halo 3, and only got to 44 in Halo 3.
>
> There was an issue with boosters sometimes, but that could easily be worked around.
>
> -------------
>
> Anyone agree or disagree!

The only thing I agree with is that it felt more satisfying to earn a higher rank. Everything else doesn’t make any sense to me.

I agree 100% with you OP. Having an Onyx in all the playlists expect BTB, after 10 games is very discouraging. For me as you said, it’s playing 10 games and getting a 50. There isn’t much to strive for, since the Champion Ranks are for the people who play a single playlist all day every day. I still remember in H2 and H3 when going up those ranks and finally getting that 50, man, that was a great experience. This game does not have that same experience. Once the rank resets happen, I might just tank all of my games and go to bronze so then I can finally have something to play for.

> 2745051201462131;9:
> > 2535471005338414;1:
> > When I refer to “1-50” skill ranks, I’m referring to the old Halo 2/3 style of ranking. You basically started as a rank 1 in every playlist, and you went up or down based on winning and losing, and your performance played a small part also. Ranking up was more difficult as you progressed. You had to win more and lose less, and sometimes you feel as if you were hard done by, but it made finishing a game to see that you had ranked up far more sweeter and satisfying. It kept players coming back year after year.
> >
> > It was a harsh system, but the best one for all involved, and here’s why -
> >
> > Reasons -
> >
> > 1. In the older ranking system, you felt like you were more often playing against people of the same skill level as you.
> >
> > Ranking up took it’s time in older halo’s. Sure, there were players that stood out often in games, but as you were making your way up the ranks, you felt like you were being challenged, but not overwhelmed. You felt like you were against players of a similar skill level as you, in the same boat as you, trying to get better to make it up the ranks.
> >
> > You also got matched up with players who’s ranks weren’t too far apart from yours, so there wasn’t level 35’s against level 20’s. Similar to how Diamonds get matched up against Un-ranked players in Halo 5…
> >
> > 2. It will stop people from quitting because they aren’t as often getting decimated.
> >
> > There is, of course, a lot of casuals/mild-intensity competitive players quitting because their teams are often getting decimated. Too often games are not very close, and are being separated by too many kills due to horribly imbalanced teams. This didn’t happen nearly as much in older Halos.
> >
> > I believe we’d see far less quitters if people were playing more often against people of their own skill level. I know you might argue “this is what social playlists are about”, but some people are new to the competitive scene, and maybe want to start getting better, and would be far more inclined to stay until the end of the match if they felt they had a cats chance in hell!
> >
> > 3. Ranking up felt far more satisfying.
> >
> > It really did m8. Ask anyone who played a lot of Halo 2 or 3. In this game, the ranks feel meaningless because people are just handed high ranks after 10 games. You could literally be an Onyx, the highest rank available, after 10 matches. Which sucks.
> >
> > In older Halos, you started from scratch, and it took time to get up to the higher ranks. The system was harsh, but it made the higher ranks seem like amazing achievements, and in halo 2 especially, only a small percentage of people made it to the later ranks. I personally never made it past a 34 in Halo 3, and only got to 44 in Halo 3.
> >
> > There was an issue with boosters sometimes, but that could easily be worked around.
> >
> > -------------
> >
> > Anyone agree or disagree!
>
>
> The only thing I agree with is that it felt more satisfying to earn a higher rank. Everything else doesn’t make any sense to me.

Ok, in regards to number 1 -

In Halo 5, the rank really doesn’t represent your skill as much as the ranks in Halo 2/3, because you can boost your way up the ranks in Halo 5 due to the “unranked” 10 matches you play.

In Halo 2/3 everyone started at rank 1, and by the time you were starting to approach the higher ranks, you were playing people around the same skill level as you, as you couldn’t be a high rank after only 10 games, like in Halo 5. The game also paired you up with people who had ranks closer to yours, unlike Halo 5 that puts you in a game with completely mixed ranks.

Number 2 is self explanatory. If your ranks are more of a reflection of your skill, and you actually have to earn them, and also if you’re getting matched up against people with similar skill as you, you will not feel as if you are getting owned as often, and will more likely want to play on.

+1 OP

The new system is ok, but I will admit that the 1-50 system definitely felt more rewarding.

I think that this current system does all that as well, I don’t see the difference, in fact I like saying that I have an Onyx rank more than saying I have a 45 or 50.

OP took the words right out of my mouth.

I completely agree. The old ranking system from Halo 3 is a much better concept.

I for one like this new system. It takes from league of legends rank system which works pretty well. Alot of people on this subject are complaining that they got placed in the wrong division, which I say is true. I was placed in onyx in swat and thought gold at least.
The problem with new systems is getting everything ironed out. This is a brand new system theyre working with and I feel when they reset the ranks for the next season the system will be alot better because I guess the system will have been better tuned or adjusted.

Ive been playing Arena and placed diamond 1 I am currently diamond 5 and almost all the match’s I’ve played are close and entertaining. Some matches I will get stomped but when I check its mostly due to players being ranked in onyx + who play well. I’ll sometimes play matches when a player seems to get destroyed and I think they shouldn’t be where they are.

We have to be patient with this new system, just like the other games this system is still new. Just like Halo 3 day one I got to level 48. No way should I have gotten that far but there was alot of new kinks that I assume weren’t accounted for. When they reset the ranks that’ll be hopefully when we truly see how well this system is. On phone atm I’ll fix anything up later

Double post mb

Holy cow people. Stop asking for this ranking system back.

After 6 years and two games 343 is not interested in it.

You sound like a depressing broken record. move on with your lives

I always hated the H3 ranking system. I capped out at like 42 and never got higher. So 2 months in my rank was permanently set. So lame!