Why individual ranks don't work

I’ll try and keep this short and sweet.

Halo 2/3 had a team ranking system. I bet many of you played Halo 2/3 like I did; with (mostly) the same group of friends. You’d all go in together focused on winning and gaining ranks together as a team. And you’d all be prepared to drop ranks if the team wasn’t performing well.

Halo Reach Arena ranked people based on “individual performance”, and this is where I believe the Reach ranking system was flawed.

When you go in to team games, the focus should be on everyone working together for the win. With every team, there are different roles to be fulfilled. You have main slayers that can usually weild a sniper effectively and dominate the entire map with their presence. Then you have support players that (in my experience) get shots on people, call out weak enemies, time powerups and assist main slayers in map control. Then occasionally you have the sneaky beavers that could completely throw the enemy off balance by flanking and doing damage for the other players to clean up… There are loads of different roles, and players can frequently switch between them. The fact is that on every team, there’s almost always going to be the guy that gets the most kills, the guy that gets the most assists, and then the other guys that generally break even and get a few assists. In a good team, all these players are as valuable as eachother.

In Reach, the emphasis is on getting kills and assists to level up your own rank. This promotes selfish weapon -Yoink!-. This can break down the team dynamic, and make every player feel as though they’re a lone wolf that needs to constantly perform otherwise they’ll be rated lower than the rest of the team. This happened in my experience on Halo Reach. I played Arena with the same group of 3 friends for a few months. As main slayer, every month I was rated Onyx without fail, whereas my team mates were all rated silver/gold. This was obviously frustrating for them, and it certainly didn’t bring the team together. Why were they rated lower? They performed vital roles on the team. They got the same amount of wins overall, yet the game deemed that I was better than them every season. I should add that we were all 50s on Halo 3, because the game ranked us as a whole, not individuals.

I would like to see a hybrid Halo 2/3 ranking system. Everyone on the team should have a stake in eachother’s rank. If the team loses, everyone should be punished. If the team wins, everyone should be rewarded. A good team is greater than the sum of it’s parts. Just because a player performs a different (perhaps less selfish) role on a team, does not mean they should be rated lower.

If you want an individual rank, you should consider playing Lone Wolves or Head to Head. Team games should have team ranks.

Thoughts? Opinions? At the very least, trolls?

The Reach Ranking system did not have to same meaning as it did in H2/3. I agree with you that individual rankings in the Reach style do not work and I am hoping that there will be more than one/two playlists with ranks. It was more fun for me in H2/3 because I could test my skills in each playlist. I pray that the gametypes are not significantly different in feel when talking about Team Slayer, MLG, Lone Wolves, SWAT, and Snipers in the way they are for Reach.

If they bring back 1-50 I will be happy.

This was true for the first couple seasons. Maybe you haven’t played Arena lately, which would be understandable, given that the division system is a joke. However, rank is no longer dependent on individual performance like it once was.

It is now based solely on win/loss (you will go up or down more or less depending on WHO you win/lose against, and what their ranks are compared to those of your team). It is much better now, especially since they have taken jetpacks out of arena, too.

I still think that Halo 4 needs to improve upon Halo Reach’s ranking system (I just don’t like the division thing), but the current system DOES encourage team play.

I like the view you’ve taken OP,

On that note, yes Halo really does incorporate team based gameplay. Its not like its competitors where you may simply start with the weapon you plan on using for the next 30 games. You must fight for the right to possess it and this is where the better teams show they have that right. On that note;

Based on your input regarding main slaying and support roles, I can assume you to be a competitive player (whether your MLG or simply RCompetitive, it doesn’t matter), you definitely understand the fundamental gameplay aspects that is Halo.

What I would love (and I mean die for) to see in Halo 4 is a team based ranking system as well. The reason I liked Halo 2’s was because it wasn’t a True Skill system, it was a system that didnt lock you down so making new accounts wasnt near as necessary (basically new accounts were bridgers and modders made to abuse the network to gains of their friends/purchasers :wink: ). Halo 3’s was fun but those who hadn’t played much saw much more progress and that led to (even myself) making upwards of 5 alternate acccounts just to score 50’s in multiple playlists with ease.

Based on the above, a system such as Halo 2’s (I would bet thousands) would be the most fun and appealing to the competitive community of Halo 4 simply because its a team based system where you dont get locked down.

Honestly, I’m glad you posted this, some good insight and well reasoned statements.

Cheers to a good Halo 4,

ANK

Huh, I never thought about Halo 2 and 3’s ranking systems that way.

In that light, bringing it back sounds like an awesome idea. I’m not really a fan of currency-based rankings, anyway. After a while, it becomes meaningless. It’s not a display of skill or intelligent play, just a lot of spare time. I don’t mean to insult people who play a lot of Halo, I’m no hypocrite, but even players who don’t play a lot deserve to be recognized by their skill with a sweet rank.

> If they bring back 1-50 I will be happy.

I agree with OP, even though I think in an FFA Playlist a hybrid of the Halo 2 ranking system, and Halo: Reach individual skill system would be best.

But lets keep this simple, all 343i has to do is follow these guidelines within this Ranking formula, and evolve it.

An excellent point, but I’m afraid we have what we have and where just gonna have to deal with it.

Team ranks > individual ranks

> An excellent point, but I’m afraid we have what we have and where just gonna have to deal with it.

Or do something about it.

team ranks ftw

I agree. Winning should have a much bigger weight than the amount of kills/assits/medals you get in a game.

EDIT: Since the game IS working on a similar ranking system to Reach, maybe each time you win, your score could be multiplied to 150%, making all players strive to achieve the objective AND get a good KDR/many kills and assists.

Well written, concise, objective, humble and well thought through.

I’ve already written many lengthy posts about how I want the ranking system to work in Halo 4 and I’m all worn out.

What I will say, is that my views align entirely with yours and it’s good to see someone intelligently put their point forward.

If posts like this continue on the forums we may see some casual players seeing the perspective of the competitive side without the preconceived notion of arrogance associated with it.

Thank you sir.

Halo is a team based shooter, and if you play say Team slayer, your team performance should be evaluated, not your camp/death score. :stuck_out_tongue:
The only time your individual skill should be the prime factor, is when you play lone wolf. Having individual ranks for team based game types is a great way to kill the teamplay and hence the competitive nature, and turn it into “camp a corner with power weapon” instead.

Arena hasn’t been based on individual performance for months.

Season 6 or 7 is when it was purely based on winning or losing…

> Halo is a team based shooter, and if you play say Team slayer, your team performance should be evaluated, not your camp/death score. :stuck_out_tongue:
> The only time your individual skill should be the prime factor, is when you play lone wolf. Having individual ranks for team based game types is a great way to kill the teamplay and hence the competitive nature, and turn it into “camp a corner with power weapon” instead.

I agree to an extent, but over all I think the individual ranking system should only be used in FFA scenarios.

I wasn’t aware of the changes… Arena is still a massive compromise though. Even now.

> Arena hasn’t been based on individual performance for months.
>
> Season 6 or 7 is when it was purely based on winning or losing…

> Thoughts? Opinions? At the very least, trolls?

> At the very least, trolls?

> trolls?

You called?

It’s entirely possible to have an individual ranking system that promotes team play. The problems with Reach in this regard are that the win bonus is absolutely pathetic, the biggest contributor to your credits is how long you play and then kills.

This can be changed. Do not believe that just because H4 is going to have a similar system that it’s going to be exactly like it was in Reach and that it’s set in stone, being unchangeable and unmalleable.