Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Level up with kills, not wins!!!
  • Subject: Level up with kills, not wins!!!
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: Level up with kills, not wins!!!

h h aaaa lll oooo 33333
h h a a ll o o 3
hhhh aaa lll o o 333
h h a a ll o o 3
h h a a lllllll ooo 33333

Posted by: WAR HOROR13
What I HATE about Halo 3 is that the ranking system is based off of wins, not kills and that's why the CoD ranking system is so spectacular. You could get 30 kills in a Slayer game while a couple of your other teammates are not playing (like eating a sandwich or taking a dump that lasts the enitre game) which causes you too lose, you did great but you still lost XP or went down a skill level.

Do you think that this should be fixed in Reach so we don't face these problems?
I agree. I would love the idea of that in halo. Or they can base your HS off high kd games or so. Idk but they need to fix it thats for sure.

  • 09.17.2009 6:16 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Thrame
  • user homepage:

death minus -1 exp isn't that a bit harsh

  • 09.17.2009 6:18 AM PDT

­"You have to aim above the head, but then a little lower so you actually get it."

-John Mayer

Posted by: Lies
It still wouldn't work. You would have everyone rush for the sniper all the time, and then you would have people who would try to mess someone up who has the weapon either by standing in their way or shooting them but not killing them. People would focus only on getting a lot of kills and not actually helping the team.

No one likes stat whores, and a system that rewards in game stats is only going to encourage selfish gameplay.

...Are you insane? This idea wouldn't work because people would try to get kills?

That is the point of the game. LOL

[Edited on 09.17.2009 11:23 AM PDT]

  • 09.17.2009 11:23 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

These numbers aren't the point of my post but just examples. I'd say +5 for a kill, -2 for a death. +1 for an assist. -10 for a betrayal. Objective captures earn you points and losing objectives would cost you some points but not as much as a capture. Winning would give you a bonus and losing an match would cost you some but not as much as gained from a win.

  • 09.17.2009 11:32 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Kamatzu
Posted by: Lies
It still wouldn't work. You would have everyone rush for the sniper all the time, and then you would have people who would try to mess someone up who has the weapon either by standing in their way or shooting them but not killing them. People would focus only on getting a lot of kills and not actually helping the team.

No one likes stat whores, and a system that rewards in game stats is only going to encourage selfish gameplay.

...Are you insane? This idea wouldn't work because people would try to get kills?

That is the point of the game. LOL


Your comprehension skills fail, or you a d bag that's trolling.

  • 09.17.2009 11:34 AM PDT

­"You have to aim above the head, but then a little lower so you actually get it."

-John Mayer

Posted by: Homicidal Bacon
Posted by: Kamatzu
Posted by: Lies
It still wouldn't work. You would have everyone rush for the sniper all the time, and then you would have people who would try to mess someone up who has the weapon either by standing in their way or shooting them but not killing them. People would focus only on getting a lot of kills and not actually helping the team.

No one likes stat whores, and a system that rewards in game stats is only going to encourage selfish gameplay.

...Are you insane? This idea wouldn't work because people would try to get kills?

That is the point of the game. LOL


Your comprehension skills fail, or you a d bag that's trolling.

Yes, I've totally been trolling these forums since 2004.

Where in my post do I lack comprehension?

  • 09.17.2009 11:53 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I have an idea.....

As you know, games in H3 are split up into ranked, and social. Ranked games and social games will have a different rank, so you will have a ranked rank, and a social rank.

Ranked games will use the TrueSkill System, and the levelling systems that you have now. It will also be connected with the leaderboard.

Social games, and therefore rank, could use the leveling up with kills system, and therefore be a bit more relaxed for players who may have bad luck , or a bad game (Even MLG Pros are sick sometimes!)

This will also provide a bit of recreation for shafted rank players; angry that you didn't level up?? Work on your social rank!

If you read all of this, then please reply with your comments.




[Edited on 09.17.2009 11:57 AM PDT]

  • 09.17.2009 11:54 AM PDT

That is the problem with most ranking systems like those of COD - they don't encourage teamwork or even trying to achieve victory - they only encourage lone wolfing and kill stealing.

  • 09.17.2009 12:22 PM PDT

I am flatterd that you botherd to look at my signature.

what if the game works like this..you rank up with kills but lose rank with deaths...

  • 09.17.2009 12:24 PM PDT

Didact's Reprisal -
Now is the time of our unworlding
One final effort is all that remains
And I am not afraid
We shall fulfill our promise
We fight for the grace of the Mantle
And this time none of you will be left behind

No. The true purpose of skirmish would be defeated.

  • 09.17.2009 12:24 PM PDT

-blam!- Was that actually blammed out? Or did I just type it? You'll never know.

Posted by: Im SteelAssassn
No. The true purpose of skirmish would be defeated.


Not if you also earned experience for flag captures and bomb detonations. In those variants you could earn more for doing that than getting kills.

  • 09.17.2009 12:26 PM PDT

The problem with a ranking system that relies on kills is that eventually everyone will be able to get that level 50 general. While i do agree that when your performance was excellent, but you teammates made you lose is unfair to determine your skill.

I'm not sure what would be a fair ranking system, but perhaps something of a hybrid between wins and kills would do the trick. Stuff like KD ratio,assists could also play part in how ones skill should be decided(this can go way more indepth to sprees, stopping flag carrier, scoring flag, headshotsm you name it)

[Edited on 09.17.2009 1:01 PM PDT]

  • 09.17.2009 1:01 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Of course not. Number of kills is one of the worst ways to determine how well somebody played. What about assists, deaths, or Objective points? We're barely scratching the surface here. A computer simply cannot measure how much a player contributed to the team. So instead, the computer gives the points to the team that wins; the team that played better.

As soon as you revolve the ranking system around kills, teamwork and strategy go straight out the window.

[Edited on 09.17.2009 2:01 PM PDT]

  • 09.17.2009 1:55 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3