- Brucemeister
- |
- Exalted Member
Always check if theres bog roll first
Posted by: UNKNOWN iXi
Posted by: Brucemeister
It wasn't horrendous at all, it gave a far better indication of a players skill than Halo 3's where players from 40 upwards can be anything from pretty awful to pro.
Not true at all. 40's and above are rather decent, definitely much better than people who can't get out of the 30's. High 40's to 50's is where you see the most notable boost in skill.
I wouldn't say something like this unless I had experience of it. I've played with and against many 40's that have played alot worse than they should do (in my opinion) if they have a rank that is 8 to 9 tenths of the way to the HIGHEST rank you can get. In comparison to halo 2 (excluding cheaters) this gap in skill level's correlation to rank is far larger in halo 3 than halo 2.
In halo 2 if you were playing a 30+ you KNEW they were gonna be good, that fact still exists today obviously excluding the cheaters which don't really exist anymore seeing as level 40's can hardly ever get a match in ranked playlists.
Wow... This is so wrong in so many ways. The only difference between Halo 2 and Halo 3 is that Halo 2's last 10 ranks (40-50) were IMPOSSIBLY difficult to gain. It's not even a matter of being GODLIKE at the game... It's just a matter of how the cards play in your favor, such as not being matched against a cheater (including bridgers) and actually being matched against people who were higher to level up from. So you saying level 40's not being able to get a match in ranked playlists is a good thing? How does that even promote fun?
That definately isn't the only difference between halo 2 and 3, the difference in skill as you gradually climb up the levels is easily noticeable in halo 2. Going from a Team Slayer game at level 20 to a game at 30 will almost always show a huge gulf in ability. I can vouch for this as I have this account (29 in TS) and another account which is a 23 and the difference is massive. I have people on my friends list that have reached 40 legitimately and I can tell you that that was by no means because "cards played in their favour" but because they played every day and were DAMN good. Reaching a 40 depends massively on how good you are, as long as you keep trying, if you're good enough you get there.
And no I wasn't saying that 40s not being able to match up is a good thing, I mentioned it because so fewer people play the game now, that the number of regular players reduces as rank increases, thus there is very little cheating now as a result because it takes even longer to get very high levels because of the lack of players (plus bungie better ability to detect and ban cheaters)
You can include cheaters as a reason for the ranking system being bad, if you exclude them then the ranking system worked/works great I thought.
I never really included cheaters in the ranking system when I considered Halo 2's ranking system. It might have been a pretty good system from levels 1-40, but beyond that... Impossible to rank up legitimately.
I meant to type "can't include". And you did pretty much include cheaters as justification for saying it was horrendous -"Halo 2's ranking system was HORRENDOUS! High 30's you were a pro... It was legitimately impossible to rank into the 40's if you didn't bridge for host or cheat." That seems like you put cheating as a reason for it being bad, and as I can testify, I have friends and played against many legit 40's. And by saying it's a good system up to 40 but not beyond, I assume you are saying this because so many people cheated in the higher levels to get to the highest levels, if you exclude these people the ranking system continues to work alot better than halo 3 in making the skill level to rank correlation far more coherent.
Matching up against randomly skilled players in social/unranked playlists is way better aswell I think, it gives bad players a chance to see how good some people are and encourages them to play ranked to get to that level. Also alot more fun for good players to play some nubz now and then lol.
This is also how it is in Halo 3, I don't know why you mentioned it...
Alot of the rest of your reply is subjective, but here you are objectively wrong. The social playlists in Halo 3 match you up against players (all be it slightly more leniant than ranked) of a similar trueskill value. As a 46, I will seldom play players in social who are ranked lower than 35 (excluding geusts of course). Bungie have tried to make social games fairer and it results in a closer skill level between players in the games than in Halo 2's unranked games. I only mentioned this as it is part of Halo 3's ranking/matching system and I preffered Halo 2's system in unranked games. Of course, you can differ on that point if you want.
So yeah, in the 2 years I solidly played halo 2 I never heard anyone complain about the ranking system (or the beatdown system, lack of AR and the BR model for that matter!).
Are. You. SERIOUS?! You really have not heard ONE person complain about the ranking system? You must not have been a higher rank then yourself... Also, you REALLY haven't heard ANYONE complain about the beatdown system? When you said that I just completely disregarded everything you said because it's was extremely flawed... Seeing as how this is a thread about the ranking system, I won't go into details other than saying how awful it was compared to the "less-awful" system that's in Halo 3. On another note, the lack of AR was nothing people complained about because there WAS NONE in the game... People forgot about it because there were too many debates about the Pistol being taken out, completely overshadowing the AR's existence since Bungie was clearly trying to replace it with the SMG's. Now for the BR, there were many complaints, but not really having to do with the BR. Most complaints came from the host BR being way overpowered...
I heard many people complain about cheaters preventing them from ranking up legitimately, but I don't think I ever heard anyone have issues actually about how many games you had to win against in order to get to the next level. Definately not as much as you hear in Halo 3 due to the trueskill system.
How is halo 2's beatdown system flawed? Excluding the button glitches, the general system is it takes three hits to the body from full shield for a kill and whoever makes the hits first made the damage first. Whereas in halo 3 it only takes 2 beatdowns (and only 1 to take a full shield which i think is ridiculous) and there is player health taken into account at the beatdown, even if they're not simultaneous from each player.
I mentioned the Halo 3 AR purely for the reason that I don't think there was any need for it. I think it is far to powerful for a starting weapon (6 shots and a beatdown = kill. This has lead to the tedium of spray and charge by so many people). It makes having a BR almost pointless on many occasions and can be more effective even from mid range. Obviously this is subjective and if you like the AR and the reduced prominence of the BR then fair enough but it has just made Halo 3 less enjoyable, when combined with the beatdown strength, if the SMG was just continued as the default weapon.
If it ain't broke don't fix it as I say.
Halo 2 ftw!
My comments are in bold.
My Comments are underlined.
[Edited on 10.11.2009 8:07 AM PDT]