Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Poll [69 votes]: Halo 2 Ranking system
  • Poll [69 votes]: Halo 2 Ranking system
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Halo 2 Ranking system

Poll: Halo 2 Ranking system  [closed]
yes:  48%
(33 Votes)
no:  52%
(36 Votes)
Total Votes: 69

In terms of skill the Halo 2 ranking system was the best. H3s tru skill isnt working and it was to easy to get a 50
In Halo 2 just getting past 30 was an Acheievment

[Edited on 10.14.2009 11:40 PM PDT]

  • 10.11.2009 2:37 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I never Really Understood the halo 2 ranking system,So I would have to say no to this

  • 10.11.2009 2:51 AM PDT

.:. îXî - $ìgñ øf thé GøÐz .:.


My Profile - iXi Gaming


Î ũňķñ{ǾẄŃ} ū

No. Halo 3's ranking system was fine aside from a few TrueSkill problems when you have lots of EXP, making it difficult to rank up.

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.

  • 10.11.2009 3:02 AM PDT

Always check if theres bog roll first

Posted by: UNKNOWN iXi
No. Halo 3's ranking system was fine aside from a few TrueSkill problems when you have lots of EXP, making it difficult to rank up.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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!).

If it ain't broke don't fix it as I say.

Halo 2 ftw!

  • 10.11.2009 3:18 AM PDT
  • gamertag: L0RCH
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Jebus1664
I never Really Understood the halo 2 ranking system,So I would have to say no to this


How stupid can one single person be?
In halo 2 you always needed a certain number of wins to level up.
In Halo 3 ranking up/ranking down is somewhat random.
In halo 2 the only thing that mattered was whether you win or not. Also it took longer to level up, in halo 3 everyone can get a 30...

  • 10.11.2009 5:09 AM PDT

.:. îXî - $ìgñ øf thé GøÐz .:.


My Profile - iXi Gaming


Î ũňķñ{ǾẄŃ} ū

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.

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?

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.

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...

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...

If it ain't broke don't fix it as I say.

Halo 2 ftw!


My comments are in bold.

  • 10.11.2009 5:14 AM PDT

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]

  • 10.11.2009 6:21 AM PDT

-It would be incredibly simple to make 50/40/30/anything much harder to reach in a trueSkill-based system. It would also be incredibly simple to make a 50/40/30/whatever much easier to reach in H2E.

-H2 also had invisible ranks in social

-In Halo 2, the amount of exp earned was modified by the skill level difference between players. This meant that it could take 2-6 wins to go up a level, with 3 being the average.


That should take care of anything posted thus far. As for making a case for one of these systems:

-TrueSkill converges faster, and is less affected by random streaks, resulting in better matchmaking.

-It is much harder to cheat TrueSkill. And although succesfull cheating is very effective and gives a player a higher skill level than they deserve, it still requires the player to be quite good. Were a 50 harder to get, they might not be able to get it.

  • 10.11.2009 6:42 AM PDT

Always check if theres bog roll first

Fair Play.

In that case I think the trueskill system should be harder to level up in then, for the reasons I stated earlier.

Cheers for the info

  • 10.12.2009 2:23 AM PDT

to me, i like H2 ranking system because it was hard and it divided up the community between really good players and players who played casually so the two dont mesh and we each are on there own lvl on the playing field
In H3 the skill gap is all scribble srabble
anyone can get a 50 by just playing 50 games of lonewolves pretty much and then match up with people like me and then complain

in Halo 2 on my first acc i got to 37 and it took forever
in H3 i got my 50 in 3days!!!

i just want a more challenging ranking system that gives ranks for players who earned that respective rank, not saying you earning your 50 is bad but saying player who normally dont play like what they are

H3 anyone can have a 50 with no skill required.. pretty much really easy
in H2 50 = standbyers 0.0 lol

[Edited on 10.12.2009 1:49 PM PDT]

  • 10.12.2009 1:42 PM PDT

___.............._______/```````````````:::--.
|.==,-.~;. ____:._______ __’__’__’_ _ _\===
|................--:---:--:--‘---:,, ,,, ,,, ,,,:---: /=
`-.,.__._._,,...---:::"
Halo Waypoint Stats

Posted by: Jebus1664
I never Really Understood the halo 2 ranking system,So I would have to say no to this


It's skill but without the other ranks.

  • 10.12.2009 1:48 PM PDT

no matter which ranking system they use for reach people will still be unhappy. if they use the halo 3 one people will say that it is so easy to be a 50, and if they use the halo 2 one people will say that its to hard to be a 50. i think they should make a new one that is like both halo 2 and 3s ranking systems.

make it like halo 3 so u can still get a 50 but make it more like halo 2 so its harder and there are less 50s. u should have to be really good to be a 50 not just above average. that way the people that deserve a 50 would still have one and the "bad" 50s would not have one.

  • 10.12.2009 1:53 PM PDT

for the unhappy people thats why theres the social list lol

  • 10.13.2009 1:47 PM PDT

"Dear Humanity; we regret being alien bastards. We regret coming to Earth. And we most definitely regret that the Corps just blew up our raggedy-ass fleet!"
—Avery J. Johnson
click it you know you want to

I say we go back to Halo: CE's ranking system(gets flame-retardant clothing on)

  • 10.13.2009 2:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Dustinw1
I say we go back to Halo: CE's ranking system(gets flame-retardant clothing on)


OMG MAN KNOW YOUR STUFF HALO ONE DID NOT HAVE MATCHMAKING YOUR SUCH A NOOOOOOOB!!!!!!!!! YOUR SUCH A BK

(kidding)

But I would actually prefer H2's ranking system. The good players and bad players were divided. I admit I'm a nub at Halo and am level 11 in Team Slayer, but I frequently go against good players who are leveling up thier 2nd account. I want to play against less experienced players like me so it's fair.

  • 10.13.2009 2:28 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Halo 3's ranking system would have worked fine if people had patience and didn't try to make new accounts and mess with all the data. However, that was one problem with it.

Likewise, H2's system was not perfect. Why do you think they changed it for H3? In H2 you had huge issues with derankers as well as new accounts who boosted their way up by playing with better friends. In fact, boosting was actually easier in some ways in H2.

That being said, H2's system did a great job of creating a skill gap. While you could get boosted up to your friend's level, it was really hard to get higher than you should be. Only the best made it into the 40s, and only the most amazing got the symbol by their name at 45 and above. But I think part of that skill gap wasn't only the ranking system, but the weaponset allowing for more of a skill gap.

If we bring back the H2 system, we'll have a few problems you need to address:

1) Boosting with friends. In H3's system you can boost with negative experience or setting your stats over with a new account, but partying with friends can actually hamper you because it's data that's off the normal scope. But in H2, partying with friends meant you played higher levels, giving you more exp. for a win and conversely, making those you played against go down significantly (win/loss over a much higher/lower opponent was factored). At least in H3 if you're a new player, your sigma/mu didn't affect the people you played too much, or yourself.

2) Deranking is a huge issue with this. At least now people have to pay money to start a new account or waste a free one, and they don't ruin the fun of others on their way down and then back up. At least now they only ruin fun on the way up through the lower ranks.

3) Once people got to a high rank, if they were boosted with friends or if they didn't trust in their skill and consistency, they quit out. You need to add long term goals to the system.

4) People complain that H3's system goes too much on win/loss and it doesn't factor in anything else. H2 was just as bad, if not worse in that aspect. For those who enjoy playing and don't go in with friends, their actual rank versus their theoretical rank can be extremely skewed. Of course they can go in with friends and of course wins/losses matter. But the system isn't really innovative or visionary in terms of its accurate portrayal of true skill or rank.

5) Rank loss was extremely fast in H2. If you lost 2-3 games, you dropped. While I'm not saying you shouldn't drop for losing, a system that requires more consistency would be nice, both on the way up (tougher to get higher levels. You have to prove yourself) as well as on the way down. It's what true skill tried to do until everyone started resetting their data.

I'm sure there are more issues. Those are the ones off the top of my head.

[Edited on 10.13.2009 2:42 PM PDT]

  • 10.13.2009 2:38 PM PDT

the halo 2 system seems like a more fair system then it is now
i agree with you the system isn't perfect but i believe it is more fair and challenging then the current system in use
i kinda like how in 2-4 games you lost rank because it gave to you goal to get back to that rank or even go beyond

the reason people make more accs or silver acc is because they get there ranks to fast and they wanna get another for the heck of it or to sell it to someone who cannot get their deserved rank

[Edited on 10.14.2009 11:51 PM PDT]

  • 10.13.2009 7:51 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: klegs iz beast
the halo 2 system seems like a more fair system then it is now
i agree with you the system is perfect but i believe it is more fair and challenging then the current system in use
i kinda like how in 2-4 games you lost rank because it gave to you goal to get back to that rank or even go beyond

the reason people make more accs or silver acc is because they get there ranks to fast and they wanna get another for the heck of it or to sell it to someone who cannot get their deserved rank


Or they could just play on their 50...against other 50s...and have a fair match. But no, that wouldn't be any fun - for them, anyway. People never realize that changes are often made to fix previous issues. Halo 2 had a plethora of issues which few are willing to address. But once your nostalgia becomes current reality, you'll all whine again about the current system. Figure out how to improve the H3 system while remembering what you've learned from the H2 system's problems.

  • 10.14.2009 3:01 PM PDT

Posted by: fifthderelicte
Posted by: klegs iz beast
the halo 2 system seems like a more fair system then it is now
i agree with you the system is perfect but i believe it is more fair and challenging then the current system in use
i kinda like how in 2-4 games you lost rank because it gave to you goal to get back to that rank or even go beyond

the reason people make more accs or silver acc is because they get there ranks to fast and they wanna get another for the heck of it or to sell it to someone who cannot get their deserved rank


Or they could just play on their 50...against other 50s...and have a fair match. But no, that wouldn't be any fun - for them, anyway. People never realize that changes are often made to fix previous issues. Halo 2 had a plethora of issues which few are willing to address. But once your nostalgia becomes current reality, you'll all whine again about the current system. Figure out how to improve the H3 system while remembering what you've learned from the H2 system's problems.


they cant play with other 50s because the majority are not really 50 the only fair playlist is my opinion is the MLG playlist because you are playing people who really are their rank
ive honestly never had no probelms with both ranking system
the main reason is the differnce if skill gap between the 2 systems. Halo anyone can be a 50, im not saying its wrong im saying it seems way to easy. In Halo 2 the skill gap was huge
plus it didnt mesh really good players with the casual players
casual players were usally 10-20 while competitive players went 30+
only probelms that ive known about the halo 2 ranking system was it was really boost or standbye

  • 10.14.2009 7:11 PM PDT

I would like to invite you to the most active group there is, Black Water Ops.. Boasting over 3,000 members this is one of the fastest growing groups and proven to be one of the most active b.net groups. An amazing experience awaits you with weekly game nights, photo contests, and forging contests. This is one decision you won't regret.

Personally, I think Bungie should use a different system for Halo: Reach. Not Halo 2's and not Halo 3's. Maybe an exp rank. Or maybe something completely new?

  • 10.14.2009 7:25 PM PDT

Vancouver BC, Canada.

Both ranking systems are inconsistent.

  • 10.14.2009 8:04 PM PDT

Well if they make an entirely new system the skill gap needs to be like halo 2

  • 10.14.2009 11:39 PM PDT

Wow voting is neck n neck

  • 10.15.2009 11:13 PM PDT

I think Bungie should use two ranking systems, and make it clear what the ranking systems are meant to do.

The need one for skill and one for time played like in Call of Duty with some unlockables and whatnot for those darn addicts that keep buying accounts just to get multiple 50s for who knows what reasons.

  • 10.15.2009 11:27 PM PDT

Its difficult to get a 50 on your first account in 3... and the 2nd accounts only made it even harder for firsts

  • 10.15.2009 11:32 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2