Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: reach should have had 1-50 rank system
  • Subject: reach should have had 1-50 rank system
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: reach should have had 1-50 rank system

i know people have discussed this many times, but i am simply trying to piece it all together with some of my own thought added into it.

Anway, a 1-50 rank system benefits both casual and competitive players for the following reasons:

skill disparity
i have noticed a lot of people complaining abut matching up against full parties and getting destroyed beyond imagination. There is said to be some sort of "true skill" in halo reach but i honestly dont see it. i know boosting takes place in a 1-50 system, but more often than not, you will match up against people of similar skill. This results in games that are much closer where you can actually test your abilities. not only that, but people are less likely to quit if the games are close


AFKers
with a 1-50 rank system, people would only be able to rank up off skill. credits would be earned for in game performance, not simply off of time played which would ultimately eliminate the need to AFK

*on a side note, since people care so much about armor, if they cant earn enough credits in matchmaking to buy new things, they could play the firefight playlists to get kills against futile covenant waves to earn credits, or just get better, like what halo used to encourage

quitting
with a 1-50 system, people get penalized for quitting by losing their rank. Maybe a system could be implemented where the player loses a percentage of the credits that they could have earned if they would have finished the actual game. Example: i would have earned 1000 cr for finishing the game but since i quit, i lose 1000 cr and xp added towards my rank


fun/replay-ability
this section could probably go with skill disparity but i separated it for reading purposes. anyway, there have been a lot of people on these forums saying how reach is dead because the population is dropping. i think one of the many reasons for this is that people are not matching up with people of their skill. i know when i play people out of my league, i get frustrated beyond measure. if there was a 1-50 system, casuals would match casuals and competitive players would match other competitive players

these are my opinions, if anyone has other thoughts, feel free to add

  • 11.02.2011 2:24 PM PDT

~HC Swat Iz Back

HaloCharts.com!

Not possible. Sorry.

If you want a 1-50 rank system then go play Halo 3. It's still alive.

  • 11.02.2011 2:25 PM PDT


Posted by: HC Swat Iz Back
Not possible. Sorry.

If you want a 1-50 rank system then go play Halo 3. It's still alive.


any reasoning behind your logic?

  • 11.02.2011 2:26 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

It's to late, we can only Hope for Halo 4, but even that that, Halo has lost many gamers because of Reach.

  • 11.02.2011 2:28 PM PDT

You are now reading my signature, the following proceeds as the amazing group i am in and the best person in Bungie.net who i am not stalking at al... >.>

The Reach Asset

Xhavalor is amazing <3

Credit system and 1-50 are flawed and both need to be improved upon. That is my opinion. In other words rank means nothing to me. I remember when games were about having fun instead of caring about rank in the first place. *thinks back to Call of Duty 2 glory days*

[Edited on 11.02.2011 2:29 PM PDT]

  • 11.02.2011 2:29 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

My Level. Get on it.


Posted by: RC Clone
Nope. SouthPole isn't a person. He's the avatar of the force of tryhards everywhere. He stalks the web looking for retards to set straight. He can not be stopped by mere bans or thread locks for he shall rise anew.


Posted by: ClearYourCookies
It's to late, we can only Hope for Halo 4,

  • 11.02.2011 2:29 PM PDT

http://gifts.freebiejeebies.co.uk/355976

This is NOT black ops!

  • 11.02.2011 2:30 PM PDT


Posted by: killingfrenzy11
Credit system and 1-50 are flawed and both need to be improved upon. That is my opinion. In other words rank means nothing to me. I remember when games were about having fun instead of caring about rank in the first place. *thinks back to Call of Duty 2 glory days*


yeah i am actually excited for MW3, i loved the first MW but havent played a COD since, wasnt a big fan of the following ones.

concerning halo though, i just felt that the 1-50 system was one of the main features about halo. it made halo fun and addictive on so many levels. but i know its too late, just sucks it turned out this way

  • 11.02.2011 2:32 PM PDT

Your presence here is quite unneeded. Begone you!!!

still get abused anyways

  • 11.02.2011 2:33 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

The 1 - 50 system in Halo 2 worked perfectly. When playing in games they were generally always balanced. Anytime you passed 30 the games were even.

Yes the ranking was broken because the high level of hackers, but it still was the best 1-50 system up to this point in any game. Rank should have NOTHING to do with the amount of time you've played a game, only win/losses.

  • 11.02.2011 2:34 PM PDT


Posted by: No Naku Koro Ni_
still get abused anyways


i addressed that and agreed it does in my post, i simply think it doesnt get abused nearly as much as AFKers abuse this system

  • 11.02.2011 2:35 PM PDT

You are now reading my signature, the following proceeds as the amazing group i am in and the best person in Bungie.net who i am not stalking at al... >.>

The Reach Asset

Xhavalor is amazing <3


Posted by: Sir Yancelot

Posted by: killingfrenzy11
Credit system and 1-50 are flawed and both need to be improved upon. That is my opinion. In other words rank means nothing to me. I remember when games were about having fun instead of caring about rank in the first place. *thinks back to Call of Duty 2 glory days*


yeah i am actually excited for MW3, i loved the first MW but havent played a COD since, wasnt a big fan of the following ones.

concerning halo though, i just felt that the 1-50 system was one of the main features about halo. it made halo fun and addictive on so many levels. but i know its too late, just sucks it turned out this way

I gave up with Call of Duty at MW. MW3 will be the same as Reach, people only care about there rank and wanting to prestige.

  • 11.02.2011 2:35 PM PDT


Posted by: ClearYourCookies
The 1 - 50 system in Halo 2 worked perfectly. When playing in games they were generally always balanced. Anytime you passed 30 the games were even.

Yes the ranking was broken because the high level of hackers, but it still was the best 1-50 system up to this point in any game. Rank should have NOTHING to do with the amount of time you've played a game, only win/losses.


halo 2 was so much fun, people say its nostalgia, but i dont believe it. if that game got released in its original fashion tomorrow, i dont think i would play another game for a long time.

concerning the wins/losses, i think it could maybe be made a little bit better if they encorporated k/d and k/a/d into the system just a little bit. this would reward people who search alone for their playing abilities as well

  • 11.02.2011 2:37 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Intrepid Mythic Member
  • gamertag: P3P5I
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Achronos
It isn't our shiznit anymore.

Is this a 1-50 vs. Credit ranks thread? Damn, I thought this was a 1-50 vs. Arena thread. Whatever, I'll reply to this one part anyways:

Posted by: Sir Yancelot
skill disparity
i have noticed a lot of people complaining abut matching up against full parties and getting destroyed beyond imagination. There is said to be some sort of "true skill" in halo reach but i honestly dont see it. i know boosting takes place in a 1-50 system, but more often than not, you will match up against people of similar skill. This results in games that are much closer where you can actually test your abilities. not only that, but people are less likely to quit if the games are close
Assuming the match-ups between players were close, how do you know these match-ups weren't the result of the past Halo's high population counts? For all we know the Trueskill system works fine but due to Reach's low population count Trueskill is having trouble finding enough players of similar skill to match together.

  • 11.02.2011 2:38 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: killingfrenzy11

I gave up with Call of Duty at MW. MW3 will be the same as Reach, people only care about there rank and wanting to prestige.


The point of prestiging is also giving you the ability to START OVER, which Reach doesn't allow. I like having to start back from square one if I want too.

  • 11.02.2011 2:38 PM PDT

Go on halocharts and have a look.

  • 11.02.2011 2:39 PM PDT

Your presence here is quite unneeded. Begone you!!!


Posted by: Sir Yancelot

Posted by: No Naku Koro Ni_
still get abused anyways


i addressed that and agreed it does in my post, i simply think it doesnt get abused nearly as much as AFKers abuse this system


Pretty sure that if there's a way...it will be abused. Only bright side is that the last bunch of resets have knocked them down a peg or two so it isn't as bad

  • 11.02.2011 2:40 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Sir Yancelot

Posted by: ClearYourCookies
The 1 - 50 system in Halo 2 worked perfectly. When playing in games they were generally always balanced. Anytime you passed 30 the games were even.

Yes the ranking was broken because the high level of hackers, but it still was the best 1-50 system up to this point in any game. Rank should have NOTHING to do with the amount of time you've played a game, only win/losses.


halo 2 was so much fun, people say its nostalgia, but i dont believe it. if that game got released in its original fashion tomorrow, i dont think i would play another game for a long time.

concerning the wins/losses, i think it could maybe be made a little bit better if they encorporated k/d and k/a/d into the system just a little bit. this would reward people who search alone for their playing abilities as well


K/D is a good idea but also a bad idea, because that prompts camping period. If I have a higher KD, I will be a higher rank. Also, the mathematics it would take to function correctly with objective would be crazy.

Halo 2 was, you win, compared your % to other ranks you beat, you got up X amount. You lose, compared your % to other ranks on winning team, you lose X amount.

  • 11.02.2011 2:41 PM PDT

You are now reading my signature, the following proceeds as the amazing group i am in and the best person in Bungie.net who i am not stalking at al... >.>

The Reach Asset

Xhavalor is amazing <3


Posted by: ClearYourCookies
Posted by: killingfrenzy11

I gave up with Call of Duty at MW. MW3 will be the same as Reach, people only care about there rank and wanting to prestige.


The point of prestiging is also giving you the ability to START OVER, which Reach doesn't allow. I like having to start back from square one if I want too.


Thats what it's meant for, but people use it as a sign of authority. You see people thinking they are better than you because they are a higher prestige. Sometimes i think games would be better without ranks.

  • 11.02.2011 2:41 PM PDT


Posted by: killingfrenzy11


I gave up with Call of Duty at MW. MW3 will be the same as Reach, people only care about there rank and wanting to prestige.


yeah i agree its sad that people have only gotten concerned about rank and what not, but regardless of how you want to look at it, winning acts as an incentive to continue playing the game. people are naturally competitive and winning naturally makes people feel good about themselves. a part of me feels bad saying this, but i guess its the realist in me.

anyway, the point of my post was to point out that a 1-50 system deters people from abusing it as much as the cr system.

[Edited on 11.02.2011 2:42 PM PDT]

  • 11.02.2011 2:41 PM PDT


Posted by: ClearYourCookies

K/D is a good idea but also a bad idea, because that prompts camping period. If I have a higher KD, I will be a higher rank. Also, the mathematics it would take to function correctly with objective would be crazy.

Halo 2 was, you win, compared your % to other ranks you beat, you got up X amount. You lose, compared your % to other ranks on winning team, you lose X amount.


good point, i wouldnt want another game out there that just promotes camping. i just feel bad for those who search solo, especially with how there is practically no in-game chat now. it is much easier for a group of 4 average players to take down 4 above average individuals who dont communicate

  • 11.02.2011 2:45 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

1-50 was a near perfect rank system.

the only flaw I found in it was de-rankers.
But atleast the system was based on skill, not total time played.

what people need to realize is that bungie left and 343 doesn't care much about reach considering Halo 4 is about to be their main focus of developement, if it is not already.

343 needs to go back to certain aspects of what "Halo" really was, atleast according to rank system. (but they should find an alternative to "De-ranking."

When they find that then Ta-Da! a rank system with no flaws.

Will it be easy? who knows?


Edit:

Halo 3 Rank System (except for de-ranking) gave players more motive to "rank-up"

And yet with the current Reach System people still ask why players complain on the forums everyday that:

"the skill gap is so small"
"I get paired up with bad kids every game!"
"I quit reach / this game just isn't Halo."

really.. think about that for a minute.



[Edited on 11.02.2011 2:52 PM PDT]

  • 11.02.2011 2:46 PM PDT

I guess the Halo Reach ranking system makes the game unique, i actually like it. Being able to look at the different symbol designs is pretty cool.

  • 11.02.2011 2:49 PM PDT


Posted by: halo 3 pro david
1-50 was a near perfect rank system.

the only flaw I found in it was de-rankers.
But atleast the system was based on skill, not total time played.

what people need to realize is that bungie left and 343 doesn't care much about reach considering Halo 4 is about to be their main focus of developement, if it is not already.

343 needs to go back to certain aspects of what "Halo" really was, atleast according to rank system. (but they should find an alternative to "De-ranking."

When they find that then Ta-Da! a rank system with no flaws.

Will it be easy? who knows?





i agree with just about all of this. although there are also boosters in a 1-50 system which i dont know how you would ever get around. regardless, i think a 1-50 system is imperative for the following halos

  • 11.02.2011 2:49 PM PDT


Posted by: The Dough B0y
I guess the Halo Reach ranking system makes the game unique, i actually like it. Being able to look at the different symbol designs is pretty cool.


yeah i see what you're saying, but you have to keep in mind "unique" isn't always a good thing, especially if alls your worried abut are different symbols...

concerning AFKing, quitting, skill disparity, and replay-ability, each of these trumps "cool symbols"

  • 11.02.2011 2:51 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2