Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: My idea for a new rank system
  • Subject: My idea for a new rank system
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: My idea for a new rank system

Bungie is no longer managing the Halo Universe. While our Halo-related forums and stats remain available, be advised that "official" answers and support about the Halo Universe (past, present, or future) are not.

Figured I'd go ahead and put it in the post myself before someone else decided to try and be clever. Point is, I'm looking for feedback from you, the forum members, not necessarily looking for 343 to implement it. Anyway, this is my idea for a new ranking system.

There should be some sort of set EXP system to getting a 50 IMO.

The higher rank the players you beat/lose to are relative to your rank, the more EXP towards ranking up you earn.

For example:

A level 35 beats a level 40 player. The Level 35 player gains 25 rank EXP while the level 40 loses around, eh, say 15 EXP. Every rank would require higher and higher EXP to achieve, so while Level 1 to Level 2 might take about 50 EXP to get to level 49 to level 50 would take something like 2000 EXP. (Note, this EXP is not the same as conventional Halo 3 EXP). Only YOUR rank will be measured in relation to your opponent's as well, so as to prevent level 1 accounts from boosting their friends along.

As an addendum: losing a whole bunch at level 1 of my rank system would not make it any harder or easier to rank up, since it would be straight EXP based and you wouldn't go into negatives on this EXP. Quits would counts as losses obviously

Also, to pacify the cR loving crowd, you can keep the cR system, just don't have them play into the actual rank system. I actually like the idea of the Armory for permutations, just not the fact that cR is what builds you rank in Reach. Also, to encourage people to get out and play the Ranked lists, make certain Armory items available only after attaining certain ranks in Ranked play. Perhaps make cR ranks that will increase your "grade" rank, but not your actual level, similar to how in Halo 3 EXP could advance you in grade but in order to attain the next rank tier one would have to attain a certain Trueskill level.

Just a rough outline of the idea I had for a ranking system. Obviously more exact measurements of the Exp gain/loss and EXP to the next level would be required, but you get the general idea. Also, no credit just for playing, of course. Win and go up, lose and go down. Ties net no gain or loss.

  • 01.25.2012 10:01 PM PDT
  • gamertag: XwyvZ
  • user homepage:

Im that one guy you'd give sniper to with full trust of me using it.

just bring back the h2 or h3 ranks

/done

  • 01.25.2012 10:03 PM PDT


Posted by: XwyvZ
just bring back the h2 or h3 ranks

/done


Too exploitable.

  • 01.25.2012 10:04 PM PDT
  • gamertag: XwyvZ
  • user homepage:

Im that one guy you'd give sniper to with full trust of me using it.


Posted by: Ryus Shoryuken

Posted by: XwyvZ
just bring back the h2 or h3 ranks

/done


Too exploitable.

so what at least it worked

  • 01.25.2012 10:06 PM PDT
  • gamertag: XwyvZ
  • user homepage:

Im that one guy you'd give sniper to with full trust of me using it.


Posted by: aBlueBookshelf

Posted by: XwyvZ

Posted by: Ryus Shoryuken

Posted by: XwyvZ
just bring back the h2 or h3 ranks

/done


Too exploitable.

so what at least it worked
This.

Not everyone can get a 50. It's part of the allure.

yeah, and also when he says exploitable he means people will pay for 50s or boost. I say so what who cares.

  • 01.25.2012 10:07 PM PDT

So...nothing to say about my actual idea then?

  • 01.25.2012 10:09 PM PDT

Why not instead, place a 1-50 number system for truskill like which was in Halo 3, but have the visual rank EXP (cR) based like in Reach.

That way, everyone can achieve the highest rank, while those who feel the need to flaunt their e-peen around can do so freely without complaining about it here on the forums.

  • 01.25.2012 10:11 PM PDT


Posted by: aBlueBookshelf
I can't make sense of it. Too late.

I want to argue against it though.

Know that.


Well, the gist is that it's similar to Trueskill ranks in that Win/Loss is what determines what, but it basically asigns a tangible value to your leveling rather than the seemingly random times one would go up or down in the old system. It also removes the possibility of boosting because it only considers one's opponents, not their teammates.

Though I'm sure someone would find a way somehow, lol.

  • 01.25.2012 10:16 PM PDT


Posted by: aBlueBookshelf
8s tricking my way to a 50 wat


Not sure I follow.

  • 01.25.2012 10:18 PM PDT

This seems like it's too hard to rank down.
I'd be more inclined to agree with your method posted if it was much more harsh.

Also the exp should be given by how well as an individual you played against the other team.

Sure your team might have just creamed a team of 45's, and you might be 30, but you went negative eight and got carried. So, one exp for you. (to prevent scrubs from riding on the backs of good players)

Also, harsher punishment for losing. To hell with people who hate getting locked into levels. Play better or deal with it. You're at your level for a reason. I don't want to get matched up with someone who statistically plays horribly and feels some sort of rank envy so feels the levels should be easier.

I don't want everyone to have 50's.

Despite how everyone exaggerated how EVERYONE and their MOTHER had a 50 in halo 3, it was nothing like this. There just happened to be a lot of people who made multiple 50's on multiple accounts. A few % of people actually bought any level 50 accounts.

And, no. I am not an elitist level 50. Check my level in Halo 3.

[Edited on 01.25.2012 10:26 PM PST]

  • 01.25.2012 10:23 PM PDT


Posted by: flippedoutcookie
This seems like it's too hard to rank down.
I'd be more inclined to agree with your method posted if it was much more harsh.

Also the exp should be given by how well you do against people and their levels. Your individual score should matter a bit too.

Sure your team might have just creamed a team of 45's, and you might be 30, but you went negative eight and got carried. So, one exp for you. (to prevent scrubs from riding on the backs of good players)

Also, harsher punishment for losing. To hell with people who hate getting locked into levels. Play better or deal with it. You're at your level for a reason. I don't want to get matched up with someone who statistically plays horribly and feels some sort of rank envy so feels the levels should be easier.

I don't want everyone to have 50's.

Despite how everyone exaggerated how EVERYONE and their MOTHER had a 50 in halo 3, it was nothing like this. There just happened to be a lot of people who made multiple 50's on multiple accounts. A few % of people actually bought any level 50 accounts.


Like I said, the actual EXP gains and losses would need to be fine-tuned, the numbers I tossed in there weren't really given any consideration.

  • 01.25.2012 10:25 PM PDT


Posted by: aBlueBookshelf
Going neg doesn't necessarily mean you got 'carried'.

There are assists, and then intangibles like calling out, positioning, timing weapons, team shooting, etc.


True that.

But, I was just being extremely vague.
It could work in a way how arena scores you by factoring in assists and a number of other things. (or how it used to I haven't checked lately)

And, also anyone can have bad games.

Oh, one more thing to add now that he brought this up.
It should also note and keep track of your score through-out your career.

Being as bookshelf said how it didn't mean he got carried necessarily..

If it was a bad game, the stats would show through other games that he this time just had "bad luck". (could be a number of intangibles as in) And, thus forth the game would recognize this and not reduce his exp gained so harshly.

If a player statistically went negative, it might mean he is more often than not being carried, and not just a team player or what have you and thus his exp gain would be lower in matches won when going negative and such. More-so in losses, and more-so in games against lower levels. (especially if a loss)

How's all that?

[Edited on 01.25.2012 10:33 PM PST]

  • 01.25.2012 10:32 PM PDT

Why not simply have 1-50 ranks with the Arena system.

-Can't sit on your rank, so bought accounts won't be a problem. Highest Skill Reached is your current highest rank in a playlist. Lose your 50(s), lose your emblem rank. (Ex: You'd go from General to Brig.)

-Percentages to separate the good 50's from the bad 50's.

-Your win/loss impact depends on who you beat/lose to.

  • 01.25.2012 10:34 PM PDT


Posted by: Pharaoh Reiqns
Why not simply have 1-50 ranks with the Arena system.

-Can't sit on your rank, so bought accounts won't be a problem. Highest Skill Reached is your current highest rank in a playlist. Lose your 50(s), lose your emblem rank. (Ex: You'd go from General to Brig.)

-Percentages to separate the good 50's from the bad 50's.

-Your win/loss impact depends on who you beat/lose to.


Earning a 50 in this system would be a VERY arduous process (ideally earning a 50 would take MONTHS of dedicated play once all the particulars of EXP gain/loss were worked out) so no, I don't really think getting bumped down just because you decide to take a break from playing is fair.

  • 01.25.2012 10:36 PM PDT
  • gamertag: XwyvZ
  • user homepage:

Im that one guy you'd give sniper to with full trust of me using it.

your idea is bad
h3 ranks period

  • 01.25.2012 10:37 PM PDT


Posted by: XwyvZ
your idea is bad
h3 ranks period


I bet you didn't even read it.

  • 01.25.2012 10:38 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2