Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: the need for a 1-50 ranking system
  • Subject: the need for a 1-50 ranking system
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: the need for a 1-50 ranking system

-keeps most matches fair and close
-keeps the game competitive
-adds a "replayability" factor
-helps curtail the number of quitters
-punishes number of quitters
-allows casual players to play with similar casual players
-allows competitive players to play with similar players
-adds incentive to keep playing the game

need i go on?

i personally still don't understand the absence of a feature that made the halo franchise so unique, it was/used to actually be a game based on skill.

reach had so much potential, such a disheartening event..

  • 05.06.2012 9:43 PM PDT

There's always room for you, If you want to be my friend.

We need a 1-100,000 system.

[Edited on 05.06.2012 9:44 PM PDT]

  • 05.06.2012 9:43 PM PDT

Posted by: Sir Yancelot
-keeps most matches fair and close
The system can be in place without you seeing it.

-adds a "replayability" factor
Arena does that far better with the rating resetting. 1-50 doesn't add replay value. Once you reached 50 you were done.
:/
-helps curtail the number of quitters
I think you're adding your own causes to the effects to help your case mate.
-allows casual players to play with similar casual players
-allows competitive players to play with similar players
You don't need to see the numbers for that to happen.
-adds incentive to keep playing the game
You already said that one. It's still just as silly as it was three or four bullet points ago I'm afraid.

  • 05.06.2012 9:47 PM PDT

Last member of the i4Ni clan.

godfather of 1-50 arguments, not to mention how flawed and easily exploited 1-50 was.

Every person who complains for a 1-50 list ignores all of the reasons WHY the 1-50 rank system was killed in the first place. The primary reason overlying all of the smaller reasons was: 1-50 WAS NOT A TRUE MEASURE OF HOW GOOD YOU WERE AT THE GAME.

They reset ranks in Halo 3 at least twice. There might have been a third time but I honestly don't remember three. That meant there was so much cheating in the "competitive" lists that Bungie felt the need to kill everything in the lists included the ranks received. Getting a 50 was easy. All you had to do was buy a month throwaway subscription, play and lose ALOT, then party up with your main account and go play. TrueSkill combines the odds of a team winning based on K/D ratios and winning percentages for all members. With one member absurdly low, TrueSkill would always predict that the team with the low member would lose. Then when you win, it would mean that TrueSkill was wrong and you shoot up 10 ranks at a time (to counter the "bad" player). So how is this competitive? Simple answer it isn't. It is manipulative.

Is Reach's system easy to get to Inheritor? No. Therefore, it eliminates the ability of manipulators to easily game the system. What does the Reach rank system do? By Bungie's own admission they are trying to make players invest their time and love into Halo: Reach by making ranks attainable for EVERYONE if they put in the time and effort. (Bungie's weekly update talking about Reach rank) What does that take away? The instant ability to jump from rank 1 to rank 50. But as I stated above you can easily cheat the 1-50 system by knowing how the system is set up. What does the steadily advancing rank give that 1-50 doesn't. Psychological satisfaction that you are always "advancing." The "down side" to 1-50 is that NOT EVERYONE IS A 50. The rank resets shows that Bungie knew that most 50s weren't REAL 50s because they cheated to get it. So what happens to those who aren't REAL 50s (a vast majority of the player population using any means of dividing players based on skill)? They level out and then stay at a SINGLE skill level. What does this do? It leaves a feeling of psychological dissatisfaction with being unable to "advance" and see what the higher ranks are.

So can 1-50 be made to work? Sure given extremely tight constraints that are just not workable in a real life matchmaking system like Xbox Live or PSN. How do you make a fair and balanced competitive playlist?
1) Never let anyone team up with their friends. Everyone is a different skill level. Your buddy may be a true 50 and you're only a true 10, but if you play with him, he wreaks everyone and makes it seem like your skill is much higher than it is. Or you have the aforementioned cheating scenario. By never playing in a team and every game being made up of randoms the outcome is a probability curve of the abilities of each of the individual players, thereby making TrueSkill function properly.
2) Full teams can only play full teams, but only in a fully separate playlist from #1. This allows you to play with friends and can then account for the change in probabilities that synergy working together can create amongst groups of friends. But it still doesn't account for the group of A-holes who will cheat the system using the aforementioned cheat. #2 is less of a solution than #1, but both lead to large-scale problems like people having LESS FUN. Imagine never being able to play with your friends. Now THAT would be a totally awesome game to play right?

How does Reach fix this problem? By hiding TrueSkill number. By not giving anyone anything they can truly brag about (and therefore a psychological reason to cheat) Bungie effectively made cheating NOT fun in Reach. How many flying Warthogs have you seen in Reach? I've heard of one, but when the guy who said he saw it was told to produce the video he went silent. Arena was an attempt at creating a competitive environment that takes into account all of the cheating tendencies of previous Halo MM. Was Arena successful? Not really. There's no punishment system for doing naughty things like team-killing and no reward for playing to win the game and help your team. Is Arena better than 1-50? Yes because it got rid of all of the cheating cheaters who mod the game and think that makes them awesome. But it left us with the cheating cheaters who kill their own team to whore the Sniper because they're "awesome at headshotting, I swear, and that makes me awesome!"

And there's my take. I expect alot of unintelligent flaming. IF you can come up with a reasonable, coherent argument for 1-50 instead of merely saying "It was totally awesome! I could cheat and get to 50 like that because I'm just that awesome at the game!" then I will give you a read.

  • 05.06.2012 9:52 PM PDT


Posted by: burritosenior


awfully critical. i beg to differ however. team slayer is filled with players who get matched up against teams that are pretty miserable. alongside big team battle and invasion and what not.

halo 3's system of having a different rank for each playlist is a good way of keeping players playing. also, the ability for a player to decrease in level for poor play would be a feature as well.

the ban system for quitting in reach is pathetic. people can quit at the drop of the hat knowing they will face silly punishments. quitting in a ranking system means losing their rank

you are more likely to face 40-45 skilled players versus finding someone of your same skill set in reach. i am sure plenty of players can attest to that.

and yeah i was being redundant on the last point, im somewhat intoxicated.

  • 05.06.2012 9:54 PM PDT

Posted by: I RaveN Ilol
Only Halo 3 1-50 was exploitable, and it would of been easy to fix those issues.

  • 05.06.2012 9:54 PM PDT


Posted by: I RaveN I


seems like a good read, but im not gonna lie, i cant handle that right now. is there a possible tl;dr? if not, i will read it when i wake up

  • 05.06.2012 9:56 PM PDT

Posted by: Neutralism
We need a 1-100,000 system.
The search times would be hilarious.

  • 05.06.2012 10:01 PM PDT

Reach Videos

Formerly known as JFKz GHOST
Also known as CTDeathSquad

Enjoy!


Posted by: boomdeyadah
Posted by: I RaveN Ilol
Only Halo 3 1-50 was exploitable, and it would of been easy to fix those issues.

  • 05.06.2012 10:18 PM PDT


Posted by: I RaveN I
They reset ranks in Halo 3 at least twice.


They did? News to me.

  • 05.06.2012 10:43 PM PDT

First in social ranked firefight campaign competitive and ODST goose splatters.
My other account is UrbanTwisticle
20,000+ total matchmade goose splatters

Check out my YouTube Channel

I honestly never have given a flying bad word about rank in any game. Rank adds zero value to a game to me but if the majority of players have to have it then bring it back for them.

  • 05.06.2012 10:49 PM PDT

Posted by: militaryguns
I'm sorry America is busy helping others in the world and actually making a difference.

Something Canada will never do.


Posted by: burritosenior
someones mad they were a colonel

  • 05.06.2012 10:52 PM PDT
  • gamertag: DHTH
  • user homepage:

Exactly. I just got my first 50 2 days ago. Took me 4 years!

  • 05.07.2012 12:04 AM PDT

Burrito and Raven, you are both WRONG.
Posted by: burritosenior
1-50 doesn't add replay value. Once you reached 50 you were done.

If that was true, why did people ever search on their 50s? I can assure you that they did.

-helps curtail the number of quittersI think you're adding your own causes to the effects to help your case mate.I don't think so. People knew that quitting in H3 would decrease their rank, so they wouldn't quit as often.

-adds incentive to keep playing the game
You already said that one. It's still just as silly as it was three or four bullet points ago I'm afraid.
Except he's right. It gives you the challenge to play on and keep your 50, which just about EVERY 50 did, or try and get 50s in other playlists too.

So no. I think you should be quiet because you have NO idea what you're talking about.

On to Raven.

Posted by: I RaveN I
They reset ranks in Halo 3 at least twice.

-Halo 3's ranks were never reset.

-Halo 3's system had some exploits but they weren't as bad as the exploits and problems that Arena has, plus they could easily be fixed; fixes have already been suggested which would completely eliminate boosters and derankers.

Is Reach's system easy to get to Inheritor? No. Therefore, it eliminates the ability of manipulators to easily game the system. What does the Reach rank system do? By Bungie's own admission they are trying to make players invest their time and love into Halo: Reach by making ranks attainable for EVERYONE if they put in the time and effort. (Bungie's weekly update talking about Reach rank) What does that take away? The instant ability to jump from rank 1 to rank 50. But as I stated above you can easily cheat the 1-50 system by knowing how the system is set up. What does the steadily advancing rank give that 1-50 doesn't. Psychological satisfaction that you are always "advancing." The "down side" to 1-50 is that NOT EVERYONE IS A 50. The rank resets shows that Bungie knew that most 50s weren't REAL 50s because they cheated to get it. So what happens to those who aren't REAL 50s (a vast majority of the player population using any means of dividing players based on skill)? They level out and then stay at a SINGLE skill level. What does this do? It leaves a feeling of psychological dissatisfaction with being unable to "advance" and see what the higher ranks are.Considering ranked playlists, especially Team Slayer, were more popular overall in Halo 3 at its prime than the WHOLE of Halo Reach's playlists, I think people enjoyed ranking up. People found ranking up to Inheritor to be long winded and tedious, so they didn't bother. There's no psychological reward for it, either. When you got a 50, the game was telling you that you were good, and you felt slightly good because of it. When you get Inheritor, it just leads to people thinking you have no life simply because of how long it takes to get.

So can 1-50 be made to work?Yes, and fixes have been suggested.

How many flying Warthogs have you seen in Reach? I've heard of one, but when the guy who said he saw it was told to produce the video he went silent.I never personally encountered cheaters in Halo 3. I have seen some other people who have encountered them, but the fact is that they were very, VERY rare, and the average player would NEVER encounter one. Is Arena better than 1-50? Yes because it got rid of all of the cheating cheaters who mod the game and think that makes them awesome. But it left us with the cheating cheaters who kill their own team to whore the Sniper because they're "awesome at headshotting, I swear, and that makes me awesome!"No, Arena is far worse than 1-50. You clearly have no experience with Arena because you don't realise it changed from an FFA Rating setting to a win/loss setting about 6 MONTHS AGO. Arena is worse than Ranked ever was because:

-People can't play when they want to get their rank. They HAVE to play 4 games of Arena on 5 days. Casual players aren't dedicated enough to play 4 games of a playlist just to get a rank which doesn't show up anywhere prominently.

-Terrible maps. The fairness of Arena is all but negated with maps like Sword Base, Uncaged and Reflection in the rotation.

-2s tricking. I won't bother explaining but it allows randoms to match against teams of 4.

-One playlist. There is no place for players good at Objective, for example, to show their skill.
IF you can come up with a reasonable, coherent argument then I will give you a read.
Done. 1-50 had its own issues but it's far better than Arena and fixes that would work have been proposed.

[Edited on 05.07.2012 2:07 AM PDT]

  • 05.07.2012 2:04 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Noxish
  • user homepage:

1-50 was THE BEST. every other argument is invalid lol. not trolling its just my opinion. arena sucks....

  • 05.07.2012 2:08 AM PDT

I enjoy the Black Ops atmosphere to be honest.

Everyone is playing because they enjoy the game, everyone can quit whenever they like and it doesn't matter since someone else immediately takes their place, and nobody cares about measuring e-peen sizes based on the playlist that you choose to play.

I'm really hoping Halo 4 comes with Reach's ranking system to be honest. Trying to get to the max rank was enough incentive for me, although I agree that there should be a bonus Credits reward for every match won.

1-50 punished everyone without a full team, and you could do awesome and still lose because of your brain-dead team. Reach rewarded you no matter how bad your team was and I liked that. Although I repeat, there could be more monetary incentive for winning and going for the objective.

Say, 1000 credits per flag capped, or 10 credits per second on the Hill on King of the Hill. I see a lot of players who are wither too lazy or reluctant to change that they only ask for the previous broken ranking systems, instead of taking the best of each to forge a brand new one.

And yes, I'm saying 1-50 wasn't all that great. I see Inheritors with more respect than 50s, but that's just me.

  • 05.07.2012 2:17 AM PDT

Revielle- A small community with the goals of making a difference for our members. We hope to bring together people of far distances, and many differences, into our community for long lasting friendships and new gaming experiences.

So stop reading and join already or Get Simmonsized!

Trueskill is in the game you just can't see it.

  • 05.07.2012 2:58 AM PDT

I don't really care about a 1-50 visual system. I just want to match players of my own skill level, at least in certain playlists. Btw I know reach has an invisible trueskill system but it is -blam!- and matches good-bad-bad-bad to decent-decent-decent-bad rather than just good x 4 vs good x 4.

  • 05.07.2012 3:08 AM PDT

"You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space." -Johnny Cash

I do like the 1-50 ranking system more than any ranking system in Halo Reach, but the problem with such a system is that it's easily exploitable.

  • 05.07.2012 7:46 AM PDT


Posted by: OMARRCHR
I do like the 1-50 ranking system more than any ranking system in Halo Reach, but the problem with such a system is that it's easily exploitable.


Which is the main reason why it's not coming back.

If you want your ranks, go to Halo 3.

  • 05.07.2012 8:24 AM PDT

Posted by: Tom T
Prolonged exposure to this forum is bad for your health.


Posted by: aBIueBooksheIf
because I like pen­is.

source

At least 1-50 gave me good games on a constant basis.... I'm lucky if I get 1 or 2 each day on Reach.


Reach's "ranking system" is a joke and should never be the primary ranking system in Halo ever again, I mean, it's not even an actual ranking system to being with.
It's a time calculating tool.

  • 05.07.2012 8:37 AM PDT

1-50 didn't really reduce quitting. People bailed out when they were losing just so they wouldn't see an immediate rank drop. This frustrated the teammates of the quitter, starting a chain quit reaction.

There aren't as many chain quits in Reach because kids are scared of getting banned and because they gotta get those credits.

Still, a visible 1-50 or something like that is important to Halo matchmaking.

  • 05.07.2012 9:19 AM PDT


Posted by: Neutralism
We need a 1-100,000 system.

  • 05.07.2012 9:20 AM PDT


Posted by: X El BaZzA X
Burrito and Raven, you are both WRONG.
xXMLGxXxPrOzxX, you are WRONG.
If that was true, why did people ever search on their 50s? I can assure you that they did.
To find good games I would assume. I'm not saying the system didn't work. But it is insufficient as long as we can see the numbers, because seeing the numbers provides mostly downsides, and one benefit.

I don't think so. People knew that quitting in H3 would decrease their rank, so they wouldn't quit as often.Hmm. I'll concede that point, actually.

Except he's right. It gives you the challenge to play on and keep your 50, which just about EVERY 50 did, or try and get 50s in other playlists too.
If you're good enough then there is no challenge either way. If it is a challenge, then you don't need to see the numbers because the system is matching you properly then. And, after all, you don't need to see the numbers for that to happen.

And I would hardly say 'just about every 50 did.' The system was so exploitable that a large number of those people just wouldn't play once they reached it because they weren't good enough for it. Really screwed over everybody else having a visual system when you consider the rank chart.

I think you should be quiet because you have NO idea what you're talking about.So no. I think you should be quiet because you have NO idea what you're talking about.


-Halo 3's system had some exploits but they weren't as bad as the exploits and problems that Arena has, plus they could easily be fixed; fixes have already been suggested which would completely eliminate boosters and derankers.
Then please share those suggested changes. Those are two of my three major issues with a visual system, so if two of them are solved chances are I'll change my mind about it. Go for it.

Also, what exploits does Arena have? It was individual skill based, but competitive players hated that so they made it win loss. Now it's win loss.
?

Considering ranked playlists, especially Team Slayer, were more popular overall in Halo 3 at its prime than the WHOLE of Halo Reach's playlists,Did you look at the stats Bungie put up at the end?

I think people enjoyed ranking up. People found ranking up to Inheritor to be long winded and tedious, so they didn't bother. There's no psychological reward for it, either. When you got a 50, the game was telling you that you were good, and you felt slightly good because of it. When you get Inheritor, it just leads to people thinking you have no life simply because of how long it takes to get.I'm not defending the Inheritor thing, though Raven might be. I'm just saying the visual system in Halo 3 was a terrible, terrible system.

-People can't play when they want to get their rank. They HAVE to play 4 games of Arena on 5 days. Casual players aren't dedicated enough to play 4 games of a playlist just to get a rank which doesn't show up anywhere prominently.... That's pretty darned contradictory. First you say the 1-50 keeps people playing to get a rank better. Then you say because Reach does a better job at making people keep playing, it's bad and people don't want to play it.

-Terrible maps. The fairness of Arena is all but negated with maps like Sword Base, Uncaged and Reflection in the rotation.That opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with the visual rating system.

-2s tricking. I won't bother explaining but it allows randoms to match against teams of 4.Searches are more lax in Halo: Reach. That should be changed. But it still isn't relevant.

  • 05.07.2012 9:27 AM PDT

I honestly like how Arena works. You have to fight for the top spot, it always changes, and the ranks reset.

It is a dynamic ranking system based on who is playing. That way 1% Onyx is not something everybody can get like a 50 was. It's something meaningful.

  • 05.07.2012 9:27 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3