Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Will there ever be a new IP FPS that uses the 1-50 or similar system?
  • Subject: Will there ever be a new IP FPS that uses the 1-50 or similar system?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Will there ever be a new IP FPS that uses the 1-50 or similar system?
  • gamertag: Kashyy
  • user homepage:

I for one is sick and tired of playing these current FPS's with their single social playlist.

[Edited on 12.31.2012 12:50 AM PST]

  • 12.31.2012 12:49 AM PDT

Posted by: Timtaztix
yeah this reminds me of the time i got sent to jail for stealing crocs from target becozs i wanted all of the colors because i only got the green wons for my birthday and i wanted more ;)

Maybe.

  • 12.31.2012 12:51 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Kashyy
  • user homepage:

I'm looking at you Bungie.

  • 12.31.2012 12:53 AM PDT

SantasRevenge is bad


Posted by: Kashyy
I'm looking at you Bungie.

  • 12.31.2012 12:55 AM PDT

Fellow Floodian:
Posted by: Oh This Dude
I had a very similar thing, only I threw a 14 story building out of a pool and hit a kid on a paper aeroplane.


The Flood is just this awesome :D

Because 1-50 was a stupid system that promoted account buying and didn't help at all for people who improved over time because they were screwed by their losses when they started playing.

  • 12.31.2012 12:57 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Perhaps you should be looking elsewhere for a competitive first-person shooter OP. Elsewhere meaning, not consoles. Thumbsticks have always been a joke to the FPS world. One of the best competitive FPSs around is Quake - Quake Live is free. It has dedicated servers, more customization than you can poke a stick at, a ranking system with 5 tiers (skill rating [rank] goes from 0 to 999) - there's also an external ranking system called QLRanks that uses Elo, and weekly cups. What more do you want?

  • 12.31.2012 1:00 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Kashyy
  • user homepage:


Posted by: shadowknight566
Because 1-50 was a stupid system that promoted account buying and didn't help at all for people who improved over time because they were screwed by their losses when they started playing.


I'm getting real sick of that annoying excuse I see from people like you. Who cares if people sell the accounts IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU. Who cares if they boost to reach 50 IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU. The system did what it did. You win games you rank up, you lose games you rank down. It paired you up with people with similar skill and the winning incentive to win, matches were enjoyable to play and most of all it gave you a reason to play. If you don't like it, DON'T PLAY IT. This thread was not made for people like you to -blam!- on how "flawed" it was.

  • 12.31.2012 1:05 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Kashyy
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Quharke
Perhaps you should be looking elsewhere for a competitive first-person shooter OP. Elsewhere meaning, not consoles. Thumbsticks have always been a joke to the FPS world. One of the best competitive FPSs around is Quake - Quake Live is free. It has dedicated servers, more customization than you can poke a stick at, a ranking system with 5 tiers (skill rating [rank] goes from 0 to 999) - there's also an external ranking system called QLRanks that uses Elo, and weekly cups. What more do you want?


I was never a fan of PC, never struck out to me. I grew up on console FPS's; specifically Halo.

[Edited on 12.31.2012 1:07 AM PST]

  • 12.31.2012 1:07 AM PDT

Posted by: kikashi hatake
I don't understand oral at all. I will never do that it is so nasty! And doing things in woods sounds scary.

Posted by: Kashyy
Who cares if people sell the accounts IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU.
Posted by: Kashyy
It paired you up with people with similar skill

  • 12.31.2012 1:10 AM PDT

Assuming you mean the trueskill system in Halo 3. I doubt it most games go with more of a casual exp based rank system since it makes a lot of people "feel" at the game since they assume higher rank means they are better at the game. As for the actual system it did have a lot of issues the main ones being rank often didn't represent skill considering you could be boosted. Then you had a real problem with skill distribution in how there was a lot of variation between 50's in terms of skill. If anything I think the Halo 2 system did a better job in those aspects.

  • 12.31.2012 1:14 AM PDT

Fellow Floodian:
Posted by: Oh This Dude
I had a very similar thing, only I threw a 14 story building out of a pool and hit a kid on a paper aeroplane.


The Flood is just this awesome :D


Posted by: Kashyy

Posted by: shadowknight566
Because 1-50 was a stupid system that promoted account buying and didn't help at all for people who improved over time because they were screwed by their losses when they started playing.


I'm getting real sick of that annoying excuse I see from people like you. Who cares if people sell the accounts IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU. Who cares if they boost to reach 50 IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU. The system did what it did. You win games you rank up, you lose games you rank down. It paired you up with people with similar skill and the winning incentive to win, matches were enjoyable to play and most of all it gave you a reason to play. If you don't like it, DON'T PLAY IT. This thread was not made for people like you to -blam!- on how "flawed" it was.


Actually, it does affect me. If I'm a 50 and I was paired with a 10 year old child who bought an account that was a 50, then he could cause me to lose. 1-50 was a terrible system, simple as that. Account buying and making new accounts just to destroy newbs was what ruined it.

  • 12.31.2012 1:16 AM PDT

If I ever see anyone post in a thread "That's your opinion", I immediately lose all respect for them.

Also, if you're discussing a topic with me and you resort to name calling, pull "life checks", or just call anything you don't agree with retarded without giving legitimate reasons, don't expect me to take you serious in anyway what so ever.

For shooters I doubt it. Other genres out there still have ranking systems.

  • 12.31.2012 1:17 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Kashyy
  • user homepage:


Posted by: shadowknight566

Posted by: Kashyy

Posted by: shadowknight566
Because 1-50 was a stupid system that promoted account buying and didn't help at all for people who improved over time because they were screwed by their losses when they started playing.


I'm getting real sick of that annoying excuse I see from people like you. Who cares if people sell the accounts IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU. Who cares if they boost to reach 50 IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU. The system did what it did. You win games you rank up, you lose games you rank down. It paired you up with people with similar skill and the winning incentive to win, matches were enjoyable to play and most of all it gave you a reason to play. If you don't like it, DON'T PLAY IT. This thread was not made for people like you to -blam!- on how "flawed" it was.


Actually, it does affect me. If I'm a 50 and I was paired with a 10 year old child who bought an account that was a 50, then he could cause me to lose. 1-50 was a terrible system, simple as that. Account buying and making new accounts just to destroy newbs was what ruined it.


You act like the higher ranking you were, the more 10 year old kids you pair up with. Shut up, I was a 45 in Halo 3 and I never met up with a "10 year old that bought an account" my brother is a 50 and NEVER ran into the people you're describing. Stop trying to back up your statement. And like I previously stated... if you don't like the 1-50 system, don't play it. The social playlist is available to you. The game doesn't force you to play ranked.

[Edited on 12.31.2012 1:25 AM PST]

  • 12.31.2012 1:24 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

Yeah... I'm that cool.
Robot Academy. Kinda sorta the best group on here.

1-50 was far from the best ranking system in FPS games.

  • 12.31.2012 1:26 AM PDT


Posted by: Kashyy
You act like the higher ranking you were, the more 10 year old kids you pair up with. Shut up, I was a 45 in Halo 3 and I never met up with a "10 year old that bought an account" my brother is a 50 and NEVER ran into the people you're describing. Stop trying to back up your statement. And like I previously stated... if you don't like the 1-50 system, don't play it. The social playlist is available to you. The game doesn't force you to play ranked.

*Looks up stats.*

That's because you were a -blam!- 45 and you probably weren't able to tell the difference between a bought and a legit account. What he said is right bought account do negatively affect the game. You could easily tell the difference between a fake 50 and a legit one.

  • 12.31.2012 1:28 AM PDT

SantasRevenge is bad

1-50 did the job...

also the bought 50s never played on their 50s anyway lol

  • 12.31.2012 1:32 AM PDT


Posted by: Pigeon bombs
1-50 did the job...

also the bought 50s never played on their 50s anyway lol

Most of them didn't, but occasionally one would and would most likely lose it.

  • 12.31.2012 1:34 AM PDT

1-50 was HEAVILY flawed.

Go ahead and look at my service record. This wasn't my main account in terms of Halo 3.

1-50 promoted the buying of accounts. Which made Xbox a laughing stock. Not to mention how you could boost in almost every playlist with ease. Not to mention if you're on a massive winning streak the game locks your progression. Let's look at how you actually rank up. It's based on winning or losing. What if you're paired up with randoms? What if you go 21-2 and you still lose? You could actually derank!

Deranking was also a major problem. People play bad on purpose in order to derank! The majority of people sat on their same rank for long durations of time. 1-50 was always broken. I can't fathom how people respected such a flawed system.

  • 12.31.2012 1:36 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Kashyy
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Pigeon bombs
1-50 did the job...

also the bought 50s never played on their 50s anyway lol


THANK YOU. FINALLY SOMEONE WITH A BRAIN.

  • 12.31.2012 1:37 AM PDT

SantasRevenge is bad


Posted by: What Is This1

Posted by: Pigeon bombs
1-50 did the job...

also the bought 50s never played on their 50s anyway lol

Most of them didn't, but occasionally one would and would most likely lose it.
that's like 1 in 100,000 games and even then if you were good you would have carried anyway...

I could never really tell who was a real 50 and who wasn't because the skill gap of everyone who was 50 was so vast

  • 12.31.2012 1:42 AM PDT


Posted by: Pigeon bombs
that's like 1 in 100,000 games and even then if you were good you would have carried anyway...

I could never really tell who was a real 50 and who wasn't because the skill gap of everyone who was 50 was so vast

Hence the other issue with the skill system. There wasn't enough skill distribution in the lower ranks like there was in Halo 2. Really 2's system was much better than trueskill.

  • 12.31.2012 1:45 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Kashyy
  • user homepage:

Pigeon Bombs, there's no point in arguing with them. They're obviously missing the bigger picture.

  • 12.31.2012 1:45 AM PDT


Posted by: Kashyy
Pigeon Bombs, there's no point in arguing with them. They're obviously missing the bigger picture.

What is the bigger picture. If you have a system that is suppose to accurately measure ones skill and can't even do that properly then what is the point in having it? Halo 3's trueskill system was easily exploited in many ways and made it so a lot more players were in the upper ranks than lower ranks. If you can't even see that they you were garbage at the game and/or didn't understand the system. If you want at least a decent 1-50 rank system go with Halo 2's were rank mattered far more.

  • 12.31.2012 1:49 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Kashyy
  • user homepage:

I'm not even going to explain myself once more. I as well as Pigeon Bombs explained the importance of the 1-50. And to point out something since you're too dumb to realize... 1-50 never measured "skill" it was a win/loss ratio system. The arena based rating in Reach measured skill.

[Edited on 12.31.2012 1:59 AM PST]

  • 12.31.2012 1:58 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Intrepid Mythic Member
  • gamertag: P3P5I
  • user homepage:

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

The need for an accurate ranking system is important, but 1-50 is not the perfect system and definitely needs tweaks, like uncapping the highest rank so you don't have players of various skill levels all assigned a "50". It'd be better to just take out the 1-50 ranks and show players their actual Trueskill numbers (it's 1-2000+ or something).

League of Legends' ELO system is pretty good at catering to the highest ranks.

  • 12.31.2012 2:05 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2