- gamertag: Kashyy
- user homepage:
Posted by: What Is This1
Posted by: Kashyy
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.
Again we go back to your misunderstanding of the system. It was more than just a simple win loss system that was what Halo 2's essentially was. Halo 3's on the other hand factored in the other team's ranks along with your win/loss ratio. It assigned each team a value that determined whether or not one team was more likely to win than the other team. If you beat a team you were suppose to lose you would increase your rank faster. That is why derankers were very common it help it make your team look like it should lose more than the other team. Then there is the issue of rank over time can be "locked" if you were to lose/win around a certain rank for a certain amount of time. This would make it so some people would need something on the order of 15+ wins in a row to rank up and if they were to lose once go down. You clearly misunderstand how complicated and inaccurate of a system it truly was. As for Reach's system even that doesn't measure skill all that well since it promotes kill "stealing" and things like waiting for teammate to die in order to get his kill. If anything the win/loss system is better at determining team skill since Halo is a team based game.
Before you try to come up with another remark. Please take the time to look back and see if I mentioned Halo 2/3 1-50 system in any of my posts. This discussion is over. This is why you need to read over what people type before you type.