Herodanny Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 In my opinion the halo 2 ranking system was closest to right. It was a little too hard to rank up but it gave it such a competitive edge. Halo 3 was too easy to rank up and people would boost and sell 50's to people who didnt deserve them. I hope they bring the 1-50 system back but yet keep the cR system as well. Im tired of getting matched up with pros one game then scrubs the next in Halo Reach. And for God's sake bring the BR back! What's your thoughts? I made a thread about this not too long ago, I think anybody with a brain would have to say that halo 2 had the best and most fair ranking system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Your Restrain Posted December 29, 2011 Report Share Posted December 29, 2011 I made a thread about this not too long ago, I think anybody with a brain would have to say that halo 2 had the best and most fair ranking system. You really can't generalize everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion. It makes you look like an idiot tbh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SixWaysToSunday Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 I feel like you need reachs experience system for casual players and H2 or H3 ranking systems for competitive players. Its in my post: http://www.343industries.org/forum/topic/5107-a-complete-personal-wishlist/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shookum33 Posted March 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 I feel like you need reachs experience system for casual players and H2 or H3 ranking systems for competitive players. Its in my post: http://www.343indust...sonal-wishlist/ Well i though that was the point of social...maybe H4 should just completely separate the xp with social and ranking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
properpro4 Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Halo 2 Ranking system was pretty much perfect. All it needed were rank titles for those skill figures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skittlze Posted March 6, 2012 Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 Halo 2 ranking system was the best. It was about how good you were at halo instead of how much you played It was hard to get a high rank but the ranks should be distributed on a curve and that's something halo 2 did right. What's the point of a ranking system if ranking up is easy? I'm not saying credits or exp are bad but they shouldn't be used as a main ranking system. This encourages exp farming which also ruins games. I'd rather play with somebody who will get banned for hacking then somebody who can farm as much exp as they want Credits are fine for upgrading armor but halo is about winning that's why there are points. Winning should be what gets judged not how much you play. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Techno Weedman Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 well number 1 i want my BR not DMR and if there were no ranks at all id see myself getting extremly bored fast since i AM a competitive gamer, you have to remember a VERY large part of the halo community are competitive, i mean halo put competitve gaming on consoles permantly on the map, to me this would be a slap in the face and dissapointment to see what started it all for me and others to go down the dark path... Totally agree i like to play competitively and no ranks would just be boring and well not halo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carts Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 The only reason I think Halo 2 was so hard to rank up was because XBL and the original xbox had a very difficult time containing all the cheating (Modding, Stand-by, Bridging). Once you got to the 30`s it seemed like every other game had cheaters. I only played few times against people that obviously earned their levels (40+). If they bring back that system, I dont think people would have too much of an issue, and the skill matching would be way better then Halo 3 (Way too easy leveling system). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shookum33 Posted April 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 I don't want to assume what halo will be like this early but i do know that what gave halo it's name was the ranking system/competitiveness.If they take this away then they are duplicating reach and should expect to lose more halo fans and essentially money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XBLuke Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 If the ranking system isn't like the 1-50 skill system, then I might sell my Xbox. I don't feel motivated to go on it any more as I no incentive to win. Also, I thought Microsoft would want the 1-50 skill system as they probably got a ton of money from people buying Xbox live for a second account Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Meta Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 In my opinion the halo 2 ranking system was closest to right. It was a little too hard to rank up but it gave it such a competitive edge. Halo 3 was too easy to rank up and people would boost and sell 50's to people who didnt deserve them. I hope they bring the 1-50 system back but yet keep the cR system as well. Im tired of getting matched up with pros one game then scrubs the next in Halo Reach. And for God's sake bring the BR back! What's your thoughts? EDIT: Now that some details about multiplayer has been released, I'm scared that a ranking system will be difficult to implement. I hope they separate playlists like h3 (social and competitive) so they can add these changes to social but leave competitive alone to give it the "Halo feel". In game progress joins could not be ranked. I found a good video of someone(halo reach pro) explaining the ranking system in all aspects. He makes and recognizes key points. In my opinion the halo 2 ranking system was closest to right. It was a little too hard to rank up but it gave it such a competitive edge. Halo 3 was too easy to rank up and people would boost and sell 50's to people who didnt deserve them. I hope they bring the 1-50 system back but yet keep the cR system as well. Im tired of getting matched up with pros one game then scrubs the next in Halo Reach. And for God's sake bring the BR back! What's your thoughts? EDIT: Now that some details about multiplayer has been released, I'm scared that a ranking system will be difficult to implement. I hope they separate playlists like h3 (social and competitive) so they can add these changes to social but leave competitive alone to give it the "Halo feel". In game progress joins could not be ranked. I found a good video of someone(halo reach pro) explaining the ranking system in all aspects. He makes and recognizes key points. Well, it may be a lot like CoD's ranks considering the armor improves you, and you collect spartan points (Game Informer before you complain) for ever being a distraction for a kill, the 1-50 couldn't work because the spartan points, as much as i don't like CoD or BF, there ranking would be a nice adition to the world conquering Halo Universe. Well i'm hoping it just runs on the Spartan points, but if it requires a certain performance in a certain amount of games to rank up, while you do not de-rank that would be the best, Almost everyone here plays Reach (If you don't why are you here?) and sometimes you go into matches with people that plain out don't know what they're doing (Team Killing, Taking down your shields so you die, tea-bagging kills) those people along with many more like that will be on Halo 4, so do you really want to be teamed up with people like that? Being the top rank then at a fast speed climb down even more? Halo 2 it was to hard to rank up (While it was the most classic Halo and the funnest) Halo 3 like mentioned had boosters and people who sold there 50's, Reach you ranked up with time, the Inheritors on Reach are the real Halo fans (While many are extreamly rude) because they play to play, what do you get out of playing Reach? Nothing but a good time, armor is worthless besides looks, so why do so many people play it then? They play it for the fun of Halo. In the latest edition of Game Informer, it explains "You're going to start off as a recruit, and proceed through the ranks, as you rank up you'll unlock more abilities. You gain Spartan points, which you can use to purchase items to put in your loadouts. You can construct these loadouts around your preferred playstyle." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fzdw11 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Wow, old thread is old. Anyways, I've posted this a few times over the past 2 weeks or so, and I still think it's a valid point. Feel free to tell me why it's not, or why it wouldn't be better. Halo 2's ranking and Halo 3's ranking were both flawed. Reach's ranking is flawed even more. No sort of ranking system should be based soley on wins, and no form of ranking system should be based on simply how much you play. A good ranking system would combine Wins, along with other items. K/D or KA/D for example, as well as objective based items (such as flag captures, Oddball Time, KotH time, etc). While winning alone is not enough (I could be a terrible player, but play with 3 awesome players that win the game for me every time, do I deserve a high rank?), basing it on what Reach did by "just playing" was definitely the wrong way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Biggles Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Wow, old thread is old. Anyways, I've posted this a few times over the past 2 weeks or so, and I still think it's a valid point. Feel free to tell me why it's not, or why it wouldn't be better. Halo 2's ranking and Halo 3's ranking were both flawed. Reach's ranking is flawed even more. No sort of ranking system should be based soley on wins, and no form of ranking system should be based on simply how much you play. A good ranking system would combine Wins, along with other items. K/D or KA/D for example, as well as objective based items (such as flag captures, Oddball Time, KotH time, etc). While winning alone is not enough (I could be a terrible player, but play with 3 awesome players that win the game for me every time, do I deserve a high rank?), basing it on what Reach did by "just playing" was definitely the wrong way to go. I say this loads and say it again. Use the Starcraft 2 system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fzdw11 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 I say this loads and say it again. Use the Starcraft 2 system. I never really got into the Starcraft 2 ranking system, only ever just played with friends, so I'm not sure how it would work in a Halo setting. I know it's set up in Divisions, but how they are decided, I don't know. Could you elaborate more, Mr. Biggles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ccup-mann Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 For me, halo 2 had the best ranking system, it was beast. Reach was, not so good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamio Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 A mix between 3 and Reach would be awesome. You get credits for playing games but you only rank up if you had skill in it. So If you got higher kills than deaths, you then get EXP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fzdw11 Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 A mix between 3 and Reach would be awesome. You get credits for playing games but you only rank up if you had skill in it. So If you got higher kills than deaths, you then get EXP. But there is more to games than just K/D. What about objective based games? Shouldn't you be awarded for completing the objective? Wins should still be incorporated as well. I could lose every game I play, be the only member of my team with a positive K/D, and still rank up. I use the same argument in reverse, as well. I could be terrible, but the other members of my team are great, and we win a lot, so I rank up even though I did poor. Definitely agree that it should be a mix between 2, 3 & Reach, but finding the right mix is the challenge. The real question though, is what is 343 really thinking about this? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elite jbZzz Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 I want the halo 3 ranking system back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIocKade Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 I loved both Halo 2 and Halo 3s rank matchmaking system. I prefer 3s a little bit because reaching a 50 in Halo 3 was more obtainable than in Halo 2 in which it was virtually impossible without cheating. I definitely don't want a repeat of Halo: Reach - that type of matchmaking system is awful because it rewards you based on how much you play, not how good you are, hence a no-talent matchmaking system. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxBEASTLYBOYZxx Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Halo 3 system. The 343industries.org ranking system is better than the Halo Reach one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomakazi Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Halo 2. Halo 3 was way too easy to rank up. In Halo 2, I got a 37 and was damn proud of it. Anybody who was above like a 42(who got it legit) were extremely talented. Halo 3 on the other hand i got 50's in 4 playlists as well as being high 40's in the others..it was just too easy to rank up. As someone said before, some kids with 50's could be amazing while others could be awful. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIocKade Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 Halo 2. Halo 3 was way too easy to rank up. In Halo 2, I got a 37 and was damn proud of it. Anybody who was above like a 42(who got it legit) were extremely talented. Halo 3 on the other hand i got 50's in 4 playlists as well as being high 40's in the others..it was just too easy to rank up. As someone said before, some kids with 50's could be amazing while others could be awful. The only awful 50s were people who bought them/ got boosted to them. The highest rank SHOULD be achievable but to a fairly small amount of people (i.e. maybe 5~10%), something h3 accomplished well. There was pretty much no way of reaching the max level in halo 2 - hell, if you were above a 30 you were an excellent player; my point being, shouldn't excellent players be able to reach level cap? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIocKade Posted April 11, 2012 Report Share Posted April 11, 2012 With that being said though, I'd still 1000 times prefer the halo 2 rank system over a halo reach style, so I'm not necesserily disagreeing lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shookum33 Posted April 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 Well, it may be a lot like CoD's ranks considering the armor improves you, and you collect spartan points (Game Informer before you complain) for ever being a distraction for a kill, the 1-50 couldn't work because the spartan points, as much as i don't like CoD or BF, there ranking would be a nice adition to the world conquering Halo Universe. Well i'm hoping it just runs on the Spartan points, but if it requires a certain performance in a certain amount of games to rank up, while you do not de-rank that would be the best, Almost everyone here plays Reach (If you don't why are you here?) and sometimes you go into matches with people that plain out don't know what they're doing (Team Killing, Taking down your shields so you die, tea-bagging kills) those people along with many more like that will be on Halo 4, so do you really want to be teamed up with people like that? Being the top rank then at a fast speed climb down even more? Halo 2 it was to hard to rank up (While it was the most classic Halo and the funnest) Halo 3 like mentioned had boosters and people who sold there 50's, Reach you ranked up with time, the Inheritors on Reach are the real Halo fans (While many are extreamly rude) because they play to play, what do you get out of playing Reach? Nothing but a good time, armor is worthless besides looks, so why do so many people play it then? They play it for the fun of Halo. In the latest edition of Game Informer, it explains "You're going to start off as a recruit, and proceed through the ranks, as you rank up you'll unlock more abilities. You gain Spartan points, which you can use to purchase items to put in your loadouts. You can construct these loadouts around your preferred playstyle." So many people don't play it. I don't know the exact numbers but im pretty sure that there's only like 100,000 playing at one time. It has less people than any other halo game by a large margin(not presently, but comparably for each game's time period). If they want to make a game that fun to play just to play, then they are going about it all wrong because then there is no way they are going to compete with cod or better yet bf3. People who want to have a "cod" experience can just go play cod. IMO what makes a game fun is a game that's competitive. But if i had a couple of drinks and wanted to get on a game with friends, my first choice wouldn't be halo, no matter how noob friendly it is. They aren't going to get cod players to convert unless they were previously halo players because a new cod comes out every year and they will go buy and play that. So i guess the 100,000 people (or so(not sure)) that still play(besides halo pros), play it for the fun; and the millions that stopped playing played for different reasons(competitiveness, the "halo" feel, weapons,ranking,w/e). Recognition is the best motivation.I agree with pretty much everything else you said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shookum33 Posted April 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2012 I say this loads and say it again. Use the Starcraft 2 system. i dont play star craft. would u mind elaborating? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.