Matchmaking in General

[Snipeside]

Just about 95% of the community who has reached a 50 in Halo 3 definitely wants the 1 - 50 ranking system back. Anyone below a 50 generally just wants the ranking system to be based off of EXP earned.

 

Anyways...

 

I'd like to see a MUCH harder ranking system that is back breaking. I don't want to be able to hop into multiplayer and achieve a 50 within a matter of few-days game-time. That's just dumb. I think I would like to see a little bit of twist within Halo 4. For example:

 

Your first 15 games are all for fun on any given account.

What does this mean? It basically means that your first 15 games are ONLY for fun and EXP gains. This helps you get a feel for the game and helps the new players greatly. This way people can't complain: "This is my first account and I did pretty bad so I'm stuck at this rank..." /Fail. That shouldn't be the case. 15 Games can make a small but definite difference in your play style. Stats will still be tracked but number ranking will not be valid ONLY for the first 15 games.

 

EXP and Number Rankings

This is a Halo 3 feature that I thought was simply amazing. Earning EXP felt so great and seeing players with high EXP seemed like it was so honored. It still is. I would appreciate the +1 EXP Included with a game played and won. This (like Halo 3) effects your "Title Rank" as well.

 

So as you can see, I just want Halo 3 ranking system to come back. What are your thoughts on my personal ideas?

[Funnymann]

Halo 3 ranking system? No.

Halo 2 ranking system? Yes.

 

True Skill is flawed and bases skill off of team skill, not individual skill whereas a modified version of Halo 2's ranking system, which, to my knowledge, worked off of a hidden exp system that allowed for increases and decreases of exp is more based on individual skill and has influence from team skill. Simple explanation is as such:

 

Player 1 is on the losing team but carries his team to the end. He loses a match of 4v4 Slayer, but has a great k/d and has more than half of his team's kills. Now, is it fair that he should be put at less of a chance of ranking up and that it should be made harder for him to rank up because of bad teammates (Trueskill)? Or should he still gain a large sum of exp (Not exp like in Reach.) for his work, but gain less than what he should have if he had won?

 

Along with this, Player 2 played terribly, but was lucky to be on the team with three of his friends who are all pretty decent. He has a negative k/d, barely any kills and brought the team down. Is it fair that he gets exp over Player just because his team won (Trueskill)? Or should he lose a sum of exp but less than what he would've lost than if he had been on the losing team?

 

Trueskill is flawed. It is terrible.

 

Note: My understanding of Halo 2's ranking system may not be what it actually operates as. Regardless, my point still stands. Trueskill is grossly flawed and I would greatly prefer it does not return.

[Spectral Jester]

Rank / Exp / cR should be based off of player performance nothing more nothing less how hard can that be?

[Mr Biggles]

Halo 2 ranking system, except HARDER.

 

nuff said.

[Snipeside]

Halo 2 ranking system, except HARDER.

 

nuff said.

That's exactly what I am saying. It takes most of the elements from Halo 3 though.

[Sarge]

ranking system should be based on everything except halo reach xp ranking system takes NO Skill just time devotion. Otherwise in halo 3 the true skill ranking system shown brightly how good you really are.

[Sarge]

following with my post above No skill is a "bad" way to put it and in noway mean't to anger inheritors extra I'm sure some people are really good but other just do a campaign glitches etc. Bring back true skill

[Planet Etrius]

Halo 3 ranking system? No.

Halo 2 ranking system? Yes.

 

True Skill is flawed and bases skill off of team skill, not individual skill whereas a modified version of Halo 2's ranking system, which, to my knowledge, worked off of a hidden exp system that allowed for increases and decreases of exp is more based on individual skill and has influence from team skill. Simple explanation is as such:

 

Player 1 is on the losing team but carries his team to the end. He loses a match of 4v4 Slayer, but has a great k/d and has more than half of his team's kills. Now, is it fair that he should be put at less of a chance of ranking up and that it should be made harder for him to rank up because of bad teammates (Trueskill)? Or should he still gain a large sum of exp (Not exp like in Reach.) for his work, but gain less than what he should have if he had won?

 

Along with this, Player 2 played terribly, but was lucky to be on the team with three of his friends who are all pretty decent. He has a negative k/d, barely any kills and brought the team down. Is it fair that he gets exp over Player just because his team won (Trueskill)? Or should he lose a sum of exp but less than what he would've lost than if he had been on the losing team?

 

Trueskill is flawed. It is terrible.

 

Note: My understanding of Halo 2's ranking system may not be what it actually operates as. Regardless, my point still stands. Trueskill is grossly flawed and I would greatly prefer it does not return.

 

Well now I know why no one replied to my last thread. I really didn't mind any changes to Halo Reach and I still don't really. I still only generically know how the ranking system has changed. I never really looked into it too much. I'm not compettitive sabby.