The "Official" What do you want in the Halo 4 Ranking system.

[SPARTAN 117]

i hated ranking down and having to play ranked matches to level up...

[M a x w e l l]

I was hoping we could both find some common ground. I like you restrain, you show a good understanding of the MLG side of gameplay and do respect and acknowlegde us casual gamers. very few of you around I tip my hat to you. I look forward to futher debates about these things. And btw, welcome to the site bro! You should introduce yourself to the gang in the Introductions thread if you havent already.

 

Your statements are ridiculious please go and post on a forum related to call of duty, Seriously you must be one of those guys who played halo and sucked at it than played call of duty and loved how you ranked up constantly and consistently. Just because you're bad at the game doesn't mean you can give rash statements that have no true value in this forum "nuff said" bro.

[CandiBunni]

Your statements are ridiculious please go and post on a forum related to call of duty, Seriously you must be one of those guys who played halo and sucked at it than played call of duty and loved how you ranked up constantly and consistently. Just because you're bad at the game doesn't mean you can give rash statements that have no true value in this forum "nuff said" bro.

 

Um, excuse me? Twinreaper knows exactly what he's talking about. Since you apparently know more than he does, please explain how his statements are of no true value and why they're ridiculous. Don't assume that just because you don't understand what he says or don't agree with him that he must be some COD fanboy and just loves how he can "rank up constantly and consistently." You know nothing about him, what he plays, what he enjoys, or how long he's been playing Halo, so please don't try to judge him like you do. He's a well respected member of this community and has an extensive knowledge of how the Halo engine(s) work. I think it's safe to assume he knows far more than you do about Halo.

[M a x w e l l]

So according to you I can't judge like he judged me? He calls me an idiot because I supposively know nothing about a how halo 3's matchmaking system works when I have most likely played more games of halo 3 than him and know how people rank up and rank down through personal experience so I can give a valid point. Also I'm not doubting his knowledge in the halo engine, In my post I stated how unfair the halo 3 ranking system was and how the halo 2 system is much better but according to him halo reach is much better. In my aspect halo reach's ranking system was a joke you can rank up no matter what and he enjoys that because he is most likely a casual but for the others who rather work for their skill they support a halo 2 and halo 3 ranking system because it shows more skill when you're a higher level and can prove it in game.

[CandiBunni]

So according to you I can't judge like he judged me? He calls me an idiot because I supposively know nothing about a how halo 3's matchmaking system works when I can most likely estimate that I've played more halo 3 matches than him which therefore I have more experience and can give a valued point. Also I'm not doubting his knowledge in the halo engine, In my post I stated how unfair the halo 3 ranking system was and how the halo 2 system is much better but according to him halo reach is much better. In my aspect halo reach's ranking system was a joke you can rank up no matter what and he enjoys that because he is most likely a casual but for the others who rather work for their skill they support a halo 2 and halo 3 ranking system because it shows more skill when you're a higher level and can prove it in game.

 

You should be a bit more mature and refrain from insulting someone, even if they did so to you. The old saying "two wrongs don't make a right" applies to that, I believe. He stated, from what I've read, that the Halo: Reach system pairs people up together better. Not necessarily that the ranking/leveling system was better. That's what I remember reading, but if he stated otherwise then please quote something from him for me to read up on.

[The Director]

Here is my idea for a ranking system for Halo 4 Multiplayer Matchmaking:

 

Have five playlist categories:

1. Cooperative; Includes cooperative gametypes (firefight, coop campaign)

2. Community; Includes the "fun" gametypes, such as Griffball, Action Sack, Swatguns, Custom Games Playlist (hoping for it), but no MLG (getting to that)

3. Competitive; Includes gametypes such as Team Slayer, FFA, SWAT, and others.

4. Ranked; Includes all gametypes with the exception of those in community and cooperative, and has the MLG playlist.

5. DLC; DLC only playlists, ones that require certain DLC to play, and one that requires all of them to play.

 

Now, the militaristic ranks should be like in Reach, where you earn credits, rank up, and unlock armor (or whatever customizable items there are). The w/l rank ups don't work very well, especially for players who get matched with bad teammates. Now, there should be a 1-50 rank system, or better yet a 1-100, and it should be based off of k/d or BPR (this will require a more strict banhammer, to prevent boosting, but it's doable). You get matched with people who are of a similar numerical rank to you. The higher the rank you are matched with, the more credits you get per kill of that person. For instance, if you were a 50 and your opponents were 50's, you would get less credits than if you were a 100 and your opponents were 100's. If you get 0 kills, you get 0 credits at the end of the match. Deaths also negatively impact your credits as well. Something like .05% of total credits per death, or maybe higher.

 

The only playlist category that numerical ranks will be featured in is Ranked. Other playlists will offer less credits, but will still give you credits so you aren't forced to play the Ranked playlist.

 

That's all I can think of right now, but I think this way is best because:

1. It will make people who like the current rank system happy, but will also give MLG back their precious numbers.

2. It will make afking obsolete.

3. People will still be able to get customizable armor, for those that want it.

4. Halo will become more competitive again, while still having newb friendly fun for those who just want to play (depending on the game settings, of course).

 

If you would like to expand on this idea, feel free to.

^^^ If your post doesn't look like this then don't post it, unless you are giving props to someone who is actually contributing to the topic. There are 6 pages in this thread and MAYBE 8 ideas. Knock off the off topic crap, that belongs in GD or PM or the shoutbox, not in this thread.

[VeteranOND]

Halo 2s ranking system was the best, IMO, flawed in ways, but still the best. Having a number next to your GT instills a level of competitveness that other Halo games lacked. Granted I hated reaching my level 37 and working on 38 just to ge matched with players that obviously weren't at that level, losing, and therefore bringing my level down with them. It should have a mix of important Halo data. As TechGuru explained in earlier posts, something like this:

 

SLAYER

 

1. Hit/Miss ratio (determining which weapon was used; a headshot with a sniper would have more weight than a kill from a rocket or shotgun. Conversely, a miss with a sniper would have less weight than a miss with a rocket or shotgun.)

 

2. Assists (this is an enormously underrated stat. I might not have the most kills but if I help my teammate achieve the kill, I deserve something.)

 

3. Headshots/Body shots when enemy has no shields. (if I aim at the head once and get a kill, it has more weight than hitting the body 2 or 3 three times before finally connecting with the head or killing the opponent without a headshot.)

 

4. Win/Loss ratio (this should be last given the matchmaking and liklihood of getting matched with people that aren't as skilled, boosted, or don't have mics and can't communicate, etc.)

 

 

OBJECTIVE

 

1. Time on objective (player in the Hill or holding a Ball)

 

2. Hit/Miss ratio as above.

 

3. Assists as above.

 

4. Time on objective/ K/D ratio (if I have a higher K/D ratio but with little or no ball time, I was support player. However, a lower K/D with lots of time on objective would give equal points. If I pull off both, lots of Time on Objective and a high K/D, I would get double the value.

 

5. Objectives completed (capturing a flag, or planting a bomb)

 

 

With this said, RANKED playlist should be worth both XP for rank based on above projections, and credits strictly for purchasing armor customizations. SOCIAL playlists would only be worth credits towards unlocking armor permutations.

[Herodanny]

Only problem I have with a hit/miss ratio is that it is waay to inconsistent to affect true rank, I think it would be a cool feature to add into a player profile. Kind of like how reach has a service record and you can check K/D W/L maybe have that with a Hit/miss.

 

However, I think that it would be best to stick to a simple. Win rank up. Lose rank down. Simple simple simple. No more complicated unpredictable formula's (like halo 3s) and no more stupid COD reward system (cr in halo reach).

 

Do NOT under estimate the beauty of simplicity. Simple = better.

[Skittlze]

wins and looses should determine ranks.

[Destroyaaa]

Halo 2s ranking system was the best, IMO, flawed in ways, but still the best. Having a number next to your GT instills a level of competitveness that other Halo games lacked. Granted I hated reaching my level 37 and working on 38 just to ge matched with players that obviously weren't at that level, losing, and therefore bringing my level down with them. It should have a mix of important Halo data. As TechGuru explained in earlier posts, something like this:

 

SLAYER

 

1. Hit/Miss ratio (determining which weapon was used; a headshot with a sniper would have more weight than a kill from a rocket or shotgun. Conversely, a miss with a sniper would have less weight than a miss with a rocket or shotgun.)

 

2. Assists (this is an enormously underrated stat. I might not have the most kills but if I help my teammate achieve the kill, I deserve something.)

 

3. Headshots/Body shots when enemy has no shields. (if I aim at the head once and get a kill, it has more weight than hitting the body 2 or 3 three times before finally connecting with the head or killing the opponent without a headshot.)

 

4. Win/Loss ratio (this should be last given the matchmaking and liklihood of getting matched with people that aren't as skilled, boosted, or don't have mics and can't communicate, etc.)

 

 

OBJECTIVE

 

1. Time on objective (player in the Hill or holding a Ball)

 

2. Hit/Miss ratio as above.

 

3. Assists as above.

 

4. Time on objective/ K/D ratio (if I have a higher K/D ratio but with little or no ball time, I was support player. However, a lower K/D with lots of time on objective would give equal points. If I pull off both, lots of Time on Objective and a high K/D, I would get double the value.

 

5. Objectives completed (capturing a flag, or planting a bomb)

 

 

With this said, RANKED playlist should be worth both XP for rank based on above projections, and credits strictly for purchasing armor customizations. SOCIAL playlists would only be worth credits towards unlocking armor permutations.

 

 

 

 

Look I agree Halo 2 was the best ranking system, but by promoting Objective time and K/D, and pretty much anything but wins, your going to lose teamwork in the process. Winning is the most important statistic in Halo. If I want to get my K/D up I play Call of Duty, where wins mean nothing. The last thing I want to do is turn Halo into Call of duty. Nobody cares if you lose a game in Call of duty, but everyone cares if you lose a game of Halo, and I dont think its wise to lose that quality.

[Twinreaper]

The main problem with focusing on wins so much, is that not everyone will.contribute to the win. Say you have a well ranked player on your team and you are in a game of assault. The guy cant play for crap and gets killed every twonseconds and cant defend for ****. So by everyones reasoning....if his team won....he deserved the win points and to.rank up....versus people on the opposing team who played better than him and ranked down....simpky because they lost. How in any way or reasoning is that fair. Hell you couls have afk people in a team who hide and take a smoke.break....and simply because their team wins in the end...they get to rank up? Soundsblike a load of ****. Wins should get counted....but you should only get major.points for the win if youbactually contribute heavily via personalbstats for the match.

[Destroyaaa]

The main problem with focusing on wins so much, is that not everyone will.contribute to the win. Say you have a well ranked player on your team and you are in a game of assault. The guy cant play for crap and gets killed every twonseconds and cant defend for ****. So by everyones reasoning....if his team won....he deserved the win points and to.rank up....versus people on the opposing team who played better than him and ranked down....simpky because they lost. How in any way or reasoning is that fair. Hell you couls have afk people in a team who hide and take a smoke.break....and simply because their team wins in the end...they get to rank up? Soundsblike a load of ****. Wins should get counted....but you should only get major.points for the win if youbactually contribute heavily via personalbstats for the match.

 

 

Wins should increase your level in the playlist (if it is a ranked playlist) and should be less of a factor for credits. You should also lose XP in ranked playlists for losses. You cannot possibly rank up in a playlist for getting the most time with the oddball. You dont make the playoffs in baseball because you hit the most homeruns but your team couldnt win a lot of games. You win as a team and you lose as a team. If you are complaining that your teammates are bad, find ones that are as good or better than you on XBL to play with. K/D, objective time, and other stats can contribute to how many credits you receive towards your rank. The only thing that should affect your level in a playlist is wins and losses.

[GODSABOMINATION]

Ive been around halo since combat evolved! I dont have anything bad to say about the reach ranking system it makes it fair for everyone to gain exp But i do agree somesthings got to give i feel like the ppl who do well such as assits kills deaths etc etc should be valiable To us who deal with people who doesnt do well i feel like they will keep some of the reach system an implement halo2s system as well

[punk]

There is a youtube vid that claims due to having some inside knowledge that the ranking system will be from 1-100 in H4.....probably bull s&*% but you never know......

 

i want ranking back........but.......they need a way of getting rid of de-rankers in ranked games. i lost count in halo 3 of how many ranked games were played with a player doing nothing......

[Skittlze]

If the ranking system is based on WINS AND LOSSES then those people who dont know what they are doing will get stuck in the lower ranks so by the time you are a level 20 or so you should be starting to get consitent teams. and if the number of wins to rank up or down increases then yes a noob may get lucky and win a few in a row but they will also loose more because if there are 4 people on the other team who deserve their ranks and 3 people and 1 noob on the other team the team with the noob is going to get dragged down. This would stop the noobs from achieving high ranks until they have played enough Halo to deserve them. Basing skill off of a number of wins in a row instead of a combination of every game that has been played since the first time you use a GT forgives the learning period that many newcomers to halo face. The number should be based off of CURRENT SKILL not how you did 2 years ago.

[♠ Spades N AZ ♠]

base the ranking system off of individual accuracy points. Make it a ranked system by gametype. If you enjoy firefight then rank up in firefight. For those of us that enjoy REAL battle like multiplayer then base it off of accuracy and the ability to help out the team. If you get only 5 kills but 12 assists and go neg 4 I personally thinks thats better then someone who gets12 kills and 12 deaths....just saying. We need to encourage the TEAM aspect of TEAM slayer. Betrayals and random sprays that hurt teammates should derank you. instead of the whole team suffering when you betray then only your rank status is affected. That way you don't have "that guy" coming in and killing his own team. Also I can't stand playing with an inheritor who can't hold his own or someone who can't afford a renewed account then starts over and is destroying as a brigadier.

[General PWNFACE]

This forum thread looks to be dead at the moment, but however one thing that no one has mentioned thus far in this discussion is the fact that reach has TWO ranking systems, one being the Cr system and the second being the Arena Ranking system. If any further discussion should result on this thread, I beg of them to please consider the Arena system that almost nobody ever even thinks about. I personally love this system because it does make you go up against people of similar skill, and you slowly get better over time because you are forced to play people of similar skill as yourself, and if you do worse you simply get bumped down to a certain percentage, i.e. Originally being 35% Silver and after going through a losing streak you get knocked down to 50% silver. This not only still keeps you with people of similar skill so you can still improve and eventually earn your rating back, but when you do eventually get better it will bump you up to the next group, with if you go with the original example it would put you in the gold category.

 

The point I'm simply trying to get across is that nobody even considers the Arena ranking system, when it is a decently viable option when considering a solution to finding a good compromise between all the ranking systems. Sure the H2 system seems like the best option, and the H3 system was a pathetic attempt to rank people, however before anymore discussion is held please consider the statements above. Hopefully this stimulates some more conversation in this community, but how should I know, maybe nobody will ever see this message and this point of view will die here

 

Edit: Forgot to mention how quitting effects the ranking and how betrayals make your rating go down, just thought that might help if this ever seriously gets considered by anybody.

[♠ Spades N AZ ♠]

Supressive fire could actually be translated by using the "shots hit" and k/d. Assuming one is of a defensive or supressing nature, their shots hit should be high, as well as their kill count be low and their death count even lower. I think one of the main things that need to happen to sort people of certain style out, is maybe have a feature in the lobby, that allows you to select the right "style" you play with. For example....

 

Lets say you go into the lobby for some CTF. Before hitting the button to begin searching, you are given a tick box in which you can select the following...

 

1. Aggressor (runs and guns into enemy territory for the flag)

2. Defensive End (hangs back at mid to start of map to provide defense against oncoming enemies

3. Wheelman (Great at vehicle driving and providing mobile assists to the team.

4. Strong Silent Type (expert in long range tactical wepaons to provide support)

5. havent got anything, feel free to add.

 

So basically, once you decide on what you want to do for the team, the system would then select players who selected the other catagories, and pair you up on a team. This way you have a full team who knows what they need to do, and have the chance to do it. Everyone wins I think?

 

This is an awesome idea for those who know what gametype they enjoy and know what type of gamers enhance their teamates ability to win.

[Twinreaper]

Wins should increase your level in the playlist (if it is a ranked playlist) and should be less of a factor for credits. You should also lose XP in ranked playlists for losses. You cannot possibly rank up in a playlist for getting the most time with the oddball. You dont make the playoffs in baseball because you hit the most homeruns but your team couldnt win a lot of games. You win as a team and you lose as a team. If you are complaining that your teammates are bad, find ones that are as good or better than you on XBL to play with. K/D, objective time, and other stats can contribute to how many credits you receive towards your rank. The only thing that should affect your level in a playlist is wins and losses.

 

No you don't....but you do however make the All-Star game by personal stats compared to others in your particular position, and whomever is better gets in. That being said, wins vs losses alone is a very sad basis for level. It is far too easy to boost up in level if you play with 3 friends whom are very good or create a party for you to game with. You cannot always control whom is on your team. Again, if my team does poor in CTF, but I excel in it and I capture 3 flags but lose the match....I go down in rank even when I played better than individuals on the opposite team. Again, how is that fair and translate to individual rank....please explain that one.

 

Everyone talks about rank and how one persons rank means they are great...well if it is based on a team perspective, then an individual rank means jack ****.....cause it depends on the entire team....not individuals. SO how does Win/Loss in team objectives counting towards your rank even make sense?

 

 

base the ranking system off of individual accuracy points. Make it a ranked system by gametype. If you enjoy firefight then rank up in firefight. For those of us that enjoy REAL battle like multiplayer then base it off of accuracy and the ability to help out the team. If you get only 5 kills but 12 assists and go neg 4 I personally thinks thats better then someone who gets12 kills and 12 deaths....just saying. We need to encourage the TEAM aspect of TEAM slayer. Betrayals and random sprays that hurt teammates should derank you. instead of the whole team suffering when you betray then only your rank status is affected. That way you don't have "that guy" coming in and killing his own team. Also I can't stand playing with an inheritor who can't hold his own or someone who can't afford a renewed account then starts over and is destroying as a brigadier.

 

I don't like how you just singled out the casual gamer by saying basically we don't do "REAL" battles. I personally could tweak the AI system to a spank you SixWaysToSunday (see what i did there...a shoutout) and you'd be lucky to get 3 kills during the match. DOn't try to tell me playing against waves of AI is not "REAL", or lacks "skill". Get off youir high ******* horse with that ****** lord. That aside, I agree with your view on individual assessments affecting the rank. If all the people who are crying about wanting a true measure of skill really want it, they would support and endorse a standalone player assessment of all areas of their individual gameplay to calculate a rank...not just wins/losses.

 

 

 

I said it before and I will say it again...when ever you go into battle against others albeit Rumbkle Pit or Team objectives, wouldn't you want to face people who have an exact matching of skill levels in all aspects of the game, or face someone whom may not have a mirrored skill level in particular objectives or gametypes? Personally if I play a match of Assault or CTF...I want to play against people who have the same exact or similar amount of individual stats in that gametype as I do....not someone who has the same number but can't defend/assault the flag for ****. Again, something like a selective choice for companions like the one I posted up would be a good way to do it. Select what your good at, and get put on a team needing said choice of skill.

 

In the end, everyone is gonna complain about the ranking system anyway. everybody does it at some point in each game,...and no matter what it will happen with Halo 4. Mark my words...by week 4 of Halo 4 we will have about 20 to 25 hate threads about the H4 Rank System. I've been involved in modding and the Halo Community since the Xbox came out and Halo launched. I know this community well and have seen all varieties of community members.

[Destroyaaa]

No you don't....but you do however make the All-Star game by personal stats compared to others in your particular position, and whomever is better gets in. That being said, wins vs losses alone is a very sad basis for level. It is far too easy to boost up in level if you play with 3 friends whom are very good or create a party for you to game with. You cannot always control whom is on your team. Again, if my team does poor in CTF, but I excel in it and I capture 3 flags but lose the match....I go down in rank even when I played better than individuals on the opposite team. Again, how is that fair and translate to individual rank....please explain that one.

 

Everyone talks about rank and how one persons rank means they are great...well if it is based on a team perspective, then an individual rank means jack ****.....cause it depends on the entire team....not individuals. SO how does Win/Loss in team objectives counting towards your rank even make sense?

 

 

Life, just like Halo, isn't fair. Increasing someones level in a playlist who doesn't win but plays well is something that I cannot agree with. Rewarding them with more credits towards their overall rank is my solution. The idea of making wins and losses important is that it promotes teamwork.

 

Heres an example of why rewarding individual statistics fails.

 

- Lets say you search the MLG playlist alone and you get a 4v4 CTF game. Now capturing the flag will be points, kills, assists, assassinations, headshots, medals, etc.... will all award you points. What is easier in a CTF game? Capture a flag without dying or simply try and kill as many people as possible? Especially in an MLG game, killing people is much easier and you will wind up with more points than the guy whos getting himself killed and ends up capturing 2 flags (unless capturing flags was rewarded with a very high amount of points, which would promote mindless flag running). Where do you draw the line? If your team has 1 goal in mind which is to win then you will use teammwork and communication to have some people killing and others trying to capture the flag, and in a good win your team would end up with around the same amount of points anyways, which should go towards your overall rank and a win to increase your EXP in that playlist.

[Twinreaper]

I can see where you are coming from, but when it comes down to game-types that involve teams, not everyone is and will be a good team player with a full roundabout set of skills. Even if you are able to communicate with your team via a headset...there is no guarantee that any one of your teammates is good at a particular game-type or position in game-type. The problem with overall rank, is it rewards for simply being present on a winning team...even if you did nothing to contribute or actually weighed your team down to an almost loss for the team. And that dead weight should get rewarded for being on the winning team?

 

I am not saying that win/loss shouldn't be counted towards your rank, but it should not have the same weighing effect as it did in Halo 2's very flawed system or even Halo 3's tiny bit better system.

 

On the note of your CTF theory, it would not work as great as it sounds on a post. In the event your theory would hold true, you would get players spamming the game-types simply to get kills, medal and all other varieties of point gaining things...basically anything but flag captures. Since your theory rewards players with points simply for getting those things, even if it isn't helpful at all or tied to the objective at hand, it would create boosters and straight out slayer play. Every single gametype should have it's own set of skills defined in which you are measured for it. Adding things like kills to a gametype or even wins is great...but straight killing would defeat the purpose of teamwork. Assists, flag captures, flag kills, etc should be gametype skill rewards in things like CTF..not just killing anyone you see the whole time.

 

The reason I suggest an individual rank assessment is so that people who do this in CTF games and game-types alike, could not play against people who are truly there for the teamwork and game-type experience. I see it all the time in Halo 2 now...even with a rank system on various websites and in game...people still join just to straight out kill and humiliate the opposition lone wolf style.

 

Rank needs to be based on the entire service performance of the individual..otherwise half the rank someone obtains is not by themselves but with the help of others,.....which logically dictates that you are not as good as the rank number you have. Think about it for a second.... You are in a lobby with someone who has played every day since Halo 4 released. the only type of game-type the player hasn't played at all is Team slayer. This person is not good at killing people but is good at driving, capturing, defense etc.... Should this dead weight of a player be able to join a slayer objective game-type if he cannot kill even 4 people during the match?

 

I can see it already starting before it is even released....people who claim to be such true skill players and hardcore MLG types don't want a real measure of skill based on individual performance...because they have no true skill. They have to rely on a team of players to advance. Real life and sports is not like gaming at all. In real life you have set teams or teams selected on individual performance. No team takes a pitcher at spring training who has no strike outs and gives up hit after hit....so why would a MM lobby want or let that player play even if his rank is equal? Halo does not have set teams that always play against each other, it constantly evolves and changes per match, so you cannot compare the two.

 

That all being said, if someone truly wants to brag about being the best, he would any day of the week, place his individual skill achievements against others....not just his piddly "Oh but I wont 75 out of 80 matches"...cause the truth is YOU DIDN'T WIN ****! Your team did. "No I in Team" ring any bells?

 

At the end of the day when all is said and done, everything you do in-game should reflect your rank or skill number, not just some or certain aspects of the game. Reach did a great job showcasing the various ways in which they could monitor and to what depth your actions could be recorded and displayed. If you took Reach's depth in terms of player tracking, and added point equations into it, you would have a very broad and wide range of skill assessments that would really pair you up against players with your actual skill set. You can try to argue that, but is logical in design.

[Destroyaaa]

I dont know what it is, (I never took psychology but I wish I did) but having a # next to your name in a playlist makes you want to get it as high as possible. If 343 decides to have levels in ranked playlists and those levels are increased by a formula of wins, kills, objective points, etc... then i will be much happier than I am now playing with no level next to my name in Reach. Though I still think Wins are the most important thing, a combination of all these things isn't a bad idea. I just feel making wins the most important will drive teammwork. That doesnt mean it has to be much more, just the highest percentage.

 

 

I want to show you an example (although this is quite extreme, this is a true story)

 

http://www.bungie.ne...ayer=Destroyaaa

 

http://www.bungie.ne...ayer=Destroyaaa

 

Look at these 2 games. The 1st game was an 8 on 8 and I was in a party of 7 with ik3v1n as a random on my team. He goes 11 and 0 with 11 sniper kills. From a statistical standpoint, it looks like he had a great game, when in reality, he camped our base in a game of slayer for the entire game and took the sniper everytime, even though myself and people on my team are better snipers than him and would have done better for the team if we had it. We end up losing the game by 4 kills because he didnt help with map control whatsoever. The very next game we get a 7 on 7 on standoff and hes on the other team. He goes 11 and 3 by camping his base the entire game. Again you would think he did well but he sat in the base the whole game. We end up winning easily because he was a nonfactor for map control again. What does this show? He can lose game after game and yet still go up if we reward K/D ratio because he is posting good stats.

[Twinreaper]

Thats the trick. I do think the team that won should be rewarded for winning.....but at the same time I woukd like to see people who play getvsomething out of it rather than nothing. Your idea and my idea are pretty similar.....i say give points to the top two players of the losing team via points on performance...and the winnjng team gets double points for everything. that should give team and soloists a good reason to compete and compete hard....i thinks.

[♠ Spades N AZ ♠]

@twinreaper. Don't misunderstand what I said. Let's take grifball as a neutral example. people go in and play it to get a better k/d spread w/o even going for the ball. I don't take anything away from firefight by saying people use it to boost their credits. Which in turn is someone who has a high rank but cannot hold their own against human players in matchmaking. You and I know that gameplay is very different with 35 grunts then 5 spartans. Go back and read what I actually said. Check your blood pressure and breath. Why can't you differentiate AI gameplay from human gameplay? I'm not saying one is harder or easier but you can't deny that it's different.......right?

[♠ Spades N AZ ♠]

I really hate playing with "that guy" on my team. Who cares nothing about his team but will brag in the lobbys about his high k/d spread. My k/d spread sucks even though it is still positive because I never played Halo 3 or ODST and started Reach extremly rusty. These days I usually go positive but what I think is overlooked with team gameplay is the ability to help your teamates. I have more assists then a lot of my inheritor friends even though I have half the gameplay time invested.

Without talking that one to death i'll change subjects. I have completly stopped playing any sort of objective games or league games like grifball because it seems no one actually plays them for the intended reason they were created. I agree with what was said above about giving points or promoting your rank more if during a CTF game you actually capture the flag for your team. I know that I could be held accountable for just killing during a king of the hill game because I don't like them. For all objective games you get objective bonus points, for slayer games you get points based on accuracy and team support(whether that be kills, assists, etc.)

I would love to see individual ranks for the different gameplays availible. Let's seperate the amazing swat players from the amazing grifball players, and the amazing custom game players form the firefight players. I am not blessed with a techie brain but I am sure that that it is completly viable as an option. I would be completly fine with a brigadiar rank in firefight, eclipse in team slayer, general in swat, and noob in team snipers:-)

I like the symbol ranking system more than the number but even symbols can be deranked.