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

[Baby Boo]

^ Yeah just saying, because those that don't want that completely competitive atmosphere can just play the social playlist for fun, and the social playlist has the reach ranking system, and competitive has the halo 2 or 3 ranking system.

[Baby Boo]

^ Yeah just saying, because those that don't want that completely competitive atmosphere can just play the social playlist for fun, and the social playlist has the reach ranking system, and competitive has the halo 2 or 3 ranking system.

[jarka13]

halo reach was a discrace to halo i still play halo 3 every day in reach i would go 25 n 6 and my friend would go 15 n 15 and he would get more credits lol sold the next day back to the best ranking system in any game of all time halo 3

[jarka13]

like i said reach waste a time get cool armor then as soon as u have it all nothing else to do because the arena was dumb because if the whole other team quits u get rated bad which means bronze division when u should be silver or gold it was a completly terrible idea so dumb it hurts to look at it game was trash u all ways get kids that dont care about winning just trying to mess around in the arena and all please 343 please bring back a true ranking system for all the kids that love and enjoy playing competitvely.

[Darren Stallcup]

credit's for armor. and an improved verson ofhalo 3 ranking system

[Darren Stallcup]

i want a credit system but i want to be able to perhaps manage them . like to be able to buy double xp in the game or armor . or even to give to a player. buy in game items like instint respawn or perks to buy or anything. credits are good

[asdfasdfasdf]

My opinion is to take reach's, and modify it.

[Herodanny]

Anybody who wants to post in this topic, please be familiar with the term "ranking system" and the definition. It makes sense to rank up and rank down, that is how a ranking system works... IF you don't understand that then don't post to this topic, I am limiting this topic to only people who can comprehend a ranking system and is willing to discuss it intelligently.

[TornadoFlame]

as someone who played halo 3 for 4 years and reach for 2 weeks halo 3s ranking system was nice and competitive. flawed but still fun. my very first account took 30 wins on my 49 to get my first 50 in team slayer xD amazing moments in halo.

 

 

you can't do a ranking system like reach it just wasn't great to majority of players you gotta have some win loss forumula doing it by k/d is silly.

[tjwcu23]

I think a different perspective would be insightful when considering Halo 2's ranking system. While it is certainly true that a less skilled individual may undeservingly win a match when they are matched up with much better teammates, this is and was unlikely to be a consistent enough occurance to really affect their 1-50 rating. Over the course of 100 games, if an individual cannot carry their own weight, they are more likely to lose in any given game. If 5 of those 100 games they are matched with much better teammates and win where they otherwise would not, that is still not enough to overcome all the should-lose games that would result due to poor skill. Just like in any game of odds, there are likely to be very low statistical chances that the unexpected may occur. However, these anomolies will soon become negligible over the course of many repititions.

Furthermore, although at first it seems counterintuitive, basing ranking off of individual performance in terms of kills, assists, etc. actually lends itself to selfish play and undervalues team play. It was the case in Halo 2 that the emphasis on winning and not individual stats lead to an increased appreciation for teammates that were able to aid the team without producing great stats. If you went 8-10 in a slayer match, but were careful not to give up power weapons or bleed points to the other team, you may be considered an asset. Perhaps those 8 kills were clutch or you sacrificed yourself 10 times to help a teammate escape with a power weapon. Perhaps you were the flag carrier or bait in an objective gametype. Sure, it was great to look at stats as a good measure of skill in Halo 2, but there was so much more value in doing whatever it took to win. If you had to drive the warthog all game to run flags or for a skilled gunner, it was worth going 0-5 or 1-3 to get the win.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that while stats have their place and should obviously continue to exist so that we can analyze each others' play, Halo 2 had the right idea. When it came right down to it, it was play to win and you had to be prepared to do whatever your team needed you to do.