{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by The Zodiac Brave:
9/3/2014 4:24:19 AM
5
Why didn't the Halo 2 ranking system catch on?
I've always thought that the halo 2 ranking system was a pretty innovative idea. it was a ranking system that rewarded both quality and quantity for mp versus the standard ranking system that we have now that seems to reward whoever can play the most matches (an oversimplification, yes).
Perhaps I'm looking at the past with rose colored glasses, but i don't remember having nearly as many matches with players that were obviously better or obviously worse than me under the Halo 2 system. There were many more 'win by one' and 'lose by one' games, which were ultimately more fun than getting stomped or completely dominating in other fps mp games.
I was kind of hoping that destiny's crucible rankings or at least iron banner rankings would follow a similar structure.
anyone have any fond or not so fond memories of the Halo 2 ranking system?
-
3 Replies[quote]more fun than ... completely dominating[/quote]While that may be your attitude, I would not say it's shared by a majority of players. People like winning streaks and dominating their opponents. While it may not be the most engaging gameplay in the long term, it is quite fun. One unintended consequence of a skill based ranking system, with skill based matchmaking, is deranking. People will intentionally lose games in order to drop their rank to have some easy fun dominating less skilled players. This ruins the game for the teammates who were actually trying to win, as well as for the low skilled players who end up matchmade with a player who is much more skilled. At least with random matchmaking, there's no incentive to throw the game, in order to play against a set of differently skilled players. Each new lobby has the same potential to be an easy win or a grueling defeat.
