The halo 3 ranking system is bad and you should feel bad

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] YodasCurd The halo 3 ranking system is bad and you should feel bad[/quote] No it isnt. H3s ranking system was by no means perfect, but much farther away from bad. Also, this thread is kinda pointless, you just have to deal with it at this point.

If you are better than them and beat them who cares what they say. I laugh at people who talk crap then get slapped around

If you didn't buy your 50 why would you care whether some colonel says you did?

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] iRuN KFC If you didn't buy your 50 why would you care whether some colonel says you did?[/quote]

So......this bothers you why? Just mute them if it annoys you.

This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

I've never had this problem in the pregame lobby, as you can't hear the other team in ranked.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] meagsIZbeast [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] YodasCurd The halo 3 ranking system is bad and you should feel bad[/quote] No it isnt. H3s ranking system was by no means perfect, but much farther away from bad. Also, this thread is kinda pointless, you just have to deal with it at this point.[/quote] The halo 3 ranking system is well known for having a terrible and unfair ranking system. I love the game to death but the ranking system sucks

People only cried about it because they didn't understand it. Usually because they were bad

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] meagsIZbeast People only cried about it because they didn't understand it. Usually because they were bad[/quote] As someone who got to a 50 and earned it, it was a horrible system and it made no LOGICAL sense. I mean sure I understand what it was going for, but it didn't really make for a good system. A good system doesn't force you to stay at the same rank for 10 wins in a row, you should move up, you've proven you can win there, but H3's system didn't do that, you would get stuck there.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Mike Huntt [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] iRuN KFC If you didn't buy your 50 why would you care whether some colonel says you did?[/quote][/quote] Well, I actually do care about the community of games to some extent. I hate kids who play music through their mics and kids who start -blam!- for no reason. Always have. Always will.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] da gamer As someone who got to a 50 and earned it, it was a horrible system and it made no LOGICAL sense. [/quote] I did not particularly love the Halo 2 or Halo 3 system, but both were more fun than Reach and both more reflective of individual skill. They were in no means perfect, but I personally would take either of them over a progression system. My ideal ranking system would start you halfway in an "xp bar" visible to you and only you. If you win and do well your xp goes up. If you win and get carried it goes up very little. If you lose and do terrible your xp goes down a lot. If you lose and do well it goes down very little. Every time you max out the xp bar up or down you will rank up the number and start back in the middle of the "xp bar". You shouldn't rank up more because you played against higher ranked teams. You should rank up more because your performance that specific game warranted it. There would be more emphasis on finding players of similar skill. Also, for noobs we could make it so only games where you win effect your xp until level 10 or so. This will let all players hit the lowest officer rank LT. regardless if they lose most of their games. You would be guaranteed at least hitting level 10 for dedication. It would be virtually impossible in my system to be anything under an officer unless you stuck to social. In this system each game matters equally by performance rather than by weighing what the opponents skill rank is. [Edited on 10.24.2012 4:52 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] da gamer [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] meagsIZbeast People only cried about it because they didn't understand it. Usually because they were bad[/quote] As someone who got to a 50 and earned it, it was a horrible system and it made no LOGICAL sense. I mean sure I understand what it was going for, but it didn't really make for a good system. A good system doesn't force you to stay at the same rank for 10 wins in a row, you should move up, you've proven you can win there, but H3's system didn't do that, you would get stuck there. [/quote] Read the algorithms for the ranking system and learn how it works. It makes sense and many games use the same ranking system including the rts game halo wars. Halo 3's ranking system is a slightly modified version of true skill. The only reason your stuck at a rank for 10 wins is because you won, lost, won, lost and the system is not gonna reward peple who cannot get on a win streak. My friend the other night was a 48 and it took us 12 wins and 2 losses for it to go up. Once he hit his 49 we won 4 in a row, lost 1, won 4 in a row lost one, then he got his 50 on our 3rd win in a row after that. Mind you, we're doing it when he has 8,300 exp and almost 300 TS exp.You just have to win consecutively to rank up. Trading wins for losses isn't going to help and thats how it should be [Edited on 10.24.2012 5:47 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] da gamer [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] meagsIZbeast People only cried about it because they didn't understand it. Usually because they were bad[/quote] As someone who got to a 50 and earned it, it was a horrible system and it made no LOGICAL sense. I mean sure I understand what it was going for, but it didn't really make for a good system. A good system doesn't force you to stay at the same rank for 10 wins in a row, you should move up, you've proven you can win there, but H3's system didn't do that, you would get stuck there. [/quote] See right there you proved you dont know how it worked. The whole thing was based on your own trueskill, along with your teams trueskill, vs the other teams trueskill. If your teams aggregate trueskill was higher than the other team, the system says you are supposed to win. If the aggregate is close, then you can still rank up. However, if you are supposed to win by a decidedly large amount, then the win will do almost nothing for you. Also having people who are 50s with a lot of wins on them, on your team is hurtful to your leveling. Those of us with a lot of wins in a particular playlist have a huge trueskill compared to the average player and off set the balance quite a bit. Beating one of us, will net a large amount of favor towards your next rank, though not necessarily guarantee it. Winning with one of us on your team will net an almost 0 increase towards your next level. It is easy to tell the important games, and a lot of the time you will beat people the system expects you to beat, and lose to the teams the system expects you to lose to. That creates a tell that says you are right where you should be. Hence where the retarded term "rank lock" came from. Its not you being stuck, its you doing what the system expects of you. H3s ranking system was by no means perfect, as I have stated, but also nowhere near bad. Just because you dont understand it does not make it bad.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] shortD42 is aBK [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] da gamer As someone who got to a 50 and earned it, it was a horrible system and it made no LOGICAL sense. [/quote] I did not particularly love the Halo 2 or Halo 3 system, but both were more fun than Reach and both more reflective of individual skill. They were in no means perfect, but I personally would take either of them over a progression system. My ideal ranking system would start you halfway in an "xp bar" visible to you and only you. If you win and do well your xp goes up. If you win and get carried it goes up very little. If you lose and do terrible your xp goes down a lot. If you lose and do well it goes down very little. Every time you max out the xp bar up or down you will rank up the number and start back in the middle of the "xp bar". You shouldn't rank up more because you played against higher ranked teams. You should rank up more because your performance that specific game warranted it. There would be more emphasis on finding players of similar skill. Also, for noobs we could make it so only games where you win effect your xp until level 10 or so. This will let all players hit the lowest officer rank LT. regardless if they lose most of their games. You would be guaranteed at least hitting level 10 for dedication. It would be virtually impossible in my system to be anything under an officer unless you stuck to social. In this system each game matters equally by performance rather than by weighing what the opponents skill rank is.[/quote] ranks based on individual skill in a team based game is a terrible, stupid idea. It promotes playing against your team. "win as a team, lose as a team" Thats the only thing that makes sense in a team game.

I think because this game has been out so long most people are losing the team mentality for team playlists because finding games in Team slayer, mlg, snipes and swat with teams of 4's is near impossible now. Players searching alone believe that when getting 20+ kills in a game and losing because of bad team mates/derankers, they should be getting rewarded...Back before 2010, finding games with your friends in teams of 4 took little to no time so team work was essential to winning which is why the ranking system rewards the team as a whole for winning or if you lose, you lose as a team like meaggs said. [Edited on 10.24.2012 5:59 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] meagsIZbeast [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] shortD42 is aBK [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] da gamer As someone who got to a 50 and earned it, it was a horrible system and it made no LOGICAL sense. [/quote] I did not particularly love the Halo 2 or Halo 3 system, but both were more fun than Reach and both more reflective of individual skill. They were in no means perfect, but I personally would take either of them over a progression system. My ideal ranking system would start you halfway in an "xp bar" visible to you and only you. If you win and do well your xp goes up. If you win and get carried it goes up very little. If you lose and do terrible your xp goes down a lot. If you lose and do well it goes down very little. Every time you max out the xp bar up or down you will rank up the number and start back in the middle of the "xp bar". You shouldn't rank up more because you played against higher ranked teams. You should rank up more because your performance that specific game warranted it. There would be more emphasis on finding players of similar skill. Also, for noobs we could make it so only games where you win effect your xp until level 10 or so. This will let all players hit the lowest officer rank LT. regardless if they lose most of their games. You would be guaranteed at least hitting level 10 for dedication. It would be virtually impossible in my system to be anything under an officer unless you stuck to social. In this system each game matters equally by performance rather than by weighing what the opponents skill rank is.[/quote] ranks based on individual skill in a team based game is a terrible, stupid idea. It promotes playing against your team. "win as a team, lose as a team" Thats the only thing that makes sense in a team game.[/quote] It does promote team playing. You win your xp goes up and you lose it goes down. However, if you still do good and you get a deranker on your team it's only him that's going to get a severe penalty of the invisible xp. Losing with a good KD will still lower your xp, but just not as much. Your performance from kills and assists will help, as well as some for time holding flag. If you get a betrayal "x" amount of seconds before a flag cap then it won't count towards xp. The skill system should be about individual skill. It's about matching you with players of similar skill. If you guys don't care about individual skill, then why do you care about ranks? [Edited on 10.24.2012 6:19 PM PDT]

Of course individual talent is important. But in the end, the only real stat that matters is win or lose. What you are suggesting in a ranking system is no feasible. Do you understand how complex an equation it would be to calculate every stat in the game and compare it to an average, established by an unknown means, to affect your rank up/down? Not only that, but there are outside matters that affect the caliber of player you are, including but not limited to, map knowledge, weapon timing, power up timing, call outs, and responding to callouts, which make certain players so much better than others. All of that of course correlates to one final stat, win or lose. In a team game, regardless of searching solo or not, it is the goal of the whole team to win. If you dont like losing because of randoms, dont search randoms. Simple as that, its nobodies fault but your own if you choose to do so.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] meagsIZbeast Of course individual talent is important. But in the end, the only real stat that matters is win or lose.[/quote]This is entirely true, should be common sense by now.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] II gaped II I think because this game has been out so long most people are losing the team mentality for team playlists because finding games in Team slayer, mlg, snipes and swat with teams of 4's is near impossible now. Players searching alone believe that when getting 20+ kills in a game and losing because of bad team mates/derankers, they should be getting rewarded...Back before 2010, finding games with your friends in teams of 4 took little to no time so team work was essential to winning which is why the ranking system rewards the team as a whole for winning or if you lose, you lose as a team like meaggs said.[/quote] I'm with you all the way. Team games have the word team in front of them for a reason; people who can't handle the fact that not every loss is their fault will always have Lone Wolves. The ranking system is one of the best availible for a shooter at the moment; sure, it has some minor flaws, but if you're patient it will reward good players. People who are whining about how long it takes to rank up: Stop talking. I got a 50 in TS after already having 500+ EXP in the playlist. It's not that hard. If you play consistently, you'll rank up.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] shortD42 is aBK [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] meagsIZbeast [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] shortD42 is aBK [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] da gamer As someone who got to a 50 and earned it, it was a horrible system and it made no LOGICAL sense. [/quote] I did not particularly love the Halo 2 or Halo 3 system, but both were more fun than Reach and both more reflective of individual skill. They were in no means perfect, but I personally would take either of them over a progression system. My ideal ranking system would start you halfway in an "xp bar" visible to you and only you. If you win and do well your xp goes up. If you win and get carried it goes up very little. If you lose and do terrible your xp goes down a lot. If you lose and do well it goes down very little. Every time you max out the xp bar up or down you will rank up the number and start back in the middle of the "xp bar". You shouldn't rank up more because you played against higher ranked teams. You should rank up more because your performance that specific game warranted it. There would be more emphasis on finding players of similar skill. Also, for noobs we could make it so only games where you win effect your xp until level 10 or so. This will let all players hit the lowest officer rank LT. regardless if they lose most of their games. You would be guaranteed at least hitting level 10 for dedication. It would be virtually impossible in my system to be anything under an officer unless you stuck to social. In this system each game matters equally by performance rather than by weighing what the opponents skill rank is.[/quote] ranks based on individual skill in a team based game is a terrible, stupid idea. It promotes playing against your team. "win as a team, lose as a team" Thats the only thing that makes sense in a team game.[/quote] It does promote team playing. You win your xp goes up and you lose it goes down. However, if you still do good and you get a deranker on your team it's only him that's going to get a severe penalty of the invisible xp. Losing with a good KD will still lower your xp, but just not as much. Your performance from kills and assists will help, as well as some for time holding flag. If you get a betrayal "x" amount of seconds before a flag cap then it won't count towards xp. The skill system should be about individual skill. It's about matching you with players of similar skill. If you guys don't care about individual skill, then why do you care about ranks?[/quote] Because KD, or even KDA is not accurate as far as helping the team win or lose. When I play I have a strategy that often times results in certain players getting better stats then other players, but it is for the team win. Just because someone goes negative, doesn't mean they hurt the team. They may have had great cover fire, or gotten the last three kills in a clutch situation that won the game 50-49. In the same fold, going positive doesn't mean you helped the team. I have seen guys go 3-1 in games...sure statistically that's helpful, but it didn't really help that they weren't in the action. The team needed their shots on the enemy during the game. Think about any sport or team competition. At the end of the game do stats matter really? HECK No, if your team loses, you don't gain anything, a loss is a loss. You didn't do enough. Prime video game example of this is COD, no one cares at all about team work there.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] YodasCurd The halo 3 ranking system is bad and you should feel bad[/quote] Compared to Reach's? Its perfect. It had flaws sure. But at least it encouraged teamwork, which is what Halo is all about.

[quote]It does promote team playing. You win your xp goes up and you lose it goes down. However, if you still do good and you get a deranker on your team it's only him that's going to get a severe penalty of the invisible xp. Losing with a good KD will still lower your xp, but just not as much. Your performance from kills and assists will help, as well as some for time holding flag. If you get a betrayal "x" amount of seconds before a flag cap then it won't count towards xp. The skill system should be about individual skill. It's about matching you with players of similar skill. If you guys don't care about individual skill, then why do you care about ranks?[/quote] The only thing that promotes playing as a team and winning is if you are only rewarded for the win. If there are any other parameters, people will work towards them instead of for the win.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Gig4t3ch [quote]It does promote team playing. You win your xp goes up and you lose it goes down. However, if you still do good and you get a deranker on your team it's only him that's going to get a severe penalty of the invisible xp. Losing with a good KD will still lower your xp, but just not as much. Your performance from kills and assists will help, as well as some for time holding flag. If you get a betrayal "x" amount of seconds before a flag cap then it won't count towards xp. The skill system should be about individual skill. It's about matching you with players of similar skill. If you guys don't care about individual skill, then why do you care about ranks?[/quote] The only thing that promotes playing as a team and winning is if you are only rewarded for the win. If there are any other parameters, people will work towards them instead of for the win. [/quote] 100% this...because if my personal performance is all that matters, I am grabbing the sniper every single game despite not being the best sniper in the game. Because I know it will give me the best chance of doing well. But if winning matters most, I will let the best sniper get it every single time, because not only will he help the team by getting more kills, his cover helps me as well. Playing AT ALL for individual performance hurts team play.

Serious? People still buying 50' accounts? The game is 5 years old surely it doesn't matter anymore