{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/4/2014 6:47:42 PM
19
It needs to be like Halo 2's ranking system.
The majority of people should be rank 25, not 40+.
I think it should be based on win % of your last 100 games or so. That way if keeps people from getting locked and at the same time it prevents people from shooting up through the ranks.
It should be fairly accurate too. The average person probably wins 50% of the time so if you scale it to a 1-50 system they'd be a 25.
It should also keep the population evenly distributed throughout the ranks since every match you have winners and losers. It should be a nearly perfect bell curve.
English
-
Completely agree. Halo 2 had and will always have the best ranking system. It was literally extremely hard to get to the top unless you and your team were legit. This is how it should be, this is what brings players back. To get better to up their rank
-
[quote]this is what brings players back. To get better to up their rank[/quote] Not me. Not everyone makes competitive play their priority
-
That's why there are non ranked playlists too.
-
I would like to see a link to confirm that ranked playlists are available
-
There isn't one. This thread is about if you'd like to see a ranking system like halo 2/3.
-
[quote]That's why there are non ranked playlists too.[/quote] ^^^^^^^ Then why are you saying that there is?
-
Because halo 2/3 had non ranked playlists. They won't make everything ranked if they were to even have a ranking system.
-
Well then good for you because plenty of this game will be about non competitive play battling groups of mobs together. But for those who do contain the competitive spark, this is it.
-
But what if you don't have a good team to play with? Say your fairly good at the game but some of your teammates aren't that great and you lose a team death match / team slayer game because they go 1-15 while you go 10-5? Is that necessarily your fault and should be considered to your ranking?
-
Thats what matchmaking is for. It should team you up with similar skilled players. I know that's not always the case but a loss is a loss the same way a win is a win. If you were having a sucky game and went 1-15 and your team still won should you be rewarded for the win? If you were to base skill on individual performance then people would be lone wolfing it and no body would want to work together. No one would want to be the driver.
-
Well I agree that base of KD it wouldn't be great. (See COD camping) but as to your other scenario. If I was to go 1-15 and my team won, then no. I shouldn't be rewarded with higher skill. Which is what I'm saying it's hard to balance a skill level because there are so many factors. To say only one factor decides that to me makes a skill level system incorrect.
-
The problem with trying to distinguish bad players on the winning team is that they could have been in a support role like driving a warthog. Looking just at the numbers it would look like they completely sucked but in reality they could have been the reason they won.
-
And I agree. I think that's why bungie changed up their skill type is reach. So that supporting players would get that. However you and I both know that in any gametype there are always people that are essentially cannon fodder (see bantha fodder). So it becomes a question of how to strain out all those details too. It's not an easy topic or one that necessarily has a real answer. I feel like we could go round and round again for days and not come up with a suitable answer to the original question.
-
That's why I think it should be kept simple and base it off of win percentage. It's not quite like true skill but even simpler. You can't boost or manipulate it.
-
Again you'd have to take the hit if your team was bad but I can see how it makes sense on the surface at least.
-
Another way to look at it is to compare it to football. If you have an awesome offense that scores a bunch but your defense sucks and you lose due to no fault of the offense you still lose as a team.
-
Lol was that a pseudo Super Bowl reference?
-
Nah. Denver was terrible all-around.
-
Haha fair enough. That was fairly one sided.
