Lol halo 4's ranking system

The only problem was finding people once you were of high enough rank and overcoming that rank lock type barrier you hit (Halo 3), where no matter how many straight wins you have you still wont go up a rank. I used to like ranked matches but after what they did in Halo 3 in making most of its playlists dlc required, ranked matches have lost their appeal. I also hated those rank resets they did on Halo 2, it was a pain to try and regain my old ranks in Team Slayer and Snipers.

As a [i]huge[/i] fan of old school RPG games, I dislike how I reached level 42 in Halo 3 only to be called bad. I mean, I am bad, but you shouldn't lie to the player by saying "you made it to level 42! Only 8 more levels to highest rank!", really sucks when a level 42 isn't supposed to be good. I should be a level 25 if I suck, or a level 30 if I'm average, maybe if I was among the elite players I would be level 40, and if I was the best I would be level 50.

dang it I miss having a good raking system.

Halo 2 didn't use Truskill.... It used ELO.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NOBLE SlX I barely played the new halo games either and have just recently decided to run for a new 50 on this account. I'm a console gamer and your a PC gamer so I guess we can't really compare. I'll still upload videos when I can get a capture card and see if I have something new and unique to share. He only did it on Hang Em High. I can do it on Battle Creek just as well. There are a few in other maps (Prisoner being one), but not as impressive so I will have to experiment more.[/quote]I'll be looking forward to it. :D [quote]I wouldn't call a video with 2,700 views mainstream so I'm sure not every competitive player knows these things. If they do I'm surprised I didn't see any of it on MLG.[/quote]Well first of all YouTube wasn't the place for uploading gameplay videos at the glory days of Halo PC and most people knew tricks from learning them in game with other people. It's also not like he was making tutorials on it; it just so happened he got a good clip for the montage that involved him doing it. I can assure you that most the competitive Halo PC community knows tricks like that. :P In fact, I have actually done it on Battle Creek while playing against Grun7y once. xD [Edited on 05.10.2012 6:30 PM PDT]

I barely played the new halo games either and have just recently decided to run for a new 50 on this account. I'm a console gamer and your a PC gamer so I guess we can't really compare. I'll still upload videos when I can get a capture card and see if I have something new and unique to share. He only did it on Hang Em High. I can do it on Battle Creek just as well. There are a few in other maps (Prisoner being one), but not as impressive so I will have to experiment more. I wouldn't call a video with 2,700 views mainstream so I'm sure not every competitive player knows these things. If they do I'm surprised I didn't see any of it on MLG. [Edited on 05.10.2012 6:01 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NOBLE SlX I don't play the PC version so I don't know if it's harder. You nitpick me mixing up two words in a sentence. Also, I'm surprised you know those grenade tosses because I've never even seen them used on mlg. Sniping certainly took more skill to snipe than Halo 2, 3 or Reach. You're just being dishonest or you didn't play enough with the xbox version to know. Almost every halo 1 player will tell you that. Halo 2 made sniping a joke when you could hit headshots more than one and a half characters away from a player.[/quote]... What? When did I say anything about the newer Halos being harder to snipe on? I was comparing the Xbox version to the PC version. You [i]really[/i] under estimate me if you think I'm about to say Halo 2's sniping was harder than Halo: Combat Evolved on the Xbox. Pretty much every competitive veteran of Halo: Combat Evolved PC knows these tricks. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=aMfC7a76YeY#t=172s]Here's a video of Ribbit doing it on Hang 'Em High in a Maw community montage for example.[/url] [quote]Halo CE is my best halo, but my stats in every other halo are better that yours. I'm not really afraid to 1v1 you in anything. I simply can't 1v1 you in things that I can't play online with.[/quote]There are two things you're not taking into account here: 1. The Xbox is by far not my main platform. I absolutely loathe playing with a controller. In fact, my right thumb has an injury from a dog attack that affects my aiming ability with a controller. 2. I've rarely [i]ever[/i] taken the newer Halos competitively. I've let a fair amount of people onto my account over the years and when I play I rarely play to my fullest. Hell, I'm normally talking to friends in party chat when I do get on Xbox Live anyway. Like I said though, I couldn't care less who is a better player. I just like to discuss this sort of thing. It's interesting to me and I don't think it really matters how good someone is. The guys who invented TrueSkill were most likely not 50s in Halo 3. I'm fairly sure I never saw them on the main stage of one of the MLG events. [Edited on 05.10.2012 5:56 PM PDT]

I don't play the PC version so I don't know if it's harder. You nitpick me mixing up two words in a sentence. Also, I'm surprised you know those grenade tosses because I've never even seen them used on mlg. Sniping certainly took more skill to snipe than Halo 2, 3 or Reach. You're just being dishonest or you didn't play enough with the xbox version to know. Almost every halo 1 player will tell you that. Halo 2 made sniping a joke when you could hit headshots more than one and a half characters away from a player. Halo CE is my best halo, but my stats in every other halo are better that yours. I'm not really afraid to 1v1 you in anything. I simply can't 1v1 you in things that I can't play online with.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NOBLE SlX I don't PC game. I would use Kai or Xbox Connect, but I don't have promiscuous mode and don't know how to fix that. You would get destroyed by me in CE. Some tricks I do are really advanced knowledge. The physics of Halo 1 are consistent to where I can steal weapons across the maps like Hang Em High and Battle Creek with a grenade toss. That's the beauty of CE. Also, headshots were actually rewarding and sniping took skill. When I get a capture card, I'll hold a LAN in my neighborhood and make sure to upload full gameplays so you can see how I play.[/quote]First of all, you don't have to start going in depth about Halo: Combat Evolved tricks. I've been playing the game since it came out and I'm well aware of all these tricks you're talking about. I don't know why you think you're feeding me information I don't know when my primary Halo [i]is[/i] Combat Evolved. Second, Halo: Combat Evolved on the Xbox still has that terrible aim assist crap. In fact, it's just as bad as the newer Halos (Yes, I've tested it out) and I stand beside my arguments in saying it takes the competitive side of the game down a good amount. [quote]I believe I read on these forums that Halo PC has autoaim or more bullet magnetism. That would ruin all skill in sniping if that's true. I don't know the differences, but I'm not a PC gamer and have no desire to use a keyboard to play anything.[/quote]I find it funny how you were trying to school me earlier in Combat Evolved knowledge then you drop this. Auto aim/aim assist is only on the Xbox version and bullet magnetism is on both versions. They work in the same amounts as well. Sniping is [i]much[/i] harder on the PC version of Halo without the aim assist you find on the Xbox version. Hell, on the Xbox version I find it's beyond easy to snipe someone out of a warthog. You also have to account for leading because of the PC version's netcode which adds an enormous layer of skill to the game. To be honest though, I couldn't care less about how good I am compared to someone else. What I enjoy doing is discussing these sorts of things. I stopped playing Halo competitively a [i]long[/i] time ago. [Edited on 05.10.2012 4:06 PM PDT]

I have gold and can 1v1 you in Reach or Halo 3 if you want. I don't play either game much, but I still can hold my own.

I don't PC game. I would use Kai or Xbox Connect, but I don't have promiscuous mode and don't know how to fix that. You would get destroyed by me in CE. Some tricks I do are really advanced knowledge. The physics of Halo 1 are consistent to where I can steal weapons across the maps like Hang Em High and Battle Creek with a grenade toss. That's the beauty of CE. Also, headshots were actually rewarding and sniping took skill. When I get a capture card, I'll hold a LAN in my neighborhood and make sure to upload full gameplays so you can see how I play. I believe I read on these forums that Halo PC has autoaim or more bullet magnetism. That would ruin all skill in sniping if that's true. I don't know the differences, but I'm not a PC gamer and have no desire to use a keyboard to play anything.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] PS2 The people on waypoint stated it started about Halo 2 and moved onto Halo 3. Once again, I stated that Frankie attacked the idea of 1-50 and not how either game implemented it. I agree with Frankie in that I find both systems flawed. I already stated why both systems have opposite problems. I'll do it again since you didn't listen.[/quote]That's what you get for listening to people on Waypoint. It doesn't matter at all what people on Waypoint were talking about; it's what these people were talking about. They were talking about 1-50 as a whole but more specifically about Halo 3's. [quote]Reach having trueskill? Well, I see no proof of it.[/quote]Like I said, it's a requirement of all first party Microsoft games and in Reach it's relaxed to the point where it's almost non-existent. This has been confirmed [i]many[/i] times. Frankie himself has said it on NeoGAF a few times. I can't be bothered to find it over the sea of posts in the HaloGAF threads. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NOBLE SlX People liked Arena's system? I played a game against top onyx players and they sucked. I actually played two onyx games (yeah only two), but one I was AFK for most of it. I personally liked 1-50 in Halo 3 (without the symbols in Halo 2) and would like it to return. I had a 50 before trading my original account and am actually going for one again right now (on this account). I plan on playing on my 50 once I get it. That's what your suppose to do. You aren't suppose to sit on a thrown like some of you are suggesting. You guys clearly don't understand the point of it. The leveling system is for getting matched against evenly skilled players. Feeling accomplishment for a 50 is well and fine, but only nerds would think they deserve to be worshiped. The only game that took true skill in the series was CE and it didn't even have a ranking system. It's ironic that all the people that post about competitive play are so terrible at halo. At least post a good KD in one of the games before getting all emotional over a video game leveling.[/quote]What we've talked about has [i]clearly[/i] gone over your head. We're saying people normally sit on it and do nothing once they've attained a 50; we're not talking about what people are [i]meant[/i] to do. We're talking about systems that force players to actually still play after getting the max level. I'm not getting emotional over this. I just like to talk about this sort of thing. If you really think I'm a bad Halo player and also think Halo: Combat Evolved was the only truly skillful Halo, you could get on Halo PC with me at some time. [Edited on 05.10.2012 9:35 AM PDT]

People liked Arena's system? I played a game against top onyx players and they sucked. I actually played two onyx games (yeah only two), but one I was AFK for most of it. I personally liked 1-50 in Halo 3 (without the symbols in Halo 2) and would like it to return. I had a 50 before trading my original account and am actually going for one again right now (on this account). I plan on playing on my 50 once I get it. That's what your suppose to do. You aren't suppose to sit on a thrown like some of you are suggesting. You guys clearly don't understand the point of it. The leveling system is for getting matched against evenly skilled players. Feeling accomplishment for a 50 is well and fine, but only nerds would think they deserve to be worshiped. The only game that took true skill in the series was CE and it didn't even have a ranking system. It's ironic that all the people that post about competitive play are so terrible at halo. At least post a good KD in one of the games before getting all emotional over a video game leveling.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Dr Syx [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] PS2 It was definately about Halo 2. I've seen this in a thread on waypoint and they linked the original article as well and stated it was about bringing back Halo 2's system. I'm pretty sure Frankie was talking about both games. It's obvious in my opinion because he doesn't mention either game and attacks the system rather than the way it was implemented.[/quote]Original article? That's from NeoGAF and I read it as they were discussing it. They were talking specifically about Halo 3 and a bit about Halo 2. You even notice Overdoz1z mention the MLG playlist which didn't exist in Halo 2. Please know what you're talking about before correcting people. [quote]Reach did not use trueskill. It put player preferences above any skill. Many people have proven this with 50-0 games in full party against guests and such with records that don't mesh for equal skill.[/quote]Like I said before, check what you're saying before you correct people. Reach does in fact use TrueSkill because all first party Microsoft games (Yes. All Halo games are considered first party Microsoft games) are required to use it if they have competitive multiplayer. Reach does in fact have true skill and it's used as a backend system when using the skill preference. It's [i][b]very[/i][/b] relaxed though; to the point where it hardly matters. ______________________________________________ This is the major problem with most of what you said after this. You were saying that the 1 - 50 system did in fact work because all 50s who were playing were good but the 47s were trash. You're essentially saying that a system where someone can be "trash" while getting that damn close to max level? No. That's not a system that works. No one who is bad at the game should be able to get that far. Anyone who is average should hit middle level, anyone who is good should hit around 35 and only the best should hit 50. It shouldn't be that anyone who has any decent amount of skill at the game should get the max.[/quote] The people on waypoint stated it started about Halo 2 and moved onto Halo 3. Once again, I stated that Frankie attacked the idea of 1-50 and not how either game implemented it. I agree with Frankie in that I find both systems flawed. I already stated why both systems have opposite problems. I'll do it again since you didn't listen. -------------------------- My general experience of Halo 2 and from reading forums is that it was just as bad, but for completely opposite reasons. I'll explain why a 40 and 50s were not correct in either game. Obviously, Halo 3 was flooded with bought idiots, but it was rare that I actually came across a bought 50. [b]I'm talking about people who have a 50 and maintain it not people who play level 30s and have a 50 boosted in a seperate playlist. [/b] Halo 3 50 vs 45. 50 = beast player with too high of a skill gap between a 50 and a high 40 (46,47,48), 40s player = garbage who is barely above level 30 player. That's how halo 3 worked. It was unfairly fast at low levels and slow at high levels. I agree that many 40s should never have gotten there. That's my point. 50s were almost all legit if they qualify my requirements of my above paragraph. Halo 2 50 vs 45. 50 = cheater, 40s player = very good player with a large skill gap between 30. This is good in my opinion, but in my opinion they made 50s too rare to the point where cheating was how everyone got there. The pacing of ranking up was bad. Also, like I said having all your stats on EXP on the internet was bad. That is something that should never been visible to enemies in game or on the internet. It should only be visible to you and Halo 3 failed by not including a visible EXP. Another reason why both games failed in my opinion. I remember getting cheated in Halo 2 and most certainly those kids did it at high levels even more. My point is that I don't see how the 1-50 system can ever work. That's why I think we should discuss a completely different system. I just am unaware of other systems besides Halos and Cods. Cods is awful and it looks like Halo 4 is going down that route. I didn't mean 47 per say. I said that rank because there is too far of a skill gap between a 47 and a 50. The point is in halo 3 almost all players are lumped between mid 30s and 50s. At least it feels that way. I don't understand why you're acting like I didn't point out the flaws of Halo 3. I did that exactly and made the exact same point. My point was Halo 2 was no better. 50s should not be so rare to the point where over half the people who get them are cheaters. They should also not be so common. There is some middle ground that Bungie missed on this in my opinion. Even if they hit that middle ground it wouldn't eliminate cheating. 1-50 is flawed. I'm not sure there is a better system, but I'm willing to accept change if it isn't a cod structure or some stupid leaderboards that exploit a certain way to play. For example, cod fails because players will rage quit against good players just to stat pad their KD or full parties will run against all randoms. Reach having trueskill? Well, I see no proof of it. They have preferences like "chatty" and "team player". I doubt skill is accounted for when they put those things in. Many people have made threads proving the system fails otherwise there wouldn't be so many full parties with 85%+ win percentage getting put up against kids with guests and lower than 33% win percentage. It's been proven many times. Point is that none of the Halo ranking structures worked in my opinion. I preferred Halo 2 and 3 just because at least it was interesting.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Super PolarBear This is pretty much what I was going to say, so I quoted a member from the Reach forum. IMO, I felt like The Arena ranking never really took off because the majority of players bashed it for not being 1-50 (even though it's a decent system).[/quote]That's actually kinda how I feel too. I don't think w/l is a great tool for online matchmaking. If you're being paired with random players then how is it fair to be judged by how well your [i]team[/i] did? Should I be punished because my team is terrible? No. On the other hand, this would be a GREAT system if it were implemented for clan matchmaking. MLG rules, full party only (4v4 or 5v5) and only highly competitive maps. A gamer could dream. <3

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] An average gamer I honestly like how Arena works. You have to fight for the top spot, it always changes, and the ranks reset. It is a dynamic ranking system based on who is playing. That way 1% Onyx is not something everybody can get like a 50 was. It's something meaningful. [/quote] This is pretty much what I was going to say, so I quoted a member from the Reach forum. IMO, I felt like The Arena ranking never really took off because the majority of players bashed it for not being 1-50 (even though it's a decent system).

The 360 doesn't use ELO rankings as far as I know. It wasn't coming anyways.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] PS2 It was definately about Halo 2. I've seen this in a thread on waypoint and they linked the original article as well and stated it was about bringing back Halo 2's system. I'm pretty sure Frankie was talking about both games. It's obvious in my opinion because he doesn't mention either game and attacks the system rather than the way it was implemented.[/quote]Original article? That's from NeoGAF and I read it as they were discussing it. They were talking specifically about Halo 3 and a bit about Halo 2. You even notice Overdoz1z mention the MLG playlist which didn't exist in Halo 2. Please know what you're talking about before correcting people. [quote]Reach did not use trueskill. It put player preferences above any skill. Many people have proven this with 50-0 games in full party against guests and such with records that don't mesh for equal skill.[/quote]Like I said before, check what you're saying before you correct people. Reach does in fact use TrueSkill because all first party Microsoft games (Yes. All Halo games are considered first party Microsoft games) are required to use it if they have competitive multiplayer. Reach does in fact have true skill and it's used as a backend system when using the skill preference. It's [i][b]very[/i][/b] relaxed though; to the point where it hardly matters. ______________________________________________ This is the major problem with most of what you said after this. You were saying that the 1 - 50 system did in fact work because all 50s who were playing were good but the 47s were trash. You're essentially saying that a system where someone can be "trash" while getting that damn close to max level? No. That's not a system that works. No one who is bad at the game should be able to get that far. Anyone who is average should hit middle level, anyone who is good should hit around 35 and only the best should hit 50. It shouldn't be that anyone who has any decent amount of skill at the game should get the max. [Edited on 05.09.2012 12:08 PM PDT]

It was definately about Halo 2. I've seen this in a thread on waypoint and they linked the original article as well and stated it was about bringing back Halo 2's system. I'm pretty sure Frankie was talking about both games. It's obvious in my opinion because he doesn't mention either game and attacks the system rather than the way it was implemented. I personally feel both were implemented wrong. Reach did not use trueskill. It put player preferences above any skill. Many people have proven this with 50-0 games in full party against guests and such with records that don't mesh for equal skill. ----------------------------- Let's talk 1-50. Problem: History affects games. Players derank on purpose to Player history should have no influence in weighing rank ups. It shouldn't matter if you're carrying a kid with a bad win loss or playing MLG pros. What should matter is your performance for that specific game. Every game should start fresh. Problem: Halo 2 showed EXP bar to everyone. Halo 3 hid the bar completely. Solution: The exp bar should only be visible to yourself and not on the website or visible in game to enemies. This will help you know if your close to ranking up, but there is no way for some kid to know and grief or hostboot. Problem: Players buy 50s. Solution: There is none. Host booters will get to 50 no matter how long it takes. This alone is the reason I believe that the 1-50 system will never return. I don't agree completely with Frankie because in general the system worked. People playing on 50s were always good players and those that got it legit were good. Kids that got 46s and 47s many times were complete trash that just left to social and some 50s would make new accounts just to dump on bad players. Also, many 50s were high 40s in every other playlist. Kids that were high skill 40s tend to be trash because they got it in one playlist and then quit for social. This last part is about my personal opinion and Halo 3 obviously. Halo 2 was ok, but I happen to feel that KD showed more skill than Rank because Halo 2 was simply too slow. Also, I had experience of standbying more in Halo 2 and I have no idea if that was netcode or the fact I played it late in its lifecycle. [b]In my overall opinion, 50s in Halo 3 were a huge step above 45s in skill. There was a huge gap between a small number and that's a problem. Halo 2 had the opposite problem. A lot of skilled players were stuck around 40 because 50s cheated there way there.[/b] What I am saying is that 40s were generally destroyed in Halo 3 to 45s. There was too much a skill gap for those levels. Most of those 40s should have been 30s, but because in Halo 3 you can be boosted and skip levels the system sucked. Halo 2 made too many good players bunched up below cheaters. Almost every 50 I ever seen in Halo 2 cheated to some extent. ----------- This is a complicated problem 343i has. Don't have a ranking system and piss off a large # of fans or have one and risk a lot of people abusing the game. Just seeing how both games had opposite problems kind of makes me think that the system is broken, but I personally still find it more fun than a reach or call of duty ranking system. [Edited on 05.09.2012 11:44 AM PDT]

Why do you keep saying Halo 2? They were specifically talking about Halo 3. I think you're getting confused. :P Anyway, all Halos since Halo 2 have used a form of "[url=http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/trueskill/]TrueSkill[/url]", a system first invented by a few students that were hired by Microsoft. This is a required system for any first party Xbox game with competitive multiplayer online. Even Reach had it; Reach just didn't have a visible rank (Other than Arena ratings) and it was extremely relaxed when it came to pairing people in matchmaking. What he's talking about here is the settings they have for TrueSkill. He says "Anyway, we have things we're looking at." which indicates there will possibly be some form of visible TrueSkill ranking. It's also great to hear that it won't be the same as how Reach does it. (He's confirmed before that TrueSkill won't work like it does in Reach. Arena rank and TrueSkill are separate things by the way.) ______________________________________________ For my thoughts/opinions on this, I think it's wonderful they're not copying and pasting the systems over. The visible TrueSkill ranking system was flawed in design in Halo 2 and 3. Boosting, selling accounts and various forms of cheating spawned from the system. It definitely needs an update to it to avoid that sort of annoyance which gets in the way of truly enjoying the game. There are a few ways to make everyone happy that I've seen floating around. One way that I like is resetting the ranks. Bungie did this with Arena ranking and I really liked that aspect. I feel that we should have similar visible ranks like Halo 2/3 had but have them reset after a set amount time. After that amount of time, they still need to be visible somewhere so you don't feel like achieving that was completely wasted. The main thing resetting the ranks after a certain amount of time fixes is the selling of high ranking accounts. If it's going to be reset after a certain amount of time why would you spend money to have an account that does have a high rank? You'd have to achieve it again to look impressive. I don't see many people thinking that would be a worthwhile investment. (You know... Even though it was stupid in the first place.) Boosting wouldn't happen often either. It would be too much of a hassle for people to do month after month. (... or whatever amount of time they'd choose.) Too much effort into something you'd simply have to continually do. Before you'd do it once and you'd always have that little trophy of "achievement" right next to your gamertag without putting in any extra effort. Sadly enough, I don't think there will ever be a system that truly discourages cheating in the forms of bridging, standbys, disconnecting other players or plainly hacking. You could put systems that would try to prevent people from doing it but there's no way to force players to do it legitimately. Too many people out there want the easy route and they'll do it no matter what. Hell, they'll do it in a game without visible skill ranking. They'll do it just for the carnage reports and to have a "good time". [Edited on 05.08.2012 5:48 PM PDT]