[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.