[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.