Quote (IBlackIHIawk @ Nov 8 2012 02:27pm)

Halo 3 ranked system was fking retarded. I was 50 in literally every single thing within like 1-2 months after release

Reach was even more retarded. Getting to onyx was a joke, after 2 weeks of playing with my friend we got to the top 5% in onyx, stopped played and dropped to like 50%.


Halo 2 was TRUE skill, minus the fact that people cheated so much back then with modded xbox's, I literally back then would LISTEN to my xbox for the old maps to load to make sure they they weren't modding in order to get to level 44.

If there was no cheating halo 2 was the best way of a ranking system.

Halo 2 if you lost it equaled 2-3 wins, while in halo 3 it was like 1 MAYBE 2. I liked the fact that you had to win more in halo 2 since it was so hard to get to higher levels.

I used to play at pretty high competition and you would regularly see the MLG pro's at 40-44 in matches in halo 2.

In halo 3 there was no "competitive" ranked playlist so you didn't really see them in it at all that I can think of.

Halo 2 > Halo 3 >>>>>> Reach

Quote (IBlackIHIawk @ 8 Nov 2012 11:21)

While what I said above is what I prefer, it won't happen.

Halo 2's problem is that even if you went 20-1 K-D, and someone on your team went 1-30, you still lost the same amount of points for both (well not really it was based on your Level vs other team's levels, lose more if you played lower levels (to prevent boosting))

Basically halo 2 did not give a reward for you carrying your team through wins, and punished you for trying to carry though losses

ALSO

Halo 2 losses = 2 Wins or more, thus it was MUCH harder to level past level 30-34, at level 40+ it took around 5 win games in a row to level which was hard.

Halo 3 rewarded "non-campers" although not necessarily good players

High kills and High Deaths players were rewarded

People with high Kill/Death ratios were not rewarded as much

Kill death is what really matters not how many kills you got. Yes you can get 49 of the 50 kills required to win, but if you die 49 times then the score is 49-49, it takes one other person having a 1-0 kill/death for you to win.

Quote (IBlackIHIawk @ Nov 8 2012 11:16am)

This doesn't necessarily work and this is how halo 3 ranking system worked slightly. It was baed on your "score" at the end

Similar to COD

It does not work because assists and deaths are not equivalent to kills

In halo 3, someone goign 26-21 was ranked higher on the team than someone who was 10-0, which makes no sense, also looking at assists, say I got 0 kills, but had 20 assists, a person who was 10-5-0, was ranked higher than someone who was 0-0-20 (k-d-a)

Assists/Deaths need to positively affect or negatively affect you more than the havein the past.

Basically

Think of it this way.

Kill = 100 points
Assist = 40 points
Death = -50 points

So basically going 1-2, means your points evened out, this does not make sense at all in my mind since you aren't helping the team.


Assists should be based on damage applied per person. This would prevent someone who is just last hitting someone from getting WAY more points than someone who weakened them all the way. In this case either the person getting the assist needs to get 90/100 points, or the person getting the kill should get 10/100 points

Meanwhile deaths need to be relatively close to kills in terms of priority. If someone goes 10-10, they should have even amount of points OR negative points, and +points for kills

This is because death = kill, however not all kills are 1v1, and you don't always do all the work for kills.

TLDR

1 Kill = 1 Death

Assist = Kill * %dmg done
OR
Kill = Points-Assist points going to team mate (maybe a bit extra since the kill might not be secured without help and assists show team work generally, which should give more points)

Quote (IBlackIHIawk @ Nov 8 2012 11:21am)

While what I said above is what I prefer, it won't happen.

Halo 2's problem is that even if you went 20-1 K-D, and someone on your team went 1-30, you still lost the same amount of points for both (well not really it was based on your Level vs other team's levels, lose more if you played lower levels (to prevent boosting))

Basically halo 2 did not give a reward for you carrying your team through wins, and punished you for trying to carry though losses

ALSO

Halo 2 losses = 2 Wins or more, thus it was MUCH harder to level past level 30-34, at level 40+ it took around 5 win games in a row to level which was hard.

Halo 3 rewarded "non-campers" although not necessarily good players

High kills and High Deaths players were rewarded

People with high Kill/Death ratios were not rewarded as much

Kill death is what really matters not how many kills you got. Yes you can get 49 of the 50 kills required to win, but if you die 49 times then the score is 49-49, it takes one other person having a 1-0 kill/death for you to win.

Quote (IBlackIHIawk @ Nov 8 2012 09:27am)

Halo 3 ranked system was fking retarded. I was 50 in literally every single thing within like 1-2 months after release

Reach was even more retarded. Getting to onyx was a joke, after 2 weeks of playing with my friend we got to the top 5% in onyx, stopped played and dropped to like 50%.


Halo 2 was TRUE skill, minus the fact that people cheated so much back then with modded xbox's, I literally back then would LISTEN to my xbox for the old maps to load to make sure they they weren't modding in order to get to level 44.

If there was no cheating halo 2 was the best way of a ranking system.

Halo 2 if you lost it equaled 2-3 wins, while in halo 3 it was like 1 MAYBE 2. I liked the fact that you had to win more in halo 2 since it was so hard to get to higher levels.

I used to play at pretty high competition and you would regularly see the MLG pro's at 40-44 in matches in halo 2.

In halo 3 there was no "competitive" ranked playlist so you didn't really see them in it at all that I can think of.

Halo 2 > Halo 3 >>>>>> Reach