Mutliplayer ranking

[Phantom]

I'm tired of CoD's ranking system, it shows no skill whatsoever, all it shows is how much people play. I've never liked it and I've wished they would change it to Halo's ranking system, theirs was perfect, I've played Halo 3 so much, but wasn't able to get to Brigadier (I got 44 on Lone Wolves...one away :evil: )

Does anyone else hate CoD's ranking system? Or is it just me on a useless rant?

[Daveyjone]

Rage over? :]

Honestly I don't check or care about leaderboards but I'm curious about the halo one, what's the difference? I thought you couldn't make many differences...

[TuUhmazyn]

The halo 3 ranking set up was based off of basically winning games, giving you one experience point per game won and a set amount of skill level based on you win loss in a certain playlist. You had to earn experience on to i believe lieutenant, then you could go on by earning either exp or skill in a playlist. It was indeed more skillful because it encouraged you to be more vigilant in the games you played or you could lose skill. Btw 48 in lone wolves I think, no matter how many games i won, never went up after that.

[Phantom]

Yeah @Shoreyo it's a combination of experience and rank, experience goes basically by the same idea, but just giving you one point per game, and rank can go up or down by playing in one of the ranked playlists, and each playlist had it's separate rank.

Btw 48 in lone wolves I think, no matter how many games i won, never went up after that.

Yeah getting a 50 in lone wolves would be just legendary, it's so difficult to level up each one you go after about 42, you'd have to get it in something like MLG, where getting a good team together could ensure game after game.

Rage over? :]

It's always bugged me that I can't mess around without my stats getting messed up, in halo there's ranked playlists and social playlists. Social doesn't mess with your ranked stats at all, just gives you experience for winning. And then on each leaderboard for CoD (Kills, Wins, etc.) again it only shows how much you've played because it goes by the amount you've gotten.

[Daveyjone]

Well its a good idea, perhaps they should just lower the hype that comes with leaderboards, yet seeing as all gamers follow the Bartle law, you can't really as that removes all the diamonds from the list which would affect sales... So we're stuck with leaderboards the only thing to do would be to, as you said, improve them, but how?

[Phantom]

Well its a good idea, perhaps they should just lower the hype that comes with leaderboards, yet seeing as all gamers follow the Bartle law, you can't really as that removes all the diamonds from the list which would affect sales... So we're stuck with leaderboards the only thing to do would be to, as you said, improve them, but how?

I have no idea about the leaderboards but rank they can change, by making it like Halo's

[Ehjookayted]

They could definitely have something related to both W/L and K/D ratios. K/D would cap out at a certain rank, such as having a 3.00 K/D would get the most experience and highest rank, and only winning games would increase the rank to its highest level.

However, the way it works, it won't happen. The allure of leveling up is also the time and effort it takes; some people take a long time to reach 10th/15th prestige, and in that time, more map packs are released. People get tired of playing the same maps for that large amount of time, thus making map packs more enticing, resulting in more money for the developers. Sadly, money comes up once again, and popularity in the pocketbook is more important than a quality and respectable ranking system for people who actually play this game with perception and rationality.

[Daveyjone]

Remember there are 'diamonds' out there and that they love being the best, so a leaderboard will always get abused so that people can show off, i.e. boosting a kd or wd.