I remember playing Halo 2 live and pursuing that Halo Ring of level 50. Let me tell ya there were some cheating sob's. Standbys, Ammo w/ no reload lag, and mods that speed up the opponent to the point you die when you spawn. Having said that.... I found they're two main types of players. Those that were social and hated to compete against their friends in slayer, or lose handily against better teams and players. Their disposition made them more prone to be turned off by competition and walls to overcome. The other type of player welcomed the challenge of the world, and fought like hell to become better no matter how tough the opponent was. Their disposition saw competition as a breeding ground for growth and skill. (I personally fall into the latter category) Now that doesn't mean Destiny has to be one or the other obviously. It does beg the question have the game designers left multiple perks for those who enjoy the social and communal aspect, and/or does the game benefit the player that sees the mountain and seeks to conquer it. I personally believe Bungie will reward both of these player types with perks and skills that come with mission types, and will have multiple game variants to cater to each playing style. Ultimately players want cool shit to play with, wear, gear up, customize, and show off. I think Bungie will be able to satisfy that part of you that craves the reward of victory through skilled no non-sense game play vs rewards through play duration and exp. We'll see though. We'll see.

I think it would be cool to have both a ranked/social playlist with the ranked playlist containing typical competitive gametypes(FFA, Team Deathmatch, CTF etc) and social having the same plus some. Regarding True skill, this should only apply to ranked playlists. True skill should have a similar formula to H2/H3 but with more of a twist on it like LOL(League of Legends). What i mean by the LOL reference is that instead of a ranking system of 1-50, how about having divisions such as Bronze(1-15), Silver(16-25), Gold (26-35), Diamond(36-45) and Onyx(46-50). Also when viewing your rank it would be cool if it showed your current rank in that division e.g gold(45). So for example when viewing a player it would look like this... IIblazinII rank GOLD(14) At the time that the lobby is formed IIblazinII is ranked 14th in the gold division. Just my 2 cents, thoughts?

ranking leads to boosting... and boosting is for bad kids. Just keep it simple kills/deaths/assists/win percentage

Pointless thread please remove. this is not halo stop comparing it to such a game.

I never understood halo 3 ranking system

Anybody that says they don't want a more competitive aspect to multiplayer matchmaking, is obviously bad at it. Don't waste your electrons by saying you were really good at (insert lame FPS MM here) but you want something different. If you were at the top last time, you want another mountain to climb in Destiny.

Was there a difference between the matchmaking in Reach and 3's?

I think we ought to leave Halo behind and think of new ways to do things. Let's move on. Let's do things differently than we did in 2004 or 2007. I know for some of you Halo players this will be difficult. From how I understand Destiny. It's focus will not be competitive play.

Am I the only person that thinks ranking systems always fail and that we just shouldn't have them? Now I don't know any games that do this so I can't speak from experience, but games like battlefield try to use a skill system and I feel like it always puts me on a team of bad non-team players against several squads of balanced players who know what they're doing. It would seem that it takes my moderate to high skill with low level players to balance against the other teams moderate middle level skill. In other words. 70 + 30 = 100 (my team) Against a 50+50=100 (enemy team). Maybe I have a wrong look at how the skill system works but it can feel this way a lot.

It needs to be like Halo 2's ranking system. The majority of people should be rank 25, not 40+. I think it should be based on win % of your last 100 games or so. That way if keeps people from getting locked and at the same time it prevents people from shooting up through the ranks. It should be fairly accurate too. The average person probably wins 50% of the time so if you scale it to a 1-50 system they'd be a 25. It should also keep the population evenly distributed throughout the ranks since every match you have winners and losers. It should be a nearly perfect bell curve.

I for one am totally down for a ranking system like Halo 3 that is based on skill as opposed to "time spent playing", but I am sure a lot of the posers here will disagree. Most players who prefer"play time based rank" tend to lack the skill required to keep up.

this is all very interesting but I want to play destiny. you know the new none halo game that bungie is working on.

Too many de-rankers in halo 3 You practically need friends to move up Actually now that I think about it there was de-rankers on all the halos

I have to disagree on Halo 3. Boosting in H3 was so bad in the game, the ranking system promote boosting, derankers, and it was easy to get to a 50. The one thing that was good about the system in H3 was the group search. Halo 2 was more on how good you were not how good your team was or bad it was. Like in TS H3 when I was getting my 50 in that (I was also playing by myself no friend helping me) if I recall I won 96 game with out a lost on my 49 and didn't get my 50 it was because the people on my team had a good W/L ratio and the others wasn't good so the system wasn't give my 50 until I win some games with people who had a good W/L ratio or had some people with a bad W/L ratio, but why is the system like that when you can win game after game and not get Lvl up? It shouldn't be about how good or how bad your team is or the other way, it should be about how good and consistent you are and nothing more then that.