Edited by Moderator - Please do not create alternate accounts to bypass forum bans. Alternate accounts will be permanently banned, and offending users will be subject to both temporary and permanent bans.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
343industries’ Franchise Development Director Frank O’Connor (AKA Stinkles) explains why 343i refused to make a visible 1-50 ranking at this link: [this link[/url
Basically, the reasoning is that we shouldn’t have to put up with boosters, etc.
This is completely unbelievable. Let me explain through an open letter to Mr. O’Connor – or, should I say, Dictator O’Connor
Dear Frank/Stinkles,
When you create a game you are selling it to consumers. How about letting those consumers decide for themselves whether they want to put up with boosters? I, like many people, loved the visible 1-50 rankings from H2 and H3. Yes, boosters, etc., were a pain in the butt. But you know what? I, like many people, voluntarily went into ranked playlists because we enjoyed competitive play despite boosters.
You have behaved like a complete dictator. Instead of doing the reasonable thing and letting consumers decide for themselves what they should have to put up with, you have given us – the competitive community – a game that, without visible rankings, is a complete let-down. Congratulations.
Sincerely,
Caboosondloose[/spoiler]](http://www.littleenglishhaloblog.com/2012/05/looks-like-we-wont-see-return-of-1-50.html)
You chose the wrong forum to post this on. He’s not going to read this. Should have posted on Neogaf and maybe he would have read it.
YOU loved it.
For me, it was a broken system, easily exploitable and didn’t even serve to act as an indicator of skill.
Anyone could reach a 50 in time.
Reach’s Arena served as a far better indicator of actual skill.
Did you even read what I wrote? We used to be given a choice: two playlists – ranked and social. Now we are given one choice. Two choices gives people like you and the freedom to choose the experience that we both like. One choice only gives people like you what you like. People like me – and there are a lot of us – are pissed. Again, I ask: why shouldn’t we be given the choice? Your reply (“YOU like it”) totally ignores the question.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post comments that are discriminatory in nature.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Seriously, I would rather put up with some boosting from time to time then not have any ranking at all, that logic is limited.
That would be like if someone knew 10 super evil Jews who needed to be a killed so just to be safe he decides to kill every Jew in the world.
Like, a few ranked games get ruined by cheaters so we have to take out all the ranked games.
No sense, none at all.
> YOU loved it.
>
> For me, it was a broken system, easily exploitable and didn’t even serve to act as an indicator of skill.
>
> Anyone could reach a 50 in time.
>
> <mark>Reach’s Arena served as a far better indicator of actual skill.</mark>
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not flame or attack other members.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Hahaha someone never reached a 50.
Dictator gg you better go and get ready some coffee and don´t forget the bow 
Man, you amuse me. I really did NOT like halo 2 multiplayer…halo 3 was…kinda ok.
I like Halo 4 multiplayer so I cant agree but thanks for that entertaining post 
EDIT: I would like to see Frank dressed up as a dictator with a Spartan Laser in the hand and say “I dement Halo to be more awesome!” oh please send me a link if that ever happen! lol
> YOU loved it.
>
> For me, it was a broken system, easily exploitable and didn’t even serve to act as an indicator of skill.
>
> Anyone could reach a 50 in time.
>
> Reach’s Arena served as a far better indicator of actual skill.
But not everyone can reach a level 130, if given enough time?
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not flame or attack other members.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
> > YOU loved it.
> >
> > For me, it was a broken system, easily exploitable and didn’t even serve to act as an indicator of skill.
> >
> > Anyone could reach a 50 in time.
> >
> > <mark>Reach’s Arena served as a far better indicator of actual skill.</mark>
>
> Hahaha someone never reached a 50.
lmao, exactly my thought as well.
Does anyone remember the Halo 2 ranking system?
I about crapped my pants if I got lumped in with someone over a 25.
(That was after the rankings were reset about halfway through H2’s life)
I remember it well. I was a legit 34 (after the reset), and it was the most fun and competitive online experience I’ve ever enjoyed in Halo. H3 was okay, but not as good of a game imho
He did exactly as he was mandated by his superiors to do. He conceived of, gathered resources for, and implemented strategies for the game that he and his team wanted to make. In a sense, he did act like a dictator, and that’s exactly what he was required to do. In so doing, he has given you --the competitive community-- and all communities for that matter, the choice to voluntarily not play the game.
I’m on board with a lot of the suggestions people have made on this forum, but this isn’t helping anyone. When you become Franchise Development Director of your own billion dollar interactive media hit, you can decide what the consumers receive. But, don’t be surprised if someone sends you an open letter telling you how you’ve ruined the game for them and their friend.
Yes, you are right. If you are the product director of a multi-billion dollar product, you have the right to make it as you wish. Just don’t be surprised if that product starts seriously losing popularity…
After reading what Frankie wrote, I’m wondering how we played the same game. That was not my experience with Halo 3’s ranking system at all.
There aren’t as many fake accounts as people think. When the same rank can be earned in Lone Wolf and in Squad Battle it will not mean the same thing about the player. The rank should have said what it was earned in.
> Yes, you are right. If you are the product director of a multi-billion dollar product, you have the right to make it as you wish. Just don’t be surprised if that product starts seriously losing popularity…
And that’s exactly what I said. Look, we can all agree some changes need to be made, but writing someone an “open letter” in an attempt to make them look incompetent at their job is definitively not the correct course of action. It will do nothing but get your opinion dismissed as nothing more than wailing. Having a clear, open discussion is infinitely more effective at making someone gear your message. Catching more flies with honey rather than vinegar, as it were.
Agreed. I was a 48 in TS, Double Team, and Lone Wolves and boosters were pretty rare. It was much worse in Halo2, and even then I enjoyed it more than I enjoy the big social party that is Halo4.
> After reading what Frankie wrote, I’m wondering how we played the same game.
That’s what I was thinking.
In my experience, boosters were pretty rare and doing a quick rank check in lobby was a pretty good indicator of how the game would proceed. Nuking the system simply because the game wasn’t immediately pinpoint accurate with skill ranking is absurd.
Whatever, it doesn’t look like we’re catching anything with honey or with vinegar. The competitive community requested visible rankings far before H4 was created, and Mr. O’Connor didn’t care, evidently. Now people are pissed. Why? Because not giving people choices and driving people away from your product is incompetent, especially if you’re in charge of a multi-billion dollar product. We asked nicely. Now we’re just angry, especially since no one seems to have ever bothered to listen to us.
Fair enough, but not bothering to engage with the community is a serious breach of respect for us, the consumer. Bungie used to interact with people on their messageboads. 343i does not. They just ignore is. Can you imagine McDonalds or Burger King doing the same if people started complaining about their hamburgers and started eating fewer of them? Of course not. Not listening to or responding to your consumers is bad customer service, and it is bad for business. Just sayin’