CoD its a non competitive game so…idc if the game had a numerical ranking system CoD it always be newbie atraction game…Instead Halo 4 really need a ranking system why? Cuz it is a competitive game since ever, so we can’t go back and make it such a noob thing like CoD.
> CoD its a non competitive game so…idc if the game had a numerical ranking system CoD it always be newbie atraction game…Instead Halo 4 really need a ranking system why? Cuz it is a competitive game since ever, so we can’t go back and make it such a noob thing like CoD.
Theres only to be one game in competitive leagues next year. I’l give you a hint, its the game with perks, progression ranks, and kill cams…
…ah, doesnt quite work anymore. Only COD will be played competitively on a big stage.
> > COD gets shout-casting, live streaming, 2 league plays, spectator mode…
> >
> > Meanwhile, in the Halo 4 vidoc, we hear “We ensure nobody will get a zero score”
> >
> > Christ.
>
> Who cares? CoD has always been a awful game for competition. That’s why it never reached the same level of success or Prestige as past Halo titles did, despite it being multi-platform with ridiculous sales numbers.
COD gets higher stream figures.
> > > > > *face palm
> > > > > -Fletcher
> > > >
> > > > BO2 is using the SCII like ranking system which is very much like the HR Arena ranking system (for competitive playlist rankings).
> > >
> > > And the SC2 ranking system is VERY successful, the game is enjoyed by Millions, and the game can be played out of the box for MLG tournaments.
> >
> > Blizzard always makes those types of games, making hardcore gaming accessible without resorting to dumbing down their games mechanics. People say hardcore games made for the core gamer are a thing of the past, but Blizzard continues to do it they just make their games in a way that so you gradually learn and are not hit with a insurmountable learning curve wall.
>
> Well that can sadly only be said for Starcraft now, have you seen what they’ve done to World of Warcraft? Cataclysm was awful enough, but Mists of Pandaria is just… Ridiculous.
>
> What saddens me is that Halo 1-3 wasn’t intentionally competitive, why? Because they didn’t have a set group in mind, they just kept to simple, fair and balanced gameplay that in turn, resulted in being a very good competitive game, Halo has often been revered for it “skillful” approach to playing the game. 343 have clearly dumbed the game down for the sake of it, if the success of Lan in CE and MM in Halo 2 and 3 isn’t enough to suggest how successful a “competitive” game can be, then I don’t know what is.
Cataclysm was much more “hardcore” than Wrath of the Lich King the difficulty was definitely intentionally amped up in the dungeons/raids because the community was complaining WoTLK was “LOL faceroll”.
Believe me I played plenty of Wrath it was EZ mode compared to the other expansions even on hard modes, the real reason Cataclysm gets so much hate is the pubs could not excel by zerging Raids/dungeons anymore and had to think about what they were doing for the first time since BC.
MoP I have not experienced yet as I have school and dont want to get hooked, but from what I have seen its getting mostly positive reviews.
I do think that Halo could be successful as a competitve title, but its obvious that console FPS are just not in that place where that is possible right now. There is alot of F2P FPS on PC that are made with competitve in mind though, but Halo will always be my favorite shooter.
Black Ops uses a league system, more like Starcraft than Halo, but the idea is the same. None the less, it does use trueskill and wins to lose ratios to rate players and place them in leagues. This is on top of their traditional matchmaking system.
Halo 4, while it may not feature visible trueskill (to our current knowledge) or Leagues, will feature a strict trueskill to match player of similar skill.
> Halo 4, while it may not feature visible trueskill (to our current knowledge) or Leagues, will feature a strict trueskill to match player of similar skill.
That’s what Reach supposedly had, and we all know how well that went.
Too bad it won’t help it’s gameplay at all.
> > Halo 4, while it may not feature visible trueskill (to our current knowledge) or Leagues, will feature a strict trueskill to match player of similar skill.
>
> That’s what Reach supposedly had, and we all know how well that went.
That’s not to say it can’t work, because Reach used the same sort of skill preference as Halo 3’s social. All Halo 4 needs is a strict trueskill system, which Reach didn’t have outside of the Arena.
> > Halo 4, while it may not feature visible trueskill (to our current knowledge) or Leagues, will feature a strict trueskill to match player of similar skill.
>
> That’s what Reach supposedly had, and we all know how well that went.
Reach only used strict trueskill by default in Arena. Other playlists allow players to turn on Strict trueskill, but most playlists were to underpopulated for the system to make a difference.
Many games use hidden strict-trueskill just fine.
If Halo 4 has no ranking I hope Black Ops II does better than it and proves ranking system makes a game better. I am buying both Blops II and Halo 4 but Blops II will gain my interest far more with a visible ranking system.
It’s going to be awesome and I’ve known about the ranking system for Blops II for awhile now, huge reason I’m getting that game.
If Black Ops II can wake up the Halo makers to realizing removing ranked is a bad idea then I’m all for it. After all Halo 4 has so many modern game features now so it should put ranked back in =)
Who cares about Call of Duty. Just play some Halo.
> Reach’s broad medal category’s & XP based progression was a major step in the right direction
It’s a step in the right direction if it also has a trueskill system next to it.
Its a step backwards if they abandon a trueskill system in favor of a progression system.
Progression only show who plays the game more nothing else. Just because you play Halo all day doesn’t mean anything because you have a higher rank. The only good thing about a progressive system is it keeps some people playing because they want to unlock the next weapon, armor piece, or tag. It does not show who has more skill or match people on the same skill level.
Games that only have a progression system, A lot more people don’t play to win, they would rather just stat pad their k/d and quit out if they are negative. I notice more boosters on progression systems also.
1-50 system had its flaws, but instead of abandoning it, they need to just improve on the system so its not so easy to exploit, gives 50’s incentive to keep playing, and make the system consistent so new players don’t fly through the ranks and players with 1000+ matches don’t feel like they are rank locked.
> COD gets higher stream figures.
Oh look, the most popular franchise in the history of the industry gets more stream figures? Who would have thunk it? What does that have to do with CoD’s competitive merit? Nothing. Just because it’s popular and accessible does not validate it’s competitive merit.
Also, H3’s social playlists didn’t use real TruSkill, if it did then I wouldn’t have a nearly 3:1 K/D ratio in it without trying. Reach does, and it works.
> > Reach’s broad medal category’s & XP based progression was a major step in the right direction
>
> It’s a step in the right direction if it also has a trueskill system next to it.
>
> Its a step backwards if they abandon a trueskill system in favor of a progression system.
>
> Progression only show who plays the game more nothing else. Just because you play Halo all day doesn’t mean anything because you have a higher rank. The only good thing about a progressive system is it keeps some people playing because they want to unlock the next weapon, armor piece, or tag. It does not show who has more skill or match people on the same skill level.
>
> Games that only have a progression system, A lot more people don’t play to win, they would rather just stat pad their k/d and quit out if they are negative. I notice more boosters on progression systems also.
>
> 1-50 system had its flaws, but instead of abandoning it, they need to just improve on the system so its not so easy to exploit, gives 50’s incentive to keep playing, and make the system consistent so new players don’t fly through the ranks and players with 1000+ matches don’t feel like they are rank locked.
Of course. I did say “step”, not that it was perfect.
The besides abusers of the system (the biggest problem), the single largest problem I personally have is that once you reach the maximum rank, there is no incentive to ever play the playlist again. Besides maybe x3 the progression experience, there is nothing that would give me incentive to play on playlist that I’ve already max ranked.
Were I to design the ranking system, I would keep H4’s current progression based system, and bring back Reach’s Arena rating system with some notable changes.
- Division ratings reset every 4 months.
- Player card displays the average division you’ve attained across your lifetime career, not just the previous season(s).
- Player placement within a division is based on mostly individual points, win/loss ratio or placement, TruSkill rating, and Kill/Death ratio. (in about that order)
- Placement is based on performance in all competitive/ranked playlists, not an individual playlist.
- Official tournament settings have separated ladders/ranks.
One of the reasons that SC2’s League structure is successful is that it’s competitive scene is based around 1v1, as opposed to Halo which is a team game. The inherent problem with this is that not everyone plays matchmaking with there dedicated team, instead they play with friends and whomever else is online… So if you place an importance on individual points with H4’s new scoring system along with the above factors, even if you lose the system could (in theory) continually evaluate you as an indivdiual and less as a team.
IMO this is the best of both worlds, broad category’s that reset but also are on display as a badge of honor or achievement to show off… Not everyone wants to play MLG gametypes either, as it’s a very different experience compared to what “standard” Halo is in the vanilla game, so serious tournament players should get there own competitive sandbox.
> > Reach’s broad medal category’s & XP based progression was a major step in the right direction
>
> It’s a step in the right direction if it also has a trueskill system next to it.
>
> Its a step backwards if they abandon a trueskill system in favor of a progression system.
>
> Progression only show who plays the game more nothing else. Just because you play Halo all day doesn’t mean anything because you have a higher rank. The only good thing about a progressive system is it keeps some people playing because they want to unlock the next weapon, armor piece, or tag. It does not show who has more skill or match people on the same skill level.
>
> Games that only have a progression system, A lot more people don’t play to win, they would rather just stat pad their k/d and quit out if they are negative. I notice more boosters on progression systems also.
>
>
> 1-50 system had its flaws, but instead of abandoning it, they need to just improve on the system so its not so easy to exploit, gives 50’s incentive to keep playing, and make the system consistent so new players don’t fly through the ranks and players with 1000+ matches don’t feel like they are rank locked.
You should check out Gears of War. It features a progression system, prestiging, and no visible trueskill. Nonetheless, people rarely play to “stat-pad” and play to win, even in quick-matches. The game also rewards those who play smart and play as a team.
I thought BOps 2 has a league system? How is that like 1-50?
Besides who cares if CoD has “skill” based rankings there is nothing “skillful” about it’s gameplay. Halo on the other hand does have gameplay that requires skill and 343i has said many times that skill is a major focus for them and that it’ll be heavily tracked and there will be ranks. You guys really need to stop yoinking about it.
OH -Yoink- NO !!! So basically black -ocks 2 players are gonna hav the time of their gaming lives and were stucl with they’re -Yoink- excuse of a ranking system . Just Great 343 just Great -_-
> > > Reach’s broad medal category’s & XP based progression was a major step in the right direction
> >
> > It’s a step in the right direction if it also has a trueskill system next to it.
> >
> > Its a step backwards if they abandon a trueskill system in favor of a progression system.
> >
> > Progression only show who plays the game more nothing else. Just because you play Halo all day doesn’t mean anything because you have a higher rank. The only good thing about a progressive system is it keeps some people playing because they want to unlock the next weapon, armor piece, or tag. It does not show who has more skill or match people on the same skill level.
> >
> > Games that only have a progression system, A lot more people don’t play to win, they would rather just stat pad their k/d and quit out if they are negative. I notice more boosters on progression systems also.
> >
> >
> > 1-50 system had its flaws, but instead of abandoning it, they need to just improve on the system so its not so easy to exploit, gives 50’s incentive to keep playing, and make the system consistent so new players don’t fly through the ranks and players with 1000+ matches don’t feel like they are rank locked.
>
> You should check out Gears of War. It features a progression system, prestiging, and no visible trueskill. Nonetheless, people rarely play to “stat-pad” and play to win, even in quick-matches. The game also rewards those who play smart and play as a team.
I had Gears 1 and 2 and have 3. I don’t play gears 3 much so I can’t comment on the rank system, but gears 2 had a visible trueskill ranking system. It wasn’t a 1-50 system it used chevrons instead. If you won a lot you would rank up and if you lost you would rank down.
It’s kind of hard to stat pad on a game where most of the gametypes only have 1 life, but its easy to stat pad on games with unlimited lives on objective games. When you don’t care for the objective but just farm your k/d ratio.
Also what’s the reward for team play on Gears I must of missed that? You play as a team to win and not get overwhelmed by the other team just like most other games.
First off, I still haven’t heard the official rank system mentioned anywhere. You have your spartan points (like Reach)yes, but that is completely separate from competitive or skill based rank. I think they will announce that rank system at the MLG event or a few days prior since it is really important to that community.
I can see the usefulness of rank system that is completely based on your skill as a player. It gives you the personal incentive to improve so you can achieve the next rank. No reason to make it visible to everyone else, imo.
> > > > Reach’s broad medal category’s & XP based progression was a major step in the right direction
> > >
> > > It’s a step in the right direction if it also has a trueskill system next to it.
> > >
> > > Its a step backwards if they abandon a trueskill system in favor of a progression system.
> > >
> > > Progression only show who plays the game more nothing else. Just because you play Halo all day doesn’t mean anything because you have a higher rank. The only good thing about a progressive system is it keeps some people playing because they want to unlock the next weapon, armor piece, or tag. It does not show who has more skill or match people on the same skill level.
> > >
> > > Games that only have a progression system, A lot more people don’t play to win, they would rather just stat pad their k/d and quit out if they are negative. I notice more boosters on progression systems also.
> > >
> > >
> > > 1-50 system had its flaws, but instead of abandoning it, they need to just improve on the system so its not so easy to exploit, gives 50’s incentive to keep playing, and make the system consistent so new players don’t fly through the ranks and players with 1000+ matches don’t feel like they are rank locked.
> >
> > You should check out Gears of War. It features a progression system, prestiging, and no visible trueskill. Nonetheless, people rarely play to “stat-pad” and play to win, even in quick-matches. The game also rewards those who play smart and play as a team.
>
> I had Gears 1 and 2 and have 3. I don’t play gears 3 much so I can’t comment on the rank system, but gears 2 had a visible trueskill ranking system. It wasn’t a 1-50 system it used chevrons instead. If you won a lot you would rank up and if you lost you would rank down.
>
> It’s kind of hard to stat pad on a game where most of the gametypes only have 1 life, but its easy to stat pad on games with unlimited lives on objective games. When you don’t care for the objective but just farm your k/d ratio.
>
> Also what’s the reward for team play on Gears I must of missed that? You play as a team to win and not get overwhelmed by the other team just like most other games.
I guess I should have specified Gears 3 (though incidentally, Gears 2 abandoned the trueskill system after a while and went with a progression system). The game does incentivise players to work together and work toward the match objective (such as capturing the flag, or the hill, or whatever the gametype objective is) by rewarding for the objective and for kills.
Gears 1 was very “lone-wolf” in it’s gameplay, but 2 and 3 were both “tuned” (for lack of a better word) so that lone-wolf gameplay would result in death more often than not (unless said player was really good).
That’s my experience, anyway. I don’t really have a problem with skill ratings, so long as it’s solely used for matching players of similar skill. I don’t think skill should have an impact on a player’s rank (though honestly, I don’t think games should have rank at all).
The thing is CoD doesn’t even need a ranking system is already easy as it is.