I’m curious, we’ve seen what the competitive community’s standpoint on why there SHOULD be a numbered ranking system in Halo 4, which I essentially subscribe to, but what are the reasons casuals DON’T want one?
I understand the basic arguments of derankers, boosters and account selling, but if those could be fixed or policed in some way, would casual players have any reason not to want a ranking system?
I really just want to know the opinions here, I don’t want a big argument or a competitive VS casual situation, which I disagree with entirely, I think we are all one community and should be treated equally by 343 and other game designers.
I think we should have a numbered ranking system in Halo 4, why do those of you who disagree…disagree?
-Please think through your responses, I don’t want this devolving into the aforementioned competitive VS casual arguments we have long been merely recycling.
I would not mind a 1-50 system, but i hate it when i go to play ranked to win and my teammates sucks and i suffer from that. Other than that i feel that 1-50 should be introduced again.
Both is the only way to go (unless competitives will take the hit).
A standard Reach-like ranking system will pull all the casuals into the game. Otherwise, when they don’t rank up, they will just move on to CO-other games. There are a few casual Halo fans that won’t move away, but I think the major casual population is external and would leave.
If Reach had both an Arena ranking system and a standard ranking system, I’m sure Halo 4 can have a standard and a competitive raking system (for “Ranked” playlists that WON’T have custom loadouts and would have weapons spawn on the map).
Casuals love ranking up, whether they try to deny it or not. A time based ranking system like the cR system attracts a large number of casual players to the game, while a win/loss based ranking system such as the 1-50 attracts the hardcore crowd into the game. Halo 3’s ranking system was perfect in the sense that it connected two ranking systems in exp and 1-50 by forcing players to reach a certain rank milestone to get the next rank through exp (ex Brigadier to General needed a 50). Another reason H3’s was so good was the inclusion of playlist exp, which added a 3rd ranking system for players to show how dedicated they were to a certain playlist.
Nobody is disagreeing with a ranking system, it’s a modern Halo myth! People seem to think that casual players actually look at competitive playlists and go ‘ugh, tHiS is soooo0o stUpiD! 343 sHOulD k33p tHis oUt.’ Casual players don’t care about competitive playlists and aren’t even bothered if they exist or not.
> I would not mind a 1-50 system, but i hate it when i go to play ranked to win and my teammates sucks and i suffer from that. Other than that i feel that 1-50 should be introduced again.
I don’t really see this an issue as if you search alone you’re going to match with and against other players searching alone the majority of the time so it’s the luck of the draw.
If they had a playlist similar to some other games where only individual players could match individuals that could help.
I’m all for competitive players having a ranked playlist or two to play in. It’s when people justify it as their ONLY reason for playing that I shake my head. I’ve seen people say Halo 4 could be garbage, and they’d be happy as long as they have 1-50. Or when people say that 1-50 should be the ONLY ranking system in Halo 4, and that people who do poorly should be prevented from playing all together by the game itself.
You don’t have to have a visual ranking system for Trueskill to work, and a visual ranking system doesn’t even have to use numbers.
At the same time, with the game 6 months off, 343 hasn’t even detailed what the ranking system is going to be like. People just need to calm the -Yoink- down.
I have an idea but I’m pretty sure someone else would have thought of it by now.
There should be social playlists, where you just earn experience like how everything was in reach and there should be ranked playlists where you are judged by how good you are AND you earn experience from those playlists too (or spartan points).
So there will be 2 ways you can see how good someone is. By their experience, and by their skill.
> > I would not mind a 1-50 system, but i hate it when i go to play ranked to win and my teammates sucks and i suffer from that. Other than that i feel that 1-50 should be introduced again.
>
> I don’t really see this an issue as if you search alone you’re going to match with and against other players searching alone the majority of the time so it’s the luck of the draw.
>
> If they had a playlist similar to some other games where only individual players could match individuals that could help.
As a player that play for fun and competetivly, I don’t want a “Trueskill” system that displays my luck. I want something that truelly displays my skill level acuratly, something the 1-50 trueskill system never did.
> Casuals love ranking up, whether they try to deny it or not. A time based ranking system like the cR system attracts a large number of casual players to the game, while a win/loss based ranking system such as the 1-50 attracts the hardcore crowd into the game. Halo 3’s ranking system was perfect in the sense that it connected two ranking systems in exp and 1-50 by forcing players to reach a certain rank milestone to get the next rank through exp (ex Brigadier to General needed a 50). Another reason H3’s was so good was the inclusion of playlist exp, which added a 3rd ranking system for players to show how dedicated they were to a certain playlist.
I almost completely forgot about the playlist xp. You’ve changed my mind, I no longer mind 1-50 if I get to show that I spend my time in certain playlists. (BTB -Yoink!-)
> Both is the only way to go (unless competitives will take the hit).
>
> A standard Reach-like ranking system will pull all the casuals into the game. Otherwise, when they don’t rank up, they will just move on to CO-other games. There are a few casual Halo fans that won’t move away, but I think the major casual population is external and would leave.
>
> If Reach had both an Arena ranking system and a standard ranking system, I’m sure Halo 4 can have a standard and a competitive raking system (for “Ranked” playlists that WON’T have custom loadouts and would have weapons spawn on the map).
The casual community didn’t move away from Halo 3 when they didn’t immediately get their 50. Plus there’s always social playlists for the people who don’t like ranks.
> > > I would not mind a 1-50 system, but i hate it when i go to play ranked to win and my teammates sucks and i suffer from that. Other than that i feel that 1-50 should be introduced again.
> >
> > I don’t really see this an issue as if you search alone you’re going to match with and against other players searching alone the majority of the time so it’s the luck of the draw.
> >
> > If they had a playlist similar to some other games where only individual players could match individuals that could help.
>
> As a player that play for fun and competetivly, I don’t want a “Trueskill” system that displays my luck. I want something that truelly displays my skill level acuratly, something the 1-50 trueskill system never did.
To this extent, I think they need more FFA playlists in Halo 4. It would be cool to see something like MLG FFA back in Halo 3, hopefully with more maps to play on. Maybe they could have a 4 player FFA playlist along with an 8 player playlist
I think there should be the old 1-50 system for all of us who like to play competitively, then some kind of social playlist for everyone else. Minus the cheaters, Halo 3’s system sort of worked.
I can’t speak for casuals, but I can say as a Co-Operative/Firefight player you can have your 1-50. I just don’t feel I should be stopped from playing and unlocking ALL the armor permutations and any other perk in the game because I like playing Co-Op playlists only. I’m going to pay the same amount in dollars for the Halo 4 as you. I shouldn’t be forced to join MM, which I don’t enjoy because you want something sizable like Halo 2 and 3 populations exclusively trapped in competitive MM to verify ranking bravado in order to get some digital gimmick that made me want to get the game in the first place.
> I can’t speak for casuals, but I can say as a Co-Operative/Firefight player you can have your 1-50. I just don’t feel I should be stopped from playing and unlocking ALL the armor permutations and any other perk in the game because I like playing Co-Op playlists only. I’m going to pay the same amount in dollars for the Halo 4 as you. I shouldn’t be forced to join MM, which I don’t enjoy because you want something sizable like Halo 2 and 3 populations exclusively trapped in competitive MM to verify ranking bravado in order to get some digital gimmick that made me want to get the game in the first place.
Actually the people who want 1-50 ranks DON’T want unlocks attached to that ranking system. Unlocks aren’t the reason they play. The reason they play is for the challange, a challange they are hoping 1-50 will bring back to Halo.
> The definition of a Casual is someone that doesn’t care. So they really shouldn’t care
Well no, the definition I would say, is that they play for fun, for a ‘casual gaming experience’. They don’t take it as seriously, so they generally aren’t worried about ranks.
I think the general consensus is that people want both and I agree entirely.
We need two seperate sets of playlists; social and ranked and then an underlying credit systems that allows both types of players to unlock at the same pace. This would essentially mean there would be two ranks for each player, an experience rank and a number rank, so you can be an inheritor in XP and only a 20 in ranked or you can be a 50 in ranked and only a Sergeant experience wise.
This would also give the game longevity, because it would mean those who get their XP rank maxed out can move onto numbered ranks if they want and the players who manage to max their numbered ranks can move onto their XP.
Overall I think it would be the best way to satisfy everyone and would probably segregate players a little less than Halo 3’s ranking system.