Fair warning this is going to be a bit if a post. Here it goes anyway:
Over the past day or two the forum has been nothing but bashing on 343 about the ranking system. Countless threads, petitions to implement a ranking system, etc. I just have to ask, why? It’s seems as that if your against the ranking system than you suck, your a noob, your new to halo, etc. And a lot of people saying that 343 doesn’t care about the competitive community, and that they only cater to the new people.
Now here’s what I really don’t get. This is aimed at the so called “competitive” community. Why do you care about a number next to your name? My definition of competitive must be different than yours. I compete not for a number next to my name, but to be #1. How can a number justify my skill? You might say k/d but what if I was just having a bad day? Everyone has surely had one of those. The only way you can find out someone’s true skill is to play against them. The same way in which you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover.
Now lets move onto Reach. I can’t even tell you how many times I’ve seen people say it failed because it lacked a ranking system. Oh, how horribly mistaken you are. The games MECHANICS were downright horrible. It catered to just the “casual” community, not the “competitive”. I wish people would stop using Reach’s ranking system as a scapegoat as to why to the game failed.
Lets look at Halo 2&3. Again, many people state that it was successful because of its ranking system. Again, you’re mistaken. It’s core mechanics were fantastic. They were simple, and supported both “competitive” and “casual”. And clan battles were also a big thing at the time. The 2 games weren’t successful because of its ranking system. Hell, Halo CE didn’t even have a ranking system, but look how competitive that was.
What I’m getting at is that you don’t really need a ranking system in order to be “competitive”. As long as the games mechanics support that type of gameplay, then it will do fine without it. Halo 4 will be fine with, or without a ranking system.
Not bumping this thread, but anyone care to elaborate?
If you dont understand why people want a visible indicator then you must not understand why we give out trophies or medals for sports.
Its the same exact concept.
IMO halo should always have a casual/competitive split playlist. I know a visual indicator isnt super indicative of skill but it certainly brings an level of fun to many players across the board.
Something tangible to work for brings players like me back for more again and again. Its simply knowing you can lose something for losing a match or too many matches. No matter how good or not the mechanics of halo are, to strip away visual indicators of “skill” also strip away a portion of the fun factor.
> If you dont understand why people want a visible indicator then you must not understand why we give out trophies or medals for sports.
>
> Its the same exact concept.
Nobody cares about who came in 2nd or 3rd in sports, only 1st. Same thing with the ranking system. Nobody cares about the rank next to your name, only where you finish on the leader board. If its not first place, who the hell cares?
Show me something outside of video games where there is good competition for nothing…because I can’t think of anything where it is very highly competitive just for nothing. Even if it is simply something like intramural sports to win a truly meaningless league championship, that is SOMETHING.
When nothing is on the line, the competition level drops severely.
I can chime in a little bit.
First of all, I am neutral on this issue. Whether the ranking is visible or not, I can see pros and cons either way. What I consider necessary is skill-based matchmaking, which will be well implemented by Halo4 so I am happy.
That said, let me explain what benefits a visible ranking brings to the game (ideally in terms of percentage of the entire population (e.g.: top 2%, top 20%, 20-40%, 40-60%, 60-80%, 80-100%, like what BO2 is going to implement):
- Such a ranking can help me understand where I am in terms of skills in the entire player population.
While playing a game, in addition to have fun I would also like to see myself improving, ideally faster than other players who initially are at the same level as me. By knowing where I am percentage wise in the player population, I will have a way to measure that.
-
For advanced players, a visible ranking is especially important for bragging rights. In today’s world, many such players are trying to make a living through social media like Twitch and YouTube. If they want to attract more viewership, they need to have something to brag about (e.g.: top 2%).
-
Assuming the ranking change is pure win/loss based (like Halo3), having it visible will encourage players to be more focused on the objectives and try their best to win the game (so they can move up in rankings). When players with similar skills are randomly matched into a team, it would be great if they are aligned with a common goal: to win the game. This way they will much more likely to cooperate with each other and focus on the objectives.
I can list negatives regarding visible ranking as well. But I’ll spare it for now as that’s not the main focus of this thread.
I see where you guys are coming from. The thing that is frustrating me the most is people saying things like “I speak for the competitive community and we want a ranking system”. I’m competitive, I just don’t play for ranks though. And it makes virtually no difference to me on wether or not there is one.
> I see where you guys are coming from. The thing that is frustrating me the most is people saying things like “I speak for the competitive community and we want a ranking system”. I’m competitive, I just don’t play for ranks though.
You are right. want to have a ranking system =/= competitive. I would say people who strongly want visible rankings are competitive in nature, but there are plenty of competitive people out there that don’t care about visible rankings at all.
Frank once said that only 1% of all players really care about a visible ranking, he is right in the sense that unless you are a player in the top 1%, you won’t care about ranking very much. You may “think” you care, but after playing 6 months and plateaued at 6% (which is an amazing achievement by the way), you’ll realize that you have reached your physical limit and can not get better.
To make an analogy in the world of tennis: nobody cares if you are the #125 in the world, even that’s a incredibly hard thing to achieve.
Anyone who says they speak for some greater group of people, while on a message board, should be written off.
However, as someone who strives for competition, I like to know how I’m doing. Some sort of gauge. I also like to know if I’m the underdog or favorite. I play a lot of sports and compete in a lot of things, everything gets counted in a way or another and I enjoy that.
In an individual setting or a team setting, my record matters to me. And there’s nothing wrong with that. I don’t care if it doesn’t matter to others. They can choose to not look at it, or ignore it completely. IT works for everyone! But to cut out one side in favor of another, man… sigh
I suggest at the very least allowing you to opt-in to seeing your rank. Make it some deep menu that you have to find, etc.
> > I see where you guys are coming from. The thing that is frustrating me the most is people saying things like “I speak for the competitive community and we want a ranking system”. I’m competitive, I just don’t play for ranks though.
>
> You are right. want to have a ranking system =/= competitive. I would say people who strongly want visible rankings are competitive in nature, but there are plenty of competitive people out there that don’t care about visible rankings at all.
>
> Frank once said that only 1% of all players really care about a visible ranking, he is right in the sense that unless you are a player in the top 1%, you won’t care about ranking very much. You may “think” you care, but after playing 6 months and plateaued at 6% (which is an amazing achievement by the way), you’ll realize that you have reached your physical limit and can not get better.
>
> To make an analogy in the world of tennis: nobody cares if you are the #125 in the world, even that’s a incredibly hard thing to achieve.
I am a 48 in MLG in H3 with 1200 EXP. I realized I peaked around 400 EXP. It is my second most played playlist, for the single reason that it is the only one that I don’t have a 50 in and where I still have room to improve.
This is a debate that nobody can win by just arguing about it. However, this time around we will have a more objective way to settle it:
-
Halo, historically a franchise that attracts “try-hard” players, decide not to have visible rankings this time. I believe that they intentionally choose to do this to attract casual gamers and CoD crowd.
-
CoD (Black Ops II), historically a franchise that attracts casual players, decide to go big on encouraging competitiveness by introducing League Play. I believe that they intentionally choose to do this to keep the fans who have started feeling tired about the CoD formula from fleeing to other titles like Halo.
The two games are going to be the most popular for a long time and it would be interesting to see which ones attract more players, and more importantly, which one offers the best “competitive” experience.
I am planning to play both because I like both. Would I be more happy about BO2 because I see myself constantly improving and moving to higher leagues? Would I be more happy about Halo because it mercifully hide my skill rankings so I don’t feel embarrassed?
I’ll have a better idea on which route I like more in 3 months :-).
> Fair warning this is going to be a bit if a post. Here it goes anyway:
> My definition of competitive must be different than yours. I compete not for a number next to my name, but to be #1.
You lost me here. How will you ever have any idea of how close you are to being #1 without some sort of visual ranking. Sure you might know how you stack up to those that were just in your game, but a visual ranking system gives you a better idea as to how you stack up compared with the whole community.
> > > I see where you guys are coming from. The thing that is frustrating me the most is people saying things like “I speak for the competitive community and we want a ranking system”. I’m competitive, I just don’t play for ranks though.
> >
> > You are right. want to have a ranking system =/= competitive. I would say people who strongly want visible rankings are competitive in nature, but there are plenty of competitive people out there that don’t care about visible rankings at all.
> >
> > Frank once said that only 1% of all players really care about a visible ranking, he is right in the sense that unless you are a player in the top 1%, you won’t care about ranking very much. You may “think” you care, but after playing 6 months and plateaued at 6% (which is an amazing achievement by the way), you’ll realize that you have reached your physical limit and can not get better.
> >
> > To make an analogy in the world of tennis: nobody cares if you are the #125 in the world, even that’s a incredibly hard thing to achieve.
>
> I am a 48 in MLG in H3 with 1200 EXP. I realized I peaked around 400 EXP. It is my second most played playlist, for the single reason that it is the only one that I don’t have a 50 in and where I still have room to improve.
The very fact that you are a 48 put you in that minority Frankie described as “1%”. I have no doubt players like you would strongly prefer rankings to be visible.
For players who busted their -Yoink- just to move from level 24 to 25 and struggled to stay there: I would venture a guess that most of them don’t care about visible rankings that much.
Maybe one thing they can consider in the future is to make the ranking visible only for the top N% players (say N = 20) 
Why do people take their car to the track and do a time trial? They’re not even competing against anyone, but they do it over and over always striving for a personal best.
@OP: Hope that helps.
Halo Reach has already shown its true colors as far as attracting people to play. The numbers of players long after Reach’s release are significantly less than the numbers of people who played Halo 2 and 3 long after release. The numbers are indisputable and its not a coincidence.
Fair enough, you guys have valid points. Just glad that this is actually a civilized discussion unlike most other threads on this topic.
True, but Halo 4 has neither good mechanics or a ranking system.
> Halo Reach has already shown its true colors as far as attracting people to play. The numbers of players long after Reach’s release are significantly less than the numbers of people who played Halo 2 and 3 long after release. The numbers are indisputable and its not a coincidence.
To be fair, this does not provide convincing proof that visible rankings = great player retention.
-
Reach has many flaws that made it unsuccessful compared to Halo 2 and 3, and ranking system is probably the least of the concerns.
-
CoD have been wildly popular for CoD4, MW2, Blops, and MW3, without any sort of ranking system. It is even worse than that, its match making system appears to be completely random.
I agree wholeheartedly with you about your first point. Reach was not competitive in both, its ranking system and the game itself, but the ranking system gives boundless motivation to players long after release date. Popularity does not necessarily equal a quality game. If a game is advertised more, and/or has good marketability it will sell and people will like it, but Halo saw much more numbers of players when it had both, a competitive game, as well as a competitive ranking system.