While we have seen a great deal in terms of gameplay for Halo 4 with mixed reviews, we have seen very little in terms of the matchmaking system. It is my belief that a quality matchmaking ranking system is more important to H4’s success than the actual gameplay. Halo Reach NBNS MLG is the best Halo gameplay we’ve seen since Halo 2, yet the playlist was nearly dead without the recently added jackpot. Why is this?
People have nothing to play for. Regardless of how great the gameplay is, if players don’t have an incentive to try their -Yoink- off to get a win, then the game will die. Randoms matching teams as well as loose true skill restrictions mean that quality matches are few and far between. Even when they do happen, the lack of a ranking system leads to players not very invested in the outcome of the game. If you watch pro/my stream you’ll see that nobody really cares if they lose (except for me because I really hate losing) and those “main stage” communication is often saved for GB and scrims.
IMO. It is halo 3’s ranking system which made the game so successful. The mechanics sucked, the net code was unbearable, yet even 2.5 years after release it had a higher population on weekends than Reach did on its first Christmas. The ranking system kept people involved from “gotta get that next 50” to “only 50 more exp to my playlist general!”. While boosting and cheating were much more frequent in Halo 3, I would rather see that than not be invested into the game.
While we know 1-50 is not returning, there are a few things we should learn from it:
-Skill-Based Ranking needs to be available in many playlists
-It should be easy to understand so that the guy who has just picked up the game knows what is going on (lol onyx)
-On top of skill-based rankings, players need something to do once they’ve hit that “50” equivalent
-Players who don’t lose should be able to get to max skill rank quickly (100 games at the most)
Whaaaaaaat?!? That is the most ridiculous theory I have ever read… well I can’t say that, as there are some pretty silly theories out there. Gameplay is of paramount importance. Online multiplayer doesn’t constitute the entire game, so stop being so narrow minded.
> Whaaaaaaat?!? That is the most ridiculous theory I have ever read… well I can’t say that, as there are some pretty silly theories out there. Gameplay is of paramount importance. Online multiplayer doesn’t constitute the entire game, so stop being so narrow minded.
Online multiplayer is the only thing that keeps games alive. There’s a reason there’s maybe 6 people playing bioshock right now and a few thousand playing h3 even though bioshock was a “better” game.
And even the online gameplay is less important than the stuff surrounding it which keeps people interested.
> Who wants to play a bad game with people of similar skill? Not me. They’re equally important imo
It’s pretty hard to make a “bad” halo game(although pre tu-reach came close), but it’s very easy to make a bad matchmaking system(see reach).
IMO if you dropped H3’s gameplay into Reach’s MM system, it would have tanked as bad as reach did. If TU Reach had H3’s MM system it would have done just as well.
> > Whaaaaaaat?!? That is the most ridiculous theory I have ever read… well I can’t say that, as there are some pretty silly theories out there. Gameplay is of paramount importance. Online multiplayer doesn’t constitute the entire game, so stop being so narrow minded.
>
> <mark>Online multiplayer is the only thing that keeps games alive.</mark> There’s a reason there’s maybe 6 people playing bioshock right now and a few thousand playing h3 even though bioshock was a “better” game.
>
> And even the online gameplay is less important than the stuff surrounding it which keeps people interested.
> > Who wants to play a bad game with people of similar skill? Not me. They’re equally important imo
>
> It’s pretty hard to make a “bad” halo game(although pre tu-reach came close), but it’s very easy to make a bad matchmaking system(see reach).
>
> IMO if you dropped H3’s gameplay into Reach’s MM system, it would have tanked as bad as reach did. If TU Reach had H3’s MM system it would have done just as well.
What is SO bad about Reach? I was super hyped for it and loved it when I first got it and still love it. It just gets old because 343i doesn’t put enough new community maps into MM. That, and the fact that Halo 4 looks epic and looks way better than Reach.
While I agree, a good ranking system is important, i think its a tad ridiculous to say that a ranking system is more important than actual gameplay. If the game doesn’t play well, I won’t want to play it regardless how good the ranking system is.
> > > Whaaaaaaat?!? That is the most ridiculous theory I have ever read… well I can’t say that, as there are some pretty silly theories out there. Gameplay is of paramount importance. Online multiplayer doesn’t constitute the entire game, so stop being so narrow minded.
> >
> > <mark>Online multiplayer is the only thing that keeps games alive.</mark> There’s a reason there’s maybe 6 people playing bioshock right now and a few thousand playing h3 even though bioshock was a “better” game.
> >
> > And even the online gameplay is less important than the stuff surrounding it which keeps people interested.
>
> Tell that to PC Elder Scrolls players.
Key word there is PC. Console and PC gaming demographics are completely different.
> > > > Whaaaaaaat?!? That is the most ridiculous theory I have ever read… well I can’t say that, as there are some pretty silly theories out there. Gameplay is of paramount importance. Online multiplayer doesn’t constitute the entire game, so stop being so narrow minded.
> > >
> > > <mark>Online multiplayer is the only thing that keeps games alive.</mark> There’s a reason there’s maybe 6 people playing bioshock right now and a few thousand playing h3 even though bioshock was a “better” game.
> > >
> > > And even the online gameplay is less important than the stuff surrounding it which keeps people interested.
> >
> > Tell that to PC Elder Scrolls players.
>
> Key word there is PC. Console and PC gaming demographics are completely different.
> > > > Whaaaaaaat?!? That is the most ridiculous theory I have ever read… well I can’t say that, as there are some pretty silly theories out there. Gameplay is of paramount importance. Online multiplayer doesn’t constitute the entire game, so stop being so narrow minded.
> > >
> > > <mark>Online multiplayer is the only thing that keeps games alive.</mark> There’s a reason there’s maybe 6 people playing bioshock right now and a few thousand playing h3 even though bioshock was a “better” game.
> > >
> > > And even the online gameplay is less important than the stuff surrounding it which keeps people interested.
> >
> > Tell that to PC Elder Scrolls players.
>
> Key word there is PC. Console and PC gaming demographics are completely different.
Doesn’t matter. MM isn’t all that keeps games alive. Shoot, people still play Oblivion on the 360 even all these years since its release.
I will agree that a good MM keeps players more interested than a single-player mode (excluding Elder Scrolls and Fallout, for me, at least), but a ranking system is in NO way more important than gameplay. As others have said, I would not play a crappy game no matter how good the ranking system is.
> > > Who wants to play a bad game with people of similar skill? Not me. They’re equally important imo
> >
> > It’s pretty hard to make a “bad” halo game(although pre tu-reach came close), but it’s very easy to make a bad matchmaking system(see reach).
> >
> > IMO if you dropped H3’s gameplay into Reach’s MM system, it would have tanked as bad as reach did. If TU Reach had H3’s MM system it would have done just as well.
>
> What is SO bad about Reach? I was super hyped for it and loved it when I first got it and still love it. It just gets old because 343i doesn’t put enough new community maps into MM. That, and the fact that Halo 4 looks epic and looks way better than Reach.
All the fluff added into Reach slows the pace of the game down and prevents players from being punished for their mistakes. The only things (other than the noob tube) which actually benefitted gameplay from H3 (hitscan, single shot weapon) were already in halo.
In my own experience and opinion I don’t need a skill based ranking system for me to try my hardest.
When I play I want to win and I don’t need any number,medal,or prize to make me try my hardest.So in that sense I disagree about the matchmaking and giving people incentive to win.
On the other hand though if they can implement a reliable skill system then sure,but to say it ruins matchmaking seems very over dramatized imo
> > > > > Whaaaaaaat?!? That is the most ridiculous theory I have ever read… well I can’t say that, as there are some pretty silly theories out there. Gameplay is of paramount importance. Online multiplayer doesn’t constitute the entire game, so stop being so narrow minded.
> > > >
> > > > <mark>Online multiplayer is the only thing that keeps games alive.</mark> There’s a reason there’s maybe 6 people playing bioshock right now and a few thousand playing h3 even though bioshock was a “better” game.
> > > >
> > > > And even the online gameplay is less important than the stuff surrounding it which keeps people interested.
> > >
> > > Tell that to PC Elder Scrolls players.
> >
> > Key word there is PC. Console and PC gaming demographics are completely different.
>
> Doesn’t matter. MM isn’t all that keeps games alive. Shoot, people still play Oblivion on the 360 even all these years since its release.
>
> I will agree that a good MM keeps players more interested than a single-player mode (excluding Elder Scrolls and Fallout, for me, at least), but a ranking system is in NO way more important than gameplay. As others have said, I would not play a crappy game no matter how good the ranking system is.
If it’s not on XBL’s top 20 you can consider it dead by console standards.
I agree I would not play a crappy game in general even if the ranking system was good, but for HALO it is more important that the MM system is good. It’s really hard to screw up Halo.
> In my own experience and opinion I don’t need a skill based ranking system for me to try my hardest.
>
> When I play I want to win and I don’t need any number,medal,or prize to make me try my hardest.So in that sense I disagree about the matchmaking and giving people incentive to win.
>
> On the other hand though if they can implement a reliable skill system then sure,but to say it ruins matchmaking seems very over dramatized imo
It’s hard to explain from my perspective if you haven’t been at a high level, but there is a difference between trying to win and “trying”. In Reach you’ll almost never see main stage communication in MM, but if you searched 50 high 4s in h3 you could find it in pretty much every playlist. Everyone is always trying to win, but it’s playing at that next level up, where every second in that 15 minutes counts where I, and many others, have the most fun playing Halo.
It’s next to impossible to do that when you’re searching with a team of top AM/semis and you match spartensteve172 who we could beat with our monitors off. It’s just not going to happen. The only reason I got to be as good as I am now is because I wanted that 50 to show off to my friends who got stuck in the 40s, and it just progressed from there.
I dont think you literally mean MM system>Gameplay(that is crazy) but I will say that 343 underestimates at this point what the 1-50 ranking system did for H2+H3 in terms of longevity and prestige, and that a skill-based ranking system spanning multiple playlists similar to it would ensure longevity for H4 which is important to keep players playing Halo and not other games.
If the players are too busy “progressing” in XP,unlocks, and the most satisfying of all their skill level(and seeing visual representation of that through the ranking system) they will be too busy “wanting to level up” in Halo 4 to notice that Blackops 2 is even out yet and will be attached to H4 already.
The point is, the more invested you can make players feel the less likely they are to leave. Its not a mistake that WoW and CoD are sales kings of their respective genres(although I would argue that WoW is also just plain better than most MMO’s and offers more while CoD I dont know if I can say that).
> I dont think you literally mean MM system>Gameplay(that is crazy) but I will say that 343 underestimates at this point what the 1-50 ranking system did for H2+H3 in terms of longevity and prestige, and that a skill-based ranking system spanning multiple playlists similar to it would ensure longevity for H4 which is important to keep players playing Halo and not other games.
>
> If the players are too busy “progressing” in XP,unlocks, and the most satisfying of all their skill level(and seeing visual representation of that through the ranking system) they will be too busy “wanting to level up” in Halo 4 to notice that Blackops 2 is even out yet and will be attached to H4 already.
>
> The point is, the more invested you can make players feel the less likely they are to leave. Its not a mistake that WoW and CoD are sales kings of their respective genres(although I would argue that WoW is also just plain better than most MMO’s and offers more while CoD I dont know if I can say that).
CoD is so successful because the franchise transcended the “nerd” or “geek” stereotype of video games. A franchise where you’re a super soldier from 1000 years in the future who kills aliens is not going to do that.
I’m saying mm system > gameplay for a halo game. For pretty much every other series, I could safely say the opposite.
I am a huge fan on 1-50 and visual representation of my skill, but I still disagree that good MM triumphs game play. Look at CoD for example, it has the most bogus level progression, people are getting thrown into completely unbalanced games where either you loose in 3 seconds or you are 4 people down. etc.
Pretty much if halo 4 doesn’t play good I doubt people are going to care if they are better than their friends at a crappy game