In it to win it

Games Other Halo
1

Over my gaming “career,” I’ve found winning to be the most satisfying part of Halo (or any other FPS). The more and more I play I find that many others don’t have the same sentiment. This is fine by me because my group of friends rarely ever lose, but why?

I am a little confused by it, even if you do extremely well and lose why is it still a win in some players minds. Very often after a loss, my friends and I get ridiculous messages about how bad we are and how great they are, but they lost. So I guess my question is, is it more important to win or do well and lose. In my opinion if I lose, regardless of my stats I lost. I didn’t do enough, I didn’t communicate enough and I didn’t help my team enough. Is this a crazy philosophy or are the individual stats king?

2

If you think it’s important to win a video game then you’re gaming too much in my opinion.

Plenty of people can lose a game and rage but it takes a real sportsman to know when he’s been beat fair and square. I’m terrible at Halo but I still enjoy to play it. I don’t mind losing but just not 20 times in a row. I can only play it with friends though.

I can’t stand playing Reach alone, I get paired up with people who can’t seem to shoot an AR much less throw a grenade at the enemy team…
So no, I wouldn’t say winning is massively important. So long as you had fun who cares right?

I should imagine you’re probably going to get replies from tryhard wannabe MLG’s now though saying stuff like “OMG HALOW IZN’T HAYLOW UNLESS UR WINNIN BRA!”

3

I almost only play with randoms and I almost always have to backpack the whole team. I don’t even get mad when I lose because when I do I usually am the only one who went double digits positive while my teammates are double digit negative.

4

> If you think it’s important to win a video game then you’re gaming too much in my opinion.

Maybe, just maybe, people find winning fun.

5

> If you think it’s important to win a video game then you’re gaming too much in my opinion.

What’s so wrong in trying to win?

I find winning fun thus I’ll always try to win when I game to enjoy myself.
You’re saying if I try to win, to have fun, I game too much?

The -Yoink- is that?

6

I can understand where you are coming from, i had a similar situation arise yesterday during a firefight match on ODST where i was trying to help some random people get some Achievements.

When i play Halo in general, i like to win as well. 99% of the time i am usually playing alone or with random teammates, and everyone sees the game in a different light and has different reasons for playing and their own outlooks. Sometimes i’m on a team that does really good, and sometimes i get placed on a team with horrible teammates that only care about doing unsportsman-like stuff like constantly suicide themselves, or betray teammates, or get mad at you when you get the vehicle/weapon they want.

I think the overall goal is to have fun, but i also think that “winning” and “fun” usually go hand in hand. It’s always fun to win, plus you never hear someone celebrate when they lose (although i’m sure it has happened before).

I always try to do my best in every match, no matter what team i’m on - So that whether i win or lose, i’ll have no regrets.

When some people lose matches on Halo (and games in general) it’s really simple to record a hateful message and send it to someone because they know they will probably never cross paths with that person in the open world, so i’m guessing thats why people, especially younger players are quick to draw when it comes to stuff like that.

7

> > If you think it’s important to win a video game then you’re gaming too much in my opinion.
>
> Maybe, just maybe, people find winning fun.

I didn’t mean it like that. It wasn’t very well put to be honest.

I meant it as in winning every single game you play. If you play online to win every single match then you should go outside.

Winning is fine and all, but doing it too much spoils the fun.

8

> Winning is fine and all, but doing it too much spoils the fun.

Winning is fun.
Why should I stop trying?
I’m having fun… don’t you play games for fun too?
Or do you play to lose?

9

> > > If you think it’s important to win a video game then you’re gaming too much in my opinion.
> >
> > Maybe, just maybe, people find winning fun.
>
> I didn’t mean it like that. It wasn’t very well put to be honest.
>
> I meant it as in winning every single game you play. If you play online to win every single match then you should go outside.
>
> Winning is fine and all, but doing it too much spoils the fun.

I’m not saying if you lose it’s the end of the world, but isn’t the objective (when going into a game) to win? I understand that having fun is also the point of the game, but don’t they go hand in hand. For example, my cousin and I play golf every Sunday morning, I love golfing but I’m not to good so I more or less do it for fun. However, even though I’m not good and my cousin is, I still want to win…and even though my cousin wins every time, he too is playing to win. The competition is what makes a competitive game fun, but that’s just me.

10

I blame the gaming companies for instituting rewards in games no matter the final score. COD and Reach are excellent examples of this. COD gives you rewards and experience points to rank up galore for just participating in games or killing with a certain weapon. Drop-in lobbies perpetuate the reward bonanza with no reverence to a team beating a certain team in a game.

Bungie copied this reward system in Reach–as long as you play a game (and, mind-boggling enough, long games) you earn oodles of credits with which to buy pixels. An interview with some of Bungie’s heads around launch date in Popular Science magazine stated (paraphrased here, I’m sure you can dig up the article on Google if you care) how this type of rewards system catered to new gamers who may not care about having to be good in a game in order to progress. Mass appeal to attract new gamers to the franchise and make it easier for them to stick with it, for better or worse.

I take all of this to mean that some people don’t like to be told they’re bad at something, and that they have to put in the work in in order to progress naturally. Rewarding winning would go against these ranking systems, the beliefs of these gaming companies and their desire to make their products more appealing to the masses (rightly so; I mean they’re in it to make money, right?), and the general attitude of society at large (see: kids winning trophies for participating in a house hockey league, graduating 2nd grade, etc.).

To go with OP’s question, in my opinion, attitudes such as these, and perpetuated by the games we play today, are why the average person playing this game no longer cares about winning. Make winning matter again, be it through a 1-50 system, or space money, and you may see a priority on winning come back. But, these companies might lose fans or buyers in the progress.

/rant. Pardon the run-on sentences and lack of editing; I’m on my phone.

11

While I lament the general loss in difficulty that has taken place in games over my lifetime, there has to be some level of reward for play in any game.

there is nothing wrong with rewarding players with credits for armor- armor has no meaning or real effect on the game.

The flip side to this- there is very little reward for those who play well and achieve, which makes the rewards gained from simply playing seem offensive.

But, rather than rail against a percieved wrong, I think it best to recognize the real issue and address that (if not in reach then certainly for H4), meaning that lack of skill based leveling for the purpose of matching players online. It need not be 1-50, but it needs to be visible and it needs to be permanent (at least so long as you don’t start losing).

12

> I almost only play with randoms and I almost always have to backpack the whole team. I don’t even get mad when I lose because when I do I usually am the only one who went double digits positive while my teammates are double digit negative.

Why do you continue playing with randoms then?

13

> While I lament the general loss in difficulty that has taken place in games over my lifetime, there has to be some level of reward for play in any game.
>
> there is nothing wrong with rewarding players with credits for armor- armor has no meaning or real effect on the game.
>
> The flip side to this- there is very little reward for those who play well and achieve, which makes the rewards gained from simply playing seem offensive.
>
> But, rather than rail against a percieved wrong, I think it best to recognize the real issue and address that (if not in reach then certainly for H4), meaning that lack of skill based leveling for the purpose of matching players online. It need not be 1-50, but it needs to be visible and it needs to be permanent (at least so long as you don’t start losing).

You understand that TrueSkill is intended to do the skill based leveling for the purpose of matching players online. It’s not permanent because it’s recalculated after every game. Making it visible proved to be detrimental to the process, as evidenced by the fact that to this day people are still buying accounts for Halo 3.

I’m not aware of any Halo game where they don’t keep score. If you are playing Halo you are competing, like it or not. Not everyone plays to win, but I doubt if anyone plays to lose. For some players it’s not enough to win the match. They also need the highest number of kills and the highest K/D. To that end they will even play against their own team. Those messages you got from the losing team probably came from the guy that got the most kills on his team. All that work and he still lost. He believes your team was lucky and his team held him back. These are the ones that want visible skill-based rank, so that they can choose to not play in matches where any of their teammates are below their level. If no one had ever figured out the buying accounts thing in Halo 3 it might have worked. As long as that work-around exists, skill-based rank will not be reliable. The only reliable way to determine the skill of your teammates is to play with friends. Xbox Live is set up mostly for that.

It really doesn’t matter what kind of ranking system they come up with. Randoms will always be wild cards.

14

> > While I lament the general loss in difficulty that has taken place in games over my lifetime, there has to be some level of reward for play in any game.
> >
> > there is nothing wrong with rewarding players with credits for armor- armor has no meaning or real effect on the game.
> >
> > The flip side to this- there is very little reward for those who play well and achieve, which makes the rewards gained from simply playing seem offensive.
> >
> > But, rather than rail against a percieved wrong, I think it best to recognize the real issue and address that (if not in reach then certainly for H4), meaning that lack of skill based leveling for the purpose of matching players online. It need not be 1-50, but it needs to be visible and it needs to be permanent (at least so long as you don’t start losing).
>
> You understand that TrueSkill is intended to do the skill based leveling for the purpose of matching players online. It’s not permanent because it’s recalculated after every game. Making it visible proved to be detrimental to the process, as evidenced by the fact that to this day people are still buying accounts for Halo 3.

I don’t see how people’s silly behavior ruins the process. If someone wants to purchase someone elses level 50 let them. If they lose enough they should level down. If they win and maintain they deserve the 50.

I don’t understand how you can say that trueskill isn’t permanent. If it weren’t there would be no way for it to accurately match players by skill because everyone’s trueskill rating would be reset to null after each match. Perhaps you misunderstood what is meant by permanent. Arena rankings apparently only last for each season. A permanent skill ranking would last so long as you maintained that skill level. its not going to be reset arbitrarily at the start of a “season.”

trueskill is a permanent ranking, it just not visible, which is part of the satisfaction of winning and improving for some players.

> I’m not aware of any Halo game where they don’t keep score. If you are playing Halo you are competing, like it or not. Not everyone plays to win, but I doubt if anyone plays to lose. For some players it’s not enough to win the match. They also need the highest number of kills and the highest K/D. To that end they will even play against their own team. Those messages you got from the losing team probably came from the guy that got the most kills on his team. All that work and he still lost. He believes your team was lucky and his team held him back. These are the ones that want visible skill-based rank, so that they can choose to not play in matches where any of their teammates are below their level. If no one had ever figured out the buying accounts thing in Halo 3 it might have worked. As long as that work-around exists, skill-based rank will not be reliable.

???
What? Its as reliable as the matchmaking parameters allow it to be. In a system of 1-100 if the parameters allowed for 1’s to battle 100’s you would have a problem. If the system matched + or - 10 levels, then you’re more likely to have tighter matches. Players can’t buy skill, so a purchased account isn’t going to matter for much.

I also don’t understand what you mean about choosing not to play in matches where teammates are below their level. Are you talking about preemptive quitting? I can’t imagine that the matchmaking process would allow players to choose the skill level of their opponents or team.

> The only reliable way to determine the skill of your teammates is to play with friends. Xbox Live is set up mostly for that.

Partying up will always provide for more consistent and controllable games. What your point? That doesn’t mean a good system for matching skill shouldn’t be put into place.

> It really doesn’t matter what kind of ranking system they come up with. Randoms will always be wild cards.

It doesn’t matter so why bother? not sure what point you’re trying to make. If the matching system is good, then the randoms you are paired with will more likely be of similar skill to you and your teammates.

I don’t know if its trueskill or reach, but the matches I get are horribly unbalanced. I rarely get a game that is close or competitive- generally they’re blowouts one way or the other. I would like to see that changed for H4.