Locking posts asking for 1-50?

I have been following some threads on the mathcmaking system for Halo 4.

I believe this element to be the most important part of matchmaking as a whole. It seems that many of the threads I was following have been locked or gone missing.

I am curious to see what the community as a whole would like to see as the matchmaking system.

  1. 1-50?

  2. Reach Style (no visible rank)

  3. A Visable rank but different than 1-50.

i think people these days care to much about a meaningless symbol and number, but, that’s why the developers put them there.

Many of the posts have been locked as discussion had de-evolved into a flame war. It’s a touchy subject, which many member have passionate opinions about. So much so, that people have a difficult time discussing it in a civil and polite manner. It’s ok to discuss it, but when proper decorum flies out the window, the thread gets locked.

343i have a new idea they’re going to try.

> i think people these days care to much about a meaningless symbol and number, but, that’s why the developers put them there.

how is it meaningless?

I dont understand how folks play halo and can think rank is meaningless. Do you care about winning and losing the individual match you are playing? I would guess so, as its the point of the game. All rank is, is a cumulative representation of ALL of those wins and losses.

There is no less importance on rank as there is on a single win or loss. And since most players would at least concede that they do play to win, why would rank be meaningless?

3 and 2. I like having to work for a rank in Reach but I hate getting demoted in 1-50 and I don’t like 1-50 and people need to learn that 1-50 isn’t coming back which has already been confirmed by 343i.

> > i think people these days care to much about a meaningless symbol and number, but, that’s why the developers put them there.
>
> how is it meaningless?
>
> I dont understand how folks play halo and can think rank is meaningless. Do you care about winning and losing the individual match you are playing? I would guess so, as its the point of the game. All rank is, is a cumulative representation of ALL of those wins and losses.
>
> There is no less importance on rank as there is on a single win or loss. And since most players would at least concede that they do play to win, why would rank be meaningless?

you get nothing out of it, thats how, all rank does is give people a reason to play the game and gets them in a cycle of playing because they want to rank up, they want to rank up to get better stuff, they want to get better stuff to rank up easier, with 1-50 change it from stuff to skill.

It’s good that they are locked to keep people THAT ARE STUCK IN THE PAST from RANTING ON SOMETHING THAT WILL NOT BE!

GET OVER IT!

> > > i think people these days care to much about a meaningless symbol and number, but, that’s why the developers put them there.
> >
> > how is it meaningless?
> >
> > I dont understand how folks play halo and can think rank is meaningless. Do you care about winning and losing the individual match you are playing? I would guess so, as its the point of the game. All rank is, is a cumulative representation of ALL of those wins and losses.
> >
> > There is no less importance on rank as there is on a single win or loss. And since most players would at least concede that they do play to win, why would rank be meaningless?
>
> you get nothing out of it, thats how, all rank does is give people a reason to play the game and gets them in a cycle of playing because they want to rank up, they want to rank up to get better stuff, they want to get better stuff to rank up easier, with 1-50 change it from stuff to skill.

Wait, are you saying the Reach style rank is meaningless? Or that the 1-50 style is?

I will agree with the former, and disagree with the latter. EXP based rank is pointless, yes. Congrats, you’ve played a lot. But 1-50 is as meaningful as winning/losing an individual game (probably more so since it will even out over time, elmininating fluke events).

> > > > i think people these days care to much about a meaningless symbol and number, but, that’s why the developers put them there.
> > >
> > > how is it meaningless?
> > >
> > > I dont understand how folks play halo and can think rank is meaningless. Do you care about winning and losing the individual match you are playing? I would guess so, as its the point of the game. All rank is, is a cumulative representation of ALL of those wins and losses.
> > >
> > > There is no less importance on rank as there is on a single win or loss. And since most players would at least concede that they do play to win, why would rank be meaningless?
> >
> > you get nothing out of it, thats how, all rank does is give people a reason to play the game and gets them in a cycle of playing because they want to rank up, they want to rank up to get better stuff, they want to get better stuff to rank up easier, with 1-50 change it from stuff to skill.
>
> Wait, are you saying the Reach style rank is meaningless? Or that the 1-50 style is?
>
> I will agree with the former, and disagree with the latter. EXP based rank is pointless, yes. Congrats, you’ve played a lot. But 1-50 is as meaningful as winning/losing an individual game (probably more so since it will even out over time, elmininating fluke events).

all of it.

winning and loosing is stored in your stats that anyone can look up and its more detailed then a single number is as well.

They probably lock them because there are a dozen repeat threads every day.

It’s because they usually lead to flaming, and are not worth the risk, as it’s been confirmed that it won’t return.

I personally liked Halo 3’s 1-50 ranking system because it helped me find matches with players of similar skill, which of course made the game a lot funner. I don’t care if ranks are invisible or not; video game “bragging rights” are just silly.

> I personally liked Halo 3’s 1-50 ranking system because it helped me find matches with players of similar skill, which of course made the game a lot funner. I don’t care if ranks are invisible or not; video game “bragging rights” are just silly.

thats the hidden true skill system not 1-50 which they’ve already stated is going to be in halo 4 and work better then it did in reach.

> > > > > i think people these days care to much about a meaningless symbol and number, but, that’s why the developers put them there.
> > > >
> > > > how is it meaningless?
> > > >
> > > > I dont understand how folks play halo and can think rank is meaningless. Do you care about winning and losing the individual match you are playing? I would guess so, as its the point of the game. All rank is, is a cumulative representation of ALL of those wins and losses.
> > > >
> > > > There is no less importance on rank as there is on a single win or loss. And since most players would at least concede that they do play to win, why would rank be meaningless?
> > >
> > > you get nothing out of it, thats how, all rank does is give people a reason to play the game and gets them in a cycle of playing because they want to rank up, they want to rank up to get better stuff, they want to get better stuff to rank up easier, with 1-50 change it from stuff to skill.
> >
> > Wait, are you saying the Reach style rank is meaningless? Or that the 1-50 style is?
> >
> > I will agree with the former, and disagree with the latter. EXP based rank is pointless, yes. Congrats, you’ve played a lot. But 1-50 is as meaningful as winning/losing an individual game (probably more so since it will even out over time, elmininating fluke events).
>
> all of it.
>
> winning and loosing is stored in your stats that anyone can look up and its more detailed then a single number is as well.

Except for the facts that a) people play differently when its a ranked match that “counts”. So it comparing overall stats to ranked stats isnt the same. and B) ranking makes you play against those of a similar rank.

Therefore, rank is a metagame. Its a persistant game. Where each match is about winning or losing that match, rank extends that beyond the individual game. The “win” is going up a rank, with the ultimate end game being reaching the max. The “loss” is going down.

Its the difference between doing something in a dream, and doing it in real life. If I bang Natalie Portman in a dream, why doesnt it count as much? Because that event wasnt perisistant, it has no bearing on anything outside of itself. Thats how “unranked” matches are. They dont matter outside of their own vaccum, they might as well be dreams.

Adding a rank and a meta game makes those games have meaning, they persist. Your actions in them have consequences outside of that instance. Its the difference between real life and dreams.

There has never, in the history of this forum or any other discussion, been a compelling argument against ranked gametypes. If you keep it seperate, those who dont want to show their rank, or get made fun of or deal with boosters or whatever can simply avoid it.

Those of us that loved it, and quit halo when reach removed it, will come back and love it again. What is the argument against the two playlist solution? Just play unranked if you dont like it.

The reason this subject is so touchy is because there has been a major misconception surrounding what rank means in Halo.

Halo CE multiplayer was an afterthought on Bungie’s part (video on Waypoint). There was no Xbox Live at the time, but LAN parties were rampant and Bungie integrated online multiplayer games into Halo 2. In order to spark even further interest they incorporated a skill rating system that would keep track of how you did and use those statistics to calculate your chances of winning. This number was used to assign you a rank, and the primary reason for doing that, according to Bungie, was to encourage trash talking. To seal the deal, they called the number your skill level and assigned rank accordingly.

The system Bungie used was very similar to a system used to arrange matches in chess tournaments and ranked individual players. However Halo is a team game and it’s hard to determine individual performance with respect to whether or not the team won.

As Halo 3 wen into production Microsoft announced that any online games that arranged matches based upon skill level had to use TrueSkill. The was a very long but straightforward thread that got pinned on Bnet that has all these details, but the tl;dr is that Bungie used a slightly modified version of TrueSkill for matchmaking and used the same number to assign rank, thus perpetuating the notion that rank=skill and not the other way around. The high number became a goal, and the fact that some people got there faster than others, and then bragged about it, led to, well, all sorts of problems.

Today we have progressive ranks in Reach which are solely bases upon credits earned in actual gameplay. However some people still want to equate the resulting rank to skill. Too many people now believe that somehow there’s a computer system somewhere that watches you playing Halo and figures out how good you are and will assign a number, somewhere between 1 and 50, that will be an accurate reflection of your greatness. Without caring how it’s done, many people would like to see that number not only return, but also prominently displayed in your face. Problem is, the number does not say how good you are, but mainly your chances of being on the prevailing team in an average match. The number gets you on a team and then matches teams. It does not reflect how awesome you are with the DMR and your pinpoint accuracy with sticky grenades.

But everyone thinks so and they want 1-50 back so that they have something to strive for.

Yeah.

> I don’t get why people get so worked up over bragging rights. What’s the problem with it? If you don’t care about ranks, then what’s the problem if someone brags about theirs? You said you don’t care, after all. If you do care, instead, then learn hate that bitter taste in your mouth when someone brags about having a high rank and start working your -Yoink!- off to improve your rank. You aren’t skilled enough to get a high rank? Then admit you aren’t the best and deal with it. Nobody is the best after all.
> Ranks in H3 kept me playing it until Reach came out (worst halo ever btw).
> I’ll tell you a short story:
> I used to play Halo solely for its campaign and for some LANs with my friends from time to time. Then I got Gold and I played it for 3 months. I didn’t know anything about multiplayer, which includes ranks, and then I didn’t renew my gold membership. A few years later (the same year Reach came out) I got Gold again and, after a while, I learned about ranks. It was the best thing ever. It kept me playing so much, I was addicted. I’ve been a 45 for ages, and I still am on this account. But I kept playing, even if I wasn’t a 50 and I was made fun of by other people with higher ranks. Sure, I made a new account and got a 50 just for the sake of it, but that’s not the point.
> Visible ranks create a competitive environment. A competitive envirnment is fun because it creates challenge.

> > > > > > i think people these days care to much about a meaningless symbol and number, but, that’s why the developers put them there.
> > > > >
> > > > > how is it meaningless?
> > > > >
> > > > > I dont understand how folks play halo and can think rank is meaningless. Do you care about winning and losing the individual match you are playing? I would guess so, as its the point of the game. All rank is, is a cumulative representation of ALL of those wins and losses.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no less importance on rank as there is on a single win or loss. And since most players would at least concede that they do play to win, why would rank be meaningless?
> > > >
> > > > you get nothing out of it, thats how, all rank does is give people a reason to play the game and gets them in a cycle of playing because they want to rank up, they want to rank up to get better stuff, they want to get better stuff to rank up easier, with 1-50 change it from stuff to skill.
> > >
> > > Wait, are you saying the Reach style rank is meaningless? Or that the 1-50 style is?
> > >
> > > I will agree with the former, and disagree with the latter. EXP based rank is pointless, yes. Congrats, you’ve played a lot. But 1-50 is as meaningful as winning/losing an individual game (probably more so since it will even out over time, elmininating fluke events).
> >
> > all of it.
> >
> > winning and loosing is stored in your stats that anyone can look up and its more detailed then a single number is as well.
>
> Except for the facts that a) people play differently when its a ranked match that “counts”. So it comparing overall stats to ranked stats isnt the same. and B) ranking makes you play against those of a similar rank.
>
> Therefore, rank is a metagame. Its a persistant game. Where each match is about winning or losing that match, rank extends that beyond the individual game. The “win” is going up a rank, with the ultimate end game being reaching the max. The “loss” is going down.
>
> Its the difference between doing something in a dream, and doing it in real life. If I bang Natalie Portman in a dream, why doesnt it count as much? Because that event wasnt perisistant, it has no bearing on anything outside of itself. Thats how “unranked” matches are. They dont matter outside of their own vaccum, they might as well be dreams.
>
> Adding a rank and a meta game makes those games have meaning, they persist. Your actions in them have consequences outside of that instance. Its the difference between real life and dreams.
>
> There has never, in the history of this forum or any other discussion, been a compelling argument against ranked gametypes. If you keep it seperate, those who dont want to show their rank, or get made fun of or deal with boosters or whatever can simply avoid it.
>
> Those of us that loved it, and quit halo when reach removed it, will come back and love it again. What is the argument against the two playlist solution? Just play unranked if you dont like it.

what? rank isn’t and does not create meta game, that is and only decided by the players, it is up to the players to decide whether or not the game “counts”, all rank does is give people a reason to attack each other and get them hooked on the game, nothing more, nothing less.

ranked does not match you against evenly skilled players, there is a different system running in the background that decides who you are matched wtih known as true skill, this goes up and down, you could be a high rank but match lower ranks based on your true skill and not the rank you’ve achieved.

rank doesn’t not add a way for players to think outside of the game, use there brain, the palyers do this all on there own, finding different means to succeed in there goal and finding new ways to use things effectively to win is not created by rank, it is soley done by a players intelligence and skill.

there have been a lot of compelling arguments against a visible skill based ranking system, and a lot of them go ignored or the people just get attacked, just because you haven’t seen it does not mean that it has never existed.

reach didn’t even remove rank, there is a thing called arena, this is “ranked” in halo reach in works in a near indentical way to halo 3, saying reach removed it is completely false and it brings up a contradiction, players all for 1 - 50 say it isn’t global rank that matters, thats meaningless, its the individual playlist rank is what mattered but then go on to condem halo reach for doing exactly this which is removing global skill rank and leaving it has individual playlist only, that is blatant contradiction founded on pretty much nostalgia from halo 2 and 3 days.

read title

As it should be. Imperium Alpha approve 343i attitude toward those topic.

I want a ELO rating based on how you move through the map with your team and how you capture/hold the ground… Oh wait nevermind it isn’t a RTS

> > i think people these days care to much about a meaningless symbol and number, but, that’s why the developers put them there.
>
> how is it meaningless?
>
> I dont understand how folks play halo and can think rank is meaningless. Do you care about winning and losing the individual match you are playing? I would guess so, as its the point of the game. All rank is, is a cumulative representation of ALL of those wins and losses.
>
> There is no less importance on rank as there is on a single win or loss. And since most players would at least concede that they do play to win, why would rank be meaningless?

I play to have fun I’m not going to play to lose I play video games for fun i enjoy winning but I think if I play to win id rage quit a lot which is not enjoyable. which is why rank is pointless to some of us. Cause If I could get friends to play customs all the time i would but there are a lot of people who are more into matchmaking then i am on my friends list unlike halo 3.