I haven’t ever seen an argument against in game ranks that makes sense. Can someone please try to explain what I’m failing to comprehend.
Completely agreed. People don’t seem to comprehend that nobody would be forcing anybody to play ranked. Just play social if that’s your thing!
the two counterarguments i’ve seen are “Hackers” and “De-Rankers”
that’s about it
> I haven’t ever seen an argument against in game ranks that makes sense. Can someone please try to explain what I’m failing to comprehend.
It’ll probably come eventually after 343 work out the kinks through waypoint.
It won’t be tied to TrueSkill though. (Thank god!)
I doubt it. Frankie has his mind set on the fact that visual rankings are detrimental
> I doubt it. Frankie has his mind set on the fact that visual rankings are detrimental
Hopefully he’ll reconsider given the reception some of his other decisions have received and it’s obvious toll on the popularity of Halo. He should really base decisions on what the majority of fans want, not personal opinions.
> > I doubt it. Frankie has his mind set on the fact that visual rankings are detrimental
>
> Hopefully he’ll reconsider given the reception some of his other decisions have received and it’s obvious toll on the popularity of Halo. He should really base decisions on what the majority of fans want, not personal opinions.
They wouldn’t dare make a good game
> I haven’t ever seen an argument against in game ranks that makes sense. Can someone please try to explain what I’m failing to comprehend.
Do you really think that 343i would arbitrarily choose not to include visible in-game skill rankings?
343i wants nothing better than to give Halo’s fan base whatever it reasonably can. They knew not including it was the best all encompassing choice, just as Bungie did before them.
I highly doubt you haven’t seen either Bungie’s or 343i’s arguments against in-game visible skill ranks. You probably have, since you said “Frankie has his mind set on the fact that visual rankings are detrimental”. So you have seen the explanations but you refuse to believe what they have said.
Frankie probably has little say in these matters anyway. The statistics on abusive behavior are what is behind these kinds of decisions.
Consequently, there are also no legitimate arguments in favor of the rankings being visible in-game. It all comes down to the two ideas of “I enjoy that; it feels beneficial to my gaming experience” and “I dislike that; it feels detrimental to my gaming experience”. Both ideas are subjective, and so of course you’ll only believe the side you personally subscribe to.
From a business standpoint, there are a few reasons for 343 Industries to not include in-game ranks. It generates illegal activity on Xbox LIVE. I suggest you read this to get a better idea of what I mean here.
The only thing I’ve noticed is the tendency of players in games where there’s a visible skill rank that’s supposed to judge ability over simply “how much time and/or effort you put into playing up until you hit level X” to be very unpleasant people to anyone not within a relatively close range of them.
Not showing your skill rank in a game is like not showing your identify in a message board that makes sense, for example the various Anonymous boards like various *chans. It makes people judge the quality of the statement (or in this case the quality of the player as they see it, not as a number tells them), and not automatically isolate themselves from anyone who doesn’t fill some orderly, safe niche of people just like them so they can just balkanize into their little xenophobic cliques.
I played Halo 3 before and the social aspect of what visible rank can do to a person’s attitude drove me away from multiplayer console games in general for a while. There are a lot of people like me in that regard, just most of them never came back.
> People boost their ranks.
Does it matter? They are going to get owned by people who legitimately earned those ranks anyways.
> People gloat about their rank.
Again, does it matter? It’s a flawed and mostly meaningless number.
> They encourage trash talk.
Immature players encourage trash talk. Not ranks.
The only real legitimate reason is “there are more important things to work on first”.
> > People boost their ranks.
>
> Does it matter? They are going to get owned by people who legitimately earned those ranks anyways.
>
>
>
> > People gloat about their rank.
>
> Again, does it matter? It’s a flawed and mostly meaningless number.
>
>
>
> > They encourage trash talk.
>
> Immature players encourage trash talk. Not ranks.
>
> The only real legitimate reason is “there are more important things to work on first”.
I know this link has already been posted here, but I suggest you read it. It’ll make you shut up about In-Game ranks and how flawed the 1-50 system is. Why We Should Never Go Back to 1-50.. or
> > People boost their ranks.
>
> Does it matter? They are going to get owned by people who legitimately earned those ranks anyways.
Yes, it matters. Think about the ramifications. Not just for players, but for the system. What about the people who want to boost their rank but cannot? They’ll be inclined to maybe just buy an account online. Pretty soon you have really good players creating new accounts, getting them to 50 in a short time, and then selling them to people they encounter in matchmaking for 1600 Microsoft Points or more. It creates illegal activity. This is what happened in Halo 3.
While that doesn’t matter to you or me or any players in an impactful way, it does matter to 343 Industries and Microsoft, who legally cannot allow illegal activity or shady transactions in their online network.
> > People gloat about their rank.
>
> Again, does it matter? It’s a flawed and mostly meaningless number.
It creates an atmosphere for lesser-skilled players that can be perceived as unpleasant.
> The only real legitimate reason is “there are more important things to work on first”.
Another legitimate reason is that some people don’t want them in. You’ve got to consider that. There is no right and wrong here. It’s completely unfair to consider “A lot of people want them in” as a legitimate reason for including them, while simultaneously considering “A lot of people don’t want them in” to be an illegitimate reason for their exclusion. You can’t think like that. Try to see beyond your own perspective for a second - don’t look for logic in the opposing argument; look instead for preference. There are no legitimate reasons because there don’t need to be legitimate reasons for something subjective like this. You can’t ask someone “Why don’t you like the color red?” and then be incredulous when they fail to come up with a “legitimate” or “factual” or even logical reason for it. If you ask a subjective question, people will give their opinion as an answer.
Further, it’s important to stop viewing this matter simply from a player’s perspective. This issue caused legal troubles in Halo 3. People would fall victim to phishing or get duped out of money without a 50 account to show for it because of the demand for those accounts. Like it or not, from a developer’s perspective, that seems like a logical reason to exclude them from the game as they were. It just avoids the mess altogether.
Here’s an easy idea to remove selling and buying accounts, perhaps not entirely but I don’t think people would be buying them that much.
Have the visible skill rank decrease when you’re not playing in the playlist it’s tied to. Not the trueskill behind that matches you with players though.
It’d work exponentially though, so it decreases only a little at first, but then the decrease gets bigger and bigger, untill you are “visibly” down on the first skill rank again, and not over a couple of days, a couple of weeks or so, and it wouldn’ start decreasing the instant you put down the controller either. It’d start when you have had some inactivity for a while.
Then, if you get back after having your visible rank decreased, you’d still have your “invisible” rank left and you’d still be playing people your old rank. If you then prove to be worthy of your old rank, you’d get it back. If you don’t deserve it, well then that’s tough luck.
> Consequently, there are also no legitimate arguments in favor of the rankings being visible in-game. It all comes down to the two ideas of “I enjoy that; it feels beneficial to my gaming experience” and “I dislike that; it feels detrimental to my gaming experience”. Both ideas are subjective, and so of course you’ll only believe the side you personally subscribe to.
>
> From a business standpoint, there are a few reasons for 343 Industries to not include in-game ranks. It generates illegal activity on Xbox LIVE. I suggest you read this to get a better idea of what I mean here.
How did this thread keep going? This was /thread.
> Here’s an easy idea to remove selling and buying accounts, perhaps not entirely but I don’t think people would be buying them that much.
>
> Have the visible skill rank decrease when you’re not playing in the playlist it’s tied to. Not the trueskill behind that matches you with players though.
>
> It’d work exponentially though, so it decreases only a little at first, but then the decrease gets bigger and bigger, untill you are “visibly” down on the first skill rank again, and not over a couple of days, a couple of weeks or so, and it wouldn’ start decreasing the instant you put down the controller either. It’d start when you have had some inactivity for a while.
>
> Then, if you get back after having your visible rank decreased, you’d still have your “invisible” rank left and you’d still be playing people your old rank. If you then prove to be worthy of your old rank, you’d get it back. If you don’t deserve it, well then that’s tough luck.
That was the intention with the Arena in Halo: Reach - to make ranks more temporary with the addition of seasons. You could still sell your Onyx account, but who in their right mind would buy it when it expires in a few weeks?
My issue is with 1-50, specifically the 1-50 found in Halo 3 (and to an extent Halo 2). Not a ranking system.
A lot of problems could be solved with percentile based ranking, similar to Halo: Reach or StarCraft 2.
- It prevents large skill variations at the higher levels (huge problem in Halo 3)
- Boosting could be done but will only result in you getting ‘owned’
- Accounts could sold but will only result in you getting ‘owned’
- Players would rarely encounter players of significantly higher skill in-game
- Second accounts could be created but will quickly result in you being matched with equally skilled players.
Combine this with two different systems to test skill (W/L for big parties, and a mix of W/L and in-game performance for small parties), implementation across all playlists (except a select few) and a working anti-cheat system and you would have a fairly solid ranking system that most people could enjoy.
What i will say is this. Even though there’s no VIGR, thrash talking still occurs over K/D. You had boosters and de-rankers with VIGR, guess what you have K/D boosters (and as a result “mule” accounts or people with a intended highly negative K/D sometimes even 0).
This alone discredits the whole boosters argument. The only legitimate argument against VIGR is the whole selling accounts aspect of it and that’s purely because it’s against Microsofts ToS.
Why should we try to convince you? Many people have explained, even in full detail, the problems with game ranks and yet, they’re always ignored. Not even put up for consideration that it might be try, not even discussed or anything. We could bring in scientists that can fully explain the problem, but they’ll never match up against your counter argument of, “Because I say so”.
> <mark>Why should we try to convince you?</mark> Many people have explained, even in full detail, the problems with game ranks and yet, they’re always ignored. Not even put up for consideration that it might be try, not even discussed or anything. We could bring in scientists that can fully explain the problem, but they’ll never match up against your counter argument of, <mark>“Because I say so”</mark>.
The visible ranking system had problems.
The current system also has problems.
Many of these problems are the same.
Boosters, cheaters and modders exist independently of a visible ranking system. This is a fact. K/D boosters, Commendation boosters, Challenge boosters all exist. Remember the -Yoink!- Halo4 Tournement? Yeah, there were cheaters!
It existed then, and it exists now.
Despite all of that, the Halo3 ranking system worked. The average Halo3 ranked game was competitive, fair and a total blast.
The ranked playlist also bred and nurtured a competitive Halo community. This community made up a significant and solid portion of the total Halo3 population. This community was online A LOT - they were not the “here today, gone tomorrow” Halo fans.
I agree with the OP. I’m not satisfied with the arguments that I’ve heard against visible ranks.
Why should you try to convince us? It’s not:
“Because I say so”.
…but instead:
“Because thousands of your most loyal fans say so.”