Population Size more important than Rank

There has recently been a lot of talk (yelling, ranting, complaining) about bringing back the 1-50 ranking for Halo 4. While I 100% agree that some visual number needs to be displayed based on the skill of a player I really want to clear up one issue.

Population size is infinitely more important than a visible 1-50 ranking system. Yes infinitely.

Recently videos have been posted where teams of MLG players suicide at the start of a match until they are down by 60-78 kills in the MLG Slayer gametype. They then start playing seriously and come back to defeat the other team. (like this) People here on Waypoint (and youtube, and neogaf, etc.) all point to this type of game and scream “this is why we need rank back in Halo.” This is wrong.

The reason this type of game happens is because the population size in Halo Reach is abysmal. When you jump into a playlist, like MLG, Objective, etc., and there are only 300-500 people playing you will end up with one of two situations. Either the skill matching parameter will be strict and full teams or skilled teams will wait 15-20 minutes between matches, or the skill matching parameter will be loose and you will get lopsided results. (For reference, in old Arena seasons the matchmaking was set to be very strict in terms of skill. If you had a team of Onyx players they could literally sit around 20-30 minutes in the pregame lobby waiting for another match).

The way to solve this imbalance in skill is simple. Get a bigger population. The method of doing that can be argued back and forth all day (1-50 vs no rank, AA vs no AA, going back to “halo roots” vs “reach 2.0”, etc.), but that isn’t the point of this thread.

++++_

tl;dr - Visible Rank means nothing without a Much Larger Population playing Halo 4.

Except you can jump into ranked MLG in H3 right now and play 50 high and that playlist has like 300 people in it.

And I can jump into TS in reach and win every game by 40 kills even though there’s 10,000 people playling the list.

Ranks could help strengthen the population. You have to have reasons to keep a strong population to state this argument. Ranks would help to keep people playing and a proper matchmaking system. The rest I’m not going to get into, but these 2 things would help.

> Ranks could help strengthen the population. You have to have reasons to keep a strong population to state this argument. Ranks would help to keep people playing and a proper matchmaking system. The rest I’m not going to get into, but these 2 things would help.

I agree with the theory that visible rank will help boost population for the game. I am just trying to point out how essential it is that there is a large population for Halo 4.

> > Ranks could help strengthen the population. You have to have reasons to keep a strong population to state this argument. Ranks would help to keep people playing and a proper matchmaking system. The rest I’m not going to get into, but these 2 things would help.
>
> I agree with the theory that visible rank will help boost population for the game. I am just trying to point out how essential it is that there is a large population for Halo 4.

I understand you’re point. I’ve been aware of the population issue for over a year. But you’re pointing out a large problem that has been caused by smaller problems. Can’t fix the larger problem without fixing the smaller ones.

1-50 visible or not rank will ensure longevity of the game.

I’ve beaten teams 50-5 in Team Slayer. Population size really doesn’t do much, it is just the lackluster matchmaking system that Reach has.

> I’ve beaten teams 50-5 in Team Slayer. Population size really doesn’t do much, it is just the lackluster matchmaking system that Reach has.

Yes. But the reason that Reach has such a lackluster matchmaking system is because the population for playlists is very low. If they tighten up the matchmaking system it will lead to longer wait times between matches. With longer wait time you will get less players and games will become even more lopsided.

The loose matchmaking system is actually a product of low population size in Reach.

> There has recently been a lot of talk (yelling, ranting, complaining) about bringing back the 1-50 ranking for Halo 4. While I 100% agree that some visual number needs to be displayed based on the skill of a player I really want to clear up one issue.
>
> Population size is infinitely more important than a visible 1-50 ranking system. Yes infinitely.
>
> Recently videos have been posted where teams of MLG players suicide at the start of a match until they are down by 60-78 kills in the MLG Slayer gametype. They then start playing seriously and come back to defeat the other team. (like this) People here on Waypoint (and youtube, and neogaf, etc.) all point to this type of game and scream “this is why we need rank back in Halo.” This is wrong.
>
> The reason this type of game happens is because the population size in Halo Reach is abysmal. When you jump into a playlist, like MLG, Objective, etc., and there are only 300-500 people playing you will end up with one of two situations. Either the skill matching parameter will be strict and full teams or skilled teams will wait 15-20 minutes between matches, or the skill matching parameter will be loose and you will get lopsided results. (For reference, in old Arena seasons the matchmaking was set to be very strict in terms of skill. If you had a team of Onyx players they could literally sit around 20-30 minutes in the pregame lobby waiting for another match).
>
> The way to solve this imbalance in skill is simple. Get a bigger population. The method of doing that can be argued back and forth all day (1-50 vs no rank, AA vs no AA, going back to “halo roots” vs “reach 2.0”, etc.), but that isn’t the point of this thread.
>
> ++++_
>
> tl;dr - Visible Rank means nothing without a Much Larger Population playing Halo 4.

I to am inclined to think that. Reach has too many team playlists, to support true skill match ups, with a population counts that low. They need to cut the team playlists to bare bones and tighten up true skills parameters. Trueskill worked well with H3

> > I’ve beaten teams 50-5 in Team Slayer. Population size really doesn’t do much, it is just the lackluster matchmaking system that Reach has.
>
> Yes. But the reason that Reach has such a lackluster matchmaking system is because the population for playlists is very low. If they tighten up the matchmaking system it will lead to longer wait times between matches. With longer wait time you will get less players and games will become even more lopsided.
>
> The loose matchmaking system is actually a product of low population size in Reach.

Team Slayer is almost always the most populated playlist in the game. 10 000 people should be enough to find a match closer than 50-5.

> > > I’ve beaten teams 50-5 in Team Slayer. Population size really doesn’t do much, it is just the lackluster matchmaking system that Reach has.
> >
> > Yes. But the reason that Reach has such a lackluster matchmaking system is because the population for playlists is very low. If they tighten up the matchmaking system it will lead to longer wait times between matches. With longer wait time you will get less players and games will become even more lopsided.
> >
> > The loose matchmaking system is actually a product of low population size in Reach.
>
> Team Slayer is almost always the most populated playlist in the game. 10 000 people should be enough to find a match closer than 50-5.

Agree - Halo Reach has too loose control on matchmaking.

population size is directly related to ranks.

I know people who still play H3 only because it has something to play for.

> population size is directly related to ranks.
>
> I know people who still play H3 only because it has something to play for.

I think that’s a bit of an oversimplification. That’s like saying “I know people who still play Halo 2 because it has the noob combo; therefore population size is directly related to noob combo.”

While I agree that population size is tied visible rank, I don’t think it’s as cut and dry as that.

> Except you can jump into ranked MLG in H3 right now and play 50 high and that playlist has like 300 people in it.
>
> And I can jump into TS in reach and win every game by 40 kills even though there’s 10,000 people playling the list.

Facepalm No you have it all wrong.

In Halo 3, the population indicator shows the population within a 24 hour period.

Halo: Reach’s shows the population within a 1 hour period.

Both are equally important OP.

I hope you understand that one day.

Cease this war against ranked playlists. 1-50 was a long time ago, get over it.

> > Except you can jump into ranked MLG in H3 right now and play 50 high and that playlist has like 300 people in it.
> >
> > And I can jump into TS in reach and win every game by 40 kills even though there’s 10,000 people playling the list.
>
> Facepalm No you have it all wrong.
>
> In Halo 3, the population indicator shows the population within a 24 hour period.
>
> Halo: Reach’s shows the population within a 1 hour period.

Lol surely that reinforces his point even more? 300 people over 24 hours, still get good games. 10,000 in 1 hour, no good games.

OP, I didnt realise 343 could just “get” a higher population. I hope they put that in the game.

What is the point of this thread?

why are you ignoring the first guy who posted in this thread? halo 3 has about 1000 people playing, yet i am able to find balanced games in team slayer and mlg all the time. but reach can’t seem to do this with 10x the amount of players PER PLAYLIST.