Ranking System - do we NEED one?

Games Other Halo
1

There’s a lot of fuss being made by ‘competitive’ players about the ranking system of this game, but I think it begs the question as to whether even having one at all is actually needed.

For Halo back in 2001-3, there was no such thing as a ranking system in Halo. Back then the most competitive things got was during LAN Parties when a tally would be put next to a person’s name to record their wins and sometimes a number for their kills/deaths. That was it, there was absolutely nothing like EXP or any kind of ranking system to go by.

So why do you think this has this changed? Why has the introduction of online leaderboards and ranks has made many players reliant on a ‘decent’ ranking system in order to call a game “competitive”? Do you think it adds anything to the way the game is played, and indeed how often it’s played?

It could certainly be argued that back in the day, gaming used to be a relatively niche activity for people, and the introduction of the virtual couch made gaming the big-budget frontier ‘franchise’ of companies like Microsoft. But while that has certainly had positive effects on the industry, what is the community becoming?

Opinions?

2

We don’t need a ranking system, we just need skill-based matching that works.

Reach failed on that one entirely, Arena didn’t work because the competitive settings sucked and the population was so low that accurate matching wasn’t common.

3

> We don’t need a ranking system, we just need skill-based matching that works.
>
> Reach failed on that one entirely, Arena didn’t work because the competitive settings sucked and the population was so low that accurate matching wasn’t common.

I would rathr have a little Moa Burger then a skill based ranking system :smiley:

4

> There’s a lot of fuss being made by ‘competitive’ players about the ranking system of this game, but I think it begs the question as to whether even having one at all is actually needed.
>
> For Halo back in 2001-3, there was no such thing as a ranking system in Halo. Back then the most competitive things got was during LAN Parties when a tally would be put next to a person’s name to record their wins and sometimes a number for their kills/deaths. That was it, there was absolutely nothing like EXP or any kind of ranking system to go by.
>
> So why do you think this has this changed? Why has the introduction of online leaderboards and ranks has made many players reliant on a ‘decent’ ranking system in order to call a game “competitive”? Do you think it adds anything to the way the game is played, and indeed how often it’s played?
>
> It could certainly be argued that back in the day, gaming used to be a relatively niche activity for people, and the introduction of the virtual couch made gaming the big-budget frontier ‘franchise’ of companies like Microsoft. But while that has certainly had positive effects on the industry, what is the community becoming?
>
> Opinions?

From what Ive gathered they want a ranking system that reflects true skill. I see nothing wrong with a ranking system. Granted i am no MLG or competitive player. In halo 3 having that 1-50 acted as means of trying to improve myself in the game. That worked as an incentive for me. Im not sure about other players but I am guessing it had a similar effect. A progression system like reach gave no incentive to really improve it sowed how much time you spent playing the game. Do other players need to see your true skill? No. But it would be nice to see where you rank.

5

No, we don’t. Bungie did a good thing by making the game all social, who needs ranked anyways but tree-hards? We just need 10 more years of how Reach handled things. Hey the matches usually sucked but you can always say you found the game really fast right? RIGHT?!

If not a ranking system, then a system that pairs up players by skill. I rather wait a minute or two of searching fair games than find a game in 20 seconds and have it be lopsided. Not all matches will good but it’s about consistency of having those close matches.

6

> <mark>We don’t need a ranking system, we just need skill-based matching that works.</mark>
>
> Reach failed on that one entirely, Arena didn’t work because the competitive settings sucked and the population was so low that accurate matching wasn’t common.

We need this. Otherwise it’s going to be Reach 2.0. I don’t know how many times I have been matched up with Recruits being an inheritor.

7

The only thing a game (or in this case Halo) needs is skill-based matchmaking and detailed stat-tracking. I couldn’t give two craps about rank (be it skill-based or progressive), but I like me some delicious stats.

8

> No, we don’t. Bungie did a good thing by making the game all social, who needs ranked anyways but tree-hards? <mark>We just need 10 more years of how Reach</mark> handled things. Hey the matches usually sucked but you can always say you found the game really fast right? RIGHT?!
>
>
> If not a ranking system, then a system that pairs up players by skill. I rather wait a minute or two of searching fair games than find a game in 20 seconds and have it be lopsided. Not all matches will good but it’s about consistency of having those close matches.

I hope thats sarcasm.

9

Having a strict skill based matchmaking system is nice, but everyone will still shout that it isn’t working and that they’re being matched with lesser skilled players unless you have some sort of visual evidence that this skill system is in place and working.

Even then, the complaints will still flow, but instead of uneven matches, it will be about how inaccurate and exploitable the system is.

While skill based matchmaking helps promote even and balanced play, there’s no way to please everyone, or really, anyone.

10

> In halo 3 having that 1-50 acted as means of trying to improve myself in the game. That worked as an incentive for me.

While I certainly agree it can be an incentive to make you want to play better, did it actually make you play better once you had attained the next rank, then have that system of desire and play quality repeat? Because that could imply you’d play better as a 50 than you would as a 49, or any number below that.

11

> We don’t need a ranking system, we just need skill-based matching that works.
>
> Reach failed on that one entirely, Arena didn’t work because the competitive settings sucked and the population was so low that accurate matching wasn’t common.

I love you now, I’ve been trying to stress this point for a while now. Though, sadly my posts seem to go ignored frequently when I post in other discussions on the matter. Probably due to being very lengthy and some people are too lazy to read it all.

Regardless, an actual and visible ranking system is not required in any form or fashion. Halo needs a matchmaking system that actually works, and as you stated Reach completely bombed in that area. While, Halo 3 failed slightly.

I want a matchmaking system that is divided by playlist, so your performance in a playlist say like Grifball doesn’t affect your matchmaking in other playlists. A system that is tailored to every last aspect of gameplay down to assists, which I believe honestly seem to not serve as important of a part as they actually should.

Reach, for instance with it’s rating system assists are frequently overshadowed by kills. Despite being just as important, team players get the short end of the stick in this case. My friend, who enjoys playing that role has felt that pain many times.

But, this isn’t about assists. It’s about 343i implementing a matchmaking system that is more accurate as to avoid either dominating the other team, or getting dominated yourself. The quitting out issue has been completely solved, it seems.

12

I’ve backed off my position of needing a ranking system, but I’d be disappointed to see Reach 2.0. Like others said, I should be able to join a game and pick up new friends from time to time. Half the fun of Halo 2 was working your way up the ladder, and finding new guys who gelled with what you did and made a good team.

I understand that XBL is less friendly these days, but I think if you’re not playing with the scourge of the underworld consistently, community can be found again at the top half of the ladder.

I don’t need a perfect ranking system either, it just needs to be close. Keep things competitive.

13

I want to agree with Moa, and as far as personal motivation goes I do agree with him.
However the majority of players like to have something to strive for or something that they believe shows improvement (however inaccurate or flawed that might be).
And in that vein we need a ranking system, because it adds value to matches for those who need a carrot on a stick and will lead to more accurate matching overall.

A ranking system should never be able to be mistaken for a progression system though. 1-50 failed horribly at that.

14

> I want to agree with Moa, and as far as personal motivation goes I do agree with him.
> However the majority of players like to have something to strive for or something that they believe shows improvement (however inaccurate or flawed that might be).
> And in that vain we need a ranking system, because it adds value to matches for those who need a carrot on a stick and will lead to more accurate matching overall.
>
> A ranking system should never be able to be mistaken for a progression system though. 1-50 failed horribly at that.

I myself, do not oppose a ranking system. Though, the elitism it could bring out would be annoying and stat-trollers would become more frequent. But, I suppose everyone wants something to boast about no don’t they?

I can see why many would want a ranking system, and I can also see why many wouldn’t want one.

I, honestly don’t care. I’m happy with my 45 in Halo 3, and I will admit I busted my -Yoink- to get it. Though, the issue with such a ranking system isn’t necessarily the boasters. Hence, why I had to work harder than I probably should have to get that rank. Could I have gotten a 50? Probably. Though, fighting through all of the derankers and such just wasn’t worth the headache to me.

It’s the boosters, derankers, etc. that would come with it that become the issue. It would promote a level of abuse, as you can more than likely recall from Halo 3.

If a ranking system was implemented, 343i would have to think and plan very hard on it. They would have to use a lot of circumstantial thinking, as I’ve stated on numerous occasions.

I can understand wanting something to strive for, however I believe the Specialization ranking does just that and in my opinion should be more than enough. It allows you to try and use different skills, in order to reach that S130 in multiple specializations.

It would improve you as a player, as a result from the personal experience gained.

15

We definitely need something that pairs players based on skill, but it doesn’t need to be a visible number next to your name. That just encourages bragging and such.

16

> We don’t need a ranking system, we just need skill-based matching that works.
>
> Reach failed on that one entirely, Arena didn’t work because the competitive settings sucked and the population was so low that accurate matching wasn’t common.

Simply put; this!

I’m sick and tired of being matched up with less skilled players for 5 games, and then out of nowhere, and without warning I get put up against higher skilled players. It makes the experience disjointed, and worthless. I am not improving over time as I did in H2/3, I’m just stagnated, crushing noobs 80% of the time and getting whooped the other 20%.

The matching system needs serious improvement.

17

Nope, we don’t need one at all…
But people seem to confuse a number/rank for an actual true skill system.

I do agree that true skill system sucked in Halo: Reach, because of the logic: “Put the single best player in a team with all the worst players”. Although it doesn’t stop me from winning, but I rather have teammates who can actually shoot instead of teammates you just use as bait…

18

I feel like the 1to 50 system is bad I don’t like it. It’s a matter of opinion. I do how ever understand why reaches system is bad but I prefer reaches. I would love a balance of a progression system and true skill behind the scenes. I have a lot more fun playing and not worring about my rank. If it was to go down after such hard work I lose intrest.

19

We clearly need another 3 or 4 years of social Reach.

20

> > <mark>We don’t need a ranking system, we just need skill-based matching that works.</mark>
> >
> > Reach failed on that one entirely, Arena didn’t work because the competitive settings sucked and the population was so low that accurate matching wasn’t common.
>
> We need this. Otherwise it’s going to be Reach 2.0. I don’t know how many times I have been matched up with Recruits being an inheritor.

It will be one very sad day if it doesn’t work again.