Everyone should be given a CSR rank before the game even comes out. Not a visible rank. The idea is that the game should try to keep halo veterans and new players separate. Remember how halo 4 had like 400K online when it very first came out?
I think everyone saw all the cool advertising for halo 4 and thought they would give the game a try. Then they all got beat up on by the veterans, left and never came back.
The game needs to do everything it can to keep noobs safeguarded from us who will make their life miserable. There’s got to be a way for the game to tell if someone has played past halo games.
Or they could just throw out the whole CSR idea (IMO it was a stupid idea) and replace it with the 1-50 ranking system.
That way, you will always be playing against people who are on the same skill level as you.
For example, if I am a level 35 in Team Slayer, I will be playing with people who are in my level range (say around 33-37). That way, it will most likely be an even fight and not one sided towards a group of players who could be higher, unlike the CSR we have now, where everyone could be a CSR 130 but one team could be dominating and the other team could just be a group of people who have played a lot but are very bad.
It worked well in Halo 2 and 3, why replace something that works well?
> Or they could just throw out the whole CSR idea (IMO it was a stupid idea) and replace it with the 1-50 ranking system.
>
> That way, you will always be playing against people who are on the same skill level as you.
>
> For example, if I am a level 35 in Team Slayer, I will be playing with people who are in my level range (say around 33-37). That way, it will most likely be an even fight and not one sided towards a group of players who could be higher, unlike the CSR we have now, where everyone could be a CSR 130 but one team could be dominating and the other team could just be a group of people who have played a lot but are very bad.
>
> It worked well in Halo 2 and 3, why replace something that works well?
Before anyone attacks this post for not mentioning the 1-50 in Halo 4, the point still stands. In Halo 4 you aren’t playing against equally skilled players, but in Halo 2 and 3 you are.
> I think everyone saw all the cool advertising for halo 4 and thought they would give the game a try. Then they all got beat up on by the veterans, left and never came back.
That is one of the most absurd explanations I’ve ever heard, and your “fix” is even more absurd. You must be trolling.
If I read your post right, you are basically saying that those who have played the previous Halo games, their rank should carry over into the next game to keep them from beating the heck out of new players on the night of release.
If yes, I don’t think its a bad idea. It just depends on how much has really changed between the two games. If no, then please explain better? :S
> If I read your post right, you are basically saying that those who have played the previous Halo games, their rank should carry over into the next game to keep them from beating the heck out of new players on the night of release.
>
> If yes, I don’t think its a bad idea. It just depends on how much has really changed between the two games. If no, then please explain better? :S
Thats exactly what I’m saying. It doesn’t matter what the system is called CSR, Trueskill whatever. I just think there should be a system to try to keep new players and veterans separate at the start. The system for matchmaking should recognize that theres a huge difference in skill right from the beginning.
> > I think everyone saw all the cool advertising for halo 4 and thought they would give the game a try. Then they all got beat up on by the veterans, left and never came back.
>
> That is one of the most absurd explanations I’ve ever heard, and your “fix” is even more absurd. You must be trolling.
You don’t explain anything. Only accuse my comments of being absurd. What does that mean? What do you mean? I’m simply saying that the game should have a way to separate vererans and noobs at the start. Theres a huge difference in skill level between people trying a halo game for the first time and someone whos played the past halo games. The game sold 9 million copies. Its absurd to think that the advertising drew in new players?
I’m writing about an issue i think is relevant to a game i care about. You consider that trolling? Really?
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
> Everyone should be given a CSR rank before the game even comes out. Not a visible rank. The idea is that the game should try to keep halo veterans and new players separate. Remember how halo 4 had like 400K online when it very first came out?
>
> <mark>I think everyone saw all the cool advertising for halo 4 and thought they would give the game a try. Then they all got beat up on by the veterans, left and never came back.</mark>
>
> The game needs to do everything it can to keep noobs safeguarded from us who will make their life miserable. There’s got to be a way for the game to tell if someone has played past halo games.
OR… they all left the game because they realized that the game is bad.
> Or they could just throw out the whole CSR idea (IMO it was a stupid idea) and replace it with the 1-50 ranking system.
>
> That way, you will always be playing against people who are on the same skill level as you.
>
> For example, if I am a level 35 in Team Slayer, I will be playing with people who are in my level range (say around 33-37). That way, it will most likely be an even fight and not one sided towards a group of players who could be higher, unlike the <mark>CSR we have now, where everyone could be a CSR 130 but one team could be dominating and the other team could just be a group of people who have played a lot but are very bad.</mark>
>
> It worked well in Halo 2 and 3, why replace something that works well?
I would like to point out that CSR is only visible on computer and has 1-50, SR is our arena rank(I.E Inheritor in Reach), not skill level…
But otherwise I still agree with that statement(not the Halo 3 ranks as not EVERYTHING should be only w/l) and the OP’s.
> > Or they could just throw out the whole CSR idea (IMO it was a stupid idea) and replace it with the 1-50 ranking system.
> >
> > That way, you will always be playing against people who are on the same skill level as you.
> >
> > For example, if I am a level 35 in Team Slayer, I will be playing with people who are in my level range (say around 33-37). That way, it will most likely be an even fight and not one sided towards a group of players who could be higher, unlike the CSR we have now, where everyone could be a CSR 130 but one team could be dominating and the other team could just be a group of people who have played a lot but are very bad.
> >
> > It worked well in Halo 2 and 3, why replace something that works well?
>
> Before anyone attacks this post for not mentioning the 1-50 in Halo 4, the point still stands. In Halo 4 you aren’t playing against equally skilled players, but in Halo 2 and 3 you are.
It’s hard for a game to pair you against equally skilled players when its population is so damn low.
> > I think everyone saw all the cool advertising for halo 4 and thought they would give the game a try. Then they all got beat up on by the veterans, left and never came back.
>
> That is one of the most absurd explanations I’ve ever heard, and your “fix” is even more absurd. You must be trolling.
TBH the majority of Halo 4’s population didn’t leave because they were pwned…it’s because they didn’t enjoy the game…nevertheless I laughed at that part, but hey, it’s his opinion, he’s got his own rights.
> > If I read your post right, you are basically saying that those who have played the previous Halo games, their rank should carry over into the next game to keep them from beating the heck out of new players on the night of release.
> >
> > If yes, I don’t think its a bad idea. It just depends on how much has really changed between the two games. If no, then please explain better? :S
>
> Thats exactly what I’m saying. It doesn’t matter what the system is called CSR, Trueskill whatever. I just think there should be a system to try to keep new players and veterans separate at the start. The system for matchmaking should recognize that theres a huge difference in skill right from the beginning.
I agree. It can definitely make a smoother transition for vets in lower levels, and newer players who want to jump aboard to try out the game in an environment that is more likely to keep them in the same skill levels as others.
But, like I said, the gametypes got to be real similar to each other. While I don’t agree with your reason why players left the game(There are much more reasons why players aren’t playing other than a temporary skill level imbalance at launch), there’s nothing wrong with keeping skilled players with other skilled players, while letting the lower skilled opponents stay in a place where they can grow. It got my vote.
> > > Or they could just throw out the whole CSR idea (IMO it was a stupid idea) and replace it with the 1-50 ranking system.
> > >
> > > That way, you will always be playing against people who are on the same skill level as you.
> > >
> > > For example, if I am a level 35 in Team Slayer, I will be playing with people who are in my level range (say around 33-37). That way, it will most likely be an even fight and not one sided towards a group of players who could be higher, unlike the CSR we have now, where everyone could be a CSR 130 but one team could be dominating and the other team could just be a group of people who have played a lot but are very bad.
> > >
> > > It worked well in Halo 2 and 3, why replace something that works well?
> >
> > Before anyone attacks this post for not mentioning the 1-50 in Halo 4, the point still stands. In Halo 4 you aren’t playing against equally skilled players, but in Halo 2 and 3 you are.
>
> It’s hard for a game to pair you against equally skilled players when its population is so damn low.
Halo 3 wants a word with you. If 343 wanted to, Halo 4 could have done a much better job at teaming up equally skilled players.
What you are suggesting sounds like what I believe Gears of War 3 did. Players that had a record of playing past Gears game, identified through achievements I believe, were put in the regular matchmaking pool. But new players, those with no past Gears record, had the option to enter a beginners matchmaking pool up to level 10 I believe. So pretty much letting someone test the waters in the kiddie pool before being bumped up with the rest of the big boys.
Or have a playlist called Greenhorns that you can only take part in if you have not got a previous Halo gamed played on that gamertag, and consists of 4v4 gametypes and maps. it is no different in gameplay, just only newcomers can play it, and can only play a till they reach a certain trueskill in it, say max 5, and that 5 equals any 5 trueskill from another playlist.
The veterans are what make halo. Halo 4 was so noob friendly and I think most of the people (not all) who are still playing halo 4 are noobs. I don’t think separating the good players from the bad at the start would be good, because when the bad players get absolutely creamed by a bunch of good players, it makes them want to reach that level of skill and competitiveness and keeps them playing the game. And how would you suggest they separate the good players from the bad from launch, there would need to be some test games before hand in order to do this.
> > > I think everyone saw all the cool advertising for halo 4 and thought they would give the game a try. Then they all got beat up on by the veterans, left and never came back.
> >
> > That is one of the most absurd explanations I’ve ever heard, and your “fix” is even more absurd. You must be trolling.
>
> TBH the majority of Halo 4’s population didn’t leave because they were pwned…it’s because they didn’t enjoy the game…nevertheless I laughed at that part, but hey, it’s his opinion, he’s got his own rights.
saying everyone was an exaggeration. yes i do think new players quit from getting beat up on. I’m aware that some people left for other reasons. I think safeguarding new players is something the game should try to do.
> Or have a playlist called Greenhorns that you can only take part in if you have not got a previous Halo gamed played on that gamertag, and consists of 4v4 gametypes and maps. it is no different in gameplay, just only newcomers can play it, and can only play a till they reach a certain trueskill in it, say max 5, and that 5 equals any 5 trueskill from another playlist.
Halo 3’s Basic Training playlist should come back for new players. For anyone who is unfamiliar with it, you were basically forced to play FFA against other ‘new’ players for your first 5-10 games.
> The veterans are what make halo. Halo 4 was so noob friendly and I think most of the people (not all) who are still playing halo 4 are noobs. I don’t think separating the good players from the bad at the start would be good, because when the bad players get absolutely creamed by a bunch of good players, it makes them want to reach that level of skill and competitiveness and keeps them playing the game. And how would you suggest they separate the good players from the bad from launch, there would need to be some test games before hand in order to do this.