Skill-Based Ranking System in Halo 4

As I scroll through these forums my stomach is in knots as I read posts from those of you who are against a skill based ranking system in Halo 4. I cringe because none of you have anything to lose. Your beloved progression system has already been confirmed to be in place. With nothing to gain from your ranting your only motivation can be for competitive players to suffer. The inclusion of the ranking system you miserably argue against will in no way affect your social experience in Halo 4. It will, however, greatly diminish the experience had by all competitive players, as well as, negatively impact the success of the game as a whole. This is proven by looking at Halo Reach. Reach has been a failure in the eyes of many serious Halo players not because it is a poorly made game but instead because it panders toward casual gamers. The amount of social playlists compared to the amount of ranked playlists in Reach is a testament to this. The lack of a legitimate skill based ranking system in Reach not only stifled its competitive potential but it took away the incentive for players to continue to play after the newness of the game wore off leaving all of us wanting more. This will similarly be the opinion of many about Halo 4 if it launches with the exclusion of a skill based ranking system.

Why is a skill based ranking system essential for online multiplayer success? Because nothing within the context of a social experience can ever replace the feeling of entering a match where your rank is on the line. The feeling of urgency and seriousness. In the same light no amount of credits or armor permutations can replace the sense of accomplishment and pride that comes with achieving a rank higher than what you were previously able to achieve. Credits cannot show you how your skill level has increased over time nor can it distinguish you among other players. All of us who have played Halo Reach know this to be the case. How many times have you played against a Reclaimer or an Inheritor thinking that they were going to be good to only find out that they couldn’t hold their own? This is because they didn’t have to win to get those ranks they just had to put a ridiculously large amount of time into playing firefight. Which in the eyes of most players makes them more of a loser than a winner. Is this what we want? For players who achieve the most prestigious accomplishments in the game to be looked at as being less because as many of us say “they don’t have a life.” Ranking is what takes online multiplayer to the next level. It’s what makes people invest time into the game and to take it seriously. It is this serious approach that allows gamers to become famous and make a living playing Halo which in turn causes the game to be more popular which results in more money being invested into additional content and future games which benefits both casual and competitive gamers alike.

The only argument that is even remotely valid against skill based ranks is that it provides the context for cheating to occur. However, is this really a good argument? Should the majority be punished for the abuse of a few? Should the internet be banned because some people use it for evil? No it shouldn’t and neither should Halo suffer because of the inherent nature of human depravity. I personally am willing to deal with the occasional cheater if it means I get the numerous benefits that a ranking system provides. One of the most ridiculous arguments that I have heard people argue is that people who want a skill based ranking system only want it so they can brag as if displaying accomplishment is a bad thing or as if showing off is the only benefit of ranking based upon skill. Please, call up any professional sporting organization in the world and tell them you think that they would be more successful if they stopped ranking their players and teams and just let them play for fun. You would get laughed off the phone because everyone knows that without ranking teams and players the legitimacy of competition is taken away and without real competition professional sports would be irrelevant.

The real issue here is that your problem with a ranking system in Halo 4 is that you don’t want Halo to be taken seriously as a sport. You don’t like that some people are leaps and bounds better than you and that their rank shows it. You want to jump online to “just have fun.” Guess what, if ranks make it into the game you can still do this. So I ask again, why are you opposed to something that the inclusion of which will not affect you in the lease bit? What you don’t realize, however, is that by wanting ranks excluded from the game you are asking for a less serious game. By asking for a less serious game you are also asking for less quality in the games you play. This is because the less people who take the games we love seriously, the less games that we love will be made and supported which WILL have a direct effect on you. Therefore, a legitimate skill based ranking system in Halo 4 is absolutely essential not only for the competitive community but also for the game as a whole.

EDIT:
Ok, you added a few breaks, I’d just add a few more, but good argument, what I wrote below is still relevant though.

I’d like to see a ranked playlist which can give players a number or division representing their skill, I don’t really care which, but I do not want ranks to be reset, that pretty much renders everything you’ve worked for useless. I suggest a system in which your rank degrades after a certain amount of time in which you don’t play.

Example: I get a 50 in Halo 4 FFA (or Onyx ranking), and I sit back and think, “Damn, I don’t want to lose this . . . so I’m going to just not play so my shiny rank will always be by my name for all eternity.”

However, after a month of my absence my rank decreases from 50 to 45 (or from Onyx to Gold) . . . therefore I cannot sit, perched on my little online rank, I have to continually earn my spot on the 50 (or Onyx) battle grounds.

That would also destroy boosting for ranks, or paying for a 50 or Onyx, because you have to continually earn it and if your so bad that you had to pay for your pretty little rank, than you’ll lose it within a matter of a month or a few matches.

Then you can add the progression system that can go as a mainstream system.

I remember reading somewhere about this exact idea and I loved it . . . I can’t remember the link or who it was but their idea’s were awesome, although he suggested three ranking systems that all worked with each other.

TL;DR but I agree. I stopped seriously playing Reach after general. I didn’t have any armor I wanted to unlock so why play serious?

In Halo 3, I played all of the time trying to get better and rank up so I could play with better people. Thanks to Reach, I lost much of my skill.

343’s excuse for excluding 1-50 is ridiculous. Exploiting the system? Anyone remember the campaign exploit? Or firefight AFKers? Or constantly playing Score Attack? And they complain about exploits in 1-50. Account selling? Really? That’s not that big of a problem. Who cares? -Yoink!- isn’t losing anything from it. And if a noob buys a 50 account and actually plays it, he’ll be back to a 20 in no time.

inb4 casuals who will cry ‘games are for fun not to be taken seriously.’

That walls hurts my eyes. X_X

The ranking system is taken way more seriously than it should be.

> inb4 casuals who will cry ‘games are for fun not to be taken seriously.’

But seriously, games are fun, not to be taken seriously.

OT: I don’t care much either way. I enjoyed the competitive ranks when we had them, but I didn’t miss them too terribly when they were gone, either. I’m not too opinionated on the matter. My stronger opinions and concerns for H4 are centered more around actual gameplay mechanics rather than the ranking system.

> inb4 casuals who will cry ‘games are for fun not to be taken seriously.’

Haha, well as much as I’d like a ranking system that is based off of or as closely possible to true skill . . . I have to admit that some players take games way too seriously, it happens.

I’ve played games where I have teammates yelling at other players who aren’t doing so well. Back when I was a noob playing Halo 2 and 3 I’d get messages telling me to quit Halo and at one point to go kill myself . . . games are NOT meant to be taken THAT seriously.

But it is ok to get competitive, and want to be better than the other players . . . it’s another thing entirely when the good players are jack-Yoinks!- who think that they’re gods because they are good at moving joysticks and pressing buttons.

That’s why I think MLG get’s a bad rep, those players (or at least what I’ve seen) are highly respectable. They are really good, but I’ve never truly seen them grind down a bad player (at least when they’re live). Their rep comes from the wannabe MLG players online who think that when they die they can go ahead and sit on the left foot of god . . .

Finally a legitimate post about the needs of a true Skill Based Ranking System.

No arguments to be made here.

Majority of the competitive Halo players out there will agree that putting excessive amounts of time into Halo Reach is worthless. Sure you can make your character’s appearance look pretty, and you can get a nice new title next to your name, but what for? Like Slaught3r said, the ranks in Halo Reach show no skill. Do we really want to go through this again? No. Having a system of skill doesn’t take anything away from the more social players, it will improve the game. More people will play. More people will play for a longer time period. It didn’t take but a few months before Reach’s population in multiplayer plummeted.

There is still a very good chance a Skill Based Ranking System will be put in play. One can only hope. 343 has already announced their in depth progression system, that really sounds awesome…but it lacks the competitive style. I’m hoping that 343 KNOWS how important a skilled system for it’s competitive players is.

The problem I have is people that state how they don’t like using the ranking system as an argument to remove it. If you don’t like it, YOU CAN IGNORE IT. IT’S A NUMBER. All it does is serve the purpose of keeping games fair and competitive while also giving certain players something to work towards, and if you don’t want to use it you don’t have to.

There’s no reason for 343 to segregate either audience, and after all the complaints from the Reach community it would be pretty lame to not include a skill-based ranking system.

> > inb4 casuals who will cry ‘games are for fun not to be taken seriously.’
>
> But seriously, games are fun, not to be taken seriously.

So working for a 50 is not some peoples idea of fun? My mind has been blown.

> > > inb4 casuals who will cry ‘games are for fun not to be taken seriously.’
> >
> > But seriously, games are fun, not to be taken seriously.
>
> So working for a 50 is not some peoples idea of fun? My mind has been blown.

Again, it’s when people take them too seriously (yelling at other players, insulting them, or death threats . . .) that it’s a problem, like I stated in my second post.

Again, there is nothing wrong with playing games competitively.

> Again, it’s when people take them too seriously (yelling at other players, insulting them, or death threats . . .)

Which is only a fraction of those for a skill ranked system and you can still play your social playlists (which you can in H3). What is the problem?

> > inb4 casuals who will cry ‘games are for fun not to be taken seriously.’
>
> But seriously, games are fun, not to be taken seriously.
>
> OT: I don’t care much either way. I enjoyed the competitive ranks when we had them, but I didn’t miss them too terribly when they were gone, either. I’m not too opinionated on the matter. My stronger opinions and concerns for H4 are centered more around actual gameplay mechanics rather than the ranking system.

That is your opinion though. When you decide to do something you like, you make up your mind how serious you take it. Do you go to job to have fun? It MOST cases (unless you work at Google or some other awesome company that treats their workers really well) no you don’t. You go to there to do your job and do it well. You work hard every day for the hopes of moving up and bettering yourself.

This is no different than Halo. Sure, you sound like a casual dude who gets on and wants to have a fun time with this friends. There is no problem with that. But there are others, like myself, who play to be competitive and to take the game serious. It doesn’t mean I bash my head in the wall when I lose, or I’m pissed when I have a bad game. I just play with the mindset to do my best, and hopefully move my way up the ranks. I still have fun being competitive, and the times I want to goof off, I play the social play lists.

But by excluding these Ranked Playlists or however they may decide to do it, would be punishing those who do take Halo serious.

(Waiting for the response, “I’m retired.”)

Competetive players can complain all they want but as of right now there is no ranking system like 3. They may surprise us when the game comes out because I heard about a different ranking system from both Reach and 3. I assume, they are seperating the ranks. For instance, you will have an overall rank like in Reach but you will have a rank in each individual playlist like in 3. I have a good feeling numbered ranks aren’t making a return with all the abusing and some of the community being total -Yoinks!-.

> > Again, it’s when people take them too seriously (yelling at other players, insulting them, or death threats . . .)
>
> Which is only a fraction of those for a skill ranked system and you can still play your social playlists (which you can in H3). What is the problem?

sigh read my first post . . . then read my second (which is my first reply to your comment).

I do want a ranking system . . . there is no problem (I don’t know where you got that from), I’m just stating that there is a scale, and at the top there are players who take the game way too seriously but THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH PLAYING THE GAME SERIOUSLY, as long as you aren’t a jack-Yoink!-

In halo 3 the 1-50 was there I played to win but still didn’t care about the rank, is that wrong? I feel the same way about my rank in reach, I just wanted to win and get points to unlock all the stuff. I played because it was fun, not trying to work for a rank.
Adding in a 1-50 won’t automatically make the game any better.

> In halo 3 the 1-50 was there I played to win but still didn’t care about the rank, is that wrong? I feel the same way about my rank in reach, I just wanted to win and get points to unlock all the stuff. I played because it was fun, not trying to work for a rank.
> Adding in a 1-50 won’t automatically make the game any better.

Another person posting how their thoughts are all that matters. Blah blah blah.

I’m asking if playing to win and not caring about the rank that comes with it is a bad thing? Everyone can have their own opinion don’t insult me for expressing mine.

> I’m asking if playing to win and not caring about the rank that comes with it is a bad thing? Everyone can have their own opinion don’t insult me for expressing mine.

No that is not a bad thing at all. That is how YOU play the game. The problem is if 343 Studios makes Halo 4 with only a time based progression system like Halo Reach. They need to please both the social players and the competitive players.

Don’t mistake me for a casual. I play to win i just don’t care about ranking up. I don’t need a 50 to say that i’m good just look at the +15 at the end of the game and you’ll have all the proof you need. The 1-50 just seems like an ego boost.