Alright, so before you start attacking me, I actually do like ranks, but there’s something I’ve noticed about it. I’ve noticed that there are many here that say that they can’t play Halo without having a rank there to push them forward. This to me, is a huge problem. It’s an example of “Intrinsic” reward. You’re playing the game and trying hard to get some sort of reward in-game, even if you do not enjoy the experience itself. Games should aim for “Extrinsic” rewards. This is the idea that the game rewards you with things outside of the game world, mainly things like fun. Think of it kinda like a MMO, where you go through a lot of grinding to reach a certain level so you can wear a certain armour. You don’t enjoy the grinding (most of the time anyway), but you continue doing it to gain that armour. They make you think that their game is worth playing, but you don’t actually enjoy the game, only the rewards. And that’s a problem I have with ranks. It’s sort of gimmicky. It brings in some people that don’t actually like Halo’s gameplay, just the ranks and the idea of improving.
Exactly.
I never understood why some people think that rank magically makes a game entertaining. If do not prefer the game, how in the hell is rank gonna make the game be more fun to you? By this logic; you don’t eat dog poop because it tastes gross, but if I slap a shiny rank emblem on it, does it magically make dog poop taste better? No it doesn’t
Rank means nothing to me as I play game strictly for the fun factor.
Obviously, no one plays for the rank only. The like the game already. The ranks just make the game better. The idea that the ranks are the only thing keeping players playing is absurd.
Wait are you talking about actual ranks or the gimmicky time spent system? If it’s the latter I agree with you.
> Obviously, no one plays for the rank only. The like the game already. The ranks just make the game better. The idea that the ranks are the only thing keeping players playing is absurd.
>
> Wait are you talking about actual ranks or the gimmicky time spent system? If it’s the latter I agree with you.
I’m talking about skill based ranks (although ANY ranks are gimmicky), but I have to skill-based ranks are the most gimmicky. It tells you that you are getting better at the game, which feels good. Many people get a sort of high from seeing themselves improve and even if they get bored of the game’s mechanics after about a week or something, they’ll already be engrossed by the ranking system. It makes them think that they’re still enjoying the game, but they’re not, they’re enjoying the fact that they’re improving. This is why I think the current ranking system isn’t as gimmicky. It doesn’t give you that sort of high. You don’t feel that the rank is really representing something as important as skill ranks. That’s why people don’t go around selling Inheritors in Reach or 130s in Halo 4 and if they do, it’s nowhere near as popular as buying 50s in 2 and 3. A skill based rank does not add to the gameplay in any way and doesn’t reward the player with any extrinsic rewards which is what a game should bring.
I don’t understand why anyone would buy an account to be a level 50. That’s like some uncoordinated goomba going to the trophy store and buying the biggest football trophy they can find. Then someone good at football plays them and puts their solarplexus right through their -Yoink!- cavities. What’s the point if you’re just going to end up with a bone in your -Yoink-?
> I don’t understand why anyone would buy an account to be a level 50. That’s like some uncoordinated goomba going to the trophy store and buying the biggest football trophy they can find. Then someone good at football plays them and puts their solarplexus right through their -Yoink!- cavities. What’s the point if you’re just going to end up with a bone in your -Yoink!-?
Because people become irrational when they think they can, even if for a small amount of time, have some sort of spotlight. If they have a 50, they feel they can go around and brag to people saying “Hey look guys!! I have a 50!! Aren’t I awesome?!”. They focus too heavily on the positives and look past the negatives. Many people do this and it’s just part of human nature.
> > Obviously, no one plays for the rank only. The like the game already. The ranks just make the game better. The idea that the ranks are the only thing keeping players playing is absurd.
> >
> > Wait are you talking about actual ranks or the gimmicky time spent system? If it’s the latter I agree with you.
>
> I’m talking about skill based ranks (although ANY ranks are gimmicky), but I have to skill-based ranks are the most gimmicky. It tells you that you are getting better at the game, which feels good. Many people get a sort of high from seeing themselves improve and even if they get bored of the game’s mechanics after about a week or something, they’ll already be engrossed by the ranking system. It makes them think that they’re still enjoying the game, but they’re not, they’re enjoying the fact that they’re improving. This is why I think the current ranking system isn’t as gimmicky. It doesn’t give you that sort of high. You don’t feel that the rank is really representing something as important as skill ranks. That’s why people don’t go around selling Inheritors in Reach or 130s in Halo 4 and if they do, it’s nowhere near as popular as buying 50s in 2 and 3. A skill based rank does not add to the gameplay in any way and doesn’t reward the player with any extrinsic rewards which is what a game should bring.
People like knowing that they’re improving. Some people like doing well in whatever they do. Most competitive people do actually. It’s nice to have a rank to visualize that improvement. But that doesn’t mean they only play for the rank. Like I said before, the ranks are just the icing on the cake. It’s absurd to think that someone is playing a game they don’t like because they want a rank that only means something (in most cases) inside of that game. I would still play Halo 3 even if it didn’t have a ranking system. It was fun.
People sold and boosted accounts because the ranks actually meant something. Having a 50 meant you were good. It gave people a sense of pride. Beyond that, it let you compare that rank with…just about anyone; friends, random players, your ex’s new boyfriend, etc. Whatever she was a -Yoink- anyway.
That was fun for most people. It’s unquestionably better than having a time spent system because that system shows nothing beyond how much you play. That’s gimmicky and is obviously only there to simulate the true rank experience.
The 1-50 system also helped create better matches. You didn’t have kids running around with boosted K/Ds in H3 because you were matched with players of close or equal skill. That also made the game a lot more “fun” for certain people. (Side note, if you don’t want to be matched up in fair games you can still play social. Your fun shouldn’t take away ours.)
Having ranks makes the game better in the sense that it takes something good and makes it great.
> > > Obviously, no one plays for the rank only. The like the game already. The ranks just make the game better. The idea that the ranks are the only thing keeping players playing is absurd.
> > >
> > > Wait are you talking about actual ranks or the gimmicky time spent system? If it’s the latter I agree with you.
> >
> > I’m talking about skill based ranks (although ANY ranks are gimmicky), but I have to skill-based ranks are the most gimmicky. It tells you that you are getting better at the game, which feels good. Many people get a sort of high from seeing themselves improve and even if they get bored of the game’s mechanics after about a week or something, they’ll already be engrossed by the ranking system. It makes them think that they’re still enjoying the game, but they’re not, they’re enjoying the fact that they’re improving. This is why I think the current ranking system isn’t as gimmicky. It doesn’t give you that sort of high. You don’t feel that the rank is really representing something as important as skill ranks. That’s why people don’t go around selling Inheritors in Reach or 130s in Halo 4 and if they do, it’s nowhere near as popular as buying 50s in 2 and 3. A skill based rank does not add to the gameplay in any way and doesn’t reward the player with any extrinsic rewards which is what a game should bring.
>
> People like knowing that they’re improving. Some people like doing well in whatever they do. Most competitive people do actually. It’s nice to have a rank to visualize that improvement. But that doesn’t mean they only play for the rank. Like I said before, the ranks are just the icing on the cake. It’s absurd to think that someone is playing a game they don’t like because they want a rank that only means something (in most cases) inside of that game. I would still play Halo 3 even if it didn’t have a ranking system. It was fun.
>
> People sold and boosted accounts because the ranks actually meant something. Having a 50 meant you were good. It gave people a sense of pride. Beyond that, it let you compare that rank with…just about anyone; friends, random players, your ex’s new boyfriend, etc. Whatever she was a Yoink! anyway.
>
> That was fun for most people. It’s unquestionably better than having a time spent system because that system shows nothing beyond how much you play. That’s gimmicky and is obviously only there to simulate the true rank experience.
>
> The 1-50 system also helped create better matches. You didn’t have kids running around with boosted K/Ds in H3 because you were matched with players of close or equal skill. That also made the game a lot more “fun” for certain people. (Side note, if you don’t want to be matched up in fair games you can still play social. Your fun shouldn’t take away ours.)
>
> Having ranks makes the game better in the sense that it takes something good and makes it great.
I still think you didn’t quite get my example. It’s gimmicky in the fact that even when you’re bored of the games and it’s mechanics, you still thinking you like it because you’re getting enjoyment from seeing your improvement. Now, I do see how it’s a nice thing on the side that makes the experience more enjoyable, but many are acting as if it makes the game unplayable, saying that Halo will die without it. This tells me that the essence of their experience was the ranking system. They say that the ranks are their fun, not just playing. They say they can’t have fun without them. It’s THOSE people I’m dedicating this too. I like skill-ranks as I said before and I think it’s a nice thing to have on the side. As you said, it makes a good thing better. But it’s still gimmicky. Some people play Halo solely for the fact that it has ranks. Solely for the fact that they can see their improvement and their skill and compare it to others. It’s like things like pokemon cards and stuff. I never actually enjoyed playing pokemon cards, I just enjoyed buying them and seeing how my cards compare to my friends cards. The pokemon trading card game was boring as all hell, but it still dragged you in with the collectibility of it all and that feeling of having better cards than your friends.
OP, I don’t you really understand the point of skill based ranking system. Its not that people only enjoy it because they can show it off or brag about it. Its because it matches you accordingly to other players of your skill. Those games like that are fun for some people. They actually like to try and win. And when they do win against someone just as good as them in a close match , they feel happy. That’s some peoples way of having fun on video games, rather than just slaughtering nearly everybody that you play(that’s currently how halo 4 is)
> > > > Obviously, no one plays for the rank only. The like the game already. The ranks just make the game better. The idea that the ranks are the only thing keeping players playing is absurd.
> > > >
> > > > Wait are you talking about actual ranks or the gimmicky time spent system? If it’s the latter I agree with you.
> > >
> > > I’m talking about skill based ranks (although ANY ranks are gimmicky), but I have to skill-based ranks are the most gimmicky. It tells you that you are getting better at the game, which feels good. Many people get a sort of high from seeing themselves improve and even if they get bored of the game’s mechanics after about a week or something, they’ll already be engrossed by the ranking system. It makes them think that they’re still enjoying the game, but they’re not, they’re enjoying the fact that they’re improving. This is why I think the current ranking system isn’t as gimmicky. It doesn’t give you that sort of high. You don’t feel that the rank is really representing something as important as skill ranks. That’s why people don’t go around selling Inheritors in Reach or 130s in Halo 4 and if they do, it’s nowhere near as popular as buying 50s in 2 and 3. A skill based rank does not add to the gameplay in any way and doesn’t reward the player with any extrinsic rewards which is what a game should bring.
> >
> > People like knowing that they’re improving. Some people like doing well in whatever they do. Most competitive people do actually. It’s nice to have a rank to visualize that improvement. But that doesn’t mean they only play for the rank. Like I said before, the ranks are just the icing on the cake. It’s absurd to think that someone is playing a game they don’t like because they want a rank that only means something (in most cases) inside of that game. I would still play Halo 3 even if it didn’t have a ranking system. It was fun.
> >
> > People sold and boosted accounts because the ranks actually meant something. Having a 50 meant you were good. It gave people a sense of pride. Beyond that, it let you compare that rank with…just about anyone; friends, random players, your ex’s new boyfriend, etc. Whatever she was a Yoink! anyway.
> >
> > That was fun for most people. It’s unquestionably better than having a time spent system because that system shows nothing beyond how much you play. That’s gimmicky and is obviously only there to simulate the true rank experience.
> >
> > The 1-50 system also helped create better matches. You didn’t have kids running around with boosted K/Ds in H3 because you were matched with players of close or equal skill. That also made the game a lot more “fun” for certain people. (Side note, if you don’t want to be matched up in fair games you can still play social. Your fun shouldn’t take away ours.)
> >
> > Having ranks makes the game better in the sense that it takes something good and makes it great.
>
> I still think you didn’t quite get my example. It’s gimmicky in the fact that even when you’re bored of the games and it’s mechanics, you still thinking you like it because you’re getting enjoyment from seeing your improvement. Now, I do see how it’s a nice thing on the side that makes the experience more enjoyable, but many are acting as if it makes the game unplayable, saying that Halo will die without it. This tells me that the essence of their experience was the ranking system. They say that the ranks are their fun, not just playing. They say they can’t have fun without them. It’s THOSE people I’m dedicating this too. I like skill-ranks as I said before and I think it’s a nice thing to have on the side. As you said, it makes a good thing better. But it’s still gimmicky. Some people play Halo solely for the fact that it has ranks. Solely for the fact that they can see their improvement and their skill and compare it to others. It’s like things like pokemon cards and stuff. I never actually enjoyed playing pokemon cards, I just enjoyed buying them and seeing how my cards compare to my friends cards. The pokemon trading card game was boring as all hell, but it still dragged you in with the collectibility of it all and that feeling of having better cards than your friends.
You’re misinterpreting what they are saying. They get enjoyment from the game. No one is going to play a game they don’t want for a rank that they wouldn’t care about. That’s stupid.
What most people are missing when they ask for ranks is competition. Without the ranks, all you have is social. Most competitive players aren’t happy only playing social. Instead of playing refutedsock56 and his friends and steamrolling them, they get to play players of their own skill level.
So again, no one only plays for ranks. They play for competition, hence the name “competitive players”. They get enjoyment out of the game at a base level, but some people like to take it beyond that.
A very observant perspective, OP, but in the case of Halo there is another layer. Bungie discovered that vs multiplayer was very popular and entertaining, and Microsoft introduced online multiplayer, and between them they decided that giving out rank would make it more appealing. Good idea so far but then someone decided that the rank they awarded should somehow be tied to how well you played. This is where the problems began because, how do you do that? How do you decide how well someone plays compared to someone else? Bungie decided to go with a modified ELO ranking system commonly used to rate and match chess players for tournaments. Then they used the ELO rating to assign a rank. Then they told everyone that’s how you get your rank.
Now with Halo CE multiplayer you played to get the highest score. That was pretty much it and it seemed to be enough. However, with online multiplayer you were now in competition with the whole planet, and your rank was your symbol of how good a player you were. The emphasis changed from winning to ranking. ELO was banned with Halo 3 and replaced with Microsoft’s proprietary TrueSkill system. Rank was then tied to your TrueSkill rating and the concept of rank as skill continued.
Due to the problems with account selling and the negative effects to TrueSkill that ensued, skill-based rank was eliminated with Reach. However, to this day players still connect skill with rank and still want skill tied to rank.
So it’s not the rank, per se. It’s the idea that rank documents how good a player you are, even though that’s not really what it did. People perceived it as such and won’t accept that “skill based rank” is pretty much a loose definition.
yeah, sometimes the rank means nothing
i know some people want competition of their level everygame
but let’s face it, some guys who are awesome and they don’t talk about they want someone of their level, they just play and become better to have fun
and simply u can’t nerf a player
and even why they want ranks? some people even start to rage about not having ranks and more later if they found someone of their rank but is way superior to them they rage again.
well i have notice that sometimes
> OP, I don’t you really understand the point of skill based ranking system. Its not that people only enjoy it because they can show it off or brag about it. Its because it matches you accordingly to other players of your skill. Those games like that are fun for some people. They actually like to try and win. And when they do win against someone just as good as them in a close match , they feel happy. That’s some peoples way of having fun on video games, rather than just slaughtering nearly everybody that you play(that’s currently how halo 4 is)
Okay, I probably should’ve made myself more clear. I’m talking about visible in-game ranks here. Ranks that appear on the website are still used to match people in game, so it still fits the description you gave, which would mean that if that’s really why they want it, then they have nothing to complain about. What I’m saying is that there are people who say that halo will die without a visible in-game ranking system and that they can’t play halo for more than a month without it. I’m saying that they clearly don’t actually enjoy the game and that they just enjoy the ranking system.
> they just enjoy the ranking system.
Again, nooooooo.
People obviously like to compare and see their rank. Again, it’s in our nature. But what they truly want is competition. And no, whatever system they are using “behind the screens” is broken. We’re not getting equal games like we did with the 1-50.
> > they just enjoy the ranking system.
>
> Again, nooooooo.
>
> People obviously like to compare and see their rank. Again, it’s in our nature. But what they truly want is competition. And no, whatever system they are using “behind the screens” is broken. We’re not getting equal games like we did with the 1-50.
I’m not talking about the current system. I’m talking about CSR which they will later introduce. And still, you can’t deny the fact that if people say that they can’t play Halo without visible ranks (which many have said), then they only truly enjoy the rank system of Halo. And again, even if they DID enjoy Halos mechanics, the ranks will keep them there even when they’re bored of the mechanics. At that point, they’re no longer staying for the fun, they’re staying for the rank. That’s what I’m talking about. It’s gimmicky in that even if they get bored of the game, they’ll still be kept around solely because of their addiction to ranks. By that point, they’re just playing to reach all those 50s. It’s replayability on the boring level. You can bored of Halo and still want to keep playing. That’s the point of a gimmick. It’s just a very smart and well done gimmick.
I will forever be SR120. Rank means nothing to me in H4. Inheritor was a personal goal (oh the grind) in Reach. Most of my friends don’t care much about rank but we compete to complete a game as much as possible like finishing all Spartan ordinance, getting all the medals at least once or dying the least compared to kills on Endure.
All of us like/dislike all the Halo games to varying degrees and play despite each of the halo games failings. Its ranks and competition within our group, more than a number or name that everyone else sees that makes us gamers.
> > OP, I don’t you really understand the point of skill based ranking system. Its not that people only enjoy it because they can show it off or brag about it. Its because it matches you accordingly to other players of your skill. Those games like that are fun for some people. They actually like to try and win. And when they do win against someone just as good as them in a close match , they feel happy. That’s some peoples way of having fun on video games, rather than just slaughtering nearly everybody that you play(that’s currently how halo 4 is)
>
> Okay, I probably should’ve made myself more clear. I’m talking about visible in-game ranks here. Ranks that appear on the website are still used to match people in game, so it still fits the description you gave, which would mean that if that’s really why they want it, then they have nothing to complain about. What I’m saying is that there are people who say that halo will die without a visible in-game ranking system and that they can’t play halo for more than a month without it. I’m saying that they clearly don’t actually enjoy the game and that they just enjoy the ranking system.
Ok gotcha. I agree that it is funny that people just want to play because of visible ranks. I personally just care about playing people my skill, nothing else. That’s what makes halo fun , visible ranks were only a bonus. I think when people say they cant play for more than month without it, I think they just mean the competition. Instead of clarifying it, they just sum it up into that statement. I personally cannot play halo for than 2hrs at the max because it gets boring playing people who don’t have a clue what they’re doing over and over again. But I do find the game fun when I rarely match against other try hards.