The value of skill based MM

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

I know it has been mentioned a lot of times but I want to bring up some new points
that might even convince designated opponents of skill based ranking systems.

I think many players underestimate the value of a skill rank system.
Those players - without saying anything bad about them - are casuals who fail to see the correlation between skill rank and MM-experience.
I assume one of the reasons why publishers (more than developers) as well as casuals fear skill ranking is the assumption that this leads into a highly competitive environment which turns every match into a battle for life or death.

THAT’S COMPLETELY WRONG!

The only logical thing in this assumption is that it would turn off many players because they just want to enjoy the game.
But that doesn’t happen!
In an ideal scenario you will be matched up with players that equal your skill level, that means you will play a close and exciting match.
And isn’t that what playing games versus others is all about, being close and exciting? The thrill of not knowing who is going to win because you are evenly matched up? The pure joy of getting tested by an opponent that equals your skill?
I say YES!

I know, it’s an ideal scenario (as I mentioned above) but it’s much more frequent with match ups determined by your skill than being randomly thrown in a lobby with people that don’t even have the same motivation like you.

To emphasize my point even further I want to tell you about my recent Halo 4 activities:
I haven’t played Halo 4 for about half a year (or even longer) and borrowed a friend’s copy. I threw it in and played a couple of rounds and - without the intention to brag - I dominated most of them and got bored.
I had a bad time because it didn’t match with my imagination of a fun experience(mentioned above),
my opponent had a bad time for the same reason (whatever his imagination is but it’s definitely not being smashed).

Nevertheless there still needs to be changes to implement a ranking system based on skill (I’m looking at you JiP) and the developers have to prevent cheating as well as giving rewards to motivate players to try to improve.
I would also like to see a return to the traditional style of Halo because it has more depth.
Additionally the game could include tutorials that explain the meta of the game and teach lower skilled players how to be more efficient in gun fights by having superior positioning or how to gain map control and all that stuff that separates the “good” from the “bad”.

2

An in game ranking system based on skill must be in the next Halo. If the developers are worried about it being too competitive for some players, then do what Halo 3 did and create Ranked and Social playlists. The reason Halo 3 had such a huge population is because it was just a fun game to play both competitively and casually.

3

I will support any thread that supports a skill based match making system. Ranked /Social in my opinion is the way to go. Skill based match making offers balance and longevity into the game. Never should have been removed in the first place.

4

The original Halo trilogy was designed to be competitive. A competitive game can have a social playlist for casuals players. However, a casual game cannot be competitive.

Halo 4 ditched the competitiveness and decided to make it a casual game. “Make Halo more accessible, Help new players find success, and Contextualize our universe,” Josh Homes stated during a GDC conference. To me, this statement was like a kick to the face… It disrespected the Halo community.

Because of the decrease in population, the developers tried to make it competitive. This plan did not work. In an interview by Frank O’Conner, he stated that they know they made mistakes. Hopefully, they learned from the mistakes and change their mindset.

Halo 5 needs to be competitive. There needs to be a skill gap. A below average skilled opponent with a BR should get dominated by a higher skilled BR player. After the 1v1 scenario, the skilled player should have remaining health. A “who shoots first wins” must not be a part of Halo, period.

Make Halo 5 a competitive game. Also, provide social gametypes for casual players. It’s a win/win situation. Halo 3 was competitive, and look how successful it was.

5

>

Honestly, before we even start with this we need to be specific to know exactly what we are talking about.

Far too many people say “skill based ranking system” when they mean a skill based visual rank, ala the 1-50 ranks in H3. When you say a “skill based ranking system” what you are asking for is TrueSkill: An underlying system that objectively determines a player’s skill and matches them with similarly skilled players. And until we are told otherwise, TrueSkill is utilized in online play. And if IIRC, it is required for nearly all online games.

To further remove any confusion: Ranks in H3 were directly tied to your TrueSkill but those ranks are not a “skill based ranking system.” They are skill based visual ranks. If you remove the visual ranks, you still have the skill based ranking system.

Now with that stated.

> I know it has been mentioned a lot of times but I want to bring up some new points
> that might even convince designated opponents of skill based ranking systems.
>
>
> I think many players underestimate the value of a skill rank system.
>
> Those players - without saying anything bad about them - are casuals

Honestly, I can’t think of a single person that doesn’t want TrueSkill running in the background coordinating matches, even among so called casuals. MMing would be crap otherwise.

In fact I don’t even think anyone has been asking for that at all.

> To emphasize my point even further I want to tell you about my recent Halo 4 activities:
> I haven’t played Halo 4 for about half a year (or even longer) and borrowed a friend’s copy. I threw it in and played a couple of rounds and - without the intention to brag - I dominated most of them and got bored.
> I had a bad time because it didn’t match with my imagination of a fun experience(mentioned above),
> my opponent had a bad time for the same reason (whatever his imagination is but it’s definitely not being smashed).

Kinda undercut given the fact that you’re playing a game whose population experienced a mass die off while being ranked substantially high previously. The short story is that you had virtually no competition in the game, so instead of the game telling you sorry you can’t play the game, it matched you up against some chumps to beat up on.

> Nevertheless there still needs to be changes to implement a ranking system based on skill

Changes, yes. Implementing a skill based ranking system? No. That’s already done. Tweaking the current system? Yes.

> (I’m looking at you JiP)

Can work even with a “skill based ranking system.”

> and the developers have to prevent cheating

Cheating isn’t a large scale problem with Halo.

> more depth

\You’ll have to explain that one.

H3’s visual ranking system didn’t add more depth. It added a wall that I couldn’t climb over and so inclined me to give up trying.

> Additionally the game could include tutorials that explain the meta of the game and teach lower skilled players how to be more efficient in gun fights by having superior positioning or how to gain map control and all that stuff that separates the “good” from the “bad”.

You can throw a bunch of tutorials at players but it’s not going to stick. Not to mention that it screams lazy and bad game design.

6

methew i don’t agree with your opinion at all.

if it isn’t viable at tournament level play then it is not viable in a skill based ranking system, as it does not consider the definition of competition.

my main problems lie with your last 4 sentences

> Can work even with a “skill based ranking system.”

name all games that have a ranking system that is considered good despite JiP, then compare them to the amount that doesn’t have JiP. in tournaments you don’t just see teams swap out players, video games aren’t a roster based competition for a reason.

> Cheating isn’t a large scale problem with Halo.

all games suffer cheating, ranking or not, there are many players which disagree with you, however it should not inhibit the creation of a VISIBLE ranking system

> H3’s visual ranking system didn’t add more depth. It added a wall that I couldn’t climb over and so inclined me to give up trying.

well that’s odd, why did so many people play ranked in h2 and h3 then?

or why do so many people play LoL ranked games

or starcraft 2

it may be a wall for you, especially when a game isn’t visible enough (like in h3 where it didn’t show you the progress needed for the next rank), however less visibility gives 1 thing which many players want, an identifier of skill, something that is present with all popular ranking systems.

> You can throw a bunch of tutorials at players but it’s not going to stick. Not to mention that it screams lazy and bad game design.

bad game design lies with bad implementation, not a tutorial. many games which feature great game design have tutorials, i’m pretty sure every fighter and RTS game available has a tutorial, are they bad or lazy?

if there are key points which could help players improve their game then why not have tutorial videos in an easy to find location.

7

> H3’s visual ranking system didn’t add more depth. <mark>It added a wall that I couldn’t climb over and so inclined me to give up trying.</mark>

I know the purpose of the ranking system. Why give up anyway?

8

> > H3’s visual ranking system didn’t add more depth. <mark>It added a wall that I couldn’t climb over and so inclined me to give up trying.</mark>
>
> I know the purpose of the ranking system. Why give up anyway?

I can’t speak for Methew, but I tend to give up on things like that because I am easily frustrated and tend to use controllers as projectiles…

There’s nothing more infuriating than having a 49-49 score and accidentally missing the final shot. Halo 3’s UNSC rank system caused the fury of those scenarios to grow exponentially.

That being said, I want both a progressive system AND a 1-50 system for future titles.

9

Oh well now I don’t know what all the mumbo jumbo is about competitive and skill based gameplay. This was already throughly taken care of in Halo 4.

The CSR system added was a huge success, matching consistent good games, which could be a bit of a problem in reach. Also the gameplay of halo 4 itself is highly rewarding in terms of skill and competitiveness, with things such good aiming, intelligent loadout and ordnance choices, and good positioning and teamwork.

10

> Oh well now I don’t know what all the mumbo jumbo is about competitive and skill based gameplay. This was already throughly taken care of in Halo 4.
>
> The CSR system added was a huge success, matching consistent good games, which could be a bit of a problem in reach. Also the gameplay of halo 4 itself is highly rewarding in terms of skill and competitiveness, with things such good aiming, intelligent loadout and ordnance choices, and good positioning and teamwork.

Halo 4 is not competitive. The CSR was not a huge success. The decrease in population shows how much of a disappointment it was to the competitive community.

Take a step back and play any of the original Halo games. People need to understand why those games were successful. It required skill. Playing every day and practicing was needed to improve a player’s skill. There was a skill gap.

Even before CSR was implemented into Halo 4, the community had to deal with a limited set of gametypes. All of which allowed players to use over-powered weapons. How does spawning with a pocket shotgun considered competitive?

Halo 4 was designed to be a casual game. Putting “CSR” into a casual game wont make it competitive.

11

> > Oh well now I don’t know what all the mumbo jumbo is about competitive and skill based gameplay. This was already throughly taken care of in Halo 4.
> >
> > The CSR system added was a huge success, matching consistent good games, which could be a bit of a problem in reach. Also the gameplay of halo 4 itself is highly rewarding in terms of skill and competitiveness, with things such good aiming, intelligent loadout and ordnance choices, and good positioning and teamwork.
>
> Halo 4 is not competitive. The CSR was not a huge success. The decrease in population shows how much of a disappointment it was to the competitive community.
>
> Take a step back and play any of the original Halo games. People need to understand why those games were successful. It required skill. Playing every day and practicing was needed to improve a player’s skill. There was a skill gap.
>
> Even before CSR was implemented into Halo 4, the community had to deal with a limited set of gametypes. All of which allowed players to use over-powered weapons. How does spawning with a pocket shotgun considered competitive?
>
> Halo 4 was designed to be a casual game. Putting “CSR” into a casual game wont make it competitive.

No no no, my friend halo 4 is by far the most competitive halo title to date, and easily requires the most skill.

One of the biggest things halo 4 did for competitive gameplay was the addition of loadouts and everything they offer. Now teams can carefully consider the gear of each member, and craft intricate strategies that massively boosts competitive games. For instance one team member can equip promethean vision along with AA efficiency and call out enemies very frequently for the team. Or you could have two team members run ordnance priority and try to quickly feed two other members with ammo to try to get an early leg up. You also could have two members use auto sentries in pairs to control important sections of the map. Players tactically using different guns and grenades, you name it! Halo 4 is quite deep and competitive.

Halo 3 was not nearly as competitive. There are none of the strategies I mentioned as there are no loadouts, things like no sprint hurts games as you can’t reposition in a timely manner or get over in time to teamshot, descope hurts ranged combat, and the overall a bit dry and repetitive gameplay along with nasty hit detection issues and counter intuitive projectile guns accounts for this.

12

The CSR was a flop. The idea behind it was good, the implementation was poor. I am a sub par player that couldn’t pass a 30 in H3. In Halo 4, I achieved a 47 in 10 games or so. Also,it didn’t match me with any players on my skill level, as the in game CSRs were as scattered as they wouldve been anyways.

The best thing about a proper true ranking skill is that players will find players that can provide them with a playing experience theyll enjoy. It will level the playing field, poorer players will no longer have to suffer through lopsided games and vice versa. Itll promote player growth at their own pace.

All that really needs to be done is to tighten the parameters for certain playlists. While every game does use trueskill, its far looser than the H2-H3 days.

13

> No no no, my friend halo 4 is by far the most competitive halo title to date, and easily requires the most skill.
>
> One of the biggest things halo 4 did for competitive gameplay was the addition of loadouts and everything they offer. Now teams can carefully consider the gear of each member, and craft intricate strategies that massively boosts competitive games. For instance one team member can equip promethean vision along with AA efficiency and call out enemies very frequently for the team. Or you could have two team members run ordnance priority and try to quickly feed two other members with ammo to try to get an early leg up. You also could have two members use auto sentries in pairs to control important sections of the map. Players tactically using different guns and grenades, you name it! Halo 4 is quite deep and competitive.

typical sammy copy+paste reply

no no no…requires the most skill…addition of loadouts…carefully consider…intricate strategies…one team can equip…[proceeds to mention 1 or 2 in-game permutations]…halo 4 is competitive.

i think i’ve seen that for about half of all your replies

now onto this

> Halo 3 was not nearly as competitive. There are none of the strategies I mentioned as there are no loadouts, things like no sprint hurts games as you can’t reposition in a timely manner or get over in time to teamshot, descope hurts ranged combat, and the overall a bit dry and repetitive gameplay along with nasty hit detection issues and counter intuitive projectile guns accounts for this.

a person who cannot give the definition of, or understand from reading over 100 times, the definition of competition or strategy is refuting the competitive and strategic merit of a game he admits he has never played…the irony is lost on me.

i would give you the answer, however i can’t be bothered wasting a lot of my time again, so i’ll give you the resources

kurtiz is a new zealand halo player, very involved with making halo a good game by making it more competitive. he worked with kambo (NZ player), menotyou and ghostayame (you know the halo pro that was hired by 343).

he created a document and later did weapon testing which gave way to the title update that people thank 343 for (funny that competitive players know how to balance a game)

this is the document A Solution to the MLG Settings debate - Google Docs

the ideas changed a bit from this document as the competitive scene workshopped h4 and made it into what the competitive settings are now.

then kurtiz worked with the members of teambeyond to create this document about what halo needs to do to make it competitive (except for the dynamic aim assist which was just an idea)

READ THIS ESPECIALLY ^

if you read both of these sammy you’ll see the competitive viewpoint, maybe not agree or understand, but see what they want and the explanations for what made halo competitive to people who know what competition and strategy is.

14

I cant tell if Sammy is serious?

H4 is by far, the least competitive halo game.

Absolutely every ounce of evidence points towards this, not least being the fact it was dropped almost instantly from MLG.

It is impossible to progress when you have players like Sammy contradicting the wider community on a vital issue. Please stop flaunting baseless ‘facts’ and ideas.

15

Every time I read a post by Sammy, I think I’m reading something sarcastic…until I realize it’s Sammy.

Sammy, more options does not make things more competitive.
You’re naming options; options you like, which is fine, but by literal definition, they hinder competition. This cannot be disputed. Competition is decreased, skill-gap is decreased, and strategy is decreased because of everything you just mentioned. This is FACT, Sammy.

16

> No no no, my friend halo 4 is by far the most competitive halo title to date, and easily requires the most skill.
>
> One of the biggest things halo 4 did for competitive gameplay was the addition of loadouts and everything they offer. Now teams can carefully consider the gear of each member, and craft intricate strategies that massively boosts competitive games. For instance one team member can equip promethean vision along with AA efficiency and call out enemies very frequently for the team. Or you could have two team members run ordnance priority and try to quickly feed two other members with ammo to try to get an early leg up. You also could have two members use auto sentries in pairs to control important sections of the map. Players tactically using different guns and grenades, you name it! Halo 4 is quite deep and competitive.
>
> Halo 3 was not nearly as competitive. There are none of the strategies I mentioned as there are no loadouts, things like no sprint hurts games as you can’t reposition in a timely manner or get over in time to teamshot, descope hurts ranged combat, and the overall a bit dry and repetitive gameplay along with nasty hit detection issues and counter intuitive projectile guns accounts for this.

None of this makes the game “more competitive;” it simply makes it more random. Think of it like this: In a football game, the refs randomly stop play, run out onto the field, toss the ball into the air and then mark the scrimmage line wherever the ball lands, and let play resume. Would that make the game more or less competitive?

I honestly don’t know why you continue to argue that Halo 4 is more competitive than other Halo games, after so many people have refuted your assertions.

17

> > No no no, my friend halo 4 is by far the most competitive halo title to date, and easily requires the most skill.
> >
> > One of the biggest things halo 4 did for competitive gameplay was the addition of loadouts and everything they offer. Now teams can carefully consider the gear of each member, and craft intricate strategies that massively boosts competitive games. For instance one team member can equip promethean vision along with AA efficiency and call out enemies very frequently for the team. Or you could have two team members run ordnance priority and try to quickly feed two other members with ammo to try to get an early leg up. You also could have two members use auto sentries in pairs to control important sections of the map. Players tactically using different guns and grenades, you name it! Halo 4 is quite deep and competitive.
> >
> > Halo 3 was not nearly as competitive. There are none of the strategies I mentioned as there are no loadouts, things like no sprint hurts games as you can’t reposition in a timely manner or get over in time to teamshot, descope hurts ranged combat, and the overall a bit dry and repetitive gameplay along with nasty hit detection issues and counter intuitive projectile guns accounts for this.
>
> None of this makes the game “more competitive;” it simply makes it more random. Think of it like this: In a football game, the refs randomly stop play, run out onto the field, toss the ball into the air and then mark the scrimmage line wherever the ball lands, and let play resume. Would that make the game more or less competitive?
>
> I honestly don’t know why you continue to argue that Halo 4 is more competitive than other Halo games, after so many people have refuted your assertions.

I’m not sure I follow your analogy Musashi. What exactly in halo 4 are you likening to a ref tossing the football in the air and remarking the line of scrimmage?

18

How about this, Sammy:

Imagine a game of Chess in which a player gets to choose a special ability before the match begins.
Here are the loadouts:
-Reverse an opponent’s move, and move twice yourself instead
-Instantly kill your opponent’s piece that attempts to kill one of your bishops the first time it’s attacked
-swap two pieces of your own at any time

Your opponent does not know which ability you’ve selected until it is used.

According to you, this makes Chess even more strategic because now there are so many variables and options at your disposal.

I am willing to bet my life savings that not a single Chess grandmaster would agree with you because all it does is add unknowns to the match.
How is a player supposed to craft an attack and create great positioning to combat an opponent who possesses an ability that is unknown? How can a player develop a great defense when there are so many things that could potentially go wrong due to impossible-to-know factors that he or she had no influence on? How is a player supposed to know that if he attacks a bishop, he will instead die because by chance, that’s the ability the opponent chose?

Is your suggestion to avoid every possible threatening option until you know which one your opponent actually has?
Do you know how damaging that would be to a game with as many unknown possibilities as Halo 4?

Honestly, Sammy, I want you to answer my questions.

19

> I’m not sure I follow your analogy Musashi. What exactly in halo 4 are you likening to a ref tossing the football in the air and remarking the line of scrimmage?

Personal Ordnance
Random Ordnance
Loadouts that can be edited during the match.
Join-in-Progress
Take your pick.

That was just one analogy, so here’s another one: Partway through the football game 8 of the 11 players on the offense leave the field and are replaced by all-star players from another team. In addition, the defensive team is populated by 11 high school players. Before the ball is snapped, 2 players on the defense jump into trucks, while the running back on the offense jumps on a motorcycle. Do these new variables make the game more competitive? Do they even make it fair?

20

What about the joys of people berating you because they have somehow interpreted their rank as being related to their self-worth?

Or a group of people that collude to boost their rank?

Many issues need to be fixed regarding ranking…

The good old days were not so good for many of us.