Why Halo 4 needs a Winning-focused RankSystem

Let me first say that I am in no way saying that a progressive ranking system is totally wrong. It can work side-by-side with a skill based system, like in Halo 3, but by itself the thrill in the game just dies out too quickly. Also, this may be my first post, but I’ve been on the Halo forums since the Halo:CE days, but I haven’t felt the need to speak out until after I’ve seen the abomination that is Reach and really don’t want Halo 4 to follow in its footsteps.

In my opinion, and the opinions of many others from what I’ve read, 343i is going in the wrong direction in regards to the matchmaking ranking system for Halo 4. The focus on a progressive ranking system just isn’t what makes the game great. In CoD, where the games are six players per team usually and involving huge game changing factors like killstreaks, a progressive system makes sense. There are times in CoD where most the kills in the game weren’t even made by shooting a gun, but by driving an RC car around or sitting above the map in the gunner seat of a helicopter. On the other hand, Halo has always been about small team, tactical play with a focus on winning. I’ve played Halo games since Combat Evolved was released, and even when I played at countless LAN parties, no one ever kept up with how many assists they got or their K/D ratio. What they cared about was winning. When winning a game is the focus, people have so much more fun in many different ways. People become more involved with the people they party up with because they want to play with people they know they can count on to play smart in every situation, not quit, etc etc. It just makes the game a much better quality experience for everyone. With a skill-based system, people can see who they are up against, and it produces an adrenaline-like feeling in the pregame lobby. For any Halo 2 fanatics, how nervous were you when you were in the mid 30 levels, and you want up against some people just a few levels higher than you? You knew before the game even started how intense it would be, and as a result, I’m positive you played above and beyond your expectations simply because you knew that if you didn’t win, your rank was going down. It’s that kind of intense atmosphere that makes Halo Halo.

A progressive ranking system can work brilliantly in supplementing the skill based system for things such as armor accessories and aesthetic things that don’t immediately affect the advantage one has when they enter matchmaking. This has been the cornerstone of Halo-gameplay for all time: When the game starts, everyone is one equal footing. It shouldn’t matter what armor ability or loadout you chose, because those shouldn’t be there anyway. What should matter is the strategy your team chooses to use and how well you can execute that strategy and defeat the other team.

I’m aware that many people think the 1-50 system can be exploited and so can the progressive system. Furthermore, if the progressive system unlocks items that can directly impact gameplay, it will be exploited immediately. 343i has said that some gametypes will start everyone off with the same loadout and such, but when you divide how the game is played, you also divide your fans. I believe you would be hard-pressed to find a competitive Halo 2 or Halo 3 player who is happy with the idea that 343i has for the upcoming ranking system. I’m open to new things, but we’ve seen the progressive based system fail in Reach. In fact, the entire ranking system in Reach is flawed. Arena has been the biggest disappointment I’ve seen in a Halo game in a long time. In Halo 2, it was so hard to level up that people had to cheat, and cheat a lot, to even get to 50. In Halo 3, getting to 50 wasn’t easy, but it wasn’t terribly hard if you were a pretty good, smart player. Why can’t 343i implement something in the middle? Halo is not Call of Duty, and although an online game isn’t judged entirely by its ranking system, the system to categorize players and create a competitive atmosphere is. Who really wants to play in a game where their teammates only care about how fast they can get to a power weapon so they can make sure their K/D might that game is high, not worried about if they will win as a team? In a team based game, you should win as a team, and lose as a team. The enthusiasum people have had for Halo 2 and Halo 3 as compared to Reach should make this statement obvious.

This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

China called, they want their wall back

This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

No you

Oh and welcome to waypoint! lolololol

I didn’t take the time to read the post, though I usually do.

I read the title and agreed with that general opinion, even though Microsoft prefers money to a well-made matchmaking system nowadays.

If i see one more Win/rank thread…

I will make my own ‘‘Why Halo 4 does NOT need what people on the forums say’’ thread.

Seriously you’re not even making the game, how the great John-117 do you know it NEEDS this?

> A progressive ranking system can work brilliantly in supplementing the skill based system

Yes.

Before I begin, I want to note that I did read the whole first post:

If a game cannot motivate a player to win through it’s mechanics alone, then that game has failed on some level. Personally, I would want ranks done away with entirely. However, as that won’t happen, I would say that any skill rating system should only be used to match players of similar skill. It should never be tied to a rank or progression system. This is the source of a lot of the troubles 1-50 encountered. Arena, in my opinion, was a step in the right direction, with a separate “rank” for player skill. However, the resetting of rank made the achievement underwhelming for many players, and the lack of variety in the current system drove many more away.

If skill rating is to continue to exist, it should never reset completely, though a gradual lowering from inactivity in a playlist would act as incentive for players to keep earning that rank. As said above, if a progression system is involved in any way, it should remain separate from any skill rating.

Also: Welcome to Waypoint!

> China called, they want their wall back

What wall? All I see is a very lengthy post which in turn brings up some good points

> If a game cannot motivate a player to win through it’s mechanics alone, then that game has failed on some level.

Its not the fact that I am not motivated to win. I want to win every game I play. Long term, publicly visible, skill based ranks are what keep me playing.

I always try to win once the game starts. One job of the ranking system is to get me to keep coming back to play in order to win more and more games.

> > If a game cannot motivate a player to win through it’s mechanics alone, then that game has failed on some level.
>
> Its not the fact that I am not motivated to win. I want to win every game I play. Long term, publicly visible, skill based ranks are what keep me playing.
>
> I always try to win once the game starts. One job of the ranking system is to get me to keep coming back to play in order to win more and more games.

If the game itself fails to keep you playing, then I posit, again, that the game has failed.

> > > If a game cannot motivate a player to win through it’s mechanics alone, then that game has failed on some level.
> >
> > Its not the fact that I am not motivated to win. I want to win every game I play. Long term, publicly visible, skill based ranks are what keep me playing.
> >
> > I always try to win once the game starts. One job of the ranking system is to get me to keep coming back to play in order to win more and more games.
>
> If the game itself fails to keep you playing, then I posit, again, that the game has failed.

Tell me a game that makes you play long term without giving you something to play for? I want this game.

Edited by Moderator - Please do not post discriminatory comments.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

  1. Games do not need to be about winning, they’re made to have fun. Play with your friends.

2.343 needs to chuck the arena ranking system, and the true skill and make something 100% new. Call the new playlists: GETCHURTRYHARDON2GETHIGHRANKSANDBRAGUNTILTHESYSTEMBREAKSFRUMFAGITS

> > China called, they want their wall back
>
> What wall? All I see is a very lengthy post which in turn brings up some good points

Well, if they want their wall back, they won’t be satisfied because it’s broken.

> > > If a game cannot motivate a player to win through it’s mechanics alone, then that game has failed on some level.
> >
> > Its not the fact that I am not motivated to win. I want to win every game I play. Long term, publicly visible, skill based ranks are what keep me playing.
> >
> > I always try to win once the game starts. One job of the ranking system is to get me to keep coming back to play in order to win more and more games.
>
> If the game itself fails to keep you playing, then I posit, again, that the game has failed.

Would any sport be as interesting if wins were not tracked, playoffs were not held, and champions not crowned?

Athletes immidiate goal is to win the current game. Just because they strive to increase their wins, make the playoffs, and possibly win a championship that means the game has failed?

> 1. Games do not need to be about winning, they’re made to have fun. Play with your friends.
>
> 2.343 needs to chuck the arena ranking system, and the true skill and make something 100% new. Call the new playlists: <mark>GETCHURTRYHARDON2GETHIGHRANKSANDBRAGUNTILTHESYSTEMBREAKSFRUMFAGITS</mark>

Try say THAT 5 times as fast.

> > > > If a game cannot motivate a player to win through it’s mechanics alone, then that game has failed on some level.
> > >
> > > Its not the fact that I am not motivated to win. I want to win every game I play. Long term, publicly visible, skill based ranks are what keep me playing.
> > >
> > > I always try to win once the game starts. One job of the ranking system is to get me to keep coming back to play in order to win more and more games.
> >
> > If the game itself fails to keep you playing, then I posit, again, that the game has failed.
>
> Would any sport be as interesting if wins were not tracked, playoffs were not held, and champions not crowned?
>
> Athletes immidiate goal is to win the current game. Just because they strive to increase their wins, make the playoffs, and possibly win a championship that means the game has failed?

It’s a video game man, not a super hardcore sport career.

> > > > > If a game cannot motivate a player to win through it’s mechanics alone, then that game has failed on some level.
> > > >
> > > > Its not the fact that I am not motivated to win. I want to win every game I play. Long term, publicly visible, skill based ranks are what keep me playing.
> > > >
> > > > I always try to win once the game starts. One job of the ranking system is to get me to keep coming back to play in order to win more and more games.
> > >
> > > If the game itself fails to keep you playing, then I posit, again, that the game has failed.
> >
> > Would any sport be as interesting if wins were not tracked, playoffs were not held, and champions not crowned?
> >
> > Athletes immidiate goal is to win the current game. Just because they strive to increase their wins, make the playoffs, and possibly win a championship that means the game has failed?
>
> It’s a video game man, not a super hardcore sport career.

What is with this community and not understanding analogies?

> > > > > > If a game cannot motivate a player to win through it’s mechanics alone, then that game has failed on some level.
> > > > >
> > > > > Its not the fact that I am not motivated to win. I want to win every game I play. Long term, publicly visible, skill based ranks are what keep me playing.
> > > > >
> > > > > I always try to win once the game starts. One job of the ranking system is to get me to keep coming back to play in order to win more and more games.
> > > >
> > > > If the game itself fails to keep you playing, then I posit, again, that the game has failed.
> > >
> > > Would any sport be as interesting if wins were not tracked, playoffs were not held, and champions not crowned?
> > >
> > > Athletes immidiate goal is to win the current game. Just because they strive to increase their wins, make the playoffs, and possibly win a championship that means the game has failed?
> >
> > It’s a video game man, not a super hardcore sport career.
>
> What is with this community and not understanding analogies?

Oh i do understand but you’re comparing this to a career sport.

You’re sitting with a controller, controlling a virtual male/female in a game. It’s just numbers and symbols next to a name as well.

EDIT: posted too early so here is what i forgot to write.

People who do sports do it because it is their pashion, their dream.

People in video games just want a rank, to show that they are capable of virtually killing other people.

To be fair, I can understand how players who have not been playing since the beginning of Halo 2 matchmaking think this post is just another pointless rant, and to some point, they may be right. I don’t expect 343i to listen to anyone on these forums, because I’ve never seen any indication of them taking fans advice, which is unfortunate. However, my post is a thoughtful debate by someone who has played countless hours of Halo from its inception all the way to Reach. Most importantly, I don’t understand how Frank O’Connor, the lead on this game, can disagree with this since his heyday was at Bungie in the Halo “golden days”. Bungie even used to have the Humpday Challenges, where they played community groups in a best of three match. Did they consider the winner the person with the highest K/D? No. It was the team who won the most games.

> > > > > > > If a game cannot motivate a player to win through it’s mechanics alone, then that game has failed on some level.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Its not the fact that I am not motivated to win. I want to win every game I play. Long term, publicly visible, skill based ranks are what keep me playing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I always try to win once the game starts. One job of the ranking system is to get me to keep coming back to play in order to win more and more games.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the game itself fails to keep you playing, then I posit, again, that the game has failed.
> > > >
> > > > Would any sport be as interesting if wins were not tracked, playoffs were not held, and champions not crowned?
> > > >
> > > > Athletes immidiate goal is to win the current game. Just because they strive to increase their wins, make the playoffs, and possibly win a championship that means the game has failed?
> > >
> > > It’s a video game man, not a super hardcore sport career.
> >
> > What is with this community and not understanding analogies?
>
> Oh i do understand but you’re comparing this to a career sport.
>
> You’re sitting with a controller, controlling a virtual male/female in a game. It’s just numbers and symbols next to a name as well.

Im sorry, so people haven’t every been payed to play halo? it hasn’t been put in the category of an E-Sport?