Why Halo 4 needs visible ranks.

Games Other Halo
1

It’s long, relevant and sorely needs to be read by 343.

Longevity- You saw it in Halo 2 and again in Halo 3. Long after the game comes out people are still populating the playlists. Do you think they are doing this because the game hasn’t become stale after three years? Not at all, it’s because a visible ranking system gives people the incentive to play game after game.

Competition- I can’t begin to tell you how much more competitive H2/3 were over Reach. A halo 3 social game was more competitive then almost every Reach playlist. In halo 3 when you matched a 50 nine times out of ten they were legit and you were in for a tough match. But in Reach you can match a team of inheritors and steak them without breaking a sweat. A progressive system waters down the game. And with an ‘invisible’ ranking system Bungie could simply tell us “it’s there, working as it should be, don’t worry!” When it obviously wasn’t.

Time- Five years ago I had all the time in the world to play halo, but now I’m a full time student with a part time job and I don’t have time to grind out millions of credits working towards a rank that means absolutely nothing. I would much rather get on sporadically and play 4-5 games in a ranked system because that’s all the time I have! People mistake competitive players for complete nerds when really we just don’t want to waste time putting days into a video game to reach a rank that somebody else can achieve playing campaign!

Skill measure- Okay, this is a sensitive subject on this forum and I get it. But wouldn’t you rather have a 50 that you’re 95% sure is good or an inheritor who is likely horrible at halo? I think that question answers itself and if you think otherwise please explain. I was a 50 three months into halo 3 and I can tell you not as many people bought fake 50’s as you think. And once they did they likely didn’t play on them and if they did the probably lost, so where’s the problem? And halo reach’s true skill system didn’t work because the system sees two inheritors and assumes they are of equal skill when they most likely are not even close and matches them together.

Addicting- Does anybody miss having their rank on the line and having everyone on your team working together for a similar goal? Halo 2/3 had so many high pressure moments that had my heart racing because if you won you were likely ranking up. In Reach I experienced that almost never, because winning meant 350 cr plus a 50cr for performance bonus and a 578 cr because you hit a credit jackpot. Whoop de doo. Maybe I’ll go buy a helmet now. LAME!!

Because halo’s nature IS competitive- Unlike COD and other games Halo actually takes a considerable amount of skill. It’s more then just point and shoot and it always has been. A game this competitive needs a ranking system that competitive players can indulge in AND NOT JUST MLG! I’m not a big fan of MLG and would much rather play ranked Team slayer or RBTB.

Because ranked co-existed perfectly in Halo 3- In halo 3 social and ranked were split into two playlist and they operated perfectly. There was even a ranking system within a ranking system with the TU which allowed people to keep track of their individual playlist stats as well. This system worked great in the previous halo games so why change a good thing?

Because ranks DO mean something- Now hear me out, if they didn’t mean anything at all then why did people spend money buying fake accounts? Why did people try to cheat to achieve it? The ranking system in halo 3 was so successful that an underground market seemed to spring up overnight. The ranks meant a lot to a wide variety of players and for many different reasons. It’s not just a symbol of skill, but of dedication to a playlist and to the game.

This is my last attempt to sway 343 and the forums that a ranking system is the way to go. Because I DO want to see halo 4 be successful but I simply cannot see my self and many of my competitive friends playing any halo game too long anymore when there is nothing for me to accomplish except for buying a new helmet! I write this not to spam or hate but because I truly do care for this game’s future and I hope everyone gives this some serious thought!

2

Completely agree. I’m afraid halo 4 is turning into Reach 2.5 They are adding a multitude of perks but aren’t staying true to the competitive fan base.

3

1- I thought I was playing it since the game was fun to play. I instantly hated the ranks when people mod the game.

On top of that, would that also make Halo 1 crappy since it didn’t have that?

2- Progression ranks do NOT have an effect on who you are paired up with. Stop comparing them.

3- Failure on the game’s end. Again, not progression =/= trueskill. Stop comparing them.

4- See #2.

5- I was looking for good games. Halo 2 stopped at the 30s. Halo 3 lost value when the system itself encourage players to make new accounts if they want to progress again.

I want to ask you something: If Halo 2 and 3 never had a visible rank, but Halo: Reach did, would that instantly make Reach the best seller, and Halo 2 and 3 crap?

4

> 1- I thought I was playing it since the game was fun to play. I instantly hated the ranks when people mod the game.
>
> On top of that, would that also make Halo 1 crappy since it didn’t have that?
>
> 2- Progression ranks do NOT have an effect on who you are paired up with. Stop comparing them.
>
> 3- Failure on the game’s end. Again, not progression =/= trueskill. Stop comparing them.
>
> 4- See #2.
>
> 5- I was looking for good games. Halo 2 stopped at the 30s. Halo 3 lost value when the system itself encourage players to make new accounts if they want to progress again.
>
> no

5

God in heaven, I give up. At this point this subject is so tired and beaten its ridiculous.

It won’t be the game that makes me give up halo.

It won’t be ranking system

It won’t be any mechanic in game

It won’t the canon issues

It won’t be my friends that don’t play anymore.

It’ll be people constantly complaining, even in the face of developer confirmation to the contrary of their wishes. Congratulations people have opinions, one group has this one, one group has that one, I have this one you have that one.

This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not flame or attack other members.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

We all have one and apparently we all think ours is irrefutable fact. I give up, there’s no pleasing everyone, hell around here it’s starting to seem there’s no pleasing anyone.

I would be deeply appreciative if you would refrain from speaking. and game, stop whining.

6

> It’s long, relevant and sorely needs to be read by 343.
>
> Longevity- You saw it in Halo 2 and again in Halo 3. Long after the game comes out people are still populating the playlists. Do you think they are doing this because the game hasn’t become stale after three years? Not at all, it’s because a visible ranking system gives people the incentive to play game after game.
>
> Competition- I can’t begin to tell you how much more competitive H2/3 were over Reach. A halo 3 social game was more competitive then almost every Reach playlist. In halo 3 when you matched a 50 nine times out of ten they were legit and you were in for a tough match. But in Reach you can match a team of inheritors and steak them without breaking a sweat. A progressive system waters down the game. And with an ‘invisible’ ranking system Bungie could simply tell us “it’s there, working as it should be, don’t worry!” When it obviously wasn’t.
>
> Time- Five years ago I had all the time in the world to play halo, but now I’m a full time student with a part time job and I don’t have time to grind out millions of credits working towards a rank that means absolutely nothing. I would much rather get on sporadically and play 4-5 games in a ranked system because that’s all the time I have! People mistake competitive players for complete nerds when really we just don’t want to waste time putting days into a video game to reach a rank that somebody else can achieve playing campaign!
>
> Skill measure- Okay, this is a sensitive subject on this forum and I get it. But wouldn’t you rather have a 50 that you’re 95% sure is good or an inheritor who is likely horrible at halo? I think that question answers itself and if you think otherwise please explain. I was a 50 three months into halo 3 and I can tell you not as many people bought fake 50’s as you think. And once they did they likely didn’t play on them and if they did the probably lost, so where’s the problem? And halo reach’s true skill system didn’t work because the system sees two inheritors and assumes they are of equal skill when they most likely are not even close and matches them together.
>
> Addicting- Does anybody miss having their rank on the line and having everyone on your team working together for a similar goal? Halo 2/3 had so many high pressure moments that had my heart racing because if you won you were likely ranking up. In Reach I experienced that almost never, because winning meant 350 cr plus a 50cr for performance bonus and a 578 cr because you hit a credit jackpot. Whoop de doo. Maybe I’ll go buy a helmet now. LAME!!
>
> Because halo’s nature IS competitive- Unlike COD and other games Halo actually takes a considerable amount of skill. It’s more then just point and shoot and it always has been. A game this competitive needs a ranking system that competitive players can indulge in AND NOT JUST MLG! I’m not a big fan of MLG and would much rather play ranked Team slayer or RBTB.
>
> Because ranked co-existed perfectly in Halo 3- In halo 3 social and ranked were split into two playlist and they operated perfectly. There was even a ranking system within a ranking system with the TU which allowed people to keep track of their individual playlist stats as well. This system worked great in the previous halo games so why change a good thing?
>
> Because ranks DO mean something- Now hear me out, if they didn’t mean anything at all then why did people spend money buying fake accounts? Why did people try to cheat to achieve it? The ranking system in halo 3 was so successful that an underground market seemed to spring up overnight. The ranks meant a lot to a wide variety of players and for many different reasons. It’s not just a symbol of skill, but of dedication to a playlist and to the game.
>
> This is my last attempt to sway 343 and the forums that a ranking system is the way to go. Because I DO want to see halo 4 be successful but I simply cannot see my self and many of my competitive friends playing any halo game too long anymore when there is nothing for me to accomplish except for buying a new helmet! I write this not to spam or hate but because I truly do care for this game’s future and I hope everyone gives this some serious thought!

TL;DR, visible ranks don’t make a game. Have fun not playing next Tuesday. I’m done with the whining and crying of these forums, complete waste of time. See you starside.

7

deranking
boosting
trash talking tryhard mlg baddies
ppl buying 50s
ppl selling 50s

no thanks

8

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

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

Halo 4 doesn’t need you.

9

> > 1- I thought I was playing it since the game was fun to play. I instantly hated the ranks when people mod the game.
> >
> > On top of that, would that also make Halo 1 crappy since it didn’t have that?
> >
> > 2- Progression ranks do NOT have an effect on who you are paired up with. Stop comparing them.
> >
> > 3- Failure on the game’s end. Again, not progression =/= trueskill. Stop comparing them.
> >
> > 4- See #2.
> >
> > 5- I was looking for good games. Halo 2 stopped at the 30s. Halo 3 lost value when the system itself encourage players to make new accounts if they want to progress again.
> >
> > no
>
> So, you are saying IF Halo 2 and 3 never had a Visible Truerank system, while still including all the online stat tracking bungie.net had, they would still be great games to play, with plenty of replayability?

10

> 1- I thought I was playing it since the game was fun to play. I instantly hated the ranks when people mod the game.
>
> On top of that, would that also make Halo 1 crappy since it didn’t have that?
>
> 2- Progression ranks do NOT have an effect on who you are paired up with. Stop comparing them.
>
> 3- Failure on the game’s end. Again, not progression =/= trueskill. Stop comparing them.
>
> 4- See #2.
>
> 5- I was looking for good games. Halo 2 stopped at the 30s. Halo 3 lost value when the system itself encourage players to make new accounts if they want to progress again.
>
>
> I want to ask you something: If Halo 2 and 3 never had a visible rank, but Halo: Reach did, would that instantly make Reach the best seller, and Halo 2 and 3 crap?

  1. I never played a modded game of Halo 3 or Halo Reach ever! How often did you?

On top of that, Halo 1 wasn’t online. You didn’t need ranks for splitscreen and LAN parties.

  1. You’re right progression ranks do NOT have an effect on who you are paired with. However visible ranks do.

  2. I agree

  3. what’s the point of 4?

  4. Halo 2’s rank was awesome. 30’s was pretty high for Halo 2 it was extremely hard to get a 50. How it should be. Halo 3 was broken too easy for new accounts to get a 50 they just needed to refine the Halo 2 system and it would of been perfect.

11

How about a why Halo Waypoint doesnt need 50 ranking threads thread

12

> It’s long, relevant and sorely needs to be read by 343.
> Because ranks DO mean something- Now hear me out, if they didn’t mean anything at all then why did people spend money buying fake accounts? Why did people try to cheat to achieve it? The ranking system in halo 3 was so successful that an underground market seemed to spring up overnight. The ranks meant a lot to a wide variety of players and for many different reasons. It’s not just a symbol of skill, but of dedication to a playlist and to the game.

This right here defines why the 1-50 can not work any more. I am competitive but I would rather play actual games where I am playing with people in my skill range. Halo 3 was a joke half the time in this regard. Sorry but just because you want a bragging goal does not mean everyone wants it or its the best. How can you be competitive if you do not want balanced games. All most did on halo 3 was complain because either there team mates suck, other team had some one that should not even be paired in the game with their skill. Honestly it was gambling in halo 3 if you did not get the above then you got lucky and was carried or the other team had horrible players. I am sorry but shown rank is not and should not matter to any one who buys or plays halo competitive or not. It is the matchmaking its self. Now we will not have to deal with boosters, derankers or bought.

One other thing to mention to Halo ce did not come with online nor ranks for the pc version yet it was popular for its game-play, and when you think system link lan party’s halo 1 dominated. A goal is what you want, an end but why does there need to be one? Why do you need a number to be the reason you play halo?

13

> deranking
> boosting
> trash talking tryhard mlg baddies
> ppl buying 50s
> ppl selling 50s
>
> no thanks

people buying and selling 50s: DOESNT AFFECT YOU
people trash talking: GROW UP AND GET OVER IT
boosting: hardly considered cheating, get over it
deranking: If you dont care about a ranking system, why do you care about this or any of the above?

14

Heres possibilities why 343 has decided not to introduce ranks:

a: they are completely removed from reality

b: they care THAT much about sales and are terrified that newcomers or casuals are frustrated by not progressing.

How about staying true to what the game once was? A great shooter with competitive merit? 343, you dont just wanna listen to your employers (Microsofts) sale interest. Youre better than that.

15

> > 1- I thought I was playing it since the game was fun to play. I instantly hated the ranks when people mod the game.
> >
> > On top of that, would that also make Halo 1 crappy since it didn’t have that?
> >
> > 2- Progression ranks do NOT have an effect on who you are paired up with. Stop comparing them.
> >
> > 3- Failure on the game’s end. Again, not progression =/= trueskill. Stop comparing them.
> >
> > 4- See #2.
> >
> > 5- I was looking for good games. Halo 2 stopped at the 30s. Halo 3 lost value when the system itself encourage players to make new accounts if they want to progress again.
> >
> >
> > I want to ask you something: If Halo 2 and 3 never had a visible rank, but Halo: Reach did, would that instantly make Reach the best seller, and Halo 2 and 3 crap?
>
> 1. I never played a modded game of Halo 3 or Halo Reach ever! How often did you?
>
> On top of that, Halo 1 wasn’t online. You didn’t need ranks for splitscreen and LAN parties.
>
> 2. You’re right progression ranks do NOT have an effect on who you are paired with. However visible ranks do.
>
> 3. I agree
>
> 4. what’s the point of 4?
>
> 5. Halo 2’s rank was awesome. 30’s was pretty high for Halo 2 it was extremely hard to get a 50. How it should be. Halo 3 was broken too easy for new accounts to get a 50 they just needed to refine the Halo 2 system and it would of been perfect.

  1. LOL REALLY? Are you serious? The visual ranking being tied to the MM system is a simple feature that could have been severed at any time. Visible ranking has nothing to do I REPEAT NOTHING to do with a functional true skill MM system. I’m sorry your wrong.
16

> It’s long, relevant and sorely needs to be read by 343.
>
> Longevity- You saw it in Halo 2 and again in Halo 3. Long after the game comes out people are still populating the playlists. Do you think they are doing this because the game hasn’t become stale after three years? Not at all, it’s because a visible ranking system gives people the incentive to play game after game.
>
> Competition- I can’t begin to tell you how much more competitive H2/3 were over Reach. A halo 3 social game was more competitive then almost every Reach playlist. In halo 3 when you matched a 50 nine times out of ten they were legit and you were in for a tough match. But in Reach you can match a team of inheritors and steak them without breaking a sweat. A progressive system waters down the game. And with an ‘invisible’ ranking system Bungie could simply tell us “it’s there, working as it should be, don’t worry!” When it obviously wasn’t.
>
> Time- Five years ago I had all the time in the world to play halo, but now I’m a full time student with a part time job and I don’t have time to grind out millions of credits working towards a rank that means absolutely nothing. I would much rather get on sporadically and play 4-5 games in a ranked system because that’s all the time I have! People mistake competitive players for complete nerds when really we just don’t want to waste time putting days into a video game to reach a rank that somebody else can achieve playing campaign!
>
> Skill measure- Okay, this is a sensitive subject on this forum and I get it. But wouldn’t you rather have a 50 that you’re 95% sure is good or an inheritor who is likely horrible at halo? I think that question answers itself and if you think otherwise please explain. I was a 50 three months into halo 3 and I can tell you not as many people bought fake 50’s as you think. And once they did they likely didn’t play on them and if they did the probably lost, so where’s the problem? And halo reach’s true skill system didn’t work because the system sees two inheritors and assumes they are of equal skill when they most likely are not even close and matches them together.
>
> Addicting- Does anybody miss having their rank on the line and having everyone on your team working together for a similar goal? Halo 2/3 had so many high pressure moments that had my heart racing because if you won you were likely ranking up. In Reach I experienced that almost never, because winning meant 350 cr plus a 50cr for performance bonus and a 578 cr because you hit a credit jackpot. Whoop de doo. Maybe I’ll go buy a helmet now. LAME!!
>
> Because halo’s nature IS competitive- Unlike COD and other games Halo actually takes a considerable amount of skill. It’s more then just point and shoot and it always has been. A game this competitive needs a ranking system that competitive players can indulge in AND NOT JUST MLG! I’m not a big fan of MLG and would much rather play ranked Team slayer or RBTB.
>
> Because ranked co-existed perfectly in Halo 3- In halo 3 social and ranked were split into two playlist and they operated perfectly. There was even a ranking system within a ranking system with the TU which allowed people to keep track of their individual playlist stats as well. This system worked great in the previous halo games so why change a good thing?
>
> Because ranks DO mean something- Now hear me out, if they didn’t mean anything at all then why did people spend money buying fake accounts? Why did people try to cheat to achieve it? The ranking system in halo 3 was so successful that an underground market seemed to spring up overnight. The ranks meant a lot to a wide variety of players and for many different reasons. It’s not just a symbol of skill, but of dedication to a playlist and to the game.
>
> This is my last attempt to sway 343 and the forums that a ranking system is the way to go. Because I DO want to see halo 4 be successful but I simply cannot see my self and many of my competitive friends playing any halo game too long anymore when there is nothing for me to accomplish except for buying a new helmet! I write this not to spam or hate but because I truly do care for this game’s future and I hope everyone gives this some serious thought!

yes^

17

Getting a 50 is not all about bragging rights, its about dedication and having something to work towards. Getting a 50 makes you really happy, its a personal achievement that actually means something. You have to work hard to get it and be legitimately good at the game to get one. Its not just how much you can grind to get the best rank. When you look back at your time getting the max rank in halo 4 will you remember how fun the times where? maybe you will but more likely than not you will rememeber how hard you had to grind. Proving your skill to your friends and yourself is somthing that needs to be in the game to keep people playing and coming back for more to better themself while enjoying the game.

18

> > deranking
> > boosting
> > trash talking tryhard mlg baddies
> > ppl buying 50s
> > ppl selling 50s
> >
> > no thanks
>
> people buying and selling 50s: DOESNT AFFECT YOU
> people trash talking: GROW UP AND GET OVER IT
> boosting: hardly considered cheating, get over it
> deranking: If you dont care about a ranking system, why do you care about this or any of the above?

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

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

if all your arguments are ‘get over it’, you may as well just stop posting lol
spoken like a true MLG -Yoink!-

19

Let him be
The great journey waits for no one.

20

Let me add two more reasons to the list…

Matchmaking will break without visible ranks: With no rank to play for, players will not go into every game trying their hardest to win. They really have no reason to win every game, there is no real goal other than self satisfaction. This means that regardless of how good someone is, their invisible rank will not show their true skill. They could very likely be much better, but because there is no carrot to chase, they haven’t tried hard and therefore are being matched with lesser skilled players. They are also more likely to quit games. I NEVER quit a game in Halo 2 or 3, despite being down a ton, or having teammates quit on me. But in Reach, if the game was out of hand, I really didn’t care, I would quit. Or if my teammates left early, I would quit.

The Social aspect will go away: Call-outs were commonplace in matchmade Halo 2 and Halo 3 games. If you went into a Team Slayer game you expected your teammates to talk and work as a team. You all cared about your ranks, and didn’t want to lose. I still remember every call out from H2, and everytime I hear something like ‘P2’, I think of halo 2. In Reach, no one talked because winning wasn’t important. Why talk about the game if winning is almost meaningless.

I am so irritated at this news. Basically 343i decided they wanted a game that winning didn’t matter, well I guess that’s fine with them, but this game is going to struggle long-term and is not going to be one of the great games of all time. If they were trying to make an impact in the gaming world, they messed up because they ignored a massive group.