Jaculah

Would you like to see a Head to Head (1 vs 1) playlist featured in Halo 4 Match Making?

A sport does not require physical exertion. Did you not read what I just quoted straight from Wikipedia. Some institutions - like the Olympic Games - admit only sports that require physical exertion, and some institutions do not. This means that anything you can compete in can become a sport if an institution (or an equivalent) choose to admit it as a sport. In our case, Major League Gaming has admitted Halo 2, Halo 3 and Halo: Reach as sports in their league. I just read 343's own words which effectively means that in spite of the armor mods, good players would still be good players and bad players would still be bad players. This reduces my worries considerably. And as I read this next statement, my worries disappeared (poof!): "There will also be playlists available that do not utilize loadouts or armor mods." Wow! I am sooooo happy and excited!! My guess is that some of these playlists that do not allow armor mods will be competitive in spirit; like MLG and an equivalent to Reach's Super Slayer.

You are of course right, but I don't think there is any one who would want a zero margin of error. We want an algorithm which matches players that display similar skill level; that way you either rank up or down, depending on what you deserve. In a system like Reach's, without a rank-based match making algorithm altogether, the absolute highest skilled players could theoretically be matched against the absolute lowest skilled players. Is that a system you would like for Halo 4? I think we conduct our dialogue in peace. Argumentation does not equal fighting; and I feel no anger towards any one.

Whence did you derive basis for assuming that my request is to be able to be paired with exact copies of myself and my skill? That would obviously not be possible, and moreover, it would be undesirable. Your "straw man" argument will not work on me, mister. The request is to be paired with other players that demonstrate similar level of skill, like divisions in soccer or whatever competitive sport you can think of. You do not see FIFA seriously thinking of matching Manchester United against my home towns' casual soccer team, do you? And since countless fans of Halo do want to compete, why not have that option but still keep the option for social and casual gaming. Those options were made avaliable in Halo 3 in the form of ranked and social playlists. (To prevent another "straw man" argument I will make it clear that this does not mean I fully support the TrueSkill algorithm) Why would I not compair professional gaming with the Olympics? What is the difference between competing outside and inside? Why could it not be a potential sport to use your hands and eyes in front of a TV? Why does it have to be physically exhausting to compete in a sport? Games have constraints and set environments, but is not an Olympic arena a set environment, and is not the laws of nature (like gravity) also constraints? These are some questions for you to ponder. All your suggested criteria for competition are false. Straight from Wikipedia: (1) "Competition... arises whenever at least two parties strive for a goal which cannot be shared or which is desired individually but not in sharing and cooperation.", and (2) "Sport is generally recognised as activities which are based in physical athleticism or physical dexterity, with the largest major competitions such as the Olypic Games admitting only sports meeting this definition... However, a number of competitive, but non-physical, activities claim recognition as mind sports. The International Olympic Committee recognises both chess and bridge as bona fide sports.". MLG, which is no different in this regard, has recognized and made avaliable the games Halo 3 and Halo: Reach (and other games aswell) as competitive sports.

Yes, there is a 1-50 from what I heard. I'm just questioning the additional 10 levels (well, actually only the last level) which will enhance players abilities beyond your personal skill. Maybe that will be a blessing to the world of Halo, but I dont know.

False assumption. I do not need a symbol to represent my skill to make me feel better. What I want is for a system where players with similar skill level is matched together and not a completely random algorithm. Why not use the Halo 3 system in that way where there were a social playlist for those who did not care and just wanted to have a good time, and a competitive playlist for those who wanted worthy opponents. It is not me, it is basically the bulk of humanity who wants to compete, whether it be soccer, hockey, olympic games, mlg, etc. It has always been that way, and it will always be that way. And "if" I wanted a rank "symbol" to represent my skill level for everybody to see, that is not precisely uncommon either. Ever heard of a gold medal in the olympic games, or the oscar, or nobel prize. That is the same concept. I am a philosophical being and I recognize that what you say is absolutely true, but when I play video games I am looking for plain and simple carnal fun. To be that "deep" in something so "shallow" as gaming is, to me, pointless. I like your comment though.

I am not basing my assumption on threads posted on the internet. I am basing it on the grave overrepresentation of quitters.

I am not complaining, nor am I too proud to admit there are better players out there than me. I love all the Halo games, and I just want to share my opinions of past ranking systems and my potential skepticism to future ones. I just don't think it is appropriate to match beginners with, and against, players who may have been playing the game and series for years. And I do not need your approval to keep my firm belief that Reach's system is a complete disaster. What other reason can there be for the extreeeeeme amount of quitters in Match Making? This means I've got the bulk of Halo players to agree with me on the fact that it is not enjoyable for any and both parties when you either get players on your team that will definately make you lose or meet players who are lightyears ahead in skill. This fact, coupled with the fact that there is nothing of value (like a rank) to lose if you quit, is the reason to the unusually high amount of quitters. The Halo 2 and 3 system and its flaws were insignificant in comparison with Reach's systems shortcomings. I think, however, that Halo 4 will be a lot better in this regard, since there actually is a ranking system which invokes in players the will to win, and not to quit. And, if I am not mistaken, there will be a feature called join-in-progress, am I right? I am super excited to see how it will work. Still though I am playing, and loving, all the Halo games.

I haven't completely absorbed all the information there is on the 1-50 rank system and the additional specs. That being said, I think that specs is great on all accounts except for the mod concept that will differentiate players during games. Will this not narrow down the skill paradigm even further from Reach? The difference in true skill between players is of course the same as it always have been, where some are beginners and some are professionals, but as the Halo series has progressed, the effective "competence" of all players has become more and more uniform, to the point where in Reach, complete beginners can easily kill you because of concepts like Armor Lock, Jet Pack etcetera. The mod system in Halo 4 seems to be a heavier version of Reach's little mods. My own skill is tantamount to a semi-pro, and I personally have felt all the way from Halo 2 that for every new release in the series I have had less "edge" over my average skilled opponents. Will Halo 4 Specs not demand even less skill to be an effective killer? What are your thoughts on this? (Halo Reach is a complete disaster, where in lack of a ranking system all together, I seldom experience a game where no one quits; also, when searching in Super Slayer by yourself you can get matched with 3 random players who probably rented the game the day before, and matched against a full team of semi-professional gamers.)

I get teamed up with people who probably rented Reach at the videostore, God Damn it! Why would that be fun for anybody? Either you quit because you get an extremely bad teamate or you quit because you get teamed up with (or meet) someone far mor skilled than yourself. The game I played just now; Team Snipers: Three of my teamates quit at the very start, and I won by myself against a whole team on Uncaged. What does that tell you? Well, people quit because they have nothing to lose anyway, and I meet players far less skilled than myself. Tell me; who enjoys that in the long run?

Well if you want to avoid them then you can play socials which is the same as everything in Reach at this moment; which also means that it can't get any worse only better.

I will never understand why Bungie left out the ranking system for Reach. Maybe this goes without saying, but a ranking system is most essential to Halo matchmaking. There are no actual goals in Reach matchmaking that concerns skill. Players want to show how good they are, thats just how it is. Everybody wants that 50 in the competitive playlists. Even less understandable is how they have the insolence to call the playlists "competitive playlists" when they all they are is social playlists! Every game there is at least two players (im not even kidding, as I am writing this three players quit one after another as the game progressed) who quit and that is a direct effect of no ranking system! They have basically nothing to lose! You cannot have serious gaming without ranking system. I say, give those who actually want to finish their games a chance to do so. Worst idea ever! Now the former competitive playlists and the social playlists are all social playlists.