Sova

No, its not JUST a reach and 3 hybrid. If you recall, Frankie stated in a number of interviews, as well as the other members of his team, that Halo 4 was basically a game that was revisiting halo's roots (CE & 2) while also maintaining a forward looking mentality (Reach onward). So to say its just 3 and Reach is pretty ignorant. And yes, halo 2 was way different from Halo 3's boosting. There wasn't this selling accounts on a wide scale or making new accounts and boosting people up. Yeah you could derank to do that, but these people weren't that big of a deal then. Halo 3 gave more incentive to derank and boost but, like i said before, Frankie overestimates the amount of people that were doing it and making seem like it was an epidemic which it wasn't. REGARDLESS of the amount of people who partook in it, you won't ever stop people from abusing the system. You can change a system all you want but there will always be that small group of people who try to beat the system. At least in my experiences, boosting wasn't a problem for me, I could destroy a booster regardless of his level. But I hardly ever had a problem with boosters...maybe its a skill thing? maybe. Frankie is pissed off cause he couldn't beat boosters...end of story. Let me put the maturity thing a different way. point I'm making is the older you get the more aware you become of certain things. You also gain insight on issues that you probably couldn't comprehend. You're views then change on certain things. It's something you'll experience when you get as old as the older gamers one day. Let me ask you this, if you became accustomed to a certain formula and gameplay and then all of a sudden it changes to something very different with a little bit in common to its predecessors, then wouldn't you be a little apprehensive about the new game they are developing? Wouldn't you question their motives and what direction they are taking the game in? That's something I think you really can't speak on because you only really started to play the franchise after is heyday. Its no fault of yours that you didn't play multiplayer till Halo 3, you were TOO YOUNG. Therefore, what gives you the right to come on to a post like this and basically discredit someone who has played online a lot longer than you have and has seen the dramatic shifts of direction the multiplayer has taken? I'm not saying you are wrong in your assessment, but wrong in the way you go about arguing for it.

Errr, I will have to disagree with you there. Age does matter when it comes to intellectual arguments because with age comes a certain wisdom. Cliche? Maybe, but I rather debate with someone who is the same age or at least very close to the same age as me as opposed to someone who hasn't even finished middle school. Why? Because they have about the same intellect as me. Sure I give the kid credit. He comes across as a smart 13 year old kid. But let me also make this aware to you...that does not warrant that he has the right to argue about someone he wasn't old enough to experience (halo 2 ranking system). My posts were about deranking/boosting and ranking system regards to halo 2 and 3. I was around for all of that whereas others weren't. Let me also point out that 13 is below the legal age of purchasing this game. By all means, he shouldn't be playing a game that requires a certain maturity level. No, im not saying age translates to maturity, but most 13 yo kids aren't mature enough to be on xbox live playing games that are rated M. I'm not saying that he shouldn't be playing, just pointing out that age does matter. But who am I kidding?

In the latest interview with Frankie I saw that he said he was going to release more information about a skill-based ranking system once we get closer to the launch date. Hopefully our questions will be answer, but you never know with microsoft.

But then you aren't gaining anything from playing noobs, just self-confidence. I always prefer to have a challenge over destroying straight noobs every other game. But that's how I see it. Trueskill is a stupid system which is why I think Halo 2 system had it best. I'm pretty sure most people who played Halo 2 would much rather play Halo 2 multiplayer than a revamped halo 4 multiplayer that gets a lot of influence from Reach. Maybe most people who played halo 2 have moved on because of how crappy halo 3 and reach were. But whatever. I'll buying Halo 4 for the campaign.

I much rather have a Halo 2 remake than what they are trying to do.

Okay it really depends on the type of boosting you are talking about. Achievement boosting is not against the rules. Exp boosting IS but that can easily be solved by refining the matchmaking settings so that its near impossible to find friends on the opposite team. Also, double exp should never have been put in place to make exp boosting more popular. And thirdly, my response to Trueskill boosting is to get rid of Trueskill entirely. You'll solve the Trueskill boosting by reverting back to the Halo 2 matchmaking system. But making a new account to level up...is not against the rules. If i spend the money to buy a one month then i should be able to level that up as much as i want. If Frankie is that upset about new accounts then talk to microsoft about limiting xboxs to a certain amount of accounts. Like you can only keep a maximum of 3-5 accounts at one time and if you want to make more then you have to delete one forever. There's a lot that can be done if you simply reform the way xbox live is given to the players. I've laid out my solutions to deranking. And your own experience with boosting is also exploiting the blackmarket demand for it. Like I said before, microsoft needs to make significant strides to curb it. But I also reaffirm that you DON'T punish the majority of players who DON'T partake in this. That's not a smart business move. Removing a skill based ranking system isn't the solution because it will just motivate people to exp boost. Using a system like Reach doesn't work because it doesn't create competition. And H3's system won't work because of the susceptibility to deranking/boosting. What I have been saying all this time is that 343i should just build off of Halo 2. Bungie did this with Halo 3 but opted for the TrueSkill formula which you have already shown has major flaws. But you don't go the way of Call of Duty and totally scratch out skill-based ranking system because then what's the point in playing? And you'll be surprised to find that there are still thousands who play Halo 3 up to now. I know this because I also have been playing Halo 3 until about July of this year. Yes I came across boosters and derankers but not to the point that it ruins my experience. Halo 2 we ran into derankers all of the time but we all dealt with it. Point is,

I like to think I represent someone who is a competitive gamer. I've played all the halo games since the launch of the first one. When you play a franchise for that long of a time you notice the subtle and not so subtle differences. You see how it changes the gameplay and motivation to play a game. I'm sure if you asked most people who played Halo 2 they would just rather everything go back to what it was like then. Halo 2 was the golden age of halo and since then they have changed a lot of things. There were both good and bad changes, but one significant change that most people will agree with me on is that there isn't that intensity that Halo 2 specifically put into FPS gaming. I can easily highlight the major changes that have caused this, but I rather not right a 1500 word essay. Yes I've met plenty of people. You are always going to get those who will curse or rant, that's something I think that actually adds to the competitiveness of gaming. But I have also met people that I continue to play with because they are either good, fun to play with, share the same views, all that stuff that you would normally find in friends in real life. They put notices up that say your online experience will be something you might not expect. Also, the mute ban was something they put in because people are lazy. Personally, I didn't need to have an automute system because I could just as easily press "select" and go to someone's name and mute them, or go to the XBL window and go to their gamertag to do the same. All I'm saying is that their "ideas" and little "implementations" are catering to people who are going to whine no matter what because they are the type of people that always find problems. I would put money on the fact that there would be a lot of people would have sent messages, posted flame topics, or cried to the community if they took out the jetpack, sprint, and the rest of the armour abilities. But there will always be these people. So I say to 343i, why care that much about making these people happy? Why not just make a game that you think would be good and put it out there. It'll make money on the title alone so there's no reason to try all that much harder to make everyone happy. But what you don't do is leave out a crucial part of online gaming (the skill based ranking system).

There's a reason they call it a black market. Its underground and tough to crack down on. Its like any black market industry. You aren't ever going to eliminate it, but what you can do is take the steps necessary to go after those who are selling accounts. You sign up for terms & conditions that prohibit selling any account . What I have not seen is Microsoft actually taking significant legal action to stop this. Until they do there will be boosters who sell accounts. What you don't do, however, is punish the majority of players by taking out a skill-based ranking system because of the actions of a few. That's a downright stupid commercial move on their part. Bungie saw that with Reach and its profitability. More and more people don't buy the games because of the actions bungie took to stop boosting and what not. Take for example the auto-mute. How ridiculous is that tool when most people got muted for all the wrong reasons. We play XBL to meet new people and enjoy playing with them or against them. When you put in a system that punishes people wrongly you destroy that experience. Yes, I got mute banned for simply talking to my teammates and its the most frustrating thing to deal with because people won't unmute because they don't care or they think you are muted for the wrong reason..It destroyed the online experience for me and I can't help but to think it did that for many others as well. The same holds true with boosting/deranking/selling accounts.

I called you a troll because this is the second post about rankings you've come into and particularly rip me on my observations without giving a cohesive argument. And I just realized you are 13 years old, why am I arguing with a 13yo kid who's never played halo 2 is beyond me. Which reminds me, you never answered that question i posted the other ranking post about if you played halo 2. Which you clearly didn't because of your age. So thereby, you have no right to argue about a ranking system that I am arguing for if you have never played it. We, the competitive community, like to debate these things because we want what we've been missing for a long time and that's a good reliable ranking system.

Deranking, if that's his main worry, is an easy fix: 1. A person afk gets booted after the first few mins (solves AFKers) 2. A person committing suicide over and over gets booted for killing themselves too many times (there should be a certain amount like committing suicide 5-10 times in a game equals automatic boot) 3. People who just run around without doing anything are permitted because nothing says they can't play a game without shooting. 3 is every gamer's right to play the game they want to play it. If they don't want to shoot any one by all means let them. If you implement steps to curb 1 and 2 then you will see a dramatic drop in derankers because 3 is something that requires effort and most people rather derank without having to do anything.

You also left out the part where I said boosting wasn't against the terms & conditions. Nothing states that I can't go and make a new account to level up faster. I have every right to do that. And yet, I would love to see this data that you are so happy to mention. Mentioning data without a link is another way of saying, "they said this and that so it must be true and therefore gives me the right to flame people on their observations."

You're kidding right? Data? LOL, that's a lame excuse that only trolls use...gtfo because you clearly just want to troll every ranking post. I'd like to see this "data" you claim...you know as well as I do that boosting wasn't a misuse of the ranking system. Quit taking my quotes out of context and actually use your brian for once. I'd like to see an argument from you as opposed to just saying someone has data to back up what they are saying without even referencing this "data" and then going on a rant as to how annoying these ranking posts are. Maybe if 343i shed some light on the system we wouldn't be asking so many questions about it. And yes, I am dismissing his opinion because it's AN OPINION. You can't put opinions into making a game like he is. Just because he doesn't like something doesn't mean that the rest of the people feels that way. That's how terrible games are made. The best games are the ones that are balanced, well thought out, and take the community into consideration.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-09-27-so-whats-the-covenant-doing-in-halo-4 That interview has Frankie saying he's going to reveal new information about a skill-based ranking system closer to launch, finally we got somewhere on this issue!

You know, from my own experiences in H3, the deranking/boosting/cheating wasn't nearly as bad as Frank says it was. I've played halo 3 since its release up to now. Yes you experience derankers every once in awhile but it wasn't EVERY other game that frank gives the impression of. Boosting? Well that's something that people need to get over. Think about it this way. If I wanted to go and make a new account with a new name every month I have my right to make a new account so long as I spend the money. What says in the terms and conditions that I cannot do this and level that account up? The way it's coming across to me is that Frank is just too bad of a player to deal with boosters. Yeah it's annoying sometimes to play someone who isn't a legit 50 because he got "boosted" up with his friends, but if he isn't supposed to be that level he'll get creamed. The other side of that is that the person who is a 50 who wants level up a new account should have every right to do that. The main instigator for boosting in my opinion was adding in experience from the start! The main reason people made new accounts to level them up was because they wanted to have a better win/loss ratio which was visible to everyone else. Makes you look cool because eveyrone will say, OH YOU ONLY HAVE 1 LOSS ON THAT ACCOUNt yOU MUST BE REALLY GOOD (i never cared about that). People wanted to have the best record for a 50. Easiest way to do that was to level up as fast as you could on a new account. Should never made win/loss visible. Another problem with H3 was that it made it easier to level up to a new level than h2. I remember in H2 it took forever to get to the next level because if you lost one game it would bring you down 2-3 wins. Something like that I believe. It wasn't based on Trueskill. Once Microsoft implemented Trueskill everything went down the tube. Boosters as Frank complains started popping up. Especially with the new MSP which gave easier monetary incentive than using ebay or some crap like that. Point is. H2 was by far the best system and although it had its problems (network manipulation, deranking, modding) it wasn't nearly as bad as H3 and Halo Reach. The other thing is that Frank is going about this the wrong way. He's putting personal experience and opinion into the mix without really listening to the devout community that's played the game since H2. Instead he's listening to the people who've only played H3 and Reach. People who don't know what a true game is. My prediction is that Halo 4 won't have anything like H2 or H3 OR reach. It'll probably just be the boring zombie leveling that has taken hold of every game out there... I crave for something fresh and new. Not something that's following mainstream gaming...

Now you're resorting to sarcasm and trolling...probably trying to get the thread locked because you think its annoying to read the same topics over and over again. News flash, no one is forcing you to come in here, read the topic and give your opinion and then start trolling the post. Please, just stop. It's really annoying when people just come in and say something is stupid and not contribute anything meaningful or constructive to a topic. This is the problem with forums like these...no one gives a rats A#$ about constructive criticism.

That's a matter of opinion for you sir. To many other gamers they play for the ranking system as well as the gameplay. I never said ONLY for the ranking system. But you need both to have a well designed and playable game otherwise people lose interest in it. I've played under both as well and can say that the ranking system motivates me to do well. Halo 3 I played a lot harder to get a 50 where as in Reach when I played from game to game I didn't get anything out of it other than stupid armour which doesn't show how good I am and what my record is. I didn't see much loss in losing a game whereas the threat of losing a rank makes you want to win a game and try. Also, when you lose a game and someone smack talks you about your performance then you can't back that up. A rank helps that. Before you repost on this topic be weary that your own personal opinion about a ranking system and the people who like to play with it is a matter of whether you like it or not. Many people play for different reasons, and I just so happen play to show how much better I am at a game than my friends, peers, and fellow gamers.

I was referring to the endless zombie leveling that Call of Duty uses. It relates in the sense that with a ranking system it actually motivates a person to keep playing the game. Let me put it this way: You can only play a game so much before it gets old. Call of Duty is a game like this. You level up and unlock things- these give you motivation to keep going, however, once you reach the top level you have a choice of starting all over again or staying there with everything unlocked and not much to show for it other than going into games and winning them. Sure you can point to the leaderboard and such to show how many games you've won, but lets be honest...that doesn't show your skill, it just shows how much time you can waste. Call of duty doesn't pit you against people with similar skill either. So what Call of Duty does is to come out with new guns, perks, streaks, maps to just temper that hunger for more than what they initially give you. So they make a new game...problem solved, except not really because its the same EXACT gameplay minus a few changes. That gets old, fast, and is a waste of money. So how does relate to the ranking system? Ranking system gives a person more than just unlocks to achieve. A ranking system motivates the player to improve his skill at the game in a quest to reaching the top. You could say that's just stupid because people who reach their peak can't get to the top but there's an adrenaline drive put into a ranking system. Let me ask you another question...Did you ever play halo 2? Be honest. Because I bet you most people who played Halo 2 will agree with me that the ranking system was what kept them coming back for more gameplay. Sure you have the casual gamers and all who play for just fun but then you have the other core of gamers who want to prove their worth against the community. You can't just lop that core off and expect them to enjoy what casual gamers enjoy. I'm not ranting but I'm trying to show you the relevance a ranking system has to the creation of a game. WIthout a ranking system such the ones of H2 h3, and Reach then Halo will be going the path of Call of Duty in that all they do is change the gameplay up a bit and expect you to be satisfied with leveling up until they release their next creation. Simple market strategy that's got Call of Duty making millions...sadly, the competitive gamers are being overshadowed by the voices of the casual gamers. Yes there's a smaller community who are the competitive gamers but they make or break the game. Reach is perfect for this reasoning. Look at what MLG did; they removed Reach this previous year because no one had interest in the game. This is mostly due to the fact that the competitive community, the main audience of MLG, thought Reach's competitiveness was nonexistent, thus why watch a game that has no competitive value to it? Every competitive gamer wants to emulate the Pros and a ranking system helps to show for this... Also, no one has yet to give a clear, competent answer to a COMPETITIVE ranking system...there is a difference between that and the SP system they have put in place. They are two totally separate entities. And I have looked around, trust me, I have yet to find an answer on this.

Well this certainly is a much repeated question in all forums that concern Halo. But I have yet to see one that adequately puts to rest the questions about what the ranking system will be like. Yes, there's this leveling up 1-50 credit based system where people unlock perks, armour, and loadouts. But I have yet to see any in-depth discussion on an actual ranking system. Let me rephrase- Is there a definitive answer as to what the ranking system for Halo 4 is going to be like? Is this spartan points class leveling system the entire ranking system or will there actually be a real system in place that compares players to each other? I believe Franky mentioned a "hidden" rank that all players will see that will compare them to everyone else. But I also heard that this was just hearsay and not set in stone. So honestly, is there any info out there that suggests what form of a system 343i is going to us that ranks players against each other? Or is what we've gotten from them all there really is to the multiplayer. My opinion is that if 343i doesn't put in a competitive system like H2 or H3 had and even Reach to a certain extent, then halo's future will go the way of Star Wars- dwindling fan support and loss of interest. (yeah I needed some sort of pop culture reference). Whether you liked H2, H3, or Reach's systems or not, I think it can be said that without a competitive aspect (ranking system) there will be no point to play the game other than mindless leveling to get "the next cool thing." That to me makes games stale and ultimately destroys them. Let me also ask you all this- Knowing that you expect the next modern warfare game is going to only put in maybe a couple new modes or weapons and killstreaks...honestly, are you really going to spend 60 bucks to play a game that you've played 3 times already? All that changes are the weapons, maps, story, streaks, and gamemodes...who wants to buy the same game over and over again? not me. and I don't want that to happen to Halo.

I think you couldn't have said it better Force 410! There really hasn't been a mention on a skill based ranking system other than the supposed system that franky mentioned with regards to only you being able to see your rank. but that is just hearsay. We do need something for us competitive players. It matters much more than some stupid symbol that shows how much i've played. Halo Prestige is a joke, and quite frankly its a reaction to Call of Duty. There's no doubt that Halo has lost gamers to that franchise, but 343i is misinterpreting why they are losing them...its not because of prestige, its because of competitiveness. Reach didn't have that competitive nature to it like H2 and H3. We need that back.

The main worry with not having your rank shown is that it drives people away from the competitive playlist. What's the fun in playing if you can't show people who good you are? I've said this so many times before. Visibility of rank actually matters. By making it only visible to yourself then how can you show your friends that you are actually a "50." Not only that, but boosting will still exist regardless if you can see it or not. All it takes is you telling someone else that you are a "50" even though you are a "30" on your account...343i didn't think this out far enough. 1) 343i will never stop boosting, it'll always be there 2) visibility is one of the primary reasons why competitive players play. 3) credit system doesn't represent skill, just how much you play the game.

Personally I think they should make it to where you can only join in a game that's not yet half over. That way you minimize the "join in on the losing terribly side" and you get enough playtime in to enjoy a game.

Well its just released in the gaming news that Halo 4 will feature the ability to drop in and out of matches. I'm not so sure this is a good idea. I know deranking and people not playing is quite annoying and frustrating but having people now able to drop-out will just give people all the more reason to quit. Drop-in I think would help with those who quit matches...still doesn't solve those who decide to run around and not do anything.

That would be a brilliant idea, but I wouldn't know how complicated it would to implement it.

I agree with you on much of that, the only disagreements I have are with the competitive vs. casual. I think, so long as Halo stays as the premiere MLG game, that it needs to be developed in a manner that caters to the competitive players first. That's just how I feel and Silvi feel. I'm not personally an a-hole about it, I can't speak for those who deliberately act that way, but I am hoping by posting my thoughts and views on the matter that it helps people realize the differences in the games and what should and shouldn't be in the next game. That's all.

I also want to clear something up. This might sound a little strange but I think it easily applies. I'm hoping most of you know how the free market works and the limits we have on it. So use this metaphor. Imagine your account as a store. You maximize the amount of profit that store brings you...what do you do? Correct, you expand. to maximize that profit...Now that second store will be more efficient because you now know what works and what doesn't. Back to Halo. Now relate that model to your account, say you reach 50 in Halo 3 and you played 5000 or so games and it took you 2000 wins to get it. So you really can't improve that much correct? You make a new account and play on that one. This time you get to 50 and it took you 2000 games with 1000 wins. Sure, you are a true 50 and you played against people who were well below your rank when you made your new account. Now Frank O'Connor thinks this is unfair and just utter stupidity. Sorry Frank, that's how the free market works. I SHOULD be allowed to buy as many accounts as I want and level them up how I please. Sure I might be helping my friends get to their 50 by being on a lower account. Sorry Frank. Deal with it, Sorry you kept getting butt raped by them but get OVER it. It's just ONE game and there's a social playlist if it bothers you THAT much. It's the same as a level 50 going into social slayer and just taking over. This whole boosting inquisition was brought about by gamers who were tired of getting destroyed over and over by people who shelved out money for a new account. I'm not saying I think boosting is great, but I'm saying that its legitimate. The MAIN problem with boosting is the deranking. Deranking going all the way back to halo 2. It was terrible in halo 3 because it was easier to rank up whereas halo 2 it took far longer to level. If you really want to fix boosting/deranking then make it to where you can't kill yourself over and over. But that doesn't fix it completely either...you still hvae people who will go into a game and deliberately not play, so what do you do? Right, you kick them out after a minute of them not doing a single thing...but sometimes they get around that by just running around the map for 12 mins... Do you see where I am going here? You're never going to fix a system, you can only put limits on it but those limits need to be thought out and need to make sense. Arena was not a very smart idea and seemed to be a poor copy of what Starcraft 2 uses. Instead, Bungie used the time for their last game to just put a bunch of junk in it to make the game as ridiculous as possible (that last sentence is my personal opinion and convictions against bungie).