Bloody Initiate

Really? Have you been wrecked by a lot of SR9s lately? The absence of visible Trueskill combined with the fact that you don't have any decent stuff you don't unlock has actually taken most of the fun out of making new accounts for players. One of the things they enjoyed most was doing well in ranked playlists, because everyone knew that ranked stats were more legit than social stats, so without the ranked playlists motivating them, I think you again don't know what you're talking about. No offense, but it's kind of a theme I see with people arguing for visible Trueskill.

I have plenty of problems with this game too, in fact I have many of the same ones you mentioned and I discuss them in other threads (You will no doubt be able to notice my many complaints in most threads). The topic of this thread was specifically a quit penalty though, and that's what I've been discussing in this thread. Also while I understand we all paid for the right to play, everyone's return on investment goes down when people think it's OK to quit and do so often. Everyone's return on investment goes UP when the community takes care of their own games. There is a large amount of work that has to come from 343, but communities have to step up too. What good is an amazing game if it's played only by idiots? I don't stay in games for 343's sake though, I stay in them because I'm doing my best to win and I feel like my team could use me. Even though the game sucks right now, it will be better with a quit penalty in place. The lack of such a penalty is one of the problems with this game, right up there with long shield recharge delays, poorly balanced weapons, ridiculously imbalanced maps AND poorly designed maps, etc. I just talk about those in other threads.

While I certainly agree that it is a tough beast, I think its toughness relative to other vehicles becomes disproportionate due to how awful 343 made the other vehicles. The ghost, banshee, and the standard warthog are incredibly easy to take down, especially the banshee and standard warthog (Ghost is the only one that can get to cover fast so it ends up surviving a bit longer than both, weirdly). I disagree that it can only be countered by another Mantis though, and I've definitely experienced things that contradict your claims: I've been boarded from the back multiple times. Tanks have never needed secondary gunners to destroy people and in fact the secondary gunners are frequenly so vulnerable that people don't want the job or die soon after taking it. I got in one just today and a guy picked me out with his DMR so easily I felt stupid for even trying. I don't think there's a chance in hell that a Mantis could stand against a Scorpion in a fair fight. Wraiths are a different story since they have to get closer to targets, anyone who can stay out of their range can conceivably kill them. A smart banshee which has some freedom in the air will very likely beat a Mantis. The problem banshees have is they have a hard time hiding, you're almost never being shot by just one enemy when you're in a banshee. Since the banshee can't take headshots the Mantis becomes the most likely member of its team to take down a banshee because its shells are doing the most individual damage. Traditionally the Scorpion tank has always been much better than the Warthogs, the Gauss Warthog is its only competitor, and generally that is about as fair as it sounds. The vehicle that actually REQUIRES two people to effectively operate (Warthogs) has actually always been in about the middle of the food chain, once again the Gauss is the exception. Also to be fair a Gauss can't take a Scorpion head on in a fair fight either, nothing can. The fact is there just aren't many fair fights where Scorpions are involved, so it's hard to grasp just how much harder they hit than the other vehicles. Returning to my point above, much of what makes the Mantis SEEM so awesome against other vehicles is that 343 kinda hates vehicles as weapons. They like destroying them and using them for shenanigans, but they don't like the idea of vehicles being major power weapons, that's why they made them all so soft in this game. Why else would the "Vehicles" commendations consist of splatters (Shenanigans), wheelmen + jacking medals, and then nothing but a list of vehicles and how many you've destroyed. There is no commendation that counts the "Vehicle Kill" medal. 343 is perfectly happy to have you screw around in a vehicle, use it for an objective, or destroy it. The Mantis is 343's original creation though, so its main asset is its durability. Its guns are about as good as they should be, but it gets to go up against all the other vehicles which have armor made of wet toilet paper. It doesn't feel overpowered because no vehicle does in this game, but against other vehicles I will admit it often feels way better. I don't think that's a problem with the Mantis though, because it is still very easy to take down when its operator isn't very careful. It's a problem with all the other vehicles and the attitude 343 has about them. They don't like vehicles, and they don't want them to be major power weapons. To be fair though this is almost more of a throwback to Halo: CE. Due to the way vehicle health was handled in that game most players didn't use vehicles for anything but their speed (Like we use mongooses now). Warthogs were good for objectives and shenanigans, which is what 343 wants them to be used for now. Until the people making Halo like vehicles again they'll never feel right. People who like the thing they're making will make it better, it's just a fact.

If you're talking about 1-50 from Halo 2 my post isn't about that. I didn't play enough Halo 2 online to know anything about that. I played plenty of Halo 3 though, and if you're talking about THAT 1-50 then you're talking about visible Trueskill. Here's the problem with visible Trueskill: Trueskill isn't supposed to be visible. That's really all there is to it. But to gently address your arguments... Good deep gameplay gives games depth. Layers of complexity also give games depth, but when they are the source of depth it's debatable whether that is "good" depth. You could make a very complex game that was utterly boring, and while I'm sure it would be very "deep," I might contest the value of depth at that point. Trueskill is present whether it's visible or not. Showing it to players increases their interest in controlling it (That's what gamers do, they use information they have to gain an edge). The point is the system is trying to make matches fair whether you see it working or not, and in fact it's less effective if you CAN see it. As for "Everyone will enjoy" that again is entirely dependent on gameplay. News update: Dying sucks. Killing lots of people and winning games is fun. Good players are better at killing people and winning games. Behold, reason to improve yourself. Trueskill was never meant to motivate you. It's meant to sort you. That's its purpose whether you like it or not. Once again you are showing your ignorance. I'm not trying to insult you, I am just pointing out that you are actually ignorant to some very important facts about Trueskill. It's not there to motivate you. It's a "matchmaking" system in the most literal sense. It tries to match people up against others of similar skill. It's sorting you. Halo made Halo unique. If ranked playlists were so key to the game, why is it that Halo was monstrously successful BEFORE 1-50 ranking? If 1-50 ranks are so essential to succes, why have other games surpassed Halo in sales when they never had visible Trueskill? I loved Halo 3. That game's multiplayer was and is the greatest joy I've had on Xbox Live. Please quit insulting it by pretending it had nothing going for it other than visible Trueskill. It had gameplay miles ahead of other shooters at the time, and the reason other shooters caught up in sales is because their developers caught up. Suddenly shooter fans had options, which they didn't really have before because Halo was the only shooter on the market with multiplayer that solid. Suddenly fans of different types of gameplay had different games to choose from, which they had but none of the other shooters had Halo 3's production values. Also FYI every single person who says there weren't that many "derankers" in Halo 3 didn't play enough Halo 3. The amount of people actually deliberately lowering their level on their gamertag wasn't that high, but there were tons of people who would make new gamertags. I played that game for something like 2 1/2 years, eventually you would see someone on a secondary account every other game. Since they could see Trueskill they figured out that if they just wanted to rape noobs all day then all they had to do was make 30-day trial accounts. Those trial accounts would start at level 1 in all playlists and so they could go into matchmaking and wreck lower level players for awhile before the system figured them out. Once it figured them out they'd just jump to a different playlist for a bit. Once the account's level was too high they'd just make another. Those idiots made life miserable for everyone below a certain level (I'm guessing level 40ish), suddenly "competitive" visible Trueskill doesn't sound so competitive, does it? It sounds like a way of teaching players to abuse the system without directly teaching them anything, you just make the information available. Trueskill is not meant for you to see, so for it to work properly you aren't supposed to see it.

Halo 4 has a bit of a new trick compared to previous systems. Since you gain a combat edge from completing games (Unlocks of weapons, AAs, perks and specialization perks) you lose it if you quit a lot with a quit penalty in place. THAT sounds like an excellent way of discouraging quitting. You can still quit, but if you do it enough enjoy having fewer choices for your loadouts. That's why I want a -3000ish experience penalty. That's normally nothing, but if you are a habitual quitter, then you will suffer. "But people will stop playing the game!" GOOD! I don't want matchmaking to be full of a bunch of worthless quitters who bail out of a game at the first sign of a sad face. Good bye, good riddance, you bought the game so 343 got what they wanted, and now you've quit the game so I get what I want. What you guys are continually failing to understand is that the worst offenders are a minority. The people I'm talking about aren't doing Matchmaking any good anyway because they don't complete enough games to even be considered present. It's like saying the kid who never showed up to class did it because the class wasn't engaging enough. He never showed up! You reap what you sow, so if you want to quit so much that the quit penalties I suggest would make you quit playing altogether, ADIOS! However most people WON'T quit that much, in fact most of the people arguing against the idea of a quit penalty would barely feel it. @Neurotic Kasper, I hope you don't mind me using you as an example, but as far as I can tell you have a roughly average percentage of games you failed to complete. Quitting occasionally over time like that, with the penalties I suggest, might have slowed you down one spartan rank. You wouldn't have lost the rank all at once, you would probably just be one below where you are now. Much of your experience comes from commendations and such, so you probably wouldn't suffer were the penalty I suggest in place. Yet someone who quits a larger percentage of their games will lose a rank one day, they likely won't lose any relevant unlocks because most levels don't lead to unlocks. So they'd see they lost a level, say "Damn, better quit less" OR "I HATE THIS GAME ZOMG" and quit playing. Either way Matchmaking is a better place and everyone is happier for it.

I'm just as familiar with the failures of randoms. In fact it is their consistent failure that causes me to eventually leave games behind. I was running out of steam in Halo 3 when I found a clan that added another year to the game for me. I got sick of playing alone in BF3, even though I never actually got sick of playing BF3. I might have played Reach longer if I'd had friends to play with, and usually with Halo 4 I'm right about to throw in the towel when I get an invite. I was talking about the broader attitude of quitting being OK. You can't expect players to treat quitting like a problem unless you treat quitting like a problem. If you penalize it as part of the game, hopefully you create a culture in the community that frowns on it. People will always quit, I've acknowledged that multiple times, and they'll frequently have legitimate reasons for doing so, but if you put a penalty into the game then at least they know that you the game designer wanted them to finish. Then at least they feel like they have one teammate, one party that preferred they finish. Instead we have a system that almost encourages players to quit the game, and that's not OK.

How can you expect randoms to step up to the plate when you yourself are unwilling to do so? I watched a video awhile ago where a guy gave tips on how to play better with randoms. The scenario he discussed was one where players, uncomfortable with randoms, would basically try to do everything themselves and inevitably fail. The solution he presented was basically to trust your randoms and focus on doing one job correctly, because then your randoms see you're doing the job correctly and they relax and hopefully do theirs better. It's not perfectly successful, but the lesson is simple: Be reliable if you want other people to be. You're in a community that thinks it's OK to quit games often, so instead of trying to make things better by finishing games you join the quitters and give up. You're adding to the problem, and it IS a problem. If your randoms see you doing your best and being reliable, maybe they'll think "I need to catch up because this guy is carrying us." More likely they won't even notice and they'll continue to do awful, but what if they do? Do you want to be the guy that inspired his randoms to do their jobs or are you happy being another quitter? Also I guess no one is going to pick players to play my little fantasy football/Halo team game I posted above are they? Damn, I put some work into that thing! It was going to be briliant....

I understand, and I agree to an extent, but I feel like part of making matchmaking better is discouraging behavior that makes it worse. Betrayal booting is a good example, that's a good thing. It is a punishment, but man am I glad it's possible. Quitting isn't that severe and I don't think the punishment for it should be that severe, but I DO think there should be a punishment for it. I think -3000 exp is a fair punishment, because that's about what you get for completing a game normally. I also think that if you happen to have gained a level recently and 3000 exp will drop you that level, that's fair. It's easy enough to gain back by finishing a game. If it costs you an unlock, that's fair because you can gain it back by finishing a game.

I bolded the part where you mentioned banning. Kindly remember what you've said or at least think about it enough so that you don't need someone else to show you the text. I don't think Halo is like a job and I don't think you should do things in the game that you aren't enjoying. It's a game, it's supposed to be fun. I DO think you should quit less often because if you're on a team then you're letting them down. I think you should try to win the games you play because generally winning means you're good at a game and being good at a game is more fun than not being good at a game. Sometimes games are hopeless, I get that, but imagine how much more helpless they get for the teammates who don't quit when their teammates are just abandoning them. Turning a game around when you're doing poorly is an awesome feeling. Next time you want to quit because there's a good chance you'll lose, trying sticking it out and doing your best instead. If you end the game and say "Man I wish I had quit that game" then by all means keep quitting games, there's no penalty for it right now anyway. However don't pretend quitting doesn't hurt your team, and please don't act like it makes no difference at all. Matchmaking is better when players finish their games, because that means that players are doing their best. The game is more fun when players finish their games. This is the Matchmaking section of the forum, quitting makes Matchmaking worse, so discouraging it would make Matchmaking better. Losing sucks, I get it, I know, but if you just withstand the unpleasantness of making it to the end of a losing game you'll find overall the quality of games will improve.

Let's look at this another way shall we? You are building a team. Select up to 8 players to be on the team from the list below. You get to see the percentage of games they quit, but that's all you get to see. You need to pick at least 4 players because that's the smallest team size possible in the current Halo 4 playlists. Player 1 has failed to complete 6.85% of the games they've played Player 2 has failed to complete 14.55% of the games they've played Player 3 has failed to complete 2.42% of the games they've played Player 4 has failed to complete 15.41% of the games they've played Player 5 has failed to complete 19.63% of the games they've played Player 6 has failed to complete 52.53% of the games they've played Player 7 has failed to complete 21.53% of the games they've played Player 8 has failed to complete 24.56% of the games they've played Player 9 has failed to complete 18.62% of the games they've played Player 10 has failed to complete 27.07% of the games they've played Player 11 has failed to complete 17.09% of the games they've played Who do you want on your team? Who do you want playing a game you design and publish? Who do you think makes matchmaking better?

The idea that it won't stop them doesn't stop me from wanting it penalized. Quit all you like, I never said I want to make it impossible to quit. And FYI, punishments for breaking the law DO deter criminals, just not all of them. Pointing out the people who don't care and saying "look, they live free of guilt!" doesn't make the laws pointless. Also I doubt it will hurt the player population, and if it does, to hell with those players. I don't want to play with anyone who behaves like an infant. They bought the game, 343 got the money out of them, good riddance. Sometimes you have to act like an adult, which isn't that fun, to improve the overall fun had by everyone. You suffer a moment, but overall you get a better community. That's what I want. I want players who give a $#!T about having fun AND making sure their teammates have fun. I want mature gamers to be the ones playing Mature games. To hell with all the useless idiots who feel like they should get to do whatever they want, good multiplayer games don't work like that. BAD multiplayer games work like that. Good multiplayer games create an environment where everyone has a fair shot. "Multi" means many, more, multiple, as in someone other than you is playing this game too. JIP means you can quit a game and someone else will likely fill your spot, but it doesn't mean your team will be at full strength the full game. It means you're going to cripple your team for a minute or two and hope they make it out OK.

I never said you should be banned. As for quitting when you're not having fun, how much fun do you think it is for your teammates once you leave them a man down? You may say "not my problem" and that's fine, but I'd like you to be 3000 experience poorer due to your decision. You probably won't even notice. If you do notice, maybe next time you'll stick it out and find yourself glad you did. If you're quitting 106 out of 569 games due to lag, you might want to find a way to improve your connection, because that's ridiculous. The real purpose of JIP is to shorten Matchmaking times. Some fool bean counter was slithering around 343i's offices saying stupid things like "Players want to play play play! Anything that stops them from playing is bad! 30 seconds at the end of a losing game is better than 30 seconds in the lobby. Play play play!" However some people like me are willing to pretend that 343i wasn't that stupid and so we say things like "JIP is meant to bolster the numbers of an outnumbered team" even though JIP exists in FFA where there are no outnumbered teams. 343 WAS that stupid though, and now I'm complaining because their game is designed to cater to children who want medals for everything and don't see the point in finishing games. The game is rated Mature, I want mature players, and if they aren't mature enough to finish the game I want them to see a penalty so that maybe they'll grow up a little. Want to keep acting like a child and quitting games? Quit playing mature games, they're for players 17 and older. Want to be treated like an adult? Then act like one and finish what you start. I feel like I'm telling kids they can't have dessert if they don't eat their vegetables. If you don't finish the game, you don't get prizes. The only way to take away prizes is to take away experience, so that's what you get for quitting games.

Correct, and in fact it's quite the contrary. They'll prefer ranked playlists to pad their stats because ranked stats have more credibility. Unless you make it so objective games don't get factored into you K/D at all. After all if the objective isn't to kill the other team, who cares how good a job you did of it?

I actually usually use the magnum because I don't play SWAT unless there is a challenge for getting kills with secondary weapons. I got so accustomed to it and good with it during one of the big secondary weapon challenges (like 200 kills w/secondary weapons) that I actually feel less comfortable with the BR or DMR now. If I were serious about SWAT though I'd probably pick the DMR in Solace and Complex and the BR in every other map (Although the way I play Adrift the DMR could oust the BR).

If you have a good reason, I'm not talking about you. No one who talks about a quit penalty is talking about you. If you have a good reason, you aren't the problem. I'm talking about people who quit often, those mofos need to be penalized, and it WILL dissuade them the first time they lose something. The WILL lose something, because I'm talking about the type of people who quit enough games to lose stuff. If you leave for a legit reason you won't be penalized that often so you will barely notice. If you leave because you're a lousy teammate who doesn't believe in putting in the effort to turn a game around, then you deserve a penalty. If you leave because your spree ended and you're too much of a child to respawn and go back at it, then you deserve a penalty. Even if you don't deserve a penalty, you certainly don't deserve any rewards, and the only way to take those away is with penalties. If you leave because your teammates are betraying, try first to boot some, then leave because you aren't going to suffer that penalty that often. Most players shoot at the enemy, thus most games are full of teammates who want to shoot the other guy. If you leave often because you get pulled away from the game maybe before you start searching for that game you should ask yourself if you have time to complete a game (2ish minutes of search time + 8-10 minutes of game time). I've quit games before, not very often but I've done it, and I did it before I knew there was no penalty. To rephrase: I quit even though I believed I would be penalized. That's fair, because players who don't quit much can absorb the penalty.

For me I don't care if they don't care, I want a penalty in place. Specifically I think quitting a game should be -2500 to -3000 experience. I think it should be capable of dropping your level if you happen to be that close to the beginning of your level, and I think it should be possible for you to lose what you unlocked that level. The point is to punish habitual quitters. Penalties DO add up. Someone who quits only every 100 games or so isn't going to care, but someone who quits every other game will. Eventually you're going to lose things that you're using in the game, like a specialization perk or a weapon you unlocked. Someone who quits only rarely isn't the person we're talking about, we're talking about people who quit noticable percentages of the games they begin.

Lol I don't like stances either. I wouldn't mind them if all of them didn't look so dumb. I think the only ones I can tolerate are the Recruit and Believe, just because they look like a guy who is standing there waiting for something to happen instead of a dweeb at a photo shoot. I remember when they first introduced theatre back in Halo 3 I couldn't believe how thrilled I was to take pictures of myself in action. Once that initial thrill wore off I was very embarrassed to have taken the pictures in the first place. Most of the stances look like pictures I'd be embarrassed I took.

They don't play the whole track I don't think. It's not a bad track, but it's designed to be background noise and serves that purpose just fine.

Lol I read the subject line and worried for a moment you were talking about Lvlcap, one of the few Youtubers I've watched consistently.

I had a player stop playing around the time the Mantis segment begins, he spawned back in the base. The trouble with that is then all of us spawned on him... back at the base with an army of covenant in between us and our Mantises. That army was desiged to fight 4 Mantises, not 2 footsoldiers running like hell (4th guy quit). So after spawning on this guy several times and dying in various stages of rushing for my Mantis (If you get into it the Fuel Rod Cannon shots will make it to you just as you actually gain control of it, killing you instantly and making it all pointless), I actually slowly pushed his AFK *** out the door so that the covenant would kill him and we'd have a new spawn point. It worked and he spawned by the Mantises, me and the other player managed to win the mission but we were both wishing hard for friendly fire at the end. After wiping out the banshees and phantoms we walked up to him in our mantises and emptied volley after volley into his worthless AFK spartan. Instead of fuming though I just left a bad review avoiding him and went on playing.

No it's actually a fact. DMR has faster kill times, better accuracy, higher rate of fire, and a better clip. Player skill is a huge factor, but if two players of equal skill fight each other at BR range when one of them has a BR and the other has the DMR the DMR user will win most of those fights. If you could design a computer program that ran sample combats between the two over several thousand combats the DMR would emerge the victor. It's not an opinion. Faster kill time means: If you both land all your shots perfectly the BR is dead before he can land his 5th. Faster rate of fire means: If you make a mistake you can correct it sooner More accurate means: The gun is better at shooting where you point it. Bit of a no-brainer here. If the goal of the game is to kill things by pointing at them and pushing a button, more accuracy is better. Better clip means: DMR has 2.8 kills in its clip BR has 2.4. BR reloads sooner and more often. So even if you both have godly strafes the DMR guy is going to get more chances to kill you before he has to reload. If you both have impossibly perfect strafes the BR will actually completely run out of ammo before the DMR does. Of course when you're that hard to shoot it might be better to bring rockets or something. You may say: "But Bloody, won't the DMR run out of ammo at about the same time since it fires faster?" I don't know exactly how its RoF lines up with its clip size, but the fact remains he gets to fire 14 times before he's out of ammo and the BR gets to fire 12. If you knock off shields with the first 4 shots from each weapon, that means the DMR gets 10 chances to kill you and the BR only gets 8. So why use the BR? Because on smaller maps it probably is better for SWAT and hopefully they'll do something with the January update that brings the marksman rifles more in line with each other. Until then maybe you want the commendation or you want to challenge yourself. It doesn't really matter, what matters is that people understand the BR is not as good as the DMR right now, so that whatever reason they choose to use the BR they're at least aware of what they're doing. You are free to play the game however you choose, just make them informed decisions so you don't get disappointed later. If you're really good it probably wont' matter as much which you use.

There were never a lot of normal gun spawns in older Halos. People ran out of ammo back then too, especially when you got farther away from your kills. There ARE some differences with Halo 4, specifically you can consistently kill at longer ranges than ever AND 343 wanted you to run out of ammo more often. That's why they made all the clips shallower either by reducing ammo in the clip or by increasing ammo required to kill. 343 wants you reloading and out of ammo a lot because then you'll finally die to someone who is freshly spawned from the last time you killed them, it keeps you from getting longer sprees and forces you to move from your position to retrieve ammo. In BTB if you're not making a loadout that's designed to run vehicles the Ammo upgrade is absolutely mandatory, especially in maps like Ragnarok and Longbow where you often get pinned fighting from the same spot for an extended period of time. 343 made Halo 4 more nomadic. Players have to move for several reasons (ammo, no strong points in maps, long shield recharge delay), and the more you move the more likely you are to be caught off guard. As I've said many many times, they designed the game so you'd get one kill then die. That's what they wanted and that's the game they made.

You... you're getting owned by holograms? Lol, seriously? I see maybe 1 hologram user per game, the Halo 4 noob combo is Boltshot, DMR, Promethean Vision dude, and it's the chassis of my primary mid-range loadout. Don't get me wrong, I love a good hologram, but it's hardly a game breaker. How is "walking forward without shooting or looking at anything" looking too real for you? I might spend 2-3 DMR shots on a distant hologram if I'm really not paying attention, but most of the time it's pretty obvious that they're holograms. If it wasn't already obvious by your difficulties with holograms, I'll go ahead and point out that you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Since when is the sniper rifle part of any "noob" combo? Even in Reach when it was ridiculously easy to use you still had to get one without your teammates betraying you for it (Which they absolutely would). The "noob combo" in Halo 2 and Halo 3 was the same: PP + BR. There was no "noob combo" in Halo: CE because you didn't need anything but a pistol. It was accurate beyond the locking range of the plasma pistol. As for Halo: Reach I don't know that there was any "noob combo" so much as get a power weapon or die. I played it, I dealt with armor lockers, they only slowed things down without making them any harder.

My concern was never that they fell short of the mark. My concern was the mark. Even if some things don't work, what I see Halo 4 as is a step in the wrong direction. They succeeded in their goals in this game, the problem was never that they didn't, the problem was the goals they set for themselves. Reach felt adolescent, like a bunch of amateurs had gotten ahold of the decision making in a Halo game. They tried to do well but the team working on it didn't have as much experience with multiplayer. Halo 4 feels deliberate and diabolical. They meant for it to play this way. They made mistakes for sure, but whereas the maps in Reach felt sloppy and uncoordinated, the maps in Halo 4 feel like they were designed to keep you moving and they do. The problem is Halo wasn't always about moving all the time. The difference with Halo 4 is that they had a different mission than they've had in every other Halo. They didn't set out to make a great game, they set out to make a very specific popular type of game. The last team wanted to make something great and fell short, this team wanted to make something that would sell. Who cares if no one wants to play it a year from now? We'll have a new "Halo" for them then.

That's not actually true, if 343 spends effort on this that's effort they're not spending on something else. They're a real company staffed by real people who probably only work normal workdays. So if they don't make the game play right but they implement a ranking system, I know I won't go in there because I don't want my rank to be slave to their current bad gameplay model. I never bothered with Reach's Arena for the same reason (It was also awful). The point is if I don't feel like the game is giving players a fair chance to compete in a match, I don't think any rank it shows is accurate. I don't want my performance being judged until the game is designed to actually allow for players to excel based on their skill. 6 second recharge delay is a much more important fix than ranks, because as I spend that much of the match defenseless I don't want a ranking system to notice. I've said multiple times that I'm not that good, but it's frustrating easily out-DMRing one guy only to have his idiot teammate show up 5 seconds later to mop me up without lifting a finger.