To all who want a ranking system...

[Destroyaaa]

The reason I joined this forum was to inform the Halo community about how badly Halo 4 needed a ranking system. The game gets released with no ranking system, and the complaints for the lack of a ranking system seemed to have hit an all time high. I decided to check out Halo Waypoint forums, which is the official site for 343i, and found a major topic with huge support. Everyone here who wants the ranking system needs to read this and do what the OP suggests.

 

Here is the link to see other peoples posts and I will post the original post below.

 

https://forums.halowaypoint.com/yaf_postst135168_1-50-Competitive-Skill-Rank-Official-Thread.aspx

 

 

OPPOSERS PLEASE READ THREAD FULLY BEFORE LEAVING INPUT

 

 

ATTENTION COMMUNITY 343's ANNOUNCEMENT IS A FINELY FAILED HALFLY DONE ATTEMPT TO APPEASE THE COMPETITIVE COMMUNITY.This 1-50 343 promised us isONLY web based. Basically only SEEN on Halo waypoint. This is the same thing they did in Reach which didn't solve anything. Their will NEVER be a number 1-50 to show your skill in game. THIS WILL ONLY BE SEEN ON HALO WAYPOINT. This will NOT CHANGE unless we FIGHT for a FULL SKILLED ranking system. DONT let 343 fool you

 

This needs to EFFECT IN GAME RANK like Halo 3 for players to have an Incentive to go for high skill otherwise people will just get maxed rank with XP. Bungie perfectly created a max xp limit on each separate rank requiring them to go for high skill.

 

Thanks and Favorites of this thread are very appreciated

IMPORTANT- For the best way to make this happen is to tweet @Kevin_Franklin the lead designer of multiplayer. Tell him why this is important and link this thread. Retweet him every day. The more people who do this the better the chances. BE POLITE and SPREAD THIS

 

Overachiever - Spread this out by sending a brief message such as "Support a Full skilled ranking system here" with the url of this thread through Xbox Live Messaging to you Halo 4 recent players.

 

If you can try reaching out to the MLG pros/community, and Youtubers

 

Moderators Posts - N/A - Editing posts that are breaking rules

343 Industries Response - N/A

Current Thread Views - 40,000

Best posts - Page 51, by Tk Curb Stompz / Page 59, by SpezL Ops

 

To 343 Industries -

 

Video Summary -

 

Requirements for Ranked/Social playlists -

 

Necessary Halo 4 Patches Video -

^ These are not my videos but are supported 100%

 

I was very happy and impressed by 343 Industries until I read the Announcement source carefully. 343i was very vague about this intentionally to fool the competitive community, What a lowball deceptive attempt.

Source - Http://blogs.halowaypoint.com/post/2012/11/02/Halo-4-Competitive-Skill-Rank-Announcement.aspx

 

 

TO 343 Industries:

Why are you against a with a full skilled ranking system? Nothing is perfect which must be the reason you don't want to implement it into the game but EXACTLYexplains the effect of having it in game with more players having incentive to play. I assure you its better than what it is now and what it was before. Their is more good in having it implemented in game than their is negative. This is the reason Halo 3 / 2 Lasted so long. People wanted to win, they were motivated, the reason everyone had their microphones in. Im truthfully saying that this was the best system and I didn't even achieve a 50! Read all of the responses to this thread, barely anyone disagrees and this is just a small portion that are active on the forums. And the people that do disagree have no valid persuasive points that couldn't be solved, with the solutions included in this thread. 343i, I know Microsoft told you to make the game like call of duty to make it more popular, adding this will, the progression system does NOT flow with Halo it never will. But note if this is added their is still much more you need to improve. I will not list them in this simply because this is a specific thread but a video above will. The most important aspect is that you need to communicate with you're fan base. Their are so many popular threads including one that broke a record on halo waypoint, but you have yet to respond to them. This is not Halo's formula, I waited through Halo Reach for a Ranking system TU, It never came. Will it be the same for Halo 4?

 

Halo is a team game. The goal should be to win, NOT to be Independent.

In Halo 3 remember receiving messages saying "Good Game?"Because I do.

 

Why people don't support this? Majority who disagree are upset that they cannot reach the highest rank.

 

To the Casual player community ( People who don't mind or care)

What some of you fail to realize is that the competitive community will keep the game alive. They will play the game long after the release date. I mean, just look at Halo 2 for an example. The only way you could get them off that was by shutting down the XBL compatibility for it. And even though that's gone, I bet people still have Halo 2 LAN parties. Heck, people still have Halo Combat Evolved LAN parties. The point I'm trying to make is that if you satisfy the competitive players then you'll have a long lasting game. Both sets of players are important, and both can be pleased.

 

Response to the Boosting/Cheating Issue

343i switches the trueskill system with a progression system. The one we have in Halo 4 actually allows us to unlock better weapons and equipment. There is a much higher incentive to cheat. And what happens to cheaters? They're rewarded with all this nice stuff that nobody else has access to. They'll play a few games feeling like a boss and then get banned. But such great ownage on their behalf will cause them to want to circumvent justice to be able to do it all again. I would take booster for a full skill ranking system any day and the majority agree with me. Boosting has been a bigger issue in Halo 4 than any other Halo game.

 

Account Selling Solution- Their are many ways 343 can resolve this issue especially for the fact that they are a gaming company with Microsoft. One simple way it can be resolved is by integrating the rank to your hard drive.

 

I will continue to keep this thread active and will update it if you have a great response as I already have. Please leave input and spread this. I read EVERY Post, and am active.

[Vaulting♥Frog]

I see a lot of assumptions about other players made within these comments. Most particularly about "casual players". I am a casual player and yet I play games consistantly. The definition of a casual player changes from person to person. I dont spend 4 hours a day playing MP but I do come back to it once and a while just to kick back and relax. I will still be contributing to the life of the game. Thus some arguments are null and void about casual players such as myself.

 

I am sorry but personally it sounds like a lot of personal issues people are laying out because they want a game to be developed in a manor that suits them and only them (which most if not all complaint threads are).

 

Am I opposed to a ranking system? Nope. I just dont see a point to it either. Any player can be beaten on any given day by any person. That is just the way it is. One day a person is on top of the gaming world and the next they get crushed by a person who just played for the first time. So to me it makes little difference.

 

One issue I see that has not been addressed is the armory issue. What would the ranking system do to the armory? If a person is unable to achieve said rank they are then being denighed the unlockable armor for that rank? Or are you people proposing to have that as a seperate system entirely? If thats the case then they have a huge amount of coding to do (well in either case its a lot of coding) which I just dont see happening.

 

One other thing, what about the campaign, does that not mean it has a long life span or do you people (just trying to include guys and girls, not being racist or anything) only play the campaign once? I for one play the campaign multiple times. I still go back to CE's campaign and play that. Its one of my preferences.

 

Please keep in mind, I am not trying to argue with you or anybody else. Just pointing a few things out from my viewpoint. Thats all. Not saying your wrong or that I am right.

[Destroyaaa]

Hey VaultingFrog, thanks for being considerate. To address a few of your points, you say you dont mind a ranking system so why not implement it? The system that most people want is to have ranked and social playlists just like in halo 2 and 3, along with the CSR system to unlock armor and weapons and all that. The ranks will only be for the ranked playlists and not affect anything else.

 

Not sure what the campaign has to do with anything. I play it once though.

[Vaulting♥Frog]

Hey VaultingFrog, thanks for being considerate. To address a few of your points, you say you dont mind a ranking system so why not implement it? The system that most people want is to have ranked and social playlists just like in halo 2 and 3, along with the CSR system to unlock armor and weapons and all that. The ranks will only be for the ranked playlists and not affect anything else.

 

Not sure what the campaign has to do with anything. I play it once though.

 

Like I said I am not against it being implemented but there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed first. I barely hit on one of them in my reply.

 

The reason why I mentioned campaign is because several of the "posts" you put in your thread mention life. Campaign is part of that game life and cant be excluded. You cant tell me you have never gone back and played through the older Halo campaigns. That is game life. Some times the urge just strikes to play it. Thus the game still is played.

 

Thats all.

[Joe Cravens]

WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE RANKS WHILE PLAYING

[LiQuid BioniX]

Like I said I am not against it being implemented but there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed first. I barely hit on one of them in my reply.

 

 

 

I agree. I'm the type of guy who won't even finish the Campaign before heading right into multiplayer because I enjoy online much more than the single player (although both are pretty great in Halo 4) and I'd love, absolutely love, a ranking system. That being said, I think that they should at least address the online connectivity problems before implementing the ranking system.

[Cortar]

I am sorry but personally it sounds like a lot of personal issues people are laying out because they want a game to be developed in a manor that suits them and only them (which most if not all complaint threads are).

 

Am I opposed to a ranking system? Nope. I just dont see a point to it either. Any player can be beaten on any given day by any person. That is just the way it is. One day a person is on top of the gaming world and the next they get crushed by a person who just played for the first time. So to me it makes little difference.

 

One issue I see that has not been addressed is the armory issue. What would the ranking system do to the armory? If a person is unable to achieve said rank they are then being denighed the unlockable armor for that rank? Or are you people proposing to have that as a seperate system entirely? If thats the case then they have a huge amount of coding to do (well in either case its a lot of coding) which I just dont see happening.

 

The Skill Rank System doesn't have to replace the Spartan Ranks we have now, they can go together just like in Halo 3. Thats not really a "huge amount of coding" either. It would literally take them a day :-/

 

The real reason it won't get implemented is that they don't want this game to be super competitive or last long. They want people who buy it, play through the campaign, maybe play multiplayer for a bit, then drop it and buy Halo 5 when it comes out. This crowd is much more profitable than the ones who put a lot of hours into the game.

[Baeztoberfest]

 

 

The Skill Rank System doesn't have to replace the Spartan Ranks we have now, they can go together just like in Halo 3. Thats not really a "huge amount of coding" either. It would literally take them a day :-/

 

The real reason it won't get implemented is that they don't want this game to be super competitive or last long. They want people who buy it, play through the campaign, maybe play multiplayer for a bit, then drop it and buy Halo 5 when it comes out. This crowd is much more profitable than the ones who put a lot of hours into the game.

 

It will be years before we see Halo 5 so where's the point in this? I'm sure Halo 5 will be fine tuned the way fans like but for a first game (and I'm no programmer) it's not too shabby. The way I see it most people will buy Halo 5 anyways because its called HALO 5. It has a namesake. People know what they are getting (sorta) when they buy Halo.

 

That being said millions will get Halo 5 anyway. Will it be like Halo 4? Probably. But it won't stop from selling. Will people look at Halo 5 and say "HEY LOOK! MORE PEOPLE ARE PLAYING HALO 4 BECAUSE HALO 4 IS THE BETTER GAME!"? Most definitely. Does that make them right or me wrong? No and no.

[Dawn Wolf]

I'll just say this. Number one "problem" that has been blown WAY out of proportion with H4 is the progression system. You can have ANYTHING except spec perks by level 30something. You GET everything except spec perks by level 50. You can get any spec perk by level 60.

 

I was level 50 in a week, while going to college, doing other stuff. I was level 60 in another week. It's not that big of a deal.

[Baeztoberfest]

I'll just say this. Number one "problem" that has been blown WAY out of proportion with H4 is the progression system. You can have ANYTHING except spec perks by level 30something. You GET everything except spec perks by level 50. You can get any spec perk by level 60.

 

I was level 50 in a week, while going to college, doing other stuff. I was level 60 in another week. It's not that big of a deal.

 

Agreed.

[Cortar]

It will be years before we see Halo 5 so where's the point in this? I'm sure Halo 5 will be fine tuned the way fans like but for a first game (and I'm no programmer) it's not too shabby. The way I see it most people will buy Halo 5 anyways because its called HALO 5. It has a namesake. People know what they are getting (sorta) when they buy Halo.

 

"Years" as in two years, Halo 5 will be released either next year or 2014, no doubt about that.

That being said millions will get Halo 5 anyway. Will it be like Halo 4? Probably. But it won't stop from selling. Will people look at Halo 5 and say "HEY LOOK! MORE PEOPLE ARE PLAYING HALO 4 BECAUSE HALO 4 IS THE BETTER GAME!"? Most definitely. Does that make them right or me wrong? No and no.

Maybe, but people may just be tired of the direction that Halo took at that point. I think its very foolish to try and emulate COD like Halo 4 did, the COD series is such a juggernaut that it can't lose to anything else. Halo stood a chance back in Halo 3 days because it was so different, now that its more similar, lots of people just stick with COD. Also, I know this is anecdotal but I know many people who were hesitant to get Halo 4 because of the disaster that was Halo Reach. Unless 343 really turns things around I doubt many of these people will even bother with Halo 5.

[Baeztoberfest]

 

 

"Years" as in two years, Halo 5 will be released either next year or 2014, no doubt about that.

 

Maybe, but people may just be tired of the direction that Halo took at that point. I think its very foolish to try and emulate COD like Halo 4 did, the COD series is such a juggernaut that it can't lose to anything else. Halo stood a chance back in Halo 3 days because it was so different, now that its more similar, lots of people just stick with COD. Also, I know this is anecdotal but I know many people who were hesitant to get Halo 4 because of the disaster that was Halo Reach. Unless 343 really turns things around I doubt many of these people will even bother with Halo 5.

 

That's a pretty good point. I mean I won't comment on whether the changes are good or bad that's all opinion. But you're right. Changes to the franchise are definitely visible within game play. I think it depends on the map. Like Ragnarok and Adrift are awesome implementations. Complex? I still don't get why that's a 4 v 4 map. Lol. They should beast out and make it a big team... Lol. But back on subject no you're right. The community seems very split about it. On the one hand anyone who doesn't like it is a kid/noob/crying panzee. And if you do like it you're a fanboy. Lol. I just play the game in my spare time and like it enough to buy Halo 5 I guess. Lol.

[Destroyaaa]

The Skill Rank System doesn't have to replace the Spartan Ranks we have now, they can go together just like in Halo 3. Thats not really a "huge amount of coding" either. It would literally take them a day :-/

 

The real reason it won't get implemented is that they don't want this game to be super competitive or last long. They want people who buy it, play through the campaign, maybe play multiplayer for a bit, then drop it and buy Halo 5 when it comes out. This crowd is much more profitable than the ones who put a lot of hours into the game.

 

Sorry but everything your saying here makes no sense. It would not take 1 day to implement a good ranking system, they need to test it out (which is currently being done now instead of before the game was released) before implementing it. They said they are implementing it into waypoint, which again is not going to appease anyone because you are still going to be matched by trueskill. Why would they not want halo 4 to last long? Makes no sense to me, due to the fact that Halo 5 is going to be released on the next generation Xbox console which doesnt even have a release date and might be coming out in 2014. Halo 5 would be released AT THE EARLIEST in late 2015, more likely 2016.

[Cortar]

Sorry but everything your saying here makes no sense. It would not take 1 day to implement a good ranking system, they need to test it out (which is currently being done now instead of before the game was released) before implementing it. They said they are implementing it into waypoint, which again is not going to appease anyone because you are still going to be matched by trueskill. Why would they not want halo 4 to last long? Makes no sense to me, due to the fact that Halo 5 is going to be released on the next generation Xbox console which doesnt even have a release date and might be coming out in 2014. Halo 5 would be released AT THE EARLIEST in late 2015, more likely 2016.

 

The coding would take a day, not the testing and planning.

 

Xbox 720 will either be released holiday 2013 or early 2014. They will probably want Halo 5 to be a release title to promote their sales.

[Baeztoberfest]

 

 

Sorry but everything your saying here makes no sense. It would not take 1 day to implement a good ranking system, they need to test it out (which is currently being done now instead of before the game was released) before implementing it. They said they are implementing it into waypoint, which again is not going to appease anyone because you are still going to be matched by trueskill. Why would they not want halo 4 to last long? Makes no sense to me, due to the fact that Halo 5 is going to be released on the next generation Xbox console which doesnt even have a release date and might be coming out in 2014. Halo 5 would be released AT THE EARLIEST in late 2015, more likely 2016.

 

Lol where are you getting your information from? Outer space? Your mom? Bigfoot?

[Destroyaaa]

Lol where are you getting your information from? Outer space? Your mom? Bigfoot?

 

Umm.....

 

This is the link for the 1-50 ranking system announcement,

 

http://blogs.haloway...nouncement.aspx

 

Heres the link for the support for a true 1-50 ranking system implemented in game, which is in my original post.

 

 

https://forums.halow...ial-Thread.aspx

 

Based on the history of release dates of major past halo games (Halo CE 2001, Halo 2 in 2004, Halo 3 in 2007) They need about 3 years to make a new game.

 

They have already confirmed halo 5 to be on the next gen console...

 

 

Not sure why I even answered your offensive and immature comment.

[Chris Hansen]

I agree a thousand percent that there should be ranks. Visible ranks.

[Bloody Initiate]

WARNING: Looong post ahead.

 

I have very rarely encountered someone with an understanding of the ranking systems in these games. People think they understand, but they're almost always missing the point and frequently don't seem to have a good command of the facts. I am not calling you one of these people, I am saying that generally I don't think people are mature or informed enough to play with a serious ranking system.

 

I made a post about this in the waypoint forums, here's the text:

 

I think the impact of a game ranked by visible trueskill is more complex than anyone who argues about it seems to realize.

 

I loved Halo 3, and I was good enough at it to feel accomplished but not so good that I would ever believe I had competitive potential. The thing people don't understand is that most people weren't, aren't, and never will be good at every game. I'm nowhere near the "best" at anything, and I'm OK with this fact, but most people don't realize the same about themselves.

 

I think Halo's player base started going down before Reach came out. I didn't like Reach, don't get me wrong, but I think a lot of players got seriously burned out on Halo 3 because it almost transcended its role as a game. That competitive atmosphere has a lot of bonuses, but most of those aren't apparent to MOST of the players who are only average at the game.

 

To this day in Halo 4 I play with guys who never were that good, and it still bothers them, even though no one on the team complains when they go negative. I think the competitive aspects probably drive away as many people as they draw in, and over time they actually drive more people away.

 

Eventually in Halo 3 you could only rarely find a game where everyone was on their original tags. It seemed everyone who was any good at the game loved climbing the ranks so much (even though that wasn't the point) that they wanted to do it over and over again, and in the mean time all the average players got falsely matched against better players. I doubt that helped the game at all. Your largest bracket of players are average, not good or bad, so when you design a system that punishes them, you lose players.

 

Trueskill's purpose is to provide challenging matches against players of similar skill level. That purpose is corrupted when people view their number as a reward system. That purpose was also corrupted in Reach where Bungie designed a system that literally lied to the Trueskill system by changing the definition of victory.

 

My point is only that people never look at ranks the right way. Even now people are competing for higher SR. I don't think that visible Trueskill had the influence people think it did on Halo 3's success. I think it's much more likely that Halo 3 was just the best shooter available at the time, and it was the best by a very large margin, so there were no alternatives either. There was a market situation and a synergy there people didn't notice, and I just don't think it had nearly so much to do with visible Trueskill.

 

Adding to the above:

 

The hardest thing people don't understand about Trueskill is that it actually tends to work really well. So when it tells you that you're lvl 25, chances are that's what you are. Players who are good LOVE to know what level they are, players who aren't frequently are happier not knowing, and there are more in the second category than in the first. It's a very real ranking system that does its job, but its job is supposed to done behind the scenes. Consider also the level 25 guy who gets crushed by another level 25... who is actually a level 50 deliberately playing at a lower level because it's easy, or because he likes watching that rank go up. What do you tell the legit 25 about the virtues of the ranking system? It was very literally used to deceive him.

 

Another thing about Halo 3 vs. other shooters at the time: It really was the best looking and best playing shooter out at the time. It had no competitors. The way people move and such in Halo has always been smooth and the gameplay has always been tight, other shooters at the time of Halo 3 were jerky and clumsy. GoW would have been the closest thing to a competitor, and it was NOT a competitor (Fewer players per match, poor programming led to a lot of exploitable glitches, plus super-slow movement + aim button makes for gameplay based on defeating the game rather than your enemy.).

 

Later in Halo 3's life the CoD franchise finally made something that worked, and it wasn't any failure of Halo 3's when that franchise gained a bigger player base. There were plenty of run-and-gun type players who had no good game for their style until COD4, so they just played Halo. CoD games had a good population before Reach came out, so it wasn't Reach's lack of a ranking system that made other shooters gain people.

 

The Battlefield franchise also caught up, although a bit later than CoD did. Battlefield games are much greater in scale than Halo or CoD, and so a lot of the people whose only large-scale console multiplayer was Halo's BTB suddenly gained a shooter that was designed for them in the Battlefield franchise. I ****ing love BF3, and you know which gametype I DID NOT want to play in that game? 4v4. Why would I waste my time w/4v4 when I can have 12v12?

 

Those are the shooters I've played. I haven't played much Gears, but I played enough to immediately see some MAJOR problems with its competitive multiplayer gameplay.

 

The measure of each game's success seems completely unrelated to whether it has a ranking system, it's whether it offers players a unique and enjoyable experience that determines its success. Also the one game I've played that DID have visible trueskill (Halo 3) had a lot of problems as a result too. I enjoyed it, but I haven't seen real evidence to suggest it's crucial to the success of a game. I HAVE seen evidence that it hurts a game though, first-hand, literally thousands of times. I played more games of Halo 3 multiplayer than I have of any other game, and I saw so many people influenced incorrectly by visible Trueskill that I'll never ask for it back. My level in that game never affected me much, but I was the exception rather than the rule.

[The Ninja Style]

I think there should be a visible skill ranking system, I also believe the original post looks like a ransom note

[Twisted Oracle]

I didnt bother to read that as i was very hard on my eyes, but i agree we do need a visible skill ranking system

[TornadoFlame]

*tears of joy* we need a visable ranking system or the game will continue to go downhill.

[Benchimus]

I want to see a 1-50 put in but idc whether its visible or not. I care about how high I can get and dont care if other people can see it. The only people I am interested in besting are my friends and they will tell me what they are anyway. And no, its not because I couldnt get to 50. I got to 44 on my first account and I believe 42 on my 2nd. Better than any of my friends so it was good enough for me!

[Hᴜᴍᴘsᴛʏʟᴇs]

la la la la laaaaaaaa

[Baeztoberfest]

 

 

Umm.....

 

This is the link for the 1-50 ranking system announcement,

 

http://blogs.haloway...nouncement.aspx

 

Heres the link for the support for a true 1-50 ranking system implemented in game, which is in my original post.

 

 

https://forums.halow...ial-Thread.aspx

 

Based on the history of release dates of major past halo games (Halo CE 2001, Halo 2 in 2004, Halo 3 in 2007) They need about 3 years to make a new game.

 

They have already confirmed halo 5 to be on the next gen console...

 

 

Not sure why I even answered your offensive and immature comment.

 

Just curious. Guess I could've been more polite. My bad.