"Halo 4" New CRS Ranking System Breakdown & Details

[TrulyExclusive]

http://youtu.be/Fw-wOxWGMYc

 

 

Hey guys in this video I break down the new Halo 4 CSR Ranking system. Explaining the new details & how the system will work. 

Edited April 3, 2013 by RedStarRocket91
This would normally be locked, but it's produced some good discussion. In future, please do not just post a single embedded video with very little supporting text: make sure there is something of substance to read as well.

[TornadoFlame]

i don't get why they would bother with this if its just gonna be on waypoint, it's a waste if you have a 2 disk game and to see your rank your forced to go to a 3rd party program after each and every game. Ill stick to enjoying my gay cod mw3.

[Chris Hansen]

Yeah, its not like we can go to way-point, and see the ranks of people on the other team..while the game is going on, which is the whole reason we want visible rankings in the first place, so you can get a general sense of who is good and who isn't as good in the lobby.

 

It's sort of an important piece of information to have.

[Cassi]

You'll find out who is "good" and "not as good" as soon as the game begins. I fail to see how having this information a few seconds beforehand makes any tactical or strategic difference, beyond simple "bragging rights".

 

Just play the game.

[TrulyExclusive]

You'll find out who is "good" and "not as good" as soon as the game begins. I fail to see how having this information a few seconds beforehand makes any tactical or strategic difference, beyond simple "bragging rights".

 

Just play the game.

 

I mean there has been huge debated around this (but "bragging rights" for alot of people make the game worth while, being able to show your one of the best means alot to people. 

[Cassi]

Fair enough, but I don't see why a symbol matters all that much in regards to that. If you want to brag, win the game first, "then" spout off like a pompous 12 year old with a lack of responsibilty in life. What's the point of acting like a self-important ****** before the match even begins?

[TornadoFlame]

Fair enough, but I don't see why a symbol matters all that much in regards to that. If you want to brag, win the game first, "then" spout off like a pompous 12 year old with a lack of responsibilty in life. What's the point of acting like a self-important ****** before the match even begins?

well since we can't even talk to the other team they should just make it visable i don't own a ipod or any high tech phone to beable to see  my stuff after the game i'd have to close out of halo 4 after each and every game and go to waypoint to see my rank thats not very fair to me it's bad enough i had to buy and download it, I know people who don't even have enough download room for halowaypoint on there xbox.  this is a 2 disk game they have catered to casuals way to much  they need to start catering the other type of players..

it's also stupid to have every single playlist ranked also. halo 3 had a nice system it seems 343 is failing again but at this point i don't beleive this will bring anyone back.

Sure it will be about so called bragging rights but thats just like every thing out there..

 

But i will say if they don't have sperate playlist for ranked then this is a dumb idea because theres casuals , who want to enjoy and play the game and be forced to have competetive players ruin your fun with there so called tryhardness. Social is always a game i can run around on 10 with legacy southpaw and messing with my friends while talking but then again halo 4 hasn't done really much right for me to want to play it anymore.

 

Btw cassi are you going to play ranked??

[Cassi]

I might. I played ranked in Halo 3 (a lot), but if they do implement a Ranked/Social divide, I'll likely spend most of my time in the latter.

[Kiing 0f Coffe]

I don't even know why there is an argument about this. If it pleases the fans and doesn't make a difference to others, then why appose showing rankings in game?

[Cassi]

Oh, I'm not opposed to it. Not at all. I just find the whole thing "stupid", including the inference that the game is "bad" without it.

 

By all means, enjoy your meaningless badge of virtual skill if and when they make it available in game.

 

Personally, I feel there are FAR greater things they could worry about implementing or tweaking...

[Chris Hansen]

You'll find out who is "good" and "not as good" as soon as the game begins. I fail to see how having this information a few seconds beforehand makes any tactical or strategic difference, beyond simple "bragging rights".

 

Just play the game.

 

 

It gives me information about what a team might do before a game even begins. I'll give you an example, if I know the enemy team is good in the lobby before the game begins on say exile, I'll know not to rush the scorpion tank because there will certainly be a sniper watching the approach. My Tactics have already changed and the game hasn't even started. All based on seeing what the enemies competetive rank is.

 

I can understand why you don't think it's a big deal because rank meant diddly squat for so long in halo. Truly the most accurate rankings were in halo 2, if you had level 50's on your team or on the enemy team you KNEW they knew their stuff, because they wouldn't stay at level 50 with how harsh the leveling was in that game, they would get demoted. If you say icons beyond 50 like moons and nova's then you were in for an owning, and most strategies would fail.

[Cassi]

Ok, but let's say those "hardcore" players you're about to engage aren't really that hardcore after all. Let's say they "bought" their rank.

 

So because you thought they were tough stuff, you decided to forgo the tank, allowing them access to it.

 

Not only have you been fed misinformation, but it's cost you a very powerful weapon. All because a little symbol told you to alter your tactics.

 

If you're claiming that rank provides you with valuable tactical information, that goes both ways. It could very easily deceive you into altering your tactics to your detriment.

 

You "can" overthink a situation. Might as well just get in the game and play. After all, it's just that, a game.

[Bloody Initiate]

Ok, but let's say those "hardcore" players you're about to engage aren't really that hardcore after all. Let's say they "bought" their rank.

 

So because you thought they were tough stuff, you decided to forgo the tank, allowing them access to it.

 

Not only have you been fed misinformation, but it's cost you a very powerful weapon. All because a little symbol told you to alter your tactics.

 

If you're claiming that rank provides you with valuable tactical information, that goes both ways. It could very easily deceive you into altering your tactics to your detriment.

 

You "can" overthink a situation. Might as well just get in the game and play. After all, it's just that, a game.

 

It's sort of clear that you haven't played much at the levels where this stuff matters, I'm not trying to criticize you but in-game visible ranks come with lots of pros and cons.

 

I tend to agree with you in general that in-game visible ranks don't matter or improve the game that much, but the examples and arguments you're using aren't making the point you want them to make.

 

Speaking directly to the tank example, you ALWAYS go for the tank. In that regard both you and Chris were wrong, which doesn't make either of you bad players or anything, it's just the difference between players whose primary arena is BTB or not BTB. I haven't played Halo in awhile, so they may have changed the tank's spawn to be upside down on top of the banshee or something, but you never neglect that tank. The only time you can afford to even talk like that is if you're playing solo and you have a highly-independent game-plan (Like camping your base or bravo). You plan to either capture it or destroy it, never to neglect it.

 

Seeing people's Trueskill rank AND whether they're in a party or not (Both are kinda critical if you want to make a serious evaluation of the enemy team) IS helpful and fun. You generally never "overthink" it because they're either going to do what you expect or they're not, and 99% of the time good players do the exact same thing. In Halo 3 they always went for sniper rifles and tried to set up a rifle strategy. The ONE time any of them surprised me was when they went for the Chopper instead and turned out to be a really awesome Chopper pilot. There are really only 1 or 2 "best" strategies for every scenario, and the best players just won't deviate from them much. Also if there are 2 "best" strategies chances are they're identical except on one or two points.

 

If someone "bought" their rank or was otherwise illegitimate you treated them as a wild card - which means assuming they're good. If they're NOT good that's fine, but you can't afford to UNDERestimate anyone, so you would assume they were good until proven bad (Which was about 50% of them at my level). It was always fun punishing a player for misrepresenting themselves by destroying them repeatedly, but until you know for sure you have to act with caution.

 

Players with noticeably bad service records let you try new things and relax a little.

 

I was never ever the best or even close, but in Halo 3 I got good at reading ranks and service records. Generally by seeing a.) their in-game rank and experience total and b.) whether they were in a party or not (and their relation to their party members) I could predict a team's overall threat level and how they would play. This wasn't a special talent btw, because as I said the best players all do the same thing. It's depressingly typical to pick out a guy in the lobby and say "He's going for sniper rifle" and then to go and find him there every game.

 

You read people just like Trueskill reads them though, you see how much they've won and you see how consistently. You read: Success rate and predictability. It was simple and effective, but only as reliable as the player you were looking at (Someone who had a high amount of uncertainty according to Trueskill would be a wild card to a player too, they read the same way).

 

The reason I generally don't argue for visible ranks has never been that they weren't accurate or useful, but instead that I simply don't want the game ranked before it's good. As it is now I would never want to be ranked in this game and I wouldn't consider ranks in this game as very good indicators of player capability, because this game just doesn't allow for the kinds of consistency that I personally understand. Combine that with all the damage they did to the morale of players in Halo 3 as well as the success of a much less competitive game like COD4, and I doubt the overall effectiveness of visible ranks at making a game both "competitive" and successful.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Bloody Initiate

[Cassi]

I take no offense whatsoever. I freely admit that my highest rank was 42 in Halo 3 (never played Halo 2 online), and BTB has never been my cup of tea (Halo 4's version even less so). I defer to your experience regarding both high-level play and BTB strategies.

 

That being said, I understand what you're saying. My experience, however, shows me that when visible rank get's involved, the scum of online gaming invariably emerges: The overly-competitve and nasty players who use their rank and skill as nothing more than a tool to berate and humiliate others, protected as always by the veil of anonymity that the internet so kindly offers.

 

It's not the ranks I have issue with. It's the sub-humans who overwhelming try to obtain it with the mistaken belief that the digital number next to their name makes them just plain better than everyone else. And let me tell you, these folks (usually kids, 11-18) aren't shy about espousing this belief.

 

Kinda ruins the game, at least for me anyway.

[TornadoFlame]

I take no offense whatsoever. I freely admit that my highest rank was 42 in Halo 3 (never played Halo 2 online), and BTB has never been my cup of tea (Halo 4's version even less so). I defer to your experience regarding both high-level play and BTB strategies.

 

That being said, I understand what you're saying. My experience, however, shows me that when visible rank get's involved, the scum of online gaming invariably emerges: The overly-competitve and nasty players who use their rank and skill as nothing more than a tool to berate and humiliate others, protected as always by the veil of anonymity that the internet so kindly offers.

 

It's not the ranks I have issue with. It's the sub-humans who overwhelming try to obtain it with the mistaken belief that the digital number next to their name makes them just plain better than everyone else. And let me tell you, these folks (usually kids, 11-18) aren't shy about espousing this belief.

 

Kinda ruins the game, at least for me anyway.

well no one talks now so i don't think people will ruin your experience. in halo 3 yeah people liked to do tryhard heck i remenber the only reason me and my friends even made more accounts was because Of how the other team reacted to are play, this is why i no longer player halo 4 with my friends and why i play cod mw3. of course it was childish but its fun when people claimed we have mods ,cussed us out all the time told us we have no life when they have 10X play time then us ect ect. and made us enjoy are cod face off experience just like in halo 3 But now that no one interacts or talks i don't beleive ranks will mean anything, most people got there 50 to bragg yeah i mean it was hard to get for some so by all means people will what they have. i don't think this system will be effective sadly i mean 50 in every playlist??? come on....

[Bloody Initiate]

I take no offense whatsoever. I freely admit that my highest rank was 42 in Halo 3 (never played Halo 2 online), and BTB has never been my cup of tea (Halo 4's version even less so). I defer to your experience regarding both high-level play and BTB strategies.

 

That being said, I understand what you're saying. My experience, however, shows me that when visible rank get's involved, the scum of online gaming invariably emerges: The overly-competitve and nasty players who use their rank and skill as nothing more than a tool to berate and humiliate others, protected as always by the veil of anonymity that the internet so kindly offers.

 

It's not the ranks I have issue with. It's the sub-humans who overwhelming try to obtain it with the mistaken belief that the digital number next to their name makes them just plain better than everyone else. And let me tell you, these folks (usually kids, 11-18) aren't shy about espousing this belief.

 

Kinda ruins the game, at least for me anyway.

 

I agree completely, and I only ever got to level 44 myself. Eventually much more of my time was spent in Social (BTB and Social Slayer mostly), and most of the stuff I know about BTB I learned from the guys I played with who all had much greater gifts for strategy and teamwork than I did. I was just a gunner or a spare rifle. Playing with full teams of people who know what to do so well that they don't even have to talk about it eventually teaches you something by osmosis at least.

 

I WAS good at interpreting all the data in Service Records though, and I enjoyed a lot of what visible Trueskill brought, but like you I just got so sick of people on 30-day trials infesting every other game. They aren't necessarily the scum of the earth, just usually people who don't realize how frustrating it must be to lower level players to always be playing higher level players than they're supposed to. I was lucky enough to play at a level where most of those guys came from, so it wasn't so different from fighting another colonel. I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to reach your talent cap and have a bunch of better players come back around to own you every 30 days, with a few thousand players that means you have to face someone who Trueskill was designed to protect you from every day. THAT is why I personally rally against the return of visible Trueskill, I have a ton of reverence for the system, but saw people abuse it too much when they could see it.

 

The next-to-most frustrating part is that most players simply didn't understand Trueskill even after it was explained to them. I really like the system, I love that player achievement and ability can be so efficiently mapped so simply, but everyone went on thinking it was a reward system. So in addition to having the game really ruined for a lot of average or below average players, many of the players didn't even have the good nature to comprehend the damn system. Trueskill is really pretty clever and really good at its job, to watch players not only fail to understand and appreciate that but then use the information it gives them to ruin the game for MOST of the population? That sucks.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Bloody Initiate

[Chris Hansen]

It's sort of clear that you haven't played much at the levels where this stuff matters, I'm not trying to criticize you but in-game visible ranks come with lots of pros and cons.

 

I tend to agree with you in general that in-game visible ranks don't matter or improve the game that much, but the examples and arguments you're using aren't making the point you want them to make.

 

Speaking directly to the tank example, you ALWAYS go for the tank. In that regard both you and Chris were wrong, which doesn't make either of you bad players or anything, it's just the difference between players whose primary arena is BTB or not BTB. I haven't played Halo in awhile, so they may have changed the tank's spawn to be upside down on top of the banshee or something, but you never neglect that tank. The only time you can afford to even talk like that is if you're playing solo and you have a highly-independent game-plan (Like camping your base or bravo). You plan to either capture it or destroy it, never to neglect it.

 

Seeing people's Trueskill rank AND whether they're in a party or not (Both are kinda critical if you want to make a serious evaluation of the enemy team) IS helpful and fun. You generally never "overthink" it because they're either going to do what you expect or they're not, and 99% of the time good players do the exact same thing. In Halo 3 they always went for sniper rifles and tried to set up a rifle strategy. The ONE time any of them surprised me was when they went for the Chopper instead and turned out to be a really awesome Chopper pilot. There are really only 1 or 2 "best" strategies for every scenario, and the best players just won't deviate from them much. Also if there are 2 "best" strategies chances are they're identical except on one or two points.

 

If someone "bought" their rank or was otherwise illegitimate you treated them as a wild card - which means assuming they're good. If they're NOT good that's fine, but you can't afford to UNDERestimate anyone, so you would assume they were good until proven bad (Which was about 50% of them at my level). It was always fun punishing a player for misrepresenting themselves by destroying them repeatedly, but until you know for sure you have to act with caution.

 

Players with noticeably bad service records let you try new things and relax a little.

 

I was never ever the best or even close, but in Halo 3 I got good at reading ranks and service records. Generally by seeing a.) their in-game rank and experience total and b.) whether they were in a party or not (and their relation to their party members) I could predict a team's overall threat level and how they would play. This wasn't a special talent btw, because as I said the best players all do the same thing. It's depressingly typical to pick out a guy in the lobby and say "He's going for sniper rifle" and then to go and find him there every game.

 

You read people just like Trueskill reads them though, you see how much they've won and you see how consistently. You read: Success rate and predictability. It was simple and effective, but only as reliable as the player you were looking at (Someone who had a high amount of uncertainty according to Trueskill would be a wild card to a player too, they read the same way).

 

The reason I generally don't argue for visible ranks has never been that they weren't accurate or useful, but instead that I simply don't want the game ranked before it's good. As it is now I would never want to be ranked in this game and I wouldn't consider ranks in this game as very good indicators of player capability, because this game just doesn't allow for the kinds of consistency that I personally understand. Combine that with all the damage they did to the morale of players in Halo 3 as well as the success of a much less competitive game like COD4, and I doubt the overall effectiveness of visible ranks at making a game both "competitive" and successful.

 

Bloody, my plan is ALWAYS to destroy the tank. lol

[тυcкєя]

Dont really see how this helps.

Honestly, I dont use Waypoint a lot.

I sometimes go onto It 

on my iPod.

But, considering you cant see It In the lobby

I dont really care.

[Bloody Initiate]

Bloody, my plan is ALWAYS to destroy the tank. lol

I didn't think you'd completely ignore it , but I had to respond to the information available.

 

Also in my experience capturing it = destroying it anyway. The idea of a neutral tank just doesn't create smart scenarios, half the time you get into it just so people will stop DMRing you and you get boarded immediately, and the other half of the time the enemy gets into it just so you'll stop DMRing him and you board it and destroy it immediately. I don't think the idea of a neutral tank is quite as idiotic as only one Gauss for only one team, but anyone who has gone for the tank knows that it's mostly an painfully pointless exercise in "if we can't have it no one can."

[Sadly Just AL]

Looks great. Can't wait.