• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Halo 4 Interview With Footage, Probably No Beta [Up: Official Making Of Video]

There are so many problems with Reach matchmaking but the biggest stand out for me is that there are so many different playlists that most population sizes are pretty much going to negate a good match because they're just too small.

There are 21 playlists not including firefight. 21.
 

Ace 8095

Member
But you shouldn't "deserve" a 50. A proper ranking system means that a SMALL number of people should see the highest rank, and an extremely small number should be at the lowest rank.

This should be true in every playlist. Even for MLG, if your ranking system is perfect then everyone's ranks in the playlist should fall into a bell curve. But Halo 3 just let you bruteforce your way to a 50 - it could be done in roughly 30 games (I believe the record is 28) with the proper setup.

50 doesn't mean a certain k/d, it doesn't mean you know the weapon timers, it just says that you should beat anyone that's 1-49 if you were matched up against. Trueskill never cared about the win margin, it just cared if you won or lost, and who the ranks were of the people you lost to or the people that you beat.
I would argue that video game skill would be better modeled by a gamma distribution than a normal.
 
You've got something to achieve each month with arena , right now you've got a BPR to improve on , which is a good indication of skill. You have sites like halotracker that physically rank you against other players.
There is loads to achieve and aspire to, just not a number next to your name.

I love being able to spy on other people's stats online :D

It just wasn't the same. It didn't give you the same thrill. in reach it is reset monthly. So lets say you don't play certain amount games required you will not get a rank for the month. So all the work you did is gone. Plus there was no threat of losing your rank because you could always do it next month.

That right there is the problem. There is no immediate consequence for playing bad. My goal was to get a 50 and played hard to get it. In reach I don't have the urge nor the incentive to play arena.
 
Whichever ranking system they decide to use, they really need to think about boosters, new accounts and quitters. Those 3 types of people ruin Halos matchmaking. Cheaters too but that’s a different story.

Meh, the problems Halo 3's boosters and new accounts was/is overblown. So, what if a player, who has General on another account, was playing with a bunch of players in the low 40s? Those "new account-ers" weren't in every game or even every other game. The best idea would be to view how the person plays during the match and take notes. You're going to lose games... and many of them by a lot. Such big losses should be learning experiences.

Halo 2's stand by-ing , modders, map exploiting, etc. were much worse and fortunately fixed for Halo 3.
 

Yo Gotti

Banned
There are so many problems with Reach matchmaking but the biggest stand out for me is that there are so many different playlists that most population sizes are pretty much going to negate a good match because they're just too small.

There are 21 playlists not including firefight. 21.

Yep.

I think DLC map packs really started the downfall of organized matchmaking. Matchmaking was never the same once they started releasing. Roleplaying gametypes like Zombies and Invasion didn't help much either.
 

FyreWulff

Member
There are so many problems with Reach matchmaking but the biggest stand out for me is that there are so many different playlists that most population sizes are pretty much going to negate a good match because they're just too small.

There are 21 playlists not including firefight. 21.

Yeah, Reach has a glut of playlists. Which is not helped with the decisions behind the Anniversary disc. We now have:

2 redundant BTBs
2 redundant Rumble Pits
3 4v4 100% Team Slayer lists, 5 if you count ZB Slayer and Team Snipers


Thats my point. In halo 2 this was represented by my max rank of 40 and the games max rank of 50.

All this bitching about booosting confuses me also. Because for me, the only place my rank mattered to me and to anyone else was in the matchmaking lobby before and after the game. I couldn't care less how many boosters there supposedly were in Team Slayer because the only people I was playing were the people playing team slayer. Of course, modding and standying excluded when i say this.


Halo Reach was the victim of needing a time investment for "gear" AND a time investment for your Team Slayer rank. It should have only be one or the other.

Ranked affected me in that I couldn't play Team SWAT anymore once I hit 39 because I spent every game either sitting in black screen or being hostbooted out by someone's botnet. I just wanted to play SWAT. I was willing to put up with the rank. But I literally could not play a playlist I loved because people's lust over an imaginary number kept skullfucking me in the face every time I loaded it up. In Reach, I can actually play SWAT because nobody is hostbooting to get their SWAT 50. "duplicate a social version" just splits the playerbase and we end up with a glut of playlists again.
 

Slightly Live

Dirty tag dodger
Ranked affected me in that I couldn't play Team SWAT anymore once I hit 39 because I spent every game either sitting in black screen or being hostbooted out by someone's botnet. I just wanted to play SWAT. I was willing to put up with the rank. But I literally could not play a playlist I loved because people's lust over an imaginary number kept skullfucking me in the face every time I loaded it up. In Reach, I can actually play SWAT because nobody is hostbooting to get their SWAT 50. "duplicate a social version" just splits the playerbase and we end up with a glut of playlists again.

Was your bad SWAT experience in Halo 2 or 3?

I don't like your position because it rests on the fact that you had experience with cheating players that coloured your opinion.

Each Halo game has had less cheaters because the ability to deal with such shits has become better over time.

If Halo 4 has ranked playlists, I wouldn't even consider cheaters a problem because of the robust and effective systems in place to deal with them so that even if I do encounter cheaters, those encounters will be in a significant minority.

And besides, Reach has seen cheaters. Cheaters that come to the game to cheat even without Ranks and precious numbers to tease them on. There will be always be shits out there cheating no matter what and as long as the anti-cheat systems continue to improve as they have I never will give such people, or their presence in matchmaking, a second thought. Nor should anyone else.
 

soldat7

Member
Yep.

I think DLC map packs really started the downfall of organized matchmaking.

The way MS/Bungie handled this in Halo 2 was the perfect compromise. Halo 2 did so many things right, I'm still scratching my head nearly 8 years later that nothing since has come close.

There is a reason why red and blue soldiers are killing each other.

We've been privy to the saga for years.
 
I don't like your position because it rests on the fact that you had experience with cheating players that coloured your opinion.
?
How could it not?

IF 343I could devliver ranking system and somehow "guarantee" minimum quitters/cheaters/other game ruining exploits then we'd be sorted, but all we can guess is that they'll "try".
 

Yo Gotti

Banned
The way MS/Bungie handled this in Halo 2 was the perfect compromise. Halo 2 did so many things right, I'm still scratching my head nearly 8 years later that nothing since has come close.

If I remember correctly, Bungie eventually released the map packs for Halo 2 for free. Right? After something like 4-6 months of them being for sale.
 
But you shouldn't "deserve" a 50. A proper ranking system means that a SMALL number of people should see the highest rank, and an extremely small number should be at the lowest rank.

This should be true in every playlist. Even for MLG, if your ranking system is perfect then everyone's ranks in the playlist should fall into a bell curve. But Halo 3 just let you bruteforce your way to a 50 - it could be done in roughly 30 games (I believe the record is 28) with the proper setup.

50 doesn't mean a certain k/d, it doesn't mean you know the weapon timers, it just says that you should beat anyone that's 1-49 if you were matched up against. Trueskill never cared about the win margin, it just cared if you won or lost, and who the ranks were of the people you lost to or the people that you beat.

Depends on what the ranking system is for. On Halo 3 it was something to work towards, at least the general public thought it was, and loved it for that. Despite that I still would argue that with Halo 3 overall, the curve was pretty well balanced. I mean it may look skewed to you and me, people who play the game a damn lot, but for the mass public, they slotted in all over matchmaking.

As for the cheaters, I was a high level in a fair few playlists and encountered cheaters relatively rarely. That said I would agree in that it happened a lot more than it should have done. (In a social playlist it would have happened less!) As Dani said though, with more robust technology cheating will be a lot harder on Halo 4. So touch wood it shouldnt be as much of an issue.

Yeah, trueskill has its ups and its downs, (what you said about not wanting to play Swat is pretty damn true, I agree) but I think even with the problems, it should be there.
 
Credit should still be in there as a way to accumulate visual perks on your armor. There should never be a system in place where you can only get stuff through competitive rank. That being said credits should not effect rank in order for rank to actually mean something.

To me, honestly, I would prefer different ranks in different playlists again. People who farm or boost are just gonna do that but honestly the matchmaking was that much better for the majority of players. You hit a certain number, plateau but your games are much more competitive and opponents are much more similar across the board.
 

FyreWulff

Member
Was your bad SWAT experience in Halo 2 or 3?

I don't like your position because it rests on the fact that you had experience with cheating players that coloured your opinion.

Each Halo game has had less cheaters because the ability to deal with such shits has become better over time.

If Halo 4 has ranked playlists, I wouldn't even consider cheaters a problem because of the robust and effective systems in place to deal with them so that even if I do encounter cheaters, those encounters will be in a significant minority.

And besides, Reach has seen cheaters. Cheaters that come to the game to cheat even without Ranks and precious numbers to tease them on. There will be always be shits out there cheating no matter what and as long as the anti-cheat systems continue to improve as they have I never will give such people, or their presence in matchmaking, a second thought. Nor should anyone else.

It was in 3. The cheating was even worse in Halo 2. SWAT was ranked in 2 for a bit, but was screwed up so badly that they deleted it and it came back unranked. Halo 2's cheating was so bad that we just mained Team Training as the modders and standbyers (mostly) did not come in there.

Oh, and there's the ol' chestnut of Halo 2 deranking me for winning, because ELO actually does that as part of it's design.
 
It was in 3. The cheating was even worse in Halo 2. SWAT was ranked in 2 for a bit, but was screwed up so badly that they deleted it and it came back unranked.

Halo 2 I saw way more boosting and even selling of level 50 ranked clans. So I'm going to have to agree to disagree on rank cheating.
 

dalVlatko

Member
Halo 2 is still my favorite ranking system.

It actually meant something (well if you didn't cheat for it) and it was consistent.

I would love if the next Halo took the FIFA 12 seasons system and used it as the ranking system.

10 games per season. Win x number of games first season and go up a rank. Win x number of games second season, go up a rank. The number of games need to rank up goes up with your rank.

In Halo Reach the ranks were worthless.
 

DR3AM

Member
remember in Halo 2 MP you and your team mates had the emblem above your head? i was hoping it would come back, i loved that but they replaced it with an arrow. oh well
 

CyReN

Member
remember in Halo 2 MP you and your team mates had the emblem above your head? i was hoping it would come back, i loved that but they replaced it with an arrow. oh well

More of a fan of the calltag thing, instead of yelling out "hey half circle guy with blue" you can do Dan, Ray, etc.
 

Havok

Member
You've got something to achieve each month with arena , right now you've got a BPR to improve on , which is a good indication of skill.
What? BPR is a joke. I was at 100 back when my k/d was 1.6, and now that I'm at 1.83, it hasn't changed a bit - that sort of jump is pretty substantial but their scale for skill maxes stupidly early. In their eyes, I haven't gotten any better at all.

I thought the Arena in Reach was meant to deal with this ranked e-peen stuff. I take it that didn't work?
Turns out when you shove a great system into a single playlist that gets no attention or marketing people don't care about it. Arena ranks should have gone game-wide when they became win/loss. The Arena ranking system was left to wither on the vine instead of getting the attention and recognition it deserved. A complete shame.

The way MS/Bungie handled this in Halo 2 was the perfect compromise. Halo 2 did so many things right, I'm still scratching my head nearly 8 years later that nothing since has come close..
Microsoft was leaving money on the table, it would be crazy to expect them to continue doing that. It was the right decision for the health of the game, but not for a multinational corporation.
 
Also posted this in the Community thread, just curious as to what Gaming side would think of this.

Elaborating on the ideas for not perks that have been tossed around lately (I was actually the first to post something like customized loadouts in this thread but it got overlooked), what if the first slot was something like:
Choose your Rate of Fire.
1-Shot | 3-Shot | Auto
Single shot is DMR, 3-shot burst is BR, auto is Assault Rifle.
Playing in Covenant games (where you use an Elite) would either have additional weapons, a separate "loadout" sheet, or the Carbine becomes a reskinned DMR, etc.

For your supplementary weapon, you get a Pistol, but instead of all of those options, you get to choose the model. I don't remember which is which, so let's just say for example something like this:
Halo 1 Pistol
-High damage, average spread, slightly above-average range, slightly below-average reload time, average firing speed. All pistols have a 2x scope.

Halo 2 Pistol
-Slightly below-average damage, slightly above-average spread, average range, average reload time, above average firing speed.

Halo 3 Pistol... and so on and so forth.

Alternatively, make weapon customization offer you a total of ~50 points from the beginning, which never increases due to credits or anything. Your pistol has 10 in each stat (damage, ROF, spread, range, reload) and you can customize your pistol to have a minimum of 5 or a maximum of 15 in each stat. You can only use 50 points total though. So you could have a Pistol with Halo 1 pistol damage, halo 2 speed, average range, and then ridiculously slow reload times and crazy wide spread.

And then as a gimmick, maybe add pistol attachments such as explosive (pro pipe grenade), EMP (pro pipe grenade when held down), grappling hook, etc. At the very least, I would be completely up for a minor "stat pool" sort of way to change your starting weapons as far as loadouts go.
 
I'd love for them to prove me wrong, but I can't help but think that unlocks will be a massive mistake. I don't see it as "the changing habits of players" or "an emerging trend for players and what players expect". It's hard argue against the idea that it adds a greater level of addictiveness to the multiplayer experience. But addictiveness doesn't necessarily make the experience better. I don't see that feeling of being rewarded for playing more and more as something that enhances the experience. Not in the multiplayer arena anyway.
 

DopeyFish

Not bitter, just unsweetened
What are you talking about.. You never went beyond 20. :p

What? Lol the highest I ever got was 34 because every time I hit it, it was non stop modders and standbyers :/

Only in team slayer though, most of my other ranks capped out at 27/28, snipers up to 32

And I remember wrecking your 40 mwahahaha

But yes, halo 2 matchmaking was incredibly special just because of the ranks alone.

I played and played and played just to get higher levels.

I hope hope hope hope halo 4 uses everything from halo 2 and improves on it

Oh and I want veto/voting to disappear... And back to 5 playlists... I hated maps... But It forced you to play them and learn their every detail

Halo 2 was like almost like a sport.
 
Do you think red Spartans and blue Spartans will have different abilities online, which you can unlock?

Nah, I'm thinking something like the MP matches are supposed to be Spartan combat training or something for the new Spartan IV program. That or the Insurrection gets worse, splinters humanity and Spartans end up fighting Spartans in brightly colored armor.

As for the custom loadout/armor situation.. I don't know, but we know literally nothing other than it exists to a point, so at this point we just have to wait for official details. Im excited to see what they have planned.
 

soldat7

Member
Microsoft was leaving money on the table, it would be crazy to expect them to continue doing that. It was the right decision for the health of the game, but not for a multinational corporation.

My Halo crew went from 16+ at Halo 2's prime down to 2 because the maps for Halo 3 never went free. The law of diminishing returns says that all MP maps should eventually go free. Microsoft doesn't understand certain nuances of the video game business, but hey, we already knew that.
 

Nutter

Member
What? Lol the highest I ever got was 34 because every time I hit it, it was non stop modders and standbyers :/

Only in team slayer though, most of my other ranks capped out at 27/28, snipers up to 32

And I remember wrecking your 40 mwahahaha

But yes, halo 2 matchmaking was incredibly special just because of the ranks alone.

I played and played and played just to get higher levels.

I hope hope hope hope halo 4 uses everything from halo 2 and improves on it

Oh and I want veto/voting to disappear... And back to 5 playlists... I hated maps... But It forced you to play them and learn their every detail

Halo 2 was like almost like a sport.
I got up to 41.. ONCE, but then again anyone with a legit lvl 36+ was really good at the game. Got my 50 in 3 within 2 months of release. :p

I remember de-ranking so I could help other gaffers out in ranking up at the time.. ah that was lol worthy.
 

Surface of Me

I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
Do you think red Spartans and blue Spartans will have different abilities online, which you can unlock?

I hope not. Shit was so annoying in Battlefield 3, having to unlock things for each faction in each class instead of across the board. It blows my mind when people say unlocks like that are the future of multiplayer games.
 

EvB

Member
My prediction for the Armor is that you have a single ability that lets you run faster/jump higher when activated ALA Crysis.

I was trying to compare my jump height in Reach to this gif and at the very best you can just about jump your own height (with legs folded in)

In this he clears his own starting height with his legs stretched out, looks like he is easily jumping a foot higher

Jump.gif
 

TUROK

Member
Random thought: I think it would be cool if we can grab ledges and slide like in Crysis 2. It would change up the competitive dynamics, and it would feel badass.
 

wwm0nkey

Member
Random thought: I think it would be cool if we can grab ledges and slide like in Crysis 2. It would change up the competitive dynamics, and it would feel badass.

Ledge grabs would have to be an almost instant thing or it runs the risk of slowing down the game a bit and sliding would be cool but still dont know if its right for Halo. It might be good for Crysis 2 but because its good in that game does not mean it would translate over well.
 

Striker

Member
Meh, the problems Halo 3's boosters and new accounts was/is overblown. So, what if a player, who has General on another account, was playing with a bunch of players in the low 40s? Those "new account-ers" weren't in every game or even every other game. The best idea would be to view how the person plays during the match and take notes. You're going to lose games... and many of them by a lot. Such big losses should be learning experiences.

Halo 2's stand by-ing , modders, map exploiting, etc. were much worse and fortunately fixed for Halo 3.
You blame H2's networking, not the actual ranking system. It wasn't perfect, but it had far less grievances and was, quite frankly, a challenge compared to H3's system. Far too easy to level up, awful rank-lock system (derank and not be penalized), and the time where you win 30 plus games, only rank up once (lolwutpear.jpg), but you fucking lose once, you're dropping back down. Was so great I stopped playing that shit.

There are so many problems with Reach matchmaking but the biggest stand out for me is that there are so many different playlists that most population sizes are pretty much going to negate a good match because they're just too small.

There are 21 playlists not including firefight. 21.
It was worse in H3 at many points, because you factor in 1) 15+ playlists 2) party restrictions, and 3) DLC requirements. Ugh. But I'm used to Reach's now since Anny released. I just hope the splits aren't so large in H4's listings.
 
Ledge grabs would have to be an almost instant thing or it runs the risk of slowing down the game a bit and sliding would be cool but still dont know if its right for Halo. It might be good for Crysis 2 but because its good in that game does not mean it would translate over well.

I think halo is to fast paced for it and with shields killing time is high also not sure i want to get my killed denied because the target slided into cover when i took the time to get him off guard. But he who knows it did kinda work for Crysis 2.
 
Ledge grabs would have to be an almost instant thing or it runs the risk of slowing down the game a bit and sliding would be cool but still dont know if its right for Halo. It might be good for Crysis 2 but because its good in that game does not mean it would translate over well.

It was super quick in Crysis 2 when you got mobility enhance. Ledge grabbing is absolutely awesome and could be awesome for Halo. The problem, however, is that you would have to completely redesign the map structures. From what I've seen so far, it doesn't seem like there would be any point to it. You'd need an "elevated maze" of sorts, with properly positioned ledges at accessible (but not accessible without the ledge grab)heights to keep the flow of the game correct. If you've played a lot of Crysis 2 multiplayer you know what I mean.

Basically, Halo would need much more verticality in their map design where each level would be ledge-grab accessible in a fairly specific manner.

I like that people are bringing up the traversing in Crysis 2, though, especially after getting bashed for it because they are two different games and therefore I "should just go play Crysis 2".

I think halo is to fast paced for it and with shields killing time is high also not sure i want to get my killed denied because the target slided into cover when i took the time to get him off guard. But he who knows it did kinda work for Crysis 2.

Crysis 2 is faster paced than halo.
 
Shit I hope we don't lose Cortana in this new trilogy :(

She's one of the best parts about Halo imo...seeing as AIs have lifespans and whatnot...well damn :(
 

Danis

Neo Member
shinobi602 said:
Shit I hope we don't lose Cortana in this new trilogy :(

She's one of the best parts about Halo imo...seeing as AIs have lifespans and whatnot...well damn :(

AI's have lifespans in the extended fiction, which never seems to make it into the games. I know 343i stated they are going to work to remedy that, but I seriously doubt they'd take it that far. Hell, we've been promised EU stuff in previous Halo games, and we've seen next to nothing.

That being said, I was pretty damn excited in H:A though, on PoA, when you goto the other observation deck above Cryo room 2, you see Linda's name on the screen. So maybe....
 
Halo 2 ranking worked, and didn't work. I mean, technically it worked, but what broke it was people thinking it was like a levelling system in an RPG. You were only supposed to reach high ranks if you were in whatever top percentage of players skill wise. It wasn't supposed to be like World of Warcraft where anyone of any skill can reach the highest level.

Making it visible was probably the mistake... and I see why they did it, but people cheating or buying characters to reach higher levels for 'bragging rights' sort of broke things. Maybe Halo 4 should have an XP ranking system, and a less obvious skill ranking system. Maybe something you can see somewhere, but not something that's listed right next to your name.

Tie all rewards and achievements to the XP ranking system. Hell, do leaderboards based on it. Base matchmaking on the other. Maybe have the *real* top 100 players listed on the website or something.
 

FyreWulff

Member
Halo 2 ranking worked, and didn't work. I mean, technically it worked, but what broke it was people thinking it was like a levelling system in an RPG. You were only supposed to reach high ranks if you were in whatever top percentage of players skill wise. It wasn't supposed to be like World of Warcraft where anyone of any skill can reach the highest level.

Making it visible was probably the mistake... and I see why they did it, but people cheating or buying characters to reach higher levels for 'bragging rights' sort of broke things. Maybe Halo 4 should have an XP ranking system, and a less obvious skill ranking system. Maybe something you can see somewhere, but not something that's listed right next to your name.

Tie all rewards and achievements to the XP ranking system. Hell, do leaderboards based on it. Base matchmaking on the other. Maybe have the *real* top 100 players listed on the website or something.

I remember hearing people say "I'm getting on my 30 tonight" when talking about Halo 2 game nights. They treated their alts like characters. So yeah, something meant to be a skill tool was definitely treated like a WoW character where they felt if they put in enough time, they should have that 50. The other issue Halo 2's rank system had is that it let to playerbase drifting. Here's a writeup on this that I did a while back, but a system that needed human intervention to keep working post-launch is a rank system that is going to take time away from a developer on more important things.

I don't think you're ever going to see a Halo 2 ranking system in a AAA game for the forseeable future. There's no reason to use ELO when you have banks of server blades that can do better calculations for you - ELO was designed to be computable by humans with pen and paper quickly.

Disclaimer: that writeup was right Arena was made win/loss. Due to Arena going W/L, it's now possible to boost again. I didn't think it would be as much when I wrote it.. now I feel going W/L was not a good move.
 

JaggedSac

Member
Halo 2 or Halo 3 rank system would be cool with me. They need to have this rank and the aggregate experience rank be shown to the player.
 

PnCIa

Member
Oh god no, i just realized that the crosshair is not CENTERED, again :(
The stupid decision to to move the crosshair down towards the lower part of the screen should have never been carried over.
 

Portugeezer

Member
So i take it the G4 segment didnt have new footage? what about the GTTV later this week, will it have new footage?

G4 TV had what every site had, they just mentioned it first I'm guessing.

I hope we get some new MP footage or info soon, wasn't todays Halo Bulletin supposed to answer some questions (www.halo.xbox.com); I read it goes up at around 8pm (some American timezone)

Edit: Firefox came up with some security risk for my link, but it's legit, I don't understand.
 

wwm0nkey

Member
G4 TV had what every site had, they just mentioned it first I'm guessing.

I hope we get some new MP footage or info soon, wasn't todays Halo Bulletin supposed to answer some questions (www.halo.xbox.com); I read it goes up at around 8pm (some American timezone)

I have a felling next months magazines might have more coverage. Dont forget E3 isnt too far away either.
 

KageMaru

Member
E3 isn't far, but they keep saying "soon". E3 doesn't seem soon to me. Still 3 months away.

I'm sure in game development terms, 3 months is "soon". =p

I expect them to trickle out some new info, like revealing more info on these "perks", in the Halo bulletin leading up to E3 where they'll have a campaign demo on stage.

I think it would make the biggest impact to only discuss MP or the game in a very broad manner until E3. This way everything shown in the campaign demo would be fresh.

All I really care about is what are the new enemies and have they kept the usual halo "sandbox" from Halo 3 and Reach. My biggest fear is they sacrificed the scope of the battle areas for prettier graphics, much like Bungie did for Halo 2 IMO.
 
Top Bottom