Support NeoGAF

[Arnie]

So it's ok to assert and assume that 343 are lazy and putting a ranking system on the long finger but it is wholly unacceptable to assume someone 'hypothesising' about the system we know nothing about is angry based on what we believe we know, you know, the way you've been phrasing things?

The double standards are rich in this thread.

Frank has said the system as it was wasn't finalised. How does this, in any way mean they are lazy or haven't put any thought into it?

You are putting an awful lot of weight behind these speculations. You are speculating what "someone was claiming someone was claiming". It's a silly Chinese Whispers of rumours and upset fans (rightfully so in many cases because of the lack of solid info).

You're discussion on the possible ranking systems and how they compare to previous ones is great to read, honestly. Such debates can do without the unfounded hypothesis that 343 is lazy. Or am I just slurping too hard now?

As I've said, we do know little crumbs about the system; that it exists, that it most likely isn't 1-50 (which I'm fine with), and that it's still not finished (or wasn't little more than a month ago). That's the basis for my arguments.

I'll admit that the 'lazy' comments are clearly venting to some extent, but that's only because I know how good a ranking system can be when prioritised(Starcraft 2), compared to what's clearly a lesser effort here. And I direct the word 'lazy' at their approach to this skill based ranking, not at the studio as a whole. Perhaps lethargic is a better term, I don't get the sense that they're enthused by the challenge of creating this fabulous new system, which in turn pushes me towards the conclusion that they're not considering it a priority in their multiplayer setup.

Perhaps it's harsh to expect Halo 4 to match the best in the business, but as someone who was a strong adherent of the ranking system in previous games, I guess my expectations were too high. I'm not demanding that they get it spot on, I'm looking for a clear and concerted effort; compare what we've heard of Halo 4 to Brian Lehy's reveal of the Arena system in Reach. Contrary to how the Arena actually turned out, it was fantastic to hear Bungie take the competitive Ranking so seriously, and reference the best in the business (Starcraft 2) as both an inspiration, and something they wanted to match.

Extending that comparison though, whilst they were excited and loud about the Arena system it turned out to be shit, so any silence on 343's part isn't damning their system to any great degree. Which leaves us back at square one.

 

[Akai__]

I like the headshot medal.

From all medals I listed, this is maybe the only one, which is okay, I guess. Still not needed, IMO.

343 doesn't think you can have too many medals.

DISTRACTION +10.

It's not 343i fault for Reach.

This is all part of the brilliant Reach player rewards system. Credits for idling in game, medals for stealing kills, and no real incentive to play the game as a competitive fps instead of as an economy built to be gamed.

Sadly true. Still ridiculous, that you get mote points when you lose a game, then when you win it.

 

[Risen]

Okay, but you should realize that most of the people in this thread advocating a 1-50 ranking system are.

Seems like those that advocate 1-50 don't see boosting or cheating as a reason to remove the 1-50 ranking, more so than people "absolving it of its raft of problems". Seems like most the people advocating the 1-50 system don't understand why one would rather remove the system entirely, when many love it and it works to provide a goal for which competitive people play, rather than police the offenders who cheat... particularly when a company has the tools to do so.

 

[Hydranockz]

Okay, but you should realize that most of the people in this thread advocating a 1-50 ranking system are. That's why you're getting the responses you see--not saying it's fair.

Also, the Starcraft 2 ranking system has a lot fewer variables to consider than traditional Halo ranking systems. But I agree with you that there is something better that can be achieved for Halo. In my opinion, Halo: Reach Arena's overarching flaw was that it did not give players adequate timely feedback.

Easily my biggest problem with it.

 

[Myyke]

From all medals I listed, this is maybe the only one, which is okay, I guess. Still not needed, IMO.

To be honest though, I don't really see the issue with more medals - I personally really like the fact that medals tell much more of a story about what happened during a match than in previous games.

I guess a way of cleaning up the medal screen would be to have "primary" and "secondary" medals, with stuff like multikills, sprees etc showing up in a primary tab on the post-game carnage report and stuff like "close call", "yoink", "headcase" etc showing up on a secondary tab.

 

[Overdoziz]

Arena would be a lot better if you didn't need to play 4 matches on a day to get a rating. What if I play 3 games and I have to go? Those games are not worth anything now? They should make it so every match counts.

 

[Shadders]

COD has peaked apparently: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=european-daily

GamesIndustry International followed up with Schachter to get a fuller explanation of his thoughts. He believes that Call of Duty will have a hard time showing growth for a number of reasons outlined below:

- HD hardware and software as a whole have been declining all year (i.e., it is not just weak - - Wii sales that are impacting the industry)
- Lifetime unit sales of Modern Warfare 3 are slightly below Black Ops
- The genre seems tired
- The futursitic setting may not have the same appeal for some
- The macro economic environment is causing some gamers to hold back on upgrades
- Currency fluctuations mean that European sales are worth less to ATVI shareholders

Michael Pachter of Wedbush Securities largely agrees with Schachter's assessment. "Annual sales at the 25 million level are unprecedented, so it's easy to say 'that's the peak.' I think that the growth in online multiplayer fueled CoD sales, since it was (and probably still is) the best multiplayer experience available. However, last year, Battlefield multiplayer probably cannibalized it a little bit, and this year, Halo and Medal of Honor could cannibalize CoD a bit more. Next year, another Battlefield plus the Respawn and Bungie games probably cannibalize it a bit more," he said.

I used to say that CoD had peaked every year. I won't be making any such predictions this time.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

Game comes out in 3 months and we don't even know what the damn ranking system looks like.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

Remember when games didn't need external factors to make people want to play the game? Now look at the industry. Everything is all about external ranks or credits or something that isn't just the game.

But I digress.

To be fair there's never really been a time when both teams/ every player in a match has wanted to win in any game ever, unless theres some kind of carrot on a stick for it. In many cases, when people used to game more with friends, beating friends and bragging rights was that carrot on that stick.

Online theres really no incentive to want to win, most people play to chill and have fun not win. So if a game wants to harbour a competitive community its going to have to artificially give you a reason to want to beat the guys your playing against. CoD does it a slightly less personal way, by tying ranking up to individual performance, I still want to play well every game because I rank up faster because of it. Halo 2 and 3 created an arena atmosphere where beating the other guys was vital.

I prefer that more personal 'vendetta', but any way to make players play is fine by me, especially since without that motivation many games can easily get dull as no one really cares about the outcome. I know that's not true for all people, but for many it is, and I just feel like a good exp/ Arena system/ a 1-50 system is the only way your going to get people to consistently play competitively against strangers.

To be honest, ranked competitive play doesnt belong in every playlist, I think a divide is needed: harbour a more competitive community in competitive playlists and leave the social lists open for more general having fun with the game. Most people play to have fun and theres no reason why they should be funnelled into ranked. The problem with Reach is, with the Arena being a spectacular failure, competitive players and 'for fun' players share the same player pool, and 90% of the time matches devolve into lifeless matches because if the guys your playing against dont try, your hardly going to be motivated/ need to try yourself.

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

I find your lot of faith disturbing.

I will glass your planet, Demon.

 

[Portugeezer]

When is the next bit of news/info/gameplay/screenshots?

 

[Hydranockz]

To be fair there's never really been a time when both teams/ every player in a match has wanted to win in any game ever, unless theres some kind of carrot on a stick for it.

In many cases, when people used to game more with friends, beating friends and bragging rights was that carrot on that stick, online theres really no incentive to want to win, so if a game wants to harbour a competitive community its going to have to artificially give you a reason to want to beat the guys your playing against.

I know that's not true for all people, but for most it is, and I just feel like a good Arena system/ a 1-50 system is the only way your going to get people to consistently play competitively against strangers.

That's not fair to say at all. Winning feels good. Besting opponents at something releases all sorts of magical chemicals in the brain, especially when those opponents surpass you or are equal in skill.

Ever feel good about beatng a game of Solitaire or Sudoku?

 

[Plywood]

I will glass your planet, Demon.

The Covenant do not possess the capacity to accomplish 'glassing' on a global scale and wage a multisystem war simultaneously. This is reinforced by hard data regarding their capabilities revealed during fleet engagements with the UNSC. A single Covenant capital ship (CCS-class) is capable of 'glassing' approximately one acre of a planet's surface after an average of fifteen seconds of sustained fire. Understandably this action takes considerably less time when applied to open desert, and considerably longer when applied to deep ocean (> 1.8 km)

Earth, one of the smaller planets inhabited by our creators, has one hundred and thirty billion acres of surface area. Thus, assuming the Covenant possesses a number of ships equal to that of the UNSC, and assuming that all of those ships are capable of generating and discharging the required power non-stop for the duration of the process, it would necessitate the combined efforts of their ships in toto for a minimum of 30.3801 years to 'glass' the entire surface of Earth. Myriad other variables which were not applied to this equation suggest this number would be far greater.

 

[Blueblur1]

Definitely agree with Arnie on this rankin system debate. In my opinion, its a bit ridiculous how much we don't know about Halo 4 at this point. But that's how 343 has decided to go about it. Not much we can do.

 

[The Librarian]

I was vague due to lateness of the hour, but a few minutes of skimming the Halo 3 thread and Reach |OT| offered some specifics.

Anyone play Reach lately with Zayne? Letters? They were very active at the end of Halo 3 and at the beginning of Reach's lifetime, but they've both pretty much stopped posting in here and I'm guessing, they've stopped playing the game.

Then there are these folks:

Devin Olsen
Last played 2/10/12

vhfive
Last played 6/28/12

Big Ander
Last played 2/18/11

Merguson
Last played 9/26/11

Those were just the names I recognized from my lurker days in the Halo 3 thread. They've all stopped playing Reach. Despite staying active with Halo 3 until the last bell.

Anyone doubting the effect that Reach's poor MP design and playlist management has had on the community can save themselves the time of digging up the old thread and just ask folks in here. This thread has plenty of non-junior members that remain involved in the community even as they have greatly reduced their playtime with the current game (Dax, Ghaleon, the shattered remains of the TJ collective).

A drop in active player population is to be expected this late in Reach's life, but to have the hardcore "heart of the community" type players reject the current installment in the franchise they love is a damning assessment of the quality of that game.

So I was misunderstanding you. Sorry. Thank you for expanding on your original point, and it's a good point I think. Obviously if Halo 4 is another Reach in many players' eyes, we'll lose some people.

Edit: It's an interesting line of thought to pursue. What happens to the community here if Halo 4 fails to deliver?

 

[Enter The 36 Chambers]

But as good as halo 3 was, i continued playing 2 well into 3s lifespan.

 

[L1NETT]

I used to say that CoD had peaked every year. I won't be making any such predictions this time.

Michael Pacther? Uh oh. Expect COD sales to boom this year ;-)

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

The Covenant do not possess the capacity to accomplish 'glassing' on a global scale and wage a multisystem war simultaneously. This is reinforced by hard data regarding their capabilities revealed during fleet engagements with the UNSC. A single Covenant capital ship (CCS-class) is capable of 'glassing' approximately one acre of a planet's surface after an average of fifteen seconds of sustained fire. Understandably this action takes considerably less time when applied to open desert, and considerably longer when applied to deep ocean (> 1.8 km)

Earth, one of the smaller planets inhabited by our creators, has one hundred and thirty billion acres of surface area. Thus, assuming the Covenant possesses a number of ships equal to that of the UNSC, and assuming that all of those ships are capable of generating and discharging the required power non-stop for the duration of the process, it would necessitate the combined efforts of their ships in toto for a minimum of 30.3801 years to 'glass' the entire surface of Earth. Myriad other variables which were not applied to this equation suggest this number would be far greater.

I will glass the acre your home is on in 15 seconds, demon.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

That's not fair to say at all. Winning feels good. Besting opponents at something releases all sorts of magical chemicals in the brain, especially when those opponents surpass you or are equal in skill.

Ever feel good about beatng a game of Solitaire or Sudoku?

I edited my post a lot after you already read it. But ultimately I feel that the distinction comes from who you are playing against. Playing someone you know is the motivation you need to want to win.

Playing online though, many people just play to have fun, not win, if you dont separate the player pool into ranked and social, you never know who your playing against, and so many games dont turn out very competitive. If you know from the get go theres something on the line, the guys your up against are good, and winning or losing matters, both teams are going to try more.

Social players need a space to avoid all that, a space where they can play without needing to be competitive, competitive players need a space where they can be competitive. I think we have digressed a lot from the original conversation, but I feel like the Arena done right, or 1-50, or an exp system which rewards winning would all be great motivators.

 

[Akai__]

To be honest though, I don't really see the issue with more medals - I personally really like the fact that medals tell much more of a story about what happened during a match than in previous games.

I guess a way of cleaning up the medal screen would be to have "primary" and "secondary" medals, with stuff like multikills, sprees etc showing up in a primary tab on the post-game carnage report and stuff like "close call", "yoink", "headcase" etc showing up on a secondary tab.

I really don't care, if I killed a guy who was sprinting. It's only important, that he is dead.

And I like your idea, if however, you can toggle the secondary tab off in-game.

 

[Hey You]

Who is Schachter?

And Maybe MW3 sales are down from BLOPS is because BLOPS is better than MW3?

 

[Plywood]

I will glass the acre your home is on in 15 seconds, demon.

I don't have a home, I'm a spartain they just freeze me and thaw me out whenever they need me to justify their continued existence. The work is hard but the pay is good. Not that I spend the credits on anything.

 

[squidhands]

Whilst I do too, I also think a visual system is important to assuage the frustrations of defeat and deflect the blame for said loss away from the matchmaking system itself and more onto your own personal and team failings. There's a tendency to just blame the system in Reach when you lose a match, under the older systems, at least the matchmaking selection criteria was overt, rather than concealed.

I agree for the most part; a visual indicator of the player's skill in Matchmaking is a much simpler solution than Reach's "baseball card" approach which didn't really work out that well, in my opinion. I don't want to wade neck-deep into someone's Halo career just to find out how great they are at cheesing commendations. I actually liked how Halo 3 divided up the rankings based on what playlist you were in, but still kept your overall ranking. It was a nice and quick indicator of what you were going up against in a particular playlist. The only thing Reach got right in that area was letting me know that, going in solo, I was about to be matched up against a party of 4 or more people. :-|

Game comes out in 3 months and we don't even know what the damn ranking system looks like.

Yep, that's not nearly enough time to formulate the appropriate snarky comments about how they fucked it all up.

Edit: It's an interesting line of thought to pursue. What happens to the community here if Halo 4 fails to deliver?

BioShock: InfiniteGAF will get a whole lotta new people.

 

[HiredN00bs]

Arena would be a lot better if you didn't need to play 4 matches on a day to get a rating. What if I play 3 games and I have to go? Those games are not worth anything now? They should make it so every match counts.

They do, it's just not conveyed at all before you are ranked. Once you've been placed in a division, you can go in, play one game, and usually see a change in your placement within 24 hours. Yeah, not very responsive, especially compared to a number immediately going up or down in Halo 3 and Halo 2.

I think people forget that Arena evolved in Reach from an FFA-style rating system in multiple lists to pure TrueSkill ranking in one list. It's also of note that when there were cR jackpots in Arena, the population exploded. People's Arena histories were so short and so embedded in the UI, most of the population didn't care about its incentives compared to the ubiquitous, loud, front-facing (press start to see your current rank and progress at ANY time) cR system.

If Bungie had made an Arena score card directly visible on the Reach Service Record, and provided an option to show Arena ranking on your nameplate in non-Arena lists, I guarantee Arena would have been more popular.

 

[Hypertrooper]

When is the next bit of news/info/gameplay/screenshots?

This week.

 

[Plywood]

Seriously though, does anyone know if Master Chief gets paid?

 

[thezerofire]

Thanks for at least acknowledging my post, but I don't think you fully read it ;]

You're right, it was late and I posted right before I went to bed. I'll go back and reread it

edit: ah I see, you were talking about hypothetical changes. I'll address that then. I think there will always be people who prefer spawning with an AR over a BR. If you ever went on bnet in the Halo 3 days, there were always kids who thought that the AR was the better spawn weapon. Those kids will be satisfied now.

 

[Talents]

Seriously though, does anyone know if Master Chief gets paid?

He gets paid in guns and bullets.

 

[Trey]

If the other team doesn't have an incentive to win, even if I want to win, the games will be boring. Unless both teams want to win, its unlikely your going to get competitive matches.

Easiest way to garuntee that both teams are going to play competitively is by throwing in a ranking system, which rewards winning and punishes losing.

So what if people stop playing once they get 50? There will still be people in the playlist and at least you can still be garunteed fun competitive matches.




Agreed with this lol.

You are not guaranteed competitive matches. Some people don't care. There will always be griefers. This over-punishes losing.

Also, what good is a system that deincentivizes its top players?

 

[Latvian Hitman]

Michael Pacther? Uh oh. Expect COD sales to boom this year ;-)

Not to worry- it wasn't an original opinion by Pachter. He's just hopping on someone else's wagon and agreeing with them.

Shouldn't invoke Pachter curse effect.

 

[Hydranockz]

I edited my post a lot after you already read it. But ultimately I feel that the distinction comes from who you are playing against. Playing someone you know is the motivation you need to want to win.

Playing online though, many people just play to have fun, not win, if you dont separate the player pool into ranked and social, you never know who your playing against, and so many games dont turn out very competitive. If you know from the get go theres something on the line, the guys your up against are good, and winning or losing matters, both teams are going to try more.

Social players need a space to avoid all that, a space where they can play without needing to be competitive, competitive players need a space where they can be competitive. I think we have digressed a lot from the original conversation, but I feel like the Arena done right, or 1-50, or an exp system which rewards winning would all be great motivators.

Yeah, I completely agree with all of this. Edit faster pls

 

[Bregmann Roche]

Seriously though, does anyone know if Master Chief gets paid?

I always assumed he was paid in hours on the Cortana Physical Interaction Machine. It's the only thing that accepts cR outside of the UNSC armory.

 

[squidhands]

They do, it's just not conveyed at all before you are ranked. Once you've been placed in a division, you can go in, play one game, and usually see a change in your placement within 24 hours. Yeah, not very responsive, especially compared to a number immediately going up or down in Halo 3 and Halo 2.

I think people forget that Arena evolved in Reach from an FFA-style rating system in multiple lists to pure TrueSkill ranking in one list. It's also of note that when there were cR jackpots in Arena, the population exploded. People's Arena histories were so short and so embedded in the UI, most of the population didn't care about its incentives compared to the ubiquitous, loud, front-facing (press start to see your current rank and progress at ANY time) cR system.

If Bungie had made an Arena score card directly visible on the Reach Service Record, and provided an option to show Arena ranking on your nameplate in non-Arena lists, I guarantee Arena would have been more popular.

Exactly right.

Seriously though, does anyone know if Master Chief gets paid?

He is the Milton of the UNSC.

 

[Plywood]

He gets paid in guns and bullets.

I always assumed he was paid in hours on the Cortana Physical Interaction Machine. It's the only things that accepts cR outside of the UNSC armory.

oh my

 

[The Librarian]

Edit: Not worth the other part. Celebrate the accomplishment of Curiosity.

BioShock: InfiniteGAF will get a whole lotta new people.

BioShock Infinite is my only must-buy within the next two years other than Halo 4. Either the games market is running dry as we near the end of this console generation, or my interest in games is waning. Hopefully the former.

 

[Shadders]

Who is Schachter?

"Oh no! I've become a laughing stock."

..

"No no no, I'm not Michael Pachter, I'm ... Michael Schachter and I come from.. some place far away. Yes, that'll do"

I like the way Schachter thinks!

 

[kylej]

Excellent posts, Arnie.

 

[HiredN00bs]

Game comes out in 3 months and we don't even know what the damn ranking system looks like.

Less than 3 months out and we don't even know how tight the graphics are on level 3 yet.

 

[Tashi]

For those nerds who missed greatness lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnTJQg8u0tU

 

[Woorloog]

Seriously though, does anyone know if Master Chief gets paid?

He gets 2 cR per kill. Headshots and other things net slightly more. Should he get the first kill of an operation, he gets 10 cR bonus.

 

[Gunnerdude]

For those nerds who missed greatness lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnTJQg8u0tU

Eh.... I've seen clutchier......

I enjoyed the second choke the most

He gets 2 cR per kill. Headshots and other things net slightly more. Should he get the first kill of an operation, he gets 10 cR bonus.

MC Always gets the first kill of an operation... Always........

I didn't actually dispute that. Though i'll note that when operation with other Spartans, he might not actually get the first strike kill, as he is their commander. He might command someone to snipe something etc first.

And as their commander.... results otherwise may or may not have been edited... Always.....

 

[Woorloog]

MC Always gets the first kill of an operation... Always........

I didn't actually dispute that. Though i'll note that when operation with other Spartans, he might not actually get the first strike kill, as he is their commander. He might command someone to snipe something etc first.

 

[NobleGundam]

Edit: Not worth the other part. Celebrate the accomplishment of Curiosity.

BioShock Infinite is my only must-buy within the next two years other than Halo 4. Either the games market is running dry as we near the end of this console generation, or my interest in games is waning. Hopefully the former.

Would you be a citizen of Rapture or Columbia? I choose Rapture, they know how to party.

 

[The Real Napsta]

This doesn't make sense considering we haven't seen but 3 maps, and 1 of them would be perfect for Team Hardcore. Adrift doesn't look terrible either. I'm not understanding the conclusion jumping here.

I'm talking about Reach, not Halo 4.

 

[Aggrotek]

I'm talking about Reach, not Halo 4.

Oh derp. Sorry. But in H4 I want Team Hardcore.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

Played Reach after a month.

Super Slayer on Sword Base, Bloom still sucks. Still getting people on my team getting 1 kill all game. Still playing against people abusing armour abilities. Reach still sucks.

EDIT: Even though my team sucks, they dont want to die lol, they are now just camping, im going to have to run at the enemy to end this thing.

I kind of want to play Reach more before H4 comes out as I know I wont touch it again afterwards, but if this is the standard for Reach I think ill pass trying for another month lol.

 

[Zoso Achilles]

Needing 1-50 ranks to continue to play is just as bad as wanting an unlock system to keep you going. You should keep playing because it's fun.

I'm glad you found the all-encompassing meaning of the word fun and that ranks don't play a role in that for anyone.

That's not fair to say at all. Winning feels good. Besting opponents at something releases all sorts of magical chemicals in the brain, especially when those opponents surpass you or are equal in skill.

Ever feel good about beatng a game of Solitaire or Sudoku?

I have had plenty of games in reach where winning gives me no joy at all. Yes, I have felt good about winning a game of solitaire. Generalize much?

Less than 3 months out and we don't even know how tight the graphics are on level 3 yet.

Yeah, except we're talking about online multiplayer here. I'd say the vast majority of us here don't want to know about campaign; that would be spoiling it. Conversely, I don't think you can "spoil" multiplayer. For me at least, I want to go into multiplayer knowing as much as possible before hand so I don't get donged on for a couple hours. I don't want to know about campaign since it's likely a ~10 hour experience.

Stop comparing concerns in mulitplayer to campaign.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Firstly I'll clarify that when I write things like 'pissed off no end', I don't literally mean I'm sat at my computer frothing at the mouth because of a system that we know little about.

....

Then when you finally respond with something other than an ambiguous one liner, you lace half your argument with assertions that I'm angry, when I'm honestly not, I just like hypothesising about the ranking system because it's the last facet of the game that I'm really curious to hear about, as, like you I don't need to know everything; I'm happy to not learn a single new shred of information about the campaign until the game's in my Xbox, for example.

I'll mostly stay out of this one, but I wanted to connect the dots between two points you made. One can see why you can be perceived as being angry, when you have to clarify language such as that.

 

[ElzarTheBam]

Played Reach after a month.

Super Slayer on Sword Base, Bloom still sucks. Still getting people on my team getting 1 kill all game. Still playing against people abusing armour abilities. Reach still sucks.

Guess I wont be playing for another month lol.

EDIT: Even though my team sucks, they dont want to die lol, they are now just camping, im going to have to run at the enemy to end this thing.

I'm hopping on H3 in about 20 mins.

 

[a zoojoo]

Well I sure as hell ain't letting 343 adopt my children.

HAHAHA, well said good sir!

I always assumed he was paid in hours on the Cortana Physical Interaction Machine. It's the only thing that accepts cR outside of the UNSC armory.