multiplayer segregation

#1 Posted by HH (599 posts) -

i haven't kept up to date with any halo forums, and maybe I'm not getting something, but can someone explain to me why they got rid of the 1-50 ranking system for reach and anniversary?

also, will it be coming back for halo 4?

nowadays I'm lucky if i get one good game out of ten. it doesn't matter how good a performance you put in, if you have more noobs than the other team, that is generally what decides the match.

and if i start a game where some team-mates aren't even playing, one hops in a warthog and drives off a cliff, and another empties his clip into my back because i got to the rockets first, then that is a quit-game situation, i mean, why should i waste my time?

all i want is to play with players who know the game and aren't acting like children. It was fine before, with the casuals in the social lists, learning the ropes, and the ranked lists seperate - you ALWAYS got an intense game when you hit your level, even if a bad performance could make you feel really bad, it was proper halo.

#2 Edited by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

@HH said:

all i want is to play with players who know the game and aren't acting like children.

Does that ever actually happen? I'm not trying to be snarky, this is a legitimate question. I've never played with anybody on any 360 game who wasn't a complete twat.

#3 Posted by Drebin_893 (2899 posts) -

The levelling system used to be really, really great. They need to make you drop ranks if you play poorly, I don't know why they ever got rid of that.

#4 Posted by natetodamax (19170 posts) -
@Drebin_893

The levelling system used to be really, really great. They need to make you drop ranks if you play poorly, I don't know why they ever got rid of that.

In Halo 3, the only time I dropped rank was if my team lost. I could do really well during a match but get dropped in rank because my team was either bad or fooling around the whole match. It was bad.
#5 Posted by DrFlapjack (233 posts) -

There is supposed to be a behind the scenes "TruSkill" system thing at work. It's been a while since I've played Reach, but I can understand the frustration. Which is why I eventually didn't play unless I had at least one buddy, because even if we lost the match, it was still a good time to mess around with friends. Or I ended up sticking to BTB or Invasion where individual skill didn't matter as much as having fun.

#6 Posted by Video_Game_King (35983 posts) -
Racist :P.
#7 Posted by HH (599 posts) -

@Video_Game_King: seriously, my hatred of noob-ery has grown out of control since reach, and hey, if i had my way........

#8 Posted by Gamer_152 (14051 posts) -

The Halo community or at very least the people who frequented Bungie's forums had a burning hate for the Halo 3 skill system. One of the main issues was that the algorithm behind it was so simple that it only really took into account whether a player won or lost, it didn't even go so far as to try and take into account their K/D ratio. Considering that the large majority of Halo gametypes are based around teams, it meant that bad players could have their rank increased by piggybacking on good teams, or that good players could be dragged down by being grouped with bad teams. Then you had further issues, like some of the best players in the game hitting rank 50 and starting a new gamertag so they could experience the whole levelling system again, being matched up with players far below their own skill level while they did so.

Reach scrapped Halo 3's more simplistic system for grouping players to make their new system more customisable. Users were now able to edit their search criteria and among that criteria was whether they wanted to be matched with players of similar skill. I can't speak much to its effectiveness, but if you want it, the means to be matched by skill level is in there and I'd wager it's at least a little better than the way Halo 3 matched players. I also very much doubt they'll be bringing back Halo 3's flawed ranking system for Halo 4, even if some Bungie fans may have gone overboard in their whining about it, to see a system that flawed in a modern game would be kind of terrible.

Even without the matching-by-skill stuff though, you're still very unlucky to get that quantity of bad games. I've played quite a lot of Reach and things have never been anywhere near that bad for me.

Moderator Online
#9 Edited by HH (599 posts) -

@Gamer_152 said:

Even without the matching-by-skill stuff though, you're still very unlucky to get that quantity of bad games. I've played quite a lot of Reach and things have never been anywhere near that bad for me.

well some days are better than others. it's the sheer randomness that annoys me, and it's compounded by the constant re-grouping, and the switching of sides between matches, whereas with the old system if you had a good team you stayed with them until the winning streak ended.

anyway thanks for explaining about the previous issues, but couldn't they now work on a system that did take into account K/D ratio, and, like, certain medals, and certain objective-game stats and so on? is that an impossibly hard thing to do?

#10 Posted by Skytylz (4029 posts) -

I pretty much had the same experience with reach. Every game is a blowout, someone from one team is guaranteed to quit every single time (I can probably count on both hands the number of times everyone at the start of a match finished a match and I've played over a thousand games), and the rank system was about as interesting as Call of Duty to level up after you've done it for a while.

I played Halo 3 a lot more because it was satisfying to raise your rank and you could usually glance at someones highest rank before a match to get an idea of how good they are. Reach isn't like that at all, that guy is a forerunner who cares he got to play a lot when he got home from school everyday.

The party system was also a lot better in 3 like said. When you party up after a game, you stay with your team in 3 not everyone in the last match which I don't really see the point of.

@Gamer_152: I've never visited the Bungie forums, but they preferred Reach ranking to 3? I know this is anecdotal evidence, but everyone I've talked to that played a lot of 3 and Reach always say the prefer the Halo 3 ranking system and many of them quit Reach because of the ranking system.

#11 Posted by Gamer_152 (14051 posts) -

@HH: I suspect the periodic re-teaming may be an effort to make the game fair by assuring that both teams are grouped randomly, as opposed to being self-constructed. As for a more complex skill system, like I said, I suspect there may already one already in place, but I honestly don't know the exact system behind Reach's skill grouping, and I don't think Bungie have ever talked about it. I have heard it said though, that like Halo 3 it has some sort of basis in Microsoft's TrueSkill system.

@Skytylz: I don't know what they thought of the Reach system, I stopped being a frequent visitor long before Reach was released. Keep in mind though that a lot of the people on those forums weren't the most rational. There were way too many people who seemed to have a deep attachment to Halo but would scream their head off about any flaws in the game up to the point of some of them actually saying it's the worst-designed game they'd played, despite not being able to drag themselves away from it. In too many cases people didn't really understand the systems they were complaining about.

Moderator Online
#12 Posted by Dad_Is_A_Zombie (1225 posts) -

Ugh... Fuck the days of the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th and 5th...) accounters, laggers, and de-rankers of Halo 3. Fuck that forever! If I had a dollar for every no life douche bag messaging me "Hey, want to buy a 50?" I'd be a rich man.

#13 Posted by big_jon (5709 posts) -

I had a friend who sold 50's, Halo 3's ranking system was largely flawed, halo 4 will use a different one, and I wouldn't hold your breath for anything like Halo 3's.

#14 Posted by glyn (382 posts) -

Starcraft 2 system for Halo would be fine.

#15 Posted by EquitasInvictus (2004 posts) -

Haven't played Reach, but I didn't like Halo 3's matchmaking at all. I did love the ranking system, though, oddly enough.

#16 Posted by ZZoMBiE13 (307 posts) -

Early on Reach had a great system for matching yourself with like minded players. However after a few months as the player base thinned out there wasn't nearly enough people to support the diversity allowed by the matching options. I'm the type of player who prefers a light-hearted game. I'm there to have fun, scores be damned. I prefer chaotic silliness and laughter to teeth gritting kill hounds. Not that there is anything wrong with teeth gritting kill hounds mind you. I'm sure they don't want my casual good times approach in their game anymore than I want their serious approach in mine.

The matching options that allowed you to search for similar players was fantastic at first and it made me enjoy Reach way more than H3.

Most of the complaining I heard around the Bungie forums around the Reach release was essentially "Everything isn't exactly the same as it was in the last game what the hell???????!". People wanting to game to cater to their playstyle instead of wanting to adjust to the new game with new options like the Armor Abilities and such. I had to leave after just a couple of weeks. Too much arguing and whining for my tastes. Some of the points people had might have been valid I suppose, but I was too busy having fun to notice any of it if I'm honest. But then I never play any multiplayer game more than about 4 to 6 months. Usually around that time all the people who are just there for fun have moved on and your left with the frothing uber players who take it way more serious than I like to. And I always feel bad when my poor skills are dragging down a team of people who are wanting to play a more serious match.

#17 Posted by OldManLight (828 posts) -

yeah i agree, halo 3's ranking system was good. I liked that when played legit with a person with a single account who slowly got better at the game, provided a really fun challenge for gaining that next level. I only really liked Reach for assassinations and firefight. I would like it if halo 4 supported some sort of drop in mid game form of matchmaking just to fill out the rosters. being on the wrong end of a 1v4 or 2v4 situation in halo really sucks.

#18 Posted by DrFlapjack (233 posts) -

@OldManLight said:

yeah i agree, halo 3's ranking system was good. I liked that when played legit with a person with a single account who slowly got better at the game, provided a really fun challenge for gaining that next level. I only really liked Reach for assassinations and firefight. I would like it if halo 4 supported some sort of drop in mid game form of matchmaking just to fill out the rosters. being on the wrong end of a 1v4 or 2v4 situation in halo really sucks.

They are finally adding the ability to join-in-progress!

#19 Edited by SushiNao (48 posts) -

I've heard that boosting, account sales/hacking and general rank harassment are some of the main reasons that the ranking system was changed from Halo 3 to Reach (and even, via title update, in Halo 3 itself). Anything that encourages egregious TOS violations is bound to be looked at pretty closely. Maybe Halo 4's engineers will find a solution that makes sense, although I don't particularly care about rankings at all.

Online
#20 Posted by living4theday258 (678 posts) -

I spent a TON of time in halo 3's multiplayer and about the time reach came out I felt burned out as far as multiplayer goes, guess I didn't miss out on much. I prefer custom games with people I know anyway.

#21 Posted by Zereta (1363 posts) -

@HH said:

all i want is to play with players who know the game and aren't acting like children.

The irony is that the players who know the game usually are the children :/ Usually.

Hey, I'm not knocking you. I get what you're saying. Its just that anytime someone yells at me to play the game 'right', its usually the highest pitched voice on LIVE. Its not a stereotype, really. Its pretty true :/ At least in my experience.

#22 Posted by Druminator (1676 posts) -

@Drebin_893 said:

The levelling system used to be really, really great. They need to make you drop ranks if you play poorly, I don't know why they ever got rid of that.

I agree. Having to quit playing ranked and go practice in social because you know that one more loss will bring your rank down just felt right. It felt so good and deserving to see your rank go up. With the way it is right now, betrayals and suicides and the occasional fuck ups don't matter, everybody wins and you're always going to have bad players on your team making a win or loss very unpredictable. It felt very intimidating going up against players you knew were just as good if not better than you. It made playing ranked games somewhat scary.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.