Jump to content
CyReN

Halo: The Master Chief Collection Discussion

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Reamis25 said:

to prevent smurfing you must be level 25 like OW to play ranked

Million monkeys, typewriters.  

  • Fire (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, -DeucEy- said:

This. This stops a LOT of the insane amount of quitters in the game. Don't allow players to leave and just join another match, while people who are actually trying to play and enjoy themselves, have to stay and get destroyed for the next 10 minutes. They shouldn't be allowed to go play and enjoy themselves either. Overwatch does this as well. For the people who quit, suspend them from searching if they don't rejoin after a certain period of time. Because some people do actually just lag out of games.

If ranked games don't have this, we should. Quitting a ranked game should result in X time ban, but in the case that you got DC'd or lagged out or whatever, you should be allowed to rejoin the game and if you do then your ban time goes away. 

I love this idea for social, but I think we should implement a forfeit option for social only. Sometimes the social games are just so unbalanced that it isn't fun at all even if you were to try-hard it. If I don't have the option to quit without a suspension/ban then give me the option to ff. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Is there a way a game can tell that you quit or DC’D? I know of one game that technically did this and that was pubg. If you crashed the game would recognize this and let you rejoin or if you DC’d but if you quit it wouldn’t. I don’t know or play many games that do this. 

Share this post


Link to post

things I’d want and hope for halo infinite rank system.

1. A certain level to be before you can play rank. Many games do this and it does a decent job of preventing boosting and smurfing. In halo I’d say an SR of 15 would be sufficient. reasons for this is at that point everyone will know the maps and settings and won’t walk into ranked blind AF.
2. Party matching, now I think partial party matching is appropriate, but teams of 4 should only match 4s and teams of 3+1 random. I think that’s how the current partial mm system works. But even teams of 3 need to ensure the enemy has a team of 2.

3. I want division ranking as I feel 1-50 just doesn’t work. Perhaps that’s because of population issues and less people overall playing ranked but too many people getting to level 30(which is just an annoying grind) can’t even find a game passed that. Least division wouldn’t of caused such an annoying hassle. There’s many of us in that 50 skill range but honestly I don’t want to needlessly grind this out. Goodness it takes forever. Also too many times matching with or against scrubs whom if I could do 10 placement matches and get a rank I’d have to deal with significantly less! I had on average onyx rank in h5(rarely could hit champ as I soloed it all and kept matching  parties of 4 in h5 feelsbadman so I stopped playing rank as it just wasn’t fair) 
4. No playing with people significantly higher ranked than you. League does this to prevent boosting and so does valorant. Idk about other games but I think this is a very good system. 

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, HeX Reapers said:

people need to be playing halo before any of this can be properly implemented lol

It would probably make people play ranked more though If people felt less bullshitted. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Reamis25 said:

Is there a way a game can tell that you quit or DC’D? I know of one game that technically did this and that was pubg. If you crashed the game would recognize this and let you rejoin or if you DC’d but if you quit it wouldn’t. I don’t know or play many games that do this. 

Maybe, but to me it doesn't matter. Especially for ranked,  I don't care if you quit or if you lagged out. In both cases you should be given the ability to join back, and in both cases if you don't join back or you took too long, you cost me a chance at a victory. I don't care if that's your fault or your internet's fault, get better internet or don't play ranked.

For social as long as the first couple bans aren't too strict, my same thoughts apply. If you're getting DC'd in 5 matches in a single day due to internet problems then go play a single player game.

1 hour ago, Reamis25 said:

things I’d want and hope for halo infinite rank system.

1. A certain level to be before you can play rank. Many games do this and it does a decent job of preventing boosting and smurfing. In halo I’d say an SR of 15 would be sufficient. reasons for this is at that point everyone will know the maps and settings and won’t walk into ranked blind AF.
2. Party matching, now I think partial party matching is appropriate, but teams of 4 should only match 4s and teams of 3+1 random. I think that’s how the current partial mm system works. But even teams of 3 need to ensure the enemy has a team of 2.

3. I want division ranking as I feel 1-50 just doesn’t work. Perhaps that’s because of population issues and less people overall playing ranked but too many people getting to level 30(which is just an annoying grind) can’t even find a game passed that. Least division wouldn’t of caused such an annoying hassle. There’s many of us in that 50 skill range but honestly I don’t want to needlessly grind this out. Goodness it takes forever. Also too many times matching with or against scrubs whom if I could do 10 placement matches and get a rank I’d have to deal with significantly less! I had on average onyx rank in h5(rarely could hit champ as I soloed it all and kept matching  parties of 4 in h5 feelsbadman so I stopped playing rank as it just wasn’t fair) 
4. No playing with people significantly higher ranked than you. League does this to prevent boosting and so does valorant. Idk about other games but I think this is a very good system. 

I like #1, it helps prevent possible smurfers as well depending how long you have to actually play.

#2 should be feasible at least at the game's launch. A party should always be matching other parties. TO4 should either face TO4, TO3 +1 or two TO2. TO3 should face a TO3 or either one or two TO2. Either one or two TO2 need to face either one or two TO2 or a TO3. But it should also work in a way that if the game fucking sucks and population dies, or we have to wait 5 years for the next Halo and eventually people move on, that 343 can remove these restrictions. 

#3 1-50 is fine if you make some tweaks to it. Allow for 10 matches played before starting your rank. During these games you won't be able to see your rank, but when the game is over you can see other players' ranks so you know what you were just up against. After the 10 games you get a rank, and from there you grind your way up to 50 just like you would if you got placed in Halo 5 and grinded up to onyx. Once you hit 50 it can start showing your MMR instead of "50" and from there the MMR goes up or down.

Both systems would pretty much work the same but something about 1-50 just feels right with Halo. Maybe it's dumb, maybe it's nostalgia that most Halo players today probably don't even know or care about, but if 343 actually goes back to a more classic gameplay experience I think going 1-50 would be perfect.

#4 depends what you view as significantly higher, and it also depends if you're talking about ranked or social. Though I'm assuming ranked

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, JordanB said:

Both systems would pretty much work the same but something about 1-50 just feels right with Halo. Maybe it's dumb, maybe it's nostalgia that most Halo players today probably don't even know or care about, but if 343 actually goes back to a more classic gameplay experience I think going 1-50 would be perfect.

#4 depends what you view as significantly higher, and it also depends if you're talking about ranked or social. Though I'm assuming ranked

I think the numbers 1-50 is too vague of numbers to figure out what skill levels people should be.Usually in most games with division ranking there’s a decent skill gap between a plat grade 1 and plat grade 4-5. But a diamond shouldn’t be playing with a gold player ever in any circumstance in ranked play. 
significantly higher I’d say is a level 5 playing with a level 20+. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Reamis25 said:

I think the numbers 1-50 is too vague of numbers to figure out what skill levels people should be.Usually in most games with division ranking there’s a decent skill gap between a plat grade 1 and plat grade 4-5. But a diamond shouldn’t be playing with a gold player ever in any circumstance in ranked play. 
significantly higher I’d say is a level 5 playing with a level 20+. 

The difference you're talking about in bronze/silver etc and 1-50 is purely visual. Nothing else. Whatever you think the difference in skill between a plat 1 vs plat 5 is can be shown the same in a number. 1-10 bronze, 11-20 silver, 21-30 gold, 31-40 plat, 41-50 diamond. 50+ is just onyx/champ whatever games are calling it. The difference between a plat 1 and a plat 5 would be the difference in 31 vs a 40. 

Share this post


Link to post

@JordanB My opinion is that the vast majority of players should fall between 20 and 40.  Under 20 is new or well below average skill level. Over 40 is really, really good.  This gives new players that initial march where they are consistently climbing ranks every couple matches (but then levels off in the teens for the thumbless) while also retaining the wow factor of higher ranks.  46-50 wouldn’t even be numbers but symbols.  

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I forget who said it originally, might've been @Hard Way, but the problem with 1-50 is that there is no true "level 1".

An Elo system actually gets us accurate rankings because the floor and the ceiling move accordingly.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Cursed Lemon said:

there is no true "level 1"

Does that matter?

Share this post


Link to post

What's the difference between a bronze 1 and a level 1 in a 1-50

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Boyo said:

Does that matter?

I mean the implication is that there might not be any true "level 10s" either. You shoot up through multiple irrelevant rankings until you hit a point where you can't win more than you lose.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Cursed Lemon said:

I mean the implication is that there might not be any true "level 10s" either. You shoot up through multiple irrelevant rankings until you hit a point where you can't win more than you lose.

There would be behind the scenes magic where the game might be able to tell you are about a 26 after three games but still makes you play 10 games to get to rank 10 because players who play a minimum number of matches tend to keep playing and being frequently rewarded with level ups gets players through this critical learning phase.  Maybe even mute all other players and hide their true gamer tags and ranks from the player until he reaches rank 10.  This allows the matchmaking system to pit the new user against higher skilled opponents to test his true skill level without intimidating him.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JordanB said:

The difference you're talking about in bronze/silver etc and 1-50 is purely visual. Nothing else. Whatever you think the difference in skill between a plat 1 vs plat 5 is can be shown the same in a number. 1-10 bronze, 11-20 silver, 21-30 gold, 31-40 plat, 41-50 diamond. 50+ is just onyx/champ whatever games are calling it. The difference between a plat 1 and a plat 5 would be the difference in 31 vs a 40. 

It’s visual but an Elo system in Division let’s me know where someone truly belongs. If you ended up in silver it’s because you belong in silver. You say silver could be 11-20 but I don’t think it’s all cut and dry like that. The numbers aren’t a good representation of skill. 1-50 also isn’t expected to reset as well so that’s a problem. The skill gap between a level 15 and a level 25 needs to be noticeable. 

Share this post


Link to post

What 1-50 does emulates the progression system to a degree especially when you look at how Halo 3 implemented it. While it was fun for its time, I agree that the 1-50 system truly doesn't measure player skill as accurately as modern divisions.

Looking at Overwatch season 1 ranked and how all that system did was encourage someone to actually see if rank 1 existed by griefing low level games. I don't know if you care about the integrity of gameplay at lower ladder but I would rather not have brackets of a game encourage griefing for the sake of discovery. That point aside, as Lemon mentioned, the ranking progression was just that, an addition to the progression system and not for creating skill brackets outside of the top ladder. With SR existing, I don't feel it is needed and promoting accurate ranking systems is healthier for the middle to high ladder.

Share this post


Link to post

The reason you incorporate a faux progression system into the low end of the rank system is because being told to play 10 qualifier matches to receive a placement is less exciting than playing a game, ranking up, playing a game, ranking up.  

Edit:  I think a good way to sort out the top end of the ranks early on is to have 343’s in house pro team practiced and ready to go on all the maps when the game releases to the public.  Give them an artificially high rank so they only match the top teams online.  Use the top teams performance against the pro team as a metric to rate their skill.  Then you can use these teams performance against other online teams to determine their skill and so on.  

Share this post


Link to post

@Boyo I like that idea for setting a soft threshold and I also agree that creating a system to let newer/lower level players feel good for playing their entry matches is good. Though, I'm not in agreement with using 1-50 for that system, granted I'm mostly concerned with sticking to this system as a means of progressing beyond that.

I feel using the upper tier progression ranks from Halo Reach as a visual metric of this would be appealing to most parties considering those in favor of it would like something of this nature to exist. Use simpler icons/ranks for lower level while the coveted ones remain for higher ranks and adding a system beyond this to measure the less than 1% that shows a more detailed MMR rating.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Cool visuals are all you really need for high tier skill brackets. People will see it and either aspire to it or enjoy it. Numbers are probably the least cool representation of that. Really think about it seeing 4400 is way less interesting than having some super flashy look to your rank/spartan model/weapon skins. Same way in WoW its way less cool to see that you're 2400 than it is to see your gladiator title and mount for winning at that rating. Halo in general has completely blown it over and over in this department for no real reason

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Snipe Three said:

Cool visuals are all you really need for high tier skill brackets. People will see it and either aspire to it or enjoy it. Numbers are probably the least cool representation of that. Really think about it seeing 4400 is way less interesting than having some super flashy look to your rank/spartan model/weapon skins. Same way in WoW its way less cool to see that you're 2400 than it is to see your gladiator title and mount for winning at that rating. Halo in general has completely blown it over and over in this department for no real reason

Yeah I gotta admit being a general in h3 or getting to inheritor(lol I never even made it to inheritor) was way more exciting. Something about getting to champion than 50 sounds more exciting. Unfortunately I as a solo player rarely got into it😭😭

Share this post


Link to post

@Crimson The ranking system doesn’t have to be 1-50 but I would like it to be because Halo used to have all these little things that made it unique, gave it its own identity.  No sprint, no ads, one hit kill jumping objective melee, sword cancel, bruteshot jumping, double shot, superbounce, et c.  

The 1-50 ranking system was one of Halo’s little quirks.  If we had stayed on track, we might be at the point to naturally abondon 1-50 but since we didn’t, I see the return of the 1-50 ranking system as a gesture signaling a return to form for Halo’s gameplay and community.  

Do I think this will ever happen?  No way(point)!  Halo will forever be mediocre, like a store brand cola. 

 

@Reamis25 What playlist was your 50 in?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Boyo said:

What playlist was your 50 in?

LW, TS and snipers. I didn’t play much of mlg bsck then. I didn’t start to play that actually until reach v7 

Share this post


Link to post

Ranking systems are just as much about the journey to increasing your rank as it is giving an accurate gauge of your skill. In this sense I don't think the modern division system used by just about every game doesn't work as well in many ways. You play 10 games, get your rank and then what. MOST people stop playing (this is probably a by product of the constant rank resets most games use). 1-50 you just keep playing because you're trying to hit your threshold. 

 

I also have never seen a placement system that I've felt accurately placed players. 

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, MultiLockOn said:

Ranking systems are just as much about the journey to increasing your rank as it is giving an accurate gauge of your skill. In this sense I don't think the modern division system used by just about every game doesn't work as well in many ways. You play 10 games, get your rank and then what. MOST people stop playing (this is probably a by product of the constant rank resets most games use). 1-50 you just keep playing because you're trying to hit your threshold. 

 

I also have never seen a placement system that I've felt accurately placed players. 

During Halo 4's development I advocated for a kind of combined triple-tier rank system that visually represented three things: true competitive rank, XP-driven rank, and achievement rank. Through some graphic design wizardry that's a bit above me, you could devise one symbol to display beside a player's name with three evolving elements of color/crest/etc. to show someone's Elo rank, their grind level, and their completion rate. The key is to make it rather visually stunning, as what's a rank without the ability to brag about it (I'm looking at you 343, making people look shit up on the web to find someone's rank), and in the age of HD there's no excuse as to why it can't be made clear what elements a player is excelling or lacking at; if you go hard in competitive play but haven't bothered to hunt any achievements, that'll clearly show in your rank badge.

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Thonking (+0) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy.