Also, reviewers saying OHMAN THANKS 343 FOR MODERNIZING HALO are fucking stupid. This industry that derides the constant stream of CoD clones and praises a well made arena shooter at the same time. Apparently we are at shooter dichotomy, where you can't have a game that sits in the middle like Halo of old. welp.
Halo is for fuddy duddies (I guess). CoD is currently mega-popular. So, making Halo more like CoD is "modernizing" the series I guess. Ugh.
Honestly I don't mind them pulling elements from CoD - the original Halo didn't really do that much new to begin with so much as combine a wide range of things other games did a superior way. Hopefully moving forward the devs aren't afraid to keep cribbing cool features from other games while making innovations of their own. I've been watching a lot of streams and I'm really excited for the multiplayer at this point. The sixth is too far away!
Here's the thing though. Anybody who ever GOT to the Super Bowl or whatever? They found an intrinsic desire to play the game outside of tournaments. Otherwise they wouldn't get so far. They count EVERY game as 'mattering'.
@omnom, I am confused. Yes AAA games get kind reviews, but not 10/10. More like 8.5-9.0 if the game is just 'acceptable.' Look at how AC3 got scored.
Look, nobody sits around as a kid fantasizing about throwing a pass in practice. People fantasize about throwing the game winning TD pass in the superbowl, or hitting a grandslam to win it in the bottom of the 9th, or hitting a buzzer beater to win the NBA championships.
I can honestly say I've never fantasized about any of those things.
What system is in place is a matchmaking system. It is not the same as a competitive system. The difference is key. One is simply used to make games fair and balanced. The other actively fosters a competition with a desire to play for something beyond the current match. Whether that is an arena style league system, a SC2 league system, a generic leaderboard (hey your ranked 10,000 out of 5,000,000 players) and Halo 2 and 3 exposed TruSkill.
Another key is the seperation BETWEEN these games. I like to play for fun. I want to just get on and play with my wife and have fun. Or my friends who arent very good. Or just hop on by myself when I have 40 minutes to kill.
But I also want to get together with my friends who I know are good, and go in and compete and play to win.
When these things are mixed, I have no way to do the former without it negatively impacting the latter.
There is no argument though, its not like we can win over 343's mind. Then, in some cases, we have to defend ourselves because there is a bit of "attacking" that mind set we have. There have been posts here which sort of belittle our opinion's or imply the way we play is "wrong."
Or rather than a meaningless number, there's an unlock system, giving you a reason to play match after match. And this is something that EVERYBODY can care about, not just the people who want to believe they're better than others. I would be cool with online tournaments or whatever, but "ranked" is not a reason to play more interesting than "the game is fun."
All right, I'm gonna say it. I really didn't want to call people out personally, but I can't help myself any longer.
I can tell what your problem is, shoeboxjeddy. It's fairly clear from your posts that what you're really concerned about is somebody achieving a rank that you're incapable of receiving, and that seems to bug the hell out of you. That's why it's so important for you to designate it as a "meaningless number", so you don't feel so bad about it. It certainly wasn't a meaningless number. Higher ranked players consistently performed better than lower ranked players. Achieving a high rank sincerely means that you were good at the game. I have a feeling that's a designation you were never able to achieve, and felt resentment towards higher ranked players. You have an inferiority complex or something, and you'd rather see something removed from the game that other people enjoy than suffer through the stress of feeling inferior to other players.
Personally, I think it's a bummer that you feel that way. I've played starcraft 2 since it's release, and I'm only a gold. That's probably like a rank 30 in halo 3. And I'll probably never get higher, because RTS games just don't come natural to me. But the LAST thing I would ever do is wish down on some diamond or masters guy who spent a lot of time practicing and learning to play to achieve his rank. I would NOT try to make him feel stupid or ridiculous for taking the game seriously enough to obtain such a rank. I would not try to designate his achievement as "meaningless" just because I'm not able to follow suit. And if Blizzard decided to remove rankings and all the high ranked people complained, I'd be right along side them complaining too, because I understand how important having a rank is for competitive players, and wouldn't want their experience degraded any more than most of them would want my experience degraded.
Whatever experience you have that causes you to resent high ranked players so much, you really need to get over it.
i think at this point it's best to agree to disagree since now we're throwing around baseless accusations. no need to get petty over such a stupid arguement.
I haven't been following any of the previews/reviews/impressions/trailers at all on this one, so everything will be fresh. While I was originally skeptical of a non-Bungie Halo the general feeling I've been getting from the internet is that it'll be good.
I wasn't even planning on buying it until NewEgg's $44.99 offer appeared. Here's hoping the campaign is enough to keep me interested, as I'm not much of a multiplayer guy.
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
get_a_load_of_this_guy.jpg
if you're screwing around in an unranked match it will not affect your trueskill at all. Also, trueskill was not "just wins/losses compared to what you were supposed to do" this is how Trueskill works. It's quite an interesting read, I highly recommend it.
If you're good at the game your Trueskill will reflect that regardless of your match-to-match performances. Also, if you win by 100 points or by 1 point, your Trueskill will not be affected differently. What it does is it guesses based on everyone's trueskill what the result of the match will be, then it updates your Trueskill based on what the actual results were. The more matches you play, the more this number will reflect the actual value. In fact, if you think you will lose your Trueskill because you're not in your group with your headsets on then you are one of the people who has gamed the system and one of the reasons they started hiding the trueskills in the first place
That said, I'm not disagreeing that there should be a ladder or league set up, because there absolutely should. That league, however, should abstract the skill rating into divisions and categories.
I haven't been following any of the previews/reviews/impressions/trailers at all on this one, so everything will be fresh. While I was originally skeptical of a non-Bungie Halo the general feeling I've been getting from the internet is that it'll be good.
I wasn't even planning on buying it until NewEgg's $44.99 offer appeared. Here's hoping the campaign is enough to keep me interested, as I'm not much of a multiplayer guy.
Neither am I.
But Spartan Ops is pretty much designed for people like us in mind.
Getting some buddies together. Shooting bad guys.
Firefight was the best part of Halo Reach Multiplayer, there I said it I'm never taking it back.
That league, however, should abstract the skill rating into divisions and categories.
I'd be fine with that. That's how Starcraft works. The "trueskill" rating is hidden (they call it MMR, not sure if it's the same system or not), but there are 7 different leagues to be placed into. Someone in gold league is very likely to beat someone in silver league, and someone in platinum league is very likely to beat someone in gold league. In my experience, this seems to hold true most of the time. If Halo implemented a system like this, I'd be all for it.
PA Report are calling it 'the best Halo', which comes across as pretty genuine praise considering all the stuff that's been blowing around lately about reviewer integrity.
Yeah, were it anyone else but PAR exclaiming "the best Halo" I'd roll my eyes and say "That's highly unlikely, as they are not talking about Reach.". Now I'm kind of intrigued... I mean, I'm still of the "Not likely because it isn't Reach." opinion, but I didn't roll my eyes!
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
if you're screwing around in an unranked match it will not affect your trueskill at all. Also, trueskill was not "just wins/losses compared to what you were supposed to do" this is how Trueskill works. It's quite an interesting read, I highly recommend it.
If you're good at the game your Trueskill will reflect that regardless of your match-to-match performances. Also, if you win by 100 points or by 1 point, your Trueskill will not be affected differently. What it does is it guesses based on everyone's trueskill what the result of the match will be, then it updates your Trueskill based on what the actual results were. The more matches you play, the more this number will reflect the actual value. In fact, if you think you will lose your Trueskill because you're not in your group with your headsets on then you are one of the people who has gamed the system and one of the reasons they started hiding the trueskills in the first place
Ok. Where to begin?
First, yes unraked wont impact trueskill. That was my point about needing two seperate game types for impacting trueskill and not. I want a place to dick around etc and not have it impact my trueskill. Halo 4 wont offer this.
I started reading that article, Im sure its an interesting read, but it was a bit too in depth for me. My point was that in Trueskill your rank is determined by wins and losses, NOT by your individual stats in that game. Winning by 1 or winning by 100 doesnt change anything. Its all about win or loss. That was what I was saying. Do you disagree that is what Trueskill is? If so, I will spend some time combing over that article, but the bit I read seemed to confirm that.
Halo is a team game. You honestly think most high ranked players casually go into team slayer and just match with randoms to get their high rank? I dont. They have good teams they play with that they can coordinate with. This is NOT gaming the system. Come on. This is putting together a team of the best players you can, because you will be up against the best players available.
I dont use my mic when I play with randoms, randoms dont use their mics either. And even when we do, its kinda akward and not natural. If you cant see how that would MASSIVELY put me at a disadvantage against a team that worked together naturally and fluently, I guess its pointless to have this discussion.
But I guess thats the crux of the issue. Obviously if I am playing specifically to increase that trueskill rank as a measuring stick, it is not going to be 100% accurate compared to someone who isnt. If I act to only have the games where I am "trying" with my friends refelct on trueskill, and someone else does not make that effort, I will inflate my trueskill compared to them. They may be just as good as me, but I will have a higher trueskill.
Though I will argue that measuring people at their best, when they are trying their hardest and utilizing everything they can to win, is a better judge of their skill.
But, I can see why the general matchmaking skill set SHOULDNT be the visible goal that folks are competing for. Cause it could potentially mess up the non competitive matchmaking. But there SHOULD be something. I dont care what the specifics of that thing are. But I want something to compete for. A ladder system, a SC2 style league system. There should be something to use as a measuring stick.
PA Report are calling it 'the best Halo', which comes across as pretty genuine praise considering all the stuff that's been blowing around lately about reviewer integrity.
Yeah, were it anyone else but PAR exclaiming "the best Halo" I'd roll my eyes and say "That's highly unlikely, as they are not talking about Reach.". Now I'm kind of intrigued... I mean, I'm still of the "Not likely because it isn't Reach." opinion, but I didn't roll my eyes!
I just figure that, hey, personal opinion will dictate whether everyone agrees it's the 'best' or not, but it sounds like it's a damned good game that we've all got coming to us. I'm happy with that.
All right, I'm gonna say it. I really didn't want to call people out personally, but I can't help myself any longer.
I can tell what your problem is, shoeboxjeddy. It's fairly clear from your posts that what you're really concerned about is somebody achieving a rank that you're incapable of receiving, and that seems to bug the hell out of you. That's why it's so important for you to designate it as a "meaningless number", so you don't feel so bad about it. It certainly wasn't a meaningless number. Higher ranked players consistently performed better than lower ranked players. Achieving a high rank sincerely means that you were good at the game. I have a feeling that's a designation you were never able to achieve, and felt resentment towards higher ranked players. You have an inferiority complex or something, and you'd rather see something removed from the game that other people enjoy than suffer through the stress of feeling inferior to other players.
Whatever experience you have that causes you to resent high ranked players so much, you really need to get over it.
Ha ha ha ha. Wow, that is quite a story you cooked up there. Everyone cares about the numbers! If they consistently argue that they're stupid and harmed the game in very real ways a b and c, it's because they're BAD AT THE GAME and BUTTHURT about how they could NEVER get a high enough NUMBER. Man when I think about that number by my name, I just shake with rage. It's like PTSD over here. And if people say you're being a dismissive goose and your arguments are blatantly slanted to say "everyone who is actually good at this thinks the way I do, disagreement indicates lack of skill", well... I guess that means they care EVEN MORE about the number!
My "bad experience" with people who give a shit about ranks is basically you, only split off into other people. "We can't play Team Slayer with your friend, he'll kill my rank." "Reach sucks because it doesn't have numbers... also I haven't played it." "Ha ha, your rank for this playlist you don't ever play is low, that means you're bad!" "There's no point to playing Firefight because there's no rank."
This is the part where I concoct a story about your personal life to explain your viewpoint except, woops I don't have to. You've done it for us. You care 100% more about the number than the game. You care about it so much that you can't even perceive a reality where others don't care about it (and are still good at the game).
I told you a while back my stats (like everyone's) are publicly available for you to flog. I think you've avoided this because you KNOW it will make you more of a try-hard goose than you already are. Please let it go, for real.
@Disrupter, ranking (as done in Halo 2/3) is useless as a skill measuring stick. Yes, you can assume that someone playing for years who can't surpass 20 is bad and someone who gets to 50 in two months or whatever is good. But there's no granularity to it. Say you're around 35 and you get derankers on the other team. Woop, 36. Or you're 25 and climbing but you hit a super expert ranked 12 because he just likes hitting 50 over and over and starts new accounts. Oh you suck, 23. Or say you always play SWAT and then switch to Team Slayer with BR starts. Your low rank is entirely unrepresentative of your skill set, which will then decimate the properly ranked players you pass as you slowly correct this. I'm saying both mechanically and as a function of how people abused it, it didn't work.
PA Report are calling it 'the best Halo', which comes across as pretty genuine praise considering all the stuff that's been blowing around lately about reviewer integrity.
Yeah, were it anyone else but PAR exclaiming "the best Halo" I'd roll my eyes and say "That's highly unlikely, as they are not talking about Reach.". Now I'm kind of intrigued... I mean, I'm still of the "Not likely because it isn't Reach." opinion, but I didn't roll my eyes!
I just figure that, hey, personal opinion will dictate whether everyone agrees it's the 'best' or not, but it sounds like it's a damned good game that we've all got coming to us. I'm happy with that.
Agreed. I had very very low expectations for a non Bungie Halo FPS. I am quite surprised to see all of the incredibly positive reviews and stuff being said about the game. Now my only problem is figuring out where the heck to fit Halo 4 into an already jam packed game release schedule...
There's so many good games out now that I have a friggin backlog of games I haven't even bought yet...
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
0
Options
Theodore Flooseveltproud parent of eight beautiful girls and shalmelodorne (which is currently being ruled by a woman (awesome role model for my daughters)) #dornedadRegistered Userregular
i think at this point it's best to agree to disagree since now we're throwing around baseless accusations. no need to get petty over such a stupid arguement.
seriously guys
no one has or will make any traction, and a tired argument has become a mean one
ranking (as done in Halo 2/3) is useless as a skill measuring stick. Yes, you can assume that someone playing for years who can't surpass 20 is bad and someone who gets to 50 in two months or whatever is good. But there's no granularity to it. Say you're around 35 and you get derankers on the other team. Woop, 36. Or you're 25 and climbing but you hit a super expert ranked 12 because he just likes hitting 50 over and over and starts new accounts. Oh you suck, 23. Or say you always play SWAT and then switch to Team Slayer with BR starts. Your low rank is entirely unrepresentative of your skill set, which will then decimate the properly ranked players you pass as you slowly correct this. I'm saying both mechanically and as a function of how people abused it, it didn't work.
It wasnt perfect, no. But it worked well enough to fill that desire for competitive play. I just want something to do the same with. I know 1-50 worked for me and my friends, and I dont have a ton of faith in 343 as it is, so IMO I would have just liked them to stick with that. But, I would obviously prefer something better.
SC2 has it perfectly. I have doubts they will have anything, even Arena. But I hope they do. I just figure if they havent said something yet, there is absolutely nothing. (Which by the way, means theyve been lying for months now, since theyve said they would have something for competitive types).
Ya'll realize none of this bitching back and forth matters...right?
Trueskill is invisible. That's just how it is. It really makes no difference if you like it or not.
Join in progress is a feature in H4. It really makes no difference if you like it or not.
Your discussion, at this point, isn't even about Halo anymore.
This is an internet forum. NOTHING we discuss here "matters." If we said "yay, I really like the hardlight shield" how does that matter any more then this current discussion? Feel free to talk about what interests you as well. For some of us, the lack of competitive play options in Halo 4 is the topic that is most interesting to discuss.
As a change of pace, I was thinking the other night, how Halo never has had a long range shield draining type weapon. I would like a BR type gun that drains shield quicker, but cant get head shots. Something that allows me to work with my team to drain their sheilds so they can finish them off. Or vice versa. As it is, I dont see the need for DMR+BR+Carbine+Light Rifle or whatever. They all fill the same niche.
A shield draining, ranged primary would also make the magnum more viable as a secondary. As it is, the Plasma Pistol and the shotgun-pistol the obvious choice as they provide a close range alternative to the long range primary. I guess AR+magnum might work, but...I doubt it.
Except there are competitive play options in H4. A lot of them. They just don't adequately increase epeen size in order for you to feel they are worthwhile. You not liking how something is implemented != that thing not existing.
Way too many good games this holiday season. I've barely started XCOM after playing BL2 for, like, a month and it seems like I won't be getting around to it for a while with Halo releasing next week. I'm also hoping that will be my last purchase for the year. Not enough money, not enough time.
I like the multiplayer in Halo but I'll be buying Halo 4 mainly for the campaign and story. ODST and Reach are both my favorite FPS campaigns this generation, and the narrative is the main reason why I liked Reach so much. It had a simple but well told story, really making you feel the effort made by Noble Team to try and save Reach. ODST had a nice plot too, with Sadie's Story.
I have high hopes for the plot in Halo 4, seeing all the effort that went into the narrative this time around. I just hope it doesn't get hurt by the fact that it's designed to be the first in a trilogy and leave us with too many unanswered questions and some bullshit cliffhanger.
How are they doing the melee in this? Will it be like reach where no matter how many shields you have remaining it drops it, or will the melee bleed through?
Except there are competitive play options in H4. A lot of them. They just don't adequately increase epeen size in order for you to feel they are worthwhile. You not liking how something is implemented != that thing not existing.
Great. The e-peen argument. Do you make fun of Micheal Jordan's B-peen because he wanted to win NBA championships? Do you make fun of Tiger Wood's G-peen because he wanted to win the masters?
Its fucking competition man. People like it. Some don't. Its about a goal to drive for. I get it. You personally dont feel that drive. Cool. Its not a BAD thing to do so though. Stop acting like it is.
There is nothing in Halo 4 to compete for in a bigger scheme of things. That is what I mean by competitive options. There is nothing. A match exists in a vaccum and then the results of that match dissapears forever and everyone gets a piece of candy and some credits for participating. There is no leaderboard, no league system, no rank to compete for.
Dont be a douche about it. You cant just Romney this shit and yell "IT IS THERE" when it isnt. There is nothing that folks who enjoy a competitive game type will enjoy.
You have all the same shit in Halo2 and 3, except without the "ranked playlists" and you have the same shit from Reach but without "arena". Those two things are obviously what I am talking about. They were the "competitive" modes in the past, and there is no replacement.
0
Options
EvilBadmanDO NOT TRUST THIS MANRegistered Userregular
Just can it. You guys aren't even having an actual argument anymore, you're spewing profanity and insults.
Why not talk about all the reviews that just shot out of embargo slipspace.
Nope, they have melee bleed through now. Which should reduce the viability of the lame-ass double punch from Reach.
And I appologise for swearing, wasnt meant to be taken as AT anyone. Just emphasis. Its also just a bit annoying when I spend pages explaining exactly what my opinion is, then someone completely ignores it and dismisses it all in one insulting sentence. To act as though there is nothing missing from Halo 4 that a certain crowd enjoys is not having an honest discussion. There obviously is. There are game modes catered to that audience which no longer exist, and have no replacement. If you didn't enjoy those game modes, fine. But that doesn't mean they arent missing.
0
Options
Theodore Flooseveltproud parent of eight beautiful girls and shalmelodorne (which is currently being ruled by a woman (awesome role model for my daughters)) #dornedadRegistered Userregular
How are they doing the melee in this? Will it be like reach where no matter how many shields you have remaining it drops it, or will the melee bleed through?
some googling says it'll have bleed-through, which I could've guessed
a bit disappointed because I thought Reach's system was a pretty satisfying solution to double beatdowns, but whatev
I actually think Reach lead to MORE double beatdowns. The problem was, all the damage you did before a melee exchange was wasted unless you popped their shield. So if someone ran at me and I fired at them, as soon as they punched, and I punched back, we were now tied. All my shooting while they ran was a waste.
With bleed through. They run at me, I shoot, we exchange punches, now they are much closer to death then me. I can just fire a bit more AR and finish them. Or a body shot from the BR.
Plus melee damage is increasd to 60%, which will help this even more.
20% damage done running at me, 60% melee. Now they have 20% left, and i have 40. I will probably win that fight. But chances are actually, Ill be able to do more then 40% before the punch, so my punch will just finish them.
In reach you had a LOT of "i do like 48% damage before the punches, so my punch was worth 2% while theres was worth 50%."
Disrupter on
0
Options
Theodore Flooseveltproud parent of eight beautiful girls and shalmelodorne (which is currently being ruled by a woman (awesome role model for my daughters)) #dornedadRegistered Userregular
Yeah, I'm not gonna pass judgment on how it plays in 4 until I try it out. It is built around bleed-through, after all, unlike Reach's TU.
But in the situation you described: you just need to keep shooting them for a moment longer after they melee you, pop their shields, and then melee them for the kill while they're recovering. If you train yourself to not instantly reciprocate the melee in an attempt to "catch up," you'll win out unless they seriously rushed you down (in which case, they got the drop on you and it makes sense that they would have an advantage).
Your shooting isn't a waste as long as you commit to it and understand how the shields work.
Yeah, I probably could have trained myself better to pop the shields and then finish them. But the point is, bleed through makes charging at someone and attempting a double punch suicide. You likely wont even survive the melee. So hopefully that stops folks from even trying as much. We will see how it plays out.
But I can see how bleed through will work against double punch more then I can see how it will work in favor. (the 60% damage is a factor too, as double punch will do 120% damage, which is overkill, so assuming its balanced, you should be able to do 100% damage quicker with 1 punch, then shooting or some combo there of). But we wont know until the game plays.
I am curious about the sidearms. They have a crazy shotgun pistol now. Seems like the magnum will be distinctly the worst option of the 3.
All right, I'm gonna say it. I really didn't want to call people out personally, but I can't help myself any longer.
I can tell what your problem is, shoeboxjeddy. It's fairly clear from your posts that what you're really concerned about is somebody achieving a rank that you're incapable of receiving, and that seems to bug the hell out of you. That's why it's so important for you to designate it as a "meaningless number", so you don't feel so bad about it. It certainly wasn't a meaningless number. Higher ranked players consistently performed better than lower ranked players. Achieving a high rank sincerely means that you were good at the game. I have a feeling that's a designation you were never able to achieve, and felt resentment towards higher ranked players. You have an inferiority complex or something, and you'd rather see something removed from the game that other people enjoy than suffer through the stress of feeling inferior to other players.
Whatever experience you have that causes you to resent high ranked players so much, you really need to get over it.
...
It was the only conclusion that I could come to, given that there's absolutely no reason we couldn't both enjoy the game in our own separate ways. I have no problem with you enjoying it your way, but you seem to have a huge problem with the way I choose to enjoy it, and I don't get that. I don't get why you think everyone should play it the way you play it. At the end of the day, that's what this argument is about.
Here's why I think they did the no bleed, I'm going to use "shooter" for the guy who shoots and THEN punches and "puncher" for the guy who just punches with no shots.
Bleed: Shooter - Fires a bit, then punches the guy, shield breaks but he is not dead. Second punch maybe he's dead, in rare cases he is not.
Puncher- Goes for the punch. Depending on whether he was running, jumping or whatever, he MAY drop the shield, or simply lower it to the minimum. A second punch may kill or may not depending on how well the first one went AND the circumstances of the second punch.
No Bleed: Shooter - Fires a bit, then punches the guy, shield breaks. Second punch will kill for sure.
Puncher- Goes for the punch. In many cases, this is calibrated to NOT break the shield, instead to fall just short. Second punch breaks the shield. Do you think he is getting a third one? Not likely.
Now of course different things were happening and people generally like to use punching as a finishing move, so the finesse of the second option probably rubbed people the wrong way. The latter did have the benefit of you knowing IMMEDIATELY when you had done it wrong and why that meant you were going to die.
About e-peen, nobody makes fun of professional athletes because they are PROFESSIONALS. Even High School athletes have scholarships on the line. E-peen is specifically mocking someone who is playing for nothing (not a cash prize or whatever) but treats it as if it were something meaningful in a real way. If you were in the MLG circuit and started complaining about melee damage, I would not insult you. I might disagree, but I wouldn't insult you. Now if you're playing on the "playing on the couch in my boxers" circuit and are complaining about visible number skill ranks? Well...
shoeboxjeddy on
0
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
I know MS does their free gold weekend shit all the time, but two weeks crazy.
I mean of course the first two days are going to be unbearable because of server overload though.
All right, I'm gonna say it. I really didn't want to call people out personally, but I can't help myself any longer.
I can tell what your problem is, shoeboxjeddy. It's fairly clear from your posts that what you're really concerned about is somebody achieving a rank that you're incapable of receiving, and that seems to bug the hell out of you. That's why it's so important for you to designate it as a "meaningless number", so you don't feel so bad about it. It certainly wasn't a meaningless number. Higher ranked players consistently performed better than lower ranked players. Achieving a high rank sincerely means that you were good at the game. I have a feeling that's a designation you were never able to achieve, and felt resentment towards higher ranked players. You have an inferiority complex or something, and you'd rather see something removed from the game that other people enjoy than suffer through the stress of feeling inferior to other players.
Whatever experience you have that causes you to resent high ranked players so much, you really need to get over it.
...
It was the only conclusion that I could come to, given that there's absolutely no reason we couldn't both enjoy the game in our own separate ways. I have no problem with you enjoying it your way, but you seem to have a huge problem with the way I choose to enjoy it, and I don't get that. I don't get why you think everyone should play it the way you play it. At the end of the day, that's what this argument is about.
Just drop it already, no one is going to convince anyone at this point and it's pointless to keep it going
And you guys have basically stopped keeping it civil so chances are we're going to have a mod stop the debate anyway if none of you guys just lets the issue rest
Now if you're playing on the "playing on the couch in my boxers" circuit and are complaining about visible number skill ranks? Well...
Its the same drive though. Admittedly, a better example would be olympic atheletes. They dont make any money. A few end up famous with endorsements (hey so do a few gamers!) but it doesnt mean their competition is silly or useless.
We are getting away from any Halo discussion though. I will just say, you are admitting to having a prejudice against a certain mindset which seems to be impacting your discussion. You dont seem to like competitive gamers, you find it acceptable to make fun of them. I think, you therefore cant see where we are coming from. You seem to see the desire to compete as a bad thing, and a negative, something worth mocking. But that makes it really difficult to have an honest discussion about removal of those playlists from Halo with you.
Sorry if things got heated. Don't want bad blood. I enjoy just dicking around and having fun in Halo as much as the next guy too. So, hopefully said dickery can occur in the future. Just keep in mind, if you ever hear me laugh or seem to be enjoying myself in Halo 4, it is masking a deep sadness about lack of ranks
Yeah, I'm done too, wasn't trying to ruin the thread for e'erbody. In fact, I was going for the exact opposite when I asked you guys to stop with that two pages back, but I stuck around to argue anyway.
Funny stuff from reviews:
-One of the ones I read said they enjoyed fighting alongside Spartans for the "first time". Missed a game huh? Or is that an ironic comment about how terri-stupid Noble Team was in action?
-One of the reviews wondered if we would find out Halsey's deal in the next game. Hopefully the comments told them to check out the books.
Also I had a thought. I know there's no Firefight, but couldn't they make one of the Spartan Ops levels an infinite mode once you beat it? Like take it back to ODST where the options are take it or leave it, but the scenario is well balanced and fun?
I honestly have over-looked spartan ops. Mainly because I did not care for Halo coop (without skulls, which I never got, the respawn mechanic removed most of the difficulty and tension).
Hopefully spartan ops will provide a nice surprise for me and my group of friends!
0
Options
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
if you're screwing around in an unranked match it will not affect your trueskill at all. Also, trueskill was not "just wins/losses compared to what you were supposed to do" this is how Trueskill works. It's quite an interesting read, I highly recommend it.
If you're good at the game your Trueskill will reflect that regardless of your match-to-match performances. Also, if you win by 100 points or by 1 point, your Trueskill will not be affected differently. What it does is it guesses based on everyone's trueskill what the result of the match will be, then it updates your Trueskill based on what the actual results were. The more matches you play, the more this number will reflect the actual value. In fact, if you think you will lose your Trueskill because you're not in your group with your headsets on then you are one of the people who has gamed the system and one of the reasons they started hiding the trueskills in the first place
Ok. Where to begin?
First, yes unraked wont impact trueskill. That was my point about needing two seperate game types for impacting trueskill and not. I want a place to dick around etc and not have it impact my trueskill. Halo 4 wont offer this.
I started reading that article, Im sure its an interesting read, but it was a bit too in depth for me. My point was that in Trueskill your rank is determined by wins and losses, NOT by your individual stats in that game. Winning by 1 or winning by 100 doesnt change anything. Its all about win or loss. That was what I was saying. Do you disagree that is what Trueskill is? If so, I will spend some time combing over that article, but the bit I read seemed to confirm that.
No I don't disagree with it, your boiling down of it was comically inaccurate.
Halo is a team game. You honestly think most high ranked players casually go into team slayer and just match with randoms to get their high rank? I dont. They have good teams they play with that they can coordinate with. This is NOT gaming the system. Come on. This is putting together a team of the best players you can, because you will be up against the best players available.
No, I don't. I was saying that your skill is best measured as the probability of you winning the match you're in, that includes matches when you're not wearing your try-hard pants. Trueskill, as in that magic number you see, is designed to have a best-estimate of your average level and a factor which describes how certain the system "thinks" that estimate is. As you play matches the best estimate will approach an accurate measure of your average skill, while the uncertainty that you're in the right level will decrease. There are actually a number of circumstances where you can lose a match but still gain in average skill or win a match and lose in average skill. Intentionally culling the bottom half of your "average" is absolutely unmistakably gaming the system.
I dont use my mic when I play with randoms, randoms dont use their mics either. And even when we do, its kinda akward and not natural. If you cant see how that would MASSIVELY put me at a disadvantage against a team that worked together naturally and fluently, I guess its pointless to have this discussion.
I can see that it would put you at a disadvantage, I did not say that it wouldn't put you at a disadvantage. It will, however, give the system a better measure of your average skill and decrease its uncertainty about your skill.
But I guess thats the crux of the issue. Obviously if I am playing specifically to increase that trueskill rank as a measuring stick, it is not going to be 100% accurate compared to someone who isnt. If I act to only have the games where I am "trying" with my friends refelct on trueskill, and someone else does not make that effort, I will inflate my trueskill compared to them. They may be just as good as me, but I will have a higher trueskill.
The problem with this isn't just that you are artificially getting a bigger number, it's that you're now introducing extra external uncertainty that I doubt the system can even accurately represent, let alone accommodate into the model.
Though I will argue that measuring people at their best, when they are trying their hardest and utilizing everything they can to win, is a better judge of their skill.
your opinion, fair enough. My opinion is that never in the history of any competition ever there has been a competitor "choke", get sick, or injured and lose the match. Golf would be a very uninteresting sport if you only ever counted birdies, eagles, and hole in ones.
But, I can see why the general matchmaking skill set SHOULDNT be the visible goal that folks are competing for. Cause it could potentially mess up the non competitive matchmaking. But there SHOULD be something. I dont care what the specifics of that thing are. But I want something to compete for. A ladder system, a SC2 style league system. There should be something to use as a measuring stick.
One again, not saying there shouldn't be a ladder/league system. There absolutely should be one. The details of its metrics should be abstracted to protect the system from being compromised.
Posts
Honestly I don't mind them pulling elements from CoD - the original Halo didn't really do that much new to begin with so much as combine a wide range of things other games did a superior way. Hopefully moving forward the devs aren't afraid to keep cribbing cool features from other games while making innovations of their own. I've been watching a lot of streams and I'm really excited for the multiplayer at this point. The sixth is too far away!
@omnom, I am confused. Yes AAA games get kind reviews, but not 10/10. More like 8.5-9.0 if the game is just 'acceptable.' Look at how AC3 got scored.
I can honestly say I've never fantasized about any of those things.
twitch.tv/gamespot
All right, I'm gonna say it. I really didn't want to call people out personally, but I can't help myself any longer.
I can tell what your problem is, shoeboxjeddy. It's fairly clear from your posts that what you're really concerned about is somebody achieving a rank that you're incapable of receiving, and that seems to bug the hell out of you. That's why it's so important for you to designate it as a "meaningless number", so you don't feel so bad about it. It certainly wasn't a meaningless number. Higher ranked players consistently performed better than lower ranked players. Achieving a high rank sincerely means that you were good at the game. I have a feeling that's a designation you were never able to achieve, and felt resentment towards higher ranked players. You have an inferiority complex or something, and you'd rather see something removed from the game that other people enjoy than suffer through the stress of feeling inferior to other players.
Personally, I think it's a bummer that you feel that way. I've played starcraft 2 since it's release, and I'm only a gold. That's probably like a rank 30 in halo 3. And I'll probably never get higher, because RTS games just don't come natural to me. But the LAST thing I would ever do is wish down on some diamond or masters guy who spent a lot of time practicing and learning to play to achieve his rank. I would NOT try to make him feel stupid or ridiculous for taking the game seriously enough to obtain such a rank. I would not try to designate his achievement as "meaningless" just because I'm not able to follow suit. And if Blizzard decided to remove rankings and all the high ranked people complained, I'd be right along side them complaining too, because I understand how important having a rank is for competitive players, and wouldn't want their experience degraded any more than most of them would want my experience degraded.
Whatever experience you have that causes you to resent high ranked players so much, you really need to get over it.
I wasn't even planning on buying it until NewEgg's $44.99 offer appeared. Here's hoping the campaign is enough to keep me interested, as I'm not much of a multiplayer guy.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
if you're screwing around in an unranked match it will not affect your trueskill at all. Also, trueskill was not "just wins/losses compared to what you were supposed to do" this is how Trueskill works. It's quite an interesting read, I highly recommend it.
If you're good at the game your Trueskill will reflect that regardless of your match-to-match performances. Also, if you win by 100 points or by 1 point, your Trueskill will not be affected differently. What it does is it guesses based on everyone's trueskill what the result of the match will be, then it updates your Trueskill based on what the actual results were. The more matches you play, the more this number will reflect the actual value. In fact, if you think you will lose your Trueskill because you're not in your group with your headsets on then you are one of the people who has gamed the system and one of the reasons they started hiding the trueskills in the first place
That said, I'm not disagreeing that there should be a ladder or league set up, because there absolutely should. That league, however, should abstract the skill rating into divisions and categories.
Neither am I.
But Spartan Ops is pretty much designed for people like us in mind.
Getting some buddies together. Shooting bad guys.
Firefight was the best part of Halo Reach Multiplayer, there I said it I'm never taking it back.
I'd be fine with that. That's how Starcraft works. The "trueskill" rating is hidden (they call it MMR, not sure if it's the same system or not), but there are 7 different leagues to be placed into. Someone in gold league is very likely to beat someone in silver league, and someone in platinum league is very likely to beat someone in gold league. In my experience, this seems to hold true most of the time. If Halo implemented a system like this, I'd be all for it.
Yeah, were it anyone else but PAR exclaiming "the best Halo" I'd roll my eyes and say "That's highly unlikely, as they are not talking about Reach.". Now I'm kind of intrigued... I mean, I'm still of the "Not likely because it isn't Reach." opinion, but I didn't roll my eyes!
Ok. Where to begin?
First, yes unraked wont impact trueskill. That was my point about needing two seperate game types for impacting trueskill and not. I want a place to dick around etc and not have it impact my trueskill. Halo 4 wont offer this.
I started reading that article, Im sure its an interesting read, but it was a bit too in depth for me. My point was that in Trueskill your rank is determined by wins and losses, NOT by your individual stats in that game. Winning by 1 or winning by 100 doesnt change anything. Its all about win or loss. That was what I was saying. Do you disagree that is what Trueskill is? If so, I will spend some time combing over that article, but the bit I read seemed to confirm that.
Halo is a team game. You honestly think most high ranked players casually go into team slayer and just match with randoms to get their high rank? I dont. They have good teams they play with that they can coordinate with. This is NOT gaming the system. Come on. This is putting together a team of the best players you can, because you will be up against the best players available.
I dont use my mic when I play with randoms, randoms dont use their mics either. And even when we do, its kinda akward and not natural. If you cant see how that would MASSIVELY put me at a disadvantage against a team that worked together naturally and fluently, I guess its pointless to have this discussion.
But I guess thats the crux of the issue. Obviously if I am playing specifically to increase that trueskill rank as a measuring stick, it is not going to be 100% accurate compared to someone who isnt. If I act to only have the games where I am "trying" with my friends refelct on trueskill, and someone else does not make that effort, I will inflate my trueskill compared to them. They may be just as good as me, but I will have a higher trueskill.
Though I will argue that measuring people at their best, when they are trying their hardest and utilizing everything they can to win, is a better judge of their skill.
But, I can see why the general matchmaking skill set SHOULDNT be the visible goal that folks are competing for. Cause it could potentially mess up the non competitive matchmaking. But there SHOULD be something. I dont care what the specifics of that thing are. But I want something to compete for. A ladder system, a SC2 style league system. There should be something to use as a measuring stick.
I just figure that, hey, personal opinion will dictate whether everyone agrees it's the 'best' or not, but it sounds like it's a damned good game that we've all got coming to us. I'm happy with that.
Trueskill is invisible. That's just how it is. It really makes no difference if you like it or not.
Join in progress is a feature in H4. It really makes no difference if you like it or not.
Your discussion, at this point, isn't even about Halo anymore.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Ha ha ha ha. Wow, that is quite a story you cooked up there. Everyone cares about the numbers! If they consistently argue that they're stupid and harmed the game in very real ways a b and c, it's because they're BAD AT THE GAME and BUTTHURT about how they could NEVER get a high enough NUMBER. Man when I think about that number by my name, I just shake with rage. It's like PTSD over here. And if people say you're being a dismissive goose and your arguments are blatantly slanted to say "everyone who is actually good at this thinks the way I do, disagreement indicates lack of skill", well... I guess that means they care EVEN MORE about the number!
My "bad experience" with people who give a shit about ranks is basically you, only split off into other people. "We can't play Team Slayer with your friend, he'll kill my rank." "Reach sucks because it doesn't have numbers... also I haven't played it." "Ha ha, your rank for this playlist you don't ever play is low, that means you're bad!" "There's no point to playing Firefight because there's no rank."
This is the part where I concoct a story about your personal life to explain your viewpoint except, woops I don't have to. You've done it for us. You care 100% more about the number than the game. You care about it so much that you can't even perceive a reality where others don't care about it (and are still good at the game).
I told you a while back my stats (like everyone's) are publicly available for you to flog. I think you've avoided this because you KNOW it will make you more of a try-hard goose than you already are. Please let it go, for real.
@Disrupter, ranking (as done in Halo 2/3) is useless as a skill measuring stick. Yes, you can assume that someone playing for years who can't surpass 20 is bad and someone who gets to 50 in two months or whatever is good. But there's no granularity to it. Say you're around 35 and you get derankers on the other team. Woop, 36. Or you're 25 and climbing but you hit a super expert ranked 12 because he just likes hitting 50 over and over and starts new accounts. Oh you suck, 23. Or say you always play SWAT and then switch to Team Slayer with BR starts. Your low rank is entirely unrepresentative of your skill set, which will then decimate the properly ranked players you pass as you slowly correct this. I'm saying both mechanically and as a function of how people abused it, it didn't work.
Agreed. I had very very low expectations for a non Bungie Halo FPS. I am quite surprised to see all of the incredibly positive reviews and stuff being said about the game. Now my only problem is figuring out where the heck to fit Halo 4 into an already jam packed game release schedule...
There's so many good games out now that I have a friggin backlog of games I haven't even bought yet...
seriously guys
no one has or will make any traction, and a tired argument has become a mean one
Xbox | x Dredgen Yor x |
It wasnt perfect, no. But it worked well enough to fill that desire for competitive play. I just want something to do the same with. I know 1-50 worked for me and my friends, and I dont have a ton of faith in 343 as it is, so IMO I would have just liked them to stick with that. But, I would obviously prefer something better.
SC2 has it perfectly. I have doubts they will have anything, even Arena. But I hope they do. I just figure if they havent said something yet, there is absolutely nothing. (Which by the way, means theyve been lying for months now, since theyve said they would have something for competitive types).
This is an internet forum. NOTHING we discuss here "matters." If we said "yay, I really like the hardlight shield" how does that matter any more then this current discussion? Feel free to talk about what interests you as well. For some of us, the lack of competitive play options in Halo 4 is the topic that is most interesting to discuss.
As a change of pace, I was thinking the other night, how Halo never has had a long range shield draining type weapon. I would like a BR type gun that drains shield quicker, but cant get head shots. Something that allows me to work with my team to drain their sheilds so they can finish them off. Or vice versa. As it is, I dont see the need for DMR+BR+Carbine+Light Rifle or whatever. They all fill the same niche.
A shield draining, ranged primary would also make the magnum more viable as a secondary. As it is, the Plasma Pistol and the shotgun-pistol the obvious choice as they provide a close range alternative to the long range primary. I guess AR+magnum might work, but...I doubt it.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
I like the multiplayer in Halo but I'll be buying Halo 4 mainly for the campaign and story. ODST and Reach are both my favorite FPS campaigns this generation, and the narrative is the main reason why I liked Reach so much. It had a simple but well told story, really making you feel the effort made by Noble Team to try and save Reach. ODST had a nice plot too, with Sadie's Story.
I have high hopes for the plot in Halo 4, seeing all the effort that went into the narrative this time around. I just hope it doesn't get hurt by the fact that it's designed to be the first in a trilogy and leave us with too many unanswered questions and some bullshit cliffhanger.
By the way, anyone up for some ODST Co-Op?
Podcast WHORING: Episodes 2-8 (Thanks Zonghui)
Great. The e-peen argument. Do you make fun of Micheal Jordan's B-peen because he wanted to win NBA championships? Do you make fun of Tiger Wood's G-peen because he wanted to win the masters?
Its fucking competition man. People like it. Some don't. Its about a goal to drive for. I get it. You personally dont feel that drive. Cool. Its not a BAD thing to do so though. Stop acting like it is.
There is nothing in Halo 4 to compete for in a bigger scheme of things. That is what I mean by competitive options. There is nothing. A match exists in a vaccum and then the results of that match dissapears forever and everyone gets a piece of candy and some credits for participating. There is no leaderboard, no league system, no rank to compete for.
Dont be a douche about it. You cant just Romney this shit and yell "IT IS THERE" when it isnt. There is nothing that folks who enjoy a competitive game type will enjoy.
You have all the same shit in Halo2 and 3, except without the "ranked playlists" and you have the same shit from Reach but without "arena". Those two things are obviously what I am talking about. They were the "competitive" modes in the past, and there is no replacement.
Why not talk about all the reviews that just shot out of embargo slipspace.
And I appologise for swearing, wasnt meant to be taken as AT anyone. Just emphasis. Its also just a bit annoying when I spend pages explaining exactly what my opinion is, then someone completely ignores it and dismisses it all in one insulting sentence. To act as though there is nothing missing from Halo 4 that a certain crowd enjoys is not having an honest discussion. There obviously is. There are game modes catered to that audience which no longer exist, and have no replacement. If you didn't enjoy those game modes, fine. But that doesn't mean they arent missing.
some googling says it'll have bleed-through, which I could've guessed
a bit disappointed because I thought Reach's system was a pretty satisfying solution to double beatdowns, but whatev
With bleed through. They run at me, I shoot, we exchange punches, now they are much closer to death then me. I can just fire a bit more AR and finish them. Or a body shot from the BR.
Plus melee damage is increasd to 60%, which will help this even more.
20% damage done running at me, 60% melee. Now they have 20% left, and i have 40. I will probably win that fight. But chances are actually, Ill be able to do more then 40% before the punch, so my punch will just finish them.
In reach you had a LOT of "i do like 48% damage before the punches, so my punch was worth 2% while theres was worth 50%."
But in the situation you described: you just need to keep shooting them for a moment longer after they melee you, pop their shields, and then melee them for the kill while they're recovering. If you train yourself to not instantly reciprocate the melee in an attempt to "catch up," you'll win out unless they seriously rushed you down (in which case, they got the drop on you and it makes sense that they would have an advantage).
Your shooting isn't a waste as long as you commit to it and understand how the shields work.
But I can see how bleed through will work against double punch more then I can see how it will work in favor. (the 60% damage is a factor too, as double punch will do 120% damage, which is overkill, so assuming its balanced, you should be able to do 100% damage quicker with 1 punch, then shooting or some combo there of). But we wont know until the game plays.
I am curious about the sidearms. They have a crazy shotgun pistol now. Seems like the magnum will be distinctly the worst option of the 3.
It was the only conclusion that I could come to, given that there's absolutely no reason we couldn't both enjoy the game in our own separate ways. I have no problem with you enjoying it your way, but you seem to have a huge problem with the way I choose to enjoy it, and I don't get that. I don't get why you think everyone should play it the way you play it. At the end of the day, that's what this argument is about.
Bleed: Shooter - Fires a bit, then punches the guy, shield breaks but he is not dead. Second punch maybe he's dead, in rare cases he is not.
Puncher- Goes for the punch. Depending on whether he was running, jumping or whatever, he MAY drop the shield, or simply lower it to the minimum. A second punch may kill or may not depending on how well the first one went AND the circumstances of the second punch.
No Bleed: Shooter - Fires a bit, then punches the guy, shield breaks. Second punch will kill for sure.
Puncher- Goes for the punch. In many cases, this is calibrated to NOT break the shield, instead to fall just short. Second punch breaks the shield. Do you think he is getting a third one? Not likely.
Now of course different things were happening and people generally like to use punching as a finishing move, so the finesse of the second option probably rubbed people the wrong way. The latter did have the benefit of you knowing IMMEDIATELY when you had done it wrong and why that meant you were going to die.
About e-peen, nobody makes fun of professional athletes because they are PROFESSIONALS. Even High School athletes have scholarships on the line. E-peen is specifically mocking someone who is playing for nothing (not a cash prize or whatever) but treats it as if it were something meaningful in a real way. If you were in the MLG circuit and started complaining about melee damage, I would not insult you. I might disagree, but I wouldn't insult you. Now if you're playing on the "playing on the couch in my boxers" circuit and are complaining about visible number skill ranks? Well...
I mean of course the first two days are going to be unbearable because of server overload though.
Just drop it already, no one is going to convince anyone at this point and it's pointless to keep it going
And you guys have basically stopped keeping it civil so chances are we're going to have a mod stop the debate anyway if none of you guys just lets the issue rest
not like it wouldn't be anyway. Reach did the exact same thing on release day and even on the beginning of the beta
Its the same drive though. Admittedly, a better example would be olympic atheletes. They dont make any money. A few end up famous with endorsements (hey so do a few gamers!) but it doesnt mean their competition is silly or useless.
We are getting away from any Halo discussion though. I will just say, you are admitting to having a prejudice against a certain mindset which seems to be impacting your discussion. You dont seem to like competitive gamers, you find it acceptable to make fun of them. I think, you therefore cant see where we are coming from. You seem to see the desire to compete as a bad thing, and a negative, something worth mocking. But that makes it really difficult to have an honest discussion about removal of those playlists from Halo with you.
Sorry if things got heated. Don't want bad blood. I enjoy just dicking around and having fun in Halo as much as the next guy too. So, hopefully said dickery can occur in the future. Just keep in mind, if you ever hear me laugh or seem to be enjoying myself in Halo 4, it is masking a deep sadness about lack of ranks
Funny stuff from reviews:
-One of the ones I read said they enjoyed fighting alongside Spartans for the "first time". Missed a game huh? Or is that an ironic comment about how terri-stupid Noble Team was in action?
-One of the reviews wondered if we would find out Halsey's deal in the next game. Hopefully the comments told them to check out the books.
Also I had a thought. I know there's no Firefight, but couldn't they make one of the Spartan Ops levels an infinite mode once you beat it? Like take it back to ODST where the options are take it or leave it, but the scenario is well balanced and fun?
Hopefully spartan ops will provide a nice surprise for me and my group of friends!
*Stop ignoring me*
First, yes unraked wont impact trueskill. That was my point about needing two seperate game types for impacting trueskill and not. I want a place to dick around etc and not have it impact my trueskill. Halo 4 wont offer this.
No I don't disagree with it, your boiling down of it was comically inaccurate.
No, I don't. I was saying that your skill is best measured as the probability of you winning the match you're in, that includes matches when you're not wearing your try-hard pants. Trueskill, as in that magic number you see, is designed to have a best-estimate of your average level and a factor which describes how certain the system "thinks" that estimate is. As you play matches the best estimate will approach an accurate measure of your average skill, while the uncertainty that you're in the right level will decrease. There are actually a number of circumstances where you can lose a match but still gain in average skill or win a match and lose in average skill. Intentionally culling the bottom half of your "average" is absolutely unmistakably gaming the system.
I can see that it would put you at a disadvantage, I did not say that it wouldn't put you at a disadvantage. It will, however, give the system a better measure of your average skill and decrease its uncertainty about your skill.
The problem with this isn't just that you are artificially getting a bigger number, it's that you're now introducing extra external uncertainty that I doubt the system can even accurately represent, let alone accommodate into the model.
your opinion, fair enough. My opinion is that never in the history of any competition ever there has been a competitor "choke", get sick, or injured and lose the match. Golf would be a very uninteresting sport if you only ever counted birdies, eagles, and hole in ones.
One again, not saying there shouldn't be a ladder/league system. There absolutely should be one. The details of its metrics should be abstracted to protect the system from being compromised.