Forums / Games / Halo Wars 2

Feedback - Ranked Seasons

OP ske7ch

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 12
No not linked to dlc and 2-3 months lengh and get ingame leaderboards in asap even top 100 200 so you don't need to see how much people play :)
Seasons to drop with new dlc if last a month if not and the dlc is clearly going to take longer balance update and season change then release dlc once ready. Balances and seasons shouldnt be tied to dlc
I would love for the seasons to be like halo 5, that way we know of rank resets and if there are future delays in DLC content(as with any game) we wouldn't have shorter seasons because a delay of content. I understand dropping a new leader could of have a spike in winning and losing but I would rather know when the season resets so I can get ready for the next season. A season should not be delayed by any means or shortened by any means. I'm sure alot of people would rather have it this way also.
I'd prefer to see short seasons since the playerbase seems so weak (to keep people motivated to play), I want month long seasons personally,
1. Separate from DLC. We will just have to deal with game changes or a new leader mid-season.
2. Season should be 4-8 weeks. 6 weeks seems ideal.
3. Placement should be 7 matches. That seems reasonable in a 6 week or so timeframe.
Getting to the higher ranks can be a bit grindy, so I think 2 months would be fine. Please release balance changes when they are needed and ready and don't wait for season's end.
4-8 weeks regardless of dlc content
1- no
2- season per month or every 2 months
10 placement matches are fine in my opinion.
apart from the fact I am always paired with inexperienced players its very good
ske7ch wrote:
hey folks - As you know, we're nearing the end of the first season of ranked play in Halo Wars 2 (just waiting on that Colony DLC to drop!).

The current plan of record is to kick off a new season with the release of each new leader since this new content shakes things up and will surely always include some amount of broader balance tweaks in parallel. This makes sense in theory.

When a future DLC runs into delays, it starts to cause some challenges as the season lingers on indefinitely. Likewise, if a DLC is delayed but the following one isn't, we could have a situation where a season may only last 2 to 3 weeks. That doesn't seem too ideal.

I'd love to hear you what you all think -
  1. Do you prefer to have season rollovers remain tied to DLC releases? (even if it means inconsistent / unpredictable durations)
  2. Or, would you rather just have seasons tied solely to a calendar cadence (similar to Halo 5), even though you'd have balance changes and new leader drops coming in the middle of an active season?
Bonus question: In your opinion, what's the ideal season length (regardless of the DLC/balance component)

I've also gathered some feedback and have passed to the team regarding the number of placement matches required for a season. I've heard from quite a few folks who think it should be less than 10 games if a season is barely a month long.

As the design team evaluates and reviews the season structure going forward I'd love to help round up your thoughts and feedback for their consideration. Thanks!
Seasons should be at least 2 Months. A calendar cadence like in Halo 5 sounds very nice!

10 placement matches are absolutely okay!
HobbinGuy wrote:
1. Separate from DLC. We will just have to deal with game changes or a new leader mid-season.
2. Season should be 4-8 weeks. 6 weeks seems ideal.
3. Placement should be 7 matches. That seems reasonable in a 6 week or so timeframe.
I don't know, finding 7 matches in 6 weeks might be tough on PC ...
All I know about ranked playlists is that I get disconnected and my 1v1 ranking falls like I had quit the match. It's so frustrating that I just stop playing the game whenever it happens.
1 month long is enough for season.

Anyway, who care about ranking in seasons? There is any reward or something?
We need am in game leader border and to be able to see the rank of the players we are versing and also to make penalties for dodging
1. No
2. Yes

Honestly, new rank coming and new leader seems two really good things to make players to play the game. In short, it means two peaks of population. If we have two momentums per month rather than one only moment for me it seems is better to gathering players to play more.
I would prefer the four seasons of the year approach
Make it so people cannot see each other's gamer tag until in match to many people cherry picking matches it is not legit ranked and on the flip side no one will play with the higher ranked people unless u r penalized
I'm good with season lengths based on leader dlc. Honestly, I would prefer a two-month time frame between DLC with balance patches in the middle to. address specific problems with each added leader before the next leader is dropped. That would ease the burden of new leader development while also taking advantage of community and competitive response to new leaders.

I think it would be great if there was a way to display your rank in-game instead of having to look up opponents. Not sure how that would work, but I'm sure you guys could figure something out.
i would personally like to see if there could be an overall ranking system to effect all play lists. For example I'm ranked onyx in 1v1 but I'm stuck with horrible teammates in 2v2s and 3v3s. Just something like a true skill ranking to make easier to compete with and against people my skill lvl
I'd prefer a A schedule, but I'm fine either way. You have all really done great with this game. The characters, units, and weapons are very well balanced and this shows great, high quality workmanship. Very impressed with how well everything was on launch, and am a huge fan of this game. The artstyle is amazing an I really love it, as well as the incredible charters of each units with their personalities. Thank you 343, great game.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 12