Sova

As I've posted in other threads, every system has its flaws. I tout the 1-50 system because it was the most simple and easiest to understand. It was aesthetically pleasing and gave good motivation. Reach's system was a smart idea, but they didn't implement it correctly and people quickly lost interest. Heh, I even think Starcraft 2 has the best ranking system, but even that has flaws.. Boosting is something that will always exist so long as we have the ability to create multiple accounts. I'm sorry to say that but its true. My question is...and this is what P-1609 started the thread about...is why can't we be passionate about what's put into a game? Really? Why not? It goes back to what I was saying about how the community's feedback makes all the more difference in updating, creating, and monitoring a game. Silvi's point of view is that like many other halo fans who've seen it the franchise move in a direction we very well don't want it to go in. It's not our fault that the developers are listening to themselves instead of the people that make this game great.

I agree, the reason Starcraft's works so well is that it visibly shows where you are ranked among the community. If you are in platinum level you and ranked 1st you know you are above average. IF you get into diamond, masters, and then grand masters you know you are getting to a very competitive level. But I honestly rather have the H2 1-50 system.

And yet they have the highest sales of FPS games out there...I wonder why...

Twin, I'm sorry to say, but you miss the point with flaming Silvi. You are basically doing what you are claiming he's doing, "I'm a networking and programming expert; therefore, I know more about this game and how it works than you will ever know." But I'm sorry pal, game experience is also very important. It's awesome that you know a lot about how the game works on a technical level, but knowing how to play the game practically is something to be proud of as well. I'm in no way trying to discredit you or anyone in here. There's no trolling on my part, but its all a debate that I think has its roots all the way back to Halo CE. There's been this struggle between casual and competitive gamers. But honestly, I think you all miss the point as to why us "competitive fanboys" complain so much about these changes and directions that 343i is taking. Ever since Halo 3 Bungie and 343i have catered to the larger casual gamers, this has made gameplay more "pick up the controller and play friendly." Me and countless others believe this takes away from the sole reason of playing a video game. Those competitive gamers who want to return to the Halo CE and Halo 2 competitiveness are tired of this market-based selling out that appeals to the broader gaming community. I'm not saying there's a whole business model that Halo has been thrown into, but the gaming market certainly has had its affect on the franchise. How do I know this? Well, one, I've lived it, and two, I study business models. Halo is just another part of that mass gaming market where the endgame is to make the most money with the cheapest way of getting it. But that's another aspect as to how the Halo franchise has been losing its appeal. I think one of the inherent problems, that in a way relates to the gaming market, to why Reach was such a bust among competitive gamers is because there's been this constant struggle between competitive and casual. Since Halo 2, Bungie has increasingly shrank the ranked playlists to give way to more "casual" experiences; i.e., the introduction of forge, more social playlists, more customization in custom games. Forge and custom games is great, and more social playlists are great; yet, this has all been done at the expense of competitive gaming. Look at it this way, Halo 2 had mostly ranked playlists, then in Halo 3 you had it split about 50/50 between social and ranked, but you also had the introduction of forge. Then in Reach they dramatically increased social playlists and only had, at the beginning, two ranked playlists and then eventually one. This has taken a toll on those of us who want to see where we stand among the community. Sure, you can say that someone that never plays ranked can beat someone "touted" as an onyx or 50 person kinda disproves the point, but the whole point of a ranking system is to give a "general" idea about how good someone is and to match people to that according level. You win, you go up and usually play people that are your same level. It gives a feeling of personal accomplishment when you beat someone who you consider better than you. Without the rank, how are you to tell how good that person is? How are you to gauge where you are in the overall community? I'm tired of hearing people complain about those who have actively voiced their disagreements and predictions about the game. There's a reason people b**** on forums, its to get the attention of the developers. Forums is a mode for the developers and programmers to gain feedback on their creation. Without it you wouldn't see the changes each game has come with. By "complaining and whining", we hope to gain the attention of the developers to help make the game the best it can be.

You basically reasserted the typical fanboy casual gamer who does not care about the core of the game staying the same. You can't argue against a ranking system solely based on the fact that YOU alone don't like it. Most hardcore gamers, the gamers that played CE/2/3 daily will say that ranking makes much more sense than progression. And you're wrong about the spiker. 9/10 in close range, I could kill someone faster with two spikers than they could with an AR...it mattered. Dual SMG even trumps AR. And let me remind you, SMG/Plasma Rifle combo is the strongest close range weapon besides the sword and shotgun Instant respawn as I said doesn't effect slayer THAT much, as i said, THAT much, but it still affects it to an extent that can seriously alter outcomes of a game in a way that most would not want to see happen. Concerning your counter argument to weapon differences, that's the typical explanation i've heard so many years. Bloom andrecoil...trying to make the game more realistic...but the fact of the matter is, this is HALO, this is a futuristic game entirely fictionalized to the extent that there are zealous aliens attacking humans in the far reaches of space...what about that says that the gameplay should be realistic. If you want realism: I'm a very strong Spartan who's physical alterations and training from early childhood make me the most vicious and deadly accurate soldier in the universe...i'm pretty sure i'm going to be deadly accurate with my BR/DMR/AR...and plus, by this time in humanities time i think we would have invented weapons that minimize recoil so much that there practically is none.. But i digress. A good argument against tuning the guns every time is, "if it ain't broke, why fix it?" Seriously, the BR, sniper, rockets, they weren't broken in H2. But no, Bungie had to get all retarded and go without hitscan in H3 and then add bloom in Reach... My abilites argument concerning the jetpack was an extreme if you didn't catch that. But what I'm getting at is that these abilities can be abused so much that it makes the game not worth playing. It all goes back to the luck element that Bungie and now 343i is instituting. It's a matter of luck for me to go up against someone with an armour ability that is practically useless for them and gives me a very stark advantage over them. They talk about making the game more fair for people but in reality it gives people who normally would have an equal footing gain a outrageous advantage in combat. Again, ranking system does matter, you may not like it because you are "a casual gamer" but that's why we have social slayer. Ranking systems are for me and the other gamers who want to show what they are worth and how much skill they have. 1-50 showed this and arena attempted but failed miserably. You never countered my Halo becoming CoD argument. you merely state that evolution is part of the gaming industry and that every game has loadouts. Telling me, "if you don't want it, you don't buy it" is a fail of an argument because look at it this way. What if all of a sudden Microsoft changed Xbox live services in a way that you just could not utterly stand. What are youg oing to do with your 200-300 dollar console... just stop playing online? Yeah...tell me how that works out. That gets into another issue, IP laws are the bane of the gaming industry and quite frankly its ruining everything. Sure i could buy halo 4 for the campaign, but lets get this straight, more than half the game is based on this sandbox/MMO atmosphere of XBL. I'm buying a game for its online experience, not how good a story is, if i wanted the campaign then i'll shove out 20 bucks and leave it at that. Btw, I do play halo 3, and i will continue to play it as long as Reach and possibly H4 fail. But you saw what happened to halo 2...they took of the services for those types of games (original xbox games)...So now i can't play halo 2 unless im with 15 other budies of mine in a room with 4 or more tvs... Reality is, to play a similar gameplay I have to buy their new game so I can keep up with the rest of teh community. Honestly, if H4 fails this hard at multiplayer, I will never give Halo another chance. But that's my concern. And no, I'm no CoD fanboy, I absolutely despise the game. Sure I played CoD4, when it was fun and when it was different from H3...but H3 was my "go to" game when i wanted to have an adrenaline rush online. Yep you got me there...Halo 3 and Reach as CE would be PRETTY BORING... Nope, it would be a lot better than them... CE is by far the second best in the franchise and H2 will always be that game. Sure, evolution is great, yeah, better graphics, newer weapons (but keeping the core), and newer maps...but you know what, DON'T change how the game plays, that's what causes game sales to go down, its what causes a loss of interest in the community. Why do you think Reach has the lowest ratings of all the Halo games out there? Why is it that there's only a a few thousand people playing in a playlist at a time? Hell, I'll put money on it that more people play H3 still than Halo Reach...me counted as one of them. You want the god honest truth why me and others complain like we do and why we keep complying with the games they give us? Because we have a hope that someday, someone will be smart enough to change halo back to its former glory and place as the MLG king. Halo was THE game that got MLG started big time. Sure starcraft is great, but Halo was straight up personal. in the early 2000's. We "complainers" and "whiners" just want that game that we all have come to love. You can say, "go play classic" but that's just shooting myself int he foot. I want the "classic game", not some spinoff look alike. Yeah I'll say. I want halo 2 but with just newer graphics, with a fully functioning multiplayer. That'll make more money than Halo 4 and Halo Reach combined.

You miss the point of the ranking system if you honestly believe that. A silly number in front of your name SHOWS to those you are playing that you worked THAT hard and spent THAT much effort to get it. Without it what's the point in showing someone how good I am if Im probably only going to play them once? You see, a ranking system pits you against those of similar skill, it has you compete against players who you will more likely play against.

Sir, there are a number of considerations you take into account that prove to be false. I'll give you new weapons and no elites. However, everything else you mentioned easily makes or breaks a game. I'll start with every point and make my way down. 1) Permanent Sprint- You know why dual wielding and the great combos you could make with it no longer exist...because they wanted sprint in the game. What does this do. Instead of actually increasing the number of ways you kill someone, putting sprint in and keeping dual wielding out limits the amounts of decisions you can make. Also, if you noticed, since halo 2, the amount of time someone stayed alive in a "battle" and the influence of luck in these situations also gradually increased. Halo 2 was a team oriented game and in 1v1 situations, you knew you were on equally footing with your opponent (disregarding weapons and positions on the map). Sprint just ruins this aspect. It makes it easier for people who make a poor decision and "walk out into the open" and actually live. In halo 2, you had to be smart about where you were going or else you would get creamed in the open. 2) Instant Spawn- You can't honestly think that playing more makes a game better. Firstly, this will be a problem in objective games. How the hell will I get the flag and carry it to my base if the enemy can spawn instantly? In Slayer it's not THAT big of a deal but it still hurts 2v3, 3v4, etc... type of situations. 3) Weapons do not look the same, perform the same- Yeah...i do care how my BR and AR perform. The AR was seriously broken in Reach and to an extent the BR was in Halo 3 (no hitscan). Halo 2 was a pure skill/coordination game. Halo 3 the spread shot and no hitscan added luck into situations and Reach with the Bloom...i mean, you see where that went...MLG took it out. That says something. 4) Armor Abilities- With the exception of Camo and Overshield, ever since halo 3's implementation of pickups and Reach's armor abilities, the gameplay quality that we all cherished in H2 just collapsed. I'm sorry, if you want to jetpack out of the map with a sniper, go kill yourself, its not fun, and its highly inefficient. Also, armor abilities eliminate the implementation of tactics. With this new Promethean vision, there's not point in crouching around the corner to get a stealthy assassination. This also ruins team play. Now you no longer need someone to watch your flank, much less, there's no point in setting up. Think about this type of situation: A person gets to the rockets first, those who couldn't get there start to run away and hide to avoid a couple easy kills for the rocket guy. Well boohoo, the guy with rockets uses his vision to see exactly where everyone is hiding and therefore doesn't have to rely on his awareness, motion sensor, or callouts. 5) Ranking system- WHAT?!?! are you kidding me!? You progress, shouldn't matter how?!? You know why I played halo 2& 3? Because it was competitive, it was challenging, it was exhilarating to fight for a rank. You take that aspect out of the game and you are just another mindless CoD zombie. There's not fun in a game where you can't personally achieve something. CoD progression and Reach progression award players for playing a lot, but not HOW well they do. Ranking systme ALSO makes games more enjoyable because you play people your skill level, EVEN Arena did that to an extent. You take that out and you are playing noobs you can easily crush with one hand. Now tell me...wil this EVER stay exciting and joyful for you? Deep down you know that it gets old...FAST. I want to constantly play people my level where I have a motivation to play well. 6) You cannot use the Halo came before CoD logic...you just can't...That's like saying that Halo looks like GoldenEye or Perfect Dark because those two came first...you can't relate these games to one another. Let me also remind you that Call of Duty started out in WWII, you can't take a gaming engine designed for simulating real world combat and relate it to an engine designed for future and completely fictional story. But to elaborate more, how is Spartan points and loadouts NOT like call of duty. Halo CE/2/3 never had loadouts. Everyone started out with the same thing. This was what made Halo great and unique. Sprinting is another addition that just makes halo seem more call of duty. I'm not even going to go into the Instant Spawn or experience ranks or even perks (abilities if you want to call them that). Hell, i'll put money on that in Halo 5 there's a good possibility of seeing KILLCAMS and killstreaks. Say what you want about your gaming, but for those of us who played Halo 2/3 religiously and still do want to ensure that this franchise continues with that tradition. I in no way want to see Halo become the next Call of Duty franchise where we see a new game EVERY year and have this large absence of competitive gamers.

You know what's funny, O'Connor said his main problem with Halo 3 was the boosting because it gave an unfair advantage to people who were playing as 28's 29's and "boosting" their friends to 50's and matching up with low 40's and 30's. He said "Boosters, I can't go there intellectually"...you know what this tells me, O'Connor hates halo 3 ranking system because he got crapped on too much by "boosters" in matchmaking...seriously...how can you say it was that big of a deal. If you were 50 and were playing against illegit 50's you would cream them. If you were a 28 and playing people way above your level, its just one game and hell, it gives you a challenge. 1-50 was broken in halo 2 because of the modders and standbyers. But you know what, it was worth it because of the competitiveness. When they fixed that with Halo 3 it turned more towards boosting and host booting. But no system is perfect. There's always going to be something wrong with every system. Ex. Halo Reach's system is broken because of the visibility of the rank and how it ranked you. There's no motivation for team play or winning a game as there is in a 1-50 system. Plus, Onyx/Gold/Silver/Bronze/Iron...these ranks were meaningless because no one cared for what was by their name. A 50 is more pleasing to someone because it visibly shows that they worked through 50 levels (or less considering jumping a couple levels) to get there. Onyx was calculated after 5 games a month...seriously? This is how you rank people? Also, in Reach, you have to keep playing to maintain that rank...sorry, I'm not going to spend my time constantly playing to keep a spot in a division when in the grand scheme of things it held no weight for me. It was too easy to get put into a division. In halo 3, you had to go through every level or two to get to the next. There's more effort involved, and you play against people with similar skill. Conclusion: 1-50 system works well though it has a number of drawbacks. Going with a Reach system based on Arena is just too darn complicated and too lenient with division placing. Credits is an interesting idea, (Spartan points now correct?)...but that's for casual gamers (people who play CoD), not the core competitive people who want to show how they are the elite gamers of Halo. 1-50 attempts to stratify gamers in this accord, whereas Halo Reach held no relevance to the hardcore community.

Starcraft 2 ranking system, easy enough, there's the motivation and competiveness and visibility. Plus, they match you up in a correct way with Favorability.