Gubz

-Pretty sure he was insulting Maine before I even got here. In addition, how many arguments are nullified by derogatory language, internet or otherwise. Same number as those that are won with it, 0. -Nothing, I just don't like arrogant people who also happen to be wrong. I don't expect insulting him to help my argument at all, I just wanted to insult him, because: 1. He was being arrogant to someone whose claims were obviously far more based in fact than his own. Claiming that his arguments weren't getting across because of close mindedness. Just...what even. Fedora++ 2. He was downright wrong to make many of the claims he did. This is like people who correct grammatical errors, and in turn make grammatical errors of their own in the same sentence. This makes me friggin' crazy. 3. My immediate opinion of him was total distaste. Forgive me for disliking someone immediately, his comments pushed all of the wrong buttons. So, in summary, I insulted him simply because I didn't like the way he was behaving and I felt like someone needed to step in and shut him up. This is no way negates any claims I have made, but, I understand your dislike of my behavior. I'll be more civil from here on out, I apologize. Let's see: 1 - he called me close minded because he was wrong, I'm not taking that garbage * - He doesnt, they don't. Neither do I, neither do you. We mean nothing unless we're collectively a fanbase that supports an idea. 2 - admittedly, that was too far, but it isn't wrong...and that made me smile, so I had to say it. * - summary of what I was about to say.. not sure why this made your list 3 - lost my patience, it felt like he was replying without even reading 4 - see #3 5 - see #3 6 - see #3, also arrogance + ignorance pisses me off, as I've previously stated 7 - just having a bit of fun with it 8 - another response directed towards blatant arrogance + ignorance Again, I apologize for my behavior. I'm not going to say it wasn't warranted, because I think it was, but I will admit that it contributed nothing to the thread, and I will stop. An individuals attitude is completely irrelevant to their logic. This shouldn't need to be said. This forum is comprised mainly of people who are fond of Halo 4, and is therefore an extremely biased source of information. The only reason I am here is because I hope to make as much of an impact as I can on the next title. My efforts will likely amount to nothing, but at least I can say I did something. A compromise would be alright with me, but there are certain things in Halo 4 that just need to go. Forever. (I'm looking at you, unequal ordnance drops) There is no need for a study, I just did it. Call of Duty was alive and kicking in Halo 3's era just as it is now. Counter Strike has been around forever, Battlefield 2 was out in 2006, and Bad Company was out in 2008. These are the only truly relevant players to the data, all of which are static to the scene up through today. I do also miss the theme song :l

1) The colored ranks were just an example of how this might be done. I'm trying to come up with ideas for having both exp and skill in matchmaking without people feeling left out of the fun. 2) I like Reach's lobby but not Halo 4. The information is quick and easy to access, but you can't see everything at once. It's pretty, but it sacrifices a lot of personality to be that way. Reach: http://plusxp.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/reachmulti3.jpg Halo 4: http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii97/Mr_Random100/WP_000143.jpg (I couldn't find a good picture) As you can see though, Reach is very clean. Ranks are easily visible, names are clearly visible, emblems too. A player's name is more important than how their spartan looks. However, Halo 4 is cluttered with so much information that people have to be "tabbed out". Ranks are shunted and numerical (therefore not memorable), names are often hard to read, emblems are so underplayed that they virtually don't even matter. A player's spartan is more important than their name, and they all blend together. 3) This is my least valuable point, I think the improvement would be marginal at best. But, I still think it would make the map selected accurately represent what people really wanted. (How many times have you voted for random when you preferred map number 2, just because random and map number 1 were tied?) 4/5) Exactly, too many medals, and hardly any of them are actual feats. First Blood is earned on a 1:match basis, but it's not a "top" medal. It doesn't require any more skill than the next guy to get. All it boils down to is who runs into who first.

Nobody should have any problem with EA selling cosmetic items, the problem comes when EA sells competitive advantages. That's why people dislike EA. But they don't have to charge for skin packs, I just like 343 and I think it would be a good source of income for them. I'd prefer if they were free, but if I had a choice between paying for them and having them not exist, I'd pay for them.

That logic though. I'm not even going to dignify that pathetic cry for a high five with a worthwhile response. First, you claim I'm the one with a closed mind, and somehow you're the one siding with the 15% minority. Well golly-gee-shucks, I guess you got me. I'll just stop reading your posts since I'm not open-minded enough to understand them. Please reread your post before you hit submit, that was as neckbeard a comment as neckbeards get. 1: Implying you and your friends matter It doesn't matter what you think, and it doesn't matter what I think either. Tough. The player base has made their decision, and they do matter. If 15% like vanilla and 85% like chocolate, what does an intelligent company produce? Vanilla I presume? You're still crying about not getting your favorite ice cream, and yelling at everyone for patronizing the ice cream truck that's going to put yours out of business. That's all I'm seeing here. People like you seem incapable of comprehending that someone else can enjoy something you don't. But wait, before you use that same argument against me: -It doesn't matter what you like. It doesn't matter what I like. What matters, is what the consumer base likes, and that just happens to coincide with my opinions, and not yours. I fully understand what you want to see in Halo 5, and I resent the fact that there are people that don't get what they want. But that's life. The difference between you and I is that my visions for this game make 85% of the population happy. Yours make 85% of the population unhappy. By adamantly defending your position, you are being selfish. By adamantly defending my position, I am defending the interests of the people. You'll just have to either go with the flow, or deal with being the bad guy. 2: And again, missing step two of the train of though you've boarded "How is randomness bad?" I'm reasonably certain I explained that. I understand your "adapt and survive" philosophy, that part I agree with. The problem you keep ignoring however is that one player has to adapt, and another does not. Immediately giving the second player the advantage. It would be different if that advantage was earned, but it is assigned. -You are saying that a battle of David and Goliath is a fair fight because David still has the opportunity to beat the Goliath. -I am saying that a battle of David and Goliath is not a fair fight because David has a disadvantage to overcome to beat the Goliath. Heads up, the only reason we know who David and Goliath are is because the second bullet is true. The victory was legendary because it was not fair. Meaning it was a rarity, meaning that it shouldn't have happened, meaning that Goliath should have won. I'm going to take a deep breath, and try my best to make you understand this in terms of Halo, because clearly either you don't get it, or you're in a disturbing amount of denial. On a small map, player A gets to choose between plasma grenades, speed boost, and a sniper rifle. Player B gets to choose between damage boost, a needler, and a shotgun. This causes several problems: a. player B has an obvious advantage, that was given to him over player A for no reason at all b. neither player has any way to accurately predict what weapon the enemy will be holding when they meet point (a) de-levels the playing field, which is a bad thing. If you don't understand why that's a bad thing, it is not my responsibility to explain that to you. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal point ( removes another aspect of strategy from the game. also bad. 3: Since you don't like words, have evidence Pulling factoids from your buttcrack again, not that I'm surprised. This video is the Halo 3 2010 championship game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnKJpVie1nM Are they camping? Not at all, (with the exception of each sniper staying nearby the map's vantage points) they are controlling the map through careful movement that often encompasses moving around a lot. They don't spend the entire match at the rocket spawn, they know that the rockets take 180 seconds to spawn, and they know when the last person picked them up. They move in to take control of the rocket position when the rockets are about to spawn. Not that you would actually watch the video, everything you've said so far indicates a lackadaisical attitude towards accurate information. You just got disproved by raw, factual, evidence. But, you probably don't know when you've lost, and are still going to argue for your invalid "point". Have fun with that. 4: A statistical proof of the inferiority of Halo 4 when compared to Halo 3, for your reading pleasure Again, you are trying to argue against a statistic. Statistics are numerical in nature, and are not based in opinion. They are raw facts from which data is to be collected and interpreted. In this case, yes, 10k is a lot of people. But statistically, when compared to the 900% MORE that were on Halo 3, a game that sold a near identical number of copies after a year in, it is nothing. Have more links. Unlike you, I make sure my information is accurate before I use it to try to disprove others. http://www.vgchartz.com/game/51758/halo-4/ <--- Halo 4 has 8.92M current units sold (1 year + about 3 months) http://www.vgchartz.com/game/6964/halo-3/Global/ <---- Halo 3 had sold 8.88M by the end of 2008 (1 year + about 3 months) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/statistic As you can see by the facts I gave you because you're too lazy to look them up, Halo 3 and Halo 4 performed almost identically in sales at this point in their lifespan. And yet, again, at this time in its history, Halo 3 had 100,000 constant multiplayer users. The sales didn't change, so what would cause the population to drop so dramatically? Oh, that's right, the only other factor in the equation...the game itself. ------ So here comes some a watered down statistical proof to soothe your burned bum ------ Let's draw up a silly little function to use to illustrate...it does not matter that I made this function up. What matters is that it accurately illustrates the 3 variables in question in a way that makes the information useful. Sales / Lack of game quality = popularity "Sales, cut in number based on a numerical rating of how bad the game was, will equal to the number of people playing it at a given time" We are going to use sales and the number of people playing to extract a ratio representing the quality of Halo 3 to Halo 4. 8.92M / x = 10,000 <--- this represents halo 4 with it's 10k player base, and 8.92M sales x (lack of game quality) has a coefficient value of: 892 8.88M / x = 100,000 <---- this represents halo 3 with it's 100k player base, and 8.88M sales x (lack of game quality) has a coefficient value of: 88 On our little arbitrary numerical scale of badness, Halo 4 scores an 892. Halo 3 scores an 88. Halo 4's 'badness' scales at a 10.13 to 1 ratio when compared to Halo 3. Halo 4 is 10.13 times worse in the eyes of the consumer than Halo 3. ^That is a (watered down because you don't need cited logical laws) statistical proof with cited sources. If you try to argue this point again I'm just going to laugh at you. A lot. 5) Guns do work in many ways...but not all guns are equal in every situation You're right, I'm the one being ignorant, how silly of me. I didn't neglect the fact that guns work in multiple situations. You can use any gun in any situation. You, however are missing the next step in that train of thought, which is: Which weapon is better in each situation. Yes, I can use a sniper from 5 feet away to shoot, and then quickly melee for a kill. But the enemy with the scattershot has the advantage every time. Yes, I can use a rocket launcher on an enemy 40 yards away, but the enemy with the BR has the advantage every time. Ordnance is only imbalanced because everyone received something different. If everyone got identical drops I would be 100% okay with it. - - - - - - - - - - - - In conclusion to this post: If you're going to "disprove" an argument, you might want to start off by saying something that is actually based in fact. Your logic is so tangled that it took this much text to unravel it, you should be ashamed of yourself.

I think they could actually turn a profit releasing "Skin packs" for forge that retextures the set of existing base building block pieces. Everyone could play on the maps, but only those that purchased the packs could forge with them.

The changes made after Halo 3 are unpopular. If you would doubt this claim, take a look at the average player count. No, I don't have "source" for this data, because I collected it with my own two eyes, and I remember it very clearly. I used to play Halo constantly because I had too much free time after school every day. College changed this, but not by much, even with school and a job I have a lot of time to kill. Now, I see my Halo 4 case collecting dust, the memory of a dying multiplayer franchise that I pray rebirths with the fiery explosiveness of a pheonix of legend. Now, these are the numbers, and they are accurate within a 10% margin. Period. I remember this very well: Within a year of release, Halo 3 still averaged 100-150k players online at a given time Within a year of release, Halo: Reach still averaged around 50k online players at a given time Within a year of release, Halo 4 had dropped to 10-15k (This is being generous, usually that number is around 6- AT THIS POINT (1 year and a half after release) in the history of Halo 3: there were roughly ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND players constantly online, all day. Even at 2am the number scarcely fell below 75k. RIGHT NOW there are less than 10,000 players on Halo 4. So what do these numbers tell us? Sales didn't drop, in fact, they increased, so it's not the number of people who have the game, which means the issue is with the game itself. 85% of the playerbase (The remaining 85-90,000 that AREN'T playing Halo 4) have MADE their decision, and their decision counters every argument for Halo 4's gameplay. You can't fight statistics, they're numbers, not thoughts. Please stop trying, you are the barricade that is standing between the consumer base and the game they want. - - - - - - - - - - - - - And...just because of how painful this thread was to read Some responses to Howling Death Wolf and his disgusting 'reasoning': "play the old stuff if you don't like the new stuff" is among the worst logic I've seen in this debate. By saying that, you acknowledge that there is in fact an issue with the most current game that would cause people to not want to play, and are effectively telling him to screw off. That's checkmate right there, but I'll continue. The old stuff isn't even as good as it once was. Halo 2 is completely gone forever, while Halo 3 has been overrun by F2P folks with terrible internet connections and leftover tryhards from the golden age. The standard playerbase is gone, it's not the same game any longer. Fedora harder... please, I need a good laugh. I think your inability to proofread just gave me cancer. The problem with ordnance is not THAT it is earned, nor HOW it is earned, but WHAT is earned. Ordnance would be fine if everyone got identical drops to choose from for each corresponding roll in the match. Currently, someone might get a needler, a SAW, and a speed boost to choose from, while someone else might get a Sniper, a railgun, and an overshield. Randomness is NOT conducive to a competitive environment. EVER. Assume we're playing on Ragnarok: How is it fair for Player A to get a laser and Player B to get a scattershot for accomplishing the same thing? Answer- it isn't fair. PERIOD. Also, "noobishly camping the weapons" is known as map control. It's the idea of controlling KEY AREAS of the map to gain a competitive advantage, and no, it is actually impossible to do while standing still. It requires watching 2-4 vantage points at once for approaching enemies. Camping is sitting in a hallway watching one doorway, or crying in a corner about your lack of ability to aim. You obviously know jack about the Halo competitive scene if you call map control "noobishly camping the weapons", thereby making you the noob. That's checkmate number 2, I'm on a roll. Again, it's called map control. If you lose the fight over the BR spawn, guess what? You don't get a BR. And if you don't spawn with it, neither does anyone else. It's completely fair, you sound like a spoiled child who didn't get his ice cream. *sigh*...three. So that's why one year later, 85% less people are playing Halo 4 multiplayer than played Halo 3? I had no idea. You grace us with your genius, good sir. In all honestly though, you are pulling "factoids" out of your buttcrack. Back it up or shut it up, you are the cancer that is preventing the core market from getting the game they want. That's four. Again with this "I want my ice cream" attitude. If you had it your way, I bet you'd spawn with a rocket launcher. You'd call it 'balanced' because you 'only get 2 shots'. Reality check: you are describing rock-paper-scissors. "How I play" should be "I use my equal footing to:" "control the rockets" or "go for overshield", not "I use what I spawn with to counter what someone else spawns with". If I have a BR and a plasma pistol, and my equally-skilled enemy has an AR and a Boltshot, he's going to win every close range fight, and I'm going to win every long range fight. That's how the current system works. It seems to me like you want to remove as much equality as you possibly can, and replace it with customization. Putting weapons on the map fixes this. If the enemy has a boltshot and I have a plasma pistol, it's my fault for not taking better care of the boltshot spawn, or knowing that he had it because the weapon isn't on the ground where it belongs. ...and that's five. I'm going to stop before I give the poor guy a brain aneurysm.

The following are some feature changes that I would like to see in Halo 5. None of them have any bearing on the base gameplay, but instead adjust how we look at, and feel about, the game while we're playing it. Please don't reply without reading, especially to point number 1. I think once you've read what I've suggested there, you'll find that it adds to the experience, without detracting from it in any way. 1. Some form of additional ranking system that doesn't amount to raw EXP. (Don't get me wrong, I like the EXP rating too, check below for an awesome solution) For the exp ranking, you are a private, sergeant, colonel, whatever. But you are NOT a number. (Rank 120, anyone? This needs to go away.) For the skill ranking, or class, your insignia (the arrows of a sergeant, or the stars of a colonel) will be colored, or look to be made of a different material. For example. -Player A has a very low skill ranking. They have a .68 KD in slayer gamemodes, and they lose a lot of objective too. They have only played 12 matches though. -Player B has a relatively low skill ranking. They have a .88 KD in slayer, and they lose nearly every objective game they play. They have played about a month. 110 matches -Player C has a moderate skill ranking. They have a 1.02 KD in slayer, and a .96 win:loss in objective. They have played for a while, 318 matches. -Player D is a veteran, and a very skilled player. They have a KD of 4.15 and an objective win:loss of 3. They have played for months, 2200 matches. Player A might be a Private (class II), their rank symbol will be the arrow of a private, but the symbol's color would be a standard white, because they have not played enough matches to get an accurate skill ranking. Player B is likely a Lieutenant (class III), their rank symbol is the bar of the lieutenant, and is made of a rough, gritty metal granted to all the class III players who stick it out. Player C might be a Colonel (class V), their rank symbol will be the stars of a colonel, and will be the shining gold standard of a rank V player. Player D is probably a "Max Rank" (class X), their rank symbol will be the vibrant shape of a max rank adornment, and will have the fiery orange hue of a sunlit topaz. 2. Lobby style should revert from tabbed playercards to a list of names with a preview pane, like Reach had. (Halo 4 feels so impersonal, seriously. It makes you feel like a number. I feel more individualized at the DMV.) Remember the lobby for Halo Reach? Yeah. It was good, wasn't it? To the right there is a list of players and the teams they're on, with their name and ranking symbol. As you scroll through the list, the spartan preview on the edge of the screen changes to show their spartan and their stats. Simple, elegant, integrated, informative, personal. Well done. Halo 4's lobby looks and feels like Windows 8. Enough said, seriously, I don't even want to explain further than that. 3. When voting on maps and gametypes, the number of votes should be invisible until after voting has taken place. (Peer pressure voting is a real thing, most people don't even realize they do it.) -Add a voting option for "Impartial". The cursor should default to this position when voting, so the button mash voters don't screw the roll by voting for whatever ended up on top. -In the event of a tie, the map is randomly chosen from the tied maps. Players are never shown the vote tally, but may still have communicated with their team while voting. -Gametype should be an independent vote from the map vote when relevant, and voting should follow the same principles therein. 4. Post match data should go back to the way it was in Halo 3, including top medals (MVP should be pictured. Top medals should return to being accurate.) -The post-match screen from Halo 3 was ideal. Honestly, just return to that format, it was nearly flawless. As for top medals: I like top medals, it's a cool addition to the game, like a competition of its own. However, when I see "first blood" as the top medal every match, I want to throw something at my television. Rules for top medals: a. First Blood should ONLY be a top 3 medal when NO OTHER 3 medals have been earned. First blood is earned EVERY GAME. It is not "top" in fact, it is not even relatively impressive. b. Medal count should not supersede medal quality (3 double kills are not as impressive as an overkill, 4 killing sprees are VASTLY easier to achieve than 1 riot) c. Bull-trues are not inherently impressive. Most are either pure luck, or just outright bull-CRAP in the form of someone who pulled a shotgun from their own buttcrack. d. Stickies are underrated (in large quantities). They're impressive, and usually worthy of screaming into your mic. 5. Speaking of medals.... What happened? Where's my sharpshooter medal!? -The lifetime "medal chest" should be view-able in game by yourself and other players -The following medals need to be in / return to the game: *20 streaks were never ingame, but should have been. Weapon Sprees (5/10/15/20*) -Sniper Weapons (sniper spree, sharpshooter, be the bullet, 20*) -Hammer (hammer spree, dreamcrusher, wrecking crew, 20*) -Shotgun (shotgun spree, open season, buck wild, 20*) -Sword (sword spree, slice and dice, cutting crew, 20*) -Headshots (headshot spree, trigger happy, marksman, 20*) -Stickies (Sticky spree, Sticky Fingers, Grenadier, 20*) -Wheelmans (wheelman spree, roadhog, road rage, 20*) -Splatters (splatter spree, vehicular manslaughter, sunday driver, 20*) -Assists (assist spree, sidekick, second gunman, 20*) <---- currently, the "assist spree" exists as "wingman" Other -Sniper weapon headshot medal (WHY would you remove this. GIVE ME ONE REASON. Honestly!) -The following medals just need to be worth more points Headshot (Currently equal to kill. Just...what even...) Snapshot (also currently equal to a regular kill. Again..what on earth was going through the decision-maker's mind here? I am INCAPABLE of understanding this.) -The following medals simply need to go away Distraction (these are pretty much universally given to terrible players who can't land shots, and/or have no map awareness, I'd be willing to bet less than 1/1000 are intentional) Fortification Assist (See also: Camper (noun) - obnoxious, selfish individual who can't aim and thus resorts to 'surprise attacks' on his betters, often ruining the pace of a game.) Vehicle Hill (there is no reason to differentiate this from otherwise just being in the hill) Weapon-specific "kill" medals (they are all worth the same number of points, just use a generic kill medal and free up resources for medals that are actually accolades) And that's it. Comment, like, dislike...whatever. I just think that if these changes were made to the Halo matchmaking environment, it would feel better overall, and therefore make the game more enjoyable.