I think you cry too much.

[Surge]

You know what other gameseries doesn't change? CoD

I agree Ghostly, CoD only ever changes when it's a different time in history, none of the less, it's the same thing eveytime.

[Twinreaper]

Playing ranked games has nothing to do with knowing how the system works. I am old old achool modder and programmer...thats why I am the "Tech Guru". I have decompiled, decrypted and basically torn every Halo game to **** to learn how the wngine works and how the systems inside work. Goes qithout saying... I am quite versed in the Live API's and their transmission protocols. And yes, I do understand how the gameplay works.mechanically more than you ever will. I dont have to have a high skill level to show or prove that.

 

All your multiple accounts prove is that you are more passionate and have more time to invest in silly e-game ***** size. I chose to play primarily for fun and to extend the traditional Halo experience to ungrateful little ****s like you who care nothing about the latter. Surfice to.say that yes we are from 2 different sub groups but just because you have in-game skill... please dont misconstue that into meaning you are superior in knowledge about anything Halo related. Using a controller to kill opponents is a far cry from decrypting files and writing your handling code to manipulate assets.

 

Common problem in thia commjnity...competative fan boys think they know Halo better than anyone.

[Sova]

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.

[Sova]

You know what other gameseries doesn't change? CoD

 

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

[PeytonManThing]

Twin, knowing how to program something has NOTHING to do with knowing how game balance works and how marketing of a game works. Just because you know how to write a program does not mean you realize what makes and breaks a game. The two things are completely separate. Good gamers talk about knowing about that, because THEIR SKILL is what the game is balanced around, not some wannabe programmer's ability to look at the games code. The argument here is whether or not the Halo franchise should attempt to cater to the masses, which did not work for them in Reach and leaves hardcore console FPS gamers with no good videogames left to play, or if they should cater to their base of FPS gamers that want a well balanced game. Blablabla I know how to program is totally out of scope, and if you cannot see your logical leap then you're an idiot.

[P-1609]

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, just like me, are talking with opinions, with our points of view. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I am a casual player, got better things to do, but I love Halo, more for the story than for the Multiplayer experience. I can live 1 year playing no multiplayer and replaying campaign just to understand storyline better.

 

I said you sounded like a CoD fanboy, and later on you said, because it doesn't change it has the highest sales. Again, I disagree with you.

 

Just one more thing to say: You can't comply about a game you haven't played entirely yet, plus its not finished.

[VivaLebowski]

Heres the bottom line:

 

They should get a better ranking system that mixes stuff from Reach and Halo 3.

 

There are definitely merits to both systems, even if I favor Halo 3's system. Note that I'm not a hardcore or particularly pro player. Simple truth is, a number, albeit flawed, which represents some measure of skill and correlates with your rank is simply a very good thing. As Twin says, it might very well be a "virtual ***** size" (though that language might be a bit extreme) thats still completely arbitrary but its still a better system than simply having ranks based on exp. Reach might have behind the scenes matchmaking every bit as good as Halo 3, though it does not display that. At the very least, its not as intuitive as H3's system. All that said, H3's system was very very imperfect. Booster accounts, which I think Silvi may have been suggesting he had, are stupid, a complete waste of time, and they should be stopped.

 

With regards to yalls argument, Silvi, you need to stop being so damn emotionally invested in a video game, worse yet, in a single element of a video game. Competitive play is good but it aint everything.

 

Twin, we all know your the Tech Guru. I have absolutely no doubt that Silvi uttered allot of incorrect nonsense. That said, the other guys have a point that being able to code and network doesnt mean jack **** if you don't have a good sense of what actually works in game or not. Being able to move around troops and bark orders really well doesnt mean much if you arent a good strategist, to use an analogy (or metaphor? I always get them confused.)

 

So both of you please, you've beat this into the dirt.

 

Also don't appreciate Silvi how you seemed to invite peopl unto this forum simply for the purpose of supporting you, thats if you didn't simply make new accounts and post those things supporting you. It just ain't classy.

[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.

[Twinreaper]

Look, I am all for a great rank system as much as the next guy. I have no personal quarrel with any of that. I feel they need to keep the competitive and casual split so they don't collide and make a mess. That has always been my philosophy. I have outlined before on here many times how the rank system should be employed and used. A lot of people liked what me and some other guy came up with.

 

My issue is with competitive types acting like no one else matters. The only reason i got involved at all was because someone posted misinformation about boosting/hacking/whatever. Other people turned it into something it didn't need to be. As for he direction of the game, sorry. It is not the casual gamers fault that the population is dominated by us, at this time in the market. It makes good financial sense to cater a game towards the group that will dish out the most money for it. I am not saying it is right to do that, I am just simply putting it out there to be known.

[Sova]

I also want to clear something up. This might sound a little strange but I think it easily applies. I'm hoping most of you know how the free market works and the limits we have on it. So use this metaphor. Imagine your account as a store. You maximize the amount of profit that store brings you...what do you do? Correct, you expand. to maximize that profit...Now that second store will be more efficient because you now know what works and what doesn't.

 

Back to Halo. Now relate that model to your account, say you reach 50 in Halo 3 and you played 5000 or so games and it took you 2000 wins to get it. So you really can't improve that much correct? You make a new account and play on that one. This time you get to 50 and it took you 2000 games with 1000 wins. Sure, you are a true 50 and you played against people who were well below your rank when you made your new account. Now Frank O'Connor thinks this is unfair and just utter stupidity. Sorry Frank, that's how the free market works. I SHOULD be allowed to buy as many accounts as I want and level them up how I please. Sure I might be helping my friends get to their 50 by being on a lower account. Sorry Frank. Deal with it, Sorry you kept getting butt raped by them but get OVER it. It's just ONE game and there's a social playlist if it bothers you THAT much. It's the same as a level 50 going into social slayer and just taking over.

 

This whole boosting inquisition was brought about by gamers who were tired of getting destroyed over and over by people who shelved out money for a new account. I'm not saying I think boosting is great, but I'm saying that its legitimate. The MAIN problem with boosting is the deranking. Deranking going all the way back to halo 2. It was terrible in halo 3 because it was easier to rank up whereas halo 2 it took far longer to level. If you really want to fix boosting/deranking then make it to where you can't kill yourself over and over. But that doesn't fix it completely either...you still hvae people who will go into a game and deliberately not play, so what do you do? Right, you kick them out after a minute of them not doing a single thing...but sometimes they get around that by just running around the map for 12 mins...

 

Do you see where I am going here? You're never going to fix a system, you can only put limits on it but those limits need to be thought out and need to make sense. Arena was not a very smart idea and seemed to be a poor copy of what Starcraft 2 uses. Instead, Bungie used the time for their last game to just put a bunch of junk in it to make the game as ridiculous as possible (that last sentence is my personal opinion and convictions against bungie).

[Killer K34]

passionate individuals you are, but remember your part of the community in halo as only a fraction of competitave players

[Sova]

Look, I am all for a great rank system as much as the next guy. I have no personal quarrel with any of that. I feel they need to keep the competitive and casual split so they don't collide and make a mess. That has always been my philosophy. I have outlined before on here many times how the rank system should be employed and used. A lot of people liked what me and some other guy came up with.

 

My issue is with competitive types acting like no one else matters. The only reason i got involved at all was because someone posted misinformation about boosting/hacking/whatever. Other people turned it into something it didn't need to be. As for he direction of the game, sorry. It is not the casual gamers fault that the population is dominated by us, at this time in the market. It makes good financial sense to cater a game towards the group that will dish out the most money for it. I am not saying it is right to do that, I am just simply putting it out there to be known.

 

I agree with you on much of that, the only disagreements I have are with the competitive vs. casual. I think, so long as Halo stays as the premiere MLG game, that it needs to be developed in a manner that caters to the competitive players first. That's just how I feel and Silvi feel. I'm not personally an a-hole about it, I can't speak for those who deliberately act that way, but I am hoping by posting my thoughts and views on the matter that it helps people realize the differences in the games and what should and shouldn't be in the next game. That's all.

[Twinreaper]

No, I have to agree with that previous post. While I do not agree with Frank and his approach he is wrong in doing what they are doing. Liek stated before, the big problem was skill lacking people complaining about high levels destroying them, or using secondary or third accounts to boost or whatever.

 

Like the previous...keep it separated and you curb the issue. Not everyone wants to play in the same sandbox, so why force us or why force others? And for the multiple accounts...no big deal. You should be free to make as many as possible.

 

But I do have an idea for those who dont like multiple accounts. Why don't they require you to play with people whom also have multiple accounts? Like somehow link it so that your secondary account shows up, and because it's a secondary of a level 50 or whatever, you get mashed in with higher level players from the start? this way players at level 10 or so, don't have anything to rage about? Just an idea...

[Sova]

 

 

But I do have an idea for those who dont like multiple accounts. Why don't they require you to play with people whom also have multiple accounts? Like somehow link it so that your secondary account shows up, and because it's a secondary of a level 50 or whatever, you get mashed in with higher level players from the start? this way players at level 10 or so, don't have anything to rage about? Just an idea...

 

That would be a brilliant idea, but I wouldn't know how complicated it would to implement it.

[Twinreaper]

Well, I'm not the best when it comes to explaining things like that but I will try...

 

basically I guess the easiest way to do it, would be to have a standard 5 tier rank system.

 

Teir 1: everyone...all levels compete against equal levels

 

teir 2: Secondary accounts start off being paired with level 30-40, from tier 1, then progress upward from there

 

Teir 3: Third accounts start off with level 41-50 from tier 2 and progress as usual

 

Teir 4: Fourth account starts off with nothing but level 50's from tier 3.

 

Tier 5: idk...i'm lost?

 

This way all tiers are free and clear of superior players from other tiers. Everyone should be happy with that i think?

[Silvi i Be]

I don't mind changes cause I can always adapt to them and deal with it. They can implement all the new features (forge, Spartan ops, new campaign story, armor customization, etc..) to attract as much players as they want. That makes me happy. But the only thing please don’t change or take out is the ranking system. Even the community is thinking of a good legit ranking system for 343 to use if they don't feel like putting time into thinking about a great system.

I don't think everything doesn't matter! I glad they are putting all these new features and expanding the games potential, just don't neglect the competitive aspect of the game.

Sorry for investing time on something I feel strongly about. Truth is that this single element has been ruined, neglected or whatever you want to call it!

Thank you for making this thread and everyone who has taken part in it!

 

[Twinreaper]

Silvi, hopefully they will give you guys a good system to use, and hopefully for you as well MLG won't be too quick to pull any plugs on H4 before anyone gets to actually play it. I have no doubt the game will be a success and open new doors for all players. Just try to have a little faith and hope, and perhaps we will all be suprised by November. Heres hoping anyway...

[Silvi i Be]

All is in good faith with 343! IDK if it's true or not but people are saying there will be 2 different ranking sytems. one for war games and then the second one will be and overall one like reach. But they seem to be keeping it a secret so just going to hold off till then. G night!

[PeytonManThing]

Look, I am all for a great rank system as much as the next guy. I have no personal quarrel with any of that. I feel they need to keep the competitive and casual split so they don't collide and make a mess. That has always been my philosophy. I have outlined before on here many times how the rank system should be employed and used. A lot of people liked what me and some other guy came up with.

 

My issue is with competitive types acting like no one else matters. The only reason i got involved at all was because someone posted misinformation about boosting/hacking/whatever. Other people turned it into something it didn't need to be. As for he direction of the game, sorry. It is not the casual gamers fault that the population is dominated by us, at this time in the market. It makes good financial sense to cater a game towards the group that will dish out the most money for it. I am not saying it is right to do that, I am just simply putting it out there to be known.

 

It is way more complicated than that. Reach was catering to the casual gamers and it failed completely. There are niches in the market and CoD absolutely dominates the casual FPS console market. Halo was dominating the hardcore fps console market. Halo Reach switched to trying to compete with the casual market and FAILED because they cannot compete with CoD, and Halo will CONTINUE TO FAIL if they try to compete with CoD. Clearly casual gamers do not buy casual based Halo games. Why buy a CoD knock off instead of CoD??? And hardcore gamers will not buy new Halo games if they are catered to casuals. I won't buy Halo 4 if it is anything like Reach.

[cydawg99]

This was unnecessary in my eyes. You could've simply stated that in a nice way. Also, speculation is speculation, and as long as Halo 4 isn't released yet, people will assume, think, discuss, debate, and of course, speculate on the game and the lore within.

 

oh bull **** people need to see the truth the truth hurts if its not pain full then its not a sacrifice so dont hate him cause it wasnt "nice" the world isnt nice so quit your b*tchin

[ςHϵΑƨϵMΩηεTΞr]

I like everything but that we will not b able to play as a sangheili! I ALWAYS played as one lol

[TLP Zeus]

bottom line we are all halo fans lets stick with the new game makers and lets see if they can deliver

[Twinreaper]

It is way more complicated than that. Reach was catering to the casual gamers and it failed completely. There are niches in the market and CoD absolutely dominates the casual FPS console market. Halo was dominating the hardcore fps console market. Halo Reach switched to trying to compete with the casual market and FAILED because they cannot compete with CoD, and Halo will CONTINUE TO FAIL if they try to compete with CoD. Clearly casual gamers do not buy casual based Halo games. Why buy a CoD knock off instead of CoD??? And hardcore gamers will not buy new Halo games if they are catered to casuals. I won't buy Halo 4 if it is anything like Reach.

 

Reach was not designed to compete with anything. Reach was made the way it was, because it represents the type of game that Bungie always wanted to do. This is why we have everything just mashed up in there. If you bother to watch any VidOC's they released, they state clearly several times, that Reach was a game for THEM, not us. It was not nor can it ever be compared to CoD. And if Reach was soooo fail as everyone is so fond of stating, then gander at this...

 

 

 

 

It's quite clear from the server data, that Reach has been played more in a shorter amount of time than any of the other titles. Imagine how much play time Reach will have when it gets to it's 77 month count. The numbers don't lie. You can argue population counts all you want, but it's impossible to gauge population from our perspective since we are not on 24/7 to see who comes and goes. Even if a majority of those games played were not online, they still got played period. And yes, this was published by Bungie themselves back in April when the transition of servers was happening. Enjoy!

[Wes Stone501]

i think there is to many whining about the whiners

[McChicken343]

I think you cry too much we are simply showing doubt.