Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

[Locked] Halo 5 isn't really a "true" Halo experience

OP XanaReplica

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 8
  4. 9
  5. 10
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. ...
  9. 17
Unknown wrote:
Unknown wrote:
Unknown wrote:
It's weird that you liked 4 more than 5, considering it had personal loadouts and perks making it the least "Halo" mp game. 5 reversed both and brought back the equal starts (not including warzone which is an "anything goes" game), even made all the weapons actually useful for the first time.

Don't get me wrong, I still liked 4, it's just this argument makes little to no sense.
I'm not OP, but did you even understand the post? How does a game being fun as an argument have no sense? Halo 5 is way more focused on competitiveness than any other Halo has been. Just watch the ViDocs from both Bungie and 343 and you'll see how the other games were built with fun in mind.

How does halo 5 focus too heavily on esports when there's 8 social playlists and 6 ranked playlists? Halo was knocked off its throne during halo Reach, not halo 5. Can you further explain why you don't think halo 5 is fun but halo 4 was?

Edit: Also, your post doesn't really explain the title.
Halo wasn't knocked off the throne in Reach. Halo 4 did that. Reach just caused a side-step that could have been easily fixed if 343 hadn't been all like "We need to distance ourselves from 'Bungie's vision' of the game at our first attempt." The quickest and largest drop in Halo players (that we know of) is still at Halo 4.
It was knocked off in Reach but halo 4 pushed it farther away.
The statistics say otherwise. Halo Reach fell off the top 3 right after 343's title update. I forgot what it did, but I'm guessing most people were mad about it. I wasn't. You can just google "halo population drop" for these stats. They're not hard to find.

Unless you have a better reason for Halo's spiral downwards in population, I'm sticking with what I see. 343 abandoned Bungie's "vision" for the franchise and left it to rot while polishing the remains. Almost balanced for fun > balanced for competitiveness. You don't have to look much farther than the most popular game of each genre on each platform to see that it's true.
The statistics say that Halo Reach never even made the sales of Halo 3. So right then and there, Halo didn't get more popular, it got less popular.

You blame 343i for abandoning Bungie's "vision", when it was Bungie that abandoned their "vision" in Halo 3 and made Halo Reach based on Loadouts and Armor Abilities. They took the bad things from Halo 3 and made it worse.

Equipment became Armor Abilities.
The BR's random shot mechanic became the DMR's Bloom.
The melee system had no bleedthrough anymore.

-Yoink- 343i fixed most of their problems with their TU. Active Camo was reduced. Armor Lock wasn't blatantly overpowered to the point of being broken. Bloom was removed.

By definition, Halo Reach was where it started to fall, since it didn't meet the sales of the game that preceded it.
If you read what I posted before, I agreed that it fell, but not as much as you're talking about. It was more like a rebound to yourself than a missed freethrow. 343 had a chance to fix things that Bungie put in place, but completely blew it with Halo 4. What used to be optional was now mandatory and the whole game suffered because of it. You didn't have to use power ups, dual wielding, equipment or Armor Abilities in CE, 2, 3 and Reach, I know I never did, and now 343 wants us to always use a new mechanic? The new mechanic should have gone through another phase of public testing as an Armor Ability, modifying it to suit the core of the game more.

As for Loadouts? Everyone still had "equal starts" in Reach. Your team and the other team had the exact same equipment in the ranked playlists, so you could counter them when you respawn. With Halo 4? They ruined the philosophy of Loadouts and made Classes instead. Level up to get newer and potentially better items. You never knew what the enemy could have. Plasma Pistol and DMR? Maybe. AR and Frags? Only for new players. Promethean Vision? Guaranteed. I admit I wasn't a competitive player, but I know what made the game tick for a lot of people. Halo 4's philosophy was all about "me, me, me," instead of "team, team, team," like in the other games.

I was never talking about sales, but recurring players. If you want to talk about it, fine then. Reach would have eventually reached Halo 3's sales numbers had 343 not rushed out Halo 4, since Halo Reach was doing pretty well being in the top three in most played games on Xbox Live for a full year. I don't know the exact factors that led to the drop in population, but Batman: Arkham City, Forza 4, NBA 2K12, Dead Island, Dead Rising 2, Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Saint's Row 3, Assassin's Creed: Revelations, Gears of War 3 and Modern Warfare 3 were released around the time the game fell off. Maybe the oversaturation of the games industry happened, and then 343 did something wrong to miss the first free throw. I don't know exactly what it was, but I'm guessing it was a "selfish" and "mass appeal" multiplayer design philosophy. We already had one "me, me, me" shooter game, so why make another one almost like it?
Just my take on this:

reach sild 3-4 million less than h3, which is quite the drop really. You then say that number would've rose had other games not been in the way but that really isn't an excuse cause every game out there has to deal with that, most don't all of a sudden pull in millions more a year after launch, and really the most sales will happen in the first quarter of a games life cycle. Do people buy after? Yes, but not by the millions. I will say 343 most definately could've went back on what bungie did wrong with reach, unfortunately they didn't and it's still apparent to this day.

Onto losdouts: first if all they went vs halos philosophy of map pickups and equal starts. Your arguement really isn't a strong one as equal starts is where everyone uses the same equipment from the start, anything else is fair game after. Take destiny for example, Part of why it's not featured competitive wise is due to the randomness that its weapons and abilities add, had they made it less redundant it could've been featured like a redundant CoD does. Loadouts can play in the competitive scene but as said, halos philosophy was never built to work like that. There really is no point referencing h4 doing it worse cause both did the same thing in the end and whose to say bungie wouldn't have expanded on it? Lastly when you say hreach have you a chance to counter losdouts, why don't you elaborate? Cuz realistically that can happen with any game that features them. What happens when your opponent then changes? You then do it again as well. It's why people dislike it and preferred halo sticking to its map sandbox with weapon pickups like h5 does now. It's also why you spawn with every ability rather than picking one at a time every respawn.

i really disagree on this "me, me, me" thing as well. Halos even more team focused then ever due to it making player empowerment less of a priority. Team shooting and map rotation is pretty much a must if you want to win games where as lone wolfing it will only get you team shot by the opponents and disorganizing your teams ability to fight back.
Phaaze wrote:
Quote:
How does halo 5 focus too heavily on esports when there's 8 social playlists and 6 ranked playlists? Halo was knocked off its throne during halo Reach, not halo 5
Arc Trooper,

I replied to this in your thread you made sometime last week and I don't believe I got an answer.

Quantity isn't the issue. It's quality and variety. People who want social playlists don't just want BTB, Infection, Grifball, and so on. Why is it that we are forced to play these playlists? Why can't 4v4 Slayer, CTF, Strongholds, and gametypes that are completely missing like Oddball, why can't these playlists be social? Going by the number of playlists tp make a point is absurd; there's no variety and there's too much exclusivity when it comes to this.

As for popularity falling off for Reach, I recall a number of disgruntled players disliking the game because of how different it was The game was not perfect, but if it wasn't playing at a constant 20FPS on backwards compatibility, I can assure you that I and many other players would be playing that over Halo 5.
Just to let you know, it will notify me if you make my name blue like this: PhaazeSorry I never responded to you last week. I tried to get to everyone in my thread, but I think I missed a few.

I don't really understand your point. There's tons of variety. Tell me how action sack, infection, grifball, BTB, the weekly social playlist (which is super fiesta), WZ, WZA, and WZFF don't count as variety. No, not every single gametype from every single halo has its own playlist, but most are available in customs if you want them so bad (excluding King of the Hill, Race, and one flag ctf, but those are all downloadable).

If you want to play Reach, it is currently functioning better on the Xbox one than the 360.
Unknown wrote:
Unknown wrote:
Unknown wrote:
It's weird that you liked 4 more than 5, considering it had personal loadouts and perks making it the least "Halo" mp game. 5 reversed both and brought back the equal starts (not including warzone which is an "anything goes" game), even made all the weapons actually useful for the first time.

Don't get me wrong, I still liked 4, it's just this argument makes little to no sense.
I'm not OP, but did you even understand the post? How does a game being fun as an argument have no sense? Halo 5 is way more focused on competitiveness than any other Halo has been. Just watch the ViDocs from both Bungie and 343 and you'll see how the other games were built with fun in mind.

How does halo 5 focus too heavily on esports when there's 8 social playlists and 6 ranked playlists? Halo was knocked off its throne during halo Reach, not halo 5. Can you further explain why you don't think halo 5 is fun but halo 4 was?

Edit: Also, your post doesn't really explain the title.
Halo wasn't knocked off the throne in Reach. Halo 4 did that. Reach just caused a side-step that could have been easily fixed if 343 hadn't been all like "We need to distance ourselves from 'Bungie's vision' of the game at our first attempt." The quickest and largest drop in Halo players (that we know of) is still at Halo 4.
It was knocked off in Reach but halo 4 pushed it farther away.
The statistics say otherwise. Halo Reach fell off the top 3 right after 343's title update. I forgot what it did, but I'm guessing most people were mad about it. I wasn't. You can just google "halo population drop" for these stats. They're not hard to find.

Unless you have a better reason for Halo's spiral downwards in population, I'm sticking with what I see. 343 abandoned Bungie's "vision" for the franchise and left it to rot while polishing the remains. Almost balanced for fun > balanced for competitiveness. You don't have to look much farther than the most popular game of each genre on each platform to see that it's true.
The statistics say that Halo Reach never even made the sales of Halo 3. So right then and there, Halo didn't get more popular, it got less popular.

You blame 343i for abandoning Bungie's "vision", when it was Bungie that abandoned their "vision" in Halo 3 and made Halo Reach based on Loadouts and Armor Abilities. They took the bad things from Halo 3 and made it worse.

Equipment became Armor Abilities.
The BR's random shot mechanic became the DMR's Bloom.
The melee system had no bleedthrough anymore.

-Yoink- 343i fixed most of their problems with their TU. Active Camo was reduced. Armor Lock wasn't blatantly overpowered to the point of being broken. Bloom was removed.

By definition, Halo Reach was where it started to fall, since it didn't meet the sales of the game that preceded it.
If you read what I posted before, I agreed that it fell, but not as much as you're talking about. It was more like a rebound to yourself than a missed freethrow. 343 had a chance to fix things that Bungie put in place, but completely blew it with Halo 4. What used to be optional was now mandatory and the whole game suffered because of it. You didn't have to use power ups, dual wielding, equipment or Armor Abilities in CE, 2, 3 and Reach, I know I never did, and now 343 wants us to always use a new mechanic? The new mechanic should have gone through another phase of public testing as an Armor Ability, modifying it to suit the core of the game more.

As for Loadouts? Everyone still had "equal starts" in Reach. Your team and the other team had the exact same equipment in the ranked playlists, so you could counter them when you respawn. With Halo 4? They ruined the philosophy of Loadouts and made Classes instead. Level up to get newer and potentially better items. You never knew what the enemy could have. Plasma Pistol and DMR? Maybe. AR and Frags? Only for new players. Promethean Vision? Guaranteed. I admit I wasn't a competitive player, but I know what made the game tick for a lot of people. Halo 4's philosophy was all about "me, me, me," instead of "team, team, team," like in the other games.

I was never talking about sales, but recurring players. If you want to talk about it, fine then. Reach would have eventually reached Halo 3's sales numbers had 343 not rushed out Halo 4, since Halo Reach was doing pretty well being in the top three in most played games on Xbox Live for a full year. I don't know the exact factors that led to the drop in population, but Batman: Arkham City, Forza 4, NBA 2K12, Dead Island, Dead Rising 2, Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Saint's Row 3, Assassin's Creed: Revelations, Gears of War 3 and Modern Warfare 3 were released around the time the game fell off. Maybe the oversaturation of the games industry happened, and then 343 did something wrong to miss the first free throw. I don't know exactly what it was, but I'm guessing it was a "selfish" and "mass appeal" multiplayer design philosophy. We already had one "me, me, me" shooter game, so why make another one almost like it?
I'm not saying that Halo Reach almost wiped Halo off the map. I'm saying that with Bungie's change of direction to Reach, they started the downwards slope. Going from 100 to 90 to 5 is still a downwards slope.

343i did have a chance to fix things, unfortunately they based everything off Halo Reach instead of Halo 2-3.

Reach would not have made Halo 3's sales, and their recurring players were starting to falter. Halo Reach fell out the Top 3 roughly a year after release. Halo 3 survived the top 3 for 3 years. Halo 4 came out 2 years after Halo Reach
How does halo 5 focus too heavily on esports when there's 8 social playlists and 6 ranked playlists? Halo was knocked off its throne during halo Reach, not halo 5. Can you further explain why you don't think halo 5 is fun but halo 4 was?

Edit: Also, your post doesn't really explain the title.
Lol, after 9 months at launch? Tell me, what Halo game only had six 4v4 playlists at launch? IT WAS AN INCOMPLETE GAME BUDDY. You cant justify -Yoink-. Halo 4 knocked off Halo. Get your facts straight m8. Or get rekt by the truth of these statements.
Halo Reach never lived up to the standards Halo 3 set out. Mix that along with the huge change of direction before Bungie jumped ship for Destiny, Halo Reach is generally considered the start of the downfall of Halo.

-Yoink- Most of Halo 4's problems originated with Halo Reach.
Yet Halo Reach was still better than Halo 4. And before you disagree with me, compare Halo Reach's Metacritic Score from critics and fans alike. And then you shall see that although Halo Reach was controversial, 343 Industries HAD ALL THE POWER to change the mechanics to how they were in Halo 3. Yet they didn't.
Well what I was hoping was not there, he is just a Bungie Fanboy (belgianking777) . When are you going to understand that Halo had to change at some point!?! A game can't stay the same for 15 years! Letme ask you this question, How Should Have Halo Changed? And if it didn't change then it'd be a scam buying the same game 5 times in a row, just for more maps and a couple new guns. Not saying that the changes made were the best, but they weren't horrible.
Ignorant fan proceeds to call another fan (me) because my opinion differs from yours. *slow clap* How insightful was that? Tell me, was duel wielding present in Halo 1? Was equipment present I Halo 2? Any fan knows that the answers to these two questions are a resounding no. Halo changed every single title, just not drastically. So every sentence after your third sentence is frankly, invalid, because you believe Halo has not changed for 15 years. Just look at Halo Reach's reviews versus Halo 4/Halo 5. And with all the crap it got hit with, it was the last Halo game to have a Metacritic score above 90... This my friend, is how you dismantle a poorly structured argument. Good day
Takua Me wrote:
This is just my opinion of the game so hear me out and you may think differently, Halo, a title that has dominated my attention since I was 10 (13 years ago) has finally lost it's throne, and it's depressing, Halo was what got me into online gaming. Now here's what I mean by "true" Halo experience, Halo could pull me away from any game, CE-4, that's right even Halo 4 had that addicting magnetic pull that the previous installments had, not because it was competitive, but because it was fun, there were ways to change around the gameplay so easily that I couldn't stop enjoying it, despite my many gripes and moans when I was in a bad mood, I genuinely liked 4. However Halo 5 does not have that addicting magnetic pull as I find that the "fun" aspect has been tossed aside for the sake of esports and microtransactions, and over the course of the last couple of weeks, I find myself playing games like Pokemon and Minecraft more frequently than the newest Halo title, this proves, at least to me, that Halo is no longer the king of Console FPS games, but like a great game once said "Nothing built can last forever." I truly believe Halo 6 will be just as bad if not worse than Halo 5, I will be keeping an eye out for final product gameplay, but will certainly not be pre-ordering. As for a Beta, I think we know 343's track record with Beta testing. All in all here's how i score Halo 5:

As a generic FPS: 8/10

As a Halo Title: 3/10
Alright. I actually checked your service record to make some conclusions here. Now don't take this as an insult, but you are a casual player. There's no denying that. And because of that I understand you and what you mean. I'm just going to tell you what my opinion is to have a comparison.

I too enjoyed the original games a lot, but Halo Reach was still my favorite from Bungie's Halo games. (I'm strictly talking about multiplayer here). And I personally hated Halo 4. I got bored on the game after a month. I struggled to play for another month after I completely quit for a while. The dlc which gave us maps like Skyline and Monolith brought me back for quite some time, but I still got bored. The last time I played Halo 4 seriously was when the dlc including The Pit + Vertigo and the game mode called Ricochet dropped. After that I haven't played it pretty much at all.

So in this regard I'm completely opposite minded with you. I have been playing Halo 5 since launch and still am playing it almost every day. I just don't get bored. I mostly play competitive Arena nowadays with friends, but I still find some time to relax on BTB, Warzone or custom games. Halo 5 has been an awesome experience for me and still keeps being one for probably quite some time. Halo 5 is a true Halo experience for me. If I keep playing it a while longer yet it might become my most played Halo game ever. (Halo Reach currently holds that spot with 1600+ hours).

But like I said, I understand why a casual player doesn't like Halo 5. There isn't enough social playlists. There isn't enough objective based playlists. There isn't enough 'fun' and 'enjoyable'. There's ranks on almost everything. Even some of the social playlists have hidden ranks. I know that Halo 5 isn't an enjoyable experience for a player who just wants to have fun while playing it. But for a guy like me.. Who constantly tries to improve my skills in the game and reach higher ranks.. Halo 5 is a great game, probably the best multiplayer Halo game ever.

Just wanted to let you know how I feel about Halo 5. I was a little bit triggered by that title of yours. Perhaps something like "Is Halo 5 really a true Halo experience?" would have been nicer. People tend to get triggered when someone posts their opinion as the title of the post. You did however point out in your writing that this is your opinion, which I appreciate.
So to sum that up if someone dislikes halo 5 and not being drenched in ball sweat their casuals? Dude get over yourself. And yes feel free to look at my kd/service record that has taken some hits because I stopped giving a damn about h5. I'll admit h5 was built for people like you, heck 343i caters to the "hard core" players now more then ever. Also your post gives a great example of why many find h5 not fun, just saying.
If your all time top CSR is Gold something then you are a casual. If you are really good at the game then you possibly can't be a casual, even if you don't care or don't even try. Other thing is that if you play seriously and want to win, then it already makes you something better than a casual. If you indeed try to win and try to improve, then you possibly can't get a Gold rank in Arena every season. I've never gotten Gold personally and my all time lowest rank was Platinum in pre-season, and I actually lifted that one up to Diamond during the same season. I have never gotten anything besides Diamond / Onyx after pre-season.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that the definition of a casual player is that he/she is bad in the game. Whether this person is bad just because he is bad at games, or is bad because he truly doesn't care about winning, or is bad because he is new to Halo and doesn't have the experience, it doesn't matter. In all cases the player is bad at the game and it makes him/her a casual, at least in my books. All this was just my opinion, but I've been around in games for quite a long time and know my stuff. I know what a casual player is since I've been one my self many times in many different games, and I even was at one point a casual player in Halo as well.
How does halo 5 focus too heavily on esports when there's 8 social playlists and 6 ranked playlists? Halo was knocked off its throne during halo Reach, not halo 5. Can you further explain why you don't think halo 5 is fun but halo 4 was?

Edit: Also, your post doesn't really explain the title.
Lol, after 9 months at launch? Tell me, what Halo game only had six 4v4 playlists at launch? IT WAS AN INCOMPLETE GAME BUDDY. You cant justify -Yoink-. Halo 4 knocked off Halo. Get your facts straight m8. Or get rekt by the truth of these statements.
At launch, but now it's pretty full. Just to let you know, halo 3 ended up with 14 playlists, and halo 5 now has 14 playlists.
Quality is what counts. Halo 3 social playlists WERE ACTUALLY SOCIAL, not having hidden ranks inside of them like Halo 5's. If you want to be technical, most of Halo 5 isn't social because most of the playlists have god damn ranking in them, whether you can see it or not. Halo 3, a game that was released 9 years ago, had more playlists at launch than Halo 5 did. Disgraceful
Are you saying halo 5 doesn't have quality? For the hundredth time, hidden ranks don't make ANYTHING competitive. If you take off your nostalgia goggles and think back to halo 3's social slayer, you'd remember that there were tons of matches where teams would get destroyed because high level players would match up against low level players. The only reason why some take social seriously is because they care about their stats, and social and ranked stats are kept together. As I already said, that only applies for some.

Just because a game is more recent doesn't mean it has to have way more content. Graphics, yes, a newer game should have better graphics than an older game (which halo 5 does). Content, definitely not. So, no, it's not "disgraceful" by any means. Honestly to me, you sound like a whining kid when he doesn't get sprinkles on his ice cream.
Two things:

You love provoking arguments but unfortunately, I am not that type of person. "Honestly to me, you sound like a whining kid when he doesn't get sprinkles on his ice cream." You sir, made me laugh out loud for a solid five minutes. If you read my post in detail, you would have seen that at launch, Halo 3, a game that was released 9 years ago, had more playlists at launch than Halo 5 did. DISGRACEFUL. Of course, it seems you did not have your reading glasses on at the time you read my post, hence me repeating it in bold.

Second, you said, and I repeat "For the hundredth time, hidden ranks don't make ANYTHING competitive." So tell me, a rank is supposed to put players of similar skill levels together correct? And if it is hidden, it is still there correct? And before you say "No, it is not there" watch the video of an avid Halo player almost reduced to tears because he can't find a Big Team Battle match because he was too good at it, and due to his skill level being so high, he almost never found a match. And this was supposed to be in a social playlist... Your entire philosophy is, in a nutshell, rotten to the core because people are still put against players of their skill level, which isn't supposed to happen in a social playlist, because there should be NO ranks at all.

This my friend, is how your utterly squash an argument as poorly constructed and written as yours. I bid you, good day.
How does halo 5 focus too heavily on esports when there's 8 social playlists and 6 ranked playlists? Halo was knocked off its throne during halo Reach, not halo 5. Can you further explain why you don't think halo 5 is fun but halo 4 was?

Edit: Also, your post doesn't really explain the title.
Lol, after 9 months at launch? Tell me, what Halo game only had six 4v4 playlists at launch? IT WAS AN INCOMPLETE GAME BUDDY. You cant justify -Yoink-. Halo 4 knocked off Halo. Get your facts straight m8. Or get rekt by the truth of these statements.
At launch, but now it's pretty full. Just to let you know, halo 3 ended up with 14 playlists, and halo 5 now has 14 playlists.
Quality is what counts. Halo 3 social playlists WERE ACTUALLY SOCIAL, not having hidden ranks inside of them like Halo 5's. If you want to be technical, most of Halo 5 isn't social because most of the playlists have god damn ranking in them, whether you can see it or not. Halo 3, a game that was released 9 years ago, had more playlists at launch than Halo 5 did. Disgraceful
And that's a problem, why?

Ranks prevent high level players from facing extremely poor players and just stepping on them every game. Otherwise, Social playlists are only social for the better players, because the chances of them fighting similar ranked players is much lower than finding anyone lower than them.

Even a game like Rocket League uses hidden MMR in their unranked playlists. I guess Rocket League is completely a competitive game as well with no social playlists.
It is a problem when social playlists are supposed to have NO RANK, removing any competitiveness of the match because it does not affect your stats. Your statement of saying the social playlists are only social for the better players is incorrect because the chance of this happening is actually lower than you suggest.
How does halo 5 focus too heavily on esports when there's 8 social playlists and 6 ranked playlists? Halo was knocked off its throne during halo Reach, not halo 5. Can you further explain why you don't think halo 5 is fun but halo 4 was?

Edit: Also, your post doesn't really explain the title.
Lol, after 9 months at launch? Tell me, what Halo game only had six 4v4 playlists at launch? IT WAS AN INCOMPLETE GAME BUDDY. You cant justify -Yoink-. Halo 4 knocked off Halo. Get your facts straight m8. Or get rekt by the truth of these statements.
At launch, but now it's pretty full. Just to let you know, halo 3 ended up with 14 playlists, and halo 5 now has 14 playlists.
Quality is what counts. Halo 3 social playlists WERE ACTUALLY SOCIAL, not having hidden ranks inside of them like Halo 5's. If you want to be technical, most of Halo 5 isn't social because most of the playlists have god damn ranking in them, whether you can see it or not. Halo 3, a game that was released 9 years ago, had more playlists at launch than Halo 5 did. Disgraceful
And that's a problem, why?

Ranks prevent high level players from facing extremely poor players and just stepping on them every game. Otherwise, Social playlists are only social for the better players, because the chances of them fighting similar ranked players is much lower than finding anyone lower than them.

Even a game like Rocket League uses hidden MMR in their unranked playlists. I guess Rocket League is completely a competitive game as well with no social playlists.
It is a problem when social playlists are supposed to have NO RANK, removing any competitiveness of the match because it does not affect your stats. Your statement of saying the social playlists are only social for the better players is incorrect because the chance of this happening is actually lower than you suggest.
Removing your rank doesn't mean your stats won't be tracked. Because of Firefight, I now have a 3.6 K/D.

You can disable visible tracking of stats while still giving a hidden rank. If everything's invisible, most players won't care. The reason this became such a huge problem was because people were able to find out their hidden rank.

"Your statement of saying the social playlists are only social for the better players is incorrect because the chance of this happening is actually lower than you suggest."

Looking at how easy it can be to stomp players in previous Halo games, not that low apparently.

Let's take a pre-made team of Onyx players and go with your suggestion. Which do you think is more likely?

  • The Onyx team faces another team of Onyx players.
  • The Onyx team faces a team of anything from Bronze - Platinum.
Obviously the latter is more likely, because there are more people in Bronze-Platinum than in Onyx.

Let's do it again with a team of Bronze.

  • The Bronze team faces another team of Bronze players.
  • The Bronze team faces a team of anything Gold-Champion.
Again, obviously the latter for the same reason.

This doesn't even have to be a "pre-made" team. It could be one great player barreling their way to the top, or one poor player at the bottom of the leaderboard struggling to get a kill.
How does halo 5 focus too heavily on esports when there's 8 social playlists and 6 ranked playlists? Halo was knocked off its throne during halo Reach, not halo 5. Can you further explain why you don't think halo 5 is fun but halo 4 was?

Edit: Also, your post doesn't really explain the title.
Lol, after 9 months at launch? Tell me, what Halo game only had six 4v4 playlists at launch? IT WAS AN INCOMPLETE GAME BUDDY. You cant justify -Yoink-. Halo 4 knocked off Halo. Get your facts straight m8. Or get rekt by the truth of these statements.
At launch, but now it's pretty full. Just to let you know, halo 3 ended up with 14 playlists, and halo 5 now has 14 playlists.
Quality is what counts. Halo 3 social playlists WERE ACTUALLY SOCIAL, not having hidden ranks inside of them like Halo 5's. If you want to be technical, most of Halo 5 isn't social because most of the playlists have god damn ranking in them, whether you can see it or not. Halo 3, a game that was released 9 years ago, had more playlists at launch than Halo 5 did. Disgraceful
And that's a problem, why?

Ranks prevent high level players from facing extremely poor players and just stepping on them every game. Otherwise, Social playlists are only social for the better players, because the chances of them fighting similar ranked players is much lower than finding anyone lower than them.

Even a game like Rocket League uses hidden MMR in their unranked playlists. I guess Rocket League is completely a competitive game as well with no social playlists.
It is a problem when social playlists are supposed to have NO RANK, removing any competitiveness of the match because it does not affect your stats. Your statement of saying the social playlists are only social for the better players is incorrect because the chance of this happening is actually lower than you suggest.
Removing your rank doesn't mean your stats won't be tracked. Because of Firefight, I now have a 3.6 K/D.

You can disable visible tracking of stats while still giving a hidden rank. If everything's invisible, most players won't care. The reason this became such a huge problem was because people were able to find out their hidden rank.

"Your statement of saying the social playlists are only social for the better players is incorrect because the chance of this happening is actually lower than you suggest."

Looking at how easy it can be to stomp players in previous Halo games, not that low apparently.

Let's take a pre-made team of Onyx players and go with your suggestion. Which do you think is more likely?

  • The Onyx team faces another team of Onyx players.
  • The Onyx team faces a team of anything from Bronze - Platinum.
Obviously the latter is more likely, because there are more people in Bronze-Platinum than in Onyx.

Let's do it again with a team of Bronze.

  • The Bronze team faces another team of Bronze players.
  • The Bronze team faces a team of anything Gold-Champion.
Again, obviously the latter for the same reason.

This doesn't even have to be a "pre-made" team. It could be one great player barreling their way to the top, or one poor player at the bottom of the leaderboard struggling to get a kill.
The interesting thing is, why call social playlists social when, clearly they are not? You have just proven my suspicion that hidden ranks cause competitiveness.
How does halo 5 focus too heavily on esports when there's 8 social playlists and 6 ranked playlists? Halo was knocked off its throne during halo Reach, not halo 5. Can you further explain why you don't think halo 5 is fun but halo 4 was?

Edit: Also, your post doesn't really explain the title.
Lol, after 9 months at launch? Tell me, what Halo game only had six 4v4 playlists at launch? IT WAS AN INCOMPLETE GAME BUDDY. You cant justify -Yoink-. Halo 4 knocked off Halo. Get your facts straight m8. Or get rekt by the truth of these statements.
At launch, but now it's pretty full. Just to let you know, halo 3 ended up with 14 playlists, and halo 5 now has 14 playlists.
Quality is what counts. Halo 3 social playlists WERE ACTUALLY SOCIAL, not having hidden ranks inside of them like Halo 5's. If you want to be technical, most of Halo 5 isn't social because most of the playlists have god damn ranking in them, whether you can see it or not. Halo 3, a game that was released 9 years ago, had more playlists at launch than Halo 5 did. Disgraceful
And that's a problem, why?

Ranks prevent high level players from facing extremely poor players and just stepping on them every game. Otherwise, Social playlists are only social for the better players, because the chances of them fighting similar ranked players is much lower than finding anyone lower than them.

Even a game like Rocket League uses hidden MMR in their unranked playlists. I guess Rocket League is completely a competitive game as well with no social playlists.
It is a problem when social playlists are supposed to have NO RANK, removing any competitiveness of the match because it does not affect your stats. Your statement of saying the social playlists are only social for the better players is incorrect because the chance of this happening is actually lower than you suggest.
Removing your rank doesn't mean your stats won't be tracked. Because of Firefight, I now have a 3.6 K/D.

You can disable visible tracking of stats while still giving a hidden rank. If everything's invisible, most players won't care. The reason this became such a huge problem was because people were able to find out their hidden rank.

"Your statement of saying the social playlists are only social for the better players is incorrect because the chance of this happening is actually lower than you suggest."

Looking at how easy it can be to stomp players in previous Halo games, not that low apparently.

Let's take a pre-made team of Onyx players and go with your suggestion. Which do you think is more likely?

  • The Onyx team faces another team of Onyx players.
  • The Onyx team faces a team of anything from Bronze - Platinum.
Obviously the latter is more likely, because there are more people in Bronze-Platinum than in Onyx.

Let's do it again with a team of Bronze.

  • The Bronze team faces another team of Bronze players.
  • The Bronze team faces a team of anything Gold-Champion.
Again, obviously the latter for the same reason.

This doesn't even have to be a "pre-made" team. It could be one great player barreling their way to the top, or one poor player at the bottom of the leaderboard struggling to get a kill.
The interesting thing is, why call social playlists social when, clearly they are not? You have just proven my suspicion that hidden ranks cause competitiveness.
Ask Bungie, because Halo 3 did something similar. Or ask Psyonix, because they do the same thing in Rocket League.

Hidden ranks don't cause competitiveness. Hidden ranks mixed with visible stat tracking does.
The only thing I see wrong with halo 5 is the community that makes artante the game developers put really disgusting maps as a replica of valhala they did to forge really expected to see this map remastered from 0 but orrendo, and make lack of classic game modes
How does halo 5 focus too heavily on esports when there's 8 social playlists and 6 ranked playlists? Halo was knocked off its throne during halo Reach, not halo 5. Can you further explain why you don't think halo 5 is fun but halo 4 was?

Edit: Also, your post doesn't really explain the title.
Lol, after 9 months at launch? Tell me, what Halo game only had six 4v4 playlists at launch? IT WAS AN INCOMPLETE GAME BUDDY. You cant justify -Yoink-. Halo 4 knocked off Halo. Get your facts straight m8. Or get rekt by the truth of these statements.
At launch, but now it's pretty full. Just to let you know, halo 3 ended up with 14 playlists, and halo 5 now has 14 playlists.
Quality is what counts. Halo 3 social playlists WERE ACTUALLY SOCIAL, not having hidden ranks inside of them like Halo 5's. If you want to be technical, most of Halo 5 isn't social because most of the playlists have god damn ranking in them, whether you can see it or not. Halo 3, a game that was released 9 years ago, had more playlists at launch than Halo 5 did. Disgraceful
And that's a problem, why?

Ranks prevent high level players from facing extremely poor players and just stepping on them every game. Otherwise, Social playlists are only social for the better players, because the chances of them fighting similar ranked players is much lower than finding anyone lower than them.

Even a game like Rocket League uses hidden MMR in their unranked playlists. I guess Rocket League is completely a competitive game as well with no social playlists.
It is a problem when social playlists are supposed to have NO RANK, removing any competitiveness of the match because it does not affect your stats. Your statement of saying the social playlists are only social for the better players is incorrect because the chance of this happening is actually lower than you suggest.
Removing your rank doesn't mean your stats won't be tracked. Because of Firefight, I now have a 3.6 K/D.

You can disable visible tracking of stats while still giving a hidden rank. If everything's invisible, most players won't care. The reason this became such a huge problem was because people were able to find out their hidden rank.

"Your statement of saying the social playlists are only social for the better players is incorrect because the chance of this happening is actually lower than you suggest."

Looking at how easy it can be to stomp players in previous Halo games, not that low apparently.

Let's take a pre-made team of Onyx players and go with your suggestion. Which do you think is more likely?

  • The Onyx team faces another team of Onyx players.
  • The Onyx team faces a team of anything from Bronze - Platinum.
Obviously the latter is more likely, because there are more people in Bronze-Platinum than in Onyx.

Let's do it again with a team of Bronze.

  • The Bronze team faces another team of Bronze players.
  • The Bronze team faces a team of anything Gold-Champion.
Again, obviously the latter for the same reason.

This doesn't even have to be a "pre-made" team. It could be one great player barreling their way to the top, or one poor player at the bottom of the leaderboard struggling to get a kill.
The interesting thing is, why call social playlists social when, clearly they are not? You have just proven my suspicion that hidden ranks cause competitiveness.
Ask Bungie, because Halo 3 did something similar. Or ask Psyonix, because they do the same thing in Rocket League.

Hidden ranks don't cause competitiveness. Hidden ranks mixed with visible stat tracking does.
Hidden ranks definitely causes competitive matches.

Neither H3 nor Rocket league take it to the level h5 does. Both those games use fairly loose MM parameters in social.
No it doesn't, btb isn't competitive to me, infection, Grifball, Warzone, Warzone assault, Firefight, super Fiesta, these aren't competitive to me at all. Nor should they be
How does halo 5 focus too heavily on esports when there's 8 social playlists and 6 ranked playlists? Halo was knocked off its throne during halo Reach, not halo 5. Can you further explain why you don't think halo 5 is fun but halo 4 was?

Edit: Also, your post doesn't really explain the title.
Lol, after 9 months at launch? Tell me, what Halo game only had six 4v4 playlists at launch? IT WAS AN INCOMPLETE GAME BUDDY. You cant justify -Yoink-. Halo 4 knocked off Halo. Get your facts straight m8. Or get rekt by the truth of these statements.
At launch, but now it's pretty full. Just to let you know, halo 3 ended up with 14 playlists, and halo 5 now has 14 playlists.
Quality is what counts. Halo 3 social playlists WERE ACTUALLY SOCIAL, not having hidden ranks inside of them like Halo 5's. If you want to be technical, most of Halo 5 isn't social because most of the playlists have god damn ranking in them, whether you can see it or not. Halo 3, a game that was released 9 years ago, had more playlists at launch than Halo 5 did. Disgraceful
And that's a problem, why?

Ranks prevent high level players from facing extremely poor players and just stepping on them every game. Otherwise, Social playlists are only social for the better players, because the chances of them fighting similar ranked players is much lower than finding anyone lower than them.

Even a game like Rocket League uses hidden MMR in their unranked playlists. I guess Rocket League is completely a competitive game as well with no social playlists.
It is a problem when social playlists are supposed to have NO RANK, removing any competitiveness of the match because it does not affect your stats. Your statement of saying the social playlists are only social for the better players is incorrect because the chance of this happening is actually lower than you suggest.
Removing your rank doesn't mean your stats won't be tracked. Because of Firefight, I now have a 3.6 K/D.

You can disable visible tracking of stats while still giving a hidden rank. If everything's invisible, most players won't care. The reason this became such a huge problem was because people were able to find out their hidden rank.

"Your statement of saying the social playlists are only social for the better players is incorrect because the chance of this happening is actually lower than you suggest."

Looking at how easy it can be to stomp players in previous Halo games, not that low apparently.

Let's take a pre-made team of Onyx players and go with your suggestion. Which do you think is more likely?

  • The Onyx team faces another team of Onyx players.
  • The Onyx team faces a team of anything from Bronze - Platinum.
Obviously the latter is more likely, because there are more people in Bronze-Platinum than in Onyx.

Let's do it again with a team of Bronze.

  • The Bronze team faces another team of Bronze players.
  • The Bronze team faces a team of anything Gold-Champion.
Again, obviously the latter for the same reason.

This doesn't even have to be a "pre-made" team. It could be one great player barreling their way to the top, or one poor player at the bottom of the leaderboard struggling to get a kill.
The interesting thing is, why call social playlists social when, clearly they are not? You have just proven my suspicion that hidden ranks cause competitiveness.
Ask Bungie, because Halo 3 did something similar. Or ask Psyonix, because they do the same thing in Rocket League.

Hidden ranks don't cause competitiveness. Hidden ranks mixed with visible stat tracking does.
Hidden ranks definitely causes competitive matches.

Neither H3 nor Rocket league take it to the level h5 does. Both those games use fairly loose MM parameters in social.
Only if they are poorly done.

remove stat tracking, remove the W/L, and keep the parameters relatively close but loose to where there would be some variety but no strong chance of top tiers playing vs low tiers.

h5s issue isn't that they use hidden ranks but on how they implement them. Stats show, W/L matters, the parameter is so-so (cuz I will and do look at people's previous games to see their opponents highest ranks and compare them to others). It would also help to have the matchmaking system put team vs team more often than it does now. Social play goes beyond just parameters. There are incentives that would make a champ pub stomp in fiesta (like I listed already) but if you remove them that champ will either tone it down or move onto a different playlist.
No it doesn't, btb isn't competitive to me, infection, Grifball, Warzone, Warzone assault, Firefight, super Fiesta, these aren't competitive to me at all. Nor should they be
They can for someone else tho. It all depends on how it's implemented. I myself could get a 10.0 k/d just by griffball alone had I wanted to because they don't seperate stats from others. Just to add but griffball most definately can be competive if you've ever seen griffball leagues.
How does halo 5 focus too heavily on esports when there's 8 social playlists and 6 ranked playlists? Halo was knocked off its throne during halo Reach, not halo 5. Can you further explain why you don't think halo 5 is fun but halo 4 was?

Edit: Also, your post doesn't really explain the title.
Lol, after 9 months at launch? Tell me, what Halo game only had six 4v4 playlists at launch? IT WAS AN INCOMPLETE GAME BUDDY. You cant justify -Yoink-. Halo 4 knocked off Halo. Get your facts straight m8. Or get rekt by the truth of these statements.
At launch, but now it's pretty full. Just to let you know, halo 3 ended up with 14 playlists, and halo 5 now has 14 playlists.
Quality is what counts. Halo 3 social playlists WERE ACTUALLY SOCIAL, not having hidden ranks inside of them like Halo 5's. If you want to be technical, most of Halo 5 isn't social because most of the playlists have god damn ranking in them, whether you can see it or not. Halo 3, a game that was released 9 years ago, had more playlists at launch than Halo 5 did. Disgraceful
And that's a problem, why?

Ranks prevent high level players from facing extremely poor players and just stepping on them every game. Otherwise, Social playlists are only social for the better players, because the chances of them fighting similar ranked players is much lower than finding anyone lower than them.

Even a game like Rocket League uses hidden MMR in their unranked playlists. I guess Rocket League is completely a competitive game as well with no social playlists.
It is a problem when social playlists are supposed to have NO RANK, removing any competitiveness of the match because it does not affect your stats. Your statement of saying the social playlists are only social for the better players is incorrect because the chance of this happening is actually lower than you suggest.
Removing your rank doesn't mean your stats won't be tracked. Because of Firefight, I now have a 3.6 K/D.

You can disable visible tracking of stats while still giving a hidden rank. If everything's invisible, most players won't care. The reason this became such a huge problem was because people were able to find out their hidden rank.

"Your statement of saying the social playlists are only social for the better players is incorrect because the chance of this happening is actually lower than you suggest."

Looking at how easy it can be to stomp players in previous Halo games, not that low apparently.

Let's take a pre-made team of Onyx players and go with your suggestion. Which do you think is more likely?

  • The Onyx team faces another team of Onyx players.
  • The Onyx team faces a team of anything from Bronze - Platinum.
Obviously the latter is more likely, because there are more people in Bronze-Platinum than in Onyx.

Let's do it again with a team of Bronze.

  • The Bronze team faces another team of Bronze players.
  • The Bronze team faces a team of anything Gold-Champion.
Again, obviously the latter for the same reason.

This doesn't even have to be a "pre-made" team. It could be one great player barreling their way to the top, or one poor player at the bottom of the leaderboard struggling to get a kill.
The interesting thing is, why call social playlists social when, clearly they are not? You have just proven my suspicion that hidden ranks cause competitiveness.
Ask Bungie, because Halo 3 did something similar. Or ask Psyonix, because they do the same thing in Rocket League.

Hidden ranks don't cause competitiveness. Hidden ranks mixed with visible stat tracking does.
Hidden ranks definitely causes competitive matches.

Neither H3 nor Rocket league take it to the level h5 does. Both those games use fairly loose MM parameters in social.
Rocket League sure does that.

It takes your MMR and those of your teammates and creates a Team Average MMR. Then it tries to find opponents near that MMR, prioritizing opponents on that MMR.

Then, so it doesn't leave you waiting for 30 minutes for a match, it eventually widens the search in region, then widens the search in skill.

In the event of a JIP'd game, it will prioritize people in that Average MMR and drop them in the game.

It's more lenient on skill variation, but it absolutely tries to match you based on your MMR.
Yes, the campaign was horrible
Warfuntime wrote:
Xigbar0331 wrote:
whoa whoa whoa. for online play 10/10 best halo ever.
.....huhahahahahahahahahahahaha.....thats a good one
no joke no scam at all. bungie halo games are trash. and halo 4 is sub par.
Alvaruk0 wrote:
Yes, the campaign was horrible
its just not anywhere near as immersive as past halo titles. by a long shot
Xigbar0331 wrote:
Warfuntime wrote:
Xigbar0331 wrote:
whoa whoa whoa. for online play 10/10 best halo ever.
.....huhahahahahahahahahahahaha.....thats a good one
no joke no scam at all. bungie halo games are trash. and halo 4 is sub par.
Well, this is certainly amusing. Tell me, how is it that the Halo games with the highest Metacritic score are now bad? Bungie Halo games were the epitome of first - person - shooters. And yet, you continue to bash them. Quite interesting...
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 8
  4. 9
  5. 10
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. ...
  9. 17