Forums / Games / Legacy Halo

Why are you so against it?

OP

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5
Quote:
I've seen so many posts on here from "competitive" people against the game having a casual side.....
And yet, most of us play Halo 3 for its social and competitive segregation, so that those who don't want to feel like they need to win don't have to, and those who want to can.

Now, its all social, so we are rightfully discontempt.
Having a hidden rank still would make the game competitive, you would play against players of your skill level and would still try to win... so what's the difference other than not having a number beside your name to try and look gd??

Plus having the rank hidden will reduce boosters. So yeah i think they should keep it hidden... and no i'm not a "casual" gamer.

Look at the amount of boosters/cheaters in Halo 2 and 3 compared to Reach. Reach wasn't booster free but it certainly was ALOT better than halo 2 and 3 (by better i mean less boosters, not the actual game lol)
*sigh* Please learn what a casual player actually is before using that term in a thread or reply.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've seen so many posts on here from "competitive" people against the game having a casual side.....
No, we just hate it not having a competitive side.

We were fine with Halo 3, it had both and was the best Live game to date.
But it dos have competitive side, so I feel like so many people are vary hostile to 343 but I think people for get this is there first game besides a HD remake! not to mention that had some pretty big -Yoinking!- power armor to fill!
not really. Without visible ranks no one is really giving 100%. We all want to win and do well of course but the intensity of the matches doesnt come close to the ranked games of H2 and H3, or heck even some arena matches of reach
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've seen so many posts on here from "competitive" people against the game having a casual side.....
No, we just hate it not having a competitive side.

We were fine with Halo 3, it had both and was the best Live game to date.
no, i have literally been told "I dont play the game right" if im not playing competitively to win at any cost. you guys need to relax and let bygones be bygones.
Yea because competitive players are forced to play with the casuals.
Don't worry though, competitive players are leaving which is why Halo 4's population is dying.
Shouldn't you like that? As from what I've heard the competitive crowd is sooooo much better that it would be free kills.
Believe it or not it's not about getting kills it's about having a challenge and playing to win.

Oh but Halo 4's maps are terrible and the game has a lot of randomness so it's basically a game of monopoly now. Who ever has the better ordinance wins.
I know I'm gonna get reported for saying this, The rocket launcher was the vary reason Reach had Armor lock. In the start if a skilled player timed it right he could trow it back at the player or if someone make a point blank sticky throw he could toss it back a them.

Also if players are acting as a team controlling the other teams ordinance.
You forgot both teams have ordinance.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've seen so many posts on here from "competitive" people against the game having a casual side.....
No, we just hate it not having a competitive side.

We were fine with Halo 3, it had both and was the best Live game to date.
But it dos have competitive side, so I feel like so many people are vary hostile to 343 but I think people for get this is there first game besides a HD remake! not to mention that had some pretty big -Yoinking!- power armor to fill!
not really. Without visible ranks no one is really giving 100%. We all want to win and do well of course but the intensity of the matches doesnt come close to the ranked games of H2 and H3, or heck even some arena matches of reach
But they have said that type of ranking IS coming right?
Quote:
It is not Competitiveness that i am against, it is elitism and orthodoxy. Many 'competitive' players deny changes and differences in new titles. They are like the religious nutjobs who try to have science and evolution taken out of schools. If it was up to them the game would have massively stagnated...pretty much becoming the same game with better graphics maybe each time. This would make people board and complain that the game is not evolving like they said with MW3.

This would then damage sales, and Halo as a franchise would die.
Change is good but removing is bad.

Halo 4 removed more then added.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've seen so many posts on here from "competitive" people against the game having a casual side.....
No, we just hate it not having a competitive side.

We were fine with Halo 3, it had both and was the best Live game to date.
But it dos have competitive side, so I feel like so many people are vary hostile to 343 but I think people for get this is there first game besides a HD remake! not to mention that had some pretty big -Yoinking!- power armor to fill!
not really. Without visible ranks no one is really giving 100%. We all want to win and do well of course but the intensity of the matches doesnt come close to the ranked games of H2 and H3, or heck even some arena matches of reach
But they have said that type of ranking IS coming right?
Only on Waypoint which just means it's not there.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've seen so many posts on here from "competitive" people against the game having a casual side.....
No, we just hate it not having a competitive side.

We were fine with Halo 3, it had both and was the best Live game to date.
But it dos have competitive side, so I feel like so many people are vary hostile to 343 but I think people for get this is there first game, besides a HD remake! not to mention that had some pretty big -Yoinking!- power armor to fill!
What? You're a bit hard to understand.

If you think Halo 4 has a competitive side then you are what people call a "casual".
1 don't start that
2 I don't care about competitve gaming I just wanna have some fun
Competitive gamers just want to have fun as well. Our fun is derived from seeing how we compare to others.

We are all playing for fun. Recognize that.
Quote:
Having a hidden rank still would make the game competitive, you would play against players of your skill level and would still try to win... so what's the difference other than not having a number beside your name to try and look gd??
See, but a 1-50 does give players incentive to play better. Whenever I go onto Halo 3 (now, keep in mind, I've only been playing competitve Halo for less than a year) I always say to myself "Alright, today I get my 50, today I get my fifty."

It's a great way to motivatie people not only to play, but to win the game. I never did get my fifty though... I think I was up to a 43-44 last time I played.

Quote:
Plus having the rank hidden will reduce boosters. So yeah i think they should keep it hidden... and no i'm not a "casual" gamer.

Look at the amount of boosters/cheaters in Halo 2 and 3 compared to Reach. Reach wasn't booster free but it certainly was ALOT better than halo 2 and 3 (by better i mean less boosters, not the actual game lol)
There are just as many (if not more) boosters in Halo 4 as in previous Halos. Why? Because thats what they do, especially with an EXP based level system, the easiest way to get points is to boost. Then you've got things like challenges etc. that just make boosting the easest way to do things.

Tell me this: Why should the bundle be spoiled by a couple bad apples? Why change a good system because there were a couple of rotten fruit, who will just come back and do the same anyway? You've already lestened the experience for the good people you had, and you didn't change anything because the bad people are still there.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've seen so many posts on here from "competitive" people against the game having a casual side.....
No, we just hate it not having a competitive side.

We were fine with Halo 3, it had both and was the best Live game to date.
But it dos have competitive side, so I feel like so many people are vary hostile to 343 but I think people for get this is there first game besides a HD remake! not to mention that had some pretty big -Yoinking!- power armor to fill!
not really. Without visible ranks no one is really giving 100%. We all want to win and do well of course but the intensity of the matches doesnt come close to the ranked games of H2 and H3, or heck even some arena matches of reach
But they have said that type of ranking IS coming right?
Only on Waypoint which just means it's not there.
Actually, Little Moa confirmed that you will be able to see it in game. However, IMO, it is essentially a more in depth BPR system.

Why? It may rate you on how good you are, but that is relevant to the players you play, and if it does not affect the skill level of the players you fight, then you end up stuck against players who may not be as good as you, and you get a rating that may be better than someone who is better than you, because of the players you got set up with.

Sorry for the gramatically incorrect run on sentence.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've seen so many posts on here from "competitive" people against the game having a casual side.....
No, we just hate it not having a competitive side.

We were fine with Halo 3, it had both and was the best Live game to date.
But it dos have competitive side, so I feel like so many people are vary hostile to 343 but I think people for get this is there first game besides a HD remake! not to mention that had some pretty big -Yoinking!- power armor to fill!
not really. Without visible ranks no one is really giving 100%. We all want to win and do well of course but the intensity of the matches doesnt come close to the ranked games of H2 and H3, or heck even some arena matches of reach
But they have said that type of ranking IS coming right?
Let me put it in a common analogy. Now many grade school aged kids dont really care about grades so much. But tell them every exam must be signed by their parents as opposed to just being hidden and suddenly many kids will care more about their grades since their parent will see it.

To flip it imagine if exam scores were only available to be seen if the parents visited the school. Yeh some would do it but most will not, expecially compared to if they were brought it at home.

The same is for halo ranks. If its online only, yeh some will care but most probably will not. Humans, especially males, genuinely care about how their standing is perceived in society. Hence why many work very hard to ensure their strong suits are seen. Just go to any gym, any college, and any work place and you will see people competing and then having the fruits of their labor seen.

Also hopefully now that COD has 3 ranking systems, individual, team, and progressive, and is still stomping Halo. 343 will realize no one was offput by ranks in the first place. Which they seem to think.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've seen so many posts on here from "competitive" people against the game having a casual side.....
No, we just hate it not having a competitive side.

We were fine with Halo 3, it had both and was the best Live game to date.
But it dos have competitive side, so I feel like so many people are vary hostile to 343 but I think people for get this is there first game, besides a HD remake! not to mention that had some pretty big -Yoinking!- power armor to fill!
What? You're a bit hard to understand.

If you think Halo 4 has a competitive side then you are what people call a "casual".
1 don't start that
2 I don't care about competitve gaming I just wanna have some fun
Competitive gamers just want to have fun as well. Our fun is derived from seeing how we compare to others.

We are all playing for fun. Recognize that.
I'm not saying competitive players are anit-fun its just most I'v seen care nothing more then the 1-50 ranking. I did read you'r post and it dos make sense thanks.
Quote:
Having a hidden rank still would make the game competitive, you would play against players of your skill level and would still try to win... so what's the difference other than not having a number beside your name to try and look gd??
It doesn't really work like that, unfortunately. Social has always used hidden ranking for example, yet social has never been competitive.

The visibility of the rank encourages and promotes competition; everyone in a match with visible skill rankings tends to play at their best and to win, meaning they will communicate and so on. Visible skill rankings create an environment in which players compete at their best with one another for the win.

When there isn't the visible skill ranking most people simply don't care about winning, as is often the case with social. Even if you get matched up against a team of identical skill, if the other team isn't playing to win and are just playing to mess around or whatever, as people usually do in social, then the match won't be competitive.

This is why the divide between ranked and social worked well; you had a section of matchmaking to play at your best/competitively in, and a separate section of matchmaking to play when you just wanted a laid back match or whatever.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've seen so many posts on here from "competitive" people against the game having a casual side.....
No, we just hate it not having a competitive side.

We were fine with Halo 3, it had both and was the best Live game to date.
But it dos have competitive side, so I feel like so many people are vary hostile to 343 but I think people for get this is there first game, besides a HD remake! not to mention that had some pretty big -Yoinking!- power armor to fill!
What? You're a bit hard to understand.

If you think Halo 4 has a competitive side then you are what people call a "casual".
1 don't start that
2 I don't care about competitve gaming I just wanna have some fun
Competitive gamers just want to have fun as well. Our fun is derived from seeing how we compare to others.

We are all playing for fun. Recognize that.
I'm not saying competitive players are anit-fun its just most I'v seen care nothing more then the 1-50 ranking. I did read you'r post and it dos make sense thanks.
Thats because it gives those of us a way to compare to others. If I've got a 50, and someone has a 40 (and has been stuck there for a while), then 9 times out of 10, I am probably the better player.

A 1-50 ranking system also pits you against people around your relative skill level, making gameplay entertaining and challenging.

One problem I have with reach, outside of the MLG and Arena playlists, is that it's too easy. I have to work to challenge myself, and 1-50 almost always pits you in a challenging match when you get to the higher ranks.

There are better systems, but 1-50 is very well rounded. I'd be fine without the numbers, but the numbers do give incentive and realitive skill level.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've seen so many posts on here from "competitive" people against the game having a casual side.....
No, we just hate it not having a competitive side.

We were fine with Halo 3, it had both and was the best Live game to date.
But it dos have competitive side, so I feel like so many people are vary hostile to 343 but I think people for get this is there first game, besides a HD remake! not to mention that had some pretty big -Yoinking!- power armor to fill!
What? You're a bit hard to understand.

If you think Halo 4 has a competitive side then you are what people call a "casual".
1 don't start that
2 I don't care about competitve gaming I just wanna have some fun
Competitive gamers just want to have fun as well. Our fun is derived from seeing how we compare to others.

We are all playing for fun. Recognize that.
I'm not saying competitive players are anit-fun its just most I'v seen care nothing more then the 1-50 ranking. I did read you'r post and it dos make sense thanks.
Thats because it gives those of us a way to compare to others. If I've got a 50, and someone has a 40 (and has been stuck there for a while), then 9 times out of 10, I am probably the better player.

A 1-50 ranking system also pits you against people around your relative skill level, making gameplay entertaining and challenging.

One problem I have with reach, outside of the MLG and Arena playlists, is that it's too easy. I have to work to challenge myself, and 1-50 almost always pits you in a challenging match when you get to the higher ranks.

There are better systems, but 1-50 is very well rounded. I'd be fine without the numbers, but the numbers do give incentive and realitive skill level.
Yet I would rather have the 1-50 system in the background, I don't care for a number to show my skill I want my gameplay to do that. Hell and most of the time I'm then willing to let a kill go to let a team mate get the kill, If I see some one getting a assassination I let the guy get that kill, Iv held off base with nothing more then a magnum and a shotgun a few games!
I had people sending me pm saying "your trash" or screaming through they're headset "You suck" blabla. I do play to win and like most others hate to lose but don't go overboard like sending pm to people saying they suck or scream through my headset. More competetiveness is going to bring more drama. As for the population drop, H4 had stiff competition and you like or don't the changes H4 brought.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've seen so many posts on here from "competitive" people against the game having a casual side.....
No, we just hate it not having a competitive side.

We were fine with Halo 3, it had both and was the best Live game to date.
But it dos have competitive side, so I feel like so many people are vary hostile to 343 but I think people for get this is there first game, besides a HD remake! not to mention that had some pretty big -Yoinking!- power armor to fill!
What? You're a bit hard to understand.

If you think Halo 4 has a competitive side then you are what people call a "casual".
1 don't start that
2 I don't care about competitve gaming I just wanna have some fun
Competitive gamers just want to have fun as well. Our fun is derived from seeing how we compare to others.

We are all playing for fun. Recognize that.
I'm not saying competitive players are anit-fun its just most I'v seen care nothing more then the 1-50 ranking. I did read you'r post and it dos make sense thanks.
Thats because it gives those of us a way to compare to others. If I've got a 50, and someone has a 40 (and has been stuck there for a while), then 9 times out of 10, I am probably the better player.

A 1-50 ranking system also pits you against people around your relative skill level, making gameplay entertaining and challenging.

One problem I have with reach, outside of the MLG and Arena playlists, is that it's too easy. I have to work to challenge myself, and 1-50 almost always pits you in a challenging match when you get to the higher ranks.

There are better systems, but 1-50 is very well rounded. I'd be fine without the numbers, but the numbers do give incentive and realitive skill level.
Yet I would rather have the 1-50 system in the background, I don't care for a number to show my skill I want my gameplay to do that. Hell and most of the time I'm then willing to let a kill go to let a team mate get the kill, If I see some one getting a assassination I let the guy get that kill, Iv held off base with nothing more then a magnum and a shotgun a few games!
That is very true, I didn't think of it like that.

Possibly a toggle, would be good. So those who don't need to see the numbers don't have to, but those who do can?

Also, I will say however that, maybe it doesn't affect you (we're all different) but 1-50 does make a lot of people really want to get that 50. In my opinion, that makes them play harder, and better, because the cost of losing can potentially be a rank, and no one really wants to lose their rank.

To each their own of course.

In MLG (reach) on the pit I managed to hold off the enemy team with just a sniper, that was fun... but that wouldn't have happened with a ranking system (of any kind) :P
Quote:
I had people sending me pm saying "your trash" or screaming through they're headset "You suck" blabla. I do play to win and like most others hate to lose but don't go overboard like sending pm to people saying they suck or scream through my headset. More competetiveness is going to bring more drama. As for the population drop, H4 had stiff competition and you like or don't the changes H4 brought.
Don't let a couple bad apples spoil the lot.

Most of us aren't like that.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've seen so many posts on here from "competitive" people against the game having a casual side.....
No, we just hate it not having a competitive side.

We were fine with Halo 3, it had both and was the best Live game to date.
But it dos have competitive side, so I feel like so many people are vary hostile to 343 but I think people for get this is there first game, besides a HD remake! not to mention that had some pretty big -Yoinking!- power armor to fill!
What? You're a bit hard to understand.

If you think Halo 4 has a competitive side then you are what people call a "casual".
1 don't start that
2 I don't care about competitve gaming I just wanna have some fun
Competitive gamers just want to have fun as well. Our fun is derived from seeing how we compare to others.

We are all playing for fun. Recognize that.
I'm not saying competitive players are anit-fun its just most I'v seen care nothing more then the 1-50 ranking. I did read you'r post and it dos make sense thanks.
Thats because it gives those of us a way to compare to others. If I've got a 50, and someone has a 40 (and has been stuck there for a while), then 9 times out of 10, I am probably the better player.

A 1-50 ranking system also pits you against people around your relative skill level, making gameplay entertaining and challenging.

One problem I have with reach, outside of the MLG and Arena playlists, is that it's too easy. I have to work to challenge myself, and 1-50 almost always pits you in a challenging match when you get to the higher ranks.

There are better systems, but 1-50 is very well rounded. I'd be fine without the numbers, but the numbers do give incentive and realitive skill level.
Yet I would rather have the 1-50 system in the background, I don't care for a number to show my skill I want my gameplay to do that. Hell and most of the time I'm then willing to let a kill go to let a team mate get the kill, If I see some one getting a assassination I let the guy get that kill, Iv held off base with nothing more then a magnum and a shotgun a few games!
That is very true, I didn't think of it like that.

Possibly a toggle, would be good. So those who don't need to see the numbers don't have to, but those who do can?

Also, I will say however that, maybe it doesn't affect you (we're all different) but 1-50 does make a lot of people really want to get that 50. In my opinion, that makes them play harder, and better, because the cost of losing can potentially be a rank, and no one really wants to lose their rank.

To each their own of course.

In MLG (reach) on the pit I managed to hold off the enemy team with just a sniper, that was fun... but that wouldn't have happened with a ranking system (of any kind) :P
hehe Indeed and awesome stuff on Reach man, I will agree with you if you agree my point I can see why people will try harder for a shown rank(I think I had 15..or 25 in halo3) To me the rank never mattered I just tried my damnist to play as hard as I could in anygame.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5