Forums / Games / Legacy Halo

Why are you so against it?

OP

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've seen so many posts on here from "casual" people against the game having a competitive side, such as visible ranks and playlist with competitive settings. What I want to know is why? having those things will affect you in no way at all, making playlists for competitive settings doesn't mean you will be forced to play them and having a rank affects you in no way either so what's your reasoning for being against them so much?
Why?

Visable ranks
The racism, sexism, outright disgraceful behavior of the "competitive gamer" was enough to put me off having a visible ranking system. You know my wife and I used to play Halo 3 together until the "competitive gamer" decided to spam harass her and myself through game, via messages.
Forums were full of kids comparing e-peens and flat out insulting anyone who was not a 5 star general. Every game the lobby was full of abuse, even in the damn social playlists.

Games were ruined by the endless stream of multiple accounts. %star generals posing as recruits, recruits posing as five star generals because they bought their account off eBay.

That said i don't have anything against thier being a viable ranking system. There just needs to be an option to hide it if the player chooses.
We're not all like that....

But yes, I do agree with the last part. One should be allowed to not see the ranks, and not have their rank seen while still enjoying the ranking system that pairs them with players of similar skill.
This same kinda thing happened to my girlfriend but it wasn't over rank it was just a bunch of -Yoinks!-! now my girlfriend refuses to talk during matches shes alone in.
If they just implemented an Arena playlist/feature again I'd be happy.
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.
Where to start...

Elitism and orthodoxy will be there whether there are competitive playlists or not.

Competitive gamers don't deny changes and differences in new titles, about the same ratio of them are for/against it than everyone else, competitive players against it are just more vocal and try to save the game they love. (And not always hostile vocal either sometimes just explain their reasoning and get flamed for it)

Your comparitive example is not relevant and even if it was bashing everyone who is religious is more hostile than the people you say your against.

You are talking like MW3 not changing much in its gameplay is terrible and its inferior to HALO. This is not true as MW3 has better population each game even though its relatively the same. Thats because the game is great to those who play it and you don't fix what isn't broken. HALO is changing the game too much so its completely different than its roots. Losing a lot of fans along the way. If you keep it relatively the same, players who don't want the "same old same old," they can find a new game to enjoy. Not fundamentaly change the one everyone already enjoys. Change is not always better lets not forget.
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.
They would complain the game isn't evolving like the COD series. So they add nearly every COD feature they can?
Quote:
If they just implemented an Arena playlist/feature again I'd be happy.
Arena in Reach was terrible, the ranking system should be about winning not having a high K/D, that's why the 1-50 from halo 2 and 3 were so popular. Reach's arena had an abysmally low population for a "ranked" playlist.
I don't mind competitive players having their own playlists, but I can tell you the reasons that some non-competitive player may have a problem with it. For one, a lot of the changes demanded by competitive players do end up making it into everyone elses' game, so they do affect everyone. The removal of parrying energy sword strikes for example. That had to go because competitive players apparently didn't like that someone with good timing could stop them from getting an energy sword kill. See also bloom on the BR (or at least having the reticle be affected by it). Competitive players didn't like having to pace their shots, so that had to go.

I wouldn't be surprised if the bolt-shot gets massively nerfed because of the complaints of competitive players. God knows why, you have to charge it and get close in order to be able to one-shot someone with it, and if you miss (which isn't difficult to do) you're dead, unless you're playing against someone that's completely incompetent. Personally, I rarely get killed by the bolt shot, and when I do, it was because the other person deserved that kill. It'll be sad if they do nerf it out of existence, because it is a very fun weapon to use, as with many of the other fun features that competitive players would like to see stripped from the games they play.

See also, anyone that has spent a lot of time playing PC games, and seen online games ruined by competitive players throwing their weight around on public servers, and imposing the ridiculous and abitrary rules they use for competitions. (If you see an enemy in midfield, you can't let them run to the base, you must let them run to your base because otherwise that would be unfair for some reason).

To a lesser extent, the vocal minority of competitive players that rage at people that just want to have fun, and don't think every game is serious business.
Quote:
Quote:
If they just implemented an Arena playlist/feature again I'd be happy.
Arena in Reach was terrible, the ranking system should be about winning not having a high K/D, that's why the 1-50 from halo 2 and 3 were so popular. Reach's arena had an abysmally low population for a "ranked" playlist.
Some could say that a single ranked playlist for Halo 4 would suffer the same fate.

Which, actually kind of touches on the one issue I have with the whole thing.

It always starts with 'one'.

'One ranked playlist', or 'One competitive set of settings'. It happened with Reach. When a TU was talked about, everyone who was for it only wanted 'one' playlist, and anyone who didn't want to play it, didn't have to. Then people wanted more playlists to have the settings, and some didn't, so you ended up with playlists split up by settings, some ONLY being available as a TU. You ended up with two different games almost, with the playlists divided between them. Want to play Objective or BTB, and didn't mind the default settings? Sorry. Doesn't exist in matchmaking.

Now we have Halo 4, and people asking for 'one ranked playlist'. Okay, so, you get your playlist. What happens next? "It's no fair if I want to see my rank, I have to play in this playlist alone.", "Oh, this playlist uses the wrong settings for ranking, but this one does, so rank it up.", "I'm glad there is a ranked playlist, but I really like playing Regicide too, so, that should be ranked." until finally "Well, everything else is ranked now, so why not the whole game?".

Happened with Halo 3, too. There was a separation of ranked and social, and then an update later, every playlist had a rank, then every playlist had to deal with the shenanigans of the ranked playlists just because of that damn number.

Now, I'm fine with a ranked playlist, but time has shown, no one is going to be satisfied with that.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If they just implemented an Arena playlist/feature again I'd be happy.
Arena in Reach was terrible, the ranking system should be about winning not having a high K/D, that's why the 1-50 from halo 2 and 3 were so popular. Reach's arena had an abysmally low population for a "ranked" playlist.
Some could say that a single ranked playlist for Halo 4 would suffer the same fate.

Which, actually kind of touches on the one issue I have with the whole thing.

It always starts with 'one'.

'One ranked playlist', or 'One competitive set of settings'. It happened with Reach. When a TU was talked about, everyone who was for it only wanted 'one' playlist, and anyone who didn't want to play it, didn't have to. Then people wanted more playlists to have the settings, and some didn't, so you ended up with playlists split up by settings, some ONLY being available as a TU. You ended up with two different games almost, with the playlists divided between them. Want to play Objective or BTB, and didn't mind the default settings? Sorry. Doesn't exist in matchmaking.

Now we have Halo 4, and people asking for 'one ranked playlist'. Okay, so, you get your playlist. What happens next? "It's no fair if I want to see my rank, I have to play in this playlist alone.", "Oh, this playlist uses the wrong settings for ranking, but this one does, so rank it up.", "I'm glad there is a ranked playlist, but I really like playing Regicide too, so, that should be ranked." until finally "Well, everything else is ranked now, so why not the whole game?".

Happened with Halo 3, too. There was a separation of ranked and social, and then an update later, every playlist had a rank, then every playlist had to deal with the shenanigans of the ranked playlists just because of that damn number.

Now, I'm fine with a ranked playlist, but time has shown, no one is going to be satisfied with that.
I'm sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about and I'm going to guess you started playing Halo at Reach, Halo 3 never had all of it's playlists made into ranked, it was separated between ranked and social and each had it's own share of hoppers to play in and it was close to perfect. Reach only had one and it ruined Halo in a competitive way, we always wanted more, we never just wanted one, we want to to be even. Not "one ranked playlist" we want how it was in halo 3, a even share between competitive and social so the casual and competitive player can get what they want. At the moment it's only the social player that is, how is that fair?
The beef is most casuals are just fanboys, no matter how bad a game plays they will always love it. Competitive gamers have a better perception of the game, and how it should run properly. This game does not run properly at all, as most of this game is centered towards BTB??? Map pack BTB??? Halo is a 4v4 game we need smaller maps for one thing. Second the ranking system is a must for newer kids to gain skill. This game is dumbed down so bad my three year old brother can snipe. It's to easy, and it should not be like that
I just like to see all the MLG "PROS" whine and cry.
Poor kids, they have to have a game tailored to them because the MLG community can not make its own game.
Unless you aim with a mouse or know how to defend a Zerg rush you are NOT a "pro" level competitive video gamer.
Quote:
Quote:
I've seen so many posts on here from "casual" people against the game having a competitive side, such as ranks and playlist with competitive settings. What I want to know is why? having those things will affect you in no way at all, making playlists for competitive settings doesn't mean you will be forced to play them and having a rank affects you in no way either so what's your reasoning for being against them so much?
I've never completely understood it either to be honest.

The only reason I can think of is that players who don't attain any sort of high rank tend to feel ridiculed by players who have and are put off the game to a result.

But on Halo 4 this happens all the time and ranks aren't the only thing that do this, I've had many players talk down to other players after a game because of a poor K/D ratio or in-game performance.
They (we) don't "feel" ridiculed, we are ridiculed, and that won't happen so much now, but it will happen when the game is a year or two old.

And you just I think proved my point with your point regarding K/D. Why make the situation even worse with no benifit? You guys call other people self-concious/no confidence, but yet it's you guys who apparently can't enjoy a game, and aren't satisfied with your own skills and performance in the game unless everyone else can see a little number next to your name. Why do you need other people to see it?

Quote:
Competitive gamers have a better perception of the game, and how it should run properly.
Not true. They have a different perception of the game. They have wants that are different than mine. They want to play a different game than I want to play. However, there is no reason a "competitive" player's opinion is any more valid than my opinion.
Quote:
I don't mind competitive players having their own playlists, but I can tell you the reasons that some non-competitive player may have a problem with it. For one, a lot of the changes demanded by competitive players do end up making it into everyone elses' game, so they do affect everyone. The removal of parrying energy sword strikes for example. That had to go because competitive players apparently didn't like that someone with good timing could stop them from getting an energy sword kill. See also bloom on the BR (or at least having the reticle be affected by it). Competitive players didn't like having to pace their shots, so that had to go.
All those things lessen the already small skill gap in the game, Bloom was one of the worst things to be implemented, luck should not play a factor in wether you die or not and that's what bloom did. Even if you did pace your shots, what if the other guy just spammed and killed you? (which happened all the time) That isn't fair or right, bloom needed to go.

Quote:
I wouldn't be surprised if the bolt-shot gets massively nerfed because of the complaints of competitive players. God knows why, you have to charge it and get close in order to be able to one-shot someone with it, and if you miss (which isn't difficult to do) you're dead, unless you're playing against someone that's completely incompetent. Personally, I rarely get killed by the bolt shot, and when I do, it was because the other person deserved that kill. It'll be sad if they do nerf it out of existence, because it is a very fun weapon to use, as with many of the other fun features that competitive players would like to see stripped from the games they play.
It's not just competitive players complaining about the boltshot, and the reason for the complaints is because it's blatantly OP. Being able to spawn with a weapon that can kill in one shot is not right, coupled with the radar it isn't exactly hard to time the charge. All that needs to change on it is to take it down to the level a single mauler was on in Halo 3 and it would be balanced, not one shot kill but close enough and you'll take out their shields. The range is also way too long, I've died using a shotgun or Scatter shot against a boltshot when at the same range and all I've done is take out their shields and then I'm dead because of this OP weapon.

Quote:
To a lesser extent, the vocal minority of competitive players that rage at people that just want to have fun, and don't think every game is serious business.
Firstly, most competitive players don't rage at casuals for "having fun", and secondly games that are serious is what's fun for us, it may not be too you and so many people fail to understand that different people have different ways of having fun. Yours may be to just run around in big team and not really care about winning and losing, guess what there's a playlist for that and much more! Mine and other competitive players way of having fun is playing as a team, learning strategies and other things that give us an edge over the competition and playing games where we can go up against equal opponents. Guess what, we don't have that, we have nothing like that at the moment.
Quote:
I just like to see all the MLG "PROS" whine and cry.
Poor kids, they have to have a game tailored to them because the MLG community can not make its own game.
Unless you aim with a mouse or know how to defend a Zerg rush you are NOT a "pro" level competitive video gamer.
Wanting ranked games and competitive settings does not make us 'MLG PROS' please go away.
If you think bloom made Halo Reach about luck, then we're not even on the same page.
With overly negative, condescending attitudes on both sides of the line, no one should be surprise why one side doesn't understand the other.

"Shut up kid, i have multiple 50s in Halo 3 and top 1 Onyx in Reach. I stat checked you and you were a Force Colonel. We need ranks so that garbage players like you match up with similar skilled trash while i play with skilled gamers. You must have no brain if you are against ranks in Halo 4, and no thumbs if you couldn't get at least 10 50 accounts in Halo 3.

I mean, it's laughable really that we didn't get ranks at launch because 343 was too busy catering to lower-end of the fanbase. If Halo 4 doesn't have 1-50 or ranks, this game is going to die a slow, painful death as a COD clone".

"Whatever try hard, i don't need some stupid virtual ranks to have an opinion. I don't give a -Yoink- if you a 50 or 12048 because it's JUST A GAME. You have no life if you have to sell accounts, which is illegal btw. We don't need ranks to have fun. F.U.N.

Something you MLG wannabees seem to have forgotten about. 343 shouldn't even consider catering to the same player base who constantly rags on them for not listening. The 1-50 system was crap and the players who defend it don't care about non competitive gamers; as long they can get that number and put players down, then they'll be happy. It doesn't matter how good you because 343 will never listen to you, which is why this game doesn't need ranks and needs to be all social. Bungie understood this and was the reason Reach was so good. Halo 4 is better off without you elitist, nit-picky -Yoinks!- and your dumb rank system suggestions."

*Ahem.

Non-competitve players and competitive players ask why no one understands each other or the points they try to make. Read the above and you'll know why.
So Halo 4 doesn't use trueskill? I thought all MS games used trueskill in matchmaking.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've seen so many posts on here from "casual" people against the game having a competitive side, such as ranks and playlist with competitive settings. What I want to know is why? having those things will affect you in no way at all, making playlists for competitive settings doesn't mean you will be forced to play them and having a rank affects you in no way either so what's your reasoning for being against them so much?
I've never completely understood it either to be honest.

The only reason I can think of is that players who don't attain any sort of high rank tend to feel ridiculed by players who have and are put off the game to a result.

But on Halo 4 this happens all the time and ranks aren't the only thing that do this, I've had many players talk down to other players after a game because of a poor K/D ratio or in-game performance.
They (we) don't "feel" ridiculed, we are ridiculed, and that won't happen so much now, but it will happen when the game is a year or two old.

And you just I think proved my point with your point regarding K/D. Why make the situation even worse with no benifit? You guys call other people self-concious/no confidence, but yet it's you guys who apparently can't enjoy a game, and aren't satisfied with your own skills and performance in the game unless everyone else can see a little number next to your name. Why do you need other people to see it?

Quote:
Competitive gamers have a better perception of the game, and how it should run properly.
Not true. They have a different perception of the game. They have wants that are different than mine. They want to play a different game than I want to play. However, there is no reason a "competitive" player's opinion is any more valid than my opinion.
The issue is that when I blast away other players I would like to know that they were at my skill level so that I can know I was challenged.

Its no different than going into a gym and erasing the numbers off the free-weights. People want to know where their performance level is at and if they are indeed challenging themselves.

No one in their right mind should go to a gym that has the numbers erased.. unless that gym was made for mental people who cannot cope with the fact that others are better than them.
Quote:
If you think bloom made Halo Reach about luck, then we're not even on the same page.
It made the DMR about luck, there is no argument against it, it's a fact. Reach in general was a terrible game compared to past halos but that's another thing entirely.
Quote:
Quote:
If you think bloom made Halo Reach about luck, then we're not even on the same page.
It made the DMR about luck, there is no argument against it, it's a fact. Reach in general was a terrible game compared to past halos but that's another thing entirely.
Agreed.
Quote:
All those things lessen the already small skill gap in the game, Bloom was one of the worst things to be implemented, luck should not play a factor in wether you die or not and that's what bloom did. Even if you did pace your shots, what if the other guy just spammed and killed you? (which happened all the time) That isn't fair or right, bloom needed to go.
Being able to parry sword hits with good timing reduces the skill gap? Surely that's a perfect example of something that increases the skill gap, since it's difficult to do, whereas sword kills are relatively easy?

Firstly, luck is always an element in these games, and always will be so long as it's impossible to have perfect situational awareness, and perfect control of everything that's going on. You can spawn into a dangerous situation, mispredict an enemy's actions through sheer chance (rather than their skill), an enemy's buddies can spawn close to him and turn the tide in a close battle, etc.

The version of Halo in which luck never plays a part in whether or not you will win is entirely fictional, and has never existed.

Secondly, it's not really about luck, it's about pacing your shots, and knowing when to pace your shots and when not to. If your issue is that someone that doesn't pace their shots will still win most of the time, then your issue isn't with bloom, it's with the tuning values that bloom is set up with.

Quote:

It's not just competitive players complaining about the boltshot, and the reason for the complaints is because it's blatantly OP. Being able to spawn with a weapon that can kill in one shot is not right, coupled with the radar it isn't exactly hard to time the charge...
Assassinations or melee attacks from behind can kill in one hit, grenades can kill in one hit. You've always been able to spawn with the ability to do these things (minus assassinations, but they're just a longer more risky version of a melee attack)

But like the bolt-shot, these are all very situational things, and have drawbacks.
The boltshot, for example, requires a charge time, and leaves you very vulnerable if you miss. The RADAR can help you line up a shot, but it's still a risk even with the RADAR.

As I say, I don't find myself getting killed with it often, unless I deserved it (blindly ran around a corner, jumped onto a man-cannon knowing there was an enemy waiting at the other end, etc.)

Quote:

The range is also way too long, I've died using a shotgun or Scatter shot against a boltshot when at the same range and all I've done is take out their shields and then I'm dead because of this OP weapon.
If you're going up against someone who has a close-range weapon, with another close-range weapon, then you're doing it wrong in my opinion. Or you're playing the odds. Given the choice of a boltshot vs shotgun, I'd pick the shotgun personally.

Quote:

Firstly, most competitive players don't rage at casuals for "having fun", and secondly games that are serious is what's fun for us, it may not be too you and so many people fail to understand that different people have different ways of having fun.
That's why I said vocal minority, I accept that these people are a minority, and not representative of competitive people. I also realise that people enjoy games in different ways, and I don't really have a problem with that either. I don't have a problem with competitive people getting their own playlists either, as long as they don't expect their rules to apply to the whole of the game.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5