Forums / Games / Legacy Halo

Why are you so against it?

OP

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. ...
  6. 5
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.
I am a casual player, i want a ranked/social just as bad as most of you do. I dont want hate mail because i dont strive to be the best. I dont want to stop playing because every game i feel like the tryhards, try even harder because they arent getting what they want fast enough, so they punishing us trying to have lulz.

Trust me when i say i want a split community, let you guys kill each other rather than have you in general populations.
Its like serial killers in a minimum security prison.
So... If all of the aforementioned were fixed... Do you think this would tone down competitive gameplay or something? I mean, think about it.
Quote:
Oh I get it, your afraid of littly johnny tryhard talking smack. Please....

First of all, if you can't handle a little smack talk then you probably shouldn't be playing online in the first place. Second, just because a few people will talk trash doesn't mean the entire system is in place as a "Talk trash validator"

It's a REAL progression system. A visual indicator of how your ACTUAL SKILL has progressed.

My point is, if you don't care about this. Then you don't care about the game. I mean, sure you think the game is fun, you'll get on for laughs. But you don't reall care if you win or lose, you don't care about making real progress and becoming a better player you don't care to see how you stack up against the rest of the player base.

Believe it or not...THIS IS WHY ONLINE GAMING WAS CREATED. To PLAY and TRY to beat other players of similar skill. To progress and move forward.

and it's not like your forced into it, you can sit around and play randoms mindlessly all day if you want. But to try and devalue a system that has real worth, and IS ESSENTIAL IN THE LONGEVITY of the game. You should be ashamed.
first of smart -Yoink-. smack talking is childish and annoying, if you have to talk crap then you are crap. those that run the mouth alot usually are the weakest. honesty Ive little interest in sit around listening to some idiot pointlessly -Yoink- wave his rank. it doesn't matter if i whip is -Yoink- or not, im not in the mood to listen to a teen boy wave is e-peen around like its some big accomplishment.

next dont go making assumptions on what i do and dont think, it makes you sound dumb.

also visual ranks MEAN NOTHING. like i said they can be boosted, bought, or cheated. then there's the other issue of the system being broke -Yoink- hell. ya im talking about the 1-50. because that's exactly what most of you rank obsessed monkeys want. witch you not going to get btw.

also again dont go making assumptions again. you can not say: "Believe it or not...THIS IS WHY ONLINE GAMING WAS CREATED. To PLAY and TRY to beat other players of similar skill. To progress and move forward."

this again is another opinion. in other words you opinion. unless you can get a statement from the person who actually invented the first internet capable game. then all you can do is assume.

But to try and devalue a system that has real worth, and IS ESSENTIAL IN THE LONGEVITY of the game. You should be ashamed.

^^ this is a good example of you ignorance. a visible ranking system has nothing to do with a games longevity (game play does, you can have the best ranking system in the world but if your game blows that wont matter). where you rank monkey get this idea from Ive no , clue. the fact of the matter is in all the post Ive seen from you rank guys, Ive seen nothing but opinions. you have not factual proven proof that ranks make a game. so far all you do is go on and on expressing your opinions based on you experiences.

also next; really? wow really? how childish of you, trying to start some crap with someone because they said that visible ranks are pointless but competitiveness is not? that makes sense. that alone proves you not in for the competitive game play, you in for a number next to your name. competitive gaming doesn't need visual ranks to be competitive.

my case and point of this is Halo: CE (dont go bring up the pc addition, and saying "oh ranks" that's not the one i speak of) Halo CE was competitive as hell, and you now what? it had no online multiplier, it had no visible ranking system and it was still competitive. right there is your proof that good solid competitive game play trumps having a ranking system; and before you go say but it "didnt last that long" hat was because halo 2 came out, and live went online. had nether of those thing happened the people would more then likely have played Halo CE longer.
The casuals will soon learn how competitiveness is what kept halo so popular like halo CE-3, dipping down with reach but bungie somewhat kept it together with arena. Now with populations almost only 100k a day, as long as this game still caters to noobs and lack's any ranks, it will go under 100k and never come back up. In a sense, this game will be dead in 6 months if no ranks come out
Quote:
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?
So when I boot up Halo 3, and no matter what playlist I go into, and I see a number next to my gamertag, that's not a rank?

Though thanks for showing that competitive gamers aren't satisfied with just one playlist and playing the 'It's not fair!' card.
Im not against it because it's something i dont want. Im against it because there's no way it's going to change anything. The game IS competitive, it does need some tweaks here and there to make it better (for example the BR and the Carbine should be on equal footing).
But at the end of the day all the rank does is put a smile on peoples faces, it would be different if it matchmade people of similar skill levels, but it doesnt. So IMO it serves little to no purpose and should be done when all the important things are done.
Thing is, competitive players are the minority and as such, you wont have very much sway in what 343i does, i would suggest doing the opposite of what you're doing now and back the casuals up, because if you do, then maybe we'll have a reason to back you up. Until that time comes, you will always be out voted... just saying
Quote:
Quote:
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?
So when I boot up Halo 3, and no matter what playlist I go into, and I see a number next to my gamertag, that's not a rank?

Though thanks for showing that competitive gamers aren't satisfied with just one playlist and playing the 'It's not fair!' card.
No you don't have a number next to your name in every Halo 3 playlist, what game are you playing? In Halo 3 when you picked what you wanted to play in matchmaking you would first choose between social and ranked, in ranked you had numbers and in social you had no numbers and each of them had about 6 playlist to choose from inside them.

No it's not fair, and if you could see it through our eyes you'd agree with us. The social community at the moment has every playlist they want available, we have nothing, and no, one playlist to choose from isn't enough. Halo 3 had Team slayer, Team doubles, SWAT, Team Objective (Reach's arena system made this impossible) Team snipers, Lone wolfs and other playlists to play for ranked, that's what we want.
Quote:
Quote:
Oh I get it, your afraid of littly johnny tryhard talking smack. Please....

First of all, if you can't handle a little smack talk then you probably shouldn't be playing online in the first place. Second, just because a few people will talk trash doesn't mean the entire system is in place as a "Talk trash validator"

It's a REAL progression system. A visual indicator of how your ACTUAL SKILL has progressed.

My point is, if you don't care about this. Then you don't care about the game. I mean, sure you think the game is fun, you'll get on for laughs. But you don't reall care if you win or lose, you don't care about making real progress and becoming a better player you don't care to see how you stack up against the rest of the player base.

Believe it or not...THIS IS WHY ONLINE GAMING WAS CREATED. To PLAY and TRY to beat other players of similar skill. To progress and move forward.

and it's not like your forced into it, you can sit around and play randoms mindlessly all day if you want. But to try and devalue a system that has real worth, and IS ESSENTIAL IN THE LONGEVITY of the game. You should be ashamed.
first of smart -Yoink!-. smack talking is childish and annoying, if you have to talk crap then you are crap. those that run the mouth alot usually are the weakest. honesty Ive little interest in sit around listening to some idiot pointlessly -Yoink!- wave his rank. it doesn't matter if i whip is -Yoink!- or not, im not in the mood to listen to a teen boy wave is e-peen around like its some big accomplishment.

next dont go making assumptions on what i do and dont think, it makes you sound dumb.

also visual ranks MEAN NOTHING. like i said they can be boosted, bought, or cheated. then there's the other issue of the system being broke -Yoink!- hell. ya im talking about the 1-50. because that's exactly what most of you rank obsessed monkeys want. witch you not going to get btw.

also again dont go making assumptions again. you can not say: "Believe it or not...THIS IS WHY ONLINE GAMING WAS CREATED. To PLAY and TRY to beat other players of similar skill. To progress and move forward."

this again is another opinion. in other words you opinion. unless you can get a statement from the person who actually invented the first internet capable game. then all you can do is assume.

But to try and devalue a system that has real worth, and IS ESSENTIAL IN THE LONGEVITY of the game. You should be ashamed.

^^ this is a good example of you ignorance. a visible ranking system has nothing to do with a games longevity (game play does, you can have the best ranking system in the world but if your game blows that wont matter). where you rank monkey get this idea from Ive no , clue. the fact of the matter is in all the post Ive seen from you rank guys, Ive seen nothing but opinions. you have not factual proven proof that ranks make a game. so far all you do is go on and on expressing your opinions based on you experiences.

also next; really? wow really? how childish of you, trying to start some crap with someone because they said that visible ranks are pointless but competitiveness is not? that makes sense. that alone proves you not in for the competitive game play, you in for a number next to your name. competitive gaming doesn't need visual ranks to be competitive.

my case and point of this is Halo: CE (dont go bring up the pc addition, and saying "oh ranks" that's not the one i speak of) Halo CE was competitive as hell, and you now what? it had no online multiplier, it had no visible ranking system and it was still competitive. right there is your proof that good solid competitive game play trumps having a ranking system; and before you go say but it "didnt last that long" hat was because halo 2 came out, and live went online. had nether of those thing happened the people would more then likely have played Halo CE longer.
> Thinks talking smack is childish.
> Calls people 'rank obsessed monkeys'.

Most of what ToxicAcidsnake has said are facts, whether or not you agree.
As for the comment regarding a statement from 'the person who actually invented the first Internet capable game' - that's just laughable. It's a well established fact that almost every online game ever made utilises competition and people's motivation to do better than one another to drive that game and its community.
Some of the biggest online games are only as big as they are today because of the competitive mindset.

Also:

Quote:
...had nether of those thing happened the people would more then likely have played Halo CE longer.
Now who's making assumptions?
@ultimatevyse69@

dont -Yoink- ride others post; and pretend you actually said something. if you have nothing that actually contributes then dont post.

Most of what ToxicAcidsnake has said are facts

yet again we have an example of someone that doesn't know the difference. those are opinions not facts. the only thing you can say is you agree with his opinions.

It's a well established fact that almost every online game ever made utilities competition and people's motivation to do better than one another to drive that game and its community.

actually read and try to comprehend what is posted before you say asinine crap like this and again it is opinion not fact. you need to look of the word fact and opinion because clearly you nor him understand the difference. also the subject was not on competitive play it was on visible ranks. witch are not needed to have competitive play; witch you rank monkeys ether dont understand.
(or perhaps its as i said before, you dont actually care about competitive play; you care about the number you get from it)

Now who's making assumptions?

way to ignore the whole post that pretty much makes my point. the fact that you skipped it means you cant not argue against it. also when i said that did i say it was fact or attempt to pass if of as fact? no i did not, unlike you rank obsessed monkeys i dont call my opinions fact. that was my opinion, not fact.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. ...
  6. 5