A mod from this site once told be that a ranking system (1-50) is equivalent to unlocking a piece of armor. Does anyone agree with him? I still don’t.
Edited by Moderator - Please do not post spam.
*Original post, click at your own discretion.
Don’t care.
I dont even know why i post this.
Let’s be fair, shall we? What I said was :
> <mark>Bottom line, without skill based settings, which many say Halo 4 lacks right now, a skill based rank holds the same meaning as a unlocking a piece of armour.</mark>
If you’re going to bring up something someone else has said, it’s best to bring it up correctly. Twisting words to fit your argument isn’t the way to go. I still stand by my statement, without competitive settings (the part you seem to be skipping over) a visual ranking system holds very little to no meaning.
Be honest, would you really hold someone who gets a 50 in Infinity Slayer, Flood, Grifball, or any of the instant respawn/Infinity settings playlists (deemed horribly non-competitive by the community at large) to the same level as someone who gets a 50 in a Competitive-centric playlist? Of course not. What was the only playlist in H3 where a 50 truly ‘mattered’? MLG. 50s in Doubles and other playlists, earned legitimately, were written off because others could boost them.
> Let’s be fair, shall we? What I said was :
>
>
>
> > <mark>Bottom line, without skill based settings, which many say Halo 4 lacks right now, a skill based rank holds the same meaning as a unlocking a piece of armour.</mark>
>
> If you’re going to bring up something someone else has said, it’s best to bring it up correctly. Twisting words to fit your argument isn’t the way to go. I still stand by my statement, without competitive settings (the part you seem to be skipping over) a visual ranking system holds very little to no meaning.
>
> Be honest, would you really hold someone who gets a 50 in Infinity Slayer, Flood, Grifball, or any of the instant respawn/Infinity settings playlists (deemed horribly non-competitive by the community at large) to the same level as someone who gets a 50 in a Competitive-centric playlist? Of course not. What was the only playlist in H3 where a 50 truly ‘mattered’? MLG. 50s in Doubles and other playlists, earned legitimately, were written off because others could boost them.
I had a Griffball 50 in H3 and it was way harder to get than my MLG 50.
IMO 50s wouldn’t matter in H4 because it would be like slapping VIGR to social playlists in H3. You’d be able to go from a 49-50 by beating guests and other low level players who don’t care as much about winning.
This might be one moderator I actually like, besides David.
But yes, ranks are meaningless when the game is like it is now.
> > Let’s be fair, shall we? What I said was :
> >
> >
> >
> > > <mark>Bottom line, without skill based settings, which many say Halo 4 lacks right now, a skill based rank holds the same meaning as a unlocking a piece of armour.</mark>
> >
> > If you’re going to bring up something someone else has said, it’s best to bring it up correctly. Twisting words to fit your argument isn’t the way to go. I still stand by my statement, without competitive settings (the part you seem to be skipping over) a visual ranking system holds very little to no meaning.
> >
> > Be honest, would you really hold someone who gets a 50 in Infinity Slayer, Flood, Grifball, or any of the instant respawn/Infinity settings playlists (deemed horribly non-competitive by the community at large) to the same level as someone who gets a 50 in a Competitive-centric playlist? Of course not. What was the only playlist in H3 where a 50 truly ‘mattered’? MLG. 50s in Doubles and other playlists, earned legitimately, were written off because others could boost them.
>
> I had a Griffball 50 in H3 and it was way harder to get than my MLG 50.
>
> IMO 50s wouldn’t matter in H4 because it would be like slapping VIGR to social playlists in H3. You’d be able to go from a 49-50 by beating guests and other low level players who don’t care as much about winning.
Indeed, and you more than likely worked for that 50 by the sweat of your brow, and skin of your teeth. But because it was ‘lolGrifball’ (to paraphrase), a playlist looked down upon as ‘casual’ (as much of Halo 4 is now, save maybe Team Throwdown), the only people who’d respect you for it would be other competitive Grifball players who worked as hard as you. Bring up that 50 amongst the competitive crowd, they’d laugh at ya, no offense to them, but I have seen it happen plenty.
A 50 was a 50 in Halo 3, for me. I’d rarely ever run into a level 50 player who didn’t deserve the ranking.
> > > Let’s be fair, shall we? What I said was :
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > <mark>Bottom line, without skill based settings, which many say Halo 4 lacks right now, a skill based rank holds the same meaning as a unlocking a piece of armour.</mark>
> > >
> > > If you’re going to bring up something someone else has said, it’s best to bring it up correctly. Twisting words to fit your argument isn’t the way to go. I still stand by my statement, without competitive settings (the part you seem to be skipping over) a visual ranking system holds very little to no meaning.
> > >
> > > Be honest, would you really hold someone who gets a 50 in Infinity Slayer, Flood, Grifball, or any of the instant respawn/Infinity settings playlists (deemed horribly non-competitive by the community at large) to the same level as someone who gets a 50 in a Competitive-centric playlist? Of course not. What was the only playlist in H3 where a 50 truly ‘mattered’? MLG. 50s in Doubles and other playlists, earned legitimately, were written off because others could boost them.
> >
> > I had a Griffball 50 in H3 and it was way harder to get than my MLG 50.
> >
> > IMO 50s wouldn’t matter in H4 because it would be like slapping VIGR to social playlists in H3. You’d be able to go from a 49-50 by beating guests and other low level players who don’t care as much about winning.
>
> Indeed, and you more than likely worked for that 50 by the sweat of your brow, and skin of your teeth. But because it was ‘lolGrifball’ (to paraphrase), a playlist looked down upon as ‘casual’ (as much of Halo 4 is now, save maybe Team Throwdown), the only people who’d respect you for it would be other competitive Grifball players who worked as hard as you. <mark>Bring up that 50 amongst the competitive crowd, they’d laugh at ya,</mark> no offense to them, but I have seen it happen plenty.
That has happened, but the people I showed it off to during H3 understood it was hard to get. I’m sure there are people out there who wouldn’t give much respect to 50s in certain gametypes, but they would still matter if people matched each other like in H3 Ranked playlists.
> Let’s be fair, shall we? What I said was :
>
>
>
> > <mark>Bottom line, without skill based settings, which many say Halo 4 lacks right now, a skill based rank holds the same meaning as a unlocking a piece of armour.</mark>
>
> If you’re going to bring up something someone else has said, it’s best to bring it up correctly. Twisting words to fit your argument isn’t the way to go. I still stand by my statement, without competitive settings (the part you seem to be skipping over) a visual ranking system holds very little to no meaning.
>
> Be honest, would you really hold someone who gets a 50 in Infinity Slayer, Flood, Grifball, or any of the instant respawn/Infinity settings playlists (deemed horribly non-competitive by the community at large) to the same level as someone who gets a 50 in a Competitive-centric playlist? Of course not. What was the only playlist in H3 where a 50 truly ‘mattered’? MLG. 50s in Doubles and other playlists, earned legitimately, were written off because others could boost them.
How does it not? It gives people the incentive to play the game to reach the last number which in my opinion the reason why I liked the 1-50 system. When you won you were at a better chance of leveling up and when you lost you went down. It’s almost like you’re completely oblivious to one of the reasons why 1-50 was popular.
> How does it not? It gives people the incentive to play the game to reach the last number which in my opinion the reason why I liked the 1-50 system.
Once you hit that last number, do you still have an incentive? You’ve reached the top of the mountain, what next? 1-50, believe it or not, is finite, just like the SR ranks.
> When you won you were at a better chance of leveling up and when you lost you went down.
Obviously. That might be why so many people who hit 50 stopped playing on them. Could it be, they were afraid to lose that 50? Or heaven forbid, sold it to make a quick buck? Many people talked about how ‘cool’ it was to make a new tag and start over. Once again, the system loses merit, especially when players can win or lose based on the ordnance they receive, or loadouts they use. There are too many random factors to call such a ranking ‘skill based’ as it was in Halo 3, which is what a majority of people are asking for, skill based ranks.
> It’s almost like you’re completely oblivious to one of the reasons why 1-50 was popular.
Not at all. I fully understand the myriad of reasons people want it back, but while they are gnashing teeth over it, I would hope that they would take the time to look at both sides of the coin, and realize there is a distinct difference between an in game visual rank, and a skill based visual rank.
I could easily get a 50 in Halo 3 but didn’t bother, because i was enjoying custom games, and social slayer/big team =P
I don’t beleive they are equivalent. There’s a lot more that goes with a 1-50 ranking system when compared to unlocking a piece of armour in my opinion, but then again, this is all about opinions. There’s no right or wrong answer.
> > How does it not? It gives people the incentive to play the game to reach the last number which in my opinion the reason why I liked the 1-50 system.
>
> Once you hit that last number, do you still have an incentive? You’ve reached the top of the mountain, what next? 1-50, believe it or not, is finite, just like the SR ranks.
There are 3 incentives that I can think of to keep playing on your 50 in H3.
-
The second TU brought ranks for individual playlists. Once you hit 50 you could work for a 5 star general in that playlist.
-
Fun. Close competitive matches against others within a close skill range are fun to alot of people not just 50s. I played constantly on my TS 50 just because I enjoyed those matches the most out of everything H3 offered.
-
Status. People kept playing to know where they stood in comparison to other 50s and hopefully become the best in the playlist. For example, it was easy to recognize who was the best in MLG because they were either pro or semi-pro.
> > How does it not? It gives people the incentive to play the game to reach the last number which in my opinion the reason why I liked the 1-50 system.
>
> Once you hit that last number, do you still have an incentive? You’ve reached the top of the mountain, what next? 1-50, believe it or not, is finite, just like the SR ranks.
>
>
>
> > When you won you were at a better chance of leveling up and when you lost you went down.
>
> Obviously. That might be why so many people who hit 50 stopped playing on them. Could it be, they were afraid to lose that 50? Or heaven forbid, sold it to make a quick buck? Many people talked about how ‘cool’ it was to make a new tag and start over. Once again, the system loses merit, <mark>especially when players can win or lose based on the ordnance they receive, or loadouts they use. There are too many random factors to call such a ranking ‘skill based’</mark> as it was in Halo 3, which is what a majority of people are asking for, skill based ranks.
>
>
>
> > It’s almost like you’re completely oblivious to one of the reasons why 1-50 was popular.
>
> Not at all. I fully understand the myriad of reasons people want it back, but while they are gnashing teeth over it, I would hope that they would take the time to look at both sides of the coin, and realize there is a distinct difference between an in game visual rank, and a skill based visual rank.
You have to at least realize that it takes some amount of skill to quickly adapt too, and overcome a random situation like that.
I am not saying the current ranking system has anything to do with skill, but that there are still elements in the game that require some degree of skill to master. I’d like to see them bring a visible skill based rating to H4. Interested in seeing what they will do with it.