Black Ops 2 Has halo 2,3, style ranking

*face palm

(Before reading, I absolutely hate call of duty and wish that series would burn.)

COD game is going to once again take over the competitive scene. I feel like Halo is taking steps backwards and COD is finding ways to cater to the hardcore crowd while maintaining their current casual audience. I was really hoping halo 4 would do this and was 99% sure they would. Now we are twenty something odd days off from the release and they did nothing for the hardcore crowd which, let me remind you, Halo started off as a hardcore game. You have to be a complete rookie to deny this.

In halo you have to scrounge for weapons or be skillful with the one you are carrying, its much harder to kill you’re opponent unlike most shooters, and Halo(s) (except halo CE) have all had ranking systems from the git go. Bungie made sure that competitive players would at least still have their moment, even though the system in reach completely failed, a system was still there.

I know frank will play Black Ops 2 and see that treyarch made something for everyone.
Marketing to everyone is a good marketing strategy indeed.

Hopefully 343 will patch a real system (not that bpr crap) with real interface in at a later date. But highly unlikely.

Edit: I now know that Black Ops 2 will have league systems similar to SC2. You don’t have to be on about that anymore. As for the people who clearly aren’t reading this post, I do not want ONLY the 1-50 rank system! Read again, I want a ranking system period.

-Fletcher

OK, picture the setting. Its 3 months before halo 5 comes out. The community is once again begging for 1-50 back.

343s response: “We dont want halo 5 to be like call of duty”

This was mention a few months back, this is old news.

Personally, I find game being balanced a lot more important compared to visible ranking system.

Competitive gamers can always organize custom games to test out who’s the best and improve, that can be done without ranking system, but with luck factors like bloom and brainfarts like Armor Lock, it’s not possible.

Skill based ranking would be great, but it’s not essential. I’d rather Halo series get rid of matchmaking, and get dedicated servers, instead of bring out the 1-50 back.

> Personally, I find game being balanced a lot more important compared to visible ranking system.
>
> Competitive gamers can always organize custom games to test out who’s the best and improve, that can be done without ranking system, but with luck factors like bloom and brainfarts like Armor Lock, it’s not possible.
>
>
> Skill based ranking would be great, but it’s not essential. I’d rather Halo series get rid of matchmaking, and get dedicated servers, instead of bring out the 1-50 back.

Meh, for me i never really cared for the visible part. The reason i loved 1-50 was it let me know if i was improving, where i stood in the community. (which is actually why i like reachs percentage rank better)

But in reach and h4 it will be almost impossible to tell.

Am i doing well because im facing bad people?
Am i doing bad because im improving as a player, putting me against skilled people?
Is this the noob playlist, where not very many good players are?

Itll be impossible to tell where i stack in the community.

> This was mention a few months back, this is old news.

Yes I know, still needs to be addressed. Even if you don’t give two craps about ranking, there is an audience that does. I think its wrong they denied that crowd who had also been with halo over the years.

Having a ranking system does not a game make.

The 1-50 has its pros and cons, i personaly think it has more cons. Guess CoD players will find out what those cons are. The series is already plagued with exp rank boosters, lets see how long the 1-50 ranking lasts.

After playing MW3 and BF3 for the past few months, I realized a 1-50 system just isn’t important anymore. As long as a true skill system of SOME kind is in place, I could care less if I get a 50.

> > Personally, I find game being balanced a lot more important compared to visible ranking system.
> >
> > Competitive gamers can always organize custom games to test out who’s the best and improve, that can be done without ranking system, but with luck factors like bloom and brainfarts like Armor Lock, it’s not possible.
> >
> >
> > Skill based ranking would be great, but it’s not essential. I’d rather Halo series get rid of matchmaking, and get dedicated servers, instead of bring out the 1-50 back.
>
> Meh, for me i never really cared for the visible part. The reason i loved 1-50 was it let me know if i was improving, where i stood in the community. (which is actually why i like reachs percentage rank better)
>
> But in reach and h4 it will be almost impossible to tell.
>
> Am i doing well because im facing bad people?
> Am i doing bad because im improving as a player, putting me against skilled people?
> Is this the noob playlist, where not very many good players are?
>
> Itll be impossible to tell where i stack in the community.

Exactly and that is bad, bad, bad.

> > This was mention a few months back, this is old news.
>
> Yes I know, still needs to be addressed. Even if you don’t give two craps about ranking, there is an audience that does. I think its wrong they denied that crowd who had also been with halo over the years.

I’m one that likes ranks, but you can’t do anything at this point because the game is gold. Plus the topic was already shot down when it was made here. I know what your trying to say, but it’s not going to change anything.

Unfortunately, I agree with the OP.

> > Personally, I find game being balanced a lot more important compared to visible ranking system.
> >
> > Competitive gamers can always organize custom games to test out who’s the best and improve, that can be done without ranking system, but with luck factors like bloom and brainfarts like Armor Lock, it’s not possible.
> >
> >
> > Skill based ranking would be great, but it’s not essential. I’d rather Halo series get rid of matchmaking, and get dedicated servers, instead of bring out the 1-50 back.
>
> Meh, for me i never really cared for the visible part. The reason i loved 1-50 was it let me know if i was improving, where i stood in the community. (which is actually why i like reachs percentage rank better)
>
> But in reach and h4 it will be almost impossible to tell.
>
> Am i doing well because im facing bad people?
> Am i doing bad because im improving as a player, putting me against skilled people?
> Is this the noob playlist, where not very many good players are?
>
> Itll be impossible to tell where i stack in the community.

Why won’t you just enjoy the game, if you won a 50 in Halo 3, was it purchased or did the 50 just have a bad day, or was he carried by his friends to 50?

You got whooped by sergeant, did he get lucky? Second account? Or did you just have a bad day?

There is no ranking system that measures your exact skill in the game, only way to tell how good someone is at the game is playing against them, in-game. I don’t know why some of you people are obsessed with seeing how good you are compared to rest of the community, it’s a game, just enjoy it and don’t stress out if you happen to fall on few game losing streak.

But I could mention, there should be some sort of ranked playlists for competitive people to test out their skill against other people who play for win, BUT it shouldn’t be global, some people don’t care for that kind of thing, which is why Reach failed on catering both competitive and casual crowd.

You guys are kind of missing the point. I don’t care about the 1-50. I just want something to measure up to. They could have done Reach’s system for all I care. I played Arena even though it was crap, but hey it was still personal motivation.

They could have done a system of both actually, Make it to where you have a month to try and get a 50 or some other high rank but also have that risk of losing your rank to losing within that month. The month is over and the ladder resets, but it still shows your number for the previous month. So there ya go, you have that goal to beat that record. Kind of like setting a high score. hmm… maybe I should work for 343i.

We don’t know for sure that there’s nothing in store for the “hardcore” gamers. Which to me sounds dumb. What makes a gamer hardcore.

> We don’t know for sure that there’s nothing in store for the “hardcore” gamers. Which to me sounds dumb. What makes a gamer hardcore.

Its a general term for niche gamers, and that term has been around for sometime.
Get used to it.

> There is no ranking system that measures your exact skill in the game

Which is why every ranking system since forever uses an aggregate of games to determine your rank. You can’t be lucky 50 games in a row.

> I don’t know why some of you people are obsessed with seeing how good you are compared to rest of the community

It’s natural instinct, I’m sure you are competitive about something in your life. The more invested you are in a hobby, the more competitive you get.

Of course they’re catering to the hardcore crowd, they have a hardcore playlist.

> The 1-50 has its pros and cons, i personaly think it has more cons. Guess CoD players will find out what those cons are. The series is already plagued with exp rank boosters, lets see how long the 1-50 ranking lasts.

The cons are, boosters and account selling(thats all), CoD already had way more boosting and selling prestige lobbys than Halo ever had without the ranking system.

The pro’s were, Making matches more competitive and intense, winning means more, losing means more, less quitters and betraying, an addicting system that makes you strive to get better, equal balanced matches, it encourages teamwork and rethinking strategies if you lose.

Unfortunately I might have to get BO2 for my competitive fix, and play Halo 4 more casually while I get matched up with slumber parties and guests. Getting team killed for power weapons and mechs.

I always loved getting in intense 50-49 matches that a loss could mean a downrank and a win could move you closer to the next rank. Instead of the 50-12 Roflstops because a team of noobs is being matched against a team of pros.

If i’m on the winning team it’s not fun for me because it’s not challenging, and if i’m on the losing team its not fun getting betrayed for a power weapon and playing with a team of guests.

First of all: 1-50 doesn’t make a game competative.

Secondly: seems CoD is once again YEARS behind. Level design in those games already is a relic from the mid 90’s, AI is worse than what H2 had in 2004, multiplayer is about the only thing that isn’t some shamefully ancient thing that was criticized in back in the days and now is cool because its in CoD. And now they have a ranking system Halo has abandoned long time ago…
Way to go.

No: I’m no CoD fan, I think its a series thats bad for the progress other games like Halo made in the genre. And no: I’m also not a big 1-50 fan. I’m more of a fan of just trying to beat people and being competative in that sense. Numbers are just a collection of pixels that mean nothing to me.