Did you ask for a progression system?

I am talking about your “competitive rank” since 343 claimed it to be, you also unlock armor with it but it is overall your Matchmaking Rank

This poll is for people who ASKED for a progression system.

Did you ask for a progression system BEFORE it was implemented?

Maybe you like it, but did you ASK for it? If you didn’t actually ask for it then your vote would be NO, I didn’t ask for it.

If you did ask for it, whether you like it or not then your vote would be YES, I did ask for it.

I was told by Josh Holmes that people asked for a progression system, I never saw a poll or anything so let’s just see the results right now shall we.

I wanted one, yes.
But strictly for unlocking armor and emblems and aesthetics stuff…

I wanted ranking (1-50) for competitive play.

If they can successfully manage to do that for halo 5, that will be so awesome.

You forgot the poll.

Go through the forums, a lot of people wanted this. I am no exception.

Nope.

Maybe i was not active enough on the forums, but pre-releash of reach and halo 4, I never seen someone ask for a progression system.

I didn’t ask for one since it basically has no purpose other then show how much the person has played the game, unless they had double xp and all that bs that I believe ruins the game (stats wise) and pushes the system into being useless.

> I wanted one, yes.
> But strictly for unlocking armor and emblems and aesthetics stuff…
>
> I wanted ranking (1-50) for competitive play.
>
> If they can successfully manage to do that for halo 5, that will be so awesome.

Pretty much this.

> I wanted one, yes.
> But strictly for unlocking armor and emblems and aesthetics stuff…
>
> I wanted ranking (1-50) for competitive play.
>
> If they can successfully manage to do that for halo 5, that will be so awesome.

> I wanted one, yes.
> But strictly for unlocking armor and emblems and aesthetics stuff…
>
> I wanted ranking (1-50) for competitive play.
>
> If they can successfully manage to do that for halo 5, that will be so awesome.

Same here, really. I wanted a mix of Halo Reach and Halo 3. We’d unlock armours and stuff as we go along (which they got right), but none of this personal loadout stuff… And, although I’m a casual gamer who doesn’t care much about rank, I still wanted to see a good old 1-50 in-game ranking system, since I know that its important to many players.

But no, I never asked for a progression system. I never asked for any of this “getting rid of the even field of play” that they claim the community waned.

Look guys, maybe some of you guys want it but I never heard an outcry by the entire community pre-release that the majority wanted a progression system, Im assuming the majority of the community wanted it which lead them them out it in.

I don’t remember a ton of threads asking for progression system, wtf is josh talking about?

> I wanted one, yes.
> But strictly for unlocking armor and emblems and aesthetics stuff…
>
> I wanted ranking (1-50) for competitive play.
>
> If they can successfully manage to do that for halo 5, that will be so awesome.

This more or less.
Progression based ranking system is fun for unlocking armor and what not, it helps get people to play other parts of the game like firefight, campaign, spartan Ops, and so on. All 1-50 does is give people an ego number next to their name, but at the same time, it does show competitive gamers something to shoot for. But I also don’t believe that 1-50 shouldn’t be limited to 1-50, nor should it be visible to everyone.

Also, remember everyone, just because you didn’t see any threads on these forums asking for progression, doesn’t mean no one asked, the total member count of these forums do not equal the total player base count.

Never asked. Progression has a place but in no way should it have replaced 1-50 visible ranks. And all this customization really takes too much focus away from solid gameplay.

H2 was simple but most importantly it was FUN.
Halo now is watered down and overly decorated. More importantly, its not fun.

> > I wanted one, yes.
> > But strictly for unlocking armor and emblems and aesthetics stuff…
> >
> > I wanted ranking (1-50) for competitive play.
> >
> > If they can successfully manage to do that for halo 5, that will be so awesome.
>
> This more or less.
> Progression based ranking system is fun for unlocking armor and what not, it helps get people to play other parts of the game like firefight, campaign, spartan Ops, and so on. All 1-50 does is give people an ego number next to their name, but at the same time, it does show competitive gamers something to shoot for. But I also don’t believe that 1-50 shouldn’t be limited to 1-50, nor should it be visible to everyone.
>
>
> Also, remember everyone, just because you didn’t see any threads on these forums asking for progression, doesn’t mean no one asked, the total member count of these forums do not equal the total player base count.

So… If players on the forums weren’t the ones who asked for the progression system, then who was it? The players who didn’t communicate their ideas?

I get it, the forums goers, while being a general representation of the community’s thoughts, do not represent the community as a whole. But when it comes to a matter of communication, this is where it happens. If it wasn’t asked on the forums, then it most likely wasn’t ever asked at all.

So we were in fact lied to?

The poll shows some people did want it, but not even 40% want it so why did they add it?

I never asked for a progression system. I clearly remember asking for in game visible CSR though.

This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

Never once asked for a progression system. Don’t recall really anyone asking. Maybe Josh knows of a different community that I’m unaware of. He should start getting that resume ready.

A progression system is fine just as long as we have a solid competitive rank. What we have with Halo 4 is no competitive rank and a mediocre progression system. Reach had a way better progression system, heck even Halo 3’s was better. No I didnt ask for a progression system but im not opposed to having one.

> > > I wanted one, yes.
> > > But strictly for unlocking armor and emblems and aesthetics stuff…
> > >
> > > I wanted ranking (1-50) for competitive play.
> > >
> > > If they can successfully manage to do that for halo 5, that will be so awesome.
> >
> > This more or less.
> > Progression based ranking system is fun for unlocking armor and what not, it helps get people to play other parts of the game like firefight, campaign, spartan Ops, and so on. All 1-50 does is give people an ego number next to their name, but at the same time, it does show competitive gamers something to shoot for. But I also don’t believe that 1-50 shouldn’t be limited to 1-50, nor should it be visible to everyone.
> >
> >
> > Also, remember everyone, just because you didn’t see any threads on these forums asking for progression, doesn’t mean no one asked, the total member count of these forums do not equal the total player base count.
>
> So… If players on the forums weren’t the ones who asked for the progression system, then who was it? The players who didn’t communicate their ideas?
>
> I get it, the forums goers, while being a general representation of the community’s thoughts, do not represent the community as a whole. But when it comes to a matter of communication, this is where it happens. If it wasn’t asked on the forums, then it most likely wasn’t ever asked at all.

There are other forum boards, web sites, blogs, and also people who go to cons.