I keep hearing a ranking system will make it playable but how dose it improve the core mechanics of the game. As well I already hated the 1-50 rank I think its a half -yoink- attempt at league play from Starcraft 2 and Halo would benefit if they had a league play system over a 1-50 rank system.
Yes because the halo 2 and 3 1-50 was released sooooooo long after starcraft 2 right?
I believe it will male the game more fun.
> Yes because the halo 2 and 3 1-50 was released sooooooo long after starcraft 2 right?
>
>
> I believe it will male the game more fun.
Yes Starcraft 2 was after Halo 2 however the implantation of the Halo 2 system is lazy and shows little any ingenuity. Secondly how dose it make the shooting people funnier thing is Halo 3 felt like a grind with idea of fighting people your rank was a great idea on paper the problem was if you got on a winning streak you get stomped on by some no-lifers and go back to square one. My point is, is that the 1-50 is out of date and needs to be re-imagined and I don’t think it’ll make a difference in the core gameplay.
it doesnt it just motivates certain people to go from lvl 1-50 not sure how or why… but it does =/
> Secondly how dose it make the shooting people funnier thing is Halo 3 felt like a grind with idea of fighting people
> Yes because the halo 2 and 3 1-50 was released sooooooo long after starcraft 2 right?
>
>
> I believe it will male the game more fun.
The 1-50 system in Halo 2 and Halo 3 were both a complete joke. Halo 2’s had little to no legitimate 50’s with all of the modders, glitches, derankers, etc. and tons of players on Halo 3 got 50 from boosting or buying their accounts. Not only that, but a win/loss system is limited when a group of randomized players has a chance of being grouped against a team of people who know each other. Just doesn’t work out as good as everyone thinks it does.
To the OP, it won’t change anything.
Edit: I’d prefer a clan battles-esque playlist where people have to be in a party to join and clans or individual players were ranked off that. Preferrably a system where an individual’s efforts in that match were calculated and utilized for their rating.
It just adds incentive. When you combine incentives with good raw gameplay, the replay value skyrockets and players will stick with the game for longer.
> It just adds incentive. When you combine incentives with good raw gameplay, the replay value skyrockets and players will stick with the game for longer.
That can easily be down with the SR ranking system or the COD ranking system. And improving gameplay is bull, I remember being stomped on by no-lifers after winning 3 bloody games all the time.
Because for the most part it encourages players to play above their skill level. New players want to get a shiny 35 or 40. It helps the newer players gain skill which increases the longevity for the game because we need newer players to gain skill to keep this game running. However, this game really doesnt take a whole lot of skill so its a toss up lol. It’s simple logic Halo 2 and Halo 3 had it numerous people played. Reach and 4 dont have it less people play. Not only that 4’s ranking system is so short. Atleast Reach, it took forever to get Inheritor which kept people playing, but it was still dumb
> > It just adds incentive. When you combine incentives with good raw gameplay, the replay value skyrockets and players will stick with the game for longer.
>
> That can easily be down with the SR ranking system or the COD ranking system. And improving gameplay is bull, I remember being stomped on by no-lifers after winning 3 bloody games all the time.
That’s why there was both social and ranked.
Some people like everything handed to them by participating. While others like a challenge, and be punished for losing.
/end thread
> Because for the most part it encourages players to play above their skill level. New players want to get a shiny 35 or 40. It helps the newer players gain skill which increases the longevity for the game because we need newer players to gain skill to keep this game running. However, this game really doesnt take a whole lot of skill so its a toss up lol
But that that is easily exploited I can remember boosting since the day I got Halo 3 back in 08 the game had been out for awhile and all and I mean ALL 12 of my friends that had it had boosted to get those shinny ranks.
And you didn’t answer the question how doses a 1-50 rank improove the shooting people part of the game. Skill is only apart of what makes a game fun without good mechanics the game becomes boring fast. This also goes for old mechanics you have to improve or your game will be garbage.
Its not how a 1-50 ranking system “would” make halo a better game, it “did” make halo a better game.
I dont have the time or patience to explain the benefits of the ranking system to you, especially since you obviously never player anything before reach. Ill just give you a link. Educate yourself.
https://forums.halowaypoint.com/yaf_postst135168_1-50-Competitive-Skill-Rank-Official-Thread.aspx
Also, you spelled “Does” wrong in your OP.
Because it gives an incentive to WIN.
I could lose every game I play 10,000 times in a row, and still hit max rank.
With a 1-50, people try to win, they use mics, they play the objetive, the worry about there deaths in slayer, everything is just better all-in-all.
How does this post improve halo 4?
> Because it gives an incentive to WIN.
>
> I could lose every game I play 10,000 times in a row, and still hit max rank.
>
> With a 1-50, people try to win, they use mics, they play the objetive, the worry about there deaths in slayer, everything is just better all-in-all.
But still the 1-50 rank system is broken there are way to many problems with it for me to explain it too you. A good ranking system would uses the league play system because it it is harder to break and gives that motivation too win.
> How does this post improve halo 4?
how does your post improve halo 4? /Sarcasm