> I simply changed H3’s Ranked and re-worded into Competitive playlist.
>
> Sure, you can play competitively in Social, but the main design for creating a Social playlist is to appeal to players who want to play and have fun without feeling the need to try hard (Casual players).
That’s what every playlist besides Arena does.
> In Competitive, it’s almost exactly like Ranked from H3, just no guest players allowed.
Uhh actually it’s exactly like Social from H3, just with a different name.
> Sure you can play for real, in Social, but then you might as well play Competitive, unless you try to spam easy kills.
>
> Now back to you, you didn’t really disagree with my OP in your first post:
>
> “Competitive” = Social
>
> The only difference is the name used in order to fool bad players into thinking that they are “hardcore.”
You suggested that Reach needs a Social playlist, while I pointed out that it already has Social, but is simply titled “Competitive,” pointing out the obvious redundancy in your suggestion. The disagreement is implied. If you can’t infer that for yourself then I don’t even know what to say…
> Now, Competitive does not = Social, here is why. Competitive is a challenge, and the playlist focuses on challenging it’s players. Social on the other hand, does not attempt to challenge the player.
How is Competitive, in any way shape or form a challenge?
> cheeezztofer, I understand that, but these are just ideas, opinions if you will, they don’t need to be proven or disproven.
You’re making a suggestion for a game to be changed entirely for all the thousands of players. At the least, you need to present supporting facts and reasoning behind those opinions, otherwise your posts are just a waste of space and this is why:
It could in fact be that your reasons for disagreement are simply based on wrong assumptions. Without proper reasoning to support your claims, there is no way of knowing if that is the case or not. Thus, it is in the developers’ best interest to ignore unsupported feedback.
You have to understand that at this point, I am simply trying to help you understand why a proper argument is necessary: all your feedback will be ignored without demonstrated thought.
> An idea cannot be changed unless the owner of that idea changes it.
What?
> In earlier posts, I was stating my personnel opinion about the Halo4 ranking system and how I didn’t really like H3’s ranking system, and liked Reach’s system better.
Your “opinion” was 90% based on the fact that you felt you didn’t get the rank you deserved. However, when presented with the data to prove that you were placed exactly where you should be in terms of skill (+/- 50% W/L and 1.0 K/D), you chose to just get angry and defensive rather than present a counter-argument.
> And then I’m being attacked by Jay, for what?? Expressing my thoughts, and then claims of me being a bad player, emerged from no where, and that pissed me off. So, I might lose credibility from getting angry, but he loses as well, for wrongly criticizing me for no real reason.
Where did I call you a bad player? I said that the change from the word “Social” to “Competitive” was a ploy by Bungie to fool bad players into believing that they’re hardcore. I never said that you were bad, that was simply the implication that you yourself took from it.
> Maybe he commented negatively because, I didn’t like his favorite ranking system, so of course I would talk back. It ain’t fair.
It wasn’t a negative comment and I honestly do not have a favourite ranking system, I do not care as long as I get fair matches and a way to track progress. Both systems have flaws (which are easy to fix) but I am able to get over that in exchange for the games they offer.