ranked and social playlists. so long as there isn’t an abundance of redundant playlists that split the population, it could work. any thoughts on this matter
I say just have one overall rank based on the progression system and then just let us have our skill levels in a set of ranked playlists.
> I say just have one overall rank based on the progression system and then just let us have our skill levels in a set of ranked playlists.
that exactly what i had in mind, more or less. each ranked playlist would require a different skill set. getting the max in team slayer would be different than getting the max in team objective. so long as it is difficult and the competion is fearce.
What’s the difference between “ranked” and “social” besides a number?
As long as the gametypes in ranked are the fast paced, competitive gametypes(lone wolves, Team slayer, Team objective, Swat, Snipers, MLG) and the social playlists are the playlists that are more slow-paced, more forgiving and more random gametypes(Social slayer[with guests allowed], Action sack, BTB, Grifball,),Then I say yes.
However if you want the exact same playists in both ranked and social, then no. there would be absolutely no point.
> What’s the difference between “ranked” and “social” besides a number?
Do you want to play a game of Slayer for fun and not really care about the outcome? Play Social Slayer.
Do you want to play a game of Slayere where you’re matched with people of an appropriate skill where winning means everything in the most Competitive environment possible? Play Ranked Slayer.
And in Reach, no matter which one you want to do, you’ll always be matched up with people of the opposite viewpoint, so you’d essentially be screwed no matter what.
Now tell me, if this was implemented, how would this be detrimental to your gameplay?
I’ll answer for you: It won’t. Stop being so biased against every idea that would be beneficial to the Competitive community, no matter if it affects you or not.
> > What’s the difference between “ranked” and “social” besides a number?
>
> Do you want to play a game of Slayer for fun and not really care about the outcome? Play Social Slayer.
>
> Do you want to play a game of Slayere where you’re matched with people of an appropriate skill where winning means everything in the most Competitive environment possible? Play Ranked Slayer.
>
> And in Reach, no matter which one you want to do, you’ll always be matched up with people of the opposite viewpoint, so you’d essentially be screwed no matter what.
>
> Now tell me, if this was implemented, how would this be detrimental to your gameplay?
>
> I’ll answer for you: It won’t. Stop being so biased against every idea that would be beneficial to the Competitive community, no matter if it affects you or not.
exactly, everytime the subject comes up, its the same herp pa derp arguement. people must obviosly care about ranked playlust if they don’t want it back despite not caring about ranks.
> > What’s the difference between “ranked” and “social” besides a number?
>
> Do you want to play a game of Slayer for fun and not really care about the outcome? Play Social Slayer.
>
> Do you want to play a game of Slayere where you’re matched with people of an appropriate skill where winning means everything in the most Competitive environment possible? Play Ranked Slayer.
>
> And in Reach, no matter which one you want to do, you’ll always be matched up with people of the opposite viewpoint, so you’d essentially be screwed no matter what.
>
> Now tell me, if this was implemented, how would this be detrimental to your gameplay?
>
> I’ll answer for you: It won’t. Stop being so biased against every idea that would be beneficial to the Competitive community, no matter if it affects you or not.
Don’t care about the outcome? Yes, I don’t care about unfair matchups, betraying teammates, unfair gameplay, badly designed maps, winning or enjoying myself. There’s no option to search people of similar skill and of course, it is completely impossible to find an even matchup in Reach. EVERY SINGLE GAME in the history of Reach has always been one-sided.
Geez, you really think it’s that simple? You really think those who enjoy games for fun don’t like winning? They don’t like even matchups or close matches?
> > What’s the difference between “ranked” and “social” besides a number?
>
> Do you want to play a game of Slayer for fun and not really care about the outcome? Play Social Slayer.
>
> Do you want to play a game of Slayere where you’re matched with people of an appropriate skill where winning means everything in the most Competitive environment possible? Play Ranked Slayer.
>
> And in Reach, no matter which one you want to do, you’ll always be matched up with people of the opposite viewpoint, so you’d essentially be screwed no matter what.
>
> Now tell me, if this was implemented, how would this be detrimental to your gameplay?
>
> I’ll answer for you: It won’t. Stop being so biased against every idea that would be beneficial to the Competitive community, no matter if it affects you or not.
What if I want to play slayer for fun, with a rank next to my name? the obvious answer would be to play competitive, but would you want me playing the “competitve” playlist if the outcome of the match doesn’t matter to me?
Of course you wouldn’t. but there’s nothing saying I have to play in social, now is there? 
My point on this is that even if you have a social and ranked playlist, it doesn’t mean that all self proclaimed competitive players will play in ranked, nor would all “social” players play in social. In fact, most social player would still play in ranked anyways, because even though they don’t care about their rank, they don’t have to play attention to it, and they would still be matched with other players with levels similar to their own.
I’ll say it once again. The only way having separate social/ranked playlists could work is if the social playlists are those with more random gametypes and more variables to the game(these being infection, grifball etc), while ranked is the more fast paced, simple gametypes where a level skill can actually be measured(these being slayer, Team objective, SWAT, MLG, etc). Having the same gametypes in both social and competitive would be pointless(Eve with a social slayer, it would have to be different by allowing more guests and not requiring any DLC, as well as giving the option of more random gametypes)
I say put in Ranked and Social so everyone here can shut up and move on to complain about something else.
> > > What’s the difference between “ranked” and “social” besides a number?
> >
> > Do you want to play a game of Slayer for fun and not really care about the outcome? Play Social Slayer.
> >
> > Do you want to play a game of Slayere where you’re matched with people of an appropriate skill where winning means everything in the most Competitive environment possible? Play Ranked Slayer.
> >
> > And in Reach, no matter which one you want to do, you’ll always be matched up with people of the opposite viewpoint, so you’d essentially be screwed no matter what.
> >
> > Now tell me, if this was implemented, how would this be detrimental to your gameplay?
> >
> > I’ll answer for you: It won’t. Stop being so biased against every idea that would be beneficial to the Competitive community, no matter if it affects you or not.
>
> What if I want to play slayer for fun, with a rank next to my name? the obvious answer would be to play competitive, but would you want me playing the “competitve” playlist if the outcome of the match doesn’t matter to me?
>
> Of course you wouldn’t. but there’s nothing saying I have to play in social, now is there?
>
>
>
> My point on this is that even if you have a social and ranked playlist, it doesn’t mean that all self proclaimed competitive players will play in ranked, nor would all “social” players play in social. In fact, most social player would still play in ranked anyways, because even though they don’t care about their rank, they don’t have to play attention to it, and they would still be matched with other players with levels similar to their own.
>
> I’ll say it once again. The only way having separate social/ranked playlists could work is if the social playlists are those with more random gametypes and more variables to the game(these being infection, grifball etc), while ranked is the more fast paced, simple gametypes where a level skill can actually be measured(these being slayer, Team objective, SWAT, MLG, etc). Having the same gametypes in both social and competitive would be pointless(Eve with a social slayer, it would have to be different by allowing more guests and not requiring any DLC, as well as giving the option of more random gametypes)
you see that could work. so why is that there are those who oppose ranked playlists all together
People always seem to forget that the social playlist had a hidden ranking system so the matches were still fair.
How I always played was if I wanted a quick carefree game I would go into Social Slayer and if I wanted a competitive game that judged me on my performance I would go to Team Slayer. Why can’t we have both? A number in a couple playlists doesn’t affect casual players, especially if there are social copies of those playlists without ranks.
> Don’t care about the outcome? Yes, I don’t care about unfair matchups, betraying teammates, unfair gameplay, badly designed maps, winning or enjoying myself. There’s no option to search people of similar skill and of course, it is completely impossible to find an even matchup in Reach. EVERY SINGLE GAME in the history of Reach has always been one-sided.
Just about. I play about ten 50-30 games before one 50-45. Reach’s system was awful, but that wasn’t what this thread was about. In Reach, if you wanted to play Competitively (don’t give me that Arena bull -Yoink-) you were screwed. It is damn near impossible to play a Competitive game when your team is vastly under-skilled and doesn’t care about the game.
> Geez, you really think it’s that simple? You really think those who enjoy games for fun don’t like winning? They don’t like even matchups or close matches?
Yes, I do. It worked in Halo 3. Reach tried something different and it failed. The only logical solution would be to go back to Halo 3’s setup and ignore the people who hate on things that don’t affect them. You don’t here me -Yoinking!- about Killstreaks and begging 343 not to add them, because I won’t play that playlist. I advise you to do the same in this scenario.
And you can still play to win in a Social game. Winning just isn’t as important in Social.
Have a good amount of social and ranked playlists available is the smart solution. It worked in Halo 3. If you didn’t want to play social, don’t social and vis-versa. Thanks to the people who complained about not being able to get a 50 in Halo 3, we got the Reach system: all social, no rank; and it sucks.