The Gen. Gaming Thread: "Destiny" 1k+ Pages Strong!

Plan on getting Bungie's 'Destiny'?

Yes	41.7%	[ 35 ]
No	15.5%	[ 13 ]
Maybe	13.1%	[ 11 ]
What's that?	29.8%	[ 25 ]
Total Votes:			[ 84 ]

[Preston886]

Expiring Inside

Eris Zephyr

Expiring Inside

How often do you guys use Covenant weapons? I don't really like any of them that much. I seem to be totally faithful to [and reliant on] our own Human weaponry.

Also what rank is everyone on Reach? :>

Days go on forever
But I have not left your side.

I like using Covenant weapons, I don't mind them at all. In fact, I'm often called "multicultural" because of it.

I am a Mythic, probably would be at least an Eclipse by now if I keep playing, but I am taking a long break from Reach for Fallout 3 and Fable 2.

We can chase the dark together
If you go then so will I.

I don't even know what those ranks are D':

They're beyond Generals, is all you need to know.

I'm a Field Marshall, meaning I just surpassed General Rank 4.

As Kalec says, rank means almost nothing. It only signifies how much someone has played now. While I do find it to be superior to Halo 3's random ranking system. Make 1st place 3x in a row gets you nothing, but lose once or come in 2nd once after that and you get demoted into OBLIVION! evil

[K a l e c]

Preston886

While I do find it to be superior to Halo 3's random ranking system. Make 1st place 3x in a row gets you nothing, but lose once or come in 2nd once after that and you get demoted into OBLIVION! evil

I have to disagree here, Halo 3's ranking system was pretty much infinitely better than Reach's.

[Preston886]

K a l e c

Preston886

While I do find it to be superior to Halo 3's random ranking system. Make 1st place 3x in a row gets you nothing, but lose once or come in 2nd once after that and you get demoted into OBLIVION! evil

I have to disagree here, Halo 3's ranking system was pretty much infinitely better than Reach's.

Hold on, let me get on the floor and roll while I'm laughing.

It was a random system, it didn't award skillful players unless randomly. There was no logic to it, if you won you may get promoted, but if you lost or didn't come in 1st you were punished severely for it, no matter how you did. It didn't matter if you did the best on your team if your team lost, it was just flawed.

Gears of War 2 adopted a similar ranking system, if not identical and Epic at least had the decency to listen to the fans and correct such a flawed ranking after Bungie said they couldn't fix it. Bungie could have with an update, but opted not to. Gears 2 switched to a more balanced system that rewarded players no matter what, but the better the player did and if they won + medals gave them more experience and quitters would receive exp taken or go down a rank. It's actually very similar to Modern Warfare's actually.

It wasn't a ranking system of maybe, it was a ranking system of skill. Halo Reach just hands out exp like the Octomom pumps out kids. 3nodding

[K a l e c]

Preston886

Hold on, let me get on the floor and roll while I'm laughing.

It was a random system, it didn't award skillful players unless randomly. There was no logic to it, if you won you may get promoted, but if you lost or didn't come in 1st you were punished severely for it, no matter how you did. It didn't matter if you did the best on your team if your team lost, it was just flawed.

Gears of War 2 adopted a similar ranking system, if not identical and Epic at least had the decency to listen to the fans and correct such a flawed ranking after Bungie said they couldn't fix it. Bungie could have with an update, but opted not to. Gears 2 switched to a more balanced system that rewarded players no matter what, but the better the player did and if they won + medals gave them more experience and quitters would receive exp taken or go down a rank. It's actually very similar to Modern Warfare's actually.

It wasn't a ranking system of maybe, it was a ranking system of skill. Halo Reach just hands out exp like the Octomom pumps out kids. 3nodding

LOL


Just by the sheer fact that Halo 3 matched by party size and had ranks makes it infinitely better than Reach's ranking/matchmaking system.

It wasn't random at all, if you had a high win % you would rank up much faster but at the same time down rank much faster. If you didn't have a high win %, you would have a much harder time ranking up because clearly if you aren't winning 50% of your games than maybe you shouldn't be ranking up.

Halo is a team game its not like CoD, if you lost, you lost, you shouldn't be rewarded for losing the game.

You clearly are not a competitive player if you think the Reach ranking system is remotely good at all, it doesn't match by party size and it doesn't match by player skill. All it does if you give you Cr so you can buy stuff. It has nothing to do with skill and consequently it makes matchmaking have nothing to do with skill as well.

With Reach, Bungie decided to make some of the most competitive playlists in the game that were previously ranked playlists that matched by party size effectively social playlists. MLG is without a doubt the most competitive and skill based playlist in the game yet it doesn't match by skill, party size, or even restrict guests.

[Preston886]

K a l e c

Preston886

Hold on, let me get on the floor and roll while I'm laughing.

It was a random system, it didn't award skillful players unless randomly. There was no logic to it, if you won you may get promoted, but if you lost or didn't come in 1st you were punished severely for it, no matter how you did. It didn't matter if you did the best on your team if your team lost, it was just flawed.

Gears of War 2 adopted a similar ranking system, if not identical and Epic at least had the decency to listen to the fans and correct such a flawed ranking after Bungie said they couldn't fix it. Bungie could have with an update, but opted not to. Gears 2 switched to a more balanced system that rewarded players no matter what, but the better the player did and if they won + medals gave them more experience and quitters would receive exp taken or go down a rank. It's actually very similar to Modern Warfare's actually.

It wasn't a ranking system of maybe, it was a ranking system of skill. Halo Reach just hands out exp like the Octomom pumps out kids. 3nodding

LOL


Just by the sheer fact that Halo 3 matched by party size and had ranks makes it infinitely better than Reach's ranking/matchmaking system.

It wasn't random at all, if you had a high win % you would rank up much faster but at the same time down rank much faster. If you didn't have a high win %, you would have a much harder time ranking up because clearly if you aren't winning 50% of your games than maybe you shouldn't be ranking up.

Halo is a team game its not like CoD, if you lost, you lost, you shouldn't be rewarded for losing the game.

You clearly are not a competitive player if you think the Reach ranking system is remotely good at all, it doesn't match by party size and it doesn't match by player skill. All it does if you give you Cr so you can buy stuff. It has nothing to do with skill and consequently it makes matchmaking have nothing to do with skill as well.

With Reach, Bungie decided to make some of the most competitive playlists in the game that were previously ranked playlists that matched by party size effectively social playlists. MLG is without a doubt the most competitive and skill based playlist in the game yet it doesn't match by skill, party size, or even restrict guests.

That's how it was supposed to work, but didn't. Also saying a game is infinitely better because of party size, means nothing with rank unless you're boosting.

Also, your comparison to Halo and CoD makes no sense. Both are team games, but one punishes for losing severely while the other gives a minimum reward for trying. There's probably more emphasis in CoD I want to say because a good team can keep an enemy down in a region for awhile if not control the area for the entire game with the kill streak system. Both reward, one punishes.

Halo 3, it's everyone runs for power weapons and just lone wolves. Kalec, you do the exact thing. You run for the sniper rifle and then camp the entire game, not saying that's bad because camping wins wars. But it's basically you ranking up kills, there's no communication between the sniper and other players. On CoD someone will probably be a sniper and get up high as a supporter, you'll have close range run ins with SMG and shotgun or defenders with Riot Shields, then the basic AR people. Each player is doing something at the start, but that may change if say a Chopper comes in or Harrier. Then someone may change to a anti-air class. Also kill streaks mean one can call in their own strikes, to either move the enemy out of position or make a clearing or stop a massive charge to home base.

By saying Halo 3 is a team based game because it rewards a team that wins, even if one person carried them is ludicrous. I'd rather play a game where the ranking system rewards based on skill and not random selection. If I get x amount of headshots, assassinations, multi-kills, kill streaks, etc...I expect them to go towards my rewards along with my K/D. Not because I came in 1st or my team won and then decide whether or not I or my team should be allowed to rank up.

I could care less about MLG. Playing a modified game type with DMRs and Pistols, with weapon spawns, with no radar? If I wanted that type of gametype then I'd just play Slayer then. Besides, the MLG community got their wish with the DMR having no bloom and the Pistol as well. Do you guys want Reach any easier than that?

[K a l e c]

Preston886

That's how it was supposed to work, but didn't.

No, that's how it did work, I've gone from 1-50 in all the current ranked playlists, I have plenty of experience with it. If you think you deserve a higher rank than you have, than you should win more of your games so you rank up.

If you are regularly losing games to the point that you don't rank up, than that is most likely the rank you should be at. Otherwise you would be winning a higher % of them and actually ranking up.

The Halo 3 ranking system is obviously not perfect, I never said that. There are a lot of other ranking systems I prefer, but compared to Reach which completely lacks a real ranking system Halo 3's is amazing. To have fair games on Halo you need to match by party size and at the very least a rough skill system.

Preston886

Also, your comparison to Halo and CoD makes no sense. Both are team games, but one punishes for losing severely while the other gives a minimum reward for trying. There's probably more emphasis in CoD I want to say because a good team can keep an enemy down in a region for awhile if not control the area for the entire game with the kill streak system. Both reward, one punishes.

No Halo is a team game that requires team shooting and communication to play properly. In CoD when you search MM you are regularly placed into games that are already in progress and players are constantly leaving and joining. In Halo I have the same players on my team as I did when the game started. CoD rewards individually because they allow players to leave and join MM games as they please.

Halo 3 doesn't punish you it just doesn't give you anything for losing. You just lost, why do you deserve a rank up? Yes sometimes you will lose due to bad teammates, but if you are consistently losing, its not your teammates, its you.

In Halo you actually get penalized for quitting unlike CoD where they are totally fine with it.

Preston886

Halo 3, it's everyone runs for power weapons and just lone wolves. Kalec, you do the exact thing. You run for the sniper rifle and then camp the entire game, not saying that's bad because camping wins wars. But it's basically you ranking up kills, there's no communication between the sniper and other players.

Yes thanks for telling me how I play Halo, I'm sure you have a great idea of how I play since you play with me all the time. /sarcasm

If you think that's how people play Halo, than that's why you are bad at Halo. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about if you are trying to say that good players lone wolf it and don't communicate. Good players are good because they do the opposite of that, they communicate and constantly team shoot. Team shooting and communication is what wins Halo games, not lone wolfing it.

Preston886

By saying Halo 3 is a team based game because it rewards a team that wins, even if one person carried them is ludicrous. I'd rather play a game where the ranking system rewards based on skill and not random selection. If I get x amount of headshots, assassinations, multi-kills, kill streaks, etc...I expect them to go towards my rewards along with my K/D. Not because I came in 1st or my team won and then decide whether or not I or my team should be allowed to rank up.

That's not what I said. Its a team based game SO they reward teams and not individuals based on there k/d. If you want to be judged by your individual k/d, play a 1v1 or FFA playlist. But team games are exactly that, a team game. If you lost and you want to blame it on your team than you can make a party of your friends.

Preston886

I could care less about MLG. Playing a modified game type with DMRs and Pistols, with weapon spawns, with no radar? If I wanted that type of gametype then I'd just play Slayer then. Besides, the MLG community got their wish with the DMR having no bloom and the Pistol as well. Do you guys want Reach any easier than that?

You are clearly uniformed about this, its not even worth it for me to go into it.

Yes Reach is extremely easy, I welcome you to demonstrate your point on just how easy Reach is in a 1v1 against me.


smile

[Kaiser Khorosho]

Oh, dear. The problem here is competitive players vs players who WANT to be competitive vs players who don't have anyone to play with.

Me? I'm a lone wolf BECAUSE I don't have that many friends and I find randoms annoying as hell. I do lose about 45% of my games. Am I bad? Sure. Are my random teammates worse? Generally, yes. I usually always go positive. I try to clear a path for the objective but my team generally doesn't pay attention. I hopped in the rocket hog on Ridgeline and drove around for THIRTY seconds until one of my teammates jumped on.

Communication is the key, and when you cut that off due to personal preference...well, there ya go. That's how I play.

[Preston886]

K a l e c

Preston886

That's how it was supposed to work, but didn't.

No, that's how it did work, I've gone from 1-50 in all the current ranked playlists, I have plenty of experience with it. If you think you deserve a higher rank than you have, than you should win more of your games so you rank up.

If you are regularly losing games to the point that you don't rank up, than that is most likely the rank you should be at. Otherwise you would be winning a higher % of them and actually ranking up.

The Halo 3 ranking system is obviously not perfect, I never said that. There are a lot of other ranking systems I prefer, but compared to Reach which completely lacks a real ranking system Halo 3's is amazing. To have fair games on Halo you need to match by party size and at the very least a rough skill system.

Preston886

Also, your comparison to Halo and CoD makes no sense. Both are team games, but one punishes for losing severely while the other gives a minimum reward for trying. There's probably more emphasis in CoD I want to say because a good team can keep an enemy down in a region for awhile if not control the area for the entire game with the kill streak system. Both reward, one punishes.

No Halo is a team game that requires team shooting and communication to play properly. In CoD when you search MM you are regularly placed into games that are already in progress and players are constantly leaving and joining. In Halo I have the same players on my team as I did when the game started. CoD rewards individually because they allow players to leave and join MM games as they please.

Halo 3 doesn't punish you it just doesn't give you anything for losing. You just lost, why do you deserve a rank up? Yes sometimes you will lose due to bad teammates, but if you are consistently losing, its not your teammates, its you.

In Halo you actually get penalized for quitting unlike CoD where they are totally fine with it.

Preston886

Halo 3, it's everyone runs for power weapons and just lone wolves. Kalec, you do the exact thing. You run for the sniper rifle and then camp the entire game, not saying that's bad because camping wins wars. But it's basically you ranking up kills, there's no communication between the sniper and other players.

Yes thanks for telling me how I play Halo, I'm sure you have a great idea of how I play since you play with me all the time. /sarcasm

If you think that's how people play Halo, than that's why you are bad at Halo. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about if you are trying to say that good players lone wolf it and don't communicate. Good players are good because they do the opposite of that, they communicate and constantly team shoot. Team shooting and communication is what wins Halo games, not lone wolfing it.

Preston886

By saying Halo 3 is a team based game because it rewards a team that wins, even if one person carried them is ludicrous. I'd rather play a game where the ranking system rewards based on skill and not random selection. If I get x amount of headshots, assassinations, multi-kills, kill streaks, etc...I expect them to go towards my rewards along with my K/D. Not because I came in 1st or my team won and then decide whether or not I or my team should be allowed to rank up.

That's not what I said. Its a team based game SO they reward teams and not individuals based on there k/d. If you want to be judged by your individual k/d, play a 1v1 or FFA playlist. But team games are exactly that, a team game. If you lost and you want to blame it on your team than you can make a party of your friends.

Preston886

I could care less about MLG. Playing a modified game type with DMRs and Pistols, with weapon spawns, with no radar? If I wanted that type of gametype then I'd just play Slayer then. Besides, the MLG community got their wish with the DMR having no bloom and the Pistol as well. Do you guys want Reach any easier than that?

You are clearly uniformed about this, its not even worth it for me to go into it.

Yes Reach is extremely easy, I welcome you to demonstrate your point on just how easy Reach is in a 1v1 against me.


smile

Kalec, I respect you and all...but not on this subject.

So if Halo 3's system was infinitely the best, why did they change it? Why did Gears 2 who had the same system change it? Because IT DOESN'T WORK. Everyone ranks up possibly if they win? It shouldn't be a question of if or maybe I'll rank if I do well several times in a row and then get punished for losing one game, if I won 3 or 10 others in a row without a reward. It shouldn't be I have to piggy back off a really good team to rank up, my skill will never get any better that way.

I don't appreciate your bias on CoD, I understand it's not your thing. I've seen you play, not your best moments on there. But at least it rewards on skill and takes note of streaks, headshots, multis, etc...where Halo 3 does not. It only takes note of whether or not you came in 1st. Sure everyone gets a reward after they play, but quitters aren't rewarded and winners receive a bonus.

On the subject of team work, Halo 3 no one does what you just said. Everyone does what they feel they have to which is rushing for power weapons. In MW it's about using the correct loadouts for the job and maintaining a strong position on the field, or it's about removing that strong opposition on the field. That's where you have to communicate strategies, instead of running and gunning. I've hardly ever play a MW game where people scatter off, usually people go in groups to select areas for cover fire. In each game type, aside from f4f it's like that.

If you're having trouble with your team in MW, then maybe you should stop lone wolfing and start contributing. wink

Kalec, on the subject on your playing style no insult was meant. But, that is how you play. It's a strategy that works. I camp all the time in MW when I use the sniper rifle, except not only do I go for kills I call out enemy positions. I'm actually not bad at Halo, I'm decent. Not amazingly good, but decent. Could I take you? No. I know when I can be taken. However, I would like to point out you have no idea how to play CoD if that's what you think it's all about.

On the subject of Halo being a team based game, again I'd rather be rewarded on my own merit than having to rely on others. That's how I got good at CoD, I worked my way up and fought from a bad K/D to a decent one. In Black Ops I had a 2.7 K/D spread and I got like a 2.1 in Gears 3, doesn't mean I'm amazing but it shows I worked for that kind of record instead of sitting on the shoulders of giants.

Also, if this wasn't worth going into, then why? I already know you're better than me at Halo. What points are you trying to make by insulting me and another genre? No one cares Kalec. Now be a good boy and stop whining. 3nodding

[K a l e c]

Preston886

So if Halo 3's system was infinitely the best, why did they change it? Why did Gears 2 who had the same system change it? Because IT DOESN'T WORK. Everyone ranks up possibly if they win? It shouldn't be a question of if or maybe I'll rank if I do well several times in a row and then get punished for losing one game, if I won 3 or 10 others in a row without a reward. It shouldn't be I have to piggy back off a really good team to rank up, my skill will never get any better that way.

Here's the problem, matching players by skill should have nothing to do with feeling rewarded. Its about making fair and balanced teams so both teams get an enjoyable experience. Instead of a team of 4 skilled players who are communicating getting matched up against a group of singles without mics. That scenerio happens all the time in Reach, and didn't happen at all in Halo 3 unless you decided to play social and that was just part of the social experience.

Preston886

I don't appreciate your bias on CoD, I understand it's not your thing. I've seen you play, not your best moments on there. But at least it rewards on skill and takes note of streaks, headshots, multis, etc...where Halo 3 does not. It only takes note of whether or not you came in 1st. Sure everyone gets a reward after they play, but quitters aren't rewarded and winners receive a bonus.

Once again WTF? I think I've played Halo with you like 3 times and I've never in my life played CoD with you, but yup I must suck at it, I mean I'm good at other shooters so why would I be any good at CoD? I've played all the CoD's I just haven't bought one since CoD 4. IMO, after that things fell off, but to each their own.

See I don't care about any of those silly rewards that don't mean anything, that's not what interests me. I don't care about EXP, Cr or whatever. I judge a ranking system on its ability to accurately match up even party's of both size and skill, so that both teams get an enjoyable game. Halo 2/3 is far better at that than both Reach and CoD. Yes, Reach and CoD will reward you every time you press a button but I don't care about any of that. If that's what interests you fine, but that doesn't have to come at the cost of a skill based ranking system.

Preston886

Kalec, on the subject on your playing style no insult was meant. But, that is how you play. It's a strategy that works. I camp all the time in MW when I use the sniper rifle, except not only do I go for kills I call out enemy positions. I'm actually not bad at Halo, I'm decent. Not amazingly good, but decent. Could I take you? No. I know when I can be taken. However, I would like to point out you have no idea how to play CoD if that's what you think it's all about.

I'm sorry but you are a moron and I only say that because I clearly said that's not how I play, when you've played maybe a handful of games with me and you tell me I'm wrong? LOL

So once again NO, that's not how I play, I play extremely aggressive and spend most of the game on the enemy's side of the map, the only time I really camp is when I'm waiting to see where the enemy is going to respawn or when I'm locking down part of the enemy's side of the map. If you are good with the sniper in Halo you have no need to camp.

I don't know who you play with, but everyone I play with calls out everything they see on screen, whether its weapon times, enemy locations, objective information, etc.

But none of this has anything to do with the topic, I don't know why you brought any of this up, we were talking about ranking systems.

Preston886

On the subject of Halo being a team based game, again I'd rather be rewarded on my own merit than having to rely on others. That's how I got good at CoD, I worked my way up and fought from a bad K/D to a decent one. In Black Ops I had a 2.7 K/D spread and I got like a 2.1 in Gears 3, doesn't mean I'm amazing but it shows I worked for that kind of record instead of sitting on the shoulders of giants.

You don't have the mindset of a team player if that's what you believe, its not about just relying on others, its about working together, team shooting, calling out, etc. If you don't want to rely on others don't play team games, play FFA or 1v1. But team games will always be about the team effort.

Preston886

Also, if this wasn't worth going into, then why? I already know you're better than me at Halo. What points are you trying to make by insulting me and another genre? No one cares Kalec. Now be a good boy and stop whining. 3nodding

I didn't want to go into how completely uninformed and arrogant you are about MLG. You clearly know very little about it and you even admit it to some degree, yet you insist on acting like a child and pretending that you do.

It wasn't meant as an insult, it was meant as a response to your arrogant and ignorant assumption that Halo is an easy game. But clearly its not that easy.

Whining? I stated my opinion in a short sentence and you responded with a bunch of arrogant and condescending posts and somehow changed the topic from Halo Reach's lack a of a skill based ranking system to why you have such a hard on for CoD.

[Preston886]

#1: What does being matched by skill have to be with being rewarded? Are you now saying everyone else's matchmaking system is flawed because teams aren't balanced? I'll admit Halo 3's match making system kept things as balanced as possible, but so does Reach unless your playing Infection or Action Sack or Multi-Team or Grif Ball. Also the only time it's been unbalanced in other game types is when there's a party.

I don't see what the matching system has to do with the ranking system. Yes it matches by rank, but Halo 3's system would consider promoting if someone won, but always punish for not getting 1st even in Lone Wolves.

#2: You've played with Yannie, Donut, and I. stare

#3: Again, no disrespect but the 3 times I've played with you in Halo 3 & Reach that's what you did.

#4: Teamwork isn't relying on others? Well now I'm confused as to what a team is. I always thought team work was relying on others, but it is what you mentioned which is relying on others. I see better team work on CoD than I do with Halo, simply because there are no mad dashes to power weapons.

#5: Kalec, again I respect you. But whining and contradicting yourself on a few points is just getting you to run in circles. You're arguing someone's opinion and forcing them to believe in your opinion, it's actually kind of Proselytism. Also, I don't really appreciate you massive posts insulting me on the matter as if insulting me and stating team work in Halo exists, then challenge me to 1v1 will determine that you are truly right.

Your conceited and immature attitude is kind of your give away into this argument of trying to change my opinion. wink

[K a l e c]

Preston886

#1: What does being matched by skill have to be with being rewarded? Are you now saying everyone else's matchmaking system is flawed because teams aren't balanced?

Yes I am saying that a lot of ranking systems are flawed because rather than focusing on making balanced games where both teams are of equal size and skill. They focus on rewarding individuals for completing small tasks. But the bigger point is you can reward players individually and still have a proper ranking system, it doesn't have to come at the cost of a skill based system.

Preston886

I'll admit Halo 3's match making system kept things as balanced as possible, but so does Reach unless your playing Infection or Action Sack or Multi-Team or Grif Ball. Also the only time it's been unbalanced in other game types is when there's a party.

No Reach's does not, I'm not sure what game you are playing, but put Reach in right now go start up the MLG playlist by yourself there is a very high chance you will match a party even though your a single and the teams will definitely be unbalanced skill wise.

Reach doesn't match by party size, except for like 2 of the 16 playlists, it doesn't match by skill, and it allows guests in playlists that were previously ranked where guests weren't allowed. So how is it just as good as Halo 3's ranking system skill wise if it doesn't even attempt to match up even teams of both skill and size? I understand Reach and CoD are better at rewarding individual players, I never disputed that. All I've been saying is one system actually matches by skill and party size and other games don't. With the exception of a few playlists out of the many.

Preston886

I don't see what the matching system has to do with the ranking system. Yes it matches by rank, but Halo 3's system would consider promoting if someone won, but always punish for not getting 1st even in Lone Wolves.

How do you not see how it has do with the matchmaking system? In Halo 3 we would never get matched up because I have a higher skill level. So I will match players of smiler skill level and party size to mine, insuring the best chances at getting a close and exciting game for everyone involved.

That's not true I have ranked up countless times placing out of first place in Lone Wolves, but that's because I have a high win ratio, and players with a high win ratio both rank up quicker and down rank quicker. While players with a lower win percent will rank up slower while also deranking slower.


I decided against stooping to your level again and instead decided to ignore all your condescending off topic nonsense that fills up the majority of your posts. Its not that hard to have a civilized discussion, when you are done acting like a child feel free to respond to my points.

[Elaborate Toast]

[Preston886]

Kalec, I'm quickly losing respect for you. First you condescend me, force me to change my opinion and then ask to battle me 1v1 to prove your point. With all do respect, that's way beneath my level of debauchery.

I may argue my opinion, but I won't condescend someone without them performing the act 1st. I also won't prove my point through a thoughtless fight in a video game that doesn't provide to the argument at hand.

You like Halo 3's ranking system? That's fine. I disliked it because of how random it was and how punishing it was. I'm not forcing you to dislike Halo 3's system, I'm merely pointing out the flaw in it and why Bungie decided to change it.

So I'll keep playing games like Reach, CoD and GoW2-3 because they'll match my rank and skill with the party size. Always has and always will with very few, minor exceptions like other players being in a party. So what if I lose and get rewarded very little? I'd prefer that and rather be punished for quitting a game. At least in those games, your in game accomplishment actually mean something through a more advanced system of keeping track. Not a system of maybe, but an absolute yes.

Now are you done contradicting yourself and forcing your belief on me? Honestly, you've never acted this childish before and it's surprising.

[Elaborate Toast]

Also I just thought I'd throw in my $0.02 here for a second.

Personally, I see Halo 3 as an actual level system. If you've got a party of four 35's in Ranked Slayer, you'll usually get ranked up with-- Guess what? Another party of four 30-40's! Wowza! That's what I enjoyed. It kept you fighting against people you're own skill.

While on Reach, I consider that to be more of a "Title System". You get credits for new titles. It has nothing to do with how well you play. You can become a Nova by playing nothing but Firefight, and that just means you've killed a lot of AI. I've played against HORRIBLE Inheritors, and I've played against AMAZING Generals.

Your Rank on Reach really depends on how much you play. That's about it. Your Challenges you do, your Accommodations, and how often you actually play. Not so much on your skill. Yeah sure you can get more cR the more you play and the more kills you get but. Okay example.

Kalec makes a new Xbox LIVE account. We all know he's bananas insane good at Halo. He plays for a week. In that week he plays Halo 3. I'm pretty sure that Kalec can Rank up to level 50 in 2 days of playing on Halo 3. I've no doubt about that in my mind. Two days, level 50. Because that is his SKILL.

Then the next week he plays Halo: Reach. 7 days of playing. No level rank. Just titles. He plays with the same skill, but the ranking system is different. He becomes a Warrant Officer after that week.

See what I mean here? Halo 3? Bam. First 2 days and he's top rank, because he IS top rank. Halo: Reach? Because of the way it's set up, according to cR income and not actual win/skill/etc, he's about lower middle class.

I think Halo: Reach should have taken the Halo 3 method, and had public playlists vs. Ranked Playlists. If you want to play just to build cR and get a title, fine by me! Go play your Action Sacks and your Infections and have a blast!

But if there was a ranked section, at least you'd get the option to play competitively. To be paired up with people at your skill rank. In no way does your title dictate your skill.

Hell, I'm a walking example, I'm a Hero on Reach and I am one of the worst players in the history of the game. The only reason I am that rank is because of how much I play and how many challenges I complete. But I'm still horrible.

And before you mention The Arena I'll stop you right there, The Arena is terrible and that's all there really is to say on the matter.

[Preston886]

yeah totes

Also I just thought I'd throw in my $0.02 here for a second.

Personally, I see Halo 3 as an actual level system. If you've got a party of four 35's in Ranked Slayer, you'll usually get ranked up with-- Guess what? Another party of four 30-40's! Wowza! That's what I enjoyed. It kept you fighting against people you're own skill.

While on Reach, I consider that to be more of a "Title System". You get credits for new titles. It has nothing to do with how well you play. You can become a Nova by playing nothing but Firefight, and that just means you've killed a lot of AI. I've played against HORRIBLE Inheritors, and I've played against AMAZING Generals.

Your Rank on Reach really depends on how much you play. That's about it. Your Challenges you do, your Accommodations, and how often you actually play. Not so much on your skill. Yeah sure you can get more cR the more you play and the more kills you get but. Okay example.

Kalec makes a new Xbox LIVE account. We all know he's bananas insane good at Halo. He plays for a week. In that week he plays Halo 3. I'm pretty sure that Kalec can Rank up to level 50 in 2 days of playing on Halo 3. I've no doubt about that in my mind. Two days, level 50. Because that is his SKILL.

Then the next week he plays Halo: Reach. 7 days of playing. No level rank. Just titles. He plays with the same skill, but the ranking system is different. He becomes a Warrant Officer after that week.

See what I mean here? Halo 3? Bam. First 2 days and he's top rank, because he IS top rank. Halo: Reach? Because of the way it's set up, according to cR income and not actual win/skill/etc, he's about lower middle class.

I think Halo: Reach should have taken the Halo 3 method, and had public playlists vs. Ranked Playlists. If you want to play just to build cR and get a title, fine by me! Go play your Action Sacks and your Infections and have a blast!

But if there was a ranked section, at least you'd get the option to play competitively. To be paired up with people at your skill rank. In no way does your title dictate your skill.

Hell, I'm a walking example, I'm a Hero on Reach and I am one of the worst players in the history of the game. The only reason I am that rank is because of how much I play and how many challenges I complete. But I'm still horrible.

And before you mention The Arena I'll stop you right there, The Arena is terrible and that's all there really is to say on the matter.

We don't talk about the Arena. Ever.

I agree Reach should have had a ranked playlist for those who like even competition, but I do feel that Bungie could have improved the ranking system in Halo 3 a lot better. Bungie said they couldn't correct their ranking system in Halo 3, I beg to differ. If they took into account the medals and actually had an EXP bar so players knew how they were doing it would have worked better, which is what Gears of War 2 had later on when they had the lose 1 game punishment system. HOWEVER, Gears 2 punishment system took into account how many games you won and lost and how well the player did and game a fair punishment based on that, where Halo 3 didn't take any of that into account. It just punished as if it were Goofy Time or Asian Father meme. There is a balance to it, Bungie just never put the time into finding it like Epic Games did.