Halo 5: Guardians |OT| The Trials of Osiris

This game has been an absolute washout for me as an online experience.

I get authentication and profile sync error messages almost every time I boot up the game, and it fails to connect me to any online servers even if I try to launch a game.

A real shame because when I can get online I enjoy it. But it's just totally unreliable.

Coupled with the middling and confusing campaign, this has been my worst experience with a Halo game yet I think.
 
They really need to not only add some of the maps from Team Slayer into Slayer, but also add the maps from Breakout and add more maps to Breakout as well. Maybe.
 
Kalentan said:
They really need to not only add some of the maps from Team Slayer into Slayer, but also add the maps from Breakout and add more maps to Breakout as well. Maybe.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is an absolute joke that there are only 5 maps in the Slayer playlist. What on earth is the rationale behind that?
 
To minimize amount of required playthroughs, would this be a good roadmap?

1) First playthrough on Heroic co-op, blind.
2) Then solo legendary playthrough.
 
Montresor said:
To minimize amount of required playthroughs, would this be a good roadmap?

1) First playthrough on Heroic co-op, blind.
2) Then solo legendary playthrough.
Click to expand...

You might want an easy run-through at some point to make nabbing the collectibles easier. You can sprint through a lot of the missions so it shouldn't take long.
 
It's infuriating playing Warzone when it feels like every single enemy has a DMR and you're stuck with a BR.

I'm level 27 damnit, I should have this freaking gun already.
 
Fuchsdh said:
You might want an easy run-through at some point to make nabbing the collectibles easier. You can sprint through a lot of the missions so it shouldn't take long.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I've been doing that with MCC and Halo Reach too.

What I've been doing in Master Chief Collection is:

1st playthrough: normal co-op
2nd playthrough: various easy mode re-plays of missions/chapters, getting skulls, terminals, misc. achievements, etc...
3rd playthrough: legendary, co-op if there's no solo legendary achievement, solo if there is a solo legendary achievement
4th playthrough: par time


So I should have put it in there but for me it's implied that at some point there would be easy difficulty mop-up in Halo 5. :p


The only reason I'm thinking of doing my first playthrough in Heroic (instead of normal) is there seems to be a co-op achievement for beating every level on Heroic.
 
AllIsOneIsNone said:
I know this topic is brought up a lot, but I still believe that ranks should be based on personal performance, not team wins. Reason being: most people play with at least some randoms, I bet it's pretty rare for people to play on full teams all the time. If that is the case, you want to be ranked with other people of similar skill. Team wins is simply not a good way to gauge skill level, especially with all the quitters. People may respond "k/d/a ratio is not a good way to gauge skill, because you still have to work with the team to win". I think this statement is pretty much b.s. Based on what I've seen, If you're getting a lot of kills and assists and few deaths, you're a good team player.

I don't understand the argument of "it's a team game so you should be ranked on how your team does". No, winning is the reward for having a good team. Ranks should be about matching you up with similarly skilled people in matchmaking, as well as showing your individual skill level.

I don't know, I just think the 1-50 concept was better, even if it wasn't executed as well as it is in Halo 5. I play with randoms all the time because I can't schedule times with people or necessarily play for an extended period of time. I just want to be able to pick up and play for a game or two and know I'll be matched up well.

I also think ranks being based on wins has something to do with the number of quitters. If it was individually based ranking and people knew they were going to lose, they may not quit if they were actually performing decently.

Edit: Honestly, the best way to do it would be mix the two, which I think the 1-50 did. If you are on the winning team and you're the top one or two players, you get moved up more than the weaker people on the winning team. The top one or two losers shouldn't necessarily lose rank points, they should maybe stay neutral or gain as much as the weaker people on the winning team. Of course that's a simplification; I think kda ratio should count for something as well.
Click to expand...

The 1-50 system was also based on wins, not individual performance.

People used to boost with better players all the time, to get their ranks up...

The problems with that system is that you always had to grind in order to be ranked at the appropriate skill level. So if you had level 50 skill, but started a new account, You are going to play against a bunch of noobs for ages. This system, while not perfect aims to get you on the right ranking much more quickly.

Also that system dos nothing to consider the shift in skill level over time, if I'm a level 30, then I stop playing for 2 months and come back, I'm probably not as good as current level 30's. Resets fix that issue.
 
The Antitype said:
It's infuriating playing Warzone when it feels like every single enemy has a DMR and you're stuck with a BR.

I'm level 27 damnit, I should have this freaking gun already.
Click to expand...
Level 31 all Warzone and still nothing. I've only picked it up maybe three times.

I'm not interested in arena until they add an objective playlist. CTF Halo is the best.
 
AllIsOneIsNone said:
I know this topic is brought up a lot, but I still believe that ranks should be based on personal performance, not team wins. Reason being: most people play with at least some randoms, I bet it's pretty rare for people to play on full teams all the time. If that is the case, you want to be ranked with other people of similar skill. Team wins is simply not a good way to gauge skill level, especially with all the quitters. People may respond "k/d/a ratio is not a good way to gauge skill, because you still have to work with the team to win". I think this statement is pretty much b.s. Based on what I've seen, If you're getting a lot of kills and assists and few deaths, you're a good team player.

I don't understand the argument of "it's a team game so you should be ranked on how your team does". No, winning is the reward for having a good team. Ranks should be about matching you up with similarly skilled people in matchmaking, as well as showing your individual skill level.

I don't know, I just think the 1-50 concept was better, even if it wasn't executed as well as it is in Halo 5. I play with randoms all the time because I can't schedule times with people or necessarily play for an extended period of time. I just want to be able to pick up and play for a game or two and know I'll be matched up well.

I also think ranks being based on wins has something to do with the number of quitters. If it was individually based ranking and people knew they were going to lose, they may not quit if they were actually performing decently.

Edit: Honestly, the best way to do it would be mix the two, which I think the 1-50 did. If you are on the winning team and you're the top one or two players, you get moved up more than the weaker people on the winning team. The top one or two losers shouldn't necessarily lose rank points, they should maybe stay neutral or gain as much as the weaker people on the winning team. Of course that's a simplification; I think kda ratio should count for something as well.
Click to expand...

IMO the ranking works fine if teams are the ones that rise to the top and solo players have a harder time climbing the ladder. That means the ranking is actually working. A team of 4 solo players should never be able to compete with a competent party of 4.

We just need a social slayer and objective playlist for people to play unranked and more casually. Ranked arena is stressful.
 
Kalentan said:
They really need to not only add some of the maps from Team Slayer into Slayer, but also add the maps from Breakout and add more maps to Breakout as well. Maybe.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think he breakout maps would generally make for some kick as slayer maps as well...

Ofcourse they'd have to do some work setting up spawn points, but yeah, Slayer needs to basically have every map available...
 
Tecnniqe said:
I kinda wish i could set loadouts for warzone, hassle having to change shit every req point D:
Click to expand...

Agreed, you should be able to assign REQs to automatically equip at their appropriate energy level.

It's very clunky having to go in an deal with BR at 3, SMG at 4, DMR at 6, Super AR at 8, etc.
 
Trup1aya said:
What does that even mean? in most shooters these days, melee's are an instant kill...

In that sense Halo melee's aren't very strong at all...
Click to expand...

And going one step further I'd say Reach still had an easier melee system with how generous the lunges were. Every weapon is super capable now, they had to improve melees or else they would never be used. And I for one would hate that, I've always enjoyed the close quarters battles in Halo, and thrust just makes them even more fun.
 
Trup1aya said:
The 1-50 system was also based on wins, not individual performance.

People used to boost with better players all the time, to get their ranks up...

The problems with that system is that you always had to grind in order to be ranked at the appropriate skill level. So if you had level 50 skill, but started a new account, You are going to play against a bunch of noobs for ages. This system, while not perfect aims to get you on the right ranking much more quickly.

Also that system dos nothing to consider the shift in skill level over time, if I'm a level 30, then I stop playing for 2 months and come back, I'm probably not as good as current level 30's. Resets fix that issue.
Click to expand...

I thought it was based on wins and placement on the team, e.g. if you were first place on the winning team you'd move up faster than the last place player, and if you were first place on the losing team you wouldn't go down at all.

I'm fine with the initial 10 game ranking method. It gives you a general placement. I think it should then be refined by personal skill level is all.

You wouldn't need skill resets if your rank can go down, but I think that's sort of a different issue.

Lingitiz said:
IMO the ranking works fine if teams are the ones that rise to the top and solo players have a harder time climbing the ladder. That means the ranking is actually working. A team of 4 solo players should never be able to compete with a competent party of 4.

We just need a social slayer and objective playlist for people to play unranked and more casually. Ranked arena is stressful.
Click to expand...

Why should solo players have a harder time ranking up? Wouldn't a solo ranking method almost prevent skill boosting?
 
AllIsOneIsNone said:
I know this topic is brought up a lot, but I still believe that ranks should be based on personal performance, not team wins. Reason being: most people play with at least some randoms, I bet it's pretty rare for people to play on full teams all the time. If that is the case, you want to be ranked with other people of similar skill. Team wins is simply not a good way to gauge skill level, especially with all the quitters. People may respond "k/d/a ratio is not a good way to gauge skill, because you still have to work with the team to win". I think this statement is pretty much b.s. Based on what I've seen, If you're getting a lot of kills and assists and few deaths, you're a good team player.

I don't understand the argument of "it's a team game so you should be ranked on how your team does". No, winning is the reward for having a good team. Ranks should be about matching you up with similarly skilled people in matchmaking, as well as showing your individual skill level.

I don't know, I just think the 1-50 concept was better, even if it wasn't executed as well as it is in Halo 5. I play with randoms all the time because I can't schedule times with people or necessarily play for an extended period of time. I just want to be able to pick up and play for a game or two and know I'll be matched up well.

I also think ranks being based on wins has something to do with the number of quitters. If it was individually based ranking and people knew they were going to lose, they may not quit if they were actually performing decently.

Edit: Honestly, the best way to do it would be mix the two, which I think the 1-50 did. If you are on the winning team and you're the top one or two players, you get moved up more than the weaker people on the winning team. The top one or two losers shouldn't necessarily lose rank points, they should maybe stay neutral or gain as much as the weaker people on the winning team. Of course that's a simplification; I think kda ratio should count for something as well.
Click to expand...

The thing is that in theory this might look good to you, but Halo Reach was exactly like that, and Arena was a disaster to play in, it just didnt work.

When you have a game and take away the factor of Wining as the aspect of you rank, people are not going to play to win the game, and when you have someone in your team that doesn't play to win the ones that usually end up getting hurt in ranks are the ones that Play to win.

and as everyone have said 1-50 was only W/L....Halo Reach had a very similar ranking system than Halo 5 except Halo Reach ranked you based on your points (Reach gave you a score from 10000-20000 that included your KDA and if your team won and I think the best 5 players got ranked). this was so bad that after 4 seasons it was reverted back on W/L.
 
jhferry said:
Which is the fastest mode to earn REQ points?
Click to expand...

Depends on how good you are.

If you're with a team that can dominate, CTF or an objective arena mode will get you in and out of matches the fastest, and hence generating the most RP.

Warzone maps last much longer but have larger payouts than single arena games.
 
Caja 117 said:
The thing is that in theory this might look good to you, but Halo Reach was exactly like that, and Arena was a disaster to play in, it just didnt worked.

When you have a game and take away the factor of Wining as the aspect of you rank, people are not going to play to win the game, and when you have someone in your team that doesn't play to win the ones that usually end up getting hurt in ranks are the ones that Play to win.

and as everyone have said 1-50 was only W/L....Halo Reach had a very similar ranking system than Halo 5 except Halo Reach ranked you based on your points (Reach gave you a score from 10000-20000 that included your KDA and if your team won and I think the best 5 players got ranked. this was so bad that after 4 seasons it was reverted back on W/L.
Click to expand...

For objective games I agree. For slayer games I disagree; winning is very much tied to your kda in a game.

I think Reach was actually onto something, I just think it wasn't implemented quite correctly. It definitely matched people up really well, which I think is the most important part of a rank. I think matching people using a team based rank just doesn't work right. I got ranked diamond 1 in slayer and I'm consistently first on my team but I can't move up in ranks because I lose as much as I win. This wouldn't happen if ranking was more correlated to personal performance, in my opinion.
 
AllIsOneIsNone said:
I thought it was based on wins and placement on the team, e.g. if you were first place on the winning team you'd move up faster than the last place player, and if you were first place on the losing team you wouldn't go down at all.

I'm fine with the initial 10 game ranking method. It gives you a general placement. I think it should then be refined by personal skill level is all.

You wouldn't need skill resets if your rank can go down, but I think that's sort of a different issue.



Why should solo players have a harder time ranking up? Wouldn't a solo ranking method almost prevent skill boosting?
Click to expand...

I think Halo:Reach did that temporarily, then reverted back to pure W/L. Also armor abilities and Loadouts all but destroyed the likelihood of ever having a skill based ranking system in that . You gotta have even starts.

Ranks can go down. You just can't drop out of your division... I'm not sure why they did this but I'm glad it will cure the phenomenon of people purposefully losing games to derank themselves, taking everyone else with them. In theory, there very little likelihood that someone's skill would deteriorate dramatically in one months time... They've gotta get the initial placement right though.

AllIsOneIsNone said:
For objective games I agree. For slayer games I disagree; winning is very much tied to your kda in a game.

I think Reach was actually onto something, I just think it wasn't implemented quite correctly. It definitely matched people up really well, which I think is the most important part of a rank. I think matching people using a team based rank just doesn't work right. I got ranked diamond 1 in slayer and I'm consistently first on my team but I can't move up in ranks because I lose as much as I win. This wouldn't happen if ranking was more correlated to personal performance, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

If you lose as much as you win, that means that you are ranked perfectly...

That's literally their design philosophy, 50/50 w/l means you are generally involved in even matches...
 
vac said:
He played better people. (Though ranking definitely seems a bit sketchy, especially in SWAT, seems like anyone can get onyx in that playlist)
Click to expand...

But we played the same people in the same games... That's why I said it doesn't make sense.


How do you guys feel about having a 'reroll' for your placement matches where you can put you're current rank on the line and get higher or lower?
 
Deception said:
But we played the same people in the same games... That's why I said it doesn't make sense.


How do you guys feel about having a 'reroll' for your placement matches where you can put you're current rank on the line and get higher or lower?
Click to expand...

Actually sounds like a good idea...

On second thought, it could easily turn into intentional deranking
 
Got this last week even though I said I wouldnt.... if anyone wants to add me im on the east coast. WinterishMidget is my tag. Playing alone is well... lonely.
 
AllIsOneIsNone said:
For objective games I agree. For slayer games I disagree; winning is very much tied to your kda in a game.

I think Reach was actually onto something, I just think it wasn't implemented quite correctly. It definitely matched people up really well, which I think is the most important part of a rank. I think matching people using a team based rank just doesn't work right. I got ranked diamond 1 in slayer and I'm consistently first on my team but I can't move up in ranks because I lose as much as I win. This wouldn't happen if ranking was more correlated to personal performance, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

No, it was a nightmare because you had one or two players in your team that actually baited you so you get killed, and they stole your kill, let me get you trough how a match playing solo was:

-I respwan and the first thing that hit me is a nade form my teammate, ok, Got it, after a while me a my teammate encounter one player, My teammate can very well team shoot to kill the person faster, I get the assist and He can get the kills and we both win, right?...wrong, in Halo Reach Arena what KDA matters as much as wining, the guy proceed to shoot at me, making sure I get killed, and proceed to kill up the opposing player, not only he is ensuring I dont rank up, but making sure he ranks up.

I can tell you various stories on my Days playing solo Arena, and it was like playing FFA, because you basically were competing against your own teammates.
 
Trup1aya said:
If you lose as much as you win, that means that you are ranked perfectly...

That's literally their design philosophy, 50/50 w/l means you are generally involved in even matches...
Click to expand...

That's if you're under the ideology that wins/losses should be the ranking factor, it's a tautology. I think the goal should be a 1.0 k/d ratio (or something involving assists and wins/losses as well). That way, if you are playing with randoms but against teams, it would be more balanced. I'm speaking about slayer gametypes, btw. If it were objective game types, the objectives should be a higher factor.

Caja 117 said:
No, it was a nightmare because you had one or two players in your team that actually baited you so you get killed, and they stole your kill, let me get you trough how a match playing solo was:

-I respwan and the first thing that hit me is a nade form my teammate, ok, Got it, after a while me a my teammate encounter one player, My teammate can very well team shoot to kill the person faster, I get the assist and He can get the kills and we both win, right?...wrong, Because Win matters, but KDA matters as much, the guy proceed to shoot at me, making sure I get kill, and proceed to kill up my kill, not only he is ensuring I dont rank up, but making sure he ranks up.

I can tell you various stories on my Days playing solo Arena, and it was like playing FFA, because you basically were competing against your own teammates.
Click to expand...

Assists should count for half as much as kills then, that would at least help. Also I previously said I think wins should still factor in, they just shouldn't be the end all be all. I'm all over the place though, my bad.
 
Considering dropping the game until they sort these controller/aiming issues. Losing fights I shouldn't have because the aim acceleration goes all Jigsaw "I wanna play a game" on me.
 
I believe they tried individual ranks in Halo:Reach. I believe it was horrible. People will do strange things to get to a specific rank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Halo 4 & Halo 5: Guardians Sales Reached Nearly 10 Million Units Worldwide each
Rumor 
44
2K
IFireflyl replied
The Expanse: Osiris Reborn Environmental Showcase
37
549
mayham2199 replied
  • Poll
Halo 1 remake or Master Chief Collection / 5 and 6
Poll 
31
298
AeonGaidenRaiden replied
Halo reportedly being announced for PS5 this Friday |OT|
Rumor Live  5 6 7 8 9
448
1K
Arcane0ne replied
  • Featured
Hyrule Warriors: Age of Imprisonment |OT| The Legend of Zelda: No Link in the Past
|OT|  2 3
115
1K
Gambit2483 replied
Top Bottom