Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Is it just me, or does it seem like most gamers are just obsessed with their ranking? Everyone has that "play to win AT ALL COSTS!!" attitude that I feel ruins the fun in games. I'm not the best at fighting games, but it seems that a lot of people just want to spam one attack continuously until they win. For example: I recently picked up Marvel VS Capcom 3 and every time I play against a person online who uses Deadpool in their team will rush to the corner of the screen and use the handgun attack non-freakin-stop. After the 10th time this happened I sent the guy a message saying "You know, Deadpool has more than just that one attack." To which he replied: "Yeah, but I still beat you." ...Really? I could care less if I lose, but when it gets to the point that it ruins the fun of the game because I have to try to get around obnoxious attacks like that winning and losing don't matter. In fact, they never really matter just as long as I can play a match that is fun.

FUN. Isn't that the point of video games?

If you think that is bad I would Shelve MvC3 now.

That game is all about combo's and certain playstyles... Hell I can 100%-0 just about any character with one of my lineups with only one hyper bar...

Also balances lists eat people who do that kind of thing for lunch.

I understand combos. I mean, that's how fighting games should be, awesome combos and stuff. But just one attack over and over and over and over gets really old really fast.

Not sure if it's the rankings themselves, but I can clearly see the problem with people trying to win at all cost.

When Crysis 2 was new, everyone played practically the same class. Feline, rapid fire, silencer, stealth enhance and then something else. That weapon was broken at first. You couldn't have fun and play with anything else, because you would get your ass handed to you by try-hards. People don't appreciate challenges and lack in sportsmanship. Same thing with MW2.

CoD MW2 is tame compared to MW1

It was P90 with double tap or stopping power.

They fixed the problem in MW2 be drastically decreasing the damage and accuracy of SMG's at long range.

You could seriously SNIPE with a P90 or mini uzi with a red dot sight.

It was so broken some private servers had rules against certain weapons.

RANK UP!

MASTER SARGENT SARGENT MASTER SHOOTER PERSON!

Yeah I don't really understand the point in ranks other than as a means to get players hooked.

The above reference is made of win.

And cookies, also cookies.

Pretty much all ranking do is allow players to "boast" and let the size of their epeen "grow".

Needless to say though I was fixated with rankings on MW2 purely because I wanted a certain perk. After I got it though i couldnt care less, thats why you will see me sitting at lvl 70 or watever it is. Same with Black Ops.

I like the ranking system as a method of spacing out weapons...
Boasting about it is dumb.

Rankings (and gaining better ones) are part of what is psychologically keeping video gamers addicted.

So, yeah, I'd get used to it.

My favorite is all the jocks in my university who talk about their modern warefare presitge lvls.

Because you know, that at one point in their life they threw some kid's books all over the playground and then shreaded his homework in front of his eyes for being a "nerd."

Combos and stuff make it an execution game, taking emphasis away from positioning, timing and guesswork (as you only need the one hit and then play training dummy with the combo). This is usually why I prefer the older school of fighting game, or one with safeguards (e.g. burst from GG/BB series).

Rankings are dumb but you should still play to win. Maybe that move is really fun for him to do, and he is timing it each time to work better; why isn't it fun for him? If it's playing for fun, experiment around to see what moves beat that, or maybe another tactic is needed?


If you can win using only one move, do it.

Daba wrote:Combos and stuff make it an execution game, taking emphasis away from positioning, timing and guesswork (as you only need the one hit and then play training dummy with the combo). This is usually why I prefer the older school of fighting game, or one with safeguards (e.g. burst from GG/BB series).

Rankings are dumb but you should still play to win. Maybe that move is really fun for him to do, and he is timing it each time to work better; why isn't it fun for him? If it's playing for fun, experiment around to see what moves beat that, or maybe another tactic is needed?


If you can win using only one move, do it.

I made someone lose faith in GG after beating the computer on hard with button mashing skills.

There was only one reason why I wanted to prestige in Black Ops; the harrier emblem. After doing 1st prestige and finding out that the harrier emblem was 7th prestige I decided that a bullet is fine too.

I only prestige on COD games because I get bored without the motivation to reach the highest rank.

It keeps games addicting.

ShivanAngel wrote:CoD MW2 is tame compared to MW1

It was P90 with double tap or stopping power.

They fixed the problem in MW2 be drastically decreasing the damage and accuracy of SMG's at long range.

You could seriously SNIPE with a P90 or mini uzi with a red dot sight.

It was so broken some private servers had rules against certain weapons.

LOL, it's the same in MW2. I have done my far share of SMG sniping in both MW and MW2. But I was mostly talking about the exploits people were using. At first it was Lightweight with Care Package markers, running around at the speed of light knifing people. Then it was the akimbo 1887's with insane strength and range for a shotgun. While it would be logical to go with the best equipment in a real fight, I like to think of gaming like hunting. There needs to be some sport to it. Shooting a cow with a .50 from 20 m would not provide a challenge, but hunting some fast creature with bow and arrow would. I'm just saying that I prefer the challenge of the game over the win.

Inanimate wrote:I'm just saying that I prefer the challenge of the game over the win.

QFT

Havin a fun match is always better than some cheap trick to win.

johnscott10 wrote:

Inanimate wrote:I'm just saying that I prefer the challenge of the game over the win.

QFT

Havin a fun match is always better than some cheap trick to win.

Although cheap tricks are also fun, especially when someone else is using them and you return the favor.

Rankings give you something to work towards, not all of them are meaningless.

There are some ranking that are kind of pointless, like the level system, you can get to 70 in CoDMW2 just by playing a lot even if you suck...

In other games there are actually things you have to do to get a higher rank, such as show a certain level of skill or have a rating or W/L ratio. Those rating are more of a test of skill.

On a side note I would like to congratulate Call of Duty: Black Ops for introducing the first playable female character in the series. Applause all around.

Rankings give the short-term sense of accomplishment. Since it happens so often, players get used to the euphoria of "doing something," and so keep playing. It's an ingenious marketing scheme.

Rankings should just be based on personal combat style. You should be able to have a range of rankings for a certain level, and choose which one you prefer. it then isn't just competitive.

By rankings I mean leaderboards, scores, Win/loss ratio, etc. In FPS games that give you new items if you rank up, that's cool.

Yeah, I like ranking up to get new weapons and stuff, but if its just an online leader board, I couldn't care less.

Also, I like the Prestige system in COD because it keeps things from getting boring. Not for the epeen,

Mike Noble wrote:Yeah, I like ranking up to get new weapons and stuff, but if its just an online leader board, I couldn't care less.

Same. I loved Gears of War 1 for the fact that Player Matches weren't ranked and it was more laid back than Ranked Matches. Not to mention that if you found seven good people that were fun to play with you could just stay in that room for the day.

And of course game rankings have nothing to do with players who do anything to win. Just because he's doing that 1 move over and over again dosen't mean he or anyone else is doing it just to get their rank up. Maybe it's the only way they can win and winning is something they absolutly have to do or else their life will be sucked into the black hole of being a loser (god forbid). Whatever reason they do it I don't think it is 100% about game rankings. And if they keep doing it just don't play them anymore

This is why I stay away from mainstream gaming. I play a couple of games, only in select servers that I know are conducive to my interests i.e having fun

i dont like the rankings after every ing match in cod

it goes

yay i had fun

you came third shame!!!!!!

ahhhh me sad now

This is the main reason I don't play too much online anymore. Some coop games with friends but nothing else really. Most people online seem to be too much into those rankings.

A-C-H-I-E-V-E-M-E-N-T-S

Whoo for artificial content and arbitrary numbers next to my name! The videogame industry is broken beyond repair.

Halo reach has a incentive to rank up. You look freaking awesome!