[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/v/ - Video Games


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: ranks.png (1.45 MB, 3309x615)
1.45 MB PNG
Do competitive ranks ruin online games for anyone else? It seems like they strip the fun away and make losing feel worst than winning feels good. All that matters to anyone is their rank, so they’ll just play the meta and will generally be much angrier.

I remember in Halo: Reach there were ranks, but it was only based on how many games you’d won and didn’t go down. Even so, it was a pretty good indicator of skill-level as people with high ranks tended to be much better. It didn’t cause the same negative environment to form because you didn’t lose anything for losing a game. This doesn’t mean people weren’t trying to win, it just means that playing the game and enjoying it was the top priority instead of just increasing your rank. You never ended the night feeling like you wasted your time because you ended up at the same rank or lower than when you started. And this is the case whether you’re good or bad at the game since you’re paired with people of a similar rank. If a game has a ranking system, I’d much prefer the Halo: Reach style.
>>
File: ljzccs40z1y71.jpg (359 KB, 1200x2630)
359 KB JPG
>>743310353
We have to go back.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.