being "good at the game" is different than skill

First off I did something similar here to what Matt Grimes FTL did in his topic “An alternate view on the casual vs competitive argument” http://halo.xbox.com/Forums/yaf_postst56517_An-alternate-view-on-the-casual-vs-competitive-argument.aspx

I would like to point out that someone can be “good at the game” while not being that skilled or the other way around.

This is because being good at the game is an overall summation of all tested abilities within the game. While “skill” is a sub-factor of being good at the game, it can be tracked in a separate manner. Things like being able to read the battle, using the map to your advantage, knowing when to pick up a power weapon/vehicle, working as a team, ect. + skill are what go into deciding whether or not you are good at the game.

Being skilled, if you think about it, can be held apart at the same time. Raw skills like being good with a weapon/vehicle are what I believe fall into this category; the things it boils down to when brought into a 1 on 1 match against an opponent that determine survival.

Suppose I’m playing a standard team slayer match and while moving into around the map I run into the entire enemy team (or at least more than one person) traveling together and they kill me. The reason this upsets me is I get the impression that they do that because they’re not skilled enough to stand on their own. Now this may or may not be but it’s the fact that it wasn’t a “fair” fight from a pure skill perspective that bothered me. There’s obviously nothing wrong or against the rules in doing that and by doing so they’re showing that they’re smart enough to know that they will have a much higher chance of staying alive and getting kills if they stay together. This means that as a whole they’re good at the game. But what if they were in fact not as skilled as me in strait-up combat (being able to quickly land hits with a DMR), that’s where being good at the game and being skilled are set apart.

Another example of my point is the guy who seems to have the rocket launcher for the duration of the match. This would imply that he was actively thinking about constantly taking the rocket launcher every time it spawns which means he made a point to play the match that way. This is the same idea: nothing wrong with it but still not an even comparison when it comes to skill. Even someone completely new to Halo would be able to get a kill with the rocket launcher which means it’s obviously not hard to use, whereas using the DMR comparatively is. That mean, once again, he knew it would be just about guaranteed kills with the rocket launcher but he might actually suck without it.

Now I know you can’t always have those perfect match-ups of perfect encounter situations, and if that was the case Halo wouldn’t be any fun, but it’s the way these people act that pisses me off. How many of you have been mercelessly tea-bagged by the D-bag using the rocket launcher or “pack” tactic? Who are they to gloat as if they made some big acomplishment when they’re using a tactic that doesn’t require the same amount of skill to use as what you’re doing? And when you call them on it they still think they’re all-that. This would bring me to an hour long rant on the reactions people have to you when trying to have an intelectual conversation with them on xbox live, but that’s another topic.

you are wrong all the way from top to bottom

like wtf are you talking about OP you make no sense

Did you know a black belt in karate doesn’t make you an expert? It basically means you’re decent enough at the overall basics that you’re now ready to become even better.

But you don’t see that in Reach, because everybody is trying to limit the game down to just the DMR, not the overall weapon selection.

Your title is wrong, skill is too generic. You’re talking about the difference between aiming skills and map movement/strategy.
I also think you don’t really know what you’re talking about. Example:

> Another example of my point is the guy who seems to have the rocket launcher for the duration of the match. This would imply that he was actively thinking about constantly taking the rocket launcher every time it spawns which means he made a point to play the match that way. This is the same idea: nothing wrong with it but still not an even comparison when it comes to skill. Even someone completely new to Halo would be able to get a kill with the rocket launcher which means it’s obviously not hard to use, whereas using the DMR comparatively is. That mean, once again, he knew it would be just about guaranteed kills with the rocket launcher but he might actually suck without it.

Picking up power weapons is the ABC if you want to be good. Raw aiming skills are important, but it is also important to know the power weapons’ respawn times and locations, when and where to position yourself, when to push, when to retreat, etc…

Also, I’m curious. Tell me what this makes me by your logic. I picked up the rocket launcher every time it spawned, does that make me a noob or something?

Eurgh, alot to look at here

> you are wrong all the way from top to bottom
>
> like wtf are you talking about OP you make no sense

Worst post ever? You insult the man but dont tell us why, why does he make no sense. You come to the forums and THAT is your first post? Bnet kid perhaps.

> Did you know a black belt in karate doesn’t make you an expert? It basically means you’re decent enough at the overall basics that you’re now ready to become even better.
>
> But you don’t see that in Reach, because everybody is trying to limit the game down to just the DMR, not the overall weapon selection.

You’l never be convinced about Reach and its skill gap. We aren’t limiting the game to the DMR, rather the guns that are actually effective and compliment the sandbox. Please convince me that the game should be based around the AR, PR, Needler, Spiker/Smg whatever its called etc

And when did this become about the DMR anyways, he only mentioned it once, as well the Rocket launcher and team work. You saw skill and presumed it would be another DMR/Bloom/skillgap discussion.

> First off I did something similar here to what Matt Grimes FTL did in his topic “An alternate view on the casual vs competitive argument” http://halo.xbox.com/Forums/yaf_postst56517_An-alternate-view-on-the-casual-vs-competitive-argument.aspx
>
> I would like to point out that someone can be “good at the game” while not being that skilled or the other way around.You cant be skilled if you arent good at the gmae. It’s up to the game to determine how highly skilled you can be. For example, AL users get abuse because they get easy kills. Why? A non existant skill gap is there with that AA
>
> This is because being good at the game is an overall summation of all tested abilities within the game. While “skill” is a sub-factor of being good at the game, it can be tracked in a separate manner. Things like being able to read the battle, using the map to your advantage, knowing when to pick up a power weapon/vehicle, working as a team, ect. + skill are what go into deciding whether or not you are good at the game.See next point below…
>
> Being skilled, if you think about it, can be held apart at the same time. Raw skills like being good with a weapon/vehicle are what I believe fall into this category; the things it boils down to when brought into a 1 on 1 match against an opponent that determine survival.Thats only a small part of the skill in Halo
>
> Suppose I’m playing a standard team slayer match and while moving into around the map I run into the entire enemy team (or at least more than one person) traveling together and they kill me. The reason this upsets me is I get the impression that they do that because they’re not skilled enough to stand on their own. Now this may or may not be but it’s the fact that it wasn’t a “fair” fight from a pure skill perspective that bothered me. There’s obviously nothing wrong or against the rules in doing that and by doing so they’re showing that they’re smart enough to know that they will have a much higher chance of staying alive and getting kills if they stay together. This means that as a whole they’re good at the game. But what if they were in fact not as skilled as me in strait-up combat (being able to quickly land hits with a DMR), that’s where being good at the game and being skilled are set apart.Now then, even ZB DMR has a ceiling on the skill gap (the top 30 or so MLG pros pretty much have identical shot skill with a DMR/Sniper). A bigger skill gap comes from things like map awareness/movement by yourself and as a team. In the situation you described, they are far more skilled than you. Why? This is a team game. They controlled the map better, while you ventured on your own. If I walk into 2/3/4 members of a team, I’ve done something very wrong. I should be able to know/predict where they go depending on the map/spawns/power position/weapon location etc. See how manys are to be considered there? Far more skill involved in your placing and predicting the teams location.
>
> Another example of my point is the guy who seems to have the rocket launcher for the duration of the match. This would imply that he was actively thinking about constantly taking the rocket launcher every time it spawns which means he made a point to play the match that way. This is the same idea: nothing wrong with it but still not an even comparison when it comes to skill. Even someone completely new to Halo would be able to get a kill with the rocket launcher which means it’s obviously not hard to use, whereas using the DMR comparatively is. That mean, once again, he knew it would be just about guaranteed kills with the rocket launcher but he might actually suck without it.It’s a powerful weapon and often the centrepoint of a map (Pit is a good example). Sure, its easy to use. But, the reward of it is the skill of map control, being a position to take it. If you want it, you have to control the map better (Like in the pit, control their green and training pit). Rockets only spawn every 3 minutes, so your playstyle and movement should be based around the 30 seconds before they spawn
>
> Now I know you can’t always have those perfect match-ups of perfect encounter situations, and if that was the case Halo wouldn’t be any fun, but it’s the way these people act that pisses me off. How many of you have been mercelessly tea-bagged by the D-bag using the rocket launcher or “pack” tactic? Who are they to gloat as if they made some big acomplishment when they’re using a tactic that doesn’t require the same amount of skill to use as what you’re doing? And when you call them on it they still think they’re all-that. This would bring me to an hour long rant on the reactions people have to you when trying to have an intelectual conversation with them on xbox live, but that’s another topic.

Agreed on this

Bolded, I like you as a poster (conceding your point in the Bloom thread shows you are willing to listen), and its good you are paying attention to Matt Grimes, he’s a smart chap when it comes to Halo who knows what he is talking about.

However I think you have looked it wrong and what skill/teamwork is and how its percieved. I am open for discussion though :slight_smile:

> You’l never be convinced about Reach and its skill gap. We aren’t limiting the game to the DMR, rather the guns that are actually effective and compliment the sandbox. Please convince me that the game should be based around the AR, PR, Needler, Spiker/Smg whatever its called etc
>
> And when did this become about the DMR anyways, he only mentioned it once, as well the Rocket launcher and team work. You saw skill and presumed it would be another DMR/Bloom/skillgap discussion.

I was pointing out that someone who has master the overall game is much more impressive then someone who’s master a single weapon.

The game shouldn’t be based around automatic weapons. Doing so it the OPPOSITE of Halo. The game should be based around a balanced sandbox.

> Did you know a black belt in karate doesn’t make you an expert? It basically means you’re decent enough at the overall basics that you’re now ready to become even better.
>
> But you don’t see that in Reach, because everybody is trying to limit the game down to just the DMR, not the overall weapon selection.

I like that comparison, and what you said is very true.

Your argument is wrong at the title:

Skill (noun): the ability to do something well. (I.e. “be good at the game”)

You’re trying to seperate teamwork skills (A) from individual skills (B) which, in my opinon, add together to make one skilled at the game (C). They are NOT mutually exclusive of each other.

A+B=C

Team “skills” such as map positioning, team set-ups, and power weapon timing coupled with individual skills such as aim, strafing, grenade placement, or individual positioning, combine to make someone good at the game.

Do you expect a coordinated team to stop team-shooting you and for one of your enemies to say: “I got this guys, I will challange him in single combat ala Ancient Rome.”? No, that is not how Halo works. They earned that positioning over you, and you made a bad choice in getting caught alone out in the middle of the map.

Do you expect someone to not time up power weapons? To leave them there because they are “good enough at the game” not to use them? Again, I argue that this is a skill in Halo that makes someone good at the game.

Stop nitpicking the terms “skill” and “good at the game.” There are multiple skills that make one good at the game.

> Your argument is wrong at the title:
>
> Skill (noun): the ability to do something well. (I.e. “be good at the game”)
>
> You’re trying to seperate teamwork skills (A) from individual skills (B) which, in my opinon, add together to make one skilled at the game (C). They are NOT mutually exclusive of each other.
>
> A+B=C
>
> Team “skills” such as map positioning, team set-ups, and power weapon timing coupled with individual skills such as aim, strafing, grenade placement, or individual positioning, combine to make someone good at the game.
>
> Do you expect a coordinated team to stop team-shooting you and for one of your enemies to say: “I got this guys, I will challange him in single combat ala Ancient Rome.”? No, that is not how Halo works. They earned that positioning over you, and you made a bad choice in getting caught alone out in the middle of the map.
>
> Do you expect someone to not time up power weapons? To leave them there because they are “good enough at the game” not to use them? Again, I argue that this is a skill in Halo that makes someone good at the game.
>
> Stop nitpicking the terms “skill” and “good at the game.” There are multiple skills that make one good at the game.

you and the op are playing a semantics game, which are rarely productive.

But I agree that the op is off on something. It starts by making a very valid claim, that being good at the game is not simply being good at shooting, but comprises a number of skills and their interactions. But towards the end the op sounds like its whining a bit about the very same skills it first said were part of the bigger “being good at the game” picture- teamwork and controlling power weapons.

This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.

> Your argument is wrong at the title:
>
> Skill (noun): the ability to do something well. (I.e. “be good at the game”)

I may not have used the most optimal terms here but I think you at least get what I’m trying to go for here.

> You’re trying to seperate teamwork skills (A) from individual skills (B) which, in my opinon, add together to make one skilled at the game (C). <mark>They are NOT mutually exclusive of each other.</mark>
>
> A+B=C

I’m not trying to say that they are, but merely be able to recognize A from B.

X=C

A+B=X

> Team “skills” such as map positioning, team set-ups, and power weapon timing coupled with individual skills such as aim, strafing, grenade placement, or individual positioning, combine to make someone good at the game.

Agreed.

> <mark>Do you expect a coordinated team to stop team-shooting you and for one of your enemies to say: “I got this guys, I will challange him in single combat ala Ancient Rome.”?</mark> No, that is not how Halo works. They earned that positioning over you, and you made a bad choice in getting caught alone out in the middle of the map.
>
> <mark>Do you expect someone to not time up power weapons? To leave them there because they are “good enough at the game” not to use them?</mark> Again, I argue that this is a skill in Halo that makes someone good at the game.

Not at all. I agree that these are indeed “skills” that are involved with being good at Halo, just that we should be able to differentiate between the different categories of such skills. If anything you could further split apart the overall skill at the game into even more categories, but for the sake of my point it’s only the current two that matter. I’m not saying necessarily that I disagree with doing things like this because of course they are essential to making the game fun and adding many other layers of skill to the game, just that we should be able to recognize the difference between them.

It’s a bit hard to explain. Like: I don’t think it would be right for someone to gloat about killing me by staying in a pack or using a rocket launcher because from a difficulty standpoint they clearly had the easier road. Yes, they did perform the other skills of the game better than I did to put themselves in such a position, but trying to compate two different skills is bit like comparing apples to oranges. That is not to say that they don’t deserve to be put together at all because they’re like different sides of the same coin.

A summary what I’m attempting to do here is raise awareness on the different categories of skills and to the fact that you should be careful how you compare them.

> There are multiple skills that make one good at the game.

Also true.

> But I agree that the op is off on something. It starts by making a very valid claim, that being good at the game is not simply being good at shooting, but comprises a number of skills and their interactions. But towards the end the op sounds like its whining a bit about the very same skills it first said were part of the bigger “being good at the game” picture- teamwork and controlling power weapons.

Clarification: Not whining about the skills, just the attitude of those who use them.

> Picking up power weapons is the ABC if you want to be good. Raw aiming skills are important, but it is also important to know the power weapons’ respawn times and locations, when and where to position yourself, when to push, when to retreat, etc…

Yes

> Also, I’m curious. Tell me what this makes me by your logic. I picked up the rocket launcher every time it spawned, does that make me a noob or something?

No

> > But I agree that the op is off on something. It starts by making a very valid claim, that being good at the game is not simply being good at shooting, but comprises a number of skills and their interactions. But towards the end the op sounds like its whining a bit about the very same skills it first said were part of the bigger “being good at the game” picture- teamwork and controlling power weapons.
>
> Clarification: Not whining about the skills, just the attitude of those who use them.

Now, that makes more sense. Sadly, I don’t think that there is much you can do about people t-bagging and the attitudes of people doing it. Some people will always be -Yoink- and some do it to make themselves feel better.

I, personally, don’t think I have ever done that to anyone as I find it childish.

> Did you know a black belt in karate doesn’t make you an expert? It basically means you’re decent enough at the overall basics that you’re now ready to become even better.
>
> But you don’t see that in Reach, because everybody is trying to limit the game down to just the DMR, not the overall weapon selection.

Because the DMR and the sniper are the only weapons with a high skill ceiling. You can “master” the skill of the needler, AR, PR, PP, Sword, Rockets, Shotgun, every other weapon that I can think of very quickly (assuming you’re proficient at the game). It literally took me 10 minutes in custom, having never picked up the needler before, to perfect it. Obviously my learning curve is quicker than many due to my high skill in general, but even then; I have over 20000 kills with the DMR and I am not as “good” with it (not to be confused with effectiveness which is highly dependent how the guns effectiveness in itself) that I am with the AR which I have probably 1000. 20 times the experience, not as “skilled”, in comparison to the skill ceiling of the weapon.

That is WHY “everyone is trying to limit the game down to the DMR” because “everyone” is attempting to be the most effective player possible and the way the game works is the more skill a weapon requires to attain and/or use, the more effective it is. Using the DMR, arguably the second most skillful weapon in the game, is obviously going to make you a very effective player, hence why it is used to frequently by so many players. Then there’s the other 90% of the sandbox, only 4 or so of them requiring any skill at all (the skill required to attain them) with the rest take no skill to attain or use, therefore to keep them from being “over powered” (ex striker extended mags or akimbo FMG9’s of MW3) they must also be useless. If having more pretty graphics and sounds coming out of your TV/speaks is very important to you, then by all means use all the weapons you can, but to anyone whose primary intention is to do well, they are going to stick to a specific set of weapon (DMR and power weapons), and to bash them for it is just… well, sorry to say it, but ignorant.

^Neo please read this because I want to have this settled once and for all and I don’t want to have to rewrite this again^

OT: I don’t agree at all. Skill is all encompassing, Individual aim and 1v1 combat skill are only 2 of the many skills Halo requires to do well. Your skill is your effectiveness as a whole. Working with your team and timing power weapons are both very important skills and have a major effect on the outcome of the game, and require skill to do. Your skill sum of all the different skills in the games determine your effectiveness. Obviously individual aim is one of the most important and the most easy to understand, but it is only 1 piece of the spectrum and the belief that it is the primary or most important factor in the game is incorrect. When talking about pro level play, individual aiming skill is a prerequisite, not something you’re necessarily tested on. It doesn’t matter if you have 100% perfect aim if you have no team work, as everyone else has 95% perfect aim and amazing team work.

Sure in stuff like team slayer or anything with a relatively low skill ceiling (and/or if the players are of low skill), “Randomness” and “luck” have a major effect on how well you do (ex you get double teamed even though they weren’t even purposely sticking together, or the other team saw the rocket launcher sitting on spawn and picked it up), but the higher the skill of the players and the higher the skill ceiling of the game type and game in general, the less randomness have an effect and the more “skill” shines.

Contrary to what you may believe, the higher the level of play, the less and less individual combat skills come into play and the less 1v1s even happen. In high level play it is called “challenging” and is very discouraged. You NEVER want to challenge, as if your team mate is not there to help, the other team’s team mate most likely will be and you will be punished for your mistake. Of course, I love to challenge and try to “embarrass” the opponents with no scopes, and ninjas and so forth, and that’s why I prefer playing lower leveled opponents so that my 1v1 combat skills can be the primary factor in the outcome of my score. Although if you intend to do this with similarly skilled opponents, expect to not do very well.

Some examples of the other important skills are:

Awareness - your awareness of your surroundings and what is going on the game. Headsets help very much with awareness allowing you to hear explosions or shooting across the map etc. Although your mentally capacity is also very important to awareness ie being constantly aware of a visual map in your head and all players on the map, the directions they were traveling and where to intercept or call out that they are. The most basic of this part of awareness is constantly looking as your team mates way points to know where they are.

Positioning - Positioning is heavily based on awareness. The basics being knowing where your team mates and the enemies are and their trajectories based on callouts and your own eyes. You then position yourself accordingly ex be in the best possible position to help your team mates and allow your team mates to help you.

Map control - Map control is a result of you and your teams positioning, aim, smarts, and awareness having triumphs over the enemies for a period of time. You have out slayed them due to your superior use of team work, in which case you now can attain map control which allows you to gain more kills and prevent them from regrouping and pushing you back. Against similary skilled opponents this will be a constant battle, and in objective is even more difficult as you have to give up the map control you cap a flag and help your team do so.

Map control also is used by you and your team to attain power weapons and power ups which can be used to increase the kills you get vs your team mates due to the increased effectiveness of them over your opponents spawn weapon.

I have never actually laid these terms out so I’m sure they’re pretty crude and poorly organized, but they give an example into the advanced skills of Halo, skills which Reach’s attributes of bloom and AA’s, etc make less effective. This is the reason many of us don’t like Reach and I have a very strong feeling that most who support Reach aren’t even aware of these factors. This may turn into a thread later but i’ve already wasted 30 min at work not working so I will do it later.


I just want to say, Dan that I very much appreciate your intellectual mind, calm manner, and willingness to listen, but you got a lot to learn my friend haha. Oh and thanks for the thread support <3

> > You’l never be convinced about Reach and its skill gap. We aren’t limiting the game to the DMR, rather the guns that are actually effective and compliment the sandbox. Please convince me that the game should be based around the AR, PR, Needler, Spiker/Smg whatever its called etc
> >
> > And when did this become about the DMR anyways, he only mentioned it once, as well the Rocket launcher and team work. You saw skill and presumed it would be another DMR/Bloom/skillgap discussion.
>
> I was pointing out that someone who has master the overall game is much more impressive then someone who’s master a single weapon.
>
> The game shouldn’t be based around automatic weapons. Doing so it the OPPOSITE of Halo. The game should be based around a balanced sandbox.

I think we all agree with this. The problem is that for the sandbox to be balanced AND meaning each weapon is similary effective each weapon must take similar skill to compensate. The skill needed to use a weapon determines it’s effectiveness in even remotely balanced sandbox (this effectiveness is determined by the dev to attain a balance).

If you hate that the game has come down to just the DMR blame the “casuals”, because they are the reason the other weapons have been nerfed. Every iteration of Halo, the “Secondary” sandbox is made easier to use to please more casual players (the vast majority of the UU’s) but to allow for it still the be “Halo”, they must also be severely nerfed to attain balance. This is why. Don’t blame the competitive or skilled players and I’m sure we don’t have a problem with using other weapons, only when those weapons require no skill and therefore do not allow for skill to shine.

> > But I agree that the op is off on something. It starts by making a very valid claim, that being good at the game is not simply being good at shooting, but comprises a number of skills and their interactions. But towards the end the op sounds like its whining a bit about the very same skills it first said were part of the bigger “being good at the game” picture- teamwork and controlling power weapons.
>
> Clarification: Not whining about the skills, just the attitude of those who use them.

Fair enough… Tone is sometimes hard to pick up online

> > > You’l never be convinced about Reach and its skill gap. We aren’t limiting the game to the DMR, rather the guns that are actually effective and compliment the sandbox. Please convince me that the game should be based around the AR, PR, Needler, Spiker/Smg whatever its called etc
> > >
> > > And when did this become about the DMR anyways, he only mentioned it once, as well the Rocket launcher and team work. You saw skill and presumed it would be another DMR/Bloom/skillgap discussion.
> >
> > I was pointing out that someone who has master the overall game is much more impressive then someone who’s master a single weapon.
> >
> > The game shouldn’t be based around automatic weapons. Doing so it the OPPOSITE of Halo. The game should be based around a balanced sandbox.
>
> I think we all agree with this. The problem is that for the sandbox to be balanced AND meaning each weapon is similary effective each weapon must take similar skill to compensate. The skill needed to use a weapon determines it’s effectiveness in even remotely balanced sandbox (this effectiveness is determined by the dev to attain a balance).
>
> If you hate that the game has come down to just the DMR blame the “casuals”, because they are the reason the other weapons have been nerfed. Every iteration of Halo, the “Secondary” sandbox is made easier to use to please more casual players (the vast majority of the UU’s) but to allow for it still the be “Halo”, they must also be severely nerfed to attain balance. This is why. Don’t blame the competitive or skilled players and I’m sure we don’t have a problem with using other weapons, only when those weapons require no skill and therefore do not allow for skill to shine.

I sort of feel that halo has had two sand boxes since the beginning … single player and multiplayer. I just played through CE again, and was disappointed in the pistols performance in campaign. Conversely, I love the way the repeater and spiker play in reach’s campaign but find them generally underwhelming in MP.

While having a variety of weapons works in campaign, more weapons in MP simply means we’ll have more weapons that perform subpar, but having them in campaign creates an expectation for them to be in MP.

It reminds me of the disconnect between splinter cells single player and its multiplayer. If you played chaos theory you know the MP was fantastic, but was essentially a different game, albeit with the same style. That bothered me about splinter cell.

Edit: a balanced sandbox doesn’t mean each weapon is equally viable, but that each weapon has a foil, that no one weapon is unbeatable. The notion of “cant beat em, join em” is bad. All other things being equal, you should always be able to beat out a strategy by using a different strategy.

> > > > You’l never be convinced about Reach and its skill gap. We aren’t limiting the game to the DMR, rather the guns that are actually effective and compliment the sandbox. Please convince me that the game should be based around the AR, PR, Needler, Spiker/Smg whatever its called etc
> > > >
> > > > And when did this become about the DMR anyways, he only mentioned it once, as well the Rocket launcher and team work. You saw skill and presumed it would be another DMR/Bloom/skillgap discussion.
> > >
> > > I was pointing out that someone who has master the overall game is much more impressive then someone who’s master a single weapon.
> > >
> > > The game shouldn’t be based around automatic weapons. Doing so it the OPPOSITE of Halo. The game should be based around a balanced sandbox.
> >
> > I think we all agree with this. The problem is that for the sandbox to be balanced AND meaning each weapon is similary effective each weapon must take similar skill to compensate. The skill needed to use a weapon determines it’s effectiveness in even remotely balanced sandbox (this effectiveness is determined by the dev to attain a balance).
> >
> > If you hate that the game has come down to just the DMR blame the “casuals”, because they are the reason the other weapons have been nerfed. Every iteration of Halo, the “Secondary” sandbox is made easier to use to please more casual players (the vast majority of the UU’s) but to allow for it still the be “Halo”, they must also be severely nerfed to attain balance. This is why. Don’t blame the competitive or skilled players and I’m sure we don’t have a problem with using other weapons, only when those weapons require no skill and therefore do not allow for skill to shine.
>
> I sort of feel that halo has had two sand boxes since the beginning … single player and multiplayer. I just played through CE again, and was disappointed in the pistols performance in campaign. Conversely, I love the way the repeater and spiker play in reach’s campaign but find them generally underwhelming in MP.
>
> While having a variety of weapons works in campaign, more weapons in MP simply means we’ll have more weapons that perform subpar, but having them in campaign creates an expectation for them to be in MP.
>
> It reminds me of the disconnect between splinter cells single player and its multiplayer. If you played chaos theory you know the MP was fantastic, but was essentially a different game, albeit with the same style. That bothered me about splinter cell.
>
> Edit: a balanced sandbox doesn’t mean each weapon is equally viable, but that each weapon has a foil, that no one weapon is unbeatable. The notion of “cant beat em, join em” is bad. All other things being equal, you should always be able to beat out a strategy by using a different strategy.

Whenever I talk about Halo I am exclusively speaking about MP, just FYI.

And Halo has always been about the utility weapon and it’s dominance of the sandbox. Halo has never had a 100% “balanced” sandbox and that’s part of Halo being Halo. But with each game, the other weapons have gotten nerfed but made easier to use, which many players, like Neo, seem not to appreciate. Read the post above the one you quoted for more info on it.

LOL!.. LOL!

Dude, if you win consistently, you are good at the game. It doesn’t matter what weapon you use, what strategy you use, if you win, you obviously made the right choices at the right times.

If you camp the entire game, with a shotgun, and you win, than you made the right choice, because your opponents were obviously dumb enough to keep coming back for more.

That is all.

Have a nice day!