> > OP claims the game is too easy. I did some looking into your service record. The most used weapon is the DMR and you play mostly Big Team Battle (463 Slayer games out of 541 total completed games). You’ve also only played two playlists since the CSR update: Big Team Battle (CSR 18) and Team Objective (CSR 1)
> >
> > No wonder why you think this game is easy.
> >
> > Try playing some other, harder playlists and see how well you do.
>
> Plasma Pistols only is hard.
>
> But do we judge the game by niche settings, or do we judge the game as a whole?
>
> The game as a whole is easy. MLGv7 in Reach was amazing but Reach overall has issues.
The game as a whole is easy based on which? Previous Halo games? Probably it is a bit easier.
However based on other FPS games, Halo is harder to learn and master.
> > > OP claims the game is too easy. I did some looking into your service record. The most used weapon is the DMR and you play mostly Big Team Battle (463 Slayer games out of 541 total completed games). You’ve also only played two playlists since the CSR update: Big Team Battle (CSR 18) and Team Objective (CSR 1)
> > >
> > > No wonder why you think this game is easy.
> > >
> > > Try playing some other, harder playlists and see how well you do.
> >
> > Plasma Pistols only is hard.
> >
> > But do we judge the game by niche settings, or do we judge the game as a whole?
> >
> > The game as a whole is easy. MLGv7 in Reach was amazing but Reach overall has issues.
>
> The game as a whole is easy based on which? Previous Halo games? Probably it is a bit easier.
>
> However based on other FPS games, Halo is harder to learn and master.
Halo has always been simplistic compared to other games.
Look at how much -Yoink- is jam-packed into Battlefield 3. Learning to fly a Banshee is much easier than learning to fly a Jet. Don’t even start on Quake or Unreal Tournament.
It really depends on which games you are comparing Halo to.
Compared to past Halo games though, I’d argue Halo 4 is easier.
> With the new update this game fells so much more like call of duty.
Okay, I don’t know what that means, but even so, I never understand what someone means when they compare something to CoD. NO ONE ever says if that’s a good thing or a bad thing.
> The new update has not added skill it’s made it more noob friendly.
It wasn’t supposed to add skill, it was to balance the loadout weapons.
if halo 4 were easy and took no skill, i’d be using the sniper rifle a lot more. as it stands, i only pick it up to deny the enemy a chance to use it without finding and killing me first (or i ditch it for another weapon where another teammate can grab it)
incidentally, if i recall, 343 reduced some of the projectile magnetism in the game. i remember having issues aiming til i switched to a greater sensitivity.
i would say that halo 4 is perhaps slightly more newb friendly than its predecessor’s, but i also believe this is not necessarily a bad thing. it makes it so players are on an even footing and have to adapt. no more bum rushing for power weapons and using that to carry you. you have to gun down your adversaries with more skill, for they too may get power weapons.
I played Halo 2, and the aim assist in that game was high as well. You can say the game is easier than past Halo titles but there is a skill gap. If you follow the competitive tournaments, the same 6-8 top teams (out of 32-64) are always the same because those are the best players. If there was no skill gap, there would be different results each time and the the top team (Ambush) would not have won every single tournament. There is something that can separate the best from the rest whether you think so or not. Is it easier to aim than in Halo 3, sure. But that doesn’t mean there still people who can aim better than you, sniper better, are smarter when maneuvering the maps, and have a better understanding of how to play the objectives. There is still skill in playing Halo 4.
Buddy, all you’re playing is BTIS. Try some of the other playlists, and you might change your mind a little.
I will admit though, my KD is better in this game then it was in Reach. I didn’t play the others. Anyways, I know that in some ways I have gotten better, but there are aspects of this game that have definitely helped.
In spite of the risk of this becoming another Randomness vs. Skill thread, I will reply. A couple of caveats before I do:
My reply to the OP was to point out the logical inconsistency in his argument - not to make the counterclaim that the skill gap in H4 is greater than or equal to previous Halos.
I believe the skill gap in H4 is, indeed, less than in previous Halos, but not to the degree that many posters seem to feel.
You are correct that the situation you describe is a possibility depending on how “bad” and “good” players are defined.
I do not find K/D to be a particularly effective measurement of skill. However, to avoid having to come up with and justify an alternate measurement, I reserve the right to use it as an example because the OP used it and that was what I was replying to, it is easily understood, and does have at least some minor relationship with skill. Nothing in the previous post, in this post, or in any subsequent post depends on K/D = skill. Simply substitute “Accurate Skill Measurement” for K/D.
I qualified the conclusion by saying the OP’s evidence was anecdotal. That means it is neither proof nor disproof of the claim because it does not have the required statistical significance and the context is not known. Please do not take this to mean that I think H4 has a bigger skill gap. All it means is that, were the OP’s evidence the only evidence we had available, it would indicate a larger skill gap and contraindicate a smaller one. However, we have much more information than just the OP’s evidence. This other evidence demonstrates his may be a stray data point in the opposite direction from the overall tendency.
In other words, I state only that:
The OP’s evidence does not support his claim.
In the absence of any other evidence, the OP’s evidence would actually support an opposite claim. I do not ever make the opposite claim, nor do I state that other evidence does not exist.
With that said, here goes:
Skill gaps are defined by the difference in performance between players. A game with a small skill gap by definition means that performance is dependent on factors other than skill, such that players with large skill differences have small performance differences. A game with a large skill gap means that players with large skill differences have large performance differences. *
We can now look at three situations:
If you then define a “bad” player as one that is a certain distance less than the mean and a “good” player as one a certain distance above the mean, you are correct that if the bad player improves at the expense of the good player then it could mean the skill gap has decreased. The overall range of performance has decreased, meeting the definition of a decreasing skill gap.
If, however, the “bad” player has performance that is above the mean - and a K/D of 1+ is above the mean - then if the “bad” player’s performance shifts even further from the mean, then that is evidence the overall range of performance has increased, meeting the definition of an increasing skill gap.
It is also possible that the above-the-mean “bad” player is an anomaly, and his increase in performance comes at the expense of other above-the-mean players. This requires the additional evidence I mentioned above - evidence to demonstrate that the above-the-mean “bad” player has moved in the opposite direction of the general trend.
However, simply posting what the OP posts provides evidence against #1 (since his K/D was above the mean in the past and he is using K/D as his skill gap measurement), in favor of #2, and leaves #3 undetermined pending additional evidence.
Supplement for tsassi:
I agree K/D is not a good measurement. However, I did not choose K/D - the OP did. I am merely stating that the OP’s evidence does not support his claim even were we to agree that K/D was a good metric. As I’ve said before, I do believe H4 to have a smaller skill gap than H3 or H2. All I’m saying is that the argument presented by the OP in no way supports his claim.
__*__How you choose to measure the size of the skill gap also matters. You could measure it by taking the difference between the worst performing and the best performing - but that has the potential problem that the worst and best performing are utter outliers and everyone else playing is much, much closer. There are some standard statistical distributions (Chi-squared and F) that work well for these type of situations, but this isn’t meant to be a statistics forum. However, they are useful for distinguishing skill gap differences in games where a significant portion of the population is close in skill.
While I believe that Halo 4 is the most handicaped Halo game to-date, surprisingly, I would still say Halo requires more ‘skill’ than any other console multiplayer game. Halo is not to the point where it is run-and-gun where one shot to the foot is an instant-kill, unfortunately, that might be where Halo is heading.
The bottom line is that anyone who claims H4 does not have a significant skill gap has to be able to explain the repeated dominance of the same teams in competitive tournaments (Ambush and Warriors).
Also, to point out the obvious limitations of K/D, go 1v1 snip3down all day on Octagon and let’s see what your K/D looks like.
In my opinion these types of posts are more about bragging than substance.
