Halo is competitive. The is no denying that and it should remain competitive. Gimmicks like sprint ruin gameplay play because Halo is not designed for it. Halo is a Sci-Fi arena game like quake, unreal, and half-life.
Halo cannot give in to these new modern day shooters that introduce perks, sprints, ridiculous aim-assist, and everybody starting off differently.
FOR THE PRESERVATION OF OUR PURE AND COMPETITIVE HALO!
do you not know what mlg is halo pretty much made mlg what it is today
i do understand where your coming from but halo should be for everyone not just for the competitive scene im for ya there but i also do like to kick back with friends who are bks just have a good time casually i am for everyone playing halo if you play thats awesome in my book
Scenario: Halo becomes competitive. Casual players are turned off by the large learning curve. Halo loses a big chunk of its fanbase. Sales tank. Halo ceases to be.
Simple enough?
Agree. It’s like 343 just wants to cater for the -Yoink- CoD fanboys so they can sell more copies. Talk about selling out, and it’s only their first game ffs!
i would tend to disagree
.
Casuals can find a competitive game fun.
Competitive players cannot find a casual game fun.
Therefore, make the game competitive. Easy to play, hard to master, reduce randomness, but keep it fun.
we need to bring back the community cause halo is losing people more and more everyday to other games halo 4 needs to be epic if halo is gonna live or die ill always play halo regardless of its future
So play it competitively.
You are what makes the game competitive, the player. There’s no features which make it more or less so.
> So play it competitively.
>
> You are what makes the game competitive, the player. There’s no features which make it more or less so.
Randomness, e.g. bloom, can make a game less competitive when you are not rewarded for your skill.
> So play it competitively.
>
> You are what makes the game competitive, the player. There’s no features which make it more or less so.
LOL. Your post has so many logical errors in it.
Guns that shoot randomly make a game less competitive and game that make people start on different grounds make it less competititive.
Players a re a factor but the game itself is the main factor.
> > So play it competitively.
> >
> > You are what makes the game competitive, the player. There’s no features which make it more or less so.
>
> Randomness, e.g. bloom, can make a game less competitive when you are not rewarded for your skill.
Well you certainly aren’t very skilled if a little bit of bloom is killing your buzz.
Besides, no game owes you any rewards, and if you measure how “competitive,” a game is by how much slack it cuts you or how easy it is to play then what have you really accomplished?
> LOL. Your post has so many logical errors in it.
>
> Guns that shoot randomly make a game less competitive and game that make people start on different grounds make it less competititive.
>
> Players a re a factor but the game itself is the main factor.
And if you believe so, then you don’t know what a logical error is.
Let me lay it out for you:
A game is made.
It is 100% neutral without players.
Players start playing that game to win over others.
The game then becomes competitive, because people are playing it competitively.
The player dictates whether or not the game is competitive or not.
The game is not a factor at all. Things like bloom, sprint, loadouts, armor abilities, etc. These things do nothing to hinder your ability to play the game competitively and therefor have no bearing on whether or not the game itself is competitive.
> Scenario: Halo becomes competitive. Casual players are turned off by the large learning curve. Halo loses a big chunk of its fanbase. Sales tank. Halo ceases to be.
>
> Simple enough?
Or, Bungie could make a game called Halo:Reach, they push their competitive community into a corner and give us 2 playlists…Classic and MLG.
then they lose a big chunk of the Halo fanbase, and when 343i tries to help, it doesn’t work.
Why do you think we want to be heard? because we have been left in the dust because Bungie and 343i are catering to the COD casuals.
There should be a setup like this:
Playlists:
Classic ---------Ranked-------
Team Slayer
Team Swat
Squad Battle
Lone Wolves
Team Snipers
BTB
etc.
---------Social-------
Social Slayer
Rumble Pit
Social Big Team
Fiesta
Grifball
etc.
New ---------Ranked-----------
Team Slayer
Team Swat
Squad Battle
Lone Wolves
Team Snipers
BTB
etc.
---------Social-----------
Social Slayer
Rumble Pit
Social Big Team
Fiesta
Grifball
etc.
The New has AA’s and perks and loadouts, and armor affecting gameplay, but the Classic will not, it will be everyone spawns even and only player skill will affect the gameplay.
It will make it so everyone, whatever kind of Halo gameplay they like, will be able to play the gametype they want, the way they want to play it.
> Scenario: Halo becomes competitive. Casual players are turned off by the large learning curve. Halo loses a big chunk of its fanbase. Sales tank. Halo ceases to be.
>
> Simple enough?
Halo has ALWAYS been competitive with the exception of Halo Reach.
I don’t think you understand what competitive is. Starcraft 2 is the most competitive game out there right now, and it is one of the most played games in the world. What makes it successful is that it’s competitive right out of the box, so when new players are watching tournament gameplay, they can actually relate and know what’s going on.
> So play it competitively.
>
> You are what makes the game competitive, the player. There’s no features which make it more or less so.
> Well you certainly aren’t very skilled if a little bit of bloom is killing your buzz.
>
> Besides, no game owes you any rewards, and if you measure how “competitive,” a game is by how much slack it cuts you or how easy it is to play then what have you really accomplished?
what makes the game competitive is the game itself. There’s a thing called a “skill gap”. Starcraft 2 has the largest skill gap of any game and look how popular it is. “Random” factors, such as bloom, make the skill gap smaller. The ability to start a game with different “armor abilities” makes the skill gap smaller.
You’re saying people aren’t skilled if “a little bit of bloom” is killing your buzz, yet MLG Professional players (players who make 6 figures playing halo) Are against it.
We measure how “competitive” a game is by the Skill Gap. Skill gap is how much better the best player in the game is than your average player. Your perception of what people think make a skilled game is completely the OPPOSITE of the truth.
> And if you believe so, then you don’t know what a logical error is.
>
> Let me lay it out for you:
>
> A game is made.
> It is 100% neutral without players.
> Players start playing that game to win over others.
> The game then becomes competitive, because people are playing it competitively.
> The player dictates whether or not the game is competitive or not.
>
> The game is not a factor at all. Things like bloom, sprint, loadouts, armor abilities, etc. These things do nothing to hinder your ability to play the game competitively and therefor have no bearing on whether or not the game itself is competitive.
Let ME lay it out for YOU:
A game is made
This game has random factors that make the game casual and not competitive
A skilled player paces his shots and shoots slowly so the bloom isn’t a factor
The less skilled player pulls his trigger quickly, but his shots still hit because he got lucky
less skilled player wins because of Bloom, the random factor.
less skilled player wins, so is he the more skilled player, for being lucky?
how about this one.
Skilled player with sword comes in to melee an opponent
opponent pops into armor lock and deflects the sword, while making skilled player 1-shot
opponent beats down skilled player
is the opponent better because he had armor lock? There is no way the skilled player could have known that this player had armor lock, because he was unable to see the orange dot on his back.
What about this one
skilled player times the rocket launcher and has control of them. He is controlling power weapons on the map.
Skilled player shoots rocket at opponent
opponent armor locks and the rocket bounces back and kills skilled player
is the opponent better because he armor locked and the rocket randomly went in skilled player’s direction?
> what makes the game competitive is the game itself.
Then you’ve created your own definition to fit your own needs.
> > what makes the game competitive is the game itself.
>
> Then you’ve created your own definition to fit your own needs.
please enlighten me on where your definition came from? Cite your sources.
Because if its from your own brain then I can say the same for you
> > > So play it competitively.
> > >
> > > You are what makes the game competitive, the player. There’s no features which make it more or less so.
> >
> > Randomness, e.g. bloom, can make a game less competitive when you are not rewarded for your skill.
>
> Well you certainly aren’t very skilled if a little bit of bloom is killing your buzz.
>
> Besides, no game owes you any rewards, and if you measure how “competitive,” a game is by how much slack it cuts you or how easy it is to play then what have you really accomplished?
Slack!? Randomness is by no means slack. If things are consistant and predictable(players are the only factor allow to be unpredictable) then a game is truly competitive.
Bloom and Aim-Assist ar the only things that cut slack for noobs.
> > > what makes the game competitive is the game itself.
> >
> > Then you’ve created your own definition to fit your own needs.
>
> please enlighten me on where your definition came from? Cite your sources.
>
> Because if its from your own brain then I can say the same for you
whistles
com·pet·i·tive/kəmˈpetətiv/
Adjective:
Go for it.
> Slack!? Randomness is by no means slack. If things are consistant and predictable(players are the only factor allow to be unpredictable) then a game is truly competitive.
>
>
> Bloom and Aim-Assist ar the only things that cut slack for noobs.
Right, randomness is not slack.
If you want the only variable to be the player’s skill level then this is the game you’re looking at:
Two players spawn in a square, flat, arena. One-on-one. Each player has the same armor, weapons, color, etc. First kill wins the match.
I understand that you think bloom dilutes player “skill,” by putting something between the player and landing a shot. I get it. The thing is that player skill now has to account for the bloom. Overall player ability takes into account every game mechanic in the game, including bloom. Which means that if a player cannot deal with bloom it’s not that bloom is masking their skill, it’s that they aren’t as skilled as they thought. Bloom makes it harder to connect a shot, which means it takes more skill to pace it out.
Yes. You can make a competitive game casual (Halo 3’s goldmine of custom games). But you can’t make a casual game competitive.
…and then theres people who like to play for fun. And remember casual & social players. Halo won’t be fully competitive, atleast I hope so. Just tryhard -Yoink- all the time? No thanks.
Competitive=/=no AA’s or perks
Halo will be most competitive when players are the most in control (ie minimal random elements) and the matchmaking is tight.