Personally, i like FOV in titanfall and battlefield, and i wonder if it should come to halo, for me it doesn’t change the game play just your field of view (since i dont like halo 5 FOV)
what do you guys think should FOV come to halo 5 or halo 6 tell me in the comments
No because it actually changes how fair matches are. If you have a higher field of view you will see more and get more of an advantage. I know I know everyone can choose that same fov but some aren’t comfortable with certain fov and have their own preference. Also that is exactly what load outs are like. You can have the same loadouts but not everyone does.
I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t be. If it gives players a better, more comfortable, experience, I say add it then.
> 2535415305234137;2:
> No because it actually changes how fair matches are. If you have a higher field of view you will see more and get more of an advantage. I know I know everyone can choose that same fov but some aren’t comfortable with certain fov and have their own preference. Also that is exactly what load outs are like. You can have the same loadouts but not everyone does.
I second this guy.
As an option I would welcome it but it would change the balance of multiplayer.
> 2535415305234137;2:
> No because it actually changes how fair matches are. If you have a higher field of view you will see more and get more of an advantage. I know I know everyone can choose that same fov but some aren’t comfortable with certain fov and have their own preference. Also that is exactly what load outs are like. You can have the same loadouts but not everyone does.
Because it’s such an rampant problem on PC where you can do this with basically every game, right? Because it’s totally a game changer that makes and breaks matches…
> 2535415305234137;2:
> No because it actually changes how fair matches are. If you have a higher field of view you will see more and get more of an advantage. I know I know everyone can choose that same fov but some aren’t comfortable with certain fov and have their own preference. Also that is exactly what load outs are like. You can have the same loadouts but not everyone does.
You solved your own problem there. People who aren’t comfortable with a large field of view will play better with a small field of view. If people really care about the advantage, they’ll just get used to the high field of view.
To be frank, you’re significantly overestimating the advantage of a high field of view anyway. Going from, say, 90 degrees to 120 degrees, which is already really extreme, you gain 15 degrees on both sides, or 78% in solid angle. Now, this may sound like a lot, but about a quarter of it is towards the ground, which is useless, another quarter is upwards, which may be beneficial sometimes, and the highest benefit is at the edges. However, even with 120 degrees you’re still missing 75% of the total spherical view, compared to 85% with 90 degrees, which in absolute terms, isn’t really that great of an improvement. In essence, you’d be 10% less blind to your surroundings. A high field of view won’t save you from attacks coming from the sides, a high field of view won’t save you from attacks coming from the back.
Naively considering one could say that you’d be aware of 8% more of the total amount of incoming attacks, but this is a naive view because due to the way maps are structured and how you move around the map, you are more likely to have walls on the sides than in front or behind, meaning you’re actually more likely to get attacked either straight from the front, or straight from behind, in neither of which a higher field of view helps. At the end of the day, if you care about that sort of stuff, learning to understand how players move and working with your team are much more effective at upping your awareness than high field of view.
A detrimental effect of increased field of view that is also rarely considered is also distortion. While there are many projections which can be used, some of which are less catastrophical when increasing the field of view, mapping a section of a sphere on the plane without distortion is impossible. This means that as an object moves on your screen, its size and speed will seem to change, making aiming more difficult. This may not be too significant for the kind of field of views we are considering, but is nonethless be an effect to keep in mind.
Either way, you’re making a significant overestimation of the advantage provided by a high field of view, whereas the real advantage is probably more towards that provided by sensitivity options. After all, in a perfect world, playing with the highest available sensitivity would give you the highest advantage, but people work differently, and the actual optimal sensitivity varies from person to person. Really, field of view options are very much comparable to sensitivity options, so you can consider whether you also want to argue that everyone should be forced to use the same sensitivity.
> 2533274825830455;7:
> > 2535415305234137;2:
> > No because it actually changes how fair matches are. If you have a higher field of view you will see more and get more of an advantage. I know I know everyone can choose that same fov but some aren’t comfortable with certain fov and have their own preference. Also that is exactly what load outs are like. You can have the same loadouts but not everyone does.
>
> You solved your own problem there. People who aren’t comfortable with a large field of view will play better with a small field of view. If people really care about the advantage, they’ll just get used to the high field of view.
>
> To be frank, you’re significantly overestimating the advantage of a high field of view anyway. Going from, say, 90 degrees to 120 degrees, which is already really extreme, you gain 15 degrees on both sides, or 78% in solid angle. Now, this may sound like a lot, but about a quarter of it is towards the ground, which is useless, another quarter is upwards, which may be beneficial sometimes, and the highest benefit is at the edges. However, even with 120 degrees you’re still missing 75% of the total spherical view, compared to 85% with 90 degrees, which in absolute terms, isn’t really that great of an improvement. In essence, you’d be 10% less blind to your surroundings. A high field of view won’t save you from attacks coming from the sides, a high field of view won’t save you from attacks coming from the back.
>
> Naively considering one could say that you’d be aware of 8% more of the total amount of incoming attacks, but this is a naive view because due to the way maps are structured and how you move around the map, you are more likely to have walls on the sides than in front or behind, meaning you’re actually more likely to get attacked either straight from the front, or straight from behind, in neither of which a higher field of view helps. At the end of the day, if you care about that sort of stuff, learning to understand how players move and working with your team are much more effective at upping your awareness than high field of view.
>
> A detrimental effect of increased field of view that is also rarely considered is also distortion. While there are many projections which can be used, some of which are less catastrophical when increasing the field of view, mapping a section of a sphere on the plane without distortion is impossible. This means that as an object moves on your screen, its size and speed will seem to change, making aiming more difficult. This may not be too significant for the kind of field of views we are considering, but is nonethless be an effect to keep in mind.
>
> Either way, you’re making a significant overestimation of the advantage provided by a high field of view, whereas the real advantage is probably more towards that provided by sensitivity options. After all, in a perfect world, playing with the highest available sensitivity would give you the highest advantage, but people work differently, and the actual optimal sensitivity varies from person to person. Really, field of view options are very much comparable to sensitivity options, so you can consider whether you also want to argue that everyone should be forced to use the same sensitivity.
At no point did I state that it was any kind of significant advantage. Also people comfortable with an fov doesn’t actually give you an advantage but lets you play to your ability. Giving someone a higher fov gives them an advantage wether you like it or not. If someone doesn’t like it then thats unfortunate for them but it still gives people that do like it an advantage. Like loadouts as a previous example if you have a better gun then someone else you have an advantage, if someone cant use that gun well and have to go to less effective gun then the other person STILL has an advantage for whatever reason it may be. Also lets say that you are exiting long hall to snipes on the rig and you have a mid fov, you wont be able to see tower and if you are unaware you will be shot by someone in tower. Now if you have a higher fov you will be able to see tower and you have to be less aware stopping that guy who would have gotten a kill.
> 2535415305234137;8:
> At no point did I state that it was any kind of significant advantage. Also people comfortable with an fov doesn’t actually give you an advantage but lets you play to your ability. Giving someone a higher fov gives them an advantage wether you like it or not. If someone doesn’t like it then thats unfortunate for them but it still gives people that do like it an advantage. Like loadouts as a previous example if you have a better gun then someone else you have an advantage, if someone cant use that gun well and have to go to less effective gun then the other person STILL has an advantage for whatever reason it may be. Also lets say that you are exiting long hall to snipes on the rig and you have a mid fov, you wont be able to see tower and if you are unaware you will be shot by someone in tower. Now if you have a higher fov you will be able to see tower and you have to be less aware stopping that guy who would have gotten a kill.
I don’t find your loadout analogy very strong. One loadout being absolutely better than every other loadout ruins the purpose of having loadouts to begin with. But if there is a loadout that’s clearly superior to others, then by all means, everyone should use it. I don’t really see a problem here other than the fact that there’s a bunch of redundant loadouts. In general, if the player is presented a group of options, and one of the options is clearly superior to all other’s, and every player has the same option, there really is no problem here (other than an unnecessary redundancy). There is no unfair advantage. There would be if everyone was not given all the same options, in which case some players could make choices others don’t even have the possibility of making. But in this case, everyone can make the most optimal choice. If they don’t, they choose to put themselves at a disadvantage. And if we start to complain about situations where the player can put themselves at a disadvantage despite given the most optimal choice as an option, boy will we have a lot of things to complain about.
For example, I brought up aiming sensitivity. Faster sensitivity allows you to turn faster, and therefore respond to threats faster. So, if we ignore the human factor like you do with field of view, then it’s obvious that everyone should just use the highest sensitvity, and those who do “have an advantage” over everyone else. I was hoping you would respond to this analogy, but maybe it wasn’t prominent enough in my previous post. Do you also support the removal of sensitivity options?
> 2533274825830455;9:
> > 2535415305234137;8:
> > At no point did I state that it was any kind of significant advantage. Also people comfortable with an fov doesn’t actually give you an advantage but lets you play to your ability. Giving someone a higher fov gives them an advantage wether you like it or not. If someone doesn’t like it then thats unfortunate for them but it still gives people that do like it an advantage. Like loadouts as a previous example if you have a better gun then someone else you have an advantage, if someone cant use that gun well and have to go to less effective gun then the other person STILL has an advantage for whatever reason it may be. Also lets say that you are exiting long hall to snipes on the rig and you have a mid fov, you wont be able to see tower and if you are unaware you will be shot by someone in tower. Now if you have a higher fov you will be able to see tower and you have to be less aware stopping that guy who would have gotten a kill.
>
> I don’t find your loadout analogy very strong. One loadout being absolutely better than every other loadout ruins the purpose of having loadouts to begin with. But if there is a loadout that’s clearly superior to others, then by all means, everyone should use it. I don’t really see a problem here other than the fact that there’s a bunch of redundant loadouts. In general, if the player is presented a group of options, and one of the options is clearly superior to all other’s, and every player has the same option, there really is no problem here (other than an unnecessary redundancy). There is no unfair advantage. There would be if everyone was not given all the same options, in which case some players could make choices others don’t even have the possibility of making. But in this case, everyone can make the most optimal choice. If they don’t, they choose to put themselves at a disadvantage. And if we start to complain about situations where the player can put themselves at a disadvantage despite given the most optimal choice as an option, boy will we have a lot of things to complain about.
>
> For example, I brought up aiming sensitivity. Faster sensitivity allows you to turn faster, and therefore respond to threats faster. So, if we ignore the human factor like you do with field of view, then it’s obvious that everyone should just use the highest sensitvity, and those who do “have an advantage” over everyone else. I was hoping you would respond to this analogy, but maybe it wasn’t prominent enough in my previous post. Do you also support the removal of sensitivity options?
You keep assuming that what I’m saying has a bigger impact than it does. You said that a loadout was clearly better than others but I never stated that just that it was better, it is superfluous information how much better it is if someone else can’t use it or isn’t aware of its capability.
I’ll give the M8A1 from black ops 2 as an example. It was definitely one if the best guns in the game as it only took one burst to kill however it was much harder to use then quite a bit of the other guns and a lit of people were unaware of its capabilities because most of cod is fully automatics. Walking into a gunfight with someone having an M8A1 means that person has an advantage, period unless the other person has that weapon to. While the advantage may nit be high it is still there.
I find your sensitivity analogy not very strong either. The difference between fov is that the higher it is the more advantage you have and the rest comes down to comfort. Sensitivity is not just based on comfort but also your skill level as well as the fact that it is a trade off. The higher the sensitivity the quicker you’ll aim but the worse your accuracy will be and vise versa. Whereas with fov it is just simply the higher the better. Also the more skilled the person is the higher the can have their sensitivity and still accurately hit their shots meaning that it is not a distinct advantage for sensitivity but simply a difference of skill gap and preference. If your not as good you’ll most likely choose a lower sensitivity but will put yourself at a disadvantage, if you have a higher sensitivity then your most likely better and you put yourself at an advantage. BUT THAT IS BECAUSE OF SKILL AND NOT PREFERENCE. Capitols is key here. Fov is preference sensitivity is skill.
> 2535415305234137;10:
> I find your sensitivity analogy not very strong either. The difference between fov is that the higher it is the more advantage you have and the rest comes down to comfort. Sensitivity is not just based on comfort but also your skill level as well as the fact that it is a trade off. The higher the sensitivity the quicker you’ll aim but the worse your accuracy will be and vise versa. Whereas with fov it is just simply the higher the better. Also the more skilled the person is the higher the can have their sensitivity and still accurately hit their shots meaning that it is not a distinct advantage for sensitivity but simply a difference of skill gap and preference. If your not as good you’ll most likely choose a lower sensitivity but will put yourself at a disadvantage, if you have a higher sensitivity then your most likely better and you put yourself at an advantage. BUT THAT IS BECAUSE OF SKILL AND NOT PREFERENCE. Capitols is key here. Fov is preference sensitivity is skill.
So, in essence what you’re saying is that a high field of view is even less problematic than sensitivity? Because whereas with sensitivity you have a very concrete obstacle, skill, keeping someone from getting the full advantage out of it, with field of view, the only reason someone wouldn’t choose a higher field of view is preference, in which case it’s purely their own choice to put themselves at a disadvantage, and not because they have to.
> 2533274825830455;11:
> > 2535415305234137;10:
> > I find your sensitivity analogy not very strong either. The difference between fov is that the higher it is the more advantage you have and the rest comes down to comfort. Sensitivity is not just based on comfort but also your skill level as well as the fact that it is a trade off. The higher the sensitivity the quicker you’ll aim but the worse your accuracy will be and vise versa. Whereas with fov it is just simply the higher the better. Also the more skilled the person is the higher the can have their sensitivity and still accurately hit their shots meaning that it is not a distinct advantage for sensitivity but simply a difference of skill gap and preference. If your not as good you’ll most likely choose a lower sensitivity but will put yourself at a disadvantage, if you have a higher sensitivity then your most likely better and you put yourself at an advantage. BUT THAT IS BECAUSE OF SKILL AND NOT PREFERENCE. Capitols is key here. Fov is preference sensitivity is skill.
>
> So, in essence what you’re saying is that a high field of view is even less problematic than sensitivity? Because whereas with sensitivity you have a very concrete obstacle, skill, keeping someone from getting the full advantage out of it, with field of view, the only reason someone wouldn’t choose a higher field of view is preference, in which case it’s purely their own choice to put themselves at a disadvantage, and not because they have to.
yes and know. I’d say instead of people put themselves at a disadvantage I’d say that other people are just putting themselves at an advantage. Preference however should never come in the way of something that can affect how advantages your situations are though. Some people just simply can’t play on the highest fov because its just terrible and almost nobody would want to play on it. Just because someone likes something more than someone else should not give them an advantage hence making everyone have the same fov. Maybe having an fov that can be changed slightly so that some people can get closer to there preference may be viable but only to the extent that it gives an advantage small enough to be obsolete.
> 2535415305234137;12:
> > 2533274825830455;11:
> > > 2535415305234137;10:
> > > I find your sensitivity analogy not very strong either. The difference between fov is that the higher it is the more advantage you have and the rest comes down to comfort. Sensitivity is not just based on comfort but also your skill level as well as the fact that it is a trade off. The higher the sensitivity the quicker you’ll aim but the worse your accuracy will be and vise versa. Whereas with fov it is just simply the higher the better. Also the more skilled the person is the higher the can have their sensitivity and still accurately hit their shots meaning that it is not a distinct advantage for sensitivity but simply a difference of skill gap and preference. If your not as good you’ll most likely choose a lower sensitivity but will put yourself at a disadvantage, if you have a higher sensitivity then your most likely better and you put yourself at an advantage. BUT THAT IS BECAUSE OF SKILL AND NOT PREFERENCE. Capitols is key here. Fov is preference sensitivity is skill.
> >
> > So, in essence what you’re saying is that a high field of view is even less problematic than sensitivity? Because whereas with sensitivity you have a very concrete obstacle, skill, keeping someone from getting the full advantage out of it, with field of view, the only reason someone wouldn’t choose a higher field of view is preference, in which case it’s purely their own choice to put themselves at a disadvantage, and not because they have to.
>
> yes and know. I’d say instead of people put themselves at a disadvantage I’d say that other people are just putting themselves at an advantage. Preference however should never come in the way of something that can affect how advantages your situations are though. Some people just simply can’t play on the highest fov because its just terrible and almost nobody would want to play on it. Just because someone likes something more than someone else should not give them an advantage hence making everyone have the same fov. Maybe having an fov that can be changed slightly so that some people can get closer to there preference may be viable but only to the extent that it gives an advantage small enough to be obsolete.
No, that’s really not a sensible way to think of it, not at all. When there exists an option that’s clearly superior to all others, and is available to everyone, choosing any other option for preference reasons is a conscious choice to limit yourself. Your rationale only gets us to nonsensical situations where advances are not made because a group of people prefer one way, and we’re just catering to them for what? Why is the preference of that group of people more worthy than the preference of everyone else? Why should these people get to decide how everyone else has to play the game?
There is really no rational argument here from you, is there? You just think the low field of view crowd should get to decide how everyone else has to play the game, because screw everyone else’s preferences. These people can’t handle high field of views because it makes them mildly uncomfortable, so no one else should be allowed to have a high field of view.
Do you seriously not see the problem with that point of view? Do you seriously think that the worst unfairness here is what you’ve already admitted to be a minor disadvantage to people who can’t be bothered to adjust to a higher field of view, to get that tiny bump in performance?
> 2533274825830455;13:
> > 2535415305234137;12:
> > > 2533274825830455;11:
> > > > 2535415305234137;10:
> > > > I find your sensitivity analogy not very strong either. The difference between fov is that the higher it is the more advantage you have and the rest comes down to comfort. Sensitivity is not just based on comfort but also your skill level as well as the fact that it is a trade off. The higher the sensitivity the quicker you’ll aim but the worse your accuracy will be and vise versa. Whereas with fov it is just simply the higher the better. Also the more skilled the person is the higher the can have their sensitivity and still accurately hit their shots meaning that it is not a distinct advantage for sensitivity but simply a difference of skill gap and preference. If your not as good you’ll most likely choose a lower sensitivity but will put yourself at a disadvantage, if you have a higher sensitivity then your most likely better and you put yourself at an advantage. BUT THAT IS BECAUSE OF SKILL AND NOT PREFERENCE. Capitols is key here. Fov is preference sensitivity is skill.
> > >
> > > So, in essence what you’re saying is that a high field of view is even less problematic than sensitivity? Because whereas with sensitivity you have a very concrete obstacle, skill, keeping someone from getting the full advantage out of it, with field of view, the only reason someone wouldn’t choose a higher field of view is preference, in which case it’s purely their own choice to put themselves at a disadvantage, and not because they have to.
> >
> > yes and know. I’d say instead of people put themselves at a disadvantage I’d say that other people are just putting themselves at an advantage. Preference however should never come in the way of something that can affect how advantages your situations are though. Some people just simply can’t play on the highest fov because its just terrible and almost nobody would want to play on it. Just because someone likes something more than someone else should not give them an advantage hence making everyone have the same fov. Maybe having an fov that can be changed slightly so that some people can get closer to there preference may be viable but only to the extent that it gives an advantage small enough to be obsolete.
>
> No, that’s really not a sensible way to think of it, not at all. When there exists an option that’s clearly superior to all others, and is available to everyone, choosing any other option for preference reasons is a conscious choice to limit yourself. Your rationale only gets us to nonsensical situations where advances are not made because a group of people prefer one way, and we’re just catering to them for what? Why is the preference of that group of people more worthy than the preference of everyone else? Why should these people get to decide how everyone else has to play the game?
>
> There is really no rational argument here from you, is there? You just think the low field of view crowd should get to decide how everyone else has to play the game, because screw everyone else’s preferences. These people can’t handle high field of views because it makes them mildly uncomfortable, so no one else should be allowed to have a high field of view.
>
> Do you seriously not see the problem with that point of view? Do you seriously think that the worst unfairness here is what you’ve already admitted to be a minor disadvantage to people who can’t be bothered to adjust to a higher field of view, to get that tiny bump in performance?
Your taking this way too personnel. I assume you want a high field of view and that I why. Look. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be an option. I’m saying that you just can’t simply change the angle of view because it can cause some quite significant advantages. I’m looking at it from a completely.gameplay and logical point of view with no emotion attached to it so I dont know how much this could be wanted. All I’m saying is that it needs to be balanced and I’m not sure how. Also your saying people should get an advantage from preference and I’m saying you shouldn’t. An advantage needs to be justified and fov changes does not justify it. By being uncomfortable with a setting your actually giving yourself a disadvantage so by changing it to a higher fov your really not helping anything hence advantage by preference. Like I said I know now that it is very important to some people but I think the best option is to keep everyone the same. You might be complaining about not having the fov but then other people will complain about the unfairness. You need to put yourself into other peoples shoes as well.
> 2535415305234137;14:
> Your taking this way too personnel. I assume you want a high field of view and that I why. Look. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be an option. I’m saying that you just can’t simply change the angle of view because it can cause some quite significant advantages. I’m looking at it from a completely.gameplay and logical point of view with no emotion attached to it so I dont know how much this could be wanted. All I’m saying is that it needs to be balanced and I’m not sure how. Also your saying people should get an advantage from preference and I’m saying you shouldn’t. An advantage needs to be justified and fov changes does not justify it. By being uncomfortable with a setting your actually giving yourself a disadvantage so by changing it to a higher fov your really not helping anything hence advantage by preference. Like I said I know now that it is very important to some people but I think the best option is to keep everyone the same. You might be complaining about not having the fov but then other people will complain about the unfairness. You need to put yourself into other peoples shoes as well.
If you were genuinely looking at this from a completely logical perspective, then you would understand that if everyone has the same options, everyone can choose the most adavantageous option, and no one is forced to be at a disadvatange. As soon as you argue that it’s not fair because someone might prefer the less optimal field of view, you attach emotion to it. After all, preference is purely an emotional thing. Anyone should be able to overcome their preferences to become a better player. if they can’t, then they are not a very good player.
The bottom line of this truly discussion is that everyone has the same options. No one is forced to use a low field of view. People who do, do it by choice, and there’s nothing unfair about it if someone chooses to make their life harder. Giving everyone more options can not possibly be unfair in any way or form.
> 2533274825830455;15:
> > 2535415305234137;14:
> > Your taking this way too personnel. I assume you want a high field of view and that I why. Look. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be an option. I’m saying that you just can’t simply change the angle of view because it can cause some quite significant advantages. I’m looking at it from a completely.gameplay and logical point of view with no emotion attached to it so I dont know how much this could be wanted. All I’m saying is that it needs to be balanced and I’m not sure how. Also your saying people should get an advantage from preference and I’m saying you shouldn’t. An advantage needs to be justified and fov changes does not justify it. By being uncomfortable with a setting your actually giving yourself a disadvantage so by changing it to a higher fov your really not helping anything hence advantage by preference. Like I said I know now that it is very important to some people but I think the best option is to keep everyone the same. You might be complaining about not having the fov but then other people will complain about the unfairness. You need to put yourself into other peoples shoes as well.
>
> If you were genuinely looking at this from a completely logical perspective, then you would understand that if everyone has the same options, everyone can choose the most adavantageous option, and no one is forced to be at a disadvatange. As soon as you argue that it’s not fair because someone might prefer the less optimal field of view, you attach emotion to it. After all, preference is purely an emotional thing. Anyone should be able to overcome their preferences to become a better player. if they can’t, then they are not a very good player.
>
> The bottom line of this truly discussion is that everyone has the same options. No one is forced to use a low field of view. People who do, do it by choice, and there’s nothing unfair about it if someone chooses to make their life harder. Giving everyone more options can not possibly be unfair in any way or form.
You just don’t get it do you? By giving someone a preference they don’t like they it just WILL NOT give them the advantage no matter gardening tool good they are. Try giving any player a sensitivity that they just DO NOT like and no matter how good they are just will not perform. THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF ADVANTAGE BY PREFERENCE AND THAT IS UNARGUABLE. its not advantage by skill and is not advantage by any other means but preference, what somebody likes. You can say all you want but in a game full of skill and all about it this will just lead down a path of more requests. Just like playable elites and other similar features. These things change the game mechanics because of preference and will NEVER be implemented in any kind of competitive halo game unless it is in customs or a special social mode. Our debate has now come to an end because we both have strongly rooted opinions on the matter and nobody that we don’t know on waypoint will change them. Its been a pleasure debating with you.
> 2535415305234137;16:
> You just don’t get it do you? By giving someone a preference they don’t like they it just WILL NOT give them the advantage no matter gardening tool good they are. Try giving any player a sensitivity that they just DO NOT like and no matter how good they are just will not perform. THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF ADVANTAGE BY PREFERENCE AND THAT IS UNARGUABLE. its not advantage by skill and is not advantage by any other means but preference, what somebody likes. You can say all you want but in a game full of skill and all about it this will just lead down a path of more requests. Just like playable elites and other similar features. These things change the game mechanics because of preference and will NEVER be implemented in any kind of competitive halo game unless it is in customs or a special social mode. Our debate has now come to an end because we both have strongly rooted opinions on the matter and nobody that we don’t know on waypoint will change them. Its been a pleasure debating with you.
No, I can’t buy this argument. If someone can’t get over a preference to become better at something, I can’t attribute that to nothing but lack of will, or lack of skill. If you can’t do something, no matter how hard you try, you, by definition, lack skill. With that said, I don’t like attribute much to innate skill, so I personally believe anyone can adapt to anything with enough time unless they have something that physically prevents them from doing it. Your “advantage by preference” is not a real thing. All it is is being so used to doing things one way, and not being willing to adapt to a new way, even if it is superior.
When it comes to other options—playable Elites and whatever else you had in mind—it’s the same thing. If all players have all the same options available to them, no one has inherent advantage over anyone else. Now, there are good reasons why Elites don’t necessarily belong in Halo multiplayer aside from special asymmetric gametypes like Invasion, but it giving some people an advantage over others is not one of them. More options for everyone cannot be unfair towards anyone.
> 2533274825830455;17:
> > 2535415305234137;16:
> > You just don’t get it do you? By giving someone a preference they don’t like they it just WILL NOT give them the advantage no matter gardening tool good they are. Try giving any player a sensitivity that they just DO NOT like and no matter how good they are just will not perform. THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF ADVANTAGE BY PREFERENCE AND THAT IS UNARGUABLE. its not advantage by skill and is not advantage by any other means but preference, what somebody likes. You can say all you want but in a game full of skill and all about it this will just lead down a path of more requests. Just like playable elites and other similar features. These things change the game mechanics because of preference and will NEVER be implemented in any kind of competitive halo game unless it is in customs or a special social mode. Our debate has now come to an end because we both have strongly rooted opinions on the matter and nobody that we don’t know on waypoint will change them. Its been a pleasure debating with you.
>
> No, I can’t buy this argument. If someone can’t get over a preference to become better at something, I can’t attribute that to nothing but lack of will, or lack of skill. If you can’t do something, no matter how hard you try, you, by definition, lack skill. With that said, I don’t like attribute much to innate skill, so I personally believe anyone can adapt to anything with enough time unless they have something that physically prevents them from doing it. Your “advantage by preference” is not a real thing. All it is is being so used to doing things one way, and not being willing to adapt to a new way, even if it is superior.
>
> When it comes to other options—playable Elites and whatever else you had in mind—it’s the same thing. If all players have all the same options available to them, no one has inherent advantage over anyone else. Now, there are good reasons why Elites don’t necessarily belong in Halo multiplayer aside from special asymmetric gametypes like Invasion, but it giving some people an advantage over others is not one of them. More options for everyone cannot be unfair towards anyone.
My final statement/s: Not everyone can get use to everything I can tell you for certain that even some pros will never get use to a ten sense and they are the most skilled players in the game. Secondly no you can’t get use to everything that is just stupid. Third not everyone wants to adapt to a style that can significantly affect your visual experience of the game. Last of all your argument of if everyone has the same options then its fair is quite ludicrous. Everyone in cod has the same options no one says thats a fair game. You can have the same Spartan abilities and loud out weapons in halo 4 but no one considered that fair. If everyone could have the same options then why is equal starts so important to fair gameplay. Unless you are someone that is completely against the entire concept of halo then you have contradicted yourself.
> 2535415305234137;18:
> Not everyone can get use to everything I can tell you for certain that even some pros will never get use to a ten sense and they are the most skilled players in the game. Secondly no you can’t get use to everything that is just stupid.
And you know why that is? Beacause pros, like all humans, have a very limited reaction speed and coordination ability. That is to say, they are not skilled enough. But if someone came who could be as accurate at maximum sensitivity, it’s not like it would be unfair. This person would simply be more skilled than everyone, and therefore more capable of adapting to higher sensitivity. It’s only a matter of skill. So, even if I can’t get used to something doesn’t mean we should limit someone else who can. I don’t need or deserve crutches against someone who’s better than me, and neither does anyone else.
> 2535415305234137;18:
> Third not everyone wants to adapt to a style that can significantly affect your visual experience of the game.
Well, that’s too bad. It should be everyone’s choice whether they want to sacrifice visual harmony for increased awareness or not. I also have to point out that you’re making an awfully subjective argument here, considering that there are people who experience high field of views more visually appealing.
> 2535415305234137;18:
> Last of all your argument of if everyone has the same options then its fair is quite ludicrous. Everyone in cod has the same options no one says thats a fair game.
You wouldn’t mind being any more specific?
> 2535415305234137;18:
> You can have the same Spartan abilities and loud out weapons in halo 4 but no one considered that fair.
This demonstates the problem with your argument fairly well: you don’t really distinguish fairness from all other undesirable effect. Loadouts are fair if everyone has the same options. The problem with loadouts in Halo 4 was never that they weren’t fair, but that they added a level of unpredictability to gameplay without making gameplay any deeper. I don’t know who these “no one” are, but they seem to have a very shallow understanding of the ways in which a gameplay mechanic can fail.
> 2535415305234137;18:
> If everyone could have the same options then why is equal starts so important to fair gameplay. Unless you are someone that is completely against the entire concept of halo then you have contradicted yourself.
I’m glad you asked. You see, it’s a common misunderstanding that equal starts are important for fair gameplay. It doesn’t take long to understand that this is not true. After all, there are many well known competitive games such as Counter Strike, Team Fortress, League of Legends, and Starcraft, which have completely unequal starts, but you’d be hard pressed to consider any of these games unfair. In fact these games show more than that equal starts are unnecessary for fair gameplay. They also show that equal starts are unnecessary for competitive gameplay.
When it comes to Halo, the actual reason equal starts are important to Halo is that it doesn’t have such a rich structure of different classes (or loadouts, for that matter) that would allow for a varied set of playstyles with each class. On the other hand, unequal starts always bring with them a certain amount of additional unpredictability, and it’s this unpredictability Halo players don’t like. It’s a tough sell because the sandbox of Halo isn’t varied enough that loadouts would provide the same level of strategic depth unequal starts provide in other games. This is ultimately because the sandbox of Halo was never designed for that. Halo was originally designed to be a game with symmetric starts, so a lot would have to be changed to actually make asymmetric starts worth it.
And I guess something is also to be said about the identity of Halo. Granted, this is not an objective thing, but many people do associate symmetric starts with Halo, and the game would feel vastly different with asymmetric starts. So, while part of the opposition for loadouts in Halo is rooted in rational considerations regarding how the sandbox of Halo fundamentally works, a significant part of it is also rooted deeply in tradition. However, anyone who thinks asymmetric starts are bad in any inherent way “because they’re unfair” has a very shallow understanding of game design.
Yes it should