Skill Gap?

Hey everyone, Vampyre0422 here! Ok, so, there is something that has been itching at me since all these debates about Halo 4 started.

Skill Gap.

By my understanding, skill gap is something that splits apart good, average, and bad players into those three distinct groups. And as long as I could remember people have been wishing the skill gap would be closed so that everyone has more of a chance (e.g. average players can stand a better chance against good players.) and are on a more even footing in ANY FPS.

But recently I’ve been seeing people complain about halo’s skill gap getting smaller in spite of the more even footing and the chance everyone has to be good at the game. I’ve always thought a large skill gap made it easier for good players and harder for average or bad players, thus making the game less entertaining to the average and bad players, and a small skill gap makes it so that everyone has to actually try, thus making the game more entertaining for everyone.

So would some one please explain to me EXACTLY what the community at large wants from Halo 4? Because I am confused, I always thought that a smaller skill gap would be good and provide everyone an equal chance, and require everyone to use some level of skill. especially with this new MM system in play that pairs you with people of similar skill. (I.E. an SR-1 with a high skill rating doesn’t get paired with an SR-25 that sucks)

Thanks for any and all help I can get on this subject.

See y’all star-side!!

DISCUSS!!

If the game has a steep learning curve, it will excel when there is a proper ranking system that separates the smart, good players from the ones that struggle to keep up.

In terms of mechanics, people don’t want stuff that slows the game down and introduces pseudorandom elements like bloom.

Play a FPS from before 2004, then play one from 2012. It should be easy to discern why people say modern FPS have a shrinking skill-gap.

The larger majority of the community is getting exactly what they want from Halo 4.

It’s really only the “competitive e-sport players” that are clamoring for changes; despite the MLG playlist most likely being heavily modified.

Wide skill gap = Chess

Narrow skill gap = Tic Tac Toe

Halo is becoming less like Chess and more like Tic Tac Toe.

I forgot to mention that a large skill gap is good because practicing hard to get good at the game is much more gratifying than being good because you know how to exploit broken things in gameplay (jetpack, space in Zealot, etc.)

Ideally, a game should have a large skill-gap with a ranking system. That way, more casual players can have fun and the more competitive players can have fun.

I get all this, but it doesnt really answer my question… id like to know why people, despite the learning curve put onto halo 4, are all of a sudden complaining about a smaller skill gap? i always thought that a smaller skill gap would be good? i myself am an average-good player (depends on the day) and i have no problem with a smaller skill gap, more challenge for me and more reward when my efforts pay off :smiley: and the pseudorandomness has been cut down with the major nerfing of bloom. and the only thing that really slows down gameplay IMO is hardlight shield due to its strictly defensive non sprint non weapon usage non ramming role. it slows down your base movement slightly.

OP, a smaller skill gap IS “good” for bad or average players. The good players are artificially restricted by the game from performing as well as they could (see: bloom on precision weapons and strafe acceleration).

the skill gap is not 3 distinctive groups, it is more of a bell curve, its the distinctive gap between the skill ceiling and no skill required, lower that skill ceiling then you’re making it easier for players to reach it reducing the skill gap, this also means the game is easier to play.

as you can imagine from a bell curve, at the lower levels the players are going to be closer together in skill but as they get up to the more higher levels the gap starts to get steeper, at the lower levels the gameplay is fine, fun and casual where people can compete on a more even level easily but as the levels get higher and higher it because a lot more competitive and intense, much more harder to improve and beat your more skilled opponent as it was at the lower levels, now, when you go and lower that skill ceiling the higher level bell curve becomes less steep pushing higher skilled players down to the more lower skilled levels highly reducing the competitive aspect of high level play and instead causing more chaotic and frustration.

there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a high skill ceiling, nothing, it allows for the average player to play against similiar skilled players more often allowing them to have fun and enjoy themselves while at the same time allowing for the competitive player to have that full on intense competitive experience that they crave for, this in fact is actually pleasing both sides of the gaming audience so i have no idea why developers are hell bent on actually reducing the skill ceiling by making the game easier to play, all it does is piss off one side of the gaming audience and doesn’t improve the other side which makes it an illogical stupid decision yet they keep doing it.

the problem though, is how to get it to work and that solution is very simple, true skill matchmaking, the system that halo has been using since halo 2 to match players of similar skill together, this system allows for the skill gap to work successfully by allowing it to define players skill in the game itself while not creating horribly miss-matched games which does nothing but upset players, proof of this is halo reach and CoDs massive rage quit problem, what developers should be doing is focusing on how to improve this true skill system for it to work instead of making the games easier to play.

> OP, a smaller skill gap IS “good” for bad or average players. The good players are artificially restricted by the game from performing as well as they could (see: bloom on precision weapons and strafe acceleration).

yes but if good players are as good as they claim anyways, why should they have victories handed to them just because they are “good”? if i am going to be a good player i want my skills to be put to the test every game… i dont want to just wipe the floor with new players or people that no matter how much they play dont have the chance to get any better.

> id like to know why people, despite the learning curve put onto halo 4, are all of a sudden complaining about a smaller skill gap? i always thought that a smaller skill gap would be good?

People complain about a smaller skill gap because there IS a smaller skill gap (for individuals anyways - the teamwork skill gap has gone up) and small skill gaps lead to frustrating gameplay because the gameplay is designed with things that make it so that the better player(s) will not always win.

Players that take the time to learn the game’s intracacies and improve their own skill sets are unhappy when they see some new guy does better than he/she should because the game mechanics are holding his/her hand.

> yes but if good players are as good as they claim anyways, why should they have victories handed to them just because they are “good”? if i am going to be a good player i want my skills to be put to the test every game… i dont want to just wipe the floor with new players or people that no matter how much they play dont have the chance to get any better.

so the better man shouldn’t win a fight?

Play a Grand Master in Chess. You will never win. Do you know why? BECAUSE HE’S BETTER AT THE GAME THAN YOU.

I’m not sure what you don’t understand. If someone is better than you, they should win. The better player should not be handicapped by the game itself just so bad players can have a chance.

If you don’t want to get stomped by players better than you, you have two options:

-get better so you can compete with better players
-hope that the matchmaking system will never match you with players who are that much better than you

> > yes but if good players are as good as they claim anyways, why should they have victories handed to them just because they are “good”? if i am going to be a good player i want my skills to be put to the test every game… i dont want to just wipe the floor with new players or people that no matter how much they play dont have the chance to get any better.
>
> so the better man shouldn’t win a fight?

i didnt say that. i am saying i want my skills to always be put to the test as well as having to work to increase my skills. bad players who want to get better never get better unless some one is willing to show them how to be better. with a smaller skill gap people who want to get better always have the chance to do so.

Play a Grand Master in Chess. You will never win. Do you know why? BECAUSE HE’S BETTER AT THE GAME THAN YOU.

I’m not sure what you don’t understand. If someone is better than you, they should win. The better played should not be handicapped by the game itself just so bad players can have a chance.

If you don’t want to get stomped by players better than you, you have two options:

-get better so you can compete with better players
-hope that the matchmaking system will never match you with players who are that much better than you

> The larger majority of the community is getting exactly what they want from Halo 4.
>
> It’s really only the “competitive e-sport players” that are clamoring for changes; despite the MLG playlist most likely being heavily modified.

This. The majority of people just want to hang back and have a good time. Only the people that have something to “prove” want to change the game for what they call “better”

its not like games will be totally random (another concept i dont get, because games that are played online against other players are as random and unpredictable as the people playing) the bloom is reduced, A LOT, there is more balanced AA’s. there is so much being done to make the game fun, not random, and skill induced. a small skill gap just means that these so called “good players” have to work for their title.

> with a smaller skill gap people who want to get better always have the chance to do so.

This is false because they’re not improving by working on aim, game knowledge and the like. They improve by using developer-made abilities that do the work for them. Not good enough to get and hold map control in Reach? It’s okay, you can just pick a jetpack!

That’s not improving. As said before, a high skill gap and good ranking system will ensure that bad players can improve because they’re not matching players that will destroy them.

> > > yes but if good players are as good as they claim anyways, <mark>why should they have victories handed to them just because they are “good”?</mark> if i am going to be a good player i want my skills to be put to the test every game… i dont want to just wipe the floor with new players or people that no matter how much they play dont have the chance to get any better.
> >
> > so the better man shouldn’t win a fight?
>
> i didnt say that. i am saying i want my skills to always be put to the test as well as having to work to increase my skills. bad players who want to get better never get better unless some one is willing to show them how to be better. with a smaller skill gap people who want to get better always have the chance to do so.

what?

> why should they have victories handed to them just because they are “good”?

yes you did, right here you state players shouldn’t win a fight because they’re good.

you don’t get better at the game unless you try, good players shouldn’t be forced to play dumb just because people on the other team don’t know what they’re doing, they should be allowed to stomp there way through them with ease because of the big discrepancy in skill.

making the game easier to play does not make it more challenging, it makes it easier! instead of having a really hard challenging time against against an opponent that is better then you it becomes easier to compete on his level and possibly beat him, the other way around it becomes very frustrating because no matter how much you out play the person he has a crutch that helps him compete with you while the same crutch doesn’t enhance your ability at all but leaves it the same, for it to be challenging this better player should be able to stomp on you while you try your hardest to compete against him, find ways yourself to out play him and improve your abilities in the game at the same time instead of the game handing all this to you.

good players should not be matched with bad players regardless though simply because it ruins the game, makes it impossible for one side to play while extremely easy for the other which makes the game both boring and frustrating to play for both parties, the game should match players evenly so people are playing against people of similar skill so you get that true challenge as you describe and allows you to progress through the skill gap at your own rate.