> > There is the belief that Personal Ordnance is balanced because everyone gets a chance. This is wrong. On average, a player will get 2 to 3 POs in an Infinity Slayer match (4 if they’re good). It’s very likely that one player may on average get more, better weapons in his POs than another. This is the game giving him an unfair advantage.
>
> I would say <mark>unequal advantage</mark>. Not unfair.
Sounds the same as unfair to me.
Again, fair doesn’t mean equal.
> > There is the belief that Personal Ordnance is balanced because everyone gets a chance. This is wrong. On average, a player will get 2 to 3 POs in an Infinity Slayer match (4 if they’re good). It’s very likely that one player may on average get more, better weapons in his POs than another. This is the game giving him an unfair advantage.
>
> I would say unequal advantage. Not unfair.
That argument isn’t illogical. It’s just reasoning-challenged.
> “Think of challenge as a balance weight.”
>
> I disagree. Competitiveness is a close game. To five a less player a handicap makes the game closer, and thus more competitive.
>
> I would think a good playing winning a game 25 - 6 would be quite boring and make for a dull game. I want to see 25-24 games.
>
> Remember, fair doesn’t mean equal.
Ranks accomplished exactly what you’re asking for without comprimising gameplay.
> Remember, fair doesn’t mean equal.
“Ranks accomplished exactly what you’re asking for without comprimising gameplay.”
Inaccurate. Players used new accounts, and de-ranked so they didn’t have to play tougher players. It’s much easier to change the game, then try to change people.
Fair doesn’t mean equal.
> Fair doesn’t mean equal.
Your definition of “fair” seems to be “no one wins more than another.” In a way, that makes sense–if two men are going to fight each other with their fists and one is stronger than the other, it could be considered “fair” for the stronger man to tie one hand behind his back. Now the fight could go either way.
However, this eliminates competition. The point of competition is for the better players to win. Else why compete? Even if someone is lesser than I am, I may lose because of some handicap imposed on me; and if someone is greater, I may win because of some handicap imposed on him. This is more fair in that I am just as likely to win no matter who I play against; however, the whole concept of win/lose is void because wins and losses mean nothing.
If this appeals to you, you’re probably more suited to non-competitive activities like book-coloring and playing House.
Example, say you have 2 kids. One kid is 18 and has job, the other is 9 and has no job. You will spend more money on the 9 year old but you still take care of the 18 year old. Both get fair treatment, but unequal.
Everyone who plays the game of Halo has the exact same OPPORTUNITY to get all of the weapons. That means it’s fair. Some people get more weapons and bigger weapons. That means it’s also unequal.
Fair doesn’t mean equal.
> “Ranks accomplished exactly what you’re asking for without comprimising gameplay.”
>
> Inaccurate. Players used new accounts, and de-ranked so they didn’t have to play tougher players. It’s much easier to change the game, then try to change people.
Yes, it’s called boosting, which as I’m sure you know still goes one whether or not a ranking system is set in place.
I didn’t say previous systems were perfect.
So change the game to match the better players together. That way you don’t need to attempt some convuluted absuable scheme that significantly affects the flow and quality of play.
> Fair doesn’t mean equal.
Argue with the Thesaurus.
“However, this eliminates competition. The point of competition is for the better players to win. Else why compete?”
Wrong. Completely wrong. The other day the KC Royals beat the Yankees. Does that mean the Royals are better? Does it mean there is no competition? Speaking of MLB, you do understand that some of the bigger teams have to give money to the smaller teams to help make them more competitive don’t you? Is that fair? Yes. Is it equal? No.
The point of competition isn’t always to decide who’s better. The point of the Halo 4 Global Tournament is to decide who’s better, thus everyone gets the same weapon. The point of competing in Halo multiplayer is to play for fun.
Again, I will try to explain to you like I tried to explain to the guy before. Stop getting hung up on “better”. That’s not the point.
> People didn’t stop playing because they don’t like it. They stopped playing because they finished it.
Wrong. Most of my friends list quit playing halo long before we “completed” it. I think I have two friends who have “completed” it.
Less than two play it on a consistent basis.
By the way , it is a sad state of affairs when we are talking about completing a Halo game. Halo multi-player should never have an end game. Another failed game mechanic that 343i should not have “borrowed”.
“So change the game to match the better players together.”
Impossible. Why? Because you can’t determine who a better player is. Rank? Obviously not. K/D ratio? Easily manipulated. You see, you can’t change people. You can only change the game.
I’ll tell you this, if there is ever a game where everyone has the same weapon, no one will ever buy that game or play it. Not even you.
“Argue with the Thesaurus.”
I just did. Fair doesn’t mean equal. Join the military and you will learn that very quick.
This has been a good debate. Good arguments on both sides and no name calling. I like it!
> “However, this eliminates competition. The point of competition is for the better players to win. Else why compete?”
>
> Wrong. Completely wrong. The other day the KC Royals beat the Yankees. Does that mean the Royals are better? Does it mean there is no competition? Speaking of MLB, you do understand that some of the bigger teams have to give money to the smaller teams to help make them more competitive don’t you? Is that fair? Yes. Is it equal? No.
>
> The point of competition isn’t always to decide who’s better. The point of the Halo 4 Global Tournament is to decide who’s better, thus everyone gets the same weapon. The point of competing in Halo multiplayer is to play for fun.
>
> Again, I will try to explain to you like I tried to explain to the guy before. Stop getting hung up on “better”. That’s not the point.
The point of playing is for fun. The point of competing is to have a victor and a loser.
> Competition
> 1. the act of competing; rivalry for <mark>supremacy</mark>, a prize, etc.: The competition between the two teams was bitter.
> Compete
> To <mark>strive to outdo another</mark> for acknowledgment, a prize, supremacy, profit, etc.; <mark>engage in a contest</mark>.
> Contest
> 1. a race, conflict, or other competition between rivals, as for a prize.
> 2. struggle for <mark>victory or superiority</mark>.
> Equal
> 1. as great as; the same as (often followed by to or with ): The velocity of sound is not equal to that of light.
> 2. like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; <mark>of the same rank, ability, merit</mark>, etc.: two students of equal brilliance.
> 3. evenly <mark>proportioned or balanced</mark>: an equal contest.
> 4. uniform in <mark>operation or effect</mark>: equal laws.
> 5. adequate or sufficient <mark>in quantity or degree</mark>: The supply is equal to the demand.
The dictionary argues with all of your points.
Well if we were talking about the dictionary, I would agree with you. But we’re talking about Halo, a video game.
Fair doesn’t mean equal. Halo is competing for fun. There is no prize for winning or being called better.
> “So change the game to match the better players together.”
>
> Impossible. Why? Because you can’t determine who a better player is. Rank? Obviously not. K/D ratio? Easily manipulated. You see, you can’t change people. You can only change the game.
>
> I’ll tell you this, if there is ever a game where everyone has the same weapon, no one will ever buy that game or play it. Not even you.
Does Halo 3 with its default AR starts not count?
> > If there’s going to be personal ordnance, it should just be ammo
>
> <mark>Sure. Then you’ll get what you had in Halo 3, where team can control the weapon spawns and you get uncompetitive games.</mark>
> <mark>Dominating a lesser team is not competitive, and not really that fun if you’re honest.</mark>
You do realize the first three Halo games were built on this premise , and were wildly popular. Map and weapon control are the unspoken legs of the golden tripod (Guns, grenades, and melee).
If you are a lesser team you will play lesser teams , mostly. Occasionally you get the “hand you your’ -Yoink!- game” but generally because you are on a winning streak and the game is trying to quantify your rank in comparison to good teams.
If you think weapon control and map control are uncompetitive , we need to call MLG and tell them how bad they are screwing with games.
> Well if we were talking about the dictionary, I would agree with you. But we’re talking about Halo, a video game.
We’re communicating in the English language about Halo, so it’s not too much for me to ask that we use the definitions of English words that are outlined in an English dictionary.
I’d love to continue to debate with you, but now I know that we could debate all day since you make up your own definitions for words. Unless Halo or videogames have a unique dictionary you can provide as reference so we can both agree on definitions, we’re done here.
If you decide you’d like to continue this debate using English definitions (since English is the only language allowed in this forum), let me know.
How about just making Halo 5 all about coin tosses. As soon as you encounter a player a player or two, you are thrown into duel mode where it’s decided on a coin toss. No difference what weapons you got, who saw who first or what vehicle you got. There is no way at all to manipulate your chances of winning that toss, it’ll alays be 50/50.
This is fair. Everyone got a chance to win. I bet it’ll be the most popular game ever.
Oh wait, popular games are those where randomness is minimal and the matches are decided on skill and skill alone.
Some people clearly have no idea how randomness negativley affects the game, or are they perhaps only afraid to lose the only edge they randomly get?
