Targeting a candidate.

Games Other Halo
1

This thread was a result of a common persistent belief amoung some players that frequent Halo forums that Reach represents the most “casual” freindly Halo to date. The “proof” presented thus far has been completely based on opinion and perception about AA and their benefits to the casual player. So I set out to apply a mix of soft/hard science, community opinion and my penchant for dogged persuit of the truth to find the answer to this long asked question, <mark>does Reach represent the most casual friendly Halo of all of them?</mark>. The body of this thread was constucted in part with help from players that believe whole heartily that AA have brought a negative effect to gameplay. Even if you have read this before, please take the time to read the entire thread starting from the beginning, I believe this will allow for the maximum amount of validity to the the result that I have been able to provide. While not definitive (nothing ever is) it provide the first physical evidence provided that concerns this matter that I have ever seen.

Enjoy!
Plunderfull

Part 1:<mark>Would the casual player have a better K/D in Reach or a better K/D in Halo 3 within the first hundred games?</mark>

It has been suggested to me by the upper echelon of competitive informed players that AA’s provide a crutch for the casual less skilled player, one that takes away from the pure skill of the game of Halo. Reach alone represents the only abberration from the basic formula of Halo as explained to me by players far more superior in their understanding of the technical side of games then I. AA loadouts according to this line of thought, provide the most benefit for the casual player with the least amount “skill” needed to garner results, results being kills and wins. Although K/D and W/L does not give the complete picture of a players performance, it is the two easiest ways of deducing battle effectiveness and ability and therefore will be the focus of this experiment.

Halo 3 is currently the last Halo that qualifies as competitive settings as compared to Reach, which represents the most casual freindly Halo of them all according to the competitive player. I recognize previous examples of Halo (CE and 2) as a more pure Halo expeirence. However being as they are so far in the past, data collection and informed firsthand opinion, would be prohibitively hard to compile, thus the selection of Halo 3. Competitive does not reffer to a competition, but rather the current competitive players concensus settings that are most conducive to competition in FPS.

Part 2:<mark>How does one identify a casual?</mark>

The casual label in no way indicates skill or success at playing the game, mearly a mindset that would indicate that he/she is just playing a game. There is no single identifier for a casual, it seems that a true “casual” will have most if not all of the qualifiers listed below.

Casual qualifications:

1.The casual cannot have played through the transition from Halo 3 to Reach, residual skill from Halo 3 play would skew the results in favor of Reach as the player would come into Reach with better ability to play.

2.A casual will not visit a forum on Halo, but if the casual did, he would most likely dismiss faulty mechanics arguments for Reach as needless.

3.A casual player will either have no care or no concept of mechanics and how they differed from Halo to Halo and how that effects gameplay, this is indicative of a “mindset” that is more prevalent in a “competitive” player. That mindset would be dedicated goal and achievement oriented gameplay through higher understanding of the core mechanics and game design.

4.A casual most likely does not use a mic and therefore does not use callouts or any sort of communication that would benefit team play.

5.A casual will not have played ranked Halo 3 or Reach as well MLG.

6.A casual will frequent playlist such as Living dead and Team slayer, default settings and “fun” gametypes suit the casual the best.

Part 3: I will attempt to find a candidate that meets all the criteria listed in part 2 which to the best of my ability has been compalated through input recieved directly from the community and 7 months of expeirence on two forums. Submissions will be accepted but only as PM, singling out individuals on the forum is prohibited so the selection submission proccess will have to be conducted with this in mind.

Part 4:After a tremendous amount of work I have found an acceptable player that meets every one of the criteria compiled via community input. I have checked and rechecked the stats involved and can attest to the validity of all statements and information contained within the findings.

Not yet, but soon!

2

This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.

3

The only thing that is widely accepted is that halo 3 was a better game the Reach. Before halo reach it was the worst competitive halo to date. That is widely accepted. The thing i don’t understand anyway, is why does a competitive game have to be bad for the casual players. If you make sure there is a ranking system that assures similarly skilled players there is no problem. Look at a game like starcraft 2 (or 1), both extremely popular and good competitive games, yet Starcraft is also an amazing casual game. A competitive game basically just means that a game is well balanced, and it gives no advantage to any player, other then their skill.

To answer your question: I’m not sure. I would say that Reach is definitely easier to play, and therefore should in theory have a higher k/d. However, because of Reach’s terrible matchmaking system, the newest players can easily be matched up with the best. In halo 3 they match people of equal skill, therefore their k/d could be higher, but thats only due to a far superior matchmaking sytem.

4

>

I dont think that it is a matter of fact, but being as there are only two Halos declared competitive and 3 was the last that was declared competitive, it seems to be a matter of residual preference. There are simply more Halo 3 competitive players left playing Reach and visiting forums than competitive Halo 2 players thus the widely accepted portion of the OP.

While you replied with a LOL it does require adjustment to the intial query. If I put <mark>currently</mark> instead of widely accepted, would this make it a more accurate statement?

5

assuming it is mr noob vs mr noob in both halo3 and reach, the outcome would be the same.

6

>

honestly, if it wasn’t for bullet spread halo 3 would be the best competitive game on the market even to this day.

personally i don’t understand this insane love for halo 2, the game was broken and bungie themselves are ashamed of that game, every reason i’ve heard is available i halo 3 so the only thing that really comes to mind is nostalgia…

7

> assuming it is mr noob vs mr noob in both halo3 and reach, the outcome would be the same.

The potential subject would be your average gamer who has been exposed to video games but never came anywhere close to the level of competitive play encomposed by Halo 3. While Halo 2 could be included or even exchanged, I believe the gap in time makes data collection a little harder, thats why I used 3 in the OP.

8

> > assuming it is mr noob vs mr noob in both halo3 and reach, the outcome would be the same.
>
> The potential subject would be your average gamer who has been exposed to video games but never came anywhere close to the level of competitive play encomposed by Halo 3. While Halo 2 could be included or even exchanged, I believe the gap in time makes data collection a little harder, thats why I used 3 in the OP.

if the games are evenly matched then the outcome will be the same.

it doesn’t matter of the skill ceiling and what not because they are playing against people who play in in similar way and have similar amount of skill, since they will be using practically the same sort of play the outcome will be consistent and the same from game to game.

but, other people improve faster then others, your average gamer could improve really quick compared to another average gamer, this makes it hard to get a proper test and idea so i’m using the perfect control scenario to get an actual answer.

if we take in to account all the variables and everything then the results will differ from one group to another but most likely the average would still be the same from game to game.

9

> there are only two Halos declared competitive and 3 was the last that was declared competitive

No, there are three and CE blows any other Halo game out of the water.

10

> > there are only two Halos declared competitive and 3 was the last that was declared competitive
>
> No, there are three and CE blows any other Halo game out of the water.

I was reffering to online competitive play, but I agree, CE was hella fun and if you are looking for the purest Halo game, you cant go wrong with the OG CE, ah lan parties.

Steven would you care to make declarive statement as far as it concerns the OP?

11

> > there are only two Halos declared competitive and 3 was the last that was declared competitive
>
> No, there are three and CE blows any other Halo game out of the water.

actually 4.

any game that has a player vs player kind of multiplayer automatically makes it competitive.

12

> if the games are evenly matched then the outcome will be the same.

For the test it would have to use the current match system for both. Which would actually add another facet to the test, as Halo 3 and Reach use different matching systems. I am unaware if Halo 3 uses a comprable matching system for social as it does for ranked, perhaps you know.

> it doesn’t matter of the skill ceiling and what not because they are playing against people who play in in similar way and have similar amount of skill, since they will be using practically the same sort of play the outcome will be consistent and the same from game to game.
>
> but, other people improve faster then others, your average gamer could improve really quick compared to another average gamer, this makes it hard to get a proper test and idea so i’m using the perfect control scenario to get an actual answer.

In order for the test to work, it would have to be the same exact player or group, as you stated, the learning curve for different player would skew the results and not allow for a satisfactory result. Also the 100 game limit allows for just enough time to start to develop understanding and a gain in ability and nuance, but not advanced strategy and its implmentation to the detriment of the test.

> if we take in to account all the variables and everything then the results will differ from one group to another but most likely the average would still be the same from game to game.

Assuming it is the same group or the same player, do you believe there would be a differece between Reach and Halo 3?

13

> > > there are only two Halos declared competitive and 3 was the last that was declared competitive
> >
> > No, there are three and CE blows any other Halo game out of the water.
>
> actually 4.
>
> any game that has a player vs player kind of multiplayer automatically makes it competitive.

For this I am using “competitive” as it is used on Halo forums, which is really a misuse of the word which refers to mechanics and matching system more than if it is a competition.

A stick could be placed between two people and they could be instructed to attempt to retrieve it first at all cost and that would be a competition by the pure definition.

14

> > if the games are evenly matched then the outcome will be the same.
>
> For the test it would have to use the current match system for both. Which would actually add another facet to the test, as Halo 3 and Reach use different matching systems. I am unaware if Halo 3 uses a comprable matching system for social as it does for ranked, perhaps you know.
>
>
>
> > it doesn’t matter of the skill ceiling and what not because they are playing against people who play in in similar way and have similar amount of skill, since they will be using practically the same sort of play the outcome will be consistent and the same from game to game.
> >
> > but, other people improve faster then others, your average gamer could improve really quick compared to another average gamer, this makes it hard to get a proper test and idea so i’m using the perfect control scenario to get an actual answer.
>
> In order for the test to work, it would have to be the same exact player or group, as you stated, the learning curve for different player would skew the results and not allow for a satisfactory result. Also the 100 game limit allows for just enough time to start to develop understanding and a gain in ability and nuance, but not advanced strategy and its implmentation to the detriment of the test.
>
>
>
> > if we take in to account all the variables and everything then the results will differ from one group to another but most likely the average would still be the same from game to game.
>
> Assuming it is the same group or the same player, do you believe there would be a differece between Reach and Halo 3?

well, using the current skill standards from both games then they would most likely do worse in halo 3.

this is because halo 3 has a higher overall skill level compared to reach because the majority of the players who still play halo 3 are the ones who enjoyed it for the intense, “competitive” gameplay.

in reach the overall skill level is lower giving these players a better chance of getting some kills and such.

honestly, i would predict something like:
halo 3 - 0.5
halo reach - 0.7

thats with how it is today, but it isn’t the fault of the AA’s but the skill level of the players who choose to play the game.

15

> The only thing that is widely accepted is that halo 3 was a better game the Reach. Before halo reach it was the worst competitive halo to date. That is widely accepted. The thing i don’t understand anyway, is why does a competitive game have to be bad for the casual players. If you make sure there is a ranking system that assures similarly skilled players there is no problem. Look at a game like starcraft 2 (or 1), both extremely popular and good competitive games, yet Starcraft is also an amazing casual game. A competitive game basically just means that a game is well balanced, and it gives no advantage to any player, other then their skill.

I dont think a competitive game has to be bad for the casual player and that is not what I am attempting to find out, the question I am raising in this thread is which game is more forgiving to the casual player, Halo 3 or Reach. Even if Halo 3 does not qualify as the most competitive of the Halo games, it is accepted that it is a lightyear ahead of Reach as far as settings for the the pure competitive enviroment. Which is to say that the cream will rise to the top faster and higher in 3 than in Reach.

> To answer your question: I’m not sure. I would say that Reach is definitely easier to play, and therefore should in theory have a higher k/d. However, because of Reach’s terrible matchmaking system, the newest players can easily be matched up with the best. In halo 3 they match people of equal skill, therefore their k/d could be higher, but thats only due to a far superior matchmaking sytem.

I fixed a few things in the OP from yours and others suggestions, thanks for the input. Read through again and see if I fixed the part you had concern with. This is a work in progress and I need as much input as I can get from those more informed on Halo 3 settings than I, keep it coming.

Science requires the right questions to be asked and often the first questions are not the ones that lead you to the answers you are looking for, its the questions raised in the proccess that often lead to the end result. Im gonna take this one as far as I can go with it but it will require participation from players that have more knowlege in the mechanics and workings of Halo 3 than I have or will most likely ever have.

16

Reach has easier aiming mechanics do to bloom and strafe acceleration. Having played with the same terrible players in both titles, I can tell you they did better in reach.

1Grenades allow easy cheap kills.
2Aiming is less of an earned polished ability(and there is no good strafe to balance this like in H2)
3AAs make it easier for bad positioning to be unpunished(and in the case of jetpack map control irrelevant).

Reach is much less about raw FPS skills(aiming,strafing,map control). And more about team work and power weapons. The individual has a Harder time standing out.

TL:DR I know from personal experience in both 1v1 and 4v4 with players from both titles that reach is easier and players will have a higher kd in reach(the skill gap is pinched)

17

> Reach has easier aiming mechanics do to bloom and strafe acceleration. Having played with the same terrible players in both titles, I can tell you they did better in reach.
>
> 1Grenades allow easy cheap kills.
> 2Aiming is less of an earned polished ability(and there is no good strafe to balance this like in H2)
> 3AAs make it easier for bad positioning to be unpunished(and in the case of jetpack map control irrelevant).
>
> Reach is much less about raw FPS skills(aiming,strafing,map control). And more about team work and power weapons. The individual has a Harder time standing out.
>
> TL:DR I know from personal experience in both 1v1 and 4v4 with players from both titles that reach is easier and players will have a higher kd in reach(the skill gap is pinched)

Personal experience in both is the best info that could be provided in formulating the right context for this. I appreciate your input, I seek to put together an aggregate of players opinions that have both experience with Halo 3 and Reach.

18

> > if the games are evenly matched then the outcome will be the same.
>
> For the test it would have to use the current match system for both. Which would actually add another facet to the test, as Halo 3 and Reach use different matching systems. I am unaware if Halo 3 uses a comprable matching system for social as it does for ranked, perhaps you know.

And this is why K/D wouldn’t be valid here. If the matches are even, then it’d be variable but centered around 1.0. Whether the casual would have better chances in Reach, though, would depend on how uneven the matches are.

To use a metaphor: let’s say that we want to measure how much of an advantage brass knuckles (Reach) give someone in a fistfight. We decide to do this by having a weak and frail high-school nerd fight random opponents; during some of the fights, he’s armed with the brass knuckles, and during other fights, he isn’t.

If our nerd has brass knuckles, he can probably beat up a stronger bully, but he’d still have no chance against Jack Bauer. And here lies the problem: if the nerd is more likely to be paired against Bauer when wearing brass knuckles (Reach) than when unarmed (Halo 3), then the outcomes of each battle won’t truly tell us how much of an advantage he’s getting out of those brass knuckles.

The different matching algorithms kill the comparison.

19

> Reach has easier aiming mechanics do to bloom and strafe acceleration. Having played with the same terrible players in both titles, I can tell you they did better in reach.
>
> 1Grenades allow easy cheap kills.
> 2Aiming is less of an earned polished ability(and there is no good strafe to balance this like in H2)
> 3AAs make it easier for bad positioning to be unpunished(and in the case of jetpack map control irrelevant).
>
> Reach is much less about raw FPS skills(aiming,strafing,map control). And more about team work and power weapons. The individual has a Harder time standing out.
>
> TL:DR I know from personal experience in both 1v1 and 4v4 with players from both titles that reach is easier and players will have a higher kd in reach(the skill gap is pinched)

I agree there is less room for indvidual skill. I also believe that the teamwork you speak of is forced in Reach. This may sound a bit weird, but in Reach (especially bloom Reach) there is basically ONLY teamwork and sniping to excell in. The dmr was random, and had massive aim assist, giving no amazing skill gap.

Plunderfull i think this video might be a good watch if you want to know why halo 3 wasn’t as good of a game like H1 and H2.

20

> And this is why K/D wouldn’t be valid here. If the matches are even, then it’d be variable but centered around 1.0. Whether the casual would have better chances in Reach, though, would depend on how uneven the matches are.

I think we have to assume that each system will do its best to match like players and that whatever the the inconsistencies, as it concerns evenness, could be factored out with more subjects. While it is true that two players could face a completely different opponents with higher or lower net skill, for lack of better scientific terms, “thems the breaks” LOL.

> To use a metaphor: let’s say that we want to measure how much of an advantage brass knuckles (Reach) give someone in a fistfight. We decide to do this by having a weak and frail high-school nerd fight random opponents; during some of the fights, he’s armed with the brass knuckles, and during other fights, he isn’t.
>
> If our nerd has brass knuckles, he can probably beat up a stronger bully, but he’d still have no chance against Jack Bauer. And here lies the problem: if the nerd is more likely to be paired against Bauer when wearing brass knuckles (Reach) than when unarmed (Halo 3), then the outcomes of each battle won’t truly tell us how much of an advantage he’s getting out of those brass knuckles.

Its hard being a spartan, but I would like to think the tools are there for everybody and moving into judging if the 100 games were matched fair would require thesis type dedication of a team of people. For simplicity I have to assume each system will do its best to put Bauer on Bauer and Nerd on Nerd. Question I have for you is, where there more Bauers in Halo 3 or in Reach, as a % of population?

> The different matching algorithms kill the comparison.

Is there a better single stat or combination of stats that could give a clearer picture?