I think that Halo should be made so that the good players don’t lose often because of random factors like bloom or AA’s. If Reach had a good ranking system, this wouldn’t be an issue. Good people would fight good people and bad people would fight bad people. Personally, I think that big team and the objective playlist should have had ranked versions.
> “Lucky shot”
> “beginner’s luck”
> “that was unfair”
> “this is stupid”
> “that move was cheap”
> “you’re cheating”
>
> Phrases like this have been tossed around since the first time I played games on the playground in kindergarden.
> Its called “sore loser” and “immature” by most people
> Its called “unsportsmanlike conduct” in the professional sporting arena, and generally results in players/teams being looked down upon by fans.
>
> Yet around here it’s considered infallible proof of Reach’s failure.
>
> I’m sorry but if you are constantly being beat then 99% of the time it simply means you people are not as good as you think you are, or your opponents are not as bad as you say they are.
> More simply put, if you are constantly being beat then 99% of the time it means you are being beat!
>
> There are a lot of very well thought out arguments about Reach’s success / failure.
>
> Community, this is not one of them.
>
> Thank you for your time.
> -Mr Z
(THIS x INFINITY) = BEST POST IN THE ENTIRE THREAD
So what makes you think the people you’re losing to are worse than you? >.>
While I will admit, being beat down by a recruit consistantly is annoying, their rank in Reach does not imply that they have never played a FPS ever before. Also take into consideration the crossfire effect, You have two people gunning at you, you’re firing at one of them. Your shields drop twice as fast. Then look at the weapons used. How many recruits are running around with power weapons? Most of them. They might not have the greatest aim, but when you consider the ridiculous range at which the shotgun can put you down from, or the fact that you can be cross mapped with a pistol with a little luck, and it evens the playing field.
Now, I agree, those of us who have been playing a while have discovered ways to counter these power weapon/sniping strategies. But they won’t work every time. Best strategy is to not get stuck off on your own where you can get ganked all the time (and no, I don’t use that strategy myself. My KDR speaks for itself) I’m not the best Halo player ever. I’d rate myself as (at best), a decent player. But I can still get ganked by recruits or warrant officers. Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and don’t let it get to you.
Do I think people who have been playing for a while should have a steady advantage? Not really. If we did, it would get boring. But I also think the armory gear should have an actual effect on the game. Slightly increased speed, slightly increased AA regen, slightly better defense. Something to justify sinking 100-300k into a cosmetic choice.
I think this thread has gotten derailed by the over-emphasis on player “skill.” Yes skill is in the topic but that’s not the main point we should be looking at.
The main point should be that when you spam the DMR at a single location you will get different results every time and that leads to the very real possbility of landing a lucky headshot and if you just removed bloom completely the player with better aim would always win due to aim, not the fact that their 5th shot happened to hit the right spot thanks to bloom while their opponent was pacing their shots properly.
> The main point should be that when you spam the DMR at a single location you will get different results every time and that leads to the very real possbility of landing a lucky headshot and if you just removed bloom completely the player with better aim would always win due to aim, not the fact that their 5th shot happened to hit the right spot thanks to bloom while their opponent was pacing their shots properly.
OHHHHH
You wanted to talk about BLOOM?
I’m pretty certain that’s a different thread (or two).
> > The main point should be that when you spam the DMR at a single location you will get different results every time and that leads to the very real possbility of landing a lucky headshot and if you just removed bloom completely the player with better aim would always win due to aim, not the fact that their 5th shot happened to hit the right spot thanks to bloom while their opponent was pacing their shots properly.
>
> OHHHHH
>
> You wanted to talk about BLOOM?
>
> I’m pretty certain that’s a different thread (or two).
Actually it is this thread as well. The OP in this thread mentions bloom and since bloom tends to be one of the “hot topics” when it comes to skilled players getting the short end of the stick I felt it appropriate to mention that fact.
In fact I would wager that the idea of any weapon offering the amount of possible “luck” that the DMR seems to have because of bloom it is worth discussing as opposed to wasting time and effort debating everyone’s individual skill level. I would rather talk facts than opinions and you can test the facts of bloom better than you can figure out how good someone is right now.
The fact remains that 5 fast shots from the DMR end up in 5 different locations every time which means there is going to be an element of luck. That is a major issue that people have and I feel it is one of the critical talking points and issues that the OP of this thread has (or in other words if you go beyond the talk of skill, this issue seems to be one of the more promient underlying issues).
NO, THE FACT IS:
Bloom affects player A the same as it affects player B.
So the player with more skill will win every time.
/thread
> NO, THE FACT IS:
>
> Bloom affects player A the same as it affects player B.
>
> So the player with more skill will win every time.
>
> /thread
That’s like saying getting a critical hit or a freeze in pokemon takes skill, because every player has the same chance of getting a critical hit.
Sure, most of the time, the better player will win, with or without critical-hax, but when the more skill player loses their sweeper, that the foe had no remaining answers for, it does not indicate that the other player is better. It shows that the player got a lucky critical hit. Without that crit, they have very well been swept 6-0. Thanks to bloom, people can get the equivalent of critical hits by spamming five shots at mid-range and getting a kill, when their foe tries to pace his/her shots. Sure, it may be a rare occurence, but it shouldn’t happen at all.
> NO, THE FACT IS:
>
> Bloom affects player A the same as it affects player B.
>
> So the player with more skill will win every time.
>
> /thread
That is a fact, but you assert that the fact is in direct correlation with the fact I brought up, and they are not. The two facts (Bloom affects both players in the same way and 5 shots go in 5 different locations everyt ime) are two independent facts.
Two people can roll a pair of dice and they are both subject to the random outcomes. The roll of the dice affects roller A in the same way it affects roller B, but that doesn’t mean the more “skilled” roller is going to win because the outcome is simply random. That random outcome is the crux of the argument and still stands as a major point of concern for people when they talk about Bloom. Both players may be equally affected, but said affect doesn’t directly correlate with skill, and that is the problem.
> > NO, THE FACT IS:
> >
> > Bloom affects player A the same as it affects player B.
> >
> > So the player with more skill will win every time.
> >
> > /thread
>
> That’s like saying getting a critical hit or a freeze in pokemon takes skill, because every player has the same chance of getting a critical hit.
>
> Sure, most of the time, the better player will win, with or without critical-hax, but when the more skill player loses their sweeper, that the foe had no remaining answers for, it does not indicate that the other player is better. It shows that the player got a lucky critical hit. Without that crit, they have very well been swept 6-0. Thanks to bloom, people can get the equivalent of critical hits by spamming five shots at mid-range and getting a kill, when their foe tries to pace his/her shots. Sure, it may be a rare occurence, but it shouldn’t happen at all.
Another great example.
You guys are arguing the assumption that the better player can be determined by a single kill.
Bloom or not, that’s just not the case.
And since this goes deeper than a SINGLE kill, all you have to go on is record, or multiple kills, game history.
Based on this information we can CLEARLY see, the better player will have the better record, in spite of bloom and your claims against it.
If you were really the more skilled player, you would have won.
Sure, better players still win and/or kill more often and die less. However, bloom adds only two things: longer kill times at long range, and unneeded luck infusion at mid-range. Critical hits only occur in pokemon about 5-10% of the time, on average. They’re still aggravating to experience when the foe’s only way out of the hole you dug them into is a critical hit.
Bloom and critical hits may not change the results, or make them into a total dice roll, but they do draw scores of games closer together. Thus, in close games, they can actually change the result of the game based upon a series of randomly generated numbers.
Bloom does not do what it was supposed to do, encourage pacing. At close range, spam is optimal, and at mid range, it still works very well (especially if you’re teamshooting). Only at long range does it work as intended. If you ask me, that’s evidence that it failed.
> Sure, better players still win and/or kill more often and die less. However, bloom adds only two things: longer kill times at long range, and unneeded luck infusion at mid-range. Critical hits only occur in pokemon about 5-10% of the time, on average. They’re still aggravating to experience when the foe’s only way out of the hole you dug them into is a critical hit.
>
> Bloom and critical hits may not change the results, or make them into a total dice roll, but they do draw scores of games closer together. Thus, in close games, they can actually change the result of the game based upon a series of randomly generated numbers.
>
> Bloom does not do what it was supposed to do, encourage pacing. At close range, spam is optimal, and at mid range, it still works very well (especially if you’re teamshooting). Only at long range does it work as intended. If you ask me, that’s evidence that it failed.
No, that’s not evidence of it failing, that’s evidence of you not understanding your ranges.
> NO, THE FACT IS:
>
> Bloom affects player A the same as it affects player B.
>
> So the player with more skill will win every time.
>
> /thread
By your logic, if players A and B are flipping a coin, the player who quesses right is more skilled? That’s just false logic. You see, the bloom affects both players, but how it affects is different. If I spam, my shots can go wild, but my shots can also hit. In this case, the player with more luck wins the situation and everyone knows that luck is not skill.
If we have player A spamming and player B pacing. Player A wins the situation by spamming seven shots and hitting five whilst player B gets perfect four hits, but simply doesn’t have time to land any more shots. Does this mean player A is a better shooter? And as FPS games are alot about shooting, does this mean player A is the better player? No, it only means player A got an unfair kill just by spamming.
People who defend bloom fail to see the whole picture, it’s not just about that it affects both players, it’s not about that the pacing player will be more accurate, it’s not about that pacing will always win at long range, it’s not about that spamming is the only viable method at close range. There is no line where pacing becomes more useful than spamming, there is no magical way to win 100% of the time by pacing your shots against a spammer at mid range. There is only the fact that the spammer can get lucky. It doesn’t matter does it happen often, it doesn’t matter does it happen 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, or 40% of the time, only thing that matters is that it happens enough for it to be noticeable.
You can always try to convince me that a mechanic that gives fairly noticeable amount of random outcomes is better than a mechanic that gives little to no amount of random outcomes, but you will always be wrong. No power in this universe can transform luck into skill. You can always live inside your own little part of the huge universe that is gameplay mechanics, never seeing the whole picture, but that won’t change the truth, it can only hide the truth from you.
> > Sure, better players still win and/or kill more often and die less. However, bloom adds only two things: longer kill times at long range, and unneeded luck infusion at mid-range. Critical hits only occur in pokemon about 5-10% of the time, on average. They’re still aggravating to experience when the foe’s only way out of the hole you dug them into is a critical hit.
> >
> > Bloom and critical hits may not change the results, or make them into a total dice roll, but they do draw scores of games closer together. Thus, in close games, they can actually change the result of the game based upon a series of randomly generated numbers.
> >
> > Bloom does not do what it was supposed to do, encourage pacing. At close range, spam is optimal, and at mid range, it still works very well (especially if you’re teamshooting). Only at long range does it work as intended. If you ask me, that’s evidence that it failed.
>
> No, that’s not evidence of it failing, that’s evidence of you not understanding your ranges.
The DMR is my best weapon. The fact is that the way to kill at close range is spam 5 shots, and at mid range it’s spam four, reset for headshot. Or not, because spamming all 5 could work, or spamming four might not work, or so on and so forth. There’s no perfect formula to use at mid-range and that makes it infuriating to have DMR duels there. Hardly how the DMR was likely intended to be used. I’ve done this and I’ve gotten nearly 25% of my kills off the DMR and get two kills with it for every death. While many are better with it, far many more are worse.
The only time pacing works for me is either long range, if I’m crouched, or if my foe is not returning fire.
The fact remains that the DMR allows you to play dice with your shots, gambling speed for accuracy or vice versa. That doesn’t belong in a game whose kill times are as long as Halo’s.
> You guys are arguing the assumption that the better player can be determined by a single kill.
>
> Bloom or not, that’s just not the case.
>
> And since this goes deeper than a SINGLE kill, all you have to go on is record, or multiple kills, game history.
>
> Based on this information we can CLEARLY see, the better player will have the better record, in spite of bloom and your claims against it.
I am arguing under no such assumption. In fact I clearly stated that determining the “better player” is a distraction from the root issue.
Regardless of who the better player is the results have the possibility of being random our outside of the player’s control. The better player will always have the better record, that’s not the problem. The problem is that 5 shots from the same gun go in 5 different locations every time, creating a variable of randomness that cannot be controlled by the player.
Take the human factor out of the situation entirely, ignore who plays better or anything like that. Just look at the facts: If you fire the DMR quickly you will not see the same results twice. You will get different bullet patterns each time. That is to be expected with automatic weapons like the AR, but not precision weapons like the DMR.
Again I want to be clear: I am not even talking about player skill nor do I think it is relevant to the issue. My point is that you can get very different results from the same Rate of Fire on the game’s primary weapon.
Reach is like Poker
/thread
Quicker kill times and AAs are needed so 1v1 gunfights aren’t prolonged like in Reach and the worse player can’t always run away/get bailed out by teammates.