The Skilled Player should kill the Less Skilled Player - Community Discussion

Games Other Halo
381

> > Luck isn’t as big a factor as people make out. If you can pace your 5-shot, you’ll win 99% of times against spammers, and it’s simply an accuracy/ first shot battle with someone who paces their shots.
> >
> > In other words: STOP WHINING
>
> false. but thanks for trying.

The best way to test these things is trying them. I played a few games just spamming, and went negative consistently. The same when I just used Jetpack. AL worked slightly better, but my k/d was still decreasing. So spamming doesn’t really work.

382

> > > Luck isn’t as big a factor as people make out. If you can pace your 5-shot, you’ll win 99% of times against spammers, and it’s simply an accuracy/ first shot battle with someone who paces their shots.
> > >
> > > In other words: STOP WHINING
> >
> > false. but thanks for trying.
>
> The best way to test these things is trying them. I played a few games just spamming, and went negative consistently. The same when I just used Jetpack. AL worked slightly better, but my k/d was still decreasing. So spamming doesn’t really work.

going negative? you mean going 1 and 99?

going negative =/= winning 1% of the time.

383

> > > > Luck isn’t as big a factor as people make out. If you can pace your 5-shot, you’ll win 99% of times against spammers, and it’s simply an accuracy/ first shot battle with someone who paces their shots.
> > > >
> > > > In other words: STOP WHINING
> > >
> > > false. but thanks for trying.
> >
> > The best way to test these things is trying them. I played a few games just spamming, and went negative consistently. The same when I just used Jetpack. AL worked slightly better, but my k/d was still decreasing. So spamming doesn’t really work.
>
> going negative? you mean going 1 and 99?
>
> going negative =/= winning 1% of the time.

Fair enough, but going negative means I’m not doing very well. And I’m probably above average. But maybe 1% is underestimating. Probably 15% of the time will you lose to a spammer. 1% at longer range, and maybe 35% up close (melee distance).

384

> > > > > Luck isn’t as big a factor as people make out. If you can pace your 5-shot, you’ll win 99% of times against spammers, and it’s simply an accuracy/ first shot battle with someone who paces their shots.
> > > > >
> > > > > In other words: STOP WHINING
> > > >
> > > > false. but thanks for trying.
> > >
> > > The best way to test these things is trying them. I played a few games just spamming, and went negative consistently. The same when I just used Jetpack. AL worked slightly better, but my k/d was still decreasing. So spamming doesn’t really work.
> >
> > going negative? you mean going 1 and 99?
> >
> > going negative =/= winning 1% of the time.
>
> Fair enough, but going negative means I’m not doing very well. And I’m probably above average. But maybe 1% is underestimating. Probably 15% of the time will you lose to a spammer. 1% at longer range, and maybe 35% up close (melee distance).

so my question becomes, why would you want the game to function properly 85% of the time instead of 100% of the time? it makes literally no sense for the person IGNORING THE MECHANIC OF BLOOM to win EVEN ONE SINGLE PERCENT of the time against someone who observing the mechanics by pacing with a cadence. its completely illogical, unintuitive, AND contradictory to have a mechanic that wants players to pace their shots and observe bloom, whilst also rewarding people who do not.

it makes the game feel like a sloppy mess of -Yoink-. never in the history of halo have you actually had to DODGE 1v1 battles with the primary weapon spawn because you know beforehand that EVEN IF YOU SHOOT BETTER you can STILL LOSE (because of the games dumpster grade mechanic).

and at close range its not 35%, its closer to 100% random.

why? because at close range spamming is actually OPTIMAL, meaning the victor of these ‘spam battles’ is the one who gets more lucky with landing their fully spammed shots. it might be a bit more optimal to go for the headshot after you land 4 spammed shots, but, as FB NINJA has said, its a matter of preference whether you continue to spam for another 3 hits, or go for the headshot because it doesnt even matter that much.

so its like

close range = 100% random

mid range = random if someone is spamming

long range = works as intended

so the closer you get to your target, the more terrible the DMR’s bloom algorithm functions.

385

> > > > > > Luck isn’t as big a factor as people make out. If you can pace your 5-shot, you’ll win 99% of times against spammers, and it’s simply an accuracy/ first shot battle with someone who paces their shots.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In other words: STOP WHINING
> > > > >
> > > > > false. but thanks for trying.
> > > >
> > > > The best way to test these things is trying them. I played a few games just spamming, and went negative consistently. The same when I just used Jetpack. AL worked slightly better, but my k/d was still decreasing. So spamming doesn’t really work.
> > >
> > > going negative? you mean going 1 and 99?
> > >
> > > going negative =/= winning 1% of the time.
> >
> > Fair enough, but going negative means I’m not doing very well. And I’m probably above average. But maybe 1% is underestimating. Probably 15% of the time will you lose to a spammer. 1% at longer range, and maybe 35% up close (melee distance).
>
> so my question becomes, why would you want the game to function properly 85% of the time instead of 100% of the time? it makes literally no sense for the person IGNORING THE MECHANIC OF BLOOM to win EVEN ONE SINGLE PERCENT of the time against someone who observing the mechanics by pacing with a cadence. its completely illogical, unintuitive, AND contradictory to have a mechanic that wants players to pace their shots and observe bloom, whilst also rewarding people who do not.
>
> it makes the game feel like a sloppy mess of Yoink!. never in the history of halo have you actually had to DODGE 1v1 battles with the primary weapon spawn because you know beforehand that EVEN IF YOU SHOOT BETTER you can STILL LOSE (because of the games dumpster grade mechanic).
>
> and at close range its not 35%, its closer to 100% random.
>
> why? because at close range spamming is actually OPTIMAL, meaning the victor of these ‘spam battles’ is the one who gets more lucky with landing their fully spammed shots. it might be a bit more optimal to go for the headshot after you land 4 spammed shots, but, as FB NINJA has said, its a matter of preference whether you continue to spam for another 3 hits, or go for the headshot because it doesnt even matter that much.
>
> so its like
>
> close range = 100% random
>
> mid range = random if someone is spamming
>
> long range = works as intended
>
> so the closer you get to your target, the more terrible the DMR’s bloom algorithm functions.

It definetly doesn’t work as well as it should, and spammers get away with more than they should. But a little randomness keeps things interesting. My solution would be to drastically increase bloom for spammers, and if 343 could work an “overheat” mechanic in for persistent spammers that’d be interesting too.

386

> > > Luck isn’t as big a factor as people make out. If you can pace your 5-shot, you’ll win 99% of times against spammers, and it’s simply an accuracy/ first shot battle with someone who paces their shots.
> > >
> > > In other words: STOP WHINING
> >
> > false. but thanks for trying.
>
> The best way to test these things is trying them. I played a few games just spamming, and went negative consistently. The same when I just used Jetpack. AL worked slightly better, but my k/d was still decreasing. So spamming doesn’t really work.

I have seen a number of other tests as well. For example people stood at the same distance while someone spammed until they got the kill. The amount of shots for the kill was all over the board with the average being 6 or 7 (which is fast enough to kill someone pacing I might add).

In addition to what you said above this post: A little bit of randomness is ok, but not in the game’s premier precision weapon.

387

> > > > Luck isn’t as big a factor as people make out. If you can pace your 5-shot, you’ll win 99% of times against spammers, and it’s simply an accuracy/ first shot battle with someone who paces their shots.
> > > >
> > > > In other words: STOP WHINING
> > >
> > > false. but thanks for trying.
> >
> > The best way to test these things is trying them. I played a few games just spamming, and went negative consistently. The same when I just used Jetpack. AL worked slightly better, but my k/d was still decreasing. So spamming doesn’t really work.
>
> I have seen a number of other tests as well. For example people stood at the same distance while someone spammed until they got the kill. The amount of shots for the kill was all over the board with the average being 6 or 7 (which is fast enough to kill someone pacing I might add).
>
> In addition to what you said above this post: A little bit of randomness is ok, but not in the game’s premier precision weapon.

Randomness is fun, in custom games. I don’t want Matchmaking to be a coin toss.

388

lol at calling the concussion rifle overpowered.

OT: DMR bloom should either be implemented properly or removed entirely. Removing it is my personal choice but fixing it is also helpful.

389

I realize we are multiple pages in, but I am going to review the TC’s original post. Let’s point out the stupidity.

“In Halo : Reach I find myself losing to players who are way worse than me”

if you are losing to players, that means they are better. Get over it. I’ve had times where people would rush me, punch me, then I evade away and I am able to shoot them to death. Easy stuff. If you are dying to someone, they are better.

“If you are a very skilled player you’ve showed dedication to the game and you should be able to destroy people who are worse than you because you simply are the better player.”

Yes, and that’s how it works.

“In Halo : Reach bad players can win from players who are better than them simply because all of the random factors in this game such as bloom and broken armor abilities (Armor Lock), and because of overpowered weapons who are also very easy to use (The Concussion Rifle for example).”

if you are going to use a lame excuse like Bloom or Armor Lock, that just shows that my above statements are correct. Also, things like the Concussion Rifle or ROCKET LAUNCHER are meant to be easy guns to get kills with. Derp.

“Someone pleas explain to me how a less skilled player can beat a more skilled player, and why this should be possible.”

You’re right. Not once ever in any other Halo game did a bad player get their hands on a Rocket Launcher and proceed to kill a player that is better than them. That’s never ONCE happened until Reach. How did we not see this until you showed up? /sarcasm

You are just saying the same things over again. “better players should win against worse players”. So I say again. Derp de derp, that’s how it works. If you die to someone 5 times in a row because YOU are unable to shoot them till they die, they are better than you.

390

Skill has to be important but there are lots of diffrent types of skill judgement, awareness of surroundings, communication with teammates these are all skills.

So no the better shot with the dmr should not always win unless of course you are in an octagon or something similar anyways the prestige weapon of reach is the Pistol not the DMR

391

> In reference to a guywired’s post from the other page, Halo is all about domination by the skilled players. Halo CE, 2 and 3 all had it. They tweaked the BR so that it couldn’t dominate on big maps as much with a bullet spread, which I was OK with, in Halo 3. The fact that guywired says Halo was never meant to be dominated by a single gun is not only un-true, but equally hilarious, short sighted, ignorant, and harebrained.
>
> In Reach, they hired game designers who had no previous experience with Halo. The sandbox designers came from a game called Shadowrun. They simply changed the game too much in favor of players who don’t look for the skilled weapons as their primary. They made the game easier for the casual. Reach, to me, is still not a true “Halo” game and I will not ever call it one until bloom is removed on the DMR, Pistol, and Needle Rifle.

No, this is not, nor has it ever been what Halo is about.

It’s about, and has always been about balanced sandbox play.

That’s what Josh’s Twitter to you was trying to explain.

That’s what you guys keep missing.

392

> > In reference to a guywired’s post from the other page, Halo is all about domination by the skilled players. Halo CE, 2 and 3 all had it. They tweaked the BR so that it couldn’t dominate on big maps as much with a bullet spread, which I was OK with, in Halo 3. The fact that guywired says Halo was never meant to be dominated by a single gun is not only un-true, but equally hilarious, short sighted, ignorant, and harebrained.
> >
> > In Reach, they hired game designers who had no previous experience with Halo. The sandbox designers came from a game called Shadowrun. They simply changed the game too much in favor of players who don’t look for the skilled weapons as their primary. They made the game easier for the casual. Reach, to me, is still not a true “Halo” game and I will not ever call it one until bloom is removed on the DMR, Pistol, and Needle Rifle.
>
> No, this is not, nor has it ever been what Halo is about.
>
> It’s about, and has always been about balanced sandbox play.
>
> That’s what Josh’s Twitter to you was trying to explain.
>
> That’s what you guys keep missing.

letting people who shoot technically worse / suboptimally doesnt equal ‘a balanced sandbox’. it equals an inconsistent sandbox. thats what you keep missing.

393

> > In reference to a guywired’s post from the other page, Halo is all about domination by the skilled players. Halo CE, 2 and 3 all had it. They tweaked the BR so that it couldn’t dominate on big maps as much with a bullet spread, which I was OK with, in Halo 3. The fact that guywired says Halo was never meant to be dominated by a single gun is not only un-true, but equally hilarious, short sighted, ignorant, and harebrained.
> >
> > In Reach, they hired game designers who had no previous experience with Halo. The sandbox designers came from a game called Shadowrun. They simply changed the game too much in favor of players who don’t look for the skilled weapons as their primary. They made the game easier for the casual. Reach, to me, is still not a true “Halo” game and I will not ever call it one until bloom is removed on the DMR, Pistol, and Needle Rifle.
>
> No, this is not, nor has it ever been what Halo is about.
>
> It’s about, and has always been about balanced sandbox play.
>
> That’s what Josh’s Twitter to you was trying to explain.
>
> That’s what you guys keep missing.

It was more like Josh’s twitter trying to explain how detrimental his changes were to the Reach sandbox. He was basically saying, oh here’s the game’s main weapon, the DMR, you may not be able to use it at all ranges. He and Sage tweaked gameplay pretty badly with bloom because they believed it would end “one gun that rules all” concept.

And you see how it left the community jaded and disenchanted.

By the way, Halo has always been about the skilled player. Not the casuals you seem to defend blindly.

394

> And you see how it left the community jaded and disenchanted.

It left some in the community feeling that way, obviously, but I would point out that as “Swan Songs” go… if you don’t like it, you were never really a fan to being with.

Bloom is fine.*

Unless you’re having some crazed shootout in Halo Reach where neither play can move left, right, forward or back and is stuck at exactly 10 forge units without any team mates AA’s or other weapons when you both spawn at the same and cover/position doesn’t matter because again you’re not allowed to move except for on the 30th of February, or a blue moon whichever comes first in the next 60 days*.

**Okay the thing about the February, the moon, and 60 days was all made up.

395

> By the way, Halo has always been about the skilled player. Not the casuals you seem to defend blindly.

No. It’s ALWAYS been about balanced Sandbox play.

The whole Skilled vs. Casual thing is a lame excuse, a smoke screen self pro-claimed pro’s use to lie to themselves and the rest of the world when they can’t adapt to change.

396

> > It’s about, and has always been about balanced sandbox play.
> >
> > That’s what Josh’s Twitter to you was trying to explain.
> >
> > That’s what you guys keep missing.
>
> letting people who shoot technically worse / suboptimally doesnt equal ‘a balanced sandbox’. it equals an inconsistent sandbox. thats what you keep missing.

Again, it’s not inconsistent if it effects all players equally, that’s what YOU keep missing.

397

> > > It’s about, and has always been about balanced sandbox play.
> > >
> > > That’s what Josh’s Twitter to you was trying to explain.
> > >
> > > That’s what you guys keep missing.
> >
> > letting people who shoot technically worse / suboptimally doesnt equal ‘a balanced sandbox’. it equals an inconsistent sandbox. thats what you keep missing.
>
> Again, it’s not inconsistent if it effects all players equally, that’s what YOU keep missing.

What? That’s terrible logic. Being inconsistent for everybody doesn’t make it consistent. It makes it consistently inconsistent.

398

> Being inconsistent for everybody doesn’t make it consistent.

Yeah, it does.

To steal an idea posted earlier in this thread. In other games you have what’s called a “critical strike”.

Having a larger critical strike chance gives you the edge in a battle. Increasing your chance of making a critical strike helps you and is something skillful players try to do to gain an edge on their opponent.

Two players with the exact same critical strike chance makes for a fair game and a balanced sandbox.

In other words, since two Halo Players are treated equally by the Bloom mechanic, it is consistent.

399

> > By the way, Halo has always been about the skilled player. Not the casuals you seem to defend blindly.
>
> No. It’s ALWAYS been about balanced Sandbox play.
>
> The whole Skilled vs. Casual thing is a lame excuse, a smoke screen self pro-claimed pro’s use to lie to themselves and the rest of the world when they can’t adapt to change.

Halo has always been about balanced sandbox play, I don’t deny that. What does gameplay balance mean? Well, one definition is that the better player wins. With perfect balance the better player wins in every situation. This should apply in every situation, even in 1v1 on close to mid range. Why doesn’t this apply in Halo Reach? With DMR, the worse player can win the 1v1. The worse player has a chance to win, is that balanced? No.

You’re saying good players can’t adapt to change? Well, why do you think they are good in the first place? Why do you think they complain? No, it’s not because they haven’t adapted, but the exact opposite. They complain because they have adapted enough to see the problems in the game mechanics, they have adapted enough to realize how bloom works. this doesn’t mean the players who like Reach aren’t adapted, they just aren’t adapted enough to see how mechanics actually function. They only see the pretty outer layer, not the (in some cases) ugly inner workings.

As I already said to you in my other post: “People never see the whole picture or are just afraid to admit being wrong”. This applies perfectly to the situation concerning people who say there is nothing wrong with Reach. You’re included, want it or not.

Am I self proclaimed? No. Am I pro? No. Do I lie to myself? No. Have I adapted? Yes.

400

> > By the way, Halo has always been about the skilled player. Not the casuals you seem to defend blindly.
>
> No. It’s ALWAYS been about balanced Sandbox play.
>
> The whole Skilled vs. Casual thing is a lame excuse, a smoke screen self pro-claimed pro’s use to lie to themselves and the rest of the world when they can’t adapt to change.

thats the problem. ‘adapting’ means not engaging in 1v1 battles with the primary weapon spawn because even if you shoot better, you will still be beaten by someone completely ignoring the mechanic. this is a very oppressive concept as far as FPS games go, to say the very least.

> Again, it’s not inconsistent if it effects all players equally, that’s what YOU keep missing.

lol. really? the inconsistency comes in when ONE person is spamming, whilst the other person is pacing. thats the ENTIRE POINT GUYWIIRED. the basis for your argument is pacing and spamming are the exact same as far as consistency goes. do you have any idea how ridiculous that statement is? LOL

sorry, but when you pace your shots and aim properly you will hit 100% of the time. when you spam you will not hit 100% of the time, so your argument is inherently invalid. examples of inconsistencies effecting both players equally would be the miniscule amount of ‘spread’ in the CE pistol, and the tiny bit of spread on the BR. these are things that effect 2 players equally.

> You’re saying good players can’t adapt to change? Well, why do you think they are good in the first place? Why do you think they complain? No, it’s not because they haven’t adapted, but the exact opposite. They complain because they have adapted enough to see the problems in the game mechanics, they have adapted enough to realize how bloom works. this doesn’t mean the players who like Reach aren’t adapted, they just aren’t adapted enough to see how mechanics actually function. They only see the pretty outer layer, not the (in some cases) ugly inner workings.

once again, tsassi nails it. well said bro.

honestly, we can go back and forth all we want, but at the end of the day Guywiired, you are the one not listening to logic and reason, not us.