I thought that concept was common sence in making a decent competitive FPS, maybe Bungie didn’t want to make a competitive FPS or just forgot how to make logical sence.
The idea, in anything, that you constantly loose and that is because of luck is hilarity.
What’s even more hilarious is all the people lined up saying they’ve got a bad case of the “bad lucks” too.
I’ve heard that “not fair” “you got lucky” BS back in Kindergarden and until now it has stopped.
This thread is saying that less skilled players beat more skilled players because of the blooms randomness. I do believe the BR had 2 random bullets in it’s burst and if you put a less skilled player against a more skilled player the more skilled player won cause they had more skill. Same thing can be said about the DMR, if you are beaten by a less skilled player then you have not used the DMR the way it was suppose to be used in that situation.
> The idea, in anything, that you constantly loose and that is because of luck is hilarity.
The OP said that lesser skilled players can defeat him because of the “flip a coin” styled gameplay Reach has, he didn’t say that he had a .50 k/d and that he lost every match because of it.
> In general, this is true, but even in real life, people with more skill can find themselves losing to lesser skilled people. They call this begginer’s luck. And it’s precisely that… luck. Being at the right place at the right time, ending up behind an enemy who isn’t paying attention, finding a power weapon as soon as it spawns, the list is endless. No matter which game you play, there will always be lucky kills for the less skilled. Or do you suggest we all line up and shoot at each other like they did several hundred years ago?
There is no such thing as luck. Like you said right place right time. Finding a power weapon as soon as it spawns has always been a skillful element in Halo, if you wanna be a more skilled player you must learn to know when the weapons respawn.
> In Halo : Reach I find myself losing to players who are way worse than me. I think that in Halo 4 the better player should be able to outplay the less skilled players because, well… they are more skilled.
> How on earth can a player who is bad at a game win from players who have more experience with the game and are more skilled? this shouldn’t even be possible.
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
> Someone pleas explain to me how a less skilled player can beat a more skilled player, and why this should be possible.
>
> It just doesn’t make sense to me, and I find it strange that it has changed from Halo CE to Halo 2 to Halo 3 to Halo Reach that the good player beats the worse player.
>
> If this is being fixed for Halo 4, then Halo 4 MUST have a very good ranking/true skill system because less played players should be matched up with less skilled players and very skilled players should be matched up with very skilled players.
>
> I think that good players should be awarded for being good at a game by beating the worse players simply because of the fact that they are the better ones.
>
> I think that they should implement a weapon in Halo 4 such as the Halo Combat Evolved Magnum or the Battle Rifle… don’t start flaming now m’kay? I think that they should because with these weapons the better player almost always beat the worse player from Close Quarter Combat to Medium Range Combat to Long Range Combat. I rarely found myself killing more skilled players with a Battle Rifle because those were the players that used tactics, strafed and had a very good aim. why should those players be punished by getting beaten by worse players in a one on one battle? It just doesn’t sound right to me. sure, rarely a less skilled player killed the more skilled player because they choked or just missed a shot… but this is what it should be like, a player should be punished for their own faults instead of a weapon that just doesn’t work well such as the Designated Marksman Rifle(DMR for short).
>
> But this is all my opinion, feel free to say that you agree with some of my points and/or post your own ideas, after all, this is a forum 
>
> Thank you for reading :3
couldn’t agree more!!!
> The idea, in anything, that you constantly loose and that is because of luck is hilarity.
>
> What’s even more hilarious is all the people lined up saying they’ve got a bad case of the “bad lucks” too.
>
>
>
> I’ve heard that “not fair” “you got lucky” BS back in Kindergarden and until now it has stopped.
spamming beats pacing 24% of the time.
were not saying ‘you got lucky’ because we lost a DMR vs DMR battle, were saying it because THEY GOT LUCKY.
its fact. maybe ‘luck’ isnt the best word for what were describing, but whatever the word is its certainly synonymous with TRASH.
and please explain to us how its ‘fair’ for the person playing the game AS INTENDED BY BUNGIE to be beaten by someone playing the game INCORRECTLY. how is it ‘fair’ for the person who shoots BETTER to be killed by the person who shoots WORSE 24% of the time?
thats like saying its ‘fair’ for the world chess tourneys to have a die roll at the end, regardless of who won, and on a 1 the winner loses, just for the hell of it.
> This thread is saying that less skilled players beat more skilled players because of the blooms randomness. I do believe the BR had 2 random bullets in it’s burst and if you put a less skilled player against a more skilled player the more skilled player won cause they had more skill. Same thing can be said about the DMR, if you are beaten by a less skilled player then you have not used the DMR the way it was suppose to be used in that situation.
false. pacing is optimal at mid range, and you will lose to someone who spams when you are pacing 24% of the time. thats almost 1/4th of the time.
> Just because you ‘gave a little’ doesn’t mean that I have to, because, you see, the difference between our positions on the matter is that I am right (as supported by facts) and you are blatantly wrong (supported by nothing).
>
> You have been ignoring countless of my posts, because you simply have nothing against them, and I think it is because you know that I am right.
exactly! all this boils down to is spartan monarch, and many others using logic and reason, whilst other people are either ignorant about how the DMR functions (meaning they dont see that spamming beats pacing at mid range), or the basis of their argument is ‘bloom is fine because i have no problem with it’
and sorry, but thats not a compelling reason for bloom being fine.
its not even debatable. really, it isnt. theres one side arguing facts, and logic, and reason, and everybody disagreeing based on… nothing. they have no foundation for ANY of their arguments, and the VERY BEST THING that they can do is grasp at straws or dodge posts that just tear their paper thin foundation to shreds.
the side saying bloom is suboptimal will tell you that
1.) its illogical for the person who shoots better to be beaten by the person who shoots worse.
2.) its contradictory for the game to ENCOURAGE pacing your shots, but still reward people who do not 24% of the time.
3.) its unintuitive for the person who shoots better to be beaten by the person who shoots worse.
4.) when someone gets a kill by spamming at mid range NO ONE BENEFITS. the person spamming loses over 3/4ths of the time (meaning by spamming they are shooting themselves in the foot from the get-go), and the person pacing doesnt benefit because he just died even tho he was playing the game optimally.
5.) you could literally ask 100 12 year olds “who should win the battle: the person who shoots better, or the person who shoots worse?” and THE VAST MAJORITY of them would say “the person who shoots better should win”.
then you have the side saying bloom is ‘fine’ saying
1.) its fine cuz i said so.
2.) i dont have a problem with it, so its fine.
3.) the person who shoots better wins 100% of the time (LOL WHAT?!?)
> The idea, in anything, that you constantly loose and that is because of luck is hilarity.
>
> What’s even more hilarious is all the people lined up saying they’ve got a bad case of the “bad lucks” too.
>
>
>
> I’ve heard that “not fair” “you got lucky” BS back in Kindergarden and until now it has stopped.
The phrases “constantly loose”…wait…“constantly LOSE” (that’s better) never entered this discussion.
The more skilled player will get killed by lesser skilled players at times, it’s going to happen. The problem isn’t that, it’s the fact that there is a mechanic in the game that reduces the skill gap between those two players. Beginner’s “luck” isn’t really luck most of the time, it’s just a phrase to be taken with a grain of salt.
If I am playing against someone playing for the first time and they get a kill on me I simply tip my cap and move on to respawn, the problem is when there is a mechanic in the game that causes kills that I wouldn’t even feel satisfied in getting for myself. If bloom either a) worked properly or b) didn’t exist this topic wouldn’t exist.
> > its not even debatable. really, it isnt. theres one side arguing facts, and logic, and reason, and everybody disagreeing based on… nothing. they have no foundation for ANY of their arguments, and the VERY BEST THING that they can do is grasp at straws or dodge posts that just tear their paper thin foundation to shreds.
>
> Especially this.
its probably too brutally honest, but its so true.
> You’re the same guys since H2 who bash on people for not team shooting, and now Reach comes along, and just to make the point that it’s NOT H2 or H3, you guys are turning around and bashing on the concept of Team shooting because it doesn’t fit your argument?!?
>
> Ludicrous!
I never once said team shooting should be part of gameplay. I was only implying it shouldn’t be the only form of gameplay. I am, in no way, bashing the concept of team shooting, just implying that there should be a balance between it and individual skill. Orevious games maintained that balance, Halo Reach didn’t.
I don’t get it what’s with people trying to change other people’s words. I’ve seen it all over this thread, it’s usually product of lack of arguments. Next time you should read more carefully and don’t put words into my mouth, then you could try to form a proper argument.
Remove AA’s, Remove reticle bloom, give us more skilled movement and jumps, give us more skilled weapons, give us some new weapons and map, and give us a powerful non-random utility weapon and Halo 4 will be awesome.
> > > its not even debatable. really, it isnt. theres one side arguing facts, and logic, and reason, and everybody disagreeing based on… nothing. they have no foundation for ANY of their arguments, and the VERY BEST THING that they can do is grasp at straws or dodge posts that just tear their paper thin foundation to shreds.
> >
> > Especially this.
>
> its probably too brutally honest, but its so true.
Don’t forget taking things out of context and adding meaning we never remotely implied.
> I don’t get it what’s with people trying to change other people’s words. I’ve seen it all over this thread, it’s usually product of lack of arguments. Next time you should read more carefully and don’t put words into my mouth, then you could try to form a proper argument.
I’ve noticed it too in this thread all over the place. Like you said it’s from a lack of arguments so instead of coming up with one they change ours to an argument they feel they can debate.
Well, if you’re more skilled, you should be able to control the variables and win the game. If you’re losing, you must not be that good.
I always laugh when I hear the, “We’re more skilled we should have won!” If you were better, you would have won. Duh. Don’t give me hypotheticals and excuses, Matt Leinart. Sorry.
> Well, if you’re more skilled, you should be able to control the variables and win the game. If you’re losing, you must not be that good.
>
> I always laugh when I hear the, “We’re more skilled we should have won!” If you were better, you would have won. Duh. Don’t give me hypotheticals and excuses, Matt Leinart. Sorry.
Oh, please share the magic trick that lets you have full control over randomness with us, could you? I have never really been able to control randomness due to it’s random nature. Seriously, you can’t control randomness, you can control your bloom, but someone who doesn’t can still beat you even though you hit all your shots, but they miss one shot. Just tell me, what did you do wrong in that situation? How could have you done the situation better?
> > Well, if you’re more skilled, you should be able to control the variables and win the game. If you’re losing, you must not be that good.
> >
> > I always laugh when I hear the, “We’re more skilled we should have won!” If you were better, you would have won. Duh. Don’t give me hypotheticals and excuses, Matt Leinart. Sorry.
>
> Oh, please share the magic trick that lets you have full control over randomness with us, could you? I have never really been able to control randomness due to it’s random nature. Seriously, you can’t control randomness, you can control your bloom, but someone who doesn’t can still beat you even though you hit all your shots, but they miss one shot. Just tell me, what did you do wrong in that situation? How could have you done the situation better?
Exactly. You can control the variable (bloom) to a point, but people can throw “control” out the window and still beat you out of sheer luck. Ignoring that fact is a serious flaw that seems to be way too common.
> > Well, if you’re more skilled, you should be able to control the variables and win the game. If you’re losing, you must not be that good.
> >
> > I always laugh when I hear the, “We’re more skilled we should have won!” If you were better, you would have won. Duh. Don’t give me hypotheticals and excuses, Matt Leinart. Sorry.
>
> Oh, please share the magic trick that lets you have full control over randomness with us, could you? I have never really been able to control randomness due to it’s random nature. Seriously, you can’t control randomness, you can control your bloom, but someone who doesn’t can still beat you even though you hit all your shots, but they miss one shot. Just tell me, what did you do wrong in that situation? How could have you done the situation better?
yep. the only reasonable thing you can do to not get killed by spamming in 1v1 DMR battles is to NOT engage in 1v1 DMR battles. this is incredibly odd for an FPS game.
run around the map, but NEVER ENGAGE someone who will shoot you back because even if you shoot better they can still beat you by shooting worse.
its unintuitive, to say the very least.
Yea it’s weird actually. Unless you have the drop on someone you’re more or less walking into a 50/50 shot of winning and you don’t have full control over it. I never really thought about that but it’s true, people tend to avoid battles unless they have the drop on the enemy.
> Remove AA’s, Remove reticle bloom, give us more skilled movement and jumps, give us more skilled weapons, give us some new weapons and map, and give us a powerful non-random utility weapon and Halo 4 will be awesome.
Basically this, and they should add maps which would involve very advanced tactical gameplay.