I’ve seen a lot of people say this game takes no skill, or that there is a very small skill gap, but what exactly is skill?
Hand eye coordination? Map knowledge? Reflexes? Decison making? Good communication? Lots of practice?
I personally consider it to be straight up practice. The more you play the game the better you get. I wonder why people don’t refer to skill as experience.
Thoughts?
Halo 5 requires the most skill out of all the halo games and is harder for casual players, I don’t know why people say Halo 5 takes no skill still. Skill is basically what you said yourself, the more time you put into anything the better the result.
The gulf between a pro player and a platinum.
> 2533274821773458;3:
> The gulf between a pro player and a platinum.
What creates the gulf?
It’s everything you said but I don’t agree that skill and experience are the same thing, Its possible to play a lot and be bad. Or in my case play a lot and be mediocre.
Skill in halo 5 is actually an acronym. It stands for Scouthogs Kill (the) Innocent (and) Losing Liars.
Source 1
High possibility of false information.
> 2535452785735067;2:
> Halo 5 requires the most skill out of all the halo games and is harder for casual players, I don’t know why people say Halo 5 takes no skill still. Skill is basically what you said yourself, the more time you put into anything the better the result.
Things like Insane amounts of bullet magnetism, Spartan charge, automatics that preform a little too well outside of their intended range Spartan chatter, respawn timers, and weapon indicators all diminish the skill gap
skill wise and competitively H5 doesn’t hold a candle to H3
Execution skill: Proficiency at being able to perform tasks that require timing and reflexes, such as aiming.
Mental skill: Proficiency at planning and strategy, like having good positioning or tracking enemy spawns.
skill is doing things like knowing when to run away…knowing how to use cover…knowing when and where to throw a grenade. seeing things that others dont see. I think skill can be the way you see the game. You can have skill and not be good at a certain game that is new because you havent learned maps etc yhet… but skill combined with practice and experience makes you great
I think there are actually two questions here. First, what is skill? Secondly, what makes someone skilled?
The first question is already hard to answer, but I’ve argued in the past—and the more I think about it the more confident I am—that skill can only ever be taken as a relative measure between two players, and there’s no such thing as minimum skill or maximum skill. The reason it’s only meaningful to consider skill as a relative measure is that whenever you try to quantify someone’s skill, you’re always measuring it relative to something else. The only practical way of measuring someone’s skill is pitting them against another player, and recording how they do against each other. Do enough of these matches with enough players, and you can start building up a leaderboard that ranks the players in order of skill. However, ultimately you’re still just looking at the relative skills of these players.
I haven’t yet ran into a definition of “the lowest possible skill” that would make me believe there’s anything absolute about skill.
But what is skill? The only way we can ever measure skill is by pitting two players against each other for an arbitrary amount of matches, and seeing what kind of performance difference they end up with, and taking that as their relative skill difference. Therefore, the only sensible way to define skill is in terms of the performance difference. That is, the larger the performance difference between two players is, the larger their skill difference is. Then, how you go about quantifying skill is a problem of statistics and probability theory, but that’s beyond the scope of this post.
The second question about skill was: what makes someone skilled? This is the more difficult question of the two. The totally unhelpful answer is: being able to perform well against as many other players as possible. But the actual problem is along the lines of what are the actions that players do to win games, and what does it mean to do these actions better? This is a question that I don’t think anyone can give but a partial answer to. That is, we know that the player who thinks faster and reacts faster is going to have an advantage in any game. Likewise, we know that a player who can consider a wide range of strategies, or tactics in a particular situation, is going to have an advantage. But when it comes to differentiating two players when given their skill sets, we’re almost completely clueless and can only make a reasonable prediction when one player is significantly better in almost every aspect.
P.S. I moved this to General Discussion because this is only tangentially related to Halo 5.
> 2533274832130936;7:
> > 2535452785735067;2:
> > Halo 5 requires the most skill out of all the halo games and is harder for casual players, I don’t know why people say Halo 5 takes no skill still. Skill is basically what you said yourself, the more time you put into anything the better the result.
>
>
> Things like Insane amounts of bullet magnetism, Spartan charge, automatics that preform a little too well outside of their intended range Spartan chatter, respawn timers, and weapon indicators all diminish the skill gap
> skill wise and competitively H5 doesn’t hold a candle to H3
Yeah, because pistols should totally be able to cross-map
Aiming that really requires skill. I need some aiming skill myself with Pistol
> 2535452785735067;2:
> Halo 5 requires the most skill out of all the halo games and is harder for casual players, I don’t know why people say Halo 5 takes no skill still. Skill is basically what you said yourself, the more time you put into anything the better the result.
> 2533274825830455;10:
> I think there are actually two questions here. First, what is skill? Secondly, what makes someone skilled?
>
> The first question is already hard to answer, but I’ve argued in the past—and the more I think about it the more confident I am—that skill can only ever be taken as a relative measure between two players, and there’s no such thing as minimum skill or maximum skill. The reason it’s only meaningful to consider skill as a relative measure is that whenever you try to quantify someone’s skill, you’re always measuring it relative to something else. The only practical way of measuring someone’s skill is pitting them against another player, and recording how they do against each other. Do enough of these matches with enough players, and you can start building up a leaderboard that ranks the players in order of skill. However, ultimately you’re still just looking at the relative skills of these players.
>
> I haven’t yet ran into a definition of “the lowest possible skill” that would make me believe there’s anything absolute about skill.
>
> But what is skill? The only way we can ever measure skill is by pitting two players against each other for an arbitrary amount of matches, and seeing what kind of performance difference they end up with, and taking that as their relative skill difference. Therefore, the only sensible way to define skill is in terms of the performance difference. That is, the larger the performance difference between two players is, the larger their skill difference is. Then, how you go about quantifying skill is a problem of statistics and probability theory, but that’s beyond the scope of this post.
>
> The second question about skill was: what makes someone skilled? This is the more difficult question of the two. The totally unhelpful answer is: being able to perform well against as many other players as possible. But the actual problem is along the lines of what are the actions that players do to win games, and what does it mean to do these actions better? This is a question that I don’t think anyone can give but a partial answer to. That is, we know that the player who thinks faster and reacts faster is going to have an advantage in any game. Likewise, we know that a player who can consider a wide range of strategies, or tactics in a particular situation, is going to have an advantage. But when it comes to differentiating two players when given their skill sets, we’re almost completely clueless and can only make a reasonable prediction when one player is significantly better in almost every aspect.
>
> P.S. I moved this to General Discussion because this is only tangentially related to Halo 5.
Very good point both Arb, OP and of course Monitor. Practice is why athletes are athletes. Why marksman are marksman. Why Mechanics are mechanics. Why musicians are musicians. Why people can do incredible things that most would say impossible. It’s all practice. And in a game, if you die. it’s because you slipped up, made a mistake, or someone just happens to be better than you or someone got the lucky upper hand (right time right place.) There are many variables in how a game and the player flow. But simply it’s all practice and teamwork. Cheers!
