- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
Posted by: Old Papa Rich
The part I take exception to is always. No, the better player does not always win. This is true in almost every competition. But, the better player usually wins. In my Halo experience, it is a very high percentage. Now, if you are talking about individual encounters, the percentage will be much lower. Yes, good players get killed by lesser opponants. This is not a bad thing.
But the worse player isn't winning because he out-thought or out shot his opponent, he's winning because of random tendencies. He isn't getting better, his opponent just got unlucky. This is a problem because it happens so much.
You are getting farthter and farther off the subject. In a more specific post, I mentioned that the AR, spiker, SMG, and similar weapons have a spread. No, not all of them, but many do.
Thereby contradicting what you said earlier. That's my exact point: not all weapons have spread. Why can you not just accept that you were wrong?
My opinion is that some randomness is a good thing.
Clarify why.
The BR is very consistent.
No, it most certainly is not. If a direct hit from a Rocket Launcher only killed you some of the time, and other times only took down your shields, you wouldn't say it was consistent, now would you? It's like that with the BR. Sometimes four shots centered on the head will kill someone, sometimes it won't. And those occasions where they don't are completely out of player control other than getting into close range (not the range the Battle Rifle is intended for).
The random spread is predictable and controlable by staying inside the range
Again, that range is very small.
In the virtual world, distances are only measured by the rules of the game.
Aiming for the head, you can only be sure that all your shots will hit at a distance of about 22 meters. That is about the distance of five squares on Foundry. How could that qualify as medium range? You can walk that distance in three seconds.
Now who is getting too deep into real life comparisons? If you like, I refer to it as a semi-automatic rifle. Again, the units of measure for distance are not a 1 to 1 ratio from the real world to our virtual playground.
I was trying to show just how awful an "approximation" to real life the Battle Rifle is.
And I have no idea what you're trying to say with "1 to 1" ratio and other crap.
No, on this one I really don't get what you are saying. Earlier in the thread you refered to the randomness of the first person shooting. Actually if you got your way, the skill would be the only variable on who won a fire fight. The first person shooting is not a random occurrence.
I'm aware that the first person shooting is not a random occurrence, I was pointing out the factors that determine BR duels. How was that not clear?
Whjat we are struggling to communicate about here is the word "consistency." Because you are outside the effective range of the weapon. I realize you want the effective range to be longer, but it isn't. It is consitent. At range A, you will get a direct hit a certain percentage of the time, at range B, the percentage goes down a number of points, at range C, and so on. I do not have any figures to fill in the blanks, but you get my point. What you want is 100% accuracy with only the player's aim as a variable. This is not the design, nor should it be, in my opinion.
The "percentage" is inconsistent, however. It varies. It's only consistent within a tiny range (again, 22 meters in no way constitutes medium range).
That is my point. Suspense of disbelief is up to the individual. A weapon that functions flawlessly is too much for me
Yet such a poor approximation of real life isn't?