Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Does bungie care about the competitive community?
  • Subject: Does bungie care about the competitive community?
Subject: Does bungie care about the competitive community?

.:. îXî - $ìgñ øf thé GøÐz .:.


My Profile - iXi Gaming


Î ũňķñ{ǾẄŃ} ū

Posted by: fifthderelicte

I personally like longer battles. They give a person the chance to respond and think through the situation. It rewards team play exponentially more, it's great to promote consistency over one lucky headshot, etc. I really understand where you're coming from and don't disagree all that much, I guess there's just one thing I'd ensure, like I said before, and that's skill.


There are different types of skill. By saying what you just did, you're suggesting that Halo 1 didn't take skill and required no teamwork, which we both no is far from the truth.

What it boils down to is preference. The reason you like the ROF of the BR is because you like longer battles. Just because they have more POTENTIAL to be longer battles, doesn't ALSO mean that shorter battles won't allow you to take cover and evaluate your situation. In fact, as I've stated before, slower ROF weapons that are the go to guns just promote sluggish gameplay because with weapons like the Pistol in Halo 1, you needed to be on your toes and think fast to get out of tough jams. When being shot at with the BR, you can just like baby crawl into cover and you'll be fine...

1. If you're going to create a rapid ROF weapon that kills quickly, up the skill required. Make it like the carbine in that it fires fast, but you have to hit a lot of shots. The more shots you have to land, the more that shows your consistency. Obviously we don't want players to have to land 100 shots, but I'd be much more for a 6 round per second, 7 shot kill with headshot from a semiautomatic weapon as opposed to a 4 shot over 2.5 seconds or a 3 shot over 1.5 seconds. More shots equals more skill to land them.

2. Have a pretty fast ROF, but make it semiauto, which means the gun is only as good as the person who pulls the trigger. Skill here would be limited by your ability to pull the trigger and keep your aim consistent.

3. Reduce autoaim significantly, more like HCE.

4. Reduce the size of the reticule

5. Make movement speed a little faster to compensate for lost mobility as well as making sure accuracy is harder and takes more skill.

6. Require the weapon to lead at farther distances on moving targets.


I'm not saying they have to implement all of these to the extreme, but I want to see a larger skill gap in the game and a skillful core weapon.


I 100% agree with everything you've stated here.

  • 11.16.2009 4:23 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Veteran Legendary Member
  • gamertag: jyrine
  • user homepage:

I was the first Spartan. And I will be the last. Mythic on 9/1/2012 never forget
PAX 08, Third Team against Luke and Shishka, AR dual to
the Death, won by one point... Assembly hasn't changed.

urk: "This is a bad idea."
DeeJ: "Hold still..."

The competitive community is too competitive, they are too up tight, and they are too small (group wise)...





So no, they don't care...




















Anymore.......

  • 11.16.2009 4:41 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: UNKNOWN iXi
Posted by: fifthderelicte

I personally like longer battles. They give a person the chance to respond and think through the situation. It rewards team play exponentially more, it's great to promote consistency over one lucky headshot, etc. I really understand where you're coming from and don't disagree all that much, I guess there's just one thing I'd ensure, like I said before, and that's skill.


There are different types of skill. By saying what you just did, you're suggesting that Halo 1 didn't take skill and required no teamwork, which we both no is far from the truth.
I think HCE required less close teamwork. It required good timing in terms of assaulting as a team since you could die so quickly, but it was more like your whole team attacked but each picked up individual targets as opposed to necessitating a team fire from target to target. Team firing wasn't nearly as prevalent in H1, and you didn't need it to traverse the map as much, since you were self-sufficient. But if you play H2-H3 you can see a HUGE difference between teams that team fire and those who don't. But maybe that's just because tactics have developed over the years and we just didn't do that so much for CE.

And no, you cannot surmise that I am saying HCE took no skill. I just think that HCE's quick kills didn't allow for as much skill as we could milk out of this, particularly in terms of teamwork. I don't think HCE was perfect, but everyone seems to think that way. The points I listed in what you quoted above this post were mostly evident in HCE. There was A LOT of skill involved. But if I've learned one things from H2-H3, it's that HCE could have been made a little better if more time/shots were required. Again, I don't propose limiting the kill necessarily by delay during shots, but rather with shots fired. The pistol in CE only took 3.

Posted by: UNKNOWN iXi
What it boils down to is preference. The reason you like the ROF of the BR is because you like longer battles. Just because they have more POTENTIAL to be longer battles, doesn't ALSO mean that shorter battles won't allow you to take cover and evaluate your situation. In fact, as I've stated before, slower ROF weapons that are the go to guns just promote sluggish gameplay because with weapons like the Pistol in Halo 1, you needed to be on your toes and think fast to get out of tough jams. When being shot at with the BR, you can just like baby crawl into cover and you'll be fine...
I don't like the ROF of the BR. I like the way the carbine works. That isn't limited by a timing mechanism, but rather by player skill. I would not mind a HCE type pistol weapon at all, provided they implement what I've stated before.

Make the gun have a large skill gap by doing the things I said. When you do this, you have the potential for very fast and competitive gameplay, but it won't happen with a ton of frequency except at the higher levels. I don't care if it CAN kill in 1-1.5 seconds, but make the player earn it. If they are spot on each shot, don't take that away from them with randomness. Don't make the headshots easy. Don't make them only have to land 3 shots. This would set players apart even further in HReach - the better from the good, and the best from the better. Right now they're all just mixed together.

  • 11.16.2009 4:51 PM PDT

Big Team Battle Multiflag/Slayer on Standoff/Valhalla/Sandtrap/Avalanche = Win

Posted by: elementf89
MLG is a huge part of halo, and encompasses a large part of the fan base. Many say that the MLG style of play is the most competitive and fast paced way to play. For instance, any new gamer to halo can take an ar, and charge people for a few kills. However it takes accuracy and strategy to "out br" people who are good at the game. Also, there is zero team work with AR games. What is the point of calling out when everyone just has a spray gun that shoots literally up to 25 feet?


It gets the job done, real life soldiers don't use snipers in medium quarters cause it takes "accuracy and strategy". Why should it be different in Halo.

You want strategy/skills/pro based, you have the MLG playlist.

[Edited on 11.16.2009 5:01 PM PST]

  • 11.16.2009 4:58 PM PDT

I think the answer to this would be to slightly up the rate of fire on the Reach BR. (Preferably slightly faster than Halo 2 in order to make up for the lack of a double shot)

It'll be shooting single rounds and have a 12 round clip. I'm guessing it'll be a 4 shot kill since the ratio of shots/bursts to ammo would make it the same as the Halo 3 br. (3/36, 1/12)

If Bungie slightly decreases auto aim, they will have a gun which will have a higher potential kill speed but will be significantly harder to kill with. The decrease in auto aim and the lack of a 3 shot burst would make landing the killing head shots harder, increasing the skill gap.

  • 11.16.2009 5:04 PM PDT

Big Team Battle Multiflag/Slayer on Standoff/Valhalla/Sandtrap/Avalanche = Win

Posted by: in the Krutch
I think the answer to this would be to slightly up the rate of fire on the Reach BR. (Preferably slightly faster than Halo 2 in order to make up for the lack of a double shot)

It'll be shooting single rounds and have a 12 round clip. I'm guessing it'll be a 4 shot kill since the ratio of shots/bursts to ammo would make it the same as the Halo 3 br. (3/36, 1/12)

If Bungie slightly decreases auto aim, they will have a gun which will have a higher potential kill speed but will be significantly harder to kill with. The decrease in auto aim and the lack of a 3 shot burst would make landing the killing head shots harder, increasing the skill gap.


It shouldn't be a single shot, cause then that'll just be a human carbine.

  • 11.16.2009 5:08 PM PDT
  • gamertag: Zereta
  • user homepage:

I sure hope they don't. If they do, Halo's multiplayer will just be further worsened.

  • 11.16.2009 5:13 PM PDT

Posted by: YumBuscuitMan
It shouldn't be a single shot, cause then that'll just be a human carbine.
Sorry, it already is.

A single shot weapon should also eliminate the issue with random bullet spread and require more skill to acquire head shots.

[Edited on 11.16.2009 5:14 PM PST]

  • 11.16.2009 5:13 PM PDT

.:. îXî - $ìgñ øf thé GøÐz .:.


My Profile - iXi Gaming


Î ũňķñ{ǾẄŃ} ū

Posted by: fifthderelicte
I think HCE required less close teamwork.


By close teamwork you've constantly stated you're referring to TEAM FIRING. Ok, got that now.



It required good timing in terms of assaulting as a team since you could die so quickly, but it was more like your whole team attacked but each picked up individual targets as opposed to necessitating a team fire from target to target. Team firing wasn't nearly as prevalent in H1, and you didn't need it to traverse the map as much, since you were self-sufficient. But if you play H2-H3 you can see a HUGE difference between teams that team fire and those who don't. But maybe that's just because tactics have developed over the years and we just didn't do that so much for CE.

Agreed about the self-sufficiency part and that yes it was much clearer once Halo 2 and Halo 3 came around about the TEAM FIRING aspect of Halo. Not saying that Halo 1 required little to NO team firing, it just wasn't required as MUCH as Halo 2 and Halo 3. Agreed.



And no, you cannot surmise that I am saying HCE took no skill. I just think that HCE's quick kills didn't allow for as much skill as we could milk out of this, particularly in terms of teamwork.


Actually, I can argue the exact opposite very successfully as you can argue your point very successfully. Since the quick kills of Halo 1 were clearly more apparent than in Halo 2 and Halo 3, a much greater amount of teamwork and coordination was needed to successfully control/reverse your position on any given map. You know how difficult it was to keep hold of top blue and control respawn on Hang 'Em High against opponents who were well coordinated? This can be said about any of the competitive maps/gametypes in Halo 1 due to the fact that since "quick kills" were more abundant than Halo 2 and Halo 3 there was a greater need for coordination and teamwork to overcome your opponent.

This can be argued both ways quite successfully.



I don't think HCE was perfect, but everyone seems to think that way.

Nor do I. I'm glad they turned away from the camping/controlling gameplay tactics of NEEDING to control the Rockets and Powerups on a 2 minute basis because that style would have definitely became stale over the years.




The other things I didn't quote I agree with.

  • 11.16.2009 5:16 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

I hate quoting quotes with quotes, so I won't.

I think that since we've gotten terms clarified, we're on the same page. I do agree that quick kills could be an argument for more coordination, and I see the value in that. Again, my biggest point is that I don't disagree with you about relatively quick kills (not realistic ones like COD and others like it, as that's all spray and pray), as long as they incorporate more skill into it. I would hate it if the autoaim and all this other junk was kept for HR and a quicker kill implemented. That would just make the skill gap even more muddled than it already is.

I also definitely agree with you on controlling weapons. H2 weapon control destroyed the fun on a lot of maps. Control the rocks and banshee on Ascension and you could control everything. Just hold the rocks and they never respawn. It sucked. I definitely like H3's fluidity the best out of them all.

  • 11.16.2009 5:24 PM PDT

I think the key to upping the skill gap is to have a POTENTIAL for a quick kill, but make it require skill to utilize this kill potential.

  • 11.16.2009 5:28 PM PDT

.:. îXî - $ìgñ øf thé GøÐz .:.


My Profile - iXi Gaming


Î ũňķñ{ǾẄŃ} ū

Posted by: fifthderelicte
I hate quoting quotes with quotes, so I won't.

I think that since we've gotten terms clarified, we're on the same page. I do agree that quick kills could be an argument for more coordination, and I see the value in that. Again, my biggest point is that I don't disagree with you about relatively quick kills (not realistic ones like COD and others like it, as that's all spray and pray), as long as they incorporate more skill into it. I would hate it if the autoaim and all this other junk was kept for HR and a quicker kill implemented. That would just make the skill gap even more muddled than it already is.

I also definitely agree with you on controlling weapons. H2 weapon control destroyed the fun on a lot of maps. Control the rocks and banshee on Ascension and you could control everything. Just hold the rocks and they never respawn. It sucked. I definitely like H3's fluidity the best out of them all.


Nice debate :D There's not too many people who debate like we've been doing on these forums lol

Also, check out this new thread I created regarding things that should STAY in Halo

  • 11.16.2009 5:35 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: in the Krutch
I think the key to upping the skill gap is to have a POTENTIAL for a quick kill, but make it require skill to utilize this kill potential.
Perfect summary of my thoughts indeed.


Posted by: UNKNOWN iXi
Posted by: fifthderelicte
I hate quoting quotes with quotes, so I won't.

I think that since we've gotten terms clarified, we're on the same page. I do agree that quick kills could be an argument for more coordination, and I see the value in that. Again, my biggest point is that I don't disagree with you about relatively quick kills (not realistic ones like COD and others like it, as that's all spray and pray), as long as they incorporate more skill into it. I would hate it if the autoaim and all this other junk was kept for HR and a quicker kill implemented. That would just make the skill gap even more muddled than it already is.

I also definitely agree with you on controlling weapons. H2 weapon control destroyed the fun on a lot of maps. Control the rocks and banshee on Ascension and you could control everything. Just hold the rocks and they never respawn. It sucked. I definitely like H3's fluidity the best out of them all.


Nice debate :D There's not too many people who debate like we've been doing on these forums lol

Also, check out this new thread I created regarding things that should STAY in Halo
I concur. I love debates where both sides know their stuff, but are open to see the other side. I don't mind being persuaded if you're right. But it is a very sad thing that this doesn't happen more in the forums.

[Edited on 11.16.2009 5:39 PM PST]

  • 11.16.2009 5:38 PM PDT

Challenge me to a Hawaiian Punch chugging contest. I dare you.


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Does Bungie care about them? Only enough to give them their own playlist (MLG) along with playlists that the competitive community wanted (Snipers, SWAT) and giving them several all BR playlists (Throwback, Squad Battle.)

The real question, does the "competitive community" ask for too much when they already have most of the things they've asked for?

  • 11.16.2009 5:42 PM PDT

Posted by: The EAKLE
Does Bungie care about them? Only enough to give them their own playlist (MLG) along with playlists that the competitive community wanted (Snipers, SWAT) and giving them several all BR playlists (Throwback, Squad Battle.)

The real question, does the "competitive community" ask for too much when they already have most of the things they've asked for?
It does seem like Bungie tries to cater somewhat to the competitive community but it seems like they sometimes don't know how.

This is evident in many of the so called competitive maps being dropped by MLG. I'm not sure if Bungie knows what is necessary for competitive gameplay.

  • 11.16.2009 5:46 PM PDT

Challenge me to a Hawaiian Punch chugging contest. I dare you.


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Posted by: in the Krutch
Posted by: The EAKLE
Does Bungie care about them? Only enough to give them their own playlist (MLG) along with playlists that the competitive community wanted (Snipers, SWAT) and giving them several all BR playlists (Throwback, Squad Battle.)

The real question, does the "competitive community" ask for too much when they already have most of the things they've asked for?
It does seem like Bungie tries to cater somewhat to the competitive community but it seems like they sometimes don't know how.

This is evident in many of the so called competitive maps being dropped by MLG. I'm not sure if Bungie knows what is necessary for competitive gameplay.
MLG makes those maps, not Bungie, and what is "necessary for competitive play" is all someones opinion. Personally, i think TS can be completely competitive, while others only like specific settings for competitive gaming.

  • 11.16.2009 5:49 PM PDT

Posted by: TN The Colony
Posted by: venix445
Posted by: Wv Hellbilly76
any ideas?

i heard... that its shishkas skull... bungie x-rayed his head and put that in as the oddball, they did so that they can put shishka in every oddball match to keep an eye on us to make sure we dont cheat remember this next time you go into oddball... shishkas watching...


PURE WIN!

Posted by: dangerbyrnes
skill = the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well. this includes anything, good at killing with an AR? it's skill. good at driving vehicles? it's skill. skill does not depend on what you use.

now if i recollect, most of bungies decisions have been in favor of the competitive community after halo 3 launched. why were shield doors removed? why did bungie add MLG? why are swat and snipers permanent and grifball and infection not? why were anvil and other foundry maps removed? and why was equipment such as the radar jammer removed?

i'm pretty sure bungie cares about the competitive community, sometimes i think they care too much...


windogmillionare, win post is win

but IMHO mlg can f- off and play some other game, not trying to be ean to the MLG communitty or anything but i just feel MLG is no good for halo but hey thats just me. and bungie seems to cater for MLG too much and not enough for the casual or non mlg ranked or campaign gamers

and i dont think MLG is as big a part of the halo community as many may think

[Edited on 11.16.2009 5:51 PM PST]

  • 11.16.2009 5:49 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: The EAKLE
Does Bungie care about them? Only enough to give them their own playlist (MLG)
One of two playlists out of how many?

Posted by: The EAKLEalong w
ith playlists that the competitive community wanted (Snipers
Considering a lot of people wanted snipers, not just the competitive community - not to mention it's not even for the competitive community with the addition of radar, grenades, and shotguns at its initiation

Posted by: The EAKLE
SWAT)
Two playlists out of how many?

Posted by: The EAKLE
and giving them several all BR playlists (Throwback, Squad Battle.)
Most of the BR implementation is now on larger maps where ARs are absolutely useless. This has little to do with the competitive community compared to necessity. The addition of pistols may have been for the competitive community, but does that really change gameplay at all? It doesn't really do anything since the H3 magnums are close to worthless.

Posted by: The EAKLE


So casual gamers have campaign, forge and customs (which go equally both ways), social playlists, and nearly all of the ranked playlists, save 2. None of the vital aspects of the game for competition have been changed (bullet spread, lack of lunge, lack of strong autoaim, etc), and the competitive community gets 2/17 playlists dedicated to it.

I'm not saying the competitive community deserves babying, but you all are so biased against people who love competition, which isn't exclusively MLG, by the way (take me for instance). Yet since Halo CE, Bungie has added autoaim and magnetism (ridiculous in H2), upped the automatic, CQ, and explosive weapons number by more than double or triple, not added any long/medium ranged weapons (unless you count the laser, which I don't), added melee lunge, and the list goes on.

You people are just so blind and biased towards MLG that you can't allow for any changes in gameplay that will not hurt you, (and in fact will help you), and forget that there are a lot of people in the competitive community who do not associate themselves with MLG. Just look at all the posts above me and how they instantly show their bias, ranting about MLG and how horrible they are.

[Edited on 11.16.2009 6:05 PM PST]

  • 11.16.2009 6:01 PM PDT

Challenge me to a Hawaiian Punch chugging contest. I dare you.


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Posted by: fifthderelicte
Posted by: The EAKLE
Does Bungie care about them? Only enough to give them their own playlist (MLG)
One of two playlists out of how many?

Posted by: The EAKLEalong w
ith playlists that the competitive community wanted (Snipers
Considering a lot of people wanted snipers, not just the competitive community - not to mention it's not even for the competitive community with the addition of radar, grenades, and shotguns at its initiation

Posted by: The EAKLE
SWAT)
Two playlists out of how many?

Posted by: The EAKLE
and giving them several all BR playlists (Throwback, Squad Battle.)
Most of the BR implementation is now on larger maps where ARs are absolutely useless. This has little to do with the competitive community compared to necessity. The addition of pistols may have been for the competitive community, but does that really change gameplay at all? It doesn't really do anything since the H3 magnums are close to worthless.

Posted by: The EAKLE


So casual gamers have campaign, forge and customs (which go equally both ways), social playlists, and nearly all of the ranked playlists, save 2. None of the vital aspects of the game for competition have been changed (bullet spread, lack of lunge, lack of strong autoaim, etc), and the competitive community gets 2/17 playlists dedicated to it.

I'm not saying the competitive community deserves babying, but you all are so biased against people who love competition, which isn't exclusively MLG, by the way (take me for instance). Yet since Halo CE, Bungie has added autoaim and magnetism (ridiculous in H2), upped the automatic, CQ, and explosive weapons number by more than double or triple, not added any long/medium ranged weapons (unless you count the laser, which I don't), added melee lunge, and the list goes on.

You people are just so blind and biased towards MLG that you can't allow for any changes in gameplay that will not hurt you (and in fact will help you).
How am i biased?

You're assuming all social players play strictly social and all competitive people want the same thing. The two groups merge at times. Im a competitive player, and i dont want all BR starts. I know social players that would love nothing more than all BRs all the time.

You're right, Bungie doesnt cater to the "Competitive" players as much as the "Social plaers". But how many competitive players are there compared to social players?

Look at this

The social playlists drew in just over 57% of the players in October when the ranked "competitive" games got less than 42.5%. Social Slayer itself takes up over 30% of the population. More people are content to run and shoot people than to play weapons specific playlists and competitive maps.

Im not saying Bungie shouldnt give some stuff to the competitive players, but they give them enough. Bungie wants to make everybody happy though, not just the competitive players. They could give everything all BR starts, but how is that fair to the people who like Halo the way it is?

Instead of doing that, they give the competitive guys their own places to do their own thing. Why ask for more?

EDIT: Not to mention there are 7 Social playlists (excluding DEXP, basic training and 7/7) and 8 Ranked playlists. The people who think MLG, SWAT, and Snipers are the best way to be competitive are relatively small, thus they have 3/15 of the playlists. The people who like all BR starts have MLG, Squad Battle and Throwback, again 3/15 (1/5). People who want to be as good as they can with normal settings have Team Slayer for 4v4 slayer, Dubs for 2v2 slayer and objective, LW for FFA, Throwback for 4v4 objective, and SB for a 6v6 objective and slayer mix.

The social community has similar playlists (Social Slayer, Skirmish, Rumble Pit, Multi Team) for when they want to have fun with normal games. They have BTB for larger parties (which ranked did have but not enough people played it) and Mythic to play their new maps. They also have Action Sack to just mess around in.

They have a larger population, but less playlists.

[Edited on 11.16.2009 6:30 PM PST]

  • 11.16.2009 6:13 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Your friendly and eccentric Sangheili forum-poster. :)

I smell a troll. And it smells bad.

  • 11.16.2009 6:20 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: The EAKLE
How am i biased?
Perhaps you aren't, but I was directly referring to the posts immediately above my response to you, as well as many of the others in this thread and others.

Posted by: The EAKLE
You're assuming all social players play strictly social and all competitive people want the same thing. The two groups merge at times. Im a competitive player, and i dont want all BR starts. I know social players that would love nothing more than all BRs all the time.
Not at all. I consider myself competitive, as I think that elements that contribute to competitive gameplay are - at worst - neutral to casual gamers - at most - beneficial. Creating a larger skill gap won't let a sucky player find the center of the screen any easier or contribute any more fun, but it sure will help to sort players properly for fair matches, as well as allow for options competitive players will use and casual players will merely ignore.

Your logic here is an all or none. I am by no means arguing that the competitive community should take over. Look at my games played and you'll see that I love social and playing with friends. But competitive elements create a more fair gameplay in MM, and as stated above, offer options competitive players will use, which will by no means hurt the casuals.

Posted by: The EAKLE
You're right, Bungie doesnt cater to the "Competitive" players as much as the "Social plaers". But how many competitive players are there compared to social players?

Look at this

The social playlists drew in just over 57% of the players in October when the ranked "competitive" games got less than 42.5%. Social Slayer itself takes up over 30% of the population. More people are content to run and shoot people than to play weapons specific playlists and competitive maps.
40% of the community is still a lot, and proportionally significant enough to spend nearly half (or let's say 40%) of the attention on them.

Posted by: The EAKLE
Im not saying Bungie shouldnt give some stuff to the competitive players, but they give them enough. Bungie wants to make everybody happy though, not just the competitive players. They could give everything all BR starts, but how is that fair to the people who like Halo the way it is?
There's a difference between preferring something the way it is, and obstinately decrying change. What about the people who liked HCE the way it was, which was largely changed in H2 and H3? You have to realize that the people who say change is bad are the people who wouldn't notice this change at all. If you suck now, you're going to suck when Reach comes out. Do you think a super casual gamer really cares about the difference between a burst BR and a single shot BR? Do you think a casual gamer even knows what a BR is?

Bungie may seem to give in to competitive gamers, but they give where it's not needed as much, and they tease. They give options to change more peripheral issues of the game, or they give extremely limited options (i.e. for speed there is a huge jump from 110% to 150% or 200). On top of this, they fail to allow change to be implemented where it is truly needed for the largest skill gaps and competition (autoaim, bullet spread, lunge, etc). As I've stated a million times, giving these options in forge and/or creating a few playlists that don't just tease the competitive community, but allow them access to the truly compeitive options is good for casual players. It gets the competitive players out of their hair and into the competitive playlists, but it also allows for better skill differentiation, meaning a 40 is really a 40, and is a lot different from a 42. As it stands everyones all mixed around and there are ridiculous matches all the time.

Posted by: The EAKLE
Instead of doing that, they give the competitive guys their own places to do their own thing. Why ask for more?
It just looks like they do, but they haven't really given competition back since they took many of those elements away in H2. I wouldn't consider it catering to the competitive community (not MLG exclusively, mind you) to allow for reducing autoaim, melee lunge, damage and speed (with all options between 50% and 200% available - not this jumping from 110-150-200-500 business), and perhaps bullet speed to enforce leading shots, and maybe bullet variation (spread) if it wasn't too difficult. Just having the options there in forge and customs would not cater to the community, but would be reasonable. And with that, there wouldn't even need to be any hardcore hopper, or maybe only put in one playlist, but keep the rest of Halo clean from it.


Posted by: From Another Post

If you look at how gameplay has devolved from HCE, you'll see that there have been A LOT of things in the weapons and gameplay that have been added that detract from what you perceive as MLG (more autoaim, equipment, dual wielding, MANY more CQ and automatic weapons with no additions to the medium/long range, forge can go both ways, some would consider taking away health as an example, the way the ranking system now gives anyone who wants it an easy 30 or above when a 20 was hard to get in H2, and the list goes on).

Out of all that, the more competitive players get one thing exclusively - two if you count what's shared. Both the competitive players share the rewards of forge, but the competitive community alone benefits from the hardcore playlist. And what does the hardcore playlist include? Snipers and MLG. Out of ranked, campaign, customs, and forge, the competitive community gets TWO playlists out of more than a dozen, and team snipers isn't even hardcore. Snipers includes shotties and radar, which is despised by much of the HC community. So really, there is ONE playlist in all of social and ranked combined given to the competitive community. But while they can take out equipment and spray and pray weapons, they cannot decrease autoaim, they cannot change the BR spread, or if you want to summarize it all - they can't change the most important parts of the game that influence competitive gameplay.


The casual players will typically be skilless, while the good players will typically play so much that they're very good (practice makes perfect, right?). What you find now, with a smaller skill gap, is that as a 35, you're playing commanders and brigs (sometimes even generals) who are often quite competitive. But at the same time, you're playing down with 25s who can't aim anywhere in between the earth and the sky. That sucks! You'd find that if you had a tighter skill gap, the ones who would almost exclusively fall in your range would be the players who are like you. That makes the game enjoyable for the competitive players who only get matched against others like them - the same with the casual - and the same with the mid-level players. A large skill gap and accurate ranking system provide the most balanced and fun play for everyone. Right now Halos ranks really mean nothing because they're so muddled with people all over the place.

[Edited on 11.16.2009 6:53 PM PST]

  • 11.16.2009 6:30 PM PDT

w00t w00t

Check out my Gaming Rig on EVGA Mod Rigs.

I'm sure they will satisfy them some how. But realize that MLG is not that big of a part of the Halo community.

Even Bungie had doubts about adding an MLG playlist because they didn't want to create a specific hopper for such a small group of individuals.

  • 11.16.2009 6:40 PM PDT

MLG might be a huge part of halo. but no it is not. bungie didnt build any part of the game around MLG. also MLG ruined halo with all the little MLG wannabes and everyone worshiping the battle rifle. i mean you cant go anywhere in halo without someone criticizing you on not choosing a weapon "MLG" approved. i cant stand seeing all these people passing up good kill opportunities just because it isnt something an "MLG" person would do.

and the BR isnt the core of halo. no one weapon is. all weapons have a place and purpose and your view of skill shouldnt have any say in that.

so take that and shove it.

  • 11.16.2009 6:43 PM PDT