Halo 1 & 2 for PC
This topic has moved here: Subject: For Lack of a Better Shot
  • Subject: For Lack of a Better Shot
Subject: For Lack of a Better Shot
  •  | 
  • Noble Legendary Member

Halo 1&2 PC forum's resident OC ReMixer. Like rockified and metalized video game music? Subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Yeah. That's right. I don't have a 50 in H3. I never got Onyx in Reach. If a game sucks too much, I won't even bother trying for such trivial "accolades". Besides, I've done way more things that take far more skill and talent than anything that can be done in a video game.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
I think we're just going to have to drop the first 1-2 points. You feel that games (very few of them, I might add) are competitive straight out of the package, and others are only good for fun. I don't agree, but I understand. I feel that nearly any game can be made into a competitive experience. In snappy quote-tastic formula: There aren't that many casual games, just casual players. (I'll admit I didn't pay much attention to the guys in the video)

This is pretty much entirely wrong. If a game is built from the ground up to allow bad players to play on the same level as good players, then it can't feasibly be played competitively because it allows bad players to defeat good players, something that any competitive player would agree should never happen in a competitive game.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
I think you're just plain wrong about the auto-aim. Not everyone has equitable marksmanship skills in Halo 2. Yes there's some assistance for noobs, no it doesn't make everyone as good a shot as the Halo CE world champion.

You're arguing against fact at this point. It's honestly almost as easy in H2 to hit your target as it is in Goldeneye. The game "assists" you so much it might as well be an aimbot.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
"Noobifications" must be code for "things DusK doesn't like". The Banshee and kill-everything-now warthogs were built into Halo CE's gameplay. Taking them out is *exactly* what MLG does--remove vehicles or weapons that can be abused so as to make the game lopsided.

Noobifications are anything that would allow bad players to be brought up to a level where they would be a threat against good players. Aim assist is a prime example of a noobification that can't be disabled for competitive play.

Posted by: TS z3NN 9
I'm not contributing anything to the discussion whatsoever, so I really should even bother posting.

Duly noted.

[Edited on 07.06.2011 3:21 PM PDT]

  • 07.06.2011 3:21 PM PDT


Posted by: DusK
This is pretty much entirely wrong. If a game is built from the ground up to allow bad players to play on the same level as good players, then it can't feasibly be played competitively because it allows bad players to defeat good players, something that any competitive player would agree should never happen in a competitive game.


The games you deem not competitive are simply giving lesser players hope of winning. As long as the better player is winning the vast majority of the time, the game can be played competitively. I'm sorry you have some burning desire to win every single match 50-0, but if you win a best of 5 series, no competitive player will dispute your superiority. In Halo 2 matchmaking, you had infinite chances to start another round and even out your average(s) based on the odds.

Posted by: DusK
You're arguing against fact at this point. It's honestly almost as easy in H2 to hit your target as it is in Goldeneye. The game "assists" you so much it might as well be an aimbot.


Alas, I'm not arguing against the *existence* of auto-aim and bullet magnetism, which is all that's proven in that video. The debate is about how much Halo 2oobs gain against better players. I maintain that auto-aim doesn't reduce firefights to coin flips. Consider some math: (If you can actually *prove* the hit percentage benefit of the auto-aim, I'll reconsider these numbers)

You, DusK, have 95% accuracy.
Your opponent, Halo 2o0b, has 50% accuracy.
>Auto-aim raises his accuracy to an otherwise respectable 75%
You both see each other at the same time, are equally fast on the trigger, etc. etc.

When you two shoot at each other with the BR, he should miss one of the five shots based on his accuracy, and you won't. You'll survive with little or no shield and he'll die, nearly every time. Even when your 95% accuracy yields a miss, it's still a coin flip--something you can eliminate by improving your reflexes or surprising him, or using any of the other ignored variables in this example.

Posted by: DusK
Noobifications are anything that would allow bad players to be brought up to a level where they would be a threat against good players. Aim assist is a prime example of a noobification that can't be disabled for competitive play.


There's nothing inherently wrong with bad players being *a threat*, as long as they're not winning anywhere near 50% of the time (if the "bad players" are consistently winning more than 50% of the time, you're probably just bitter). But you still don't provide data *proving* that the Halo 2oobs gain from the "noobifications" any *more* than anyone else.

Finally, I'd like to take the DusK challenge on Halo: CE. You name the time and place.

  • 07.07.2011 6:17 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Legendary Member

Halo 1&2 PC forum's resident OC ReMixer. Like rockified and metalized video game music? Subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Yeah. That's right. I don't have a 50 in H3. I never got Onyx in Reach. If a game sucks too much, I won't even bother trying for such trivial "accolades". Besides, I've done way more things that take far more skill and talent than anything that can be done in a video game.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
The games you deem not competitive are simply giving lesser players hope of winning.

Which should never happen. If they suck, they should lose. If they're good, they should win. That's the bottom line.

Posted by: DusK
Alas, I'm not arguing against the *existence* of auto-aim and bullet magnetism, which is all that's proven in that video. The debate is about how much Halo 2oobs gain against better players. I maintain that auto-aim doesn't reduce firefights to coin flips. Consider some math: (If you can actually *prove* the hit percentage benefit of the auto-aim, I'll reconsider these numbers)

You, DusK, have 95% accuracy.
Your opponent, Halo 2o0b, has 50% accuracy.
>Auto-aim raises his accuracy to an otherwise respectable 75%
You both see each other at the same time, are equally fast on the trigger, etc. etc.

When you two shoot at each other with the BR, he should miss one of the five shots based on his accuracy, and you won't. You'll survive with little or no shield and he'll die, nearly every time. Even when your 95% accuracy yields a miss, it's still a coin flip--something you can eliminate by improving your reflexes or surprising him, or using any of the other ignored variables in this example.

The problem is that if some guy sucks, he shouldn't get any help at all. It's FPS, not charity.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
There's nothing inherently wrong with bad players being *a threat*, as long as they're not winning anywhere near 50% of the time (if the "bad players" are consistently winning more than 50% of the time, you're probably just bitter). But you still don't provide data *proving* that the Halo 2oobs gain from the "noobifications" any *more* than anyone else.

Take a look at my H3 games. It's littered with complete noobcakes defeating skilled opponents such as myself and promptly losing horribly the following matches. There's no consistency.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
Finally, I'd like to take the DusK challenge on Halo: CE. You name the time and place.

Accepted, but it'll have to wait until the weekend is over.

Posted by: BootlessM22
Are you serious? DusK we get it, you don't like Halo 2, that's your opinion, there is no need to constantly ran and rant about it and try to make YOUR opinion that a game is bad into a fact. You really should stop this, shoving your opinion into their faces and constantly telling them its fact (when its not) is something I like to call "FASCISM". Until you stop camping on the halo 1 and 2 for PC forums, I really have nothing good to say about you. P.S your scores on halo CE aren't even that good. You really need to stop making PC gamers like me look like complete fanboy's. Just because people don't think like you, theres no reason to call them names. Go do something else with your time, that is not constantly ripping on Halo 2 Vista.

First off, it is fact. H2V is inferior to other FPS games in every single way possible. What we're focusing on is competitive play, and as far as PC FPS games go, you can't get any less skill-based than H2V.

Furthermore, I suggest you look up the definition of the word "fascism" before using it out context and making yourself look like complete idiot. An argument about a video game has nothing to do with totalitarian single-party nations. I can't even begin to fathom what kind of mental incapability led you to use a word that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.

On top of you contributing absolutely nothing to the topic, instead opting to provide a post which I expressly made clear this topic was trying to avoid, you attempt to call me bad. My invitation extends to you just as much as any other garbage H2V player pretending to be good. My Xfire's oniryu. Step up or shut up, baddie.

[Edited on 07.08.2011 12:52 AM PDT]

  • 07.08.2011 12:51 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Legendary Member

Halo 1&2 PC forum's resident OC ReMixer. Like rockified and metalized video game music? Subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Yeah. That's right. I don't have a 50 in H3. I never got Onyx in Reach. If a game sucks too much, I won't even bother trying for such trivial "accolades". Besides, I've done way more things that take far more skill and talent than anything that can be done in a video game.


Posted by: BootlessM22
Fascism doesn't only refer to governments. Look it up in a real dictionary.

Check it, yo.

And here's another definition for you.
BootlessM22 - noun
1: A complete idiot who uses words without knowing what they mean at all

Posted by: BootlessM22
Oh you wanna go in ce eh? Sure, your ports open for a lag free server? I'll 1v1 you (most) days.

Good. I'll be seeing your e-corpse soon.

Posted by: BootlessM22
I like how you act like all halo ce players are automatically pro.

Never said this. Maybe after you learn to know the definitions of the words you use in your posts, you can learn to read.

I did, however, say that nobody who thinks H2 takes skill to play is good at truly skill-based FPS games. I haven't been proven wrong yet.

  • 07.08.2011 3:43 AM PDT

Halo Reach PC über alles!


Posted by: BootlessM22
Fascist: "2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control"
Pretty much describes you. You think you own this forum when you really don't. All you do is force your ignorantl opinion unto others.


Erm.... No.

Fascist: "An oppressive totalitarian nationalistic right wing form of government, usually advocating racial purity, warmongering, and strong leadership."

By this definition, I seriously doubt that DusK is a fascist. the word you are looking for however is "authoritarian".

[Edited on 07.08.2011 8:06 AM PDT]

  • 07.08.2011 8:05 AM PDT

Something smells fishy...

Oh crap DusK is a fascist for expressing his opinions. OMG that must mean everyone in the world is a fascist!

Listen, everyone has expressed their opinions on H2V and CE in this thread and in this forum. That doesn't mean everyone is trying to take over control of this forum, be a fascist, or be an authoritarian. It simply means everyone has varying opinions.

  • 07.08.2011 8:27 AM PDT

Posted by: BootlessM22
Fascist: "2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control"
Pretty much describes you. You think you own this forum when you really don't. All you do is force your ignorantl opinion unto others.


Wat.

  • 07.08.2011 9:44 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Legendary Member

Halo 1&2 PC forum's resident OC ReMixer. Like rockified and metalized video game music? Subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Yeah. That's right. I don't have a 50 in H3. I never got Onyx in Reach. If a game sucks too much, I won't even bother trying for such trivial "accolades". Besides, I've done way more things that take far more skill and talent than anything that can be done in a video game.


Posted by: BootlessM22
Fascist: "2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control"
Pretty much describes you. You think you own this forum when you really don't. All you do is force your ignorantl opinion unto others.

Nobody's taking you seriously, Mr. Beck.

Posted by: S Squared4
k go up against Halo 2 40+ and tell me how it works out.

I've slaughtered people that have 50s in H2 in HPC. Ranks in Halo 2 mean nothing when the training wheels are kicked off.

  • 07.08.2011 12:32 PM PDT

Before I jump back into this discussion:
*sigh* As much as I dispute your claim of "fact" on many issues, you're not a fascist, DusK. Although the rest of the forum seems to be growing sick of this topic, I enjoy discussing it with someone who posts intelligent counterpoints and spells out "you". It's refreshing.

Secondly, when I make my points, I'm thinking primarily of Halo 2 Xbox, of which I played 8000+ games on Xbox Live--not Halo 2 Vista. I tend to agree that Vista is kind of a crummy port, for the reasons you've stated.
Posted by: DusK
Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
The games you deem not competitive are simply giving lesser players hope of winning.

Which should never happen. If they suck, they should lose. If they're good, they should win. That's the bottom line.

I generally agree, but with the level system things even out over time, and better players win more than crappy players, resulting in better players having higher levels--remember, you didn't level down until you'd reached the half-way mark of the level below, and that's pretty generous. Plus, "hope of winning" is not equal to "wins frequently". Is it such a bad thing that poor players might have fun and want to invest the time to become better players? It's genious marketing, and I honestly think it has no bearing on the cream of the crop.

Posted by: DusK
The problem is that if some guy sucks, he shouldn't get any help at all. It's FPS, not charity.

Maybe he shouldn't, but it still won't prevent you from winning those firefights like I *proved* you would and subsequently leveling up past such noobs.

Posted by: DusK
Take a look at my H3 games. It's littered with complete noobcakes defeating skilled opponents such as myself and promptly losing horribly the following matches. There's no consistency.

Here I think you're being too picky about what "consistency" means. As long as you have a better k/d, better level, better winning percentage than those noobcakes, what's your complaint? They got lucky once, you were good five times. Good for you. "Consistency" shouldn't mean that lesser players never kill better players. Frankly that would make for boring blowouts all too often.

Posted by: DusK
Accepted, but it'll have to wait until the weekend is over.

Glad to hear it. I'm not available Monday (traveling) and Tuesday 5:30pm - 1am(?) EST (work).

  • 07.08.2011 1:10 PM PDT

Why do most threads in any forum on bungie.net turn into bashfests or flame wars? Will the community ever learn...

  • 07.09.2011 2:18 PM PDT


Posted by: DusK
I shoot people with the pistol/sniper rifle, but my opponents don't die! Hax?
No, latency. Halo PC's netcode took a dive when MS mandated a rewrite of the netcode to support 56k connections. You have to aim in front of your targets based on your ping to the server. A ping of around 60 is usually a head's length or so. Work with it. It's called "finding your lead". You have to do this with ANYTHING that you want to hit your target; rockets, shotgun blasts, even melee attacks.

That'd be the exact reason I stopped playing Halo CE. Will we have this issue in a head to head match?

Meanwhile in console land I was aiming *at* my Reach opponents... please don't write a bunch of hateful stuff about how much better PCs are, I'm well aware that it's just Microsoft dropping the ball for Halo CE in this case.

Should I interpret your silence as recognition of my views as legitimate, DusK?

  • 07.09.2011 5:47 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Legendary Member

Halo 1&2 PC forum's resident OC ReMixer. Like rockified and metalized video game music? Subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Yeah. That's right. I don't have a 50 in H3. I never got Onyx in Reach. If a game sucks too much, I won't even bother trying for such trivial "accolades". Besides, I've done way more things that take far more skill and talent than anything that can be done in a video game.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC

Posted by: DusK
I shoot people with the pistol/sniper rifle, but my opponents don't die! Hax?
No, latency. Halo PC's netcode took a dive when MS mandated a rewrite of the netcode to support 56k connections. You have to aim in front of your targets based on your ping to the server. A ping of around 60 is usually a head's length or so. Work with it. It's called "finding your lead". You have to do this with ANYTHING that you want to hit your target; rockets, shotgun blasts, even melee attacks.

That'd be the exact reason I stopped playing Halo CE. Will we have this issue in a head to head match?

Always. Leading's not hard. Any decent FPS player finds it easy. That means that if you quit HPC because leading was too hard, you're below decent.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
Should I interpret your silence as recognition of my views as legitimate, DusK?

No, you should interpret my silence as me actually having a life and doing stuff outside of a forum. Which I'm sure comes as a shock to many haters who would like to believe that all I do is sit on this board all day attacking H2 and its players.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
I generally agree, but with the level system things even out over time, and better players win more than crappy players, resulting in better players having higher levels--remember, you didn't level down until you'd reached the half-way mark of the level below, and that's pretty generous. Plus, "hope of winning" is not equal to "wins frequently". Is it such a bad thing that poor players might have fun and want to invest the time to become better players? It's genious marketing, and I honestly think it has no bearing on the cream of the crop.

I fail to see how the level system worked correctly when I was beating people over level 30 by my 5th game of Halo 2. You must be seeing something I'm not.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
Posted by: DusK
The problem is that if some guy sucks, he shouldn't get any help at all. It's FPS, not charity.

Maybe he shouldn't, but it still won't prevent you from winning those firefights like I *proved* you would and subsequently leveling up past such noobs.

You haven't proven anything. Aim assist can allow a bad person to win a firefight. I've seen it happen time and time again.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
Here I think you're being too picky about what "consistency" means. As long as you have a better k/d, better level, better winning percentage than those noobcakes, what's your complaint? They got lucky once, you were good five times. Good for you. "Consistency" shouldn't mean that lesser players never kill better players. Frankly that would make for boring blowouts all too often.

The problem with each of these is:
1. A better level can be echieved simply by player with people that can carry you
2. A better K/D can be achieved by sitting in corners with rocket launchers, whoring vehicles, hiding with the ridiculosniper
3. A high win percentage could be a factor of plain luck, or for the same reasons as number 1

Not only that, but if the luck/help factor were as small as you claim, I wouldn't have anything against the game. Or rather, not so much the game as the players that claim it's skill-based when it's not.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
Glad to hear it. I'm not available Monday (traveling) and Tuesday 5:30pm - 1am(?) EST (work).

I guess it'd have to be early Wednesday?

[Edited on 07.09.2011 6:13 PM PDT]

  • 07.09.2011 5:58 PM PDT

Posted by: DusK
Always. Leading's not hard. Any decent FPS player finds it easy. That means that if you quit HPC because leading was too hard, you're below decent.

I quit because I assumed it was lag, and because I didn't want to deal with it, not because I couldn't. "Leading" is all fine and well as long as everyone's walking in a fully predictable way. How on earth do you hit someone when their movement is erratic? That's a genuine question since I didn't stick around to find out.
Posted by: DusK
No, you should interpret my silence as me actually having a life and doing stuff outside of a forum. Which I'm sure comes as a shock to many haters who would like to believe that all I do is sit on this board all day attacking H2 and its players.

Oh, I was kind of hoping you wouldn't go there. I noticed that you bumped your own threads last night, which I guess is more important than discussion. I'll freely admit I've been spending an excessive amount of time haunting this forum. It's a product of being away from my otherwise reasonably busy life (and Xbox) for the weekend.

Posted by: DusK
I fail to see how the level system worked correctly when I was beating people over level 30 by my 5th game of Halo 2. You must be seeing something I'm not.

I don't think so. What I'm not seeing is what you're describing, because you haven't even shown proof of your anecdotal evidence. The math shows that better people level up, and you reject that math with personal examples lacking in hard facts.

Posted by: DusK
You haven't proven anything. Aim assist can allow a bad person to win a firefight. I've seen it happen time and time again.

Again, enlighten us with the proof.

Posted by: DusK
The problem with each of these is:
1. A better level can be echieved simply by player with people that can carry you
2. A better K/D can be achieved by sitting in corners with rocket launchers, whoring vehicles, hiding with the ridiculosniper
3. A high win percentage could be a factor of plain luck, or for the same reasons as number 1

You need to think like an economist and put the auto-aim factor in a vacuum. We're talking about auto-aim, not these other things. But just for funsies:
1. You are just as capable of teaming up with better players in order to get those same benefits. Halo 2 matched 4 player parties against 4 player parties, 3 player parties and a random against 3 player parties and a random, in all my experience. Three good players trying to boost a fourth are essentially consenting to playing a man down, along with the liability of that guy's deaths.
2. Once again, discrediting behavior because you don't like it. If you're the better player, get to those weapons or vehicles first, kill that opponent, and take the weapon so they can't have it. Many of the maps are designed such that you can do this.
3. You have to assume that they don't get matched with excellent teammates every time they play. Bad players are just as capable of getting shafted with bad teammates.

Posted by: DusK
Not only that, but if the luck/help factor were as small as you claim, I wouldn't have anything against the game. Or rather, not so much the game as the players that claim it's skill-based when it's not.

You still haven't proven the luck/help factor is as big as you claim, so in your words: Put up or shut up.

Posted by: DusK
Posted by: VintageRonJohn
Glad to hear it. I'm not available Monday (traveling) and Tuesday 5:30pm - 1am(?) EST (work).

I guess it'd have to be early Wednesday?

Early Wednesday will probably be fine, as long as I'm not working. I don't know my work schedule far enough in advance because my manager sucks.

[Edited on 07.09.2011 7:05 PM PDT]

  • 07.09.2011 7:02 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Legendary Member

Halo 1&2 PC forum's resident OC ReMixer. Like rockified and metalized video game music? Subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Yeah. That's right. I don't have a 50 in H3. I never got Onyx in Reach. If a game sucks too much, I won't even bother trying for such trivial "accolades". Besides, I've done way more things that take far more skill and talent than anything that can be done in a video game.


Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
Posted by: DusK
Always. Leading's not hard. Any decent FPS player finds it easy. That means that if you quit HPC because leading was too hard, you're below decent.

I quit because I assumed it was lag, and because I didn't want to deal with it, not because I couldn't. "Leading" is all fine and well as long as everyone's walking in a fully predictable way. How on earth do you hit someone when their movement is erratic? That's a genuine question since I didn't stick around to find out.

Once you get good, you just kinda figure out how people tend to move and react accordingly. Like I said, it's not hard at all.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
Posted by: DusK
No, you should interpret my silence as me actually having a life and doing stuff outside of a forum. Which I'm sure comes as a shock to many haters who would like to believe that all I do is sit on this board all day attacking H2 and its players.

Oh, I was kind of hoping you wouldn't go there. I noticed that you bumped your own threads last night, which I guess is more important than discussion. I'll freely admit I've been spending an excessive amount of time haunting this forum. It's a product of being away from my otherwise reasonably busy life (and Xbox) for the weekend.

I bumped 'em because it took minimal time out of my day and they were sitting past page 3, and a lot of noob questions were being posted.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
Posted by: DusK
I fail to see how the level system worked correctly when I was beating people over level 30 by my 5th game of Halo 2. You must be seeing something I'm not.

I don't think so. What I'm not seeing is what you're describing, because you haven't even shown proof of your anecdotal evidence. The math shows that better people level up, and you reject that math with personal examples lacking in hard facts.

There is no math; just percentages that you're pulling from nowhere. There is no legitimate source for your "statistics," making them just as useless as my accounts based on experience. I think in that regard, we're at a standstill until someone does some testing to confir- Ohwait.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
Posted by: DusK
You haven't proven anything. Aim assist can allow a bad person to win a firefight. I've seen it happen time and time again.

Again, enlighten us with the proof.

Ditto.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
You need to think like an economist and put the auto-aim factor in a vacuum. We're talking about auto-aim, not these other things.

Actually, the thread addresses these too.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
But just for funsies:
1. You are just as capable of teaming up with better players in order to get those same benefits. Halo 2 matched 4 player parties against 4 player parties, 3 player parties and a random against 3 player parties and a random, in all my experience. Three good players trying to boost a fourth are essentially consenting to playing a man down, along with the liability of that guy's deaths.
2. Once again, discrediting behavior because you don't like it. If you're the better player, get to those weapons or vehicles first, kill that opponent, and take the weapon so they can't have it. Many of the maps are designed such that you can do this.
3. You have to assume that they don't get matched with excellent teammates every time they play. Bad players are just as capable of getting shafted with bad teammates.

1. Which can be done easily considering it takes no skill to beat someone trying to play as if they have balls.
2. So at this point, you're perfectly content in saying that playing like a coward via whoring these noobish "power weapons" and vehicles is the way to win in Halo 2. Which is what I've been saying this whole thread.
3. Presenting inconsistency in matchmaking, making ranks meaningless.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
Posted by: DusK
Not only that, but if the luck/help factor were as small as you claim, I wouldn't have anything against the game. Or rather, not so much the game as the players that claim it's skill-based when it's not.

You still haven't proven the luck/help factor is as big as you claim, so in your words: Put up or shut up.

I'll post it as many times as I have to until you figure out how ridiculously the game caters to bad players.

  • 07.09.2011 8:16 PM PDT


Posted by: DusK
Once you get good, you just kinda figure out how people tend to move and react accordingly. Like I said, it's not hard at all.

You've just made your whole argument into a paradox:
1. Halo CE takes more skill
2. Halo CE has latency
3. Because of the latency, you have to predict movement
4. Predicting as if the player were good causes you to miss a player who's bad, because they don't move like a good player
5. Bad players are more difficult to hit in Halo CE

Posted by: DusK
There is no math; just percentages that you're pulling from nowhere.

Percentages: they're still math, no matter where I pull them from.

Posted by: DusK
There is no legitimate source for your "statistics," making them just as useless as my accounts based on experience. I think in that regard, we're at a standstill until someone does some testing to confir- Ohwait.

The numbers I offer are probably pretty close to the truth, though admittedly no more verifiable than your stories. As for your video (again) it fails (again) to demonstrate your point. The same mechanics apply to skilled players, thus not giving noobs an unfair advantage. When skilled players aim to the left of a noob, they also get bullet magnetism. So the -blam!- what?

Posted by: DusK
Posted by: VintageRonJohn
You need to think like an economist and put the auto-aim factor in a vacuum. We're talking about auto-aim, not these other things.

Actually, the thread addresses these too.

The thread, but not my specific point.

Posted by: DusK
2. So at this point, you're perfectly content in saying that playing like a coward via whoring these noobish "power weapons" and vehicles is the way to win in Halo 2. Which is what I've been saying this whole thread.
3. Presenting inconsistency in matchmaking, making ranks meaningless.

2. Nope, I'm saying that if they're as bad as you say they are, you can keep those weapons out of their hands. I frequently pick up a sniper and don't use it, so that the other team has no access. It's good strategy. You can stay on your high horse and not shoot the rocket launcher if you feel that strongly.
3. Are you mad? You cannot change the fact that sometimes you have crappy teammates, and sometimes benefit from good ones. If you think that "inconsistency" is Bungie or Halo 2's fault, you're mistaken.

Posted by: DusK
I'll post it as many times as I have to until you figure out how ridiculously the game caters to bad players.

This video? It's still not proof of Halo 2oobs beating Xbox gods. Judging from the YouTube comments, you must be... zapzap09? Getting called a fascist in two places has gotta be rough.

[Edited on 07.09.2011 9:01 PM PDT]

  • 07.09.2011 8:56 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Legendary Member

Halo 1&2 PC forum's resident OC ReMixer. Like rockified and metalized video game music? Subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Yeah. That's right. I don't have a 50 in H3. I never got Onyx in Reach. If a game sucks too much, I won't even bother trying for such trivial "accolades". Besides, I've done way more things that take far more skill and talent than anything that can be done in a video game.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
You've just made your whole argument into a paradox:
1. Halo CE takes more skill
2. Halo CE has latency
3. Because of the latency, you have to predict movement
4. Predicting as if the player were good causes you to miss a player who's bad, because they don't move like a good player
5. Bad players are more difficult to hit in Halo CE

Nowhere did I say that you'd be predicting as if the player were good, I just said that you learn to read players and act accordingly. A bad player is actually much easier to hit because they usually just run in a straight line.


Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
Percentages: they're still math, no matter where I pull them from.

Here's one. In Halo 2, noobs win 100% of the time. See how there's no actual basis for my claim whatsoever, and how I'm just throwing it out there? That's what you're doing, and that's what makes your made-up percentages moot.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
The numbers I offer are probably pretty close to the truth
though admittedly no more verifiable than your stories.

At least you're being honest there.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
As for your video (again) it fails (again) to demonstrate your point. The same mechanics apply to skilled players, thus not giving noobs an unfair advantage. When skilled players aim to the left of a noob, they also get bullet magnetism. So the -blam!- what?

The video shows mechanics that allow unskilled players to be placed on the same level as skilled players. Kick off the auto-aim, make the bullets stop being homing, bring fall damage into the equation, and the game would be skill based. That's all there though, so it's not.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
The thread, but not my specific point.

Your point is: The game aims for you. Somehow that makes it skill-based. Here are some numbers I made up.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
2. Nope, I'm saying that if they're as bad as you say they are, you can keep those weapons out of their hands. I frequently pick up a sniper and don't use it, so that the other team has no access. It's good strategy. You can stay on your high horse and not shoot the rocket launcher if you feel that strongly.

The fact that it's necessary to take those measures to stop bad players from killing you proves my point.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
3. Are you mad? You cannot change the fact that sometimes you have crappy teammates, and sometimes benefit from good ones. If you think that "inconsistency" is Bungie or Halo 2's fault, you're mistaken.

Matchmaking, unless you're in a premade group, is largely random. Go ahead and disagree, but even the most hardened fanboy is reasonable enough to admit that.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
This video? It's still not proof of Halo 2oobs beating Xbox gods. Judging from the YouTube comments, you must be... zapzap09? Getting called a fascist in two places has gotta be rough.

Assumptions are funny, but pointless. My YouTube account is my homepage on my B.net profile. And don't tell me you're gonna use that word out of context too.

[Edited on 07.09.2011 9:18 PM PDT]

  • 07.09.2011 9:17 PM PDT

A Better Shot
I'm sick of making the same points over and over again, and you refuting them with mostly unrelated (yet valid) points.

Because you take issue with my made up numbers, which are nonetheless fair and reasonable, I've gathered some data that you can verify for yourself on my list of games played in Halo 2. My gamertag is VintageRonJohn.

The Data
Comes from the last 25 games of Team Slayer BR that I played on Xbox Live, with the following exceptions:
8/9/2007 on Tombstone--3 players quit/lagged out
8/2/2007 on Relic--3 players quit/lagged out
8/1/2007 on Desolation--purged from records
7/30/2007 on Zanzibar--Unranked (and purged)
7/30/2007 on Burial Mounds--purged
7/30/2007 on Relic--Unranked

Every other game titled "Team Slayer BR" (the most recent 25 of them, anyway) is a part of this data set. I removed the games with three quitters because that's not a typical competitive experience.

Playing Like You Have Balls
The Battle Rifle constituted the tool of destruction the vast majority of the time: 80.8% of noobish Halo 2 players get most of their kills with the Battle Rifle when there's a BR start. It gets even better! The BR was the tool of destruction for at least seven players in 14 of the 25 games (56%) and nearly a quarter of all games (24%) featured the BR as the tool of destruction 8 times--when you factor in games where players quit without killing, the Battle Rifle is the sole tool of destruction in more than 1/4 Team Slayer BR games. Not the rocket launcher, not the sniper, not vehicles (which were all available), the BR.

Aim for the Head
The team with more headshots won a whopping 88% of the time. In the three cases where this wasn't true, either the margin of headshots was very close (29-31), the overall score was very close (50-48), or both (30-32 in headshots, 40-39 on the scoreboard). It's safe to say that, like in any skill-based game, headshots correlate with wins. Strangely, there were no instances of both teams earning the same number of headshots.

Teamwork
In 64% of the games I examined, the team with more assists won. 24% of the time the team with fewer assists prevailed. 12% of the time both teams earned the same number of assists.

Higher Level, Higher Performance?
This data is very inconclusive, and it's entirely possible that some of your criticisms are true. On to the numbers.
Teams with a higher average level won 52% of the time, while teams with a lower average level won 40% of the time. 8% of the time the average level of both teams was equal.

I'm going to offer explanations for this, and you don't have to accept them, but here's the first one anyway: the five most recent games in this data set are the day that Halo 2 shut down. In other words, my friends and I weren't as good as our levels, and we posted an uncanny number of losses because of it. If you remove those five games and look at the other 20: lower-leveled teams won 35% of the time, while higher-leveled teams won 60% of the time, and one game involved teams with perfectly even levels.

Secondly, new accounts. When I played with friends (which is most of those games), we got paired with other groups, often containing an extremely low level. Because of Bungie's policy on such boosting--treating the lower player as if they have a much higher level--boosting teams, while usually equitable in skill, always have lower level averages, contributing to lower levels winning whenever they win at all.


PS Halo 2 takes skill.
Posted by: DusK
At least you're being honest there.

That is what taking something out of context looks like. Bootless was using the word in context, albeit incorrectly.

  • 07.10.2011 9:34 AM PDT

Sigh...

  • 07.10.2011 10:25 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Legendary Member

Halo 1&2 PC forum's resident OC ReMixer. Like rockified and metalized video game music? Subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Yeah. That's right. I don't have a 50 in H3. I never got Onyx in Reach. If a game sucks too much, I won't even bother trying for such trivial "accolades". Besides, I've done way more things that take far more skill and talent than anything that can be done in a video game.

I took a look at all that stuff myself. Holy hell.

In this game, you and your buddies ToD was the BR. You lost to two sniper campnoobs and a shee whore. The guy with the most kills made most of them from the cozy camp tower on the west side. What a shock.

In that game, the victory went to the team with the sword whore.

8 kills with the rocket launcher. That's two separate rocket launcher pickups if I'm not mistaken.

That warthog and wraith sure did a number on you. Good thing vehicles aren't overpowered, right?

Blue's ToD was the BR straight through, and yet lost to a sword whore and a wraith whore. Another shock.

Those games wouldn't have been like that had the game revolved around actual skill. I'm not gonna spend the time going through every game because I have better things to do, but just glancing at your games shows that your math is pretty fuzzy.

  • 07.10.2011 11:40 AM PDT

You don't argue to convince your opponent; you argue to convince everyone who's watching. A court room is a prime example: the attorneys win the argument by winning over not the opposition but the judge/jury.

When I get up on my soapbox to defend Halo 2, it's not because I think I can change DusK's mind, it's to show onlookers that other opinions are out there, and that there exist people who enjoy Halo 2 and can string together a few thoughtful paragraphs to defend it.

I don't blame you for not going through every game, but if you're not willing to find proof that my numbers are inaccurate or misleading, you can't call the math "fuzzy". I told you where it came from; I can't help it if you don't like what I found.

In the first game you pointed out, you neglected to mention that the top performer on the winning team had more kills with the BR than his teammates' sniper, sniper, and banshee kills--combined.

The second game isn't Team Slayer BR and not part of the data set, so I don't know why you're bringing it up.

8 kills with the rocket didn't matter as much as his teammate who posted 14 with the BR and finished ahead of him.

I see you found literally the only game where fewer than half of the tools of destruction were BRs. Not statistically significant. In Halo 2, vehicles blow up, the warthog is reasonable, and the banshee is more reasonable. Vehicles improved from Halo CE.

Once again, the *top player* on the wraith/sword team, the one that Halo 2 deems *most skilled* used the BR, and got more kills with it than the wraith and sword combined. The guy with the wraith was garbage; he had four kills.

In every game you mentioned, the team with more headshots won.

  • 07.10.2011 12:38 PM PDT