Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Is Reach the most casual of all Halos?
  • Subject: Is Reach the most casual of all Halos?
Subject: Is Reach the most casual of all Halos?

I like what you did here, right up until you only ran two tests. It doesn't account for how well each player might adapt.

I feel that if you had maybe even just 4 more casuals giving you stats for both games (bringing the total of players to 10) then you might be able to see more of a trend.

Good job though, really well thought out.

  • 01.03.2012 5:06 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Veteran Legendary Member

The 343 forums suck. They're full of retarded kids and mods who got butthurt in the B.net forums for being told that they're bad.


Posted by: Negabite

Good job though, really well thought out.


What? That experiment was horrendously thought-out, if at all!

  • 01.03.2012 6:39 AM PDT

In fact I couldn't see any logical thought processes at all in this OP.

  • 01.03.2012 7:15 AM PDT

What's the point of this? It has actually already been established that Reach is the most casual halo game.

  • 01.03.2012 7:43 AM PDT

too long,read one sentence. but games are not casual, expecially shooting games, if you want a casual game go play racing or hello kitty island adventure

  • 01.03.2012 7:49 AM PDT

Harass the harassers.


Posted by: Negabite
I like what you did here, right up until you only ran two tests. It doesn't account for how well each player might adapt.

I feel that if you had maybe even just 4 more casuals giving you stats for both games (bringing the total of players to 10) then you might be able to see more of a trend.

Good job though, really well thought out.
New canadites have begun to come forward and Im adding a different aspect, Im going to take "competitive" players and see if they lost skill via the transition from Halo 3 to Reach. Im going to reaccess the casual qualifications using new input and a few other little tweeks. This is an ongoing experiment.

  • 01.03.2012 7:57 AM PDT

Breaking barriers.


Posted by: Sanuel Jackson
Posted by: Plunderfuq
Posted by: Sanuel Jackson
ZBNS MLG in Reach is the most fun I've ever had in a Halo game.

Reach hasn't been casualized either. You can tell Bungie tried to make this game more accessible to mainstream gamers, but ironically, they made it even more difficult. It's so much easier to stay alive in Reach compared to the past Halo games because of AAs, bloom, and overall weaker weapons.
Show me a set of stats that show that, the ones I provided suggest that there is very little evidence to support that claim.
Everyone I know has a much higher win effectiveness and higher k/d than they did in Halo 3.

Gee, couldn't be that Reach is just social matchmaking could it?

  • 01.03.2012 8:02 AM PDT

Harass the harassers.


Posted by: TooMuchAlcohol
What's the point of this? It has actually already been established that Reach is the most casual halo game.
Can you provide a link?

  • 01.03.2012 8:03 AM PDT

Harass the harassers.


Posted by: anahum

Posted by: Sanuel Jackson
Posted by: Plunderfuq
Posted by: Sanuel Jackson
ZBNS MLG in Reach is the most fun I've ever had in a Halo game.

Reach hasn't been casualized either. You can tell Bungie tried to make this game more accessible to mainstream gamers, but ironically, they made it even more difficult. It's so much easier to stay alive in Reach compared to the past Halo games because of AAs, bloom, and overall weaker weapons.
Show me a set of stats that show that, the ones I provided suggest that there is very little evidence to support that claim.
Everyone I know has a much higher win effectiveness and higher k/d than they did in Halo 3.

Gee, couldn't be that Reach is just social matchmaking could it?
Thats why I tried to keep it on the social side of 3, but it appears that disqualifies too many canadites.

  • 01.03.2012 8:04 AM PDT

Posted by: Tom T
Prolonged exposure to this forum is bad for your health.


Posted by: aBIueBooksheIf
because I like pen­is.

source

Plunder, trying to act smart but only shows ignorance.

  • 01.03.2012 8:05 AM PDT

Harass the harassers.


Posted by: Kira Onime
Plunder, trying to act smart but only shows ignorance.
How many opinions do you accept as fact without a single shred of evidence? How is this smart?

[Edited on 01.03.2012 8:31 AM PST]

  • 01.03.2012 8:22 AM PDT

Posted by: Tom T
Prolonged exposure to this forum is bad for your health.


Posted by: aBIueBooksheIf
because I like pen­is.

source


Posted by: Plunderfuq
How is this smart?


Your entire thread is nothing but ignorance that has been shoved in your face over and over again.

  • 01.03.2012 8:42 AM PDT

Harass the harassers.


Posted by: Kira Onime

Posted by: Plunderfuq
How is this smart?


Your entire thread is nothing but ignorance that has been shoved in your face over and over again.

What evidence do you have that supports your opinion on Reach?EDIT:You are right, lots of people have been shoving their ignorance in my face. We finally agree on something.

[Edited on 01.03.2012 8:53 AM PST]

  • 01.03.2012 8:52 AM PDT

If I had a Rocket Launcher, I'd make somebody pay.

It depends entirely up to you as the player whether it's casual or not.

  • 01.03.2012 8:55 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Veteran Legendary Member

The 343 forums suck. They're full of retarded kids and mods who got butthurt in the B.net forums for being told that they're bad.

Stop ignoring the actual arguments and stop answering the trolls.

  • 01.03.2012 8:58 AM PDT

Harass the harassers.


Posted by: Infini7yx SWE
It depends entirely up to you as the player whether it's casual or not.
I have revised and restarted, not only trying to find casuals and thier performance between 3 and Reach, but competitive players as well. Any ideas on qualifications?

  • 01.03.2012 9:04 AM PDT

Harass the harassers.


Posted by: B Rye
Stop ignoring the actual arguments and stop answering the trolls.
Restarted and revised the experiment, I need qualifications for casuals as well as competitive players. Now that you have told me 20 times how wrong I am, why dont you tell me parameters that are up to your standards.

  • 01.03.2012 9:06 AM PDT

Posted by: Tom T
Prolonged exposure to this forum is bad for your health.


Posted by: aBIueBooksheIf
because I like pen­is.

source


Posted by: B Rye
Stop ignoring the actual arguments and stop answering the trolls.


</3

  • 01.03.2012 9:09 AM PDT

Yes, The criteria you have selected is unfair. Firstly, Players needing to have a time lag between reach and halo 3 drastically reduces the population of players you can select for data. (Also, Since you are being so specific with this, what length of time lapse is necessary to qualify). Secondly, I know many casual gamers who played ranked events in halo 3 due to the fact that over time various gametypes were only available in this selection. However, I do accept that most casual gamers will not play arena in reach. Thirdly, Casual gamers don't use mics????? Seriously it's a part of the game that anyone can utilise, casual or otherwise. The difference between casual and competitive players here will be in how they use this feature and the quality of their callouts. Competitive players will have codes for every small section of the map. They will also let their teammates know exactly where they are and what they are doing. Whereas a casual gamer with even the most basic knowledge of hemorrhage for example could call simple descriptions like " Two players at teleportor" or two players behind their base". This feature is not restricted to competitive players.

Your idea of also selecting the first 100 games makes it much harder to obtain data. Would it not be better to take data from the 500th to 600th games? This way you can allow players to have played through the transistion for the following reasons. After 500-600 games of halo 3 most casual gamers will have reach the highest level they are likely to achieve. After 500-600 games of reach they will have adjusted to reach and will have gotten as good a they are likely to be. So by taking 100 games at this stage you will make a direct comparison possible ( Even more direct then the first 100 I should think) and increase the population of polayers that can qualify for the criteria of your experiment.

[Edited on 01.03.2012 9:39 AM PST]

  • 01.03.2012 9:30 AM PDT

Harass the harassers.


Posted by: d duffer
Yes, The criteria you have selected is unfair. Firstly, Players needing to have a time lag between reach and halo 3 drastically reduces the population of players you can select for data. (Also, Since you are being so specific with this, what length of time lapse is necessary to qualify). Secondly, I know many casual gamers who played ranked events in halo 3 due to the fact that over time various gametypes were only available in this selection. However, I do accept that most casual gamers will not play arena in reach. Thirdly, Casual gamers don't use mics????? Seriously it's a part of the game that anyone can utilise, casual or otherwise. The difference between casual and competitive players here will be in how they use this feature and the quality of their callouts. Competitive players will have codes for every small section of the map. They will also let their teammates know exactly where they are and what they are doing. Whereas a casual gamer with even the most basic knowledge of hemorrhage for example could call simple descriptions like " Two players at teleportor" or two players behind their base". This feature is not restricted to competitive players.

Your idea of also selecting the first 100 games makes it much harder to obtain data. Would it not be better to take data from the 500-600 games? This way you can allow players to have played through the transistion for the following reasons. After 500-600 games of halo 3 most casual gamers will have reach the highest level they are likely to achieve. After 500-600 games of reach they will have adjusted to reach and will have gotten as good a they are likely to be. This will increase the population of players qualifying as casual whilst still maintaining direct comparability between the two games (Even more so perhaps).
I have began to restructure and revise, starting with a loosening of qualifications for a casual as well as approaching from the competitive side (ie did the competitive player lose "skill" because of Reach mechanics). As far as 500 games, I had to tabulate the 100 games by hand, 500 might be a bit much though.

  • 01.03.2012 9:38 AM PDT

I meant take the 500th to the 600th. THis would only be 100 and the player would be at there best level for all of these games providing insight into their peak performance for both reach and 3

  • 01.03.2012 9:40 AM PDT

Harass the harassers.


Posted by: d duffer
I meant take the 500th to the 600th. THis would only be 100 and the player would be at there best level for all of these games providing insight into their peak performance for both reach and 3
Ah I see, sounds good, Im compiling parameters at the moment and this one is going in the list. Before I start tabulating and selecting canadites I will lay out how the test will work and get further input from as many people as I can.

  • 01.03.2012 9:52 AM PDT

............
.......
..
.....
.....
.
.
.
........................
....







casual has nothing to do with a persons skill level, it is more of a label or reference to how much of an interest a person has in the game and how they choose what games they play.

casual =/= bad player

reach isn't casual friendly because of the AA's, bloom and such, these features tend to confuse and frustrate them pushing them away from the game and to other more simpler games that they can get the gist of quicker, games like BF, CoD, gears and so on.

yes, reach isn't casual friendly because it confuses and frustrates them but reach is bad kid friendly, those noobs have an easier time in reach compared to previous halo's but that might not be because of how the game was designed but down to who are choosing to play the game.

  • 01.03.2012 10:21 AM PDT

Harass the harassers.


Posted by: Plunderfuq

Posted by: B Rye
Stop ignoring the actual arguments and stop answering the trolls.
Restarted and revised the experiment, I need qualifications for casuals as well as competitive players. Now that you have told me 20 times how wrong I am, why dont you tell me parameters that are up to your standards.
I see now who is the one ignoring the argument?

  • 01.03.2012 11:35 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I can't really comment on the relation between this game and Halo 3's multiplayer. I have no idea about the boundaries between social and competitive either .. I don't even know which category I fall into. Some days I get mad if we lose, I go neg, etc. Others I don't care.

But in my opinion it seems like the addition of SOME armor abilities could have made the game more difficult. I'm talking Jetpack and Sprint.

Used by good players, Jetpack can seriously break map control, and Sprint is a tool that allows someone to escape circumstances where, without it, they'd probably be dead.

Now keep in mind when I talk about these armor abilities in use, I'm not talking about the kids that just fly around the maps like idiots, or those that just use sprint to get across the map (in my opinion sprint is an escape utility) while being team shot to death, over and over and over.

When playing against a good team, it's difficult to hold your position against a bunch of good jetpackers. And when you're putting shots on a player, who turns and runs using sprint to put 2 or 3 corners between you or him en route to a 'close call' medal, IMO that's great use of the ability. Someone like that is hard to kill.

  • 01.03.2012 11:38 AM PDT