Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Competitive Community and Casual Community, A Message
  • Subject: Competitive Community and Casual Community, A Message
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: Competitive Community and Casual Community, A Message

Planking : Parkour for people who don't move very fast.


Posted by: boomdeyadah
Posted by: WulfwoodsSins
and a myriad of other games used in tournaments were MEANT to be competitive from the get go.
CE


What are you trying to say? CE is a casual game that was played competitively? Or that it was a casual game MEANT for competitive play (thus making it a competitive game)?

The above is correct.

ANY and EVERY game can be played competitively. But every competitive game cannot be played casually.

  • 05.30.2012 6:24 PM PDT


Posted by: Gh0st is Bad
lol

are people really bringing up battleship as a competitive game?

smh

Battleship is the bloom of board games.

Obviously it's super competitive.

  • 05.30.2012 6:24 PM PDT

Posted by: WulfwoodsSins
But every competitive game cannot be played casually.
How can you say this with a straight face...?

  • 05.30.2012 6:27 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: boomdeyadah
A competitive game can be enjoyed casually, a casual game cannot be enjoyed competitively

  • 05.30.2012 6:28 PM PDT

Planking : Parkour for people who don't move very fast.


Posted by: boomdeyadah
Posted by: WulfwoodsSins
But every competitive game cannot be played casually.
How can you say this with a straight face...?


Because it has that lovely little qualifier "every" in there. There are some games that can be, but not all of them.

  • 05.30.2012 6:30 PM PDT

Any game can be played casually.

  • 05.30.2012 6:31 PM PDT

Why not stop by my File Share while you're here?

~Long Live Halo 2
Only regret is I didn't play more of it.

If you haven't noticed by now, I'm sort of a jerk.

Posted by: boomdeyadah
A competitive game can be enjoyed casually, a casual game cannot be enjoyed competitively

  • 05.30.2012 6:33 PM PDT

Planking : Parkour for people who don't move very fast.


Posted by: boomdeyadah
Any game can be played casually.


Just as any casual game, can be played (And I'm assuming enjoyed) competitively.

  • 05.30.2012 6:39 PM PDT

Posted by: WulfwoodsSins
Posted by: boomdeyadah
Any game can be played casually.


Just as any casual game, can be played (And I'm assuming enjoyed) competitively.
No.

  • 05.30.2012 6:44 PM PDT

Planking : Parkour for people who don't move very fast.


Posted by: boomdeyadah
Posted by: WulfwoodsSins
Posted by: boomdeyadah
Any game can be played casually.


Just as any casual game, can be played (And I'm assuming enjoyed) competitively.
No.

Brilliant retort, per usual.

What is competition again?Playing to win, right? What's the objective of every game out there? To win.

I suppose, though, you'll tell me EVERYTHING is meant to be competitive then, and people just choose to play casually.

  • 05.30.2012 6:50 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

My Level. Get on it.


Posted by: RC Clone
Nope. SouthPole isn't a person. He's the avatar of the force of tryhards everywhere. He stalks the web looking for retards to set straight. He can not be stopped by mere bans or thread locks for he shall rise anew.

But, we are right. lol

  • 05.30.2012 7:00 PM PDT

And than I realized I was getting trolled by a Waypoint kid. Right. You got me.

  • 05.30.2012 7:33 PM 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: WulfwoodsSins
But every competitive game cannot be played casually.


lol yes they can.

  • 05.30.2012 7:36 PM PDT


Posted by: Kira Onime

Posted by: WulfwoodsSins
But every competitive game cannot be played casually.


lol yes they can.
Dark Souls.
And yes it is competitive.

  • 05.30.2012 7:42 PM PDT

Planking : Parkour for people who don't move very fast.


Posted by: boomdeyadah
And than I realized I was getting trolled by a Waypoint kid. Right. You got me.


D'aww, you checked. I'm flattered.

  • 05.30.2012 7:42 PM PDT


Posted by: burritosenior

Posted by: Kira Onime

Posted by: WulfwoodsSins
But every competitive game cannot be played casually.


lol yes they can.
Dark Souls.
And yes it is competitive.


How is it competitive? Dark Souls is a "hardcore" game. It's only "competitive" when someone invades but that is hardly competitive in the sense that we aren't competing each other to reach an end goal, only to receive souls or items.

[Edited on 05.30.2012 8:08 PM PDT]

  • 05.30.2012 8:05 PM PDT


Posted by: Blacknight159

Posted by: burritosenior

Posted by: Kira Onime

Posted by: WulfwoodsSins
But every competitive game cannot be played casually.


lol yes they can.
Dark Souls.
And yes it is competitive.


How is it competitive? Dark Souls is a "hardcore" game. It's only "competitive" when someone invades but that is hardly competitive in the sense that we aren't competing each other to reach an end goal, only to receive souls or items.
The definition of PvP is basically 'compete.'

  • 05.30.2012 8:28 PM PDT
  • gamertag: MR E0S
  • user homepage:

Halo: Reach is the beginning of a new age for gaming.
It proves that developers can get away with punishing their players instead of fixing their game....and yet the fanboys will still sing praises to them.

-blam!- all of you fanboys!

Just remember this.

Take any game that you feel that can be played both casually and competitively. And take note of what differentiates them from one another.

The competitive version of the game usually has more rules and regulations put in place. In the case of Halo, it has stuff taken out. Not added...TAKEN OUT!

So...tell me again that it's better to design for competitive first. And I'll tell you your a -blam!- idiot for not blaming matchmaking first. Because matchmaking is what is forcing you to play with rulesets that don't adhere to your standards, Not casuals.

Matchmaking is what forces you to play with AA's. That does not mean AA's are a problem, that means MATCHMAKING IS A PROBLEM!

Matchmaking revolves around competitive ideals. When it was first designed it was pretty much entirely catered to competitive players. Now look what happens when you introduce casual elements with a competitive matchmaking service. -blam!- falls apart.

Idiots blame the casual elements. Smart people blame matchmaking.

Idiots pull all attention towards nitpicking the casual elements and let the root of all problems go unnoticed.

Quitting just happened to be a symptom of the problem that matchmaking introduces. Idiots try to blame the messengers and make a quit ban.

So..again, all you supposed "competitive" types can go -blam!- yourselves.

If Reach was catered to you, AA's would never have existed.

Think about that for a second.

Just remember, AA's are not the problem. Matchmaking forcing you to play with them when you don't want to.. is the problem.

But hey, suck it up and adapt.. right?

It's pretty much the same thing as me saying..
"I want to play with warthogs only. Not tanks, revanants, ghost, banshee's and every other vehicle possible."

But does that mean they should completely remove all vehicles except the warthog from the game? Because this is the equivalent of what you ask for in terms of everything you "Competitive" types -blam!- about.

You know which game actually gave me a choice in that respect?
Halo 1, over XBConnect.

Oh, and I didn't need to fill my friends list with a bunch of random losers to get a game. That was a definite bonus.

[Edited on 05.31.2012 3:08 AM PDT]

  • 05.31.2012 2:27 AM PDT
  • gamertag: MR E0S
  • user homepage:

Halo: Reach is the beginning of a new age for gaming.
It proves that developers can get away with punishing their players instead of fixing their game....and yet the fanboys will still sing praises to them.

-blam!- all of you fanboys!

Oh...btw. I'm currently undefeated at Battleship. For as long as I can remember ever playing that game, I never lost.

I maybe only played it a total of 10 times throughout my entire lifetime...but.

There is a strategy to battleship. You're just too stupid to see it.

Oh.. here's another good one for you.

Did you realize that the game of Football, starts with a coin flip?

Could you imagine, these competitive players and what they would come up with when they lose... I can.

I lost because they won the coin flip.
They got to receive first,
they picked the better side.
We had the wind/sun against us in the first half.... and the second half. (Because winds can change)

[Edited on 05.31.2012 2:55 AM PDT]

  • 05.31.2012 2:52 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: MR E0S
Just remember this.

Take any game that you feel that can be played both casually and competitively. And take note of what differentiates them from one another.

The competitive version of the game usually has more rules and regulations put in place. In the case of Halo, it has stuff taken out. Not added...TAKEN OUT!


Yes, useless weapons, abilities or broken mechanics are taken out because they serve no purpose or enhance gameplay.

So...tell me again that it's better to design for competitive first.

Yes it is better to design a game for "competitive" players, it would be even better to design a game for the highest possible players out there or where the skill ceiling is endless. Know why? because the game will actually be "good" and have the best gameplay available/possible for EVERYBODY, not just "competitive" players and because of this it'll have longevity.

Wanna know a game like this currently out there? SC2. Tt was designed to not just be competitive but highly spectator friendly. Its "competitive out of the box" the pro players play the same game the "casuals" do, theres no bs gimmicks that deteriorate from the gameplay.

And I'll tell you your a -blam!- idiot for not blaming matchmaking first. Because matchmaking is what is forcing you to play with rulesets that don't adhere to your standards, Not casuals.

Matchmaking is what forces you to play with AA's. That does not mean AA's are a problem, that means MATCHMAKING IS A PROBLEM!


Honestly, wtf are you on about here, I'll go with it I guess.

Matchmaking playlists are standard playlists that have a different variety of popular gametypes that the large majority of the user base enjoys playing. They may not enjoy all the playlists but theres a large enough variety it should have something for everyone. If none of the playlists float your boat, guess what? theres customs and a ton of custom options to make your own.

This second part is even more idiotic then the last.....yes AAs are a part of the problem.... If AAs didn't exist in the first place they wouldn't be a problem in the game..... If matchmaking didn't exist AAs still would and would be a problem in customs....

Matchmaking revolves around competitive ideals. When it was first designed it was pretty much entirely catered to competitive players.

Now look what happens when you introduce casual elements with a competitive matchmaking service. -blam!- falls apart.


I'm just lost for words here....

Matchmaking was designed to enable users all around the world to connect to each other and play, in the comfort of their home. So they didn't have to luge their TV, Xbox etc to friends houses to LAN.

If you truly think its better to play Halo over XBL in MM over LAN you're sadly mistaken. Connection issues have always been a pain for Halo and pretty much every other FPS game out there. XBL and matchmaking is no where near the most competitive the games can get, for that you need LAN.


Yes, yes if you introduce retarded ass gimmicky mechanics into a game, crap falls apart and the game is terrible. You might actually have a brain after all.

Idiots blame the casual elements. Smart people blame matchmaking.

Reach's matchmaking system as a whole is another part of whats wrong with Reach and why its terrible but not for the reasons you preach.

Idiots pull all attention towards nitpicking the casual elements and let the root of all problems go unnoticed.

Its funny you mention roots because that's the problem, they're taking Halo away from its roots, what its suppose to be and turning it into something its not. Changing what we got into Halo in the first for, what makes it so unique, what separates it from other games, why we play it in the first place away, what we enjoy.

Quitting just happened to be a symptom of the problem that matchmaking introduces. Idiots try to blame the messengers and make a quit ban.

Massive, rampart quitting in Reach is a symptom of a lack of ranking system and no incentive to win, to try or to get better. A ranking system won't solve quitting 100% once and for all but NOTHING will and its as sure a hell of a lot better then some stupid progression system based on just finishing games (where you don't even have to play, just have your account finish the game to rank up) and some retarded quit ban.

Make the game actually good and have a ranking system thats tough to rank up in that way players are encouraged to play, to win and to get better. Not force them to stay in the game, make them WANT to stay in. *cough Halo 2*

So..again, all you supposed "competitive" types can go -blam!- yourselves.

That's not very nice, I have no trouble hooking up with chicks.

If Reach was catered to you, AA's would never have existed.

Well no -blam!-..... nor would the other retarded, unnecessary gimmicks that does nothing beneficial towards gamepaly either.

Think about that for a second.
There's no need to, its common knowledge.

Just remember, AA's are not the problem. Matchmaking forcing you to play with them when you don't want to.. is the problem.

And here I thought we were finally getting through to you....

Yes they are apart of the problem, not the whole thing but a part. Matchmaking also has playlists without them, so.....its not "forcing" anything on us. Granted confined to a few playlists isn't ideal but if they didn't exist in the first place there would be no problem with them.

But hey, suck it up and adapt.. right?

Adapting to useless, unnecessary and broken aspects/mechanics of a game doesn't make them any less useless, unnecessary or broken.

It's pretty much the same thing as me saying..
"I want to play with warthogs only. Not tanks, revanants, ghost, banshee's and every other vehicle possible."


No, no its not.


Oh, and I didn't need to fill my friends list with a bunch of random losers to get a game. That was a definite bonus.

You sound like a wonderful friend to have.

  • 05.31.2012 5:25 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: MR E0S
Did you realize that the game of Football, starts with a coin flip?


But the outcome of each pass, catch, run or kick isn't determined by the outcome of one.

  • 05.31.2012 5:29 AM PDT


Posted by: MR E0S


I lost because they won the coin flip.
They got to receive first,
they picked the better side.
We had the wind/sun against us in the first half.... and the second half. (Because winds can change)


Sounds like you've never touched a football in your life or you just sucked really bad at it.

  • 05.31.2012 6:42 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Mr E05 every time you post my brain bleeds.

  • 05.31.2012 6:53 AM PDT
  • gamertag: MR E0S
  • user homepage:

Halo: Reach is the beginning of a new age for gaming.
It proves that developers can get away with punishing their players instead of fixing their game....and yet the fanboys will still sing praises to them.

-blam!- all of you fanboys!

OK dumbasses, short version.

I like jetpack.

If Halo was made to cater to you first and foremost. The jetpack would never have existed. Thus, you are taking away from my enjoyment.

I didn't say that YOU should have to play with the jetpack.
But you are saying that I should not be able to play with it.
Because most of you are in agreement that the jetpack should never have existed.

Big difference. And this is why I started my crusade against competitive -blam!-tards like yourself.

When all that was really needed, was to scrap matchmaking and go back to server browsers with filters. So that each person, could define for themselves exactly what they want to play, instead of being funneled into a select handful of playlist in which everyone casual and competitive alike are to be forced to play with or without those elements, because some dumbass sitting in an office somewhere is trying to tell the millions of players what they should be playing.

Just the fact that you have to sign up to the forum to BEG for a TU to remove said elements from your preferred playlist should be more than enough proof that matchmaking is to blame for everything. Competitives would rather nitpick the small -blam!-.

Meanwhile. casuals are being forced to play competitive preferred gametypes because of it. (Well they would be if it wasn't for people like me defending against you)

Stop supporting a multiplayer service that treats everyone like cows.



Take a game like Wolfenstein:ET as an example. It's not the most robust filters possible. But it sure as hell beats this behind the scenes matchmaking service.

For example there is a specific filter that I can enable to only shows me rooms that have a limit on the amount of heavy weapons that people can play with. This is to avoid having everyone pick Rockets/mortars and turning the game into nothing but explosive spam.

Does Halo's matchmaking service have anything like that?

No. I pick the closest playlist that might have something that I'm remotely interested in. Then I have to pray that everyone votes for something worthwhile.

Because every playlist in Halo, has had multiple random gametype/map combinations in them. Some of them having absolutely nothing in common with each other. Making for a pretty much random playlist with no theme whatsoever.

BTB has no theme to it other than the amount of players that it supports.


Make a BTB CTF playlist, that plays nothing but large CTF games. And you'll be heading in the right direction.

[Edited on 05.31.2012 6:29 PM PDT]

  • 05.31.2012 6:15 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Mr Eos I'm blown away by your sheer stupidity.

  • 05.31.2012 6:51 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3