Jump to content
CyReN

Halo World Championship 2018 Teams, Seeds, and Discussion‏

Recommended Posts

Okay guys, seriously.

 

Where is the TO announcement.

They haven't announced the announcement stream for the the announcement so at least 2 more weeks

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

They still tried to make the game better. iirc the specialist weren't optional. The players tried to make the game better competitively, and in Halo we want to make the game worse by making it BR starts

I agree. The last few years of competitive Call of Duty would have been much worse without gentlemen's agreements. The point I'm making is that starting with BO2, the competitive ruleset because much less inherently competitive, and viewership soared. I'm not necessarily saying that correlates to Halo and BR starts, simply that making a game more viewer friendly at the expense of competitive viability isn't necessarily a death sentence for the competitive scene. 

 

The MMS was pretty trash, though. It provided no zoom advantage and I believe it also gave you more recoil and didn't track perfectly.

It increased perceived recoil, in that your reticle jumped around more while shooting, but not the actual recoil itself. It wasn't widely used, but the fact that you could see through walls, specifically in SnD was kind of a joke. I remember Stainville putting in work with it on multiple occasions. 

Share this post


Link to post

On the flip side you're arguing for what you like to see on screen which is a level of consistency far beyond the point that the average fan or even player would notice. What popular FPS are you even watching that doesn't take into effect random spreads / sprays / patterns? The top 3 currently viewed and played FPS games (CS, Overwatch, CoD) all have random elements and then some. I would actually go as far to say with the mitigating mechanics that Halo employs random spread on a weapon like the BR is much less a factor than any of those popular games.

 

I'm really really really really really not interested in getting involved but it seems as thought you're arguing about someones ignorance from a place of ignorance.

 

I don't actually care what the average fan or viewer would notice and I'm well aware of how each of those games work. CoD and OW are garbage competitive games and CS has completely controllable bullet deviation that is fundamental to how it plays. Is that theoretically ideal? No, but there isn't really a better system for CS style gameplay. Halo, on the other hand, is a vastly different game and doesn't benefit in any way from arbitrary, 100% unavoidable randomness on top of the other issue with the BR, which is the inconsistency of burst fire that people are bafflingly trying to play off as promoting gun skill.

 

​But I'm glad you don't want to get involved. Being above such things, you've hopped in to establish your sense of intellectual superiority.

  • Upvote (+1) 9
  • Downvote (-1) 12

Share this post


Link to post

 

​But I'm glad you don't want to get involved. Being above such things, you've hopped in to establish your sense of intellectual superiority.

Can I get more than one down vote? Sheeesh

  • Upvote (+1) 3
  • Downvote (-1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Hello pot.

 

Meet kettle.

 

I'm making an actual argument. He typed up a paragraph to inform me that he doesn't want to get involved, but, like, he totally knows about CS and, like, I'm ign'ant. It's derailing the argument at best, but sure, just pretend it's the same fucking thing while you contribute nothing to the topic either. Let me just put "imo" at the end of every sentence, so I don't hurt anyone's feelings.

  • Upvote (+1) 5
  • Downvote (-1) 13

Share this post


Link to post

I agree. The last few years of competitive Call of Duty would have been much worse without gentlemen's agreements. The point I'm making is that starting with BO2, the competitive ruleset because much less inherently competitive, and viewership soared. I'm not necessarily saying that correlates to Halo and BR starts, simply that making a game more viewer friendly at the expense of competitive viability isn't necessarily a death sentence for the competitive scene.

 

It increased perceived recoil, in that your reticle jumped around more while shooting, but not the actual recoil itself. It wasn't widely used, but the fact that you could see through walls, specifically in SnD was kind of a joke. I remember Stainville putting in work with it on multiple occasions.

The viewership obviously didn’t soar because of the less competitive rule set: the players agreed not to use the less competitive items, so viewers still tuned in and saw the game being played as competitively as possible.

 

I don’t see the correlation between making a game viewer friendly and lowering competitive viability. Competitive viability is what makes competitions enjoyable.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't actually care what the average fan or viewer would notice and I'm well aware of how each of those games work. CoD and OW are garbage competitive games and CS has completely controllable bullet deviation that is fundamental to how it plays. Is that theoretically ideal? No, but there isn't really a better system for CS style gameplay. Halo, on the other hand, is a vastly different game and doesn't benefit in any way from arbitrary, 100% unavoidable randomness on top of the other issue with the BR, which is the inconsistency of burst fire that people are bafflingly trying to play off as promoting gun skill.

 

​But I'm glad you don't want to get involved. Being above such things, you've hopped in to establish your sense of intellectual superiority.

I'm making an actual argument. He typed up a paragraph to inform me that he doesn't want to get involved, but, like, he totally knows about CS and, like, I'm ign'ant. It's derailing the argument at best, but sure, just pretend it's the same fucking thing while you contribute nothing to the topic either. Let me just put "imo" at the end of every sentence, so I don't hurt anyone's feelings.

I typed a paragraph to tell you that what you're talking about doesn't exist in the real world. The games that you could possibly watch all:

  1. Have more random elements in their shooting mechanics compared to Halo's battle rifle which has a mechanic that literally pulls outlying bullets from the spread towards the target.
  2. Are massively more popular esports titles in spite of the fact that their shoot mechanics are more random.

I don't want to get involved because I spent the first year of H4 arguing against BR only starts and FOR the alternative obviously-and-objectively-more-skillful-starting-rifles-#CHOICE-the-future-is-orange. Everybody knows all the arguments for both sides to the point that it is mind numbingly boring and frankly I don't care enough about Halo5 to get involved.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

The viewership obviously didn’t soar because of the less competitive rule set: the players agreed not to use the less competitive items, so viewers still tuned in and saw the game being played as competitively as possible.

 

I don’t see the correlation between making a game viewer friendly and lowering competitive viability. Competitive viability is what makes competitions enjoyable.

I mean the viewership soeard in BO2 because the game was just objectively fun to both play and watch, even though scorestreaks were in the game for the first time in franchise history. In later games, where gentlemen's agreements were used, there were still scorestreaks as well as specialists, which are probably the most broken gameplay mechanic in Call of Duty, yet the viewership is still there. Even though the competitive viability of the franchise had taken a nose dive, the viewership and competitive scene in general was growing. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I mean the viewership soeard in BO2 because the game was just objectively fun to both play and watch, even though scorestreaks were in the game for the first time in franchise history. In later games, where gentlemen's agreements were used, there were still scorestreaks as well as specialists, which are probably the most broken gameplay mechanic in Call of Duty, yet the viewership is still there. Even though the competitive viability of the franchise had taken a nose dive, the viewership and competitive scene in general was growing.

But you can't just assume causation where there is correlation. A lot of things happened during that time period to advance the esport. Excellent organization, advertising, and production all probably contributed more and possibly even offset the negative sentiments associated with less competive rules.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

 Actually had "one more game" syndrome and ).got ranked in Slayer (Diamond after not playing for over 8 months)

 

 

8xRYrI5.gif

Share this post


Link to post

I would make an argument for Karma, but hey what do I know?

Greatest 1v1 player, don't see much of an argument for H2 as a whole though.

Share this post


Link to post

@@Saucey

 

They are waiting for the MLG hype to die down because it won't be them ;)

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Snipedown Mikwen Shotzzy Renegade would probably usurp the throne if it happened.

Nah. Individual skill isn't really what's setting OG apart from all the other teams. It's chemistry, work ethic, teamwork etc. That's why you can't just throw 4 names together and think it's gonna be a top-tier team.

 

If we're still doing NBA analogies, it's kinda similar to OKC so far this season.

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy.