Jump to content
ThatTrueLegend

Why do a lot of people hate Halo?

Recommended Posts

You all must be dealing with different haters than I see.

 

You all say "Well they're probably CoD kids blah blah", but --

What I see is a lot of PC loyalists, who blame Halo for "ruining FPS" or "casualizing FPS", and blame console FPS for the decline of PC FPS.

These guys grew up with Quake, UT and Tribes - the kind of FPS that is pretty much dead nowadays. Their decline coincided with Halo's rise in the early 2000s, and the transition towards console FPS as a true contender to PC.

They say that Halo somehow infected the FPS genre with terrible things like regenerating health, two-weapon limit, slow movement, etc. (This despite the fact that Halo's long kill times aren't replicated in other games, nor was sprint a Halo innovation, nor ADS, nor loadouts, nor perks...)

 

They also try to link the trends of modern FPS to Halo and Call of Duty. There really isn't a recognition on their part that these two series are very different. If you try and mention that Quake and Halo actually share roots in a lot of ways - arena-like maps, reliance on weapon and powerup spawns, equal starts - they will lose their shit on you. "How dare you imply that my PC FPS is like your console peasantry! Halo can't sniff Quake's jockstrap! My dad can beat up your dad!"

 

In fact, I wish these people were right and there were in fact a lot of Halo imitators. At least that way I would have more games I'm interested in playing.

 

A lot of these people are, at heart, still fighting the console wars of their youth. There is a large percentage of 'gamers' that just never grew up.

 

TL;DR gamers suck

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

@@chaosTheory, so when you say you want shorter kill times, you mean in the perfect shoot scenario, not the average scenario. This is a huge distinction and represents a very different discussion.

 

My first thought was that it would be fine to have short kill times on the order of 1.5 seconds for the perfect shoot scenario. But then the more I thought about it the more I wasn't sure if I would like that.

 

For this discussion, I believe my best rank in H3 was around 17-23, I can't remember. But I clearly would be "lucky" if I could pull of a perfect shoot scenario. That isn't to say I am opposed to better players having that opportunity. But the question that came to me was how much of a spread would I see between the perfect shoot and the average shoot? And more importantly how much would the game feel like two different games with those two ends of the spectrum on display in the same match?

 

I am not one who wants to play against someone who can essentially drop me in half the time I would drop him because we are in the same match together, because the population is low and the match making system has no other choice. I would feel like we are in the same match but playing two different games. To me that would feel insane to even want to go into the playlist. (And before anyone goes on about how 343 needs to give us a better match making system, consider the hard reality of population even if you had that system in place.)

 

I like the idea of making the difference significant in order to increase the skill gap, but it doesn't sound like a practical solution. I could be wrong, but that is what I think given what I shared here.

Share this post


Link to post

@@chaosTheory, so when you say you want shorter kill times, you mean in the perfect shoot scenario, not the average scenario. This is a huge distinction and represents a very different discussion.

 

Yes. Short potential kill times but longer average kill times. The variance between perfect and average occurs from the games inherent mechanics (movement speed, movement responsiveness, aim assist, bullet magnetism, etc).

 

My first thought was that it would be fine to have short kill times on the order of 1.5 seconds for the perfect shoot scenario. But then the more I thought about it the more I wasn't sure if I would like that.

 

Holy fuck-buckets batman! That'd be a horrible idea! I'm glad you moved away from it. :P

 

For this discussion, I believe my best rank in H3 was around 17-23, I can't remember. But I clearly would be "lucky" if I could pull of a perfect shoot scenario. That isn't to say I am opposed to better players having that opportunity. But the question that came to me was how much of a spread would I see between the perfect shoot and the average shoot? And more importantly how much would the game feel like two different games with those two ends of the spectrum on display in the same match?

 

At that skill range, the variance between optimal kill times and actual kill times can be huge considering the volatility of the ranking between 20-30. You've got really good kids on new accounts pushing through the ranks as well as casual players just chilling. Not a good environment if you want to test how kill time variance.

 

I like the idea of making the difference significant in order to increase the skill gap, but it doesn't sound like a practical solution. I could be wrong, but that is what I think given what I shared here.

 

As long as the matching system is working effectively and pairing players of similar skill levels, it's fine.  I'd argue that having mechanics that favor a larger skill gap actually requires a more accurate matching system, as with the broadening of skill ranges there are a greater degree of sub-ranges. Players don't want to lose, of course, but it becomes much more bearable when they have a tight game vice getting stomped on.

Share this post


Link to post

You all must be dealing with different haters than I see.

 

You all say "Well they're probably CoD kids blah blah", but --

What I see is a lot of PC loyalists, who blame Halo for "ruining FPS" or "casualizing FPS", and blame console FPS for the decline of PC FPS.

These guys grew up with Quake, UT and Tribes - the kind of FPS that is pretty much dead nowadays. Their decline coincided with Halo's rise in the early 2000s, and the transition towards console FPS as a true contender to PC.

They say that Halo somehow infected the FPS genre with terrible things like regenerating health, two-weapon limit, slow movement, etc. (This despite the fact that Halo's long kill times aren't replicated in other games, nor was sprint a Halo innovation, nor ADS, nor loadouts, nor perks...)

 

They also try to link the trends of modern FPS to Halo and Call of Duty. There really isn't a recognition on their part that these two series are very different. If you try and mention that Quake and Halo actually share roots in a lot of ways - arena-like maps, reliance on weapon and powerup spawns, equal starts - they will lose their shit on you. "How dare you imply that my PC FPS is like your console peasantry! Halo can't sniff Quake's jockstrap! My dad can beat up your dad!"

 

In fact, I wish these people were right and there were in fact a lot of Halo imitators. At least that way I would have more games I'm interested in playing.

 

A lot of these people are, at heart, still fighting the console wars of their youth. There is a large percentage of 'gamers' that just never grew up.

 

TL;DR gamers suck

Why halo?  what about cs?  lol  cs took quake's shine.   cs became the main game for CPL and tournaments, cs was the main game for the big fail that was cgs.  there's actually a thread on esreality about halo ce there are a bunch of people who actually like the game and play it on pc.  

 

it's not pc elitists.  since they said the same thing about 2 weapons slower movement ect ect with cs.  

 

i think you are really blowing the pc elitists out of proportion.   in terms of hate there are way more cod/new school fps people who simply do not like halo.  

 

and the only real similarity with halo and a game like quake would be items with a timer on the map.  but even then the items spawn differently with halo being static and quake being dynamic.  

 

theres no strafe jumping, 2 weapons only in halo while you can pick everything up in quake, you start with a really really good gun in halo ce compared to quake.  so there really is like one similarity and that similarity is kind of different already.  

it's kind of like comparing titanfall to quake because titanfall has an advanced er more advanced than a cod game movement system.  ya theres one similarity, but everything else is different.  

Share this post


Link to post

@@chaosTheory

My first thought was that it would be fine to have short kill times on the order of 1.5 seconds for the perfect shoot scenario. But then the more I thought about it the more I wasn't sure if I would like that.

 

For this discussion, I believe my best rank in H3 was around 17-23,

 

I would feel like we are in the same match but playing two different games. To me that would feel insane to even want to go into the playlist.

 

I like the idea of making the difference significant in order to increase the skill gap, but it doesn't sound like a practical solution.

1.5 is still too slow for perfect shots IMO. H1 is just under a second and it works beautifully.

 

As  to the bolded section, I have to be very honest and I'm sorry if this comes off offensively. Your outlook, to me, is not only selfish, but frankly it's a tiny bit entitled. Everyone in the game dies in the same number of shots. Everyone (for the most part) is working with the same hands, eyes and brain. If you want to nerf the game so people cannot more accurately determine their level of skill, then that is selfish. It's like getting your ass kicked at chess and then asking for all the chess boards to be thrown away and replaced with checkers. You don't have a right to close games, and you definitely don't have a right to win when playing better people. You do have a right to close games if matchmaking is doing its job.

 

Why isn't satisfaction with losses or determination to improve not better options? All of the problems are solved by better matchmaking sure, but if they do a bad job at matchmaking, like has been done in the last three Halo games (Halo 2 was the only game I consistently had close games) you're going to be playing in some blowouts. If your highest Halo 3 rank was 23 you'll probably be playing in a few blowouts that are not in your favor.

 

The difference is, in Halo 3 if you played pros, there was not a single situation all game where you had a chance. I know, I played against plenty of AM kids in Halo 3 when I didn't have a party and you get teamshot or sniped for pretty much every kill so you never have a chance. That is a completely helpless and frustrating feeling. When you are dealing with someone far above your level in h1, at least you have a chance. You know when rockets are coming back, you can try to outplay them. Every time you see someone, they are three shots from death if you're perfect. They don't have time to stare at their feet and run away while calling for help. You have a chance to put them down before they can react. That said, against really great players, h1 can definitely feel helpless, esp if you have bad teammates. You die so fast but you can do the same thing if you improve.

 

All in all, you should WANT Halo to be a "different game" for a great player than one who isn't. Thats what makes people keep playing and improving. It's the perfect practical solution. It also makes determining someone's rank/ability that much easier. That said, Halo 5 is not going to have h1 perfect kill times. Not a chance. It's going to be yet another slow, burst-fire-teamshot-fest like the last four games have been. But if it did, it would be better if it were much faster, as long as perfect shots were not easy to perform.

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

Wasn't there a poll on here that showed most people want a 4 shot kill semi auto with a ~1.0 second kill time? That sounds pretty damn good to me, especially if strafe is good and aim assist is low.

Share this post


Link to post

1.5 is still too slow for perfect shots IMO. H1 is just under a second and it works beautifully.

 

As  to the bolded section, I have to be very honest and I'm sorry if this comes off offensively. Your outlook, to me, is not only selfish, but frankly it's a tiny bit entitled. Everyone in the game dies in the same number of shots. Everyone (for the most part) is working with the same hands, eyes and brain. If you want to nerf the game so people cannot more accurately determine their level of skill, then that is selfish. It's like getting your ass kicked at chess and then asking for all the chess boards to be thrown away and replaced with checkers. You don't have a right to close games, and you definitely don't have a right to win when playing better people. You do have a right to close games if matchmaking is doing its job.

...

 

All in all, you should WANT Halo to be a "different game" for a great player than one who isn't. Thats what makes people keep playing and improving. It's the perfect practical solution. It also makes determining someone's rank/ability that much easier. That said, Halo 5 is not going to have h1 perfect kill times. Not a chance. It's going to be yet another slow, burst-fire-teamshot-fest like the last four games have been. But if it did, it would be better if it were much faster, as long as perfect shots were not easy to perform.

 

After I posted that I thought of all the times people said the same thing about my view point, so I saw your response coming. You in particular could say anything you want to me about me it would never offend me, because I know from your history of posts that you are not one to try to offend people. [edit] What I said would be selfish and entitled if I were interested in the kill more than the fire fight. In that case, given my skill level, I would just play CoD.

 

Statistically speaking, how often would you want a 50 level player being able to perform that perfect shot? If it occurred only 1% of the time for a 50, then that would be fine, because we have more power weapon kills with one shot than that already. But then I think it would for that reason also be pointless. So I am left thinking you want it to be possible quite a bit more often than that. But at what point does Halo begin to resemble CoD with shot on drop experiences? That is one of my concerns, but I realize now I don't know enough of what you are saying perhaps to know if my concern is warranted.

 

 

And my second concern is if the population begins to drop, then the 50s will stay (obviously because they enjoy success) leaving more encounters with 50s for everyone, which then snow balls into population bleed out only exasperating the problem further until only the best are left playing. This may be a concern that is amplified unnecessarily with my experience with Halo 4's population, but it is now clear that a population of 2k for a halo title is not beyond imagination any longer.

 

In the end, thanks for your response. As I tried to reply to it, I had to scratch what I was writing, because I saw what you were saying was actualy correct. The two concerns (and neither may be warranted) I mentioned above are all that I have left wondering about.

 

 I guess after playing h1 and h2 soon enough I might understand better what you are trying to say.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

After I posted that I thought of all the times people said the same thing about my view point, so I saw your response coming. You in particular could say anything you want to me about me it would never offend me, because I know from your history of posts that you are not one to try to offend people. [edit] What I said would be selfish and entitled if I were interested in the kill more than the fire fight. In that case, given my skill level, I would just play CoD.

 

Statistically speaking, how often would you want a 50 level player being able to perform that perfect shot? If it occurred only 1% of the time for a 50, then that would be fine, because we have more power weapon kills with one shot than that already. But then I think it would for that reason also be pointless. So I am left thinking you want it to be possible quite a bit more often than that. But at what point does Halo begin to resemble CoD with shot on drop experiences? That is one of my concerns, but I realize now I don't know enough of what you are saying perhaps to know if my concern is warranted.

 

 

And my second concern is if the population begins to drop, then the 50s will stay (obviously because they enjoy success) leaving more encounters with 50s for everyone, which then snow balls into population bleed out only exasperating the problem further until only the best are left playing. This may be a concern that is amplified unnecessarily with my experience with Halo 4's population, but it is now clear that a population of 2k for a halo title is not beyond imagination any longer.

 

In the end, thanks for your response. As I tried to reply to it, I had to scratch what I was writing, because I saw what you were saying was actualy correct. The two concerns (and neither may be warranted) I mentioned above are all that I have left wondering about.

 

 I guess after playing h1 and h2 soon enough I might understand better what you are trying to say.

 

I understand what you're saying, but yes it may just come with experience and time. Watch some of the H1 videos that have been posted in this forum and try to understand whats going on. Also, count the three shot kills you see. In a fantastically-played match, someone will get maybe 4-6 TSKs in a game against competent, strafing opponents.That's statistically about 15-20% of the time TOPS - if you're playing really well. I've seen pro-level gameplay where there are only a couple between top and bottom screen all game (if any) because a lot of the skill in h1 is preventing it from happening to you. Playing the angles, staying close to cover and awareness of where your enemies are, could be, and where they could spawn are all key. It's not CoD, not even close. It rewards perfection, not just first look.

 

Also, if matchmaking was working, you'd NEVER play vs a 50, even with a low population. The problem is that developers prefer shorter search times and frankly, players probably do too.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

But in the end I find Halo 4 engagements fun as they are. I don't want to see them get any faster, because I prefer the ability to move about during the engagement, and I prefer to move back and around corners to draw my opponent into the open as he chases after me. I enjoy having team engagement so I want the fire fights to last longer so that my team can help each other. I am more of a team guy than an individualist. I guess that is why I love Invasion and CTF.

 

 

I think the reason you don't want engagements in halo 4 to be any faster is because of the shooting mechanics of the game, it's simply too easy to point, aim and kill someone so if it were faster it would be utterly ridiculous. However, if the magnetism and aim assist were lower you would have no problem with the kill times being cut in half because players would miss more....the average kill times would be longer than the optimal kill time like cT said. Just look at any video of halo 1 to see the beauty of this.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

I am not one who wants to play against someone who can essentially drop me in half the time I would drop him because we are in the same match together, because the population is low and the match making system has no other choice. I would feel like we are in the same match but playing two different games. To me that would feel insane to even want to go into the playlist. (And before anyone goes on about how 343 needs to give us a better match making system, consider the hard reality of population even if you had that system in place.)

 

I like the idea of making the difference significant in order to increase the skill gap, but it doesn't sound like a practical solution. I could be wrong, but that is what I think given what I shared here.

 

 

The answer is good skill matching, as we both know.  But should that fail, the onus is on you to improve your skills, not on the developer to shackle good players.

 

In that scenario, you would still lose that game.  Just not by as much.  It would still be an unenjoyable experience for you.  But then you move on to the next game and get matched against different people, and probably have fun again.

 

As for him?  Those shackles never come off.  Every single game is less fun than it should be.  That seems kind of unfair, doesn't it?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

You all must be dealing with different haters than I see.

 

You all say "Well they're probably CoD kids blah blah", but --

What I see is a lot of PC loyalists, who blame Halo for "ruining FPS" or "casualizing FPS", and blame console FPS for the decline of PC FPS.

These guys grew up with Quake, UT and Tribes - the kind of FPS that is pretty much dead nowadays. Their decline coincided with Halo's rise in the early 2000s, and the transition towards console FPS as a true contender to PC.

They say that Halo somehow infected the FPS genre with terrible things like regenerating health, two-weapon limit, slow movement, etc. (This despite the fact that Halo's long kill times aren't replicated in other games, nor was sprint a Halo innovation, nor ADS, nor loadouts, nor perks...)

 

They also try to link the trends of modern FPS to Halo and Call of Duty. There really isn't a recognition on their part that these two series are very different. If you try and mention that Quake and Halo actually share roots in a lot of ways - arena-like maps, reliance on weapon and powerup spawns, equal starts - they will lose their shit on you. "How dare you imply that my PC FPS is like your console peasantry! Halo can't sniff Quake's jockstrap! My dad can beat up your dad!"

 

In fact, I wish these people were right and there were in fact a lot of Halo imitators. At least that way I would have more games I'm interested in playing.

 

A lot of these people are, at heart, still fighting the console wars of their youth. There is a large percentage of 'gamers' that just never grew up.

 

TL;DR gamers suck

True, and good alternative look, but we mostly see CoD fans as there are a ton more of them vs FPS PC elitists. CS is thriving so it's not like they're upset, and they are the biggest pc FPS.

Share this post


Link to post

The answer is good skill matching, as we both know.  But should that fail, the onus is on you to improve your skills, not on the developer to shackle good players.

 

In that scenario, you would still lose that game.  Just not by as much.  It would still be an unenjoyable experience for you.  But then you move on to the next game and get matched against different people, and probably have fun again.

 

As for him?  Those shackles never come off.  Every single game is less fun than it should be.  That seems kind of unfair, doesn't it?

 

Hardway, you have presented this argument before several times, and I really do get it. I want to wait until I play H1 and H2 for myself to get an idea of what cT was describing in H1.

 

I am convinced that not all hands, eyes, and brains will rise to a 50, so no they are not the same at all. There are limits to where each player will be able to rise, and this gets back to (and may be the best example of) what I referred to as the skill gap balance - which game yields the best balance of skill gap for the masses?

 

A 20 may have no need for the benefits of a faster kill time if it is more likely he can pull off a one shot with a sniper. For him that additional skill gap offered in a utility weapon is meaningless. Yes, his friend a 50 would benefit from it, and it would be selfish of him to want that skill gap removed just for his own benefit. But at the same time the publisher is asking, "What do the masses want?"

 

Additionally the 20 may say he doesn't want to play with the additional skill gap because it only gets in his way. Is it selfish for the 50 friend to have it remain and make the game less enjoyable for his 20 friend? And the publisher is saying, "What is getting in the way of the low end players that we can remove without driving the high end players away?"

 

Now having said all that, unless there is a new angle to consider, let's just wait until early next year when I can offer some "20" insight into how H1 and H2 feel, what they offer, and how much of a detriment the additional skill gap of a shorter kill time presents to the lower end of the spectrum.

 

In all honesty I expect to come away agreeing with you all, but these are the questions that roll around in my head.

Share this post


Link to post

Hardway, you have presented this argument before several times, and I really do get it. I want to wait until I play H1 and H2 for myself to get an idea of what cT was describing in H1.

 

I am convinced that not all hands, eyes, and brains will rise to a 50, so no they are not the same at all. There are limits to where each player will be able to rise, and this gets back to (and may be the best example of) what I referred to as the skill gap balance - which game yields the best balance of skill gap for the masses?

 

A 20 may have no need for the benefits of a faster kill time if it is more likely he can pull off a one shot with a sniper. For him that additional skill gap offered in a utility weapon is meaningless. Yes, his friend a 50 would benefit from it, and it would be selfish of him to want that skill gap removed just for his own benefit. But at the same time the publisher is asking, "What do the masses want?"

 

Additionally the 20 may say he doesn't want to play with the additional skill gap because it only gets in his way. Is it selfish for the 50 friend to have it remain and make the game less enjoyable for his 20 friend? And the publisher is saying, "What is getting in the way of the low end players that we can remove without driving the high end players away?"

 

Now having said all that, unless there is a new angle to consider, let's just wait until early next year when I can offer some "20" insight into how H1 and H2 feel, what they offer, and how much of a detriment the additional skill gap of a shorter kill time presents to the lower end of the spectrum.

 

In all honesty I expect to come away agreeing with you all, but these are the questions that roll around in my head.

I think you are underestimating your ability to improve with focused practice. Halo is a lot more mental than physical. My aim isn't even that good, but I know how to create easy kills for myself and my teammates. All you need is confidence, and the ability to figure out why you died.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Wasn't there a poll on here that showed most people want a 4 shot kill semi auto with a ~1.0 second kill time? That sounds pretty damn good to me, especially if strafe is good and aim assist is low.

Actually, it was a very close vote between single shot and burst fire, with the latter winning out by a small margin (apparently there's this thing called nostalgia).  4SK was by far the most popular vote, but you can thank yours truly here for forgetting to add the two most important questions: time to kill and projectile versus hitscan.  Would it be considered beating a mammalian steed that has passed away if a superior poll were created?

 

Original: http://teambeyond.net/forum/index.php?/topic/1976-next-utility-weapon-poll-w-unbiased-options

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, it was a very close vote between single shot and burst fire, with the latter winning out by a small margin (apparently there's this thing called nostalgia).  4SK was by far the most popular vote, but you can thank yours truly here for forgetting to add the two most important questions: time to kill and projectile versus hitscan.  Would it be considered beating a mammalian steed that has passed away if a superior poll were created?

 

Original: http://teambeyond.net/forum/index.php?/topic/1976-next-utility-weapon-poll-w-unbiased-options

 

I can tell you right now that hitscan would win that poll by a landslide on this site, just because projectile is considered unreliable online.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
I am convinced that not all hands, eyes, and brains will rise to a 50, so no they are not the same at all. There are limits to where each player will be able to rise, and this gets back to (and may be the best example of) what I referred to as the skill gap balance - which game yields the best balance of skill gap for the masses?

 

Of course not all players have the same physiscal potential in gaming, just the same as with everything else physically related. Myself, I have poorly developed motor skills as the result of Sensory Processing Disorder, but that doesn't prevent me from playing the game well as @@Hard Way mentions below. Mental game plays a huge role in Halo, and that alone allows a player to climb very high... Hell, I was in the 40's in H3 and still couldn't shoot for shit.

 

Skill gap balance is a illogical concept. The greater the skill gap, the more skill ranges there are between the uninitiated and the top tier, which will allow for more accurate bundling of similarly skilled players in games. It allows for better skilled players to continually move up the ladder and playing against similar skilled opponents, while lesser skilled players will continue to play against each other. Of course it relies heavily on an accurate matching system to be in place, but all the same, it serves to better the game for the entire population. 

 

To ask for the skill gap to be dumbed down is not only irrational, it is selfish. There is no logical basis, compared with the alternative, to nerf the experience of better players in the name of "fairness" to lesser skilled players. It should not matter to you who you are capable of beating, but that you are being placed in games with similarly skilled players and have close and enjoyable matches.

 

A 20 may have no need for the benefits of a faster kill time if it is more likely he can pull off a one shot with a sniper. For him that additional skill gap offered in a utility weapon is meaningless. Yes, his friend a 50 would benefit from it, and it would be selfish of him to want that skill gap removed just for his own benefit. But at the same time the publisher is asking, "What do the masses want?"

 

The masses want to be placed in games that are competitive. They want to be matched against similarly skilled players. The issue is not in skill gap, but in matching criteria.

 

Additionally the 20 may say he doesn't want to play with the additional skill gap because it only gets in his way. Is it selfish for the 50 friend to have it remain and make the game less enjoyable for his 20 friend? And the publisher is saying, "What is getting in the way of the low end players that we can remove without driving the high end players away?"

 

Again, this is not a skill gap issue. It's a matching issue.

 

Now having said all that, unless there is a new angle to consider, let's just wait until early next year when I can offer some "20" insight into how H1 and H2 feel, what they offer, and how much of a detriment the additional skill gap of a shorter kill time presents to the lower end of the spectrum.

 

In all honesty I expect to come away agreeing with you all, but these are the questions that roll around in my head.

 

See bolded.

 

Additionally, I'm going to be blunt here. You're approaching this entirely wrong. You're looking at this from the wrong direction. Sure, by my logic, we could dumb the game down to the point of their being no skill-gap, but then you've lost on of the competitive advantages that gives a game longevity: the desire to improve. When the skill gap is reduced, a player has less to reach for and loses interest in the game sooner. You're removing the top two tiers of Maslow's motivational hierarchy, namely Self Actualization and Esteem.

 

I really don't understand how you can still be hammering away at this... It really isn't that difficult a subject to comprehend.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, it was a very close vote between single shot and burst fire, with the latter winning out by a small margin (apparently there's this thing called nostalgia).  4SK was by far the most popular vote, but you can thank yours truly here for forgetting to add the two most important questions: time to kill and projectile versus hitscan.  Would it be considered beating a mammalian steed that has passed away if a superior poll were created?

 

Original: http://teambeyond.net/forum/index.php?/topic/1976-next-utility-weapon-poll-w-unbiased-options

Would totally be down for a new poll. I'm curious to see what it'll be like especially with MCC coming out.. we actually have the option to play a single-shot or burst game, a game with fast or slow kills, etc.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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