Re: Skill Gap in CoD « Reply #30 on Jul 24, 2012, 11:00pm »
Oh, there's certainly a skill gap in CoD, but due to the nature of the game, the soft skill ceiling arrives much faster than if one was playing H3.
On top of gameplay mechanics, it's much more challenging to maintain a high KDR and W/L in a Halo game where a system is actively trying to match you with similarly skilled players than it is to maintain a high KDR and W/L in CoD where it's almost completely random. Outwitting and annihilating two dudes in ten shots with a DMR will always require more skill than outwitting the same two dudes and spraying them down with fully automatic fire.
Oh, there's certainly a skill gap in CoD, but due to the nature of the game, the soft skill ceiling arrives much faster than if one was playing H3.
On top of gameplay mechanics, it's much more challenging to maintain a high KDR and W/L in a Halo game where a system is actively trying to match you with similarly skilled players than it is to maintain a high KDR and W/L in CoD where it's almost completely random. Outwitting and annihilating two dudes in ten shots with a DMR will always require more skill than outwitting the same two dudes and spraying them down with fully automatic fire.
I feel you are discussing two separate things. Up above, you are discussing measurables in the two games. How hard is it maintain a KD in Halo, versus CoD. Which is harder. Is using a DMR more difficult than auto fire...etc...
The discussion is on skill gap. Such as...if a brand new spanking player in CoD picks up a controller, how soon can he compete with people in CoD. Is it faster than Halo? Take longer? That is skill gap.
Re: Skill Gap in CoD « Reply #32 on Jul 25, 2012, 3:43pm »
No, you're just splitting hairs. "Measurables" and "how soon [one] can compete" are directly correlated. Outside of measurements, there is no way to define a skill gap.
I could craft a multi-tiered analogy to demonstrate, but it's as easy as asking a few simple questions. Which series has harder weapons to use? Halo. Which series has a system in place that attempts to keep matches challenging? Halo. So on and so forth.
These are, of course, broad terms applicable only to the most common, lowest denominator game types. With different stipulations/conditions, anything is possible. For example, doing well in BtB vs. doing well in SnD, or doing well in the MLG playlist vs. regular ol' TDM.
There's more that contributes to a game's skill gap than just how soon a player can compete, in theory. The first time I played Quake Live, I lost the match soundly, but managed to get around 27 kills on well-above average players... significantly better than I did the first time I ever played CoD, but I have more overall FPS experience now.
Re: Skill Gap in CoD « Reply #33 on Jul 25, 2012, 7:20pm »
COD has a small skillgap. The best way to determine this is to compare it to other games, so I'll just compare it to games i've played. In no particular order:
1. COD I bought cod4 and managed to get a KD above 1 before my first prestige. I got pretty good. In WAW I became even better, with a KD of 2. By MW2 I maxed out my skill and was pretty much as good as I could be. This hasn't changed. So in terms of time, it took roughly 24 hours of game time for me to become average, 2 months to become good, and maybe 1 year to become pro. There's practically no room for real improvement for me apart from mechanical things like faster reflexes and better HE coordination. On a scale of 1-100 my progress is 95+.
2. Halo I played Halo 2 at the houses of friends where I was average. Eventually I bought it for xbox and played it for 2 months, where I was below average. I got halo 3 on the launch date and within 3 months I was in the top 5-10%. There was room for a improvement but not that much. I could aim better. On a scale of 1-100 i was an 80.
3. Civilization V I played a bit of civilization before, so I was fairly average when I started. Eventually I got better, but there's still a lot of room for improvement. There're several things that I currently don't know how to pull off. 70.
4. CSS I only play it casually. My aim is pretty bad and I have a longgg way to go before I even start breaking even. I've definitely played it for at least 24 hours, yet i'm still going negative nearly all the time. 20
5. SC2 I bought it recently and boy oh boy I suck. I can only play 1 race, don't know any real strats (I just make mine up as I go), my micro is senile. Thankfully there's matchmaking so I'm mostly put up against noobs which are somehow worse than me. 10.
6. CoH It's an RTS game that I played for a while. After 5 months of playing I was an average player, after 8 months I was good, and after a year I was highly competent. There are still quite a few pros who easily beat me. I'd rate my skill at 80.
So basically if you look at the games i've played, COD completely takes the cake with regards to the speed at which I became an average player. In less than a month I went from 0-50, then 50-80 in a few months, then 80-95 in a year.
This is reflected in the gameplay. In COD the biggest noob in the world can kill me if he shoots me in the back. In Halo I'd have time to react and kill him. In CoH, if a noob did some strat I didn't know, I'd adapt and easily beat him. Hence the ease of COD.
Re: Skill Gap in CoD « Reply #34 on Jul 26, 2012, 6:06am »
I think you are stretching things a bit to include comparisons between a RTS game like StarCraft, that has ten years of competition fine tuning going on (or SC2).....versus a mostly arcade'ish FPS shooter like CoD. Apples and oranges. Especially when you use a basis for comparison, getting shot in the back on one random encounter. Come on. That's unfair when trying to assess 'skill'.
I used to play a game called Medieval Total War. That could get a bit complex at times. But in terms of someone 'beating' me, it was always viewed from the perspective of when the game was over. Finished. I don't recall ever viewing 'defeat' as when an opponent killed one of my units in a battle. So why view 'defeat', in CoD, for a situation when you are shot in the back once? Assessment should include a full, entire game. Not one isolated encounter. So yes, a brand new rookie most certainly could kill a 10 year CoD vet in the back. But one should never assess things like that. It should be assess on a basis of a full game....at a minimum.
Even other shooters, like comparing Halo to CoD. It's still sort of apples and oranges. They are different games. There is a skill gap. To try and then arbitrarily assign numbers to it, is a bit to much. Giving say Halo an '80', while CoD get a '95'. Uhhh....come on. Splitting hairs ultimately. In both games, a brand new person is going to get destroyed. In both games, after you play a while, you will get better. In both games, at some point way down the road (no of days played), your skill level will see diminishing returns per hour played. BOTH games are identical in that manner. It's almost impossible to come up with though, a numerical value and then use that as some fact. Maybe for you, that was true....but others are different.
Re: Skill Gap in CoD « Reply #36 on Jul 26, 2012, 9:23am »
It still has a small skillgap. If you shoot someone in the back you'll have a small amount of success in a game. In RTS games or other shooters, a player who's much worse than another gets killed every time without fail and never has any success. That's the thing, in COD, once you get in a certain situation, you're Foxtroted. In other games, your ability to get out of these predicaments is one of the best measures of skill.
So basically in other games, it's important to both prevent bad situations from happening and be able to deal with them. In COD skill is only based on preventing disadvantageous situations from arising.
What i'm saying is that the skill gap is small. There isn't a whole lot you need to do to be an average player, and once you get there, you only need to do a couple more things and you're good. Add in practice and you're pro like me. I never said that there's no skillgap or that COD takes no skill, but compared to other games it's significantly smaller.
It still has a small skillgap. If you shoot someone in the back you'll have a small amount of success in a game. In RTS games or other shooters, a player who's much worse than another gets killed every time without fail and never has any success. That's the thing, in COD, once you get in a certain situation, you're Foxtroted. In other games, your ability to get out of these predicaments is one of the best measures of skill.
So basically in other games, it's important to both prevent bad situations from happening and be able to deal with them. In COD skill is only based on preventing disadvantageous situations from arising.
What i'm saying is that the skill gap is small. There isn't a whole lot you need to do to be an average player, and once you get there, you only need to do a couple more things and you're good. Add in practice and you're pro like me. I never said that there's no skillgap or that COD takes no skill, but compared to other games it's significantly smaller.
I think trying to define 'pro' is a pretty ambiguous, grey area, especially in CoD.
Joined: Nov 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 1,642 Location: Europe
Re: Skill Gap in CoD « Reply #38 on Jul 26, 2012, 10:12am »
> skill gap: how soon can he compete with people in CoD.
MW3 [MW2] skill gap:
at least 2 years if you include all maps, weapons incl. riot shield, equipment incl frag-art and TI, perks and tactics and team cooperation and being able to compete if the opponent sets the rules (QS only, h4rd scope only, knife only, handgun only, shotgun only, headshots only etc etc)
or 1-3 months if you define "compete" very narrow: performing well with ACR+Kick+Silencer & Blind Eye + Assassin in Domination [MW3] or ACR + Stopping Power [MW2]
> skill gap: how soon can he compete with people in CoD.
MW3 [MW2] skill gap:
at least 2 years if you include all maps, weapons incl. riot shield, equipment incl frag-art and TI, perks and tactics and team cooperation and being able to compete if the opponent sets the rules (QS only, h4rd scope only, knife only, handgun only, shotgun only, headshots only etc etc)
or 1-3 months if you define "compete" very narrow: performing well with ACR+Kick+Silencer & Blind Eye + Assassin in Domination [MW3] or ACR + Stopping Power [MW2]
thats probably close. i started midway into the cod4 launch, and i felt like i was able to compete on most levels by the time mw2 started to get a little old. i learned a lot of different playstyles in mw2 which is probably why i liked it so much. in blops i learned how to dominate with the hatchet, and that has partially carried over to the throwing knife in mw3, though you have to get used to the differences in release times and drop over distance.
i certainly didnt get comfortable with cod4 in three months though... i probably finished the game with a .8 kd and desperately tried to get choppers often to no avail... i tried to snipe a lot, and i used the rpd a lot. i should have stuck with a simple playstyle though. i bet i would have gotten better sooner if i was just a simple mp5 + stopping power/m16 + stopping power guy. i ONLY played TDM back then (didnt know any better ;-) )
Re: Skill Gap in CoD « Reply #40 on Jul 26, 2012, 2:01pm »
Regarding Skill Gap, I think that a mind trap for discussing it in the context of CoD is to use K/D as the primary measurement.
As I said in my previous posts, CoD is intentionally designed to allow players with wide variety of experience & skills to play together. Furthermore, the game is also intentionally designed to be noob-friendly so a less experienced/skilled player would enjoy the game play.
Result of these 2 design factors:
1) There are a large number of players sitting at the bottom of the skill pyramid, aka "bottom feeders", far beyond any other games;
2) Non "bottom feeder" players (i.e.: players who have played the game long enough to know the game quite well, and generally have a K/D > 1), regardless what levels they are at (average, intermediate, advanced, players who can get moab on a daily basis, etc, etc), face "bottom feeders" and players who are way below their skills most of the time.
In other words, the average quality (in terms of skill) of the opponents for non "bottom feeder" players is quite poor. The higher skill a player is at, the more severe this problem is.
Follow this train of thought of reasoning: it is very difficult for an advanced player to have an accurate assessment of how good he is relative to other advanced players, because he does not have much chance to play against opponents with similar or higher skills.
I'll use myself as an example. I can easily maintain a K/D around 1.5 nowadays even after I raised my aggressiveness level significantly (i.e.: rarely tactical loitering and move actively). This is largely because I have been matched with lower level players most of the time. If I were matched with players with similar skill, I am sure that I would struggle to even hold a 1.0 K/D.
It is my opinion that
1) There is a huge skill gap in CoD; 2) It is very difficult for players to know where they are in the skill pyramid; 3) 2 gives advanced players a perception that the skill game in CoD is small;
I know that bros in this thread seriously double 1) above. Unfortunately the game platform does not provide good objective evidence to support my claim. I can only provide the following evidences from my own experience:
1) I played side by side with most of my clanmates, and I observed a huge skill gap among them. I am still sitting at the bottom after playing 24 days of MW3 (top 5 in my clan);
2) I observed huge skill gap among the opponents I played;
3) I used to watch a lot of MW3 game play live streaming on Twitch.TV, and I see a huge gap even among the top players (i.e.: players who consistently finish as the #1 performer game after game). For example, one player I watched have a streak of getting at least 1 MOAB for 10+ consecutive games.
« Last Edit: Jul 26, 2012, 2:16pm by wittyscorpion »
3) I used to watch a lot of MW3 game play live streaming on Twitch.TV, and I see a huge gap even among the top players (i.e.: players who consistently finish as the #1 performer game after game). For example, one player I watched have a streak of getting at least 1 MOAB for 10+ consecutive games.
3) I used to watch a lot of MW3 game play live streaming on Twitch.TV, and I see a huge gap even among the top players (i.e.: players who consistently finish as the #1 performer game aftegame). For example, one player I watched have a streak of getting at least 1 MOAB for 10+ consecutive games.
wut. ... the fook.
how?
Just do nothing BUT play for the MOAB. For example, play Domination, crap on your teammates, focus on yourself, and use the flags as bait. While ten in a row is pretty good, ..one can nail a bunch in relatively short time.
3) I used to watch a lot of MW3 game play live streaming on Twitch.TV, and I see a huge gap even among the top players (i.e.: players who consistently finish as the #1 performer game after game). For example, one player I watched have a streak of getting at least 1 MOAB for 10+ consecutive games.
wut. ... ...
the fook.
how?
It has been a while so my memory is a bit fuzzy. I'll try to recall what I remembered:
1) The guy has insane gun skills + maneuverability. He can move around in crazy manner to disrupt the opponents' aiming while maintaining accurate aim tracking;
2) More impressive is his ability to predict where the enemies are. It's hard to tell how he could do that, my guess is that he knows the spawn inside out, and can smell a delicious mass murdering spawn killing occasion when an opportunity presents itself;
3) He has good support from teammates. He is playing with a bunch of players who are "fans" of his stream and they provide support of what he needs: UAV spam, bullet vests all over the map, Portable Radar, use Recon (perk), etc. Most of them are also solid players, so he can count on teammates to cover flanks and narrow his focus to a much smaller angel range (out of the entire 360 degrees). Note that this is not necessary for him. He can pull off MOABs when playing alone, sometimes double digits in a single session.
4) They play Kill Confirmed, and hold off picking up tags. This seems to be the best way to "brew" MOABs;
5) He had very good luck in that steak, survived sure-death in more than 1 occasions out of pure luck. I did not pay much attention to the opponents he faced, but my guess is that he was also lucky in not running into a great player who can pose serious challenge to him face-to-face.
Finally a disclaimer: I am not saying that the ability of getting MOABs can be used to accurately "measure" a player's skill. But due to the lack of a good indicator, this is just an example of first hand experience of watching a highly skilled player play.
Also, keep in mind that the people who do live stream have an incredible amount of time to play the game, far far beyond what a normal player can pull off.
« Last Edit: Jul 26, 2012, 3:04pm by wittyscorpion »
Re: Skill Gap in CoD « Reply #44 on Jul 26, 2012, 3:03pm »
Another great post by Witty up there. ...(as always)...the one a few up, and the one right above, not bad either.
Especially his point about using the KD ratio as a barometer for determining one's skill level. Like take this example. A player starts out in his first year as a 1.0 KD. He then, in his second year (anothr CoD game), figures out that IF he sandbags Domination games, using his random teammates as meat shields, does nothing to help (which explains a lot of players)....he can bump his KD up to 1.90. So he does that, ends with a 1.91 KD...but his WL is now 0.40. Did this player's skills really improve? Is he a 'better player'?
Hard to say. Maybe, maybe not.
And as Witty also said, it's hard to really get a good feel of one's skills are getting better, without having a true measureable stat to go by. Not to mention, when most of your games are against bottom feeders, one also doesn't get pushed that often. It's really hard to tell. A person who has played CoD a few years....most games, you don't need your 'A' game to win. If you are playing with friends, you probably don't even need your 'B' game. I agree with him on that point a lot.
For me.....a real test, at least in my opinion, ....is how a player plays when the sh*t hits the fan. If you are with friends, in a clan.....it's those games you get against other groups/clan, maybe one out of every 8 games or so. When the other side punches back. Where you have to think, outwit, use tactics, outsmart them. Use everything you know, switch classes multiple times in a game. Pull it together, cap flags, and go big, putting up big numbers to help your team win. THIS is where "skill "start to shine.. THIS is where you see a startling difference in skill levels amongst players. This is where I see who really wants to win...has skill....and who is just concerned with the lame-azz KD ratio.
* note...but the above is the beauty of playing with a team. You don't have to be best player on a squad. Sometimes, all you need to be is the guy who make the key move to cap a flag at the end, or helps with it, to win those tough, close games. Everyone helps, everyone contributes. Thats what makes CoD such a blast.
Re: Skill Gap in CoD « Reply #45 on Jul 26, 2012, 3:07pm »
Quote:
Even other shooters, like comparing Halo to CoD. It's still sort of apples and oranges. They are different games. There is a skill gap. To try and then arbitrarily assign numbers to it, is a bit to much. Giving say Halo an '80', while CoD get a '95'. Uhhh....come on. Splitting hairs ultimately. In both games, a brand new person is going to get destroyed. In both games, after you play a while, you will get better. In both games, at some point way down the road (no of days played), your skill level will see diminishing returns per hour played. BOTH games are identical in that manner. It's almost impossible to come up with though, a numerical value and then use that as some fact. Maybe for you, that was true....but others are different.
Provided qualifications are established, it's far simpler than to determine skill gap, as I have already explained.
If that "apples and oranges" argument leading to your overly-broad criteria for what constitutes a skill gap is your only point of reference, you could say exactly the same about virtually any competitive activity. There are many other ways to approach the discussion.
Even other shooters, like comparing Halo to CoD. It's still sort of apples and oranges. They are different games. There is a skill gap. To try and then arbitrarily assign numbers to it, is a bit to much. Giving say Halo an '80', while CoD get a '95'. Uhhh....come on. Splitting hairs ultimately. In both games, a brand new person is going to get destroyed. In both games, after you play a while, you will get better. In both games, at some point way down the road (no of days played), your skill level will see diminishing returns per hour played. BOTH games are identical in that manner. It's almost impossible to come up with though, a numerical value and then use that as some fact. Maybe for you, that was true....but others are different.
Provided qualifications are established, it's far simpler than to determine skill gap, as I have already explained.
If that "apples and oranges" argument leading to your overly-broad criteria for what constitutes a skill gap is your only point of reference, you could say exactly the same about virtually any competitive activity. There are many other ways to approach the discussion.
I'm just saying, Halo and CoD are not the same games. You say Halo has harder weapons to use, which makes for a bigger skill gap......well, one can counter by saying Halo has energy shields, which make staying alive easier. One needs less skill to stay alive, and just focus on running around, boucing around like a nitwit, using finger twitch skills as a crutch. 'halo jump' came about for a reason.
And regardless of what 'qualifications' you try to establish...good luck trying to assign them to some universal '1 to 100' scale that ties all the game together. Ain't happening.
Re: Skill Gap in CoD « Reply #47 on Jul 26, 2012, 3:47pm »
Regarding Halo vs. CoD, IMHO
1) Halo has bigger gap in terms of "pure" FPS skills, due to the much much slower TTK, semi auto weapons, much more 1v1 face-to-face confrontations, etc.
2) In Halo, the skill gap feels much more insurmountable, i.e.: a less skilled player has much smaller chance to beat a more skilled player. This makes the skill gap painfully obvious to players. CoD on the other hand, add a lot more randomness so the skill gap is much less visible;
3) In CoD, a player can rely on a weapon's strengths to compensate for skill if the encounter is in his weapon's favor. For example, a PP90M1 RF player can easily out play an AR player in CQC regardless how much stronger the AR player is. This ability is almost non-existent in Halo play.
I believe that this is what iw5000 means by "apple vs. orange". The two games have different design philosophy especially on the skill gap front. The Halo is designed to "magnify" the skill gap, while CoD is designed to "obscure" the skill gap. As a result, Halo gives the perception of large skill gap while CoD offers the perception of smaller skill gap.
To make a somewhat relevant (but not entirely accurate) analogy:
Halo vs. CoD in FPS is kinda like Chess vs. Taxas Hold'em. In Chess, a strong player can beat a weak player in almost every game. In Texas Hold'em on the other hand, a strong player can easily lose due to bad cards. This does not necessarily mean that Texas Hold'em has smaller skill gap than Chess, just different.
One thing that makes me feel CoD is more enjoyable than Halo is its "team play" aspect. As iw5000 pointed out above, CoD's design provides less skilled players opportunities to make significant contributions to the team's success (sometimes more than a more skilled player if he is selfless while the other is selfish). In Halo however, a less skilled player often feels powerless and dead weight to his more skilled teammates.
« Last Edit: Jul 26, 2012, 4:02pm by wittyscorpion »
3) I used to watch a lot of MW3 game play live streaming on Twitch.TV, and I see a huge gap even among the top players (i.e.: players who consistently finish as the #1 performer game after game). For example, one player I watched have a streak of getting at least 1 MOAB for 10+ consecutive games.
When watching live stream, I see PC players getting MOABs like eating peanuts as well, not much different from Console. The most popular streamer on TwitchTV, "IncredibleOrb", is such a player. You can see him live or watch his recorded play if you are curious.
« Last Edit: Jul 26, 2012, 4:03pm by wittyscorpion »
Re: Skill Gap in CoD « Reply #50 on Jul 26, 2012, 4:05pm »
It's not just halo. It's every game i've played. No other game makes it so easy to master the basics. If you play any RTS game for 24 hours, the best you'll have is either a general understanding of every unit or the ability to pull of a basic strat while remaining unaware of more than half the units in the game.
Likewise with every FPS game i've ever played, developing skills like proper movement, tactics, and aiming skill took longer than COD.
The average player can be defined as a player who typically prevails in advantageous situations, fails in disadvantageous situations, and has a roughly 50% chance in a neutral situation. His knowledge of the game ensures that his ratio of successes to failures is close to 1.
In COD it's incredibly easy to become an average player. It took me around 24 hours of play time, again, before I could prestige. So by any definition, COD has a small skillgap. It's very easy to learn to play, and once you become average, there's not a whole lot more to do besides practice.
The 1-100 scale is very simple to understand, it represents the percentage of successes at the skill components of a game. For example if you take pong, it consists solely of blocking the ball and banking the ball (if even that). If you bank the ball with 100% accuracy and block it with 100% consistency you get 100.
Re: Skill Gap in CoD « Reply #51 on Jul 26, 2012, 4:16pm »
Quote:
In COD it's incredibly easy to become an average player.
This I agree. This is due to the fact of the large population of bottom feeders, because CoD is designed to make them feel the game enjoyable even when they are being relentlessly stomped by more skilled players. For Halo (and probably most of the games you mentioned), the game does not feel enjoyable for them so they quit. As a result, the average skill levels of all players for CoD is much lower in comparison, thus make it much easier to reach average.
Evidence: I see stats like "2 kills and 35 deaths" on the score board all the time in CoD, which I doubt you'll see very often in other games.
What I did not agree is that CoD has smaller skill gap. I believe that the skill difference between the top players and average players is no smaller than other games.
« Last Edit: Jul 26, 2012, 4:24pm by wittyscorpion »
Re: Skill Gap in CoD « Reply #52 on Jul 26, 2012, 4:39pm »
Quote:
I'm just saying, Halo and CoD are not the same games. You say Halo has harder weapons to use, which makes for a bigger skill gap......well, one can counter by saying Halo has energy shields, which make staying alive easier. One needs less skill to stay alive, and just focus on running around, boucing around like a nitwit, using finger twitch skills as a crutch. 'halo jump' came about for a reason.
In other words, a player with poor aim is further disadvantaged versus one with excellent aim; in CoD, a single misstep can spell death for even a highly competent player vs. a thoroughly mediocre one, whereas in Halo, that's rarely the case due to the DMR requiring greater aiming ability and shields. Shields reduce the impact of "lucky" shots and prevent easy one-hit kills (as is the case with CoD's melee), not to mention the DMR's kill time is still well under two seconds provided the last shot is a headshot. It's not CoD, but it's not slow by any means, especially when an inexperienced player can't hope to achieve similar kill times.
Changing gears, you defend CoD at every possible opportunity in nearly every topic; your bias is evident. I readily accept the assertion that the skillset required to excel in CoD vs. Halo are different (although not dissimilar), or that CoD can require more skill depending on the conditions specified, but it's foolish to claim that the most commonly played lists in CoD and Halo have skill gaps that are roughly even. From greater aim assist to having no ranking mechanism to speak of in matchmaking, it's clear CoD has a lower skill gap by design. It's meant to be accessible.
Witty's chess vs. Texas Hold 'Em analogy is far closer to an "apples and oranges" situation than Halo vs. CoD. The latter are contemporary FPSes whereas the former aren't even in the same category of games.
Quote:
And regardless of what 'qualifications' you try to establish...good luck trying to assign them to some universal '1 to 100' scale that ties all the game together. Ain't happening.
Joined: Dec 2010 Gender: Female Posts: 9,865 Location: aroo
Re: Skill Gap in CoD « Reply #53 on Jul 26, 2012, 5:09pm »
I'm just gonna jump in again and say halo reach has more aim assist than any other game I've played in my life.
I have a better chance of missing a square in checkers than I do of missing someone's head in halo.
EDIT: Also
Quote:
your bias is evident
Of course his bias is evident, it's his fucking opinion on the whole matter. And it's apples an oranges because they play completely differently. Just because someone found something that works better with the analogy doesn't ruin his fucking point.
I'm gonna start advocating that team fortress is more team oriented than CoD, because they're both videogames therefore one must be absolute shit and not worth playing ever.
Re: Skill Gap in CoD « Reply #54 on Jul 26, 2012, 5:29pm »
Quote:
I'm just gonna jump in again and say halo reach has more aim assist than any other game I've played in my life.
I cannot recall using my crosshair sensitivity to locate opponents through solid objects in Halo: Reach, much less in previous Halo titles, whereas it's a common occurrence in MW3.
Furthermore, insert anecdotal evidence and a couple four letter words of your choice here.
Quote:
Of course his bias is evident, it's his Foxtrotting opinion on the whole matter. And it's apples an oranges because they play completely differently. Just because someone found something that works better with the analogy doesn't ruin his Foxtrotting point.
That wasn't my implication, and they certainly do not play completely differently. They're both first-person shooters and share a number of remarkably similar mechanics.
You are of course welcome to your opinion that they're completely different, play nothing alike, and therefore require a roughly equal amount of skill to succeed in if that is, in fact, your implication.
Joined: Dec 2010 Gender: Female Posts: 9,865 Location: aroo
Re: Skill Gap in CoD « Reply #55 on Jul 26, 2012, 6:10pm »
All I'm saying is that you can't measure fun with a calculator. The core mechanics of the game are the same, but things such as speed, health, accuracy, and custom classes completely alter the playstyle needed to succeed.
I'm just gonna jump in again and say halo reach has more aim assist than any other game I've played in my life.I have a better chance of missing a square in checkers than I do of missing someone's head in halo.
Quote:
zeroix said, your bias is evident
Of course his bias is evident, it's his fucking opinion on the whole matter. And it's apples an oranges because they play completely differently. Just because someone found something that works better with the analogy doesn't ruin his fucking point.
I'm gonna start advocating that team fortress is more team oriented than CoD, because they're both videogames therefore one must be absolute shit and not worth playing ever.
Re: Skill Gap in CoD « Reply #58 on Jul 31, 2012, 3:37pm »
To resurface this thread.
I was reading back over it...it's interesting how everyone uses 'KD ratio' as a measuring device for one's skill. Using KD ratio as a benchmark, for determining how much one improved from game to game. Not saying it's a bad tool to use...it certainly can be a decent tool, but it still seems a bit oversimplistic to default to 'KD'. Like take this example...which player improved more?
Player 1. Old stats. 1.0 KD, 1.0 WL......new stats 2.10 KD, 0.5 WL Player 2. Old stats. 1.0 KD, 1.0 WL......new stats 1.30 KD, 4.5 WL
Joined: Dec 2010 Gender: Female Posts: 9,865 Location: aroo
Re: Skill Gap in CoD « Reply #59 on Jul 31, 2012, 3:41pm »
Well it depends on what gametypes they usually play.
Something like TDM, SnD, or KC (bar dedicated collectors) K/D will often correlate with skill (and often, but not necessarily, winning) while something like headquarters, demo, or dom, playing will often means throwing a few lives away for the greater good.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author![[avatar]](http://fi.somethingawful.com/safs/titles/82/e7/00167728.0001.gif "[avatar]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://i.imgur.com/nvBbE.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.donnamoderna.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/attualita/news/foto-francesca/rocco-siffredi/69289943-1-ita-IT/Rocco-Siffredi_o_cgo2.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i46.tinypic.com/33jlaqc.png "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i.imgur.com/yF3AUEB.png "[avatar]")
