This exactly. The two words, casual and competitive, are nothing more than adjectives describing the author's intent with gameplay. As such, there is no set rule that constitutes a design as either one. simple as that really. /2cents
This is what I was trying to say, that the definition of casual maps comes from places like FH, where people say, "this isn't really competitive, so you need to put it under casual maps..." The definition is loosely presented in the way the term was used for some time around here and other forums. But this thread got me thinking. A map falls into not a category of competitive or a category of casual, but somewhere on a spectrum with the two terms defining the end points of the spectrum. So perhaps the proper question should be, what defines the ends of the competitive-casual spectrum ? To clarify something I feel very strongly about, this debate goes into all directions. But 99% of all context of the term competitive refers to maps for which are designed for people to demonstrate their FPS skill in Halo.
I really think you're misunderstanding, as by the logic I laid out, Ragnarok fits the description of a competitive map pretty nicely, being open and emphasizing team-work, and your experience supports the idea that competitive maps don't support casual play as well. What I'm saying is that 'casual' represents the less team-focused style of play, while 'competitive' represents the more team-focused. If you're not willing to further the conversation, of course that's all it will be. Getting mad when somebody disagrees with you or has a different perception of a topic is exactly why this is such a charged topic.
I think we need to identify the variables that are involved. Personally I think it's a matter of.. let's call it force dispersion. More open space and long/wide lines of sight lowers that value, and more weapons or more powerful weapons increases it. A map with more segregation between the areas and more powerful pick-ups would class towards the casual end of this spectrum, because it would see fewer opportunities for cohesive team-play and team-shooting and favor smaller encounters involving a portion of the team, putting more focus on structural advantages and game mechanics like Equipment/AAs and map pick-ups. A map with less segregation and more open areas with lines of sight that allow players to work together with their team from a wide variety of positions would class toward the competitive end. It would favor team-shooting and call-outs, encouraging players to work as a team and assert control via team-shooting and spawn control, and making structural advantage and pick-ups less significant in terms of impacting the outcome of the game. By this terminology I would call those casual gametypes. They don't involve team play and rely on individual skills. You have to realize that the 'meaning' being assigned to these words is in the context of team game-play. If you ignore that context this entire conversation is hilariously ridiculous, and we're just arguing that people competing with one another is somehow not competition.
Lol, where did I ever get mad or upset? I'm completely fine with what has been said here. I really don't care if you agree with me or not, I think you're the one taking offense, not me. I'm simply backing out because I stated my opinion and I have nothing more to say, what's wrong with that? All you doing is continue a debate that will house nothing but opinions.
My mistake - sounded a little touchy when you said this; And the debate doesn't have to be all opinions - there can be consensus leading to a new understanding of old ideas. It just takes clear communication and a mutual desire to understand.
WHAT. 1v1s can definitely be considered competitive. Individual skill can be just as competitive as team play. These are the two categories I personally consider when distinguishing a map between casual or competitive. If a map can support neither balanced team play nor balanced individual play, it should be considered casual. I, as few others in here, am not a fan of the current "labels" we have when it comes a competitive map. Simply because it doesn't look or play like the norm doesn't make it any less competitive. I don't think a specific gametype, player count, amount of power weapons, etc determines casual/competitive. As long as it's balanced, anything can be played competitively.
I haven't seen anyone mention mlg leavening halo in halo 4 the reason stated was it was a poor game for completions. (Randomness of drops and personal ordinance). This quote from the first poster frames it perfectly "if two people have a disagreement about their respective skill levels at halo, a competetive level should provide a great battleground for the dispute to be resolved and in a manner that is consistent from match to match". In a competitive map thespian itself should be a limitless a factor as possible in deciding the outcome of the game. A casual map is one where the map can play a role in the outcome of the game. Complex for instance is good fun in casual mm, but I would never use it for a ctf tournament I was hosting. As for weather a map can be both. In halo 4 now more than ever it can. Simple turn on personal ordinance, and now you have added a level of randomness which might turn the tide of the game. In summation competitive should be as fair and non random as possible. Where as much as possible skill is the only thing being measured. Casual should be fun more than anything. The kind of map to sit down with a group of friends and play. It may not always be fair, but as long as it is fun you have done well
I wouldn't say casual. I'd say bad, or at least not appropriate for the gametype in question. But that's my point. Casual and competitive are words that have been assigned to a wide variety of meanings that are unrelated to their actual meanings. I think in the context of this discussion that those factors and the balance they strike is precisely what determines if they're casual or competitive. At least, they dictate what style of gameplay will be enjoyable on a map. That said, yes, the labels are stupid, and it would benefit all of us to stop using them and try to say what we actually mean.
In this case, I cannot help but feel that your judgements are biased given they are based on an aspect that is conditional to design. If you only consider team coordination, an aspect that is solely weighed in team-oriented designs, than are not even considering others that are not built with emphasis on that aspect. It could be compared to stating that any map without a rocket launcher is bad. Nevertheless, if you are extrapolating the conversation by assigning a custom "meaning" to the words, than I suppose there is not much point in debating this, hahaha.
One last comment, lol. 1v1 is as competitive as you can get brother. It comes down to where the bullet meets the bone. In other words, there's no complaining of uneven teams and this was a official gametype in Halo 3. It's strictly you and him, seprerated by nothing but skill. The reason most people don't care for 1v1's because it's rather boring as the game is usually decided very quickly where as in a team game much more random things happen (tactics, decisions, concentrated fire, and team work) and unbalance is created.
Rebranding doesn't change what they are nor solve any "problem". Whether one says casual/competitive or Tournament/public it still is a distinction between what some classifying body determines as such. I'm not sure who said that. Any map can be competitive in the true sense of the word "competitive" as in playing to beat other people through some metric of determining the outcome (it could be points, kills, or whatever). What people mean by "only some can support competitive..." is when they are talking about the distinctions in classifying specific maps by some distinguishing feature(s) and by some collective of people who want to classify the maps as such. Since someone has to eventually make the call and classify stuff that's why these naming conventions exist. For example, we have different groupings in this forum. The forum rules dictate which maps go in which board because someone had to make that call and it is easier to keep track of maps that way.
As I said before, discussing this in a literal, out-of-context sense makes it ridiculous. Arguing that AR Starts on Swordbase isn't competitive is foolish. The game is by it's nature competitive. What's being discussed is the contextual meaning of "competitive" and "casual". The context in which it was given it's meaning is team gameplay, so that's the easiest way to describe it. A 1v1 map is casual because it doesn't support MLG Team Slayer. Doesn't actually make it any less competitive, but that's the standard that people will recognize, so it needs to be discussed in those terms. But it could help make things less ambiguous. At least use words that aren't just as applicable to their 'opposite' category. The literal meaning. Yes. Yeah - I was under the impression that's what was being discussed here - what are the distinguishing features? Gameplay style? That's what it comes down to - people want to classify things so they can find what they are looking for more easily. Clarifying the logic behind the classifications would clear up a lot of confusion and potentially nip a lot of drama in the bud.
What... how, who, did that just happen? First off, what people? ...and now you're talking about gametypes and not maps. You also need to get MLG off the brain here. MLG is a gametype, not a competitive style standard. Nobody I know recognizes 1v1 as casual and saying that it needs to be discussed in those terms is not understanding the competitive nature. Team games require great teamwork and communication but 1v1 is nothing but pitting player skill against player skill, nothing casual about it. Who says, oh you want to just have some fun and play some 1v1. 1v1's are real nail biters, try playing them in a tournament with real prizes and see if you don't sweat a little. Edit: misread that first sentence.
A 1v1 map doesn't support Team Slayer gametypes. Edit: just read your edit lol As for what people - the Halo community/playerbase MLG is a good representation of this particular style. It also has the benefit of being standardized, which makes it easier to use as an example. Again, you're not hearing what I'm saying. 'Casual' isn't less competitive than 'competitive'. It's a distinct style that focuses on individual play instead of team cohesion.
MLG is not a game type. MLG is an organization. MLG maps are maps that adhere to MLG standards. MLG game types are game types that adhere to MLG standards. MLG standards are MLG specifications. And only in this regard can we say that MLG is "a standard". How do you quantify STYLE? And the debate rages on... Competitive and Casual, as USED by those at FH and else where, are diametrically opposed ends of a spectrum, so to say they overlap is to ignore years of usage of those terms. In that context I would argue that casual is not a style distinguishing even amongst competitive maps. Since both team and individual skill can be considered competitive, casual does not lean toward team as any form of adjective. In the end, based exclusively on the way the two terms are used, casual can only be interpreted as the opposite end of the competitive - casual spectrum.
I think the root of the entire argument here is the perceived binary opposition of "competitive" and "casual." There is no such opposition. There's not a spectrum from one to the other, because they aren't describing the same thing. In a competitive game, the object is to beat the other team/player at something, whether that's getting more kills or capturing more flags or infecting the human team. A map/gametype is competitive if it serves this purpose. Now, there can certainly be different degrees of competitive-ness (although this isn't the most accurate word), ranging from something like MLG where the sole objective is to win at any cost, to Clue which is more of an exploration/roleplay style game, all the way to puzzle maps where there is no opponent at all. Casual, on the other hand, is a word that in my mind describes the amount of strategy/mental focus that a player has to put into the game to play it. There's also a continuum here as well, but it has nothing to do with the "competitive-ness" of a map. Infection maps are a great example of a genre that spans the whole gamut - with lin-progs at one end espousing heavy survivor teamwork and strategy, and Fat Kid at the other where survivors just sit in the corner and mindlessly spam their shotguns. A great puzzle map might take an incredible amount of thought and focus, but Octagon is the very definition of casual. Essentially, the "competitive" and "casual" metrics of a map are unrelated. There is frequently a correlation between the two, as maps designed to be competitive often necessitate strategy and team play, but there isn't causation and a non-standard game isn't necessarily a casual one. Oftentimes it's the level of strategy/teamwork required that varies more than the degree of competition, simply because Halo as a game is generally structured around killing other dudes. I think a more accurate topic of discussion would be how one goes about rating the strategic merit of a given map or gametype (essentially the "casual-ness").
The way it is being reference here is the gametype. Yes I know what MLG is and yet it still has a gametype. It exists in the Halo 4 realm by a stylized gametype and maps to support that gametype and that style of play. It is very competitive by stripping down Halo 4 to the core and gameplay fundamentals. What if someone would think SWAT is more competitive than MLG... what if women created the Axe brand to identify douche bags... hmmm The way this is going is to say unless the map supports MLG it's not competitive. Soooo much grey.