Except their eyeballs and knowledge of the map's spawns and chokepoints... I just don't agree with your take. I don't play 1v1 any more but in CE I used to, vs. a friend of mine, usually on Chill Out or Longest. We always disabled motion trackers, and basically how it worked was understanding 1) where to go to see the largest portions of the map that the other player would be forced to move through, and 2) where the other player would likely spawn if they were killed in a particular place. If I killed him in the camo room, I would immediately move to the broken bridge in the center, giving me a view of every single route from one half of the map (the OS/shotgun half) to the other (the sniper half). Assuming he moves, I WILL catch a glimpse of him, though perhaps only briefly; then I have to guess (or know) where he's headed from there, and use that knowledge to my advantage. Similarly with Longest, there are two corridors, and he has to use one of them if he wants to go anywhere useful. Watching down one corridor and occasionally checking on the other will pretty much always give you an idea where the other player is and where he might be going. In H2 we moved our matches to Lockout, and again you'll notice that the map has a huge chokepoint: to get from one half of the map to the other, you MUST pass through center, either on the top level or right underneath it. From a good vantage point, like the top of the BR tower, I can monitor one of those routes, plus all of the map's other vantage points (lift tower and snipe tower). It only takes a few seconds of patient awareness to figure out where the other guy is, unless he's hiding from me. If you're running around "blindly" and only encountering the other player by accident, I would venture to say that you're a bad 1v1 player, or the map you're playing on is badly designed. Neither of those comments are aimed at you specifically, Stevo, but that's definitely how I feel about it. Radar-free 1v1 games can be a science and a work of art.
Quake isn't Halo ApK. Different game, different situations, different playstyles. overdoziz, the settings weren't decided before the maps were made. This was unfortunate, but the tournaments aren't up to me so I won't be deciding when the settings are released, or what they are. I also built my map to a specific playstyle, which was requested to be changed by everyone else who had input in the tournament. But let's not make this about that map
Didn't I say that? Or is it that you don't know how to read? Or that you are trying to nitpick points because you have no counterarguments for any points? Basically what you have told me so far is that they are essentially two different games, which I initially said in the OP. Basically, you have provided zero relevant or new points. Just because they are different games does not mean they are equal in competitive merit. Yes, radar creates an environment in which certain skillful gameplay elements may exist that are not present in radarless games, but, the overall pace and speed of the game suffers, which is a negative that outweighs the positives. Maps are irrelevant to the bigger picture. As a whole, no radar should be the desired setting for anyone taking competitiveness into mind. Also, 90% of us can't stand to play with Toggle Crouch, and we would like to not have dead thumbs after playing a single game with radar, let alone an entire tournament.
Just for reference, if radar was going to be in the tournament at all, it would be enhanced radar. Which means that you couldn't crouch around to avoid being seen, which means that the speed of the game wouldn't suffer in that respect. Just sayin'.
Does enhanced radar show all enemies no matter what, or only people who move (at any speed)? If it's the latter I am not so sure that's a great idea. It seems like crouching is just as useful for sneaking up on someone camping as it is for the camper himself; if you go with enhanced but the camper chooses to just not move, you're at an even worse disadvantage than with regular motion tracker. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think I've ever used enhanced mode in any Halo game, despite playing all of them.
That's an interesting way to modify a "motion tracker" - heh. Well that actually would be better then. It kills any possibility of subterfuge in close proximity, but at least there's no illusion about what's transpiring when someone is sitting in a small area waiting on you to round the corner. If you get shotgunned or sworded or corner-'naded, it's your own fault.
Then that's worse. The only merit of radar is that you can deny information at the sacrifice of movement. Enhanced radar is free information without any trade-off. Making people think and work for information is more skillful and yields better gameplay then just herp derp here is where they are right now.
lol no? You obviously forgot that we had an H3 1v1 with enhanced radar you silly person. It worked beautifully, and as I said, it will most likely be implemented in the next tourney. Sorry.
He wasn't here for the H3 1v1 and neither was I. It worked beautifully for casual players, yes. Yeah, it will be implemented because they could care less what the majority of people think. Ignorance.
Actually, If it's implemented, it is because that's what the majority of the people that are running the tournament feel will work best.... and thinking that everyone else is being ignorant because you believe the things you think are instantly "the majority" is a horrible way to avoid ironically making an ass of yourself.
It is what the majority of the people that are running the tournament feel works best. Think about that. People who like to 1v1 are generally competitive. People who are competitive generally like no radar 1v1. Modus Ponens. The majority of competitive players prefer no radar 1v1s. By competitive, I mean care about k/d and w/l ratio. Labeled as "tryhards". If this is a casual 1v1 contest, then radar is perfect.
Back yourself up, or don't play logic card; obviously, there is no way you can possibly justify that. Also, MP only works when both A and B are either postulates or theorems that have been previously verified. Since I could provide an instance of both A and B being false, there is no merit to your claim. Because of all of this, your insinuated MP statement (the fact that 'insinuated' was used here correctly proves that your logic statement wasn't even complete) that "People who like to 1v1 generally like no radar" is fallacious. If you attempt to fall back on the word 'generally?' Well, you'd then have to define what percentage justifies generally and prove it, then test every single person in the world to figure out if you can use that claim. Which, while being theoretically possible, is practically improbable the point of dismissal. Your claim literally debunks itself, even if it may be accurate. Personally, I prefer to play WITHOUT radar myself, because I abuse the lack of information available to the other player, and make full use of my biggest advantage; being confusing as ****. That doesn't mean that most other competitive players like radar. In fact, the person who was in charge of the gametype last time was both a better player and FAR more competitive than myself. He obviously liked radar for some reason. Finally, this isn't about what people like. Its about what is best, and anyone who claims otherwise is suspect. Don't know if that is were you were going or not, but I thought it should be cleared -Keep talking, you give me more ammo to relentlessly launch into certain peoples faces. I doubt I can change anything, but that doesn't mean I can't give 'em hell!
The fact that I used the word generally means that I can't be wrong. Get raped. I defined what I meant by competitive, and I definitely can say that most competitive Halo players prefer no radar. The percentage is well above 60. Just because you play team slayer and go positive does not make you a competitive player. It's not about skill, it's about playstyle. Your situation with your friend is called an exception. There are many of those to be found. And who's to say what's best? That isn't possible. It has to be about majority preference. There is no argument either way that could prove which is better for 1v1. -Keep talking. As the words pour carelessly out of your mouth, your testicles weightlessly float to their destination.
Ah, my bad. I was under the impression that you would let intellect tickle your ears, rather than ignorance tickle your ******.
Soooo we're gonna have radar for the 1v1s in addition to what will probably be a horrendous assortment of maps in which the majority of good maps published already are not included. That's enough for me to pass on this one as well... I just hope we don't get another two months of garbage features in which every staffer and their mother gets a feature for their "1v1 Showdown" submissions. I'm sorry, but the onslaught of 2v2 Showdown features was pretty rubbish. :/
Your appeal to ignorance is wonderful. Good stuff. How bout you go ahead and prove why radar is what is best for the tournament, hmmmm? EDIT: And Shanon, it would've worked beautifully in any casual's eyes because they'll play whatever. It's the tendency for more casual-minded players to not have a strong preference on the specifics, but at the same time, more competitive players will. FH could choose to go no radar and almost all of you would still participate, whether you admit it or not. However, there is a large untapped audience that view some of these setting choices as a deal-breaker. That audience could be included in what is supposed to be a friendly website for all, but instead FH continues it's haste towards any player with competition in mind first, with a few instances of affirmative action to try and please some and quiet others.
Just don't use radar and get it over with. I still don't exactly understand the arguments against no radar. Something about not being able to find each other very fast? :/
I want to flag this whole thread. Guys, I realize casuals vs. tryhards is an age-old debate that will never die, but seriously, can we start sidestepping it whenever possible from now on? It's so tedious. And arrogant. And dumb. And whatnot. I think it's basically two things. One, radar speeds up the match because you know where each other are any time you get close to each other (at least with enhanced). And two, enhanced radar would cut down on camping more so than any other mode (regular radar or no radar), because camping is mainly effective when you can get close to someone with you knowing it but them not knowing it. On paper, I don't think I mind the idea of enhanced radar too much. I say "on paper" because as I mentioned, I've never played with it before. But it invites a different kind of strategy and seems to avoid the big problems with regular radar in 1v1/2v2 play - those being camping/staring at radar. I dunno, I'd have to play a few games with it to really develop a full opinion. But then I seriously doubt I'll have time or interest to be in this competition, so... there ya go.