That is (again) not technically true. You do not know the map layout, the scenarios that the maps create, or the playstyle of your opponent in question. I don't understand how you guys can make a claim as forward as this either. In an MLG scenario, playing with a team and having no radar potentially creates teamwork and teams with greater teamwork are somewhat (debatably) more skilled because they're communicating more. This is simply because there are more eyes scanning the map, and when enemies are detected, they are verbally announced to other team mates IF they have a microphone. So, with the current understanding of what makes players more skilled, having a microphone means you are higher up on the skill curve because you can provide team mates information about enemy positions causing the team's performance and teamwork to be better... or, as a radar does this for you in other scenarios... does that mean you're lower on the skill curve because your team mate is telling you where enemies are instead of you working it out for yourself? With a radar being present or not, it is not directly related to how skilled a player is. It does not make low-skill players play terribly, nor does it cause highly skilled players play incredibly. The absense of it also does not do the same either. It is merely a contributing factor to how gameplay evolves. As I've also already said... this 'extra skill' players seem to possess when they play without radar doesn't seem to port over into any games that do have radars, or default settings, as games last night evidently showed. I don't play without radar typically (I hardly ever play MLG on Reach... it just isn't entertaining tbh) but I consistently placed as one of the top 3 players of the games. So why can I play with, and without radar effectively, and other players not play with radar as effectively as someone else, when they spend the majority of their games playing without radar? If you need to be more skilled at the game to play without a radar, there seems to be a flaw somewhere in how this has been revealed? Now, with that said... I'm not the best of players at 1v1. It doesn't suit my playstyle, because I read how gameplay unfolds and I make decisions to swing the game in my favour by flanking at obscure moments, assisting team mates to keep them alive, cross map team shooting when necessary. I need team mates to create these distractions and scenarios to utillise my full potential. However, I do know how to adapt to new playstyles when the game requires it. If I got thrown into a 1v1 (where I can't use my team mates (or other enemies for that matter) as distractions or catalysts) I'd likely lose due to playing so far out of my comfort zone as the gameplay is generally slow and painfully campy. Removing a radar promotes camping for all lower 1v1 skilled players... so I'd hopefully get the jump on my opponents early game, then use guerilla tactics taken from how I play in team based games, and distract the opponent using grenade explosions at the opposite end of the map and try slow the game down. With the enhanced radar, this wouldn't be possible as my position would always be revealed creating more direct 1v1 encounters than I could probably win. Either way... a players skill has no direct relation to whether a radar is included or not, it depends entirely on how you use the radar in the first place. The absence of the radar could potentially bring games to a complete halt due to players being unable to find one another, or players idly hiding behind corners etc... The inclusion of an enhanced radar promotes conflict by revealing an enemy position regardless of their strategy. A standard radar does both.
You people are making it sound like the radar is an instant, "This person is right here" cheap thing. Its useful to glance at to gauge how close opponents are to your position but that is as useful as it ever gets, at least for me anyway. It further complicates things when the map has all sorts of different levels to it. Is the person on your level, right above you, etc? The radar doesn't help much. The radar doesn't make me shoot better, react better, coordinate better, etc which would all be what actually dictates the "skill gap" between players. In fact if I'm staring at my radar instead of what's in front of me I'll lose more fights then win them.
I believe I was here fore that aswell. I didn't compete in it, but enhanced radar is what I said would fix all the bitching. (But apparently I'm wrong)
So the people in here supporting radar don't think it slows down gameplay and make it more of a standoff in 1v1?
Bolded. I need to take a nap They probably do, but they most likely think it's worth undermining. Either that or Ring around the rosie is competitive.
Its not a support or not support issue. Its a, "these are the rules of the tournament" issue. If the tournament was MLG 1v1 then it would follow MLG rule set. If the competition was play an entire match while jumping then that is what must be followed because it is part of the rules. If the rule set doesn't interest you or you think you can't abide by it then don't take part. It is that simple. The only discussion regarding rules would be questions concerning unclear aspects or if something in the rules is actually incorrect or broken. Saying "these rules are dumb" doesn't get you nor anyone anywhere. This isn't a discussion of what is better for competitive play, radar or no radar. It essentially a ***** thread regarding a specific rule for a contest that may or may not happen.
First off I want to thank everyone for their input, the fact that you have such strong feelings for possible future events brings me great joy. There is no right or wrong here, only one style of play versus another and neither is perfect. I understand your concerns but if/when the time comes I'm confident we will provide a gametype that most will enjoy, Until then try to keep the flaming to a minimum.
ISAO lol. The part I'm trying to get you to understand is playstyles and factors the contribute to the gameplay that does result in one players skill being higher. And by that I mean the player in the lead has a greater skill because they are controlling the game. With that said, the map part wasn't about whether or not you spent a week playing the same map over and over to learn the map layout. I'm saying now, (as in right this moment, in this thread) you don't know what maps will be in a tournament because they're secret (if the tournament exists etc...). So how do you know if all maps have to be underwater, or need to be zero gravity or something none-traditional? A competitive tournament is something that forces opponents to compete to best each other in a given scenario. It is not about providing an answer to 'who is the most skilled player on Halo using the most skill-orientated settings' because what good is that title if that person doesn't play with a fluid enough style to compensate for all the other settings in game? The part about not knowing your opponent is directly related to how are you going to predict what your opponent does when you know nothing about them and only map information? You might like charging around a map with no radar trying to flank people from their spawn position, but they might play stealthily and consider a score of 5-4 a massive victory.
Are you implying your outspams were because of skill? Bloom is not a different skillset from no bloom. It's just less of the same skillset. You placed in the upper half because you were better, to a certain degree, than others, and to another degree because you were more lucky, whereas without bloom, it would pretty much be have to be solely because you're better. You still aim the exact same way with bloom, you just don't have to be as accurate, and you can rape pacers purely out of luck because you get more shots off faster. Besides, it's not like I ever went negative either (obviously apart from the games on those really bad maps when I was on facebook half the time. Still not even sure I went negative). I do just fine with bloom, because I spam, and I don't even feel bad about that, because whoever actually loads up a bloom gamtype honestly really does have it coming. And you still predict the exact same way with radar, except you can see exactly how players in a close enough proximity move and don't have to think for yourself where they probably are. It only takes away from the very same skillset. It doesn't add another one. If you get bloody backsmacked, then that's your fault for not being able to predict properly, or alternatively for not having a decent headset. "My" skill curve does still apply to you. It just doesn't matter as much. There are random factors thrown into it, and things that make it easier or more luck based for everyone. [br][/br]Edited by merge: Bold: reply
STEVO lol Your missing words and your run-on sentences were killing me. (I do the same thing though, don't worry) We don't seem very much on the same page. I am arguing about the skill that the lack of radar brings to shooters. I don't know what you're arguing about I suppose, but I don't see how your connecting variable playstyles with the concept of radar.
Man, are you kidding? I ****ing hate this site! Its so boring and bland, and there are like no maps at all. Can't ****ing find ANY. ****.
in certain circles, "ship it" has other meanings --- no radar x skill gap shipping? too conceptual, sorry
Gotta love reading this thread. It's the MLG collective and all their assorted fangirls and tryhards vs the Staff and it's blatantly obvious who's going to win. When will people realise that the staff couldn't really care what the rest of us think and just sit there quietly and accept the results. It's only a game guys. Personally, I don't care what you do. I'd abuse radar if I had it, I don't care if I don't. The funniest thing would be if they decide not to run this competition in the end. Would make my year.
I am not a MLG tryhard or fangirl... or tryhard... But I don't like radar. Nor do I like bloom. Nor do I like sprint. It might be a game... But I just dropped a hundred bucks on a smexy new controller for it.