3 years ago#41
OOOH LAWD JESUS OH JESUS GET DA WATER *****! IT GOING DOWN! DEM MOTHER******* BOOTLEG FIREWORK ****! OH ****! wooo
3 years ago#42
There is no mathematics. There's just a dodgy inequality.
This is mathematics: http://nsm1.nsm.iup.edu/gsstoudt/history/images/wiles.gif
3 years ago#43
What really makes me mad is how people think adding randomness into a game is "evolving" it or "innovating" it. NO.
Let's just say rockets spawn every 2 minutes. If you're not there at 2 minutes, and the other team gets rockets, that's on you. That's your bad.
Because the weapons are random, it's not your fault nor could you have planned that another player has a power weapon. This game has EVERYONE having a power weapon, it's ridiculous. One recent game of BTB there were 5 players at one time who had the binary rifle. Yeah, because that's fun?
What the hell was 343 thinking? Why change something that wasn't broken? "Hey, better players keep beating worse players to the power weapons, that's not fair for them being better. Let's make it so that everyone can get power weapons regardless of skill in the game. It will make it more fair."
The guy who gets a bunch of assists going 2-6 shouldn't get a binary rifle as a crutch to compete with players going 13-4 getting the choice between a concussion rifle and some stupid speed boost.
my halo what happen why are you all borked
3 years ago#44
From: bd0g5 | #041
Math arguments? We need derived in here.
From: ArcGuard | #019
It was rare to see a come-from-behind victory.
What. Are you serious? I've lost plenty of games that my team was up and won a fair few where we were solidly behind.
And in your whole inequality spiel, several issues:
1) you've taken many (arguably) quantifiable variables and collapsed them into one that is not quantifiable (skill)
2) you're supposing that skill is a constant and not an average. i.e. people make brilliant plays and people make mistakes. These play a huge role in the outcome of the match.
2 is where your argument fails.
Edit: and I like this Vaunt guy.
[Jesse,] you need to stop noscoping me though its really infuriating, that time you jumped from ring 2, no scoped me, and picked up camo, i about died IRL -bale
3 years ago#45
From: bd0g5 | #041Math arguments? We need derived in here.
If you're assuming those are my issues, those were exactly my points. There's no such thing as equal skill. It's impossible. Skill is not quantifiable. But he was proposing that it was. And assuming that "skill is equal" then the only variable that would matter would be power.
3 years ago#46
From: ArcGuard | #045
But he was proposing that it was.
I must have missed this and I still can't find it. Would you quote it for me?
From: ArcGuard | #028
If p1>p2, s1+p1>s2+p2.
Also, how is this "how math works" when this doesn't hold true in general?
From: ArcGuard | #020
If you get behind, you stay behind. Once you control the map, it's game over.
And you've not supported this assertion at all. What about a mistake or a brilliant play? Both can easily break map control.
I don't know what the hell Halo you've been playing, but I have yet to play a game where I win simply by getting map control.
I was never aiming to be mature though. I was aiming to be right and dammit, I've got good aim. - MrSty GT: i derive dx
3 years ago#47
From: ArcGuard | #045But he was proposing that it was.
Between two equally matched teams, map control tended to shift back and forth as the game went on.
And you cannot have equally matched teams (Skill being implied, as it was what we had been talking about for the previous two pages).
But that formula, given that the teams have the same skill, holds true. Power would be the deciding factor. Whoever got the power would win. Because, assuming skill is the same, it could not be countered. How can something less powerful beat something more powerful. It cannot, given that vacuum.
"Brilliant plays" are impossible with evenly matched teams. But then, they cannot be evenly matched, because there is no such measurement as "even" in terms of skill.
3 years ago#48
I actually feel this halo feels more halo than reach. I loved playing all online halos up until reach. I hated that online play. I agree though that random power weapons was a terrible idea. That is probably my one real concern with halo 4. It takes out a major strategy element of controlling those weapons.
3 years ago#49
Back when all my friends were CoD***s but I still played Halo, I would try to explain the reason why Halo is way better is because of the balance - everyone starts out equal at the beginning of every match. That's how I've always defined Halo's compared to other FPS', and for that reason I agree that Halo is not Halo anymore.
3 years ago#50
So what you're saying is that this entire tangent occurred because you took something I said far too literally? I of course meant teams of roughly equal skill. I'm not sure how you missed that.