NobleGundam
Banned
wait weren't you the same BK that pm me saying you're terrible at halo? lol
edit: nvm. some other gaffer here than >.<
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
HaloGAF |OT: Anniversary| So fades the great harvest of our betrayal.
- Thread starter User 73706
- Start date
edit: nvm. some other gaffer here than >.<
User 73706
Banned
Pretty Sure They're Making A Sandwich And The Cat's Eating Their Controller - Wahrer, 789shadow
aHebrewMenagerie
Member
1v1 me headass
Der Flatulator
Member
Is there some kind of formal definition for skill gap? I find the concept very vague...
GoDs DeMoNaToR
Neo Member
The Librarian
Banned
It's a buzzword people made to help justify their opinion of a game. (Halo 1 has a larger "skill gap," so it's the best).
...
I'm okay at Halo.
User 73706
Banned
Devolution
Member
The skill gap in previous Halos is a thing simply because you were more likely to have paper vs paper than paper vs scissors with AA and more.
Poker Face
Member
i can't wait to play halo 2 again
Speedy Blue Dude
Banned
If skill gap is anything like the sales gap between the Xbox One and the PS4 I don't support it.
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
lol This mentality is still around? Thought you people fizzled off when Halo 4 unified the rest of us.
User 73706
Banned
K
kittens
Unconfirmed Member
eww go away
icedoesn'thelp plays Halo? Or do you mean me?
K
kittens
Unconfirmed Member
Still not as confusing as randomrosso and randomlyrossy.
Lol, I'm just confused because no way I'm above biggy or so.
And yeah I also get mixed up with Icedoesnthelp and IHaveCandy and get pm's for them.
Though one time Icedoesnthelp made a thread with a problem on side and I just responded 'I can't help'.
I'm so funny, a goddamn comedian.
Skill gap is kind of like the skill ceiling. Or related.
Halo 1 was a more difficult game to reach the ceiling of potential skill. So a casual player with a pistol is less likely to beat a better player with a pistol in a fight. In halo 2-3-r-4 it was easier for the casual player to still kill the enemy because a 4 shot wasn't THAT hard. Halo 1 also had more nuances with weapon throwing and shit.
Halo 2 had a decent strafe and button combos which helped make its gap bigger than the following games.
It's not a buzzword it's a real concept in any competetive game/sport
Halo 1 was a more difficult game to reach the ceiling of potential skill. So a casual player with a pistol is less likely to beat a better player with a pistol in a fight. In halo 2-3-r-4 it was easier for the casual player to still kill the enemy because a 4 shot wasn't THAT hard. Halo 1 also had more nuances with weapon throwing and shit.
Halo 2 had a decent strafe and button combos which helped make its gap bigger than the following games.
It's not a buzzword it's a real concept in any competetive game/sport
Who's the guy saying that Halo was on the table and that Reach was a disservice to the franchise?
I want to listen to the conversation that came from. Sounds like a guy ready to sober the community up a bit.
Sounded like Gandhi.
Edit: Wow, I'm not a junior anymore. How does that even work? Is it just a number of posts thing?
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
I'll put a fiver on Saucey. Video was great for hype but that Bungie comment could have been left out.
User 73706
Banned
Was On GAF When Halo 2 Launched tier
3 months and 300 posts I think
edit: Actually looking at your profile you've been here since 2011 and have 355 posts , yeah I have no idea then lol
sounded like Sundance to me
I think it makes sense. I've had the account for years but only started posting regularly within the last few months.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Warning: this post is sponsored by insomnia, and may or may not make any goddamn sense.
I think of it as the sum of the skills a player can master to give themselves an advantage over a player who lacks them. The more numerous and important these skills, the larger the gap.
I've actually been thinking a bit about the nature of the skill gap lately, and how it may be important to make the distinction between theoretical and actual skill gap. Theoretical follows the above definition, whereas actual skill inserts the word "feasibly" before "master." Halo 4 (and to a lesser extent, Reach) are good examples of including features that add to the theoretical skill gap without adding (or sometimes detracting from) the actual one. Take defensive AAs like Armor Lock, Hard Light Shield, or even Thruster Pack, for instance. In theory, being able to deal with your opponent popping an AA is a skill. In practice, there are so many possibilities and permutations that it's impossible for anyone to actually do it. It adds greatly to the theoretical skill gap, but contributes nothing to the practical. Aim assist is an inverse example. You'd think that axing aim assist would add enormously to the skill gap (since aiming becomes much more difficult), but playing with a controller introduces the very real possibility that nobody would be able to "cross" the skill gap, as it were, thus decreasing the actual skill gap.
I'm hoping that one of the things we'll be able to do in the beta is separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of real skill gap boosters and theoretical skill gap boosters.
/ramblings.
Welfare
Member
What the fuck is a "zoojoo"?
So everything in MCC multiplayer will be ranked?
Nice analysis dude.
If I'm interpreting it right, stuff that is universally consistent would contribute to boosting the skill gap whereas having a bunch of different off spawn abilities for example, is theoretical. Did I get that right?
Based off the current info we've got it seems so yeah.
A rare creature that feeds on timey wimey stuff.
MrGreencastle
Member
Fuck yeah.
Bornstellar
Member
I was curious so I asked Bish about it. Waiting for a reply.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Mmm... sort of. More like all inconsistent starts contribute to non-real skill gap widening at least a little, but not all non-real skill gap comes from inconsistent starts. Any added feature that creates a situation that the player cannot reasonably learn to respond to is technically theoretical skill gap. All features carry a little of this, but the issues arise when it's the overwhelming majority. Take (say) the hard light shield. There is skill involved in using it, but by adding to the already lengthy list of AAs, it adds more theoretical skill gap than practical. As such, it's largely without merit. There's probably some math that makes this make more sense.
Of course, some features actively remove both practical *and* theoretical skill gap, like ordinance drops.
EDIT: Actually, strike that last line. Ordinance drops do add a tiny amount of skill (deciding when to use them), but by replacing on-map weapon placement, they produce a net negative. No feature really *reduces* skill in and of itself. Only by comparison does a feature decrease overall skill level.
KarneeKarnay
Member
What's all this crap about skill?
*Old man intensifies*
Back in my day we didn't have ranks or levels, it was join a server on Halo one and either get ****ed or get good. That was it. Halo 2 tried to capture that and add a rank system to it and for some it really worked. Being the poor bas***d I was, I missed most of that. Then Halo 3 came out and while I did have a blast playing the Multiplayer, it felt far too easy. (This may be partly due to playing CS for about 6 months before that.) I mean it was fun, but I learnt fast that rank meant bugger all. Most people just played with friends to unlock all the achievements and get the better armours, or just straight up paid for higher rank accounts. Halo3 was kinda it for me with the franchise. I thought OTSD was an interesting if slightly boring game, Halo Reach felt closer to what I wanted, but it felt like it was just missing on that epic feeling that Halo had. Halo 4 game and wow it felt close. I actually enjoyed the single player for the first time since Halo. My only bug bear was the multiplayer.
Since when did you have to play for about three days solidly to unlock all the weapons? Why cant we just have the a selection of about 6 starting weapons and then just have everything around the map. Honestly the best game I ever had was in the Original Halo. Me and 6 guys I never met before we on the island map being camped at our spawn. They had the Banshee, tanks outside our base and a tank on top of the teleport. Then one of us setup a skype call and we all joined it. Taking charge I led my whole team out of the front the moment the shells stopped, we unleashed grenade hell on them and took out both tank drivers with the loss of one guy. Two guys stayed with the tanks to drive to the other side of the island and up to where the enemy team was camping the teleport. Me and two others went straight up. On top of there we saw two enemy players and a tank. We threw grenades before the tank guy realised what was going on. Tank driver down, but we cant take it is as the banshee from earlier reappears, in unison, pistols come out and we take out the banshee, then the players, we then park the tank on their teleport and in the space of three minutes weve completely reversed our fortunes and win the game. That whole charge with just the three of us took place over just about 30 seconds. It felt epic and Ive not felt it since. Im still friends with some of the guys I met that game.
Kinda run off topic, but I what I would love is for games to be more like that. I dont want the game to fair, I just want it to be fun. Matching skill or seeing who has the higher rank doesnt matter to me. Hell in Halo 3 I was nearly always the best player on my team, even though I almost always had the most deaths by the end of the game. Fun, god. How difficult is it to have that anymore without worrying about skill or rank?
*Old man intensifies*
Back in my day we didn't have ranks or levels, it was join a server on Halo one and either get ****ed or get good. That was it. Halo 2 tried to capture that and add a rank system to it and for some it really worked. Being the poor bas***d I was, I missed most of that. Then Halo 3 came out and while I did have a blast playing the Multiplayer, it felt far too easy. (This may be partly due to playing CS for about 6 months before that.) I mean it was fun, but I learnt fast that rank meant bugger all. Most people just played with friends to unlock all the achievements and get the better armours, or just straight up paid for higher rank accounts. Halo3 was kinda it for me with the franchise. I thought OTSD was an interesting if slightly boring game, Halo Reach felt closer to what I wanted, but it felt like it was just missing on that epic feeling that Halo had. Halo 4 game and wow it felt close. I actually enjoyed the single player for the first time since Halo. My only bug bear was the multiplayer.
Since when did you have to play for about three days solidly to unlock all the weapons? Why cant we just have the a selection of about 6 starting weapons and then just have everything around the map. Honestly the best game I ever had was in the Original Halo. Me and 6 guys I never met before we on the island map being camped at our spawn. They had the Banshee, tanks outside our base and a tank on top of the teleport. Then one of us setup a skype call and we all joined it. Taking charge I led my whole team out of the front the moment the shells stopped, we unleashed grenade hell on them and took out both tank drivers with the loss of one guy. Two guys stayed with the tanks to drive to the other side of the island and up to where the enemy team was camping the teleport. Me and two others went straight up. On top of there we saw two enemy players and a tank. We threw grenades before the tank guy realised what was going on. Tank driver down, but we cant take it is as the banshee from earlier reappears, in unison, pistols come out and we take out the banshee, then the players, we then park the tank on their teleport and in the space of three minutes weve completely reversed our fortunes and win the game. That whole charge with just the three of us took place over just about 30 seconds. It felt epic and Ive not felt it since. Im still friends with some of the guys I met that game.
Kinda run off topic, but I what I would love is for games to be more like that. I dont want the game to fair, I just want it to be fun. Matching skill or seeing who has the higher rank doesnt matter to me. Hell in Halo 3 I was nearly always the best player on my team, even though I almost always had the most deaths by the end of the game. Fun, god. How difficult is it to have that anymore without worrying about skill or rank?
Der Flatulator
Member
Liberal arts majors, feel free to ignore this post...
Soo... SkillGap(game) = sum of the skills a player can master to give themselves an advantage over a player who lacks them.
I think that's a little counter productive. As later games have had more features, hence more skills to master. This would lead to SkillGap(halo 4) > SkillGap(halo ce), which I think we can treat as canonically incorrect.
OK, this makes a little more sense. However I'd disagree to the principle of there being a ceiling to the skill accomplishable in most games. Primarily because they're played with human competition. Perhaps that could be better approximated as the asymptote or point of minimum return. Let's call this concept "max effective skill".
So basically, algebraically, could we say that
skill max ratio = (max effective skill) ÷ (avg skill density).
skill min ratio = (entry level skill) ÷ (avg skill density).
skill gap = skill max ratio - skill min ratio.
Am I getting close here, or completely missing the point?
You could get really philosophical here and say that, for example, Halo 4 had a higher max effective skill compared to Halo 2 as there are more tools at your disposal in offense and defense. Then again there are less deterministic components of the game that limit a player's predictive capabilities that grow alongside skill.
I guess the real question is how do you define skill?
Soo... SkillGap(game) = sum of the skills a player can master to give themselves an advantage over a player who lacks them.
I think that's a little counter productive. As later games have had more features, hence more skills to master. This would lead to SkillGap(halo 4) > SkillGap(halo ce), which I think we can treat as canonically incorrect.
OK, this makes a little more sense. However I'd disagree to the principle of there being a ceiling to the skill accomplishable in most games. Primarily because they're played with human competition. Perhaps that could be better approximated as the asymptote or point of minimum return. Let's call this concept "max effective skill".
So basically, algebraically, could we say that
skill max ratio = (max effective skill) ÷ (avg skill density).
skill min ratio = (entry level skill) ÷ (avg skill density).
skill gap = skill max ratio - skill min ratio.
Am I getting close here, or completely missing the point?
You could get really philosophical here and say that, for example, Halo 4 had a higher max effective skill compared to Halo 2 as there are more tools at your disposal in offense and defense. Then again there are less deterministic components of the game that limit a player's predictive capabilities that grow alongside skill.
I guess the real question is how do you define skill?
Needs more to feel like old HaloGAF:
- Tashi ceiling jokes
- Kylej and juices dropping truth bombs (or just posting in general)
- Louis Wu posting again
and people making jokes about his age
His tweets are pure gold. Feels like a comedy account.
Poodlestrike
Banned
That's why I split it into practical and theoretical skill gap. Not all features are created equal in that regard. There are more potential skills to master in Halo 4, but most of them aren't actually achievable. Combine that with the fact that a number of the features in 4 have lower practical skill levels than CE features, and you get TSkillGap(Halo 4) > TSkillGap(Halo CE), but PSkillGap(Halo 4) < PSkillGap(Halo CE).
It will happen, slowly.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Spanners in the works for skill gap is teamwork and randoms vs. partied up regular teams. That doesn't even start the discussions about the nature of online gaming and fairness in terms of skill gap. It also excludes any metrics based on regional times playing, available player pools and so much more.
So many forget how much a team and/or individual can bring beyond the skill gap based on mechanics alone.
LAN events/tournies are quite a different beast to online skill or ranking for example.
So many forget how much a team and/or individual can bring beyond the skill gap based on mechanics alone.
LAN events/tournies are quite a different beast to online skill or ranking for example.
Welfare
Member
I think it was from the Oklahoma thread on the OT side.
Don't forget that you being a junior was also part of the experience, and your marriage with elzar
Omfg those pics :L :L