That's how the argument started. I simply wanted to know why you guys put these people on such a high pedestal while at the same time degrading yourselves as if you couldn't get a kill on them. If Halo was to once again become competitive, I am pretty confident that those of us who still play today would do whatever was needed to keep on par with the "pros" hence clockwork would begin to work its way back into the game as well as carefully studying the game. We might still lose a majority of the games but we can't act like we would get completely demolished every single game which is the way you guys make it seem.
nah i think we would still get demolished every single game
it's possible to become dominant in this game, whether you realize it or not.
doesn't anyone remember when -x- went 100-2 or whatever.
edit: oh wait it was before spike's time. halo was 10x more active, and -x- managed to beat teams much better than any team now.
to be fair though.. *-O died.. we all were at college so they were beating down on noobs and icyhot's clan was probably the best team other than X- (I don't really know just know that =DS_ was a decent team)
Not saying that they noob stomped all the time but i feel like we were their biggest competition. They were def. the best team even if we were around but i don't think they would have lost only one game that month.
just like 6fd[ was only dominant because bamboo and o` weren't really playing at the time.. they played for [ACH] and we did beat them in the playoffs but it was because benja was on their team and he sucked at capping.
That's how the argument started. I simply wanted to know why you guys put these people on such a high pedestal while at the same time degrading yourselves as if you couldn't get a kill on them. If Halo was to once again become competitive, I am pretty confident that those of us who still play today would do whatever was needed to keep on par with the "pros" hence clockwork would begin to work its way back into the game as well as carefully studying the game. We might still lose a majority of the games but we can't act like we would get completely demolished every single game which is the way you guys make it seem.
nah i think we would still get demolished every single game
it's possible to become dominant in this game, whether you realize it or not.
doesn't anyone remember when -x- went 100-2 or whatever.
edit: oh wait it was before spike's time. halo was 10x more active, and -x- managed to beat teams much better than any team now.
to be fair though.. *-O died.. we all were at college so they were beating down on noobs and icyhot's clan was probably the best team other than X-
Not saying that they noob stomped all the time but i feel like we were their biggest competition
just like 6fd[ was only dominant because bamboo and o` weren't really playing at the time
im sure someone has pcr's from their legendary run...post them.
arcade
Jun 2 2010, 08:24 AM
blade you can post screenshots of you beating people like louie in 1v1s as much as you want (seriosly with your sound, set up, and stopwatch you shouldnt lose a 1v1) but it doesnt change the fact that he is 20x the player you are.
i mean they probably beat down on UFA a lot but it was probably Naota and Shaz with 3 noobs. From what I remember, I only played them when I came back from college and was bored at home and even then we played a shitty version of X-
Def. the best team USA post TWL by far tho, I'll admit that. *-O being a solid 2nd.
So all of this incoherent rambling amounts to "I could be/could have been on be on par with these older players and teams if ____ and ______ and _____ circumstances were present." Ok, fantastic. What an utterly pointless discussion to have.
A few of us start discussing how good some of the old teams and players were and apparently this deeply upset you and sent you on a crusade to prove to us and yourself that you could hypothetically compete on a hypothetical level in a hypothetical environment roughly 7 years ago. Well, congratulations on time well spent.
"As good as these people may have been, I still doubt they would be completely dominant or dominant at all. Halo is not a game that requires much. You don't exactly need lightning reflexes or an iq of 142(lol get it) to keep up with the competition."
"Why do some of you idolize those old players as if they were gods. Unless they were able to constantly hs and 3sk, then they were nothing special. Surely, they could have had good teamwork but Halo isnt exactly a complex game where you need over the top strategies or communication to have advantages over your adversaries. "
That's how the argument started. I simply wanted to know why you guys put these people on such a high pedestal while at the same time degrading yourselves as if you couldn't get a kill on them. If Halo was to once again become competitive, I am pretty confident that those of us who still play today would do whatever was needed to keep on par with the "pros" hence clockwork would begin to work its way back into the game as well as carefully studying the game. We might still lose a majority of the games but we can't act like we would get completely demolished every single game which is the way you guys make it seem.
Your iclan mentality is showing. If you lose the majority of your games, you're horrible. The people at the top in other extremely competitive games are more naturally gifted when it comes to video games. They're the best out of a huge player pool of hardcore gamers. They literally are primed to play video games from a biological standpoint. The top players in today's community are casual gamers who play within an extremely small pool of players. It's very unlikely that any of us are as naturally inclined to video games as the best gamers out of large, competitive circles. I'm pretty much referring to 1.6 alone right now.
Your argument insinuates that any average joe can become the best if they just put in the time and effort. This obviously isn't true if there are hundreds or thousands of other gamers putting in the same amount of time or effort, if not more. At this level, only the truly gifted rise. These are the circumstances under which most paid gamers play.
So all of this incoherent rambling amounts to "I could be/could have been on be on par with these older players and teams if ____ and ______ and _____ circumstances were present." Ok, fantastic. What an utterly pointless discussion to have.
A few of us start discussing how good some of the old teams and players were and apparently this deeply upset you and sent you on a crusade to prove to us and yourself that you could hypothetically compete on a hypothetical level in a hypothetical environment roughly 7 years ago. Well, congratulations on time well spent.
"As good as these people may have been, I still doubt they would be completely dominant or dominant at all. Halo is not a game that requires much. You don't exactly need lightning reflexes or an iq of 142(lol get it) to keep up with the competition."
"Why do some of you idolize those old players as if they were gods. Unless they were able to constantly hs and 3sk, then they were nothing special. Surely, they could have had good teamwork but Halo isnt exactly a complex game where you need over the top strategies or communication to have advantages over your adversaries. "
That's how the argument started. I simply wanted to know why you guys put these people on such a high pedestal while at the same time degrading yourselves as if you couldn't get a kill on them. If Halo was to once again become competitive, I am pretty confident that those of us who still play today would do whatever was needed to keep on par with the "pros" hence clockwork would begin to work its way back into the game as well as carefully studying the game. We might still lose a majority of the games but we can't act like we would get completely demolished every single game which is the way you guys make it seem.
Your iclan mentality is showing. If you lose the majority of your games, you're horrible. The people at the top in other extremely competitive games are more naturally gifted when it comes to video games. They're the best out of a huge player pool of hardcore gamers. They literally are primed to play video games from a biological standpoint. The top players in today's community are casual gamers who play within an extremely small pool of players. It's very unlikely that any of us are as naturally inclined to video games as the best gamers out of large, competitive circles. I'm pretty much referring to 1.6 alone right now.
Your argument insinuates that any average joe can become the best if they just put in the time and effort. This obviously isn't true if there are hundreds or thousands of other gamers putting in the same amount of time or effort, if not more. At this level, only the truly gifted rise. These are the circumstances under which most paid gamers play.
well i can agree with this.
people simply have better reaction times, etc. are naturally better no matter how long others play for
So all of this incoherent rambling amounts to "I could be/could have been on be on par with these older players and teams if ____ and ______ and _____ circumstances were present." Ok, fantastic. What an utterly pointless discussion to have.
A few of us start discussing how good some of the old teams and players were and apparently this deeply upset you and sent you on a crusade to prove to us and yourself that you could hypothetically compete on a hypothetical level in a hypothetical environment roughly 7 years ago. Well, congratulations on time well spent.
"As good as these people may have been, I still doubt they would be completely dominant or dominant at all. Halo is not a game that requires much. You don't exactly need lightning reflexes or an iq of 142(lol get it) to keep up with the competition."
"Why do some of you idolize those old players as if they were gods. Unless they were able to constantly hs and 3sk, then they were nothing special. Surely, they could have had good teamwork but Halo isnt exactly a complex game where you need over the top strategies or communication to have advantages over your adversaries. "
That's how the argument started. I simply wanted to know why you guys put these people on such a high pedestal while at the same time degrading yourselves as if you couldn't get a kill on them. If Halo was to once again become competitive, I am pretty confident that those of us who still play today would do whatever was needed to keep on par with the "pros" hence clockwork would begin to work its way back into the game as well as carefully studying the game. We might still lose a majority of the games but we can't act like we would get completely demolished every single game which is the way you guys make it seem.
Your iclan mentality is showing. If you lose the majority of your games, you're horrible. The people at the top in other extremely competitive games are more naturally gifted when it comes to video games. They're the best out of a huge player pool of hardcore gamers. They literally are primed to play video games from a biological standpoint. The top players in today's community are casual gamers who play within an extremely small pool of players. It's very unlikely that any of us are as naturally inclined to video games as the best gamers out of large, competitive circles. I'm pretty much referring to 1.6 alone right now.
Your argument insinuates that any average joe can become the best if they just put in the time and effort. This obviously isn't true if there are hundreds or thousands of other gamers putting in the same amount of time or effort, if not more. At this level, only the truly gifted rise. These are the circumstances under which most paid gamers play.
I agree with that. However, the average Joe can still compete with those that are naturally gifted to a certain extent if they put enough time and effort. The way some people on this forum put it, it's as if we wouldnt even be able to touch the pro gamer. It's not like we got this game yesterday. We have been playing it for some time now. Basically, the point that I have been trying to make for the last 10 pages is that we are not going to get annihilated every single game we play.
aa: lol aa: well i wud go for A's too but when i study it doesn't help me aa: cuz the only stuff that re stuck in my head about something aa: will be the only thing stuck Spike: what
Baddy: want's isn't a word? Baddy: because I'm pretty sure it is Baddy: ? Baddy: want plural
So all of this incoherent rambling amounts to "I could be/could have been on be on par with these older players and teams if ____ and ______ and _____ circumstances were present." Ok, fantastic. What an utterly pointless discussion to have.
A few of us start discussing how good some of the old teams and players were and apparently this deeply upset you and sent you on a crusade to prove to us and yourself that you could hypothetically compete on a hypothetical level in a hypothetical environment roughly 7 years ago. Well, congratulations on time well spent.
"As good as these people may have been, I still doubt they would be completely dominant or dominant at all. Halo is not a game that requires much. You don't exactly need lightning reflexes or an iq of 142(lol get it) to keep up with the competition."
"Why do some of you idolize those old players as if they were gods. Unless they were able to constantly hs and 3sk, then they were nothing special. Surely, they could have had good teamwork but Halo isnt exactly a complex game where you need over the top strategies or communication to have advantages over your adversaries. "
That's how the argument started. I simply wanted to know why you guys put these people on such a high pedestal while at the same time degrading yourselves as if you couldn't get a kill on them. If Halo was to once again become competitive, I am pretty confident that those of us who still play today would do whatever was needed to keep on par with the "pros" hence clockwork would begin to work its way back into the game as well as carefully studying the game. We might still lose a majority of the games but we can't act like we would get completely demolished every single game which is the way you guys make it seem.
Your iclan mentality is showing. If you lose the majority of your games, you're horrible. The people at the top in other extremely competitive games are more naturally gifted when it comes to video games. They're the best out of a huge player pool of hardcore gamers. They literally are primed to play video games from a biological standpoint. The top players in today's community are casual gamers who play within an extremely small pool of players. It's very unlikely that any of us are as naturally inclined to video games as the best gamers out of large, competitive circles. I'm pretty much referring to 1.6 alone right now.
Your argument insinuates that any average joe can become the best if they just put in the time and effort. This obviously isn't true if there are hundreds or thousands of other gamers putting in the same amount of time or effort, if not more. At this level, only the truly gifted rise. These are the circumstances under which most paid gamers play.
I agree with that. However, the average Joe can still compete with those that are naturally gifted to a certain extent if they put enough time and effort. The way some people on this forum put it, it's as if we wouldnt even be able to touch the pro gamer. It's not like we got this game yesterday. We have been playing it for some time now. Basically, the point that I have been trying to make for the last 10 pages is that we are not going to get annihilated every single game we play.
negative. in an ideal world probably yes.
but some people are genetically superior than others...no matter how much a retard puts work in he'll still be retarded compared to a normal person.
think of it...as a gaming iq.
capiche?
arcade
Jun 2 2010, 08:24 AM
blade you can post screenshots of you beating people like louie in 1v1s as much as you want (seriosly with your sound, set up, and stopwatch you shouldnt lose a 1v1) but it doesnt change the fact that he is 20x the player you are.
So all of this incoherent rambling amounts to "I could be/could have been on be on par with these older players and teams if ____ and ______ and _____ circumstances were present." Ok, fantastic. What an utterly pointless discussion to have.
A few of us start discussing how good some of the old teams and players were and apparently this deeply upset you and sent you on a crusade to prove to us and yourself that you could hypothetically compete on a hypothetical level in a hypothetical environment roughly 7 years ago. Well, congratulations on time well spent.
"As good as these people may have been, I still doubt they would be completely dominant or dominant at all. Halo is not a game that requires much. You don't exactly need lightning reflexes or an iq of 142(lol get it) to keep up with the competition."
"Why do some of you idolize those old players as if they were gods. Unless they were able to constantly hs and 3sk, then they were nothing special. Surely, they could have had good teamwork but Halo isnt exactly a complex game where you need over the top strategies or communication to have advantages over your adversaries. "
That's how the argument started. I simply wanted to know why you guys put these people on such a high pedestal while at the same time degrading yourselves as if you couldn't get a kill on them. If Halo was to once again become competitive, I am pretty confident that those of us who still play today would do whatever was needed to keep on par with the "pros" hence clockwork would begin to work its way back into the game as well as carefully studying the game. We might still lose a majority of the games but we can't act like we would get completely demolished every single game which is the way you guys make it seem.
according to my calculations red-i is the only one of us that can achieve pro status
arcade
Jun 2 2010, 08:24 AM
blade you can post screenshots of you beating people like louie in 1v1s as much as you want (seriosly with your sound, set up, and stopwatch you shouldnt lose a 1v1) but it doesnt change the fact that he is 20x the player you are.
Red-i falls in that very special .1 category to the left.
aa: lol aa: well i wud go for A's too but when i study it doesn't help me aa: cuz the only stuff that re stuck in my head about something aa: will be the only thing stuck Spike: what
Baddy: want's isn't a word? Baddy: because I'm pretty sure it is Baddy: ? Baddy: want plural
Red-i falls in that very special .1 category to the left.
6,500,000,000 x 0.001 = 6,500,000
so its really not that improbable.
my iq is really high but my parents are so stupid they dont remember what it is. i did one of the online ones but i had to rush the last 20 minutes and it said 133... i dunno if thats reliable tho.