Baddy

Oct 29 2011, 12:07 PM

Around is considered one of the worst actually, no where close to the best. I've already proved my point by beating him every single time he played in the 2tl, even with havok / gernade / grinch.. Just ignore the guy and give him the ban stick already.

gatman

Oct 29 2011, 03:45 AM

Put some money on the table around, i will come back and beat you within the same week with 200 ping.

Around the Great

Oct 29 2011, 02:56 PM

and we don't even have a mj of halo
everyone has their own take on who's the best player in halo, it's not even settled because of the loss of players, different experiences, and better technology and other bullshit people incorporate into their opinions
I like just being the god of halo so im fine

Around the Great

Oct 29 2011, 03:07 PM

4v4s incorporate 8 players that all contribute to the success or failure of the game. You have to always consider the 7 other players when you win/lose. In 4v4s people are confused in thinking you beat a player when in fact you beat a team. Smaller size matches have less variables and solely focus on the talent and skill of the competing players. If you have an argument on who's better, you have to pinpoint in what area. You can't say in larger game matches without considering the different lineups and how larger games has to deal with the mistakes and contributions of many players and not just you and the person you're arguing with. You'd be more correct in your argument after playing smaller size matches because it narrows down the measurement of skill between you and whoever you're arguing with. I've beaten baddy loads in 4v4s and I've beaten almost everyone loads in 4v4s, but I don't just pick out the person I don't like in a 4v4 and say oh look im better than you because we won the match without looking at the difference in lineups. In smaller size matches which I completely destroy him in, it'll be more accurate to say that in.

crossfire

Oct 29 2011, 03:12 PM

Around the Great

Oct 29 2011, 03:07 PM

4v4s incorporate 8 players that all contribute to the success or failure of the game. You have to always consider the 7 other players when you win/lose. In 4v4s people are confused in thinking you beat a player when in fact you beat a team. Smaller size matches have less variables and solely focus on the talent and skill of the competing players. If you have an argument on who's better, you have to pinpoint in what area. You can't say in larger game matches without considering the different lineups and how larger games has to deal with the mistakes and contributions of many players and not just you and the person you're arguing with. You'd be more correct in your argument after playing smaller size matches because it narrows down the measurement of skill between you and whoever you're arguing with. I've beaten baddy loads in 4v4s and I've beaten almost everyone loads in 4v4s, but I don't just pick out the person I don't like in a 4v4 and say oh look im better than you because we won the match without looking at the difference in lineups. In smaller size matches which I completely destroy him in, it'll be more accurate to say that in.

the point is you're so bad you have never been on a team

halo is a team game bro you should be removed from the discussion completely, but you insist on putting yourself in it, why you think everyone thinks you blow?

cuz u do

Around the Great

Oct 29 2011, 03:15 PM

crossfire

Oct 29 2011, 03:12 PM

Around the Great

Oct 29 2011, 03:07 PM

4v4s incorporate 8 players that all contribute to the success or failure of the game. You have to always consider the 7 other players when you win/lose. In 4v4s people are confused in thinking you beat a player when in fact you beat a team. Smaller size matches have less variables and solely focus on the talent and skill of the competing players. If you have an argument on who's better, you have to pinpoint in what area. You can't say in larger game matches without considering the different lineups and how larger games has to deal with the mistakes and contributions of many players and not just you and the person you're arguing with. You'd be more correct in your argument after playing smaller size matches because it narrows down the measurement of skill between you and whoever you're arguing with. I've beaten baddy loads in 4v4s and I've beaten almost everyone loads in 4v4s, but I don't just pick out the person I don't like in a 4v4 and say oh look im better than you because we won the match without looking at the difference in lineups. In smaller size matches which I completely destroy him in, it'll be more accurate to say that in.

the point is you're so bad you have never been on a team

halo is a team game bro you should be removed from the discussion completely, but you insist on putting yourself in it, why you think everyone thinks you blow?

cuz u do

I'm making the point in which if you want to compare individual talent it'll be more accurate to focus on smaller size matches.

HPT-4

Oct 29 2011, 03:16 PM

except 1v1's take little skill

what is harder? a player dominating 2's or one that carries the team in 4's.

Around the Great

Oct 29 2011, 03:21 PM

My argument focuses on how you should measure individual talent between two competing players and what size matches would be best suited to do that in

Around the Great

Oct 29 2011, 03:15 PM

crossfire

Oct 29 2011, 03:12 PM

Around the Great

Oct 29 2011, 03:07 PM

4v4s incorporate 8 players that all contribute to the success or failure of the game. You have to always consider the 7 other players when you win/lose. In 4v4s people are confused in thinking you beat a player when in fact you beat a team. Smaller size matches have less variables and solely focus on the talent and skill of the competing players. If you have an argument on who's better, you have to pinpoint in what area. You can't say in larger game matches without considering the different lineups and how larger games has to deal with the mistakes and contributions of many players and not just you and the person you're arguing with. You'd be more correct in your argument after playing smaller size matches because it narrows down the measurement of skill between you and whoever you're arguing with. I've beaten baddy loads in 4v4s and I've beaten almost everyone loads in 4v4s, but I don't just pick out the person I don't like in a 4v4 and say oh look im better than you because we won the match without looking at the difference in lineups. In smaller size matches which I completely destroy him in, it'll be more accurate to say that in.

the point is you're so bad you have never been on a team

halo is a team game bro you should be removed from the discussion completely, but you insist on putting yourself in it, why you think everyone thinks you blow?

cuz u do

I know what halo is you fucking retarded fuck face
I'm making the point in which if you want to compare individual talent it'll be more accurate to focus on smaller size matches. It's not you beat a player in a 4v4, it's you beat a player and his lineup in a 4v4 with 3 other players who contributed to your success and 3 other players that contributed to the failure of the player you're comparing with. That is the point I clearly made and I don't know why it confused you

nepmip

Oct 29 2011, 03:24 PM

2v2s require good pistoling and good map movement, which sure you have both I won't hate. But when it comes to holding positions, timing pushes, holding off pushes, team shooting and full map awareness, you come no where near the greatest. Winning 10 matches against a put together team doesn't make you better if they have 60 wins on your team... it just means you COULD be better

edit: halo is about winning. To measure individual skill you have to show what each player does to contribute to wins. Baddy makes his team better with sneaky caps, you would make your team better by killing and making call outs. You guys play completely different roles...

Around the Great

Oct 29 2011, 03:33 PM

nepmip

Oct 29 2011, 03:24 PM

2v2s require good pistoling and good map movement, which sure you have both I won't hate. But when it comes to holding positions, timing pushes, holding off pushes, team shooting and full map awareness, you come no where near the greatest. Winning 10 matches against a put together team doesn't make you better if they have 60 wins on your team... it just means you COULD be better

edit: halo is about winning. To measure individual skill you have to show what each player does to contribute to wins. Baddy makes his team better with sneaky caps, you would make your team better by killing and making call outs. You guys play completely different roles...

As I said before if you want to talk about who's better individually you have to pinpoint and narrow it down exactly to what you're talking about(holding positions,timing pups, holding off pushes,etc) if your reference is to the results of larger size matches. If it's to reference of 4v4s, there's a large amount of variables that influence how well a person can perform those tasks due to the success and failures of the 7 other players within the match. Using that as a basis to measure individual talent is less accurate then referring to the results of smaller size matches when the variables are less.

It's like the p-value, if anyone has done statistics or lab reports.