It's always nice too have someone's argument boil down to "people who agree with me are highly skilled" and "people who disagree with me are lowly skilled", along with the implication that one group is superior to the other beyond just the skill disparity in the game.Primus Ego Sum wrote:Because the anti TU crowd are mostly lower skill players who want more bloom in the game so that they actually have a chance to kill more skilled players due to RNGesus.Jonny45k7236 wrote:What I really don't understand about the anti TU crowd is why is it such a big deal to have only 80% bloom? No one seems to care about the other changes and most seem to like them. But everyone is acting like 80% bloom just kills the game somehow and here I am excited about it.Of course he's just assuming things. The competitive MLG crowd wanted ZBNS settings, not reduced bloom. They still hated bloom in the TU just as much as vanilla. OP is just trying to get around having to argue the merits of a bad game mechanic.LUKEPOWA wrote:Do you have a link where they say the update was only done for the competitive MLG crowd or are you just assuming things and saying them like it's a fact?SamTheWeebo wrote:I know this was originally done to satisfy the "competitive" crowd
The whole point of the TU was to bring back MLG players.
Also, the popularity argument doesn't work with the TU vs non-TU lists. The TU, along with ZBNS, came out too late in Reach's life - after a significant chunk of the competitive community had already abandoned Reach - to gain much of a following. Reach by that time had already settled into its niche as a fun but exclusively casual Halo game and that portion of its population didn't really need the TU or ZBNS.
There is some merit to the idea that bloom reduction was primarily to serve people who were more highly-skilled. Zero bloom for MLG gametypes was not possible without patching the game to modify bloom values. Also, higher-skilled players are going to use precision weapons more frequently, and increasing their effectiveness necessarily shorts those who use non-precision weapons:
1) because it makes those precision weapons more viable in the ideal ranges for non-precision weapons and
2) because it makes it less possible for players to move around the map into ideal ranges for non-precision weapons because the overall time-to-kill at range has gone down
I think Reach came at a time where players were hungry for a more living game that updated and changed its sandbox, but it wasn't that, so a battle ensued over whether it should be or not, and we got half-measures like the playlists being split between old and new.
The fact of the matter is that Reach is its own thing. It made bold decisions that some loved and some hated, but they were internally consistent to the game, and therefore should be preserved. Most people who played Reach played it in 1.0, and a good portion who stuck around for the following years also continued to play 1.0, even till today. Have respect for these fans, and if you're not interested in it, there are tons of other Halo games to play, both older and newer, and some still yet to come.