Question: Screw you, I have the answer.
Nice thread, ahahaha.
Essentially, yes, skill transfers pretty good from game to game. Skilled players are good because they are smart, they understand game mechanics, can devise strategies which utilize game mechanics. They learn the maps and understand where to position themselves to have cover and great lines of sight. On top of that, they have good hand/eye co-ordination, which helps land those headshots.
However, this game is much different from Halo. People who play a lot of campaign (usually not the pro PvP people) will get access to things those who stay in multi-player don't. People who do those big raids are going to get weapons that may add a distinct advantage over those who don't play campaign. A piece of armour that gives you more health, a weapon that does more damage or makes you invisible, etc.
If pro players are going to stick to PvP, they are going to get a surprise when they find out they're limiting themselves to certain weapons/armour/focuses, etc. So for that reason, I think a lot of pro players will be handi-capping themselves.
English
-
better weapons mean almost nothing usually if a player can't aim how can you expect him to close the skill gap?
-
You're acting as if anyone who isn't pro, sucks and has 2 left hands. If say I can get Closing Time in campaign, while players who play exclusively in PvP can't, I'm going to have an advantage sniping. I can be invisible with my sniper and I can snipe ammo drops. Ultimate camping/sniping weapon. If the average player were to get to the ammo first, they'd have the distinct advantage over the 'pro' players. We don't really know how player progression works yet. We don't know if EXP in campaign is more rewarding than multi-player.
-
Weapon disparity has a huge impact on gameplay. With the introduction of exotics, such as the turret-spawning rocket, I think this will now be truer than ever.