The Halo 3 aftermath thread

[K]

I am bitter. You should've heard me last night. Atarian caught a sample of my yapping, even.

A motion tracker, eh? Why doesn't it track the motion of a crouching person on the move?

Because it only tracks things that move above a certain speed. When crouching, you move slowly enough not to register on the scanner.

[Kryptonian]

Oh yeah, you know that big blue box that comes up at the beginning of the game telling you what game you're playing despite the info in the lobby being a pretty good indicator? Well, in Last Resort snipers it literally obscures the guys who always spawn opposite facing you. Good one.

Won't that cover the other guys screen too? (and I thought you spawned in separate areas usually anyway)

Err you can't hear the other team anyway. Only when they are nearby which is very useful as you can often hear what they are planning. Or if you are devious use this to your advantage. In Halo 2 on Headlong I use to often creep in to the base from the top with the bomb, shout to everyone nearby that the bomb guy was coming in from the bottom and see all the opposing team members jump down because they don't realise my voice is not one of their players.

In Social playlists you can hear the other team on proximity.

[Ste Pickford]

Sure if you're a level 1 noobie, you might meet 1 in 5 games where there's a pro player flying up the new league table, but it's a rare occurance fortunately.

Just had 4 games over lunch. Came convincingly last in all 4

I'm not sure the matchmaking system works very if you're below a certain skill threshold.

[Kryptonian]

A motion tracker, eh? Why doesn't it track the motion of a crouching person on the move?

If it did, there wouldn't be much point in sneaking about - it's meant to take you off their tracker.

[metallicfrodo]

I'm not sure the matchmaking system works very if you're below a certain skill threshold.

I think this is certainly true. Especially early on in the games life cycle. I'm currenly sat with a very low rank in Halo 3 because I haven't had that much time to play it. However I've played reasonable amount of Halo 2, I'm wasn't brilliant (got up to about 28 in Team Slayer) but I'm not really a rank 2 or 3 which I'm sat at in Halo 3 at the moment.

As time goes by this will even itself out. On top of this it's obviously important that the pool of players is big enough otherwise the whole thing falls on it's arse because it can't match you in your skill range. At the moment there are only 46 thousand ish people playing Halo 3, whereas at 10pm last night there were 100,000 in Team Slayer alone.

[Ste Pickford]

I think this is certainly true. Especially early on in the games life cycle. I'm currenly sat with a very low rank in Halo 3 because I haven't had that much time to play it. However I've played reasonable amount of Halo 2, I'm wasn't brilliant (got up to about 28 in Team Slayer) but I'm not really a rank 2 or 3 which I'm sat at in Halo 3 at the moment.

As time goes by this will even itself out. On top of this it's obviously important that the pool of players is big enough otherwise the whole thing falls on it's arse because it can't match you in your skill range.

The skill value going up and down thing seems really nice. Nobody wants to see their numbers fall, but I can see how it would hover around your actual skill level after increasing a certain amount from when you started playing, maybe then creeping up slowly over time as you genuinely improved.

The flaw for unskilled players seems to be that it starts at zero and can't go any lower, so nothing much ever changes if you're losing matches from the get-go, and there's not much incentive to keep playing and improving if you always feel vastly outclassed. I wonder if it would work better if everyone started at zero, but skill levels could be minus numbers as well? That way, I'd end up with a minus skill level over time, and only be matched up with other people who've played and lost many times, rather than effectively playing in the entrance hall with all the newcomers who are expert Halo 1 and Halo 2 players, or just better FPS players.

I suppose the matchmaking system could be taking into account hidden values like K / D ratio to achieve this, but it doesn't feel like it.

[Lorfarius]

The flaw for unskilled players seems to be that it starts at zero and can't go any lower, so nothing much ever changes if you're losing matches from the get-go, and there's not much incentive to keep playing and improving if you always feel vastly outclassed. I wonder if it would work better if everyone started at zero, but skill levels could be minus numbers as well? That way, I'd end up with a minus skill level over time, and only be matched up with other people who've played and lost many times, rather than effectively playing in the entrance hall with all the newcomers who are expert Halo 1 and Halo 2 players, or just better FPS players.

When everyone starts out they are stuck with the Basic Training levels in match making. It takes several matches to get out of this and into the general playing field with everyone else. I thought this worked quite well and introduced a good learning curve. It's still a pain when you encounter some folk who are way to good compared to their actual rank though. I'm sure that this will change as time goes on with everyone reaching the correct level of play.

[metallicfrodo]

The flaw for unskilled players seems to be that it starts at zero and can't go any lower, so nothing much ever changes if you're losing matches from the get-go, and there's not much incentive to keep playing and improving if you always feel vastly outclassed.

That's actually a really interesting idea. However some people are adverse enough to losing ranks as it is, so could you imagine if they started playing and instantly went into negative numbers

I think even if you started at rank 5 as a default it might seem slightly less harsh but you'd still have the deranking right from the get go would probably give people even less incentive to keep playing.

[larrydavidsanger]

Having never played any Halos before, I'm quite enjoying the multiplayer. I haven't experienced any lag or abuse at all in the 15 or so games I've played, although I've only played unranked games so far. In one game I'll be absolutely battered and come dead last and then doing that party link up thing to follow the other players to the next game I come out on top.

To me, having no experience of melee combat from previous halos, I've found it fine. If I get killed it's because the other person has pressed the B button first or I've been off target/ gone into a mad "push any button" panic.

As I say, I'm very amateur and haven't really played all that much but any problems I've had, have been of my own doing

[metallicfrodo]

When everyone starts out they are stuck with the Basic Training levels in match making.

I remember Bungie touting this but I didn't notice being stuck in Basic..

[Kryptonian]

I remember Bungie touting this but I didn't notice being stuck in Basic..

I never got a Basic Training option either.

[Asura]

I found this video showing how the new melee system works

So, wait - the net result of that video is, when two players melee each other, the one with more health survives?

...

Sorry if I find the consternation a little confusing here.

[MalevolentPanda]

Basic Training is only visible until you have either gained 5 EXP or played 10 games, then it goes. If you just pick the other lists from the start then you might never notice it, as it will be gone within one session for most people.

[Meers]

So what should I do then? I like Halo 3, but certain aspects cause steam to come out of my ears. I'm amazed that only the Halo series stress me out when playing online, whereas other games, like CoD4 which has a similar matchmaking system, don't feel as unfair as this. And that's basically my whole point: Playing Halo 3 online can feel incredibly unfair. Both ways.

How many of you play custom games at all? I need a laugh on this.

[Lorfarius]

So what should I do then? I like Halo 3, but certain aspects cause steam to come out of my ears. I'm amazed that only the Halo series stress me out when playing online, whereas other games, like CoD4 which has a similar matchmaking system, don't feel as unfair as this. And that's basically my whole point: Playing Halo 3 online can feel incredibly unfair. Both ways.

How many of you play custom games at all? I need a laugh on this.

Loads of people frmo here play. Go to the Halo thread in Online and put your name down for friends.

[BeeJay]

Just had 4 games over lunch. Came convincingly last in all 4

I'm not sure the matchmaking system works very if you're below a certain skill threshold.

Halo matchmaking has always been really tough as a noob. I played my first ever free for all on Halo 3 in the beginners play list and got 25 kills 4 deaths. I felt really bad so didn't go back in again.

I agree in a way that there should be some kind of starting rank adjustment but it would be very hard to implement fairly.

The trueskill rank is even worse in this respect especially in PGR3 where as a rank 33+ I was getting matched against people having their first race and the next race I'd be against one of the top 10 guys. Halo 3's system is miles better than that.

I do find the levelling quite odd though. In about 250 games of Halo 2 I won about 10 free for all matches. I now come first in about 50% of free for all games. I'm about rank 12 I think and am still quite comfortably winning at that ratio.

[Meers]

So, wait - the net result of that video is, when two players melee each other, the one with more health survives?

No.

The player that melees first doesn't always win. That's what happens here.

If you have more health than me but both of ours has nearly drained, and I melee you first before you melee me, I die. Do you see?

[Petrousgyre]

So, wait - the net result of that video is, when two players melee each other, the one with more health survives?

In Halo2 the first to melee would win, in Halo3 the one with the most health wins. I suspect it's designed to level the lag playing field but could be seen as unfair.

[Kryptonian]

So, wait - the net result of that video is, when two players melee each other, the one with more health survives?

...

Sorry if I find the consternation a little confusing here.

Because the person who hit first should have killed the other guy. Even though he had more health, he didn't have enough to survive a melee. However, with this new system that is disregarded.

[Pob]

Well, the 'old' melee system was clearly rendered unfair when there was noticeable host advantage. I guess this is Bungie's way of trying to reduce the influence of lag/host advantage in determining the outcome of a battle.

Of course, if all other things were equal, then it should be down to whoever is quickest on the draw.

[BeeJay]

Now I realise why I was finding melees so tough in the first couple of nights. I'm sure I posted about it on the forum somewhere.

I've adapted now though and think it works much better. I hardly ever come off second best in 1-on-1 melee battles now.

[Asura]

Because the person who hit first should have killed the other guy. Even though he had more health, he didn't have enough to survive a melee. However, with this new system that is disregarded.

No.

The player that melees first doesn't always win. That's what happens here.

If you have more health than me but both of ours has nearly drained, and I melee you first before you melee me, I die. Do you see?

Still don't get it. The guy that melee'd second, ok, so he only had a tad more "health", but surely "health" is the wrong word? The first guy, the one that melee'd first, had his shield bleeping, and the second guy didn't. I thought melee's knocked out your shield if you had it, and killed you if you didn't (unless from the back).

So,

less health person melees, knocks other person down to just health and no shield

more health person melees, kills less health person because his shield is down

I'm presuming I'm wrong or there's nothing wrong with what they show in the video.

[tyler]

A melee can kill you with most of your shield still active now. It only takes a tickle with the AR and a melee to kill.

[Wallpaper]

Yeah watching that video does explain why I died a couple of times when I was 100% sure I should ve got the kill, now I know I'll adjust accordingly. I don't know what the alternative on Halo 2 was like but I'm presuming pretty unfair if Bungie saw fit to change it deliberately to this so.

Also as for verbal abuse I've only had one instance which considering Halo 2's reputation for it being game breaking is a pleasant surprise.

[Nick R]

I've not played the game, but I have been following this discussion closely...

Most of the discussion here has been about melees between players with initially imbalanced health. However, the description on that YouTube video also describes another subtlety which comes into play if both players have equal health at the time of the first melee:

"Players X and Y have full health. They run at each other shooting their ARs - both players hit 100% of the time. When they meet their shields are at exactly the same level. X melees the instant it is viable (i.e. the instant he is "in range"), but Y's reaction time is slower. Because player Y is slower at pressing the melee button he by default puts one, maybe two, extra bullets into X. Both melees, however, count as "simultaneous" due to the implementation of bungies new melee system. Since X has now one AR bullet's less health than Y he loses despite his superior reaction time and genuine kill."

So by the sound of it, a successful melee attack with this system comes from striking a balance between hitting soon enough to be a good range away, and yet late enough to get as many shots in as possible, but not so late that you miss the window of the other opponent's melee. Is that right?

Well, the 'old' melee system was clearly rendered unfair when there was noticeable host advantage. I guess this is Bungie's way of trying to reduce the influence of lag/host advantage in determining the outcome of a battle.

Of course, if all other things were equal, then it should be down to whoever is quickest on the draw.

Maybe they could fix it by lengthening or shortening the window over which it counts as "simultaneous" depending on the players' relative pings? So that in split-screen games, the window would hardly be there at all and attack timing would be everything; but in laggy games, this "most-health" system would make up for connection disadvantages.

[Exidor]

Maybe they could fix it by lengthening or shortening the window over which it counts as "simultaneous" depending on the players' relative pings? So that in split-screen games, the window would hardly be there at all and attack timing would be everything; but in laggy games, this "most-health" system would make up for connection disadvantages.

As it stands now, you can build a melee strategy around the rules, whether you agree with them or not. If you changed it like that it would be impossible to predict the outcome and would become completely random.

[BeeJay]

Is that right?

Yep, I have conciously started meleeing later in since I struggled with it in the first few days. In Halo 2 it was all about meleeing as soon as the opponent had low enough health to be beaten down. I now also find that in halo 3 it's far better to not go in for the melee if you are winning the battle and don't need to go up close. If you do, with these new rules, you're guaranteed to have no shield left after the confrontation.

[sir stiff_one]

Indeed whereas the opposite is true in Objective games. Some of the best players are the ones who wade in, manage to grab the flag for a second before dying and some of the worst are people who are far too preoccupied with kills than actually getting the flag / grabbing the bomb. In objective games kills / deaths are absolutely irrelevent so there are completely different play styles involved in the different types of games.

Yeah I think they award points on stuff differently in objective based games.

[sir stiff_one]

Reaction times should be rewarded more than higher health bars in this situation.

Reaction times are bullshit, because lag distorts it.

The system punishes the battered player - it's inelegant but probably the better soloution.

[Petrousgyre]

I now also find that in halo 3 it's far better to not go in for the melee if you are winning the battle and don't need to go up close. If you do, with these new rules, you're guaranteed to have no shield left after the confrontation.

Which maybe isn't a bad thing, in the overall scheme of things.