Halo: Reach

[spatular]

It's a shame they can't do more to eliminate the host advantage. I've been playing online today, and in a couple of games I must have been host, as at times, my enemies were just standing there with their backs to me while I killed them - not surprisingly, I won convincingly. In the other games, a single player was always ahead by a large margin; if he saw you, then you died (unless you got him while he was recovering from another fight).

Now, in some cases the lead player may have been a lot better than the others, but it was interesting that every slayer game had one player miles in the lead. I also realise that there are also degrees of advantage - other players closer to the host have an advantage over those further away.

Neither situation (either having easy victories or invincible foes) is very satisfying, but I guess that's just a reality of having one player host the game, rather than a dedicated server, and Reach isn't going to overcome this.

i don't notice the host advantage in halo 3 that much, i'm sure its still there to a degree and my connection isn't the best so i probably don't get host much, if at all, but in halo 2 the shotgun for example seemed unusable unless you were the host, but in 3 i just don't notice it much, odd. it sounds like you're playing lone wolves though? i never play that so maybe the team games balance it out more as only one of the team has the advantage.

[matt0]

The way I see it is that as much as it sucks losing your team mate, it's not a very fun experience for the people who get dumped into the match with five minutes to go, two flags down, no idea who has the power weapons, the enemy have the high ground and heck, maybe the reason there were spaces on the team was because the other two guys were just stood still. It's not a perfect system, but I think it's by far the better for Halo and its matchmaking.

I think it would be interesting to see a new type of adaptive team balancing, so say it's 4 vs. 4 and two of the players on one team drop out then the remaining two gain 20% more shield strength or faster movement speed. Obviously those are just top-of-my-head examples and such a system would require serious balancing so it couldn't be exploited, but it's not like a game of 4 on 2 is all that balanced to begin with.

Or they could just have persistent lobbies like Modern Warfare / BF:BC2.

[Guest]

Or they could just have persistent lobbies like Modern Warfare / BF:BC2.

Why have you completely ignored my post, which tries to explain why that's a bad idea for Halo?

Either you lot haven't played it that much or you really don't understand what the game is about.

[Superunknown]

Or they could just have persistent lobbies like Modern Warfare / BF:BC2.

The problem with persistent lobbies is that they can't take skill into account properly. I've played loads of MW2 and a lot of BF:BC2, and unless people drop out or there are enough lone-wolves to permit the game to re-jig the teams before the next match, the teams pretty much stay the same, and any skill gap continues.

I don't know about BF:BC2, but I think MW2 just dumps you into the lowest ping game it can find at the time you search, I don't feel that the opponents you face are matched to your skill, certainly not to anywhere near the level that Halo 3 does.

[K]

It starts with this post and it goes on for a looooooong time. Be sure to keep reading as it gets better and better once the stats that defy belief are rolled out!

bcass appears to be going through that thread deleting his posts, as the first few pages after that link only contain replies to his posts, not the originals.

He's trying to quit out of history itself.

[Mr. Gerbik]

bcass appears to be going through that thread deleting his posts, as the first few pages after that link only contain replies to his posts, not the originals.

He's trying to quit out of history itself.

You're right, he's deleted every post of his from that exact post in the link onwards, right up until this post. I wish he would quit doing that.

[Swallow]

Nevar forget!

[Tangent]

You're right, he's deleted every post of his from that exact post in the link onwards, right up until this post. I wish he would quit doing that.

Yeah I noticed that. Poor guy, him trying to justify it was bit embarrassing. I'd probably try to delete those posts too.

[memories]

If we get lucky he might just delete himself entirely.

[The Mighty Ash]

Haha pathetic!

[kerraig UK]

I get what you're saying, but my point is that Bungie should be doing everything they can to stop people dropping out in the first place. It is a hugely team orientated game, and as Straps has said, if 2 people get thrown into a match with 5 minutes to go without a clue as to what the fuck is going on, that won't be a very enjoyable experience either and it won't be much help to the 2 players who were left in the game.

I don't want to turn this into a CoD vs Halo thing again, but look how fractured the community is on there. Due to the speed of the killsn it's generally played as a lone wolf kind of game anyway, regardless of whether it's a team based playlist or not. There's not enough time in the heat of battle to draw people into traps. It's pretty much gun and run.

In a situation where people are always going to drop because they're losing, or don't like the map, or whatever, then yeah, drop-in would be a last resort solution. I'm just happy that Bungie seem to understand the way their game should be played, so are taking measures to make it work as well as possible.

Not gonna turn it into a vs convo. But I break it down like this. In the instance that some players drop out, the remaining players will always ALWAYS have an inferior game to what they would have had if it filled the spot with randoms. And for that reason I can reach no other conclusion than Bungie are making the wrong decision

[kerraig UK]

I think it would be interesting to see a new type of adaptive team balancing, so say it's 4 vs. 4 and two of the players on one team drop out then the remaining two gain 20% more shield strength or faster movement speed. Obviously those are just top-of-my-head examples and such a system would require serious balancing so it couldn't be exploited, but it's not like a game of 4 on 2 is all that balanced to begin with.

I LOVE this idea. Would make the games so dynamic. Knowing the other team only had 2 players vs your 4, but those players were juggernauts would change things massively.

Make it happen Bungie

[Varnsen]

bcass appears to be going through that thread deleting his posts, as the first few pages after that link only contain replies to his posts, not the originals.

He's trying to quit out of history itself.

can the mods undo this? I feel like he's deleting some part of the rllmuk dna somehow...

[Philly]

It can be said, there's a massive buzz you get from being 2 men down, and fighting and getting the win.

Had some amazing games fighting on the back foot, guts and strategy, to pull it off by one point.

[spatular]

Not gonna turn it into a vs convo. But I break it down like this. In the instance that some players drop out, the remaining players will always ALWAYS have an inferior game to what they would have had if it filled the spot with randoms. And for that reason I can reach no other conclusion than Bungie are making the wrong decision

that's not entirely true though, the player skill has to be matched, if you drop players that are new to the game into a slayer game with highly ranked players the other team will gain an advantage - easy kills. in an objective game just the extra numbers might help a little though.

[Chaz]

bcass appears to be going through that thread deleting his posts, as the first few pages after that link only contain replies to his posts, not the originals.

He's trying to quit out of history itself.

That's hilarious. By doing that he's basically admitting he was in the wrong and that he was making a complete tit of himself.

[Chooch]

Isn't one of the forums new features the 'soft' delete? So all all those deleted posts from bcass will end up in a recycle bin, ready to be restored?

I would like it if that happened

[bcass]

No, the hard-delete option was used (there are 2 options).

It's been done to prevent some of the rather creepy stalking that's been going on. You'll find plenty of posts later in the thread that continue to justify my actions. I don't admit that it was wrong at all. As I've said before, I'm rather proud of having so thoroughly perverted their broken system.

This new system from Bungie is unlikely to improve the situation. It might actually make things worse. Instead of people quitting, all you'll get is people spending the entire match team-killing or just leaving their character standing still until the next game. Both of those scenarios are much more annoying than simply having someone quit out of the match.

That's the guy. Amazing scenes on here when he was trying to justify his actions.

I don't have to justify anything. Least of all to a handful of random internet gobshites.

[Mr Cochese]

What stalking has been going on? Serious question, I'm new here myself and I want to be certain what I'm getting myself into.

[Snowman]

Or they could just have persistent lobbies like Modern Warfare / BF:BC2.

My memory is a bit hazy but doesn't Reach basically have persistent lobbies? Once you've been matched up with a group of players, you all stay together by default, game after game, with the matchmaking system filling in any empty spaces between games.

This new system from Bungie is unlikely to improve the situation. It might actually make things worse. Instead of people quitting, all you'll get is people spending the entire match team-killing or just leaving their character standing still until the next game. Both of those scenarios are much more annoying than simply having someone quit out of the match.

If they team-kill, you can boot them. If they stand still, that's no more disruptive than having someone quit. In fact, it may actually avoid the need for the game to pause and find a new host.

[bcass]

If they team-kill, you can boot them.

That's exactly the reason why they'd do it, so they can legitimately get back to the lobby quickly without registering a quit.

If they stand still, that's no more disruptive than having someone quit. In fact, it may actually avoid the need for the game to pause and find a new host.

Having someone stand still is a lot more disruptive to your game. It means that as well as being one man down, your team also has a standing target for the other team to easily kill which means you're even more less likely to win than had they just quit.

[Varnsen]

It's been done to prevent some of the rather creepy stalking that's been going on.

yeah it's the stalkers what made you do it.

[Snowman]

That's exactly the reason why they'd do it, so they can legitimately get back to the lobby quickly.

True enough, although I'd imagine that rampant team-killing would get them banned just as quickly as rampant quitting would.

Having someone stand still is a lot more disruptive to your game. It means that as well as being one man down, your team also has a standing target for the other team to easily kill which means you're even more less likely to win than had they just quit.

Good point.

[bcass]

True enough, although I'd imagine that rampant team-killing would get them banned just as quickly as rampant quitting would.

Nope. People don't get banned for team-killing. All you can do is submit a player review, which would only affect their Xbox Live rating. There's no option on Xbox Live to send a complaint for unsporting behaviour.

[Keverlast]

That's exactly the reason why they'd do it, so they can legitimately get back to the lobby quickly.

Having someone stand still is a lot more disruptive to your game. It means that as well as being one man down, your team also has a standing target for the other team to easily kill which means you're even more less likely to win than had they just quit.

Legitimately? They'll lose XP and have to search again. No different to quitting out.

Also FYI (as you might not have been on the receiving end of players who are *ahem* thoroughly perverting their broken system) but players 'standing still' are kicked from the game due to inactivity.

The usual method of thoroughly perverting their broken system here, is to rubber band the thumbstick and A button (the idiots you see spinning in a circle and firing at the sky). Bungie have suggested that they will be detecting this and taking measures accordingly.

We'll see.

[exwhyzed]

Fuck matchmaking, I want optimatch or whatever it was called, where you had a list of gamess.

Anyway, I am firmly aboard the hype train.

[bcass]

Legitimately? They'll lose XP and have to search again. No different to quitting out.

It's completely different from quitting. It means that they get returned to the lobby without registering a quit. In other words, they won't get a ban for it. They can jump straight back into another game.

players 'standing still' are kicked from the game due to inactivity.

Which still doesn't register as a quit.

The usual method of thoroughly perverting their broken system here, is to rubber band the thumbstick and A button (the idiots you see spinning in a circle and firing at the sky). Bungie have suggested that they will be detecting this and taking measures accordingly.

Yeah, I read about that. I also read about how people will be circumventing it.

[Ferine]

People really go to great lengths to not play a game, don't they? You'd think they'd just do something else.

[Keverlast]

...without registering a quit....Which still doesn't register as a quit...

Is that conjecture* or have they indicated that they will treat serial quitters and serial TKers/idlers any differently?

*Notwithstanding that everything is until release day

[bcass]

Is that conjecture* or have they indicated that they will treat serial quitters and serial TKers/idlers any differently?

*Notwithstanding that everything is until release day

I haven't read otherwise, but it doesn't really matter eitherway given how easy it is to make your character look like it's not idling (randomly as opposed to the rubberband method).