TheSeks said:Wow, got called a "camping faggot" in Domination on the PS3 version. Figured the PSN community was better than that, but wow.
Fuck multiplayer achievements and fuck you Infinity Ward for going back on your "singleplayer only" promise. :|
I think he meant Spec Ops, how it requires 2 players to do some levels.WEGGLES said:And the PS3 version has MP trophies?
I havn't seen this.. what is it?Neverender said:God damn, just encountered the Javelin bullshit... Why do people even play this game if they're going to do that crap
360 version here, and I'm also yet to see any glitch abusers or nukes.CorporalDork said:I think it's quite funny.
Even with the problems of no dedicated servers on the PC version, I don't seem to see any of the glitches being used on the PC version.
Plus I am yet to have a nuke be dropped in a single game i've played so far. Not once, and I'm level 59.
Trumpet909 said:I must be going crazy, but every time I try to play Domination or any other objective game I think I must have accidentally selected "Team Deathmatch". Camp + Nuke seems to be the only thing people try to do anymore.
I did a domination game last night with 5 other people, and there was a guy on the other team hiding in a corner of a house trying to get a nuke. So my friends and I ran in there and fed him kills up until he had 23, then we all got riot shields + throwing knives, ran in, and killed him. Needless to say, I've never heard that many racial slurs at the end of a game.
You're still going on about this? Those technically aren't multi-player achievements IW didn't "go back on any promise" (and saying this makes you look like some sort of unstable, achievement-obsessed maniac). If you can host without a problem, I'm pretty certain that any number of people in this thread would be willing to help you out (as was suggested to you previously).TheSeks said:Fuck multiplayer achievements and fuck you Infinity Ward for going back on your "singleplayer only" promise. :|
user_nat said:I think he meant Spec Ops, how it requires 2 players to do some levels.
I havn't seen this.. what is it?
It's in my profileNeverender said:I have no idea how it's done but when these fucking losers are killed their javelin auto-targets the killer. It's so god damn annoying... game-ruining for me at this point because every fucking idiot does it now. Ugh.
Also what's your gamertag? I could use more Aussies.
TheSeks said:Fuck multiplayer achievements and fuck you Infinity Ward for going back on your "singleplayer only" promise. :|
Some (1 or 2) levels require 2 players. Hardly worth complaining over though.AnEternalEnigma said:You do know you can play Spec Ops by yourself, don't you, champ?
You don't have to earn it. You'll get it automatically in some levels if you choose a class that has a sniper rifle.Scarecrow said:One last thing: how do I earn the grass camo?
That has pretty much been the talk of the thread for the last few days. Hopefully a patch will fix it but I have my doubts that IW would really tweak a game after release that much.h4k said:Akimbo 1887s are way overpowered. Any chance that they will get nerfed in the upcoming patch?
TheSeks said:Wow, got called a "camping faggot" in Domination on the PS3 version. Figured the PSN community was better than that, but wow.
Griffith said:The worst part about the Javelin glitch is that it has a ridiculous amount of range when it explodes. The multiplayer is a fucking mess right now.
Griffith said:The worst part about the Javelin glitch is that it has a ridiculous amount of range when it explodes. The multiplayer is a fucking mess right now.
AnEternalEnigma said:Halo 3 is not the best example. It had a pretty major glitch where melee damage distribution was all wrong when playing online. They never fixed it. They just rigged it to where a simultaneous hit would kill both players.
Bungie Weekly Update Feb 08 said:What Halo 2 Did
Put simply, in Halo 2, whoever threw the first melee won. Sounds perfect, right? Not quite.
Get your Einstein on, were going to talk about relativity. Specifically, the relative observations of host versus client. In Halo 3, across our entire population, we observe an average latency between host and client of around 80-100ms, which is around three frames. Assuming 90ms of latency, consider what happens when the host and client both throw melee attacks at exactly the same time. The host will see the clients melee attack as many as three frames later, while the client will see the hosts melee attack three frames later. Who attacked first?
Well, in the halcyon days of Halo 2, the host made that determination. Which means his melee was first and the client lost the melee fight far more often than they should have. And in the event of two clients attacking simultaneously, the one with lower latency to the host would appear to have attacked first, and would be the winner. In a peer-to-peer environment with latency, it is nigh impossible to determine exactly who attacked first.
Over Halo 2s three years online, many people adapted and got used to preemptively throwing a melee, but it was still fundamentally unfair in favor of the host or people with faster connections.
So, to be clear and upfront, we will not be returning to those days of letting the host win when the outcome is in doubt, aka. first melee wins.
The Halo 3 Fix
In Halo 3, there is explicit special treatment for what is called a melee contest, which occurs when two melee attacks occur almost simultaneously. Specifically, when the host starts to throw a melee attack, there is a short window after that (three frames, or approximately 100ms) during which the host will watch for a retaliatory melee attack. If one arrives inside that window, it is a contest. Besides smoothing out the latency differences between clients (it works the same way when one client melees another), this allows a client with a ping as high as 100ms to compete with the host on a far more even footing than Halo 2 allowed.
So now we have the contests, but how are they resolved? Having determined that we cannot trust timing in an environment with latency, we instead use the remaining health (including shields) of the contestants as the tie-breaker. This is about as fair as you can get, within the conventions of Halothe guy who did more damage comes out on top. Specifically, the winner of the contest still takes melee damage from the loser, but is protected from death and lives to fight another day.
On paper, this method addresses the host advantage (among others) and is scrupulously fair. Theres just one problem:
The Fatal Flaw
Halo 3s system is inscrutable. This is most famously illustrated by a splitscreen film (eliminating latency as a factor) of two players running at each other, firing, and throwing melee attacks on the same frame. One drops dead, and it isnt clear why, so the result is declared to be random. The real reason is, of course, that one player landed one or two more bullets than the other, but that isnt anywhere near obvious.
Any time you have a game system which players cannot understand, it might as well be random. No matter how fair the tiebreaker may be, if a single Assault Rifle bullet can slip by and decide the outcome, it might as well be random. And randomness is a poor substitute for tactics and skillful execution.
Addressing the Flaw
We considered and ultimately rejected some ideas that could have made melee contests produce a less inscrutable result. A major consideration was that we wanted to minimize the impact on how Halo 3 plays to the greatest degree possible, while still addressing the problem. Radically changing the mechanics of melee combat is not something we want at this point.
Ultimately, the change is targeted at the unpredictable outcome of a contest. Simply stated, it works like this: when a melee contest occurs, and both players are close to the same health (including shields), no special protection is given to either player. This means the outcome of a close melee contest can be death for both participants, but that a player who decisively injures his opponent prior to closing for a melee will continue to enjoy the victorious outcome.
For those of you uninterested in the precise details, the upshot is this: if you close for a melee attack and are at a clear advantage (or disadvantage), the outcome will be clear. If the outcome is unclear, too close to call, you will likely trade kills with your victim. But you should no longer watch your opponent saunter away for no clear reason (and if you do, check the filmit tells all.)
The Nitty Gritty
If youre still reading, youre probably interested in some details, so we wont skimp.
A player in MP has a grand total of 115 hit points (to adopt a common term.) 45 of these are body hit points, 70 are shield hit points. For reference, a single AR bullet does 7.5 points of damage, and a BR bullet does 6. A melee attack does 70 for most weapons, with some weapons (notably the Brute weapons) doing 72.
When entering a melee contest, the combined body and shield hit points are compared. If the difference is above a threshold, then one player is determined to have won decisively and is protected from death. After testing with a variety of weapons, we settled on a threshold of 26.5 hit points (slightly rounded.) This translates into 4+ AR bullets worth of damage to decisively win a melee contest, instead of simply having 1 more hit point than the other guy.
There is one more wrinkle to this: your invisible body hit points do recharge, but at a different rate from your shields. While ordinarily this is a non-issue (weve always made this largely transparent), it can affect the outcome of a contest. For those of you keeping score, body hit points start regenerating 10 seconds after last taking damage, at a rate of 9 hp/sec. So if your shields are up but youre fresh from taking a beating, you could still be in trouble in a contest.
YMMV, etc.
Despite our best efforts, this system cannot cover all cases: if your latency is beyond 100ms, you can still get into situations where the host legitimately believes that your melee did not arrive in time. In testing, we did catch a couple of films where perfectly balanced, simultaneous melee attacks produced an unexpected winner. But these were films recorded by the clientthe host film told a different story, showing a very late melee.
The moral: when in doubt, check the hosts film, because latency still matters. Just a whole lot less than Halo 2.
Also, while we were in there, we excised a BXB-style glitch before it gathered popularity, and fixed that strangeness where bodies would be hurled with unearthly force by a mid-melee death. We sincerely apologize to people who enjoyed the latter bugit was pretty funny."
Net_Wrecker said:Finally launched a Nuke today in Ground War. Wow, people really don't like putting air support down huh? 29 straight kills on Skid Row.
Mad Max said:They do when I'm using it.. Seriously, yesterday I was trying to do the emp challenges, and almost every time I got my harrier it got shot down pretty immediately, so I'd still have to get those 4 more kills by my self. Although I did manage to get the emp 6 times in one evening.
WickedLaharl said:host migration doesn't seem to work very well (and in some cases it doesn't kick in at all when it obviously should).
was in a game a little while ago and the whole lobby was lagging badly so host migration kicks in... only to pick a person with an even worse connection. the game wasn't even half way over at that point but host migration didn't kick in again.
i've also been in several other games where everyone except whom i assume is the host is lagging terribly but HM never kicks in.
edit: and dual shotguns desperately need a nerf. honestly some of the shit they allowed in this game make me think it wasn't play tested for shit.
tsigo said:Is there a definitive list of which killstreaks do and don't count towards more killstreaks? I thought only rewards that came from Care Packages didn't count, but I just had a 9-kill Pave Low take me from 9 to 22 and I didn't get my next killstreak (AC130, 11 kills).
tsigo said:Is there a definitive list of which killstreaks do and don't count towards more killstreaks? I thought only rewards that came from Care Packages didn't count, but I just had a 9-kill Pave Low take me from 9 to 22 and I didn't get my next killstreak (AC130, 11 kills).
NYR said:DLC = Revenue Gained
Patch = ???/$0.00
What do you think ACTIVISION'S priority is? Pretty obvious...
tsigo said:Is there a definitive list of which killstreaks do and don't count towards more killstreaks? I thought only rewards that came from Care Packages didn't count, but I just had a 9-kill Pave Low take me from 9 to 22 and I didn't get my next killstreak (AC130, 11 kills).
Tkawsome said:A patch would curb frustration in the community, making them less likely to cash it in a Gamestop. That right there is reason enough for them to hop on it ASAP. Plus it keeps the players happy, which is more important for the company/product in the long run.
xDangerboy said:honestly, i don't know if believe that anymore.
ASAP would have been a lot sooner. Either they:
A. Don't give a shit about community (very serious possibility)
or
B. Did not expect any of the exploits/party and host issues that are appearing in the game.
A. means they are just a bunch of assholes rolling in money.
B. means that they are stupid for not having a beta/playtesting
Tkawsome said:They've already released like, what, five patches for the PS3 version? They're clearly working on fixing these things, we just have to be patient. Anyways, the problems we are encountering are not that bad, especially when compared to what was happening in CoD 4 even a couple of months ago.
That was never a glitch, that was just 2 different ways to deal with latency.AnEternalEnigma said:Halo 3 is not the best example. It had a pretty major glitch where melee damage distribution was all wrong when playing online. They never fixed it. They just rigged it to where a simultaneous hit would kill both players.
Sectus said:That was never a glitch, that was just 2 different ways to deal with latency.
Basically, in the first version, if 2 players hit eachother at the same time with melees (not literally at the same time, but within 50ms or something) then the player with the most health would survive. And after the patch, they changed it to both players dying instead.
They could have used a more straightforward system where the survivor was decided by who delivered the network packet first to the server. But then ping/host advantage becomes bigger, which isn't exactly ideal.
Haven't encountered either "exploit" so far.Eric WK said:Every other game there's a group of people either using Akimbo 1887's, the care package exploit, the Javelin exploit and on and on.