Support NeoGAF

[Dirtbag]

No, they don't. It has been designed this way on purpose.

The new melee stops close encounters from being a test of lowest ping (or best lag adjustment). Now the skill is not in when you press B, it's in everything before that point -- and after, if you want to survive long enough for your shields to recharge.

It's not broken, and lots of people (myself included) think it's much better. More importantly, so do Bungie, so don't bother waiting for a patch.

You have better reflexes because you press the meleebutton first? In the described situation the better player wins because he put more bullets in his opponent. In that situation the player with the "reflexes" wins because he waits out, dealing a bit more damage with his weapon and reacts to the opponents decision to jump in and melee.

I'm also not a fan of the system but that's how I see it at the moment.
I suck at keeping the damn crosshair on my enemy therefore I lose in most melee situations. I hate it, it has problems but I think it is fair in most situations.
However I never played Halo 2 mp so I can't really compare it to other systems. I see the meleeattack as a finisher and the current system discourage to jump in at the first possible chance, which has nothing to do with reflexes.

Also what alisdair said.

The system should be reliable. If you get the jump on shooting an opponent.... just back pedal so he can't melee you like you did in all the past halo's. This whole I have more health so my melee is stronger is crap -period. It rewards the player that makes the tactical error of closing a gap on an opponent he shouldn't have, and surviving a melee he shouldn't. I think alot of you are misunderstanding the timing issue.... its not really about how fast the melees are coming off... these are melees that land no problem, but do shit for damage.

 

[chapel]

No, they don't. It has been designed this way on purpose.

The new melee stops close encounters from being a test of lowest ping (or best lag adjustment). Now the skill is not in when you press B, it's in everything before that point -- and after, if you want to survive long enough for your shields to recharge.

It's not broken, and lots of people (myself included) think it's much better. More importantly, so do Bungie, so don't bother waiting for a patch.

The fact is that ping comes into play in every part of an encounter, from the initial shots to the melee at the end. So if you have a bad connection or lag you are going to be at a disadvantage at the start unless you definitely get the jump on someone. So why should the person that has the reflexes to know when a melee will kill get punished when the opponent reacts slower but as a byproduct has a fraction more health?

You have better reflexes because you press the meleebutton first? In the described situation the better player wins because he put more bullets in his opponent. In that situation the player with the "reflexes" wins because he waits out, dealing a bit more damage with his weapon and reacts to the opponents decision to jump in and melee.

I'm also not a fan of the system but that's how I see it at the moment.
I suck at keeping the damn crosshair on my enemy therefore I lose in most melee situations. I hate it, it has problems but I think it is fair in most situations.
However I never played Halo 2 mp so I can't really compare it to other systems. I see the meleeattack as a finisher and the current system discourage to jump in at the first possible chance, which has nothing to do with reflexes.

Also what alisdair said.

We arent talking about someone meleeing an opponent when their shields are still up all the way, we are talking about when a melee strike will kill the opponent, the first to strike should get the kill, not the person that is slower and happens to have more health when they melee because of an extra bullet or two.

To put it simply to describe what is so frustrating about the system:
Player A has 100% health
Player B has 100% health

Player A and B happen to spot each other at the same time and start shooting at each other at a very close moment (too close to tell if it was one or the other).

They start to close as most players do, by the time they are in striking distance player A decides to melee, at that point Player A has 8% health and Player B has 8% health (again basing this off of an even fight). Player B then goes to melee immediately after Player A but at which point it is at least a fraction of a second or more later. Since Player A stopped shooting and went to melee first, Player B got a few extra bullets in. So now at the point which Player B goes to melee in reaction Player A has 6% health and Player B has 8% health still (because the system waits to register melees, or it would be based on reactions wouldnt it) when he finally melees. At that point the host processes the data and based on the current melee system rewards Player B with the victory because when he melee'd he had more health even though Player A melee'd first and at a point where Player B would be killed by a melee.

What defines the time the system should wait to register a melee? Based on the video I posted it seems like it can wait a long time at least in game terms.

I really feel the system is based on flawed logic and really gives improper play the nod, that and luck. Its not like we can see who has more health when both shields are down, but the game knows... how can a player be tactical enough to know when to melee or not in a situation, or do they just have to pray it works? Thats how it is now, whack and pray.

Edit: Also what everyone else said in response to those two. I made just one example that shows the flaw, but there are so many more.

 

[alisdair]

How about rockets? You fire one when your shields are ringing and score a direct hit, but the other player also gets his off with full health a moment after. You die. He lives. It would be utter bullshit.

I have had this happen in multiplayer. On my screen, my rocket has left the weapon, but presumably due to latency the game decided that I didn't fire before dying, so he got away with no damage. Same thing with shotguns. Lag is a bitch.

People are over-estimating the window of melee opportunity. If your opponent takes "several seconds to react", he's dead. I obviously don't know how big the window is, but I would guess it's about 100ms from the host's perspective. Adding on average latency and you're looking at about a fifth of a second.

The strategy with the new melee is pretty simple - try to avoid it if you have low health, and only go for melee when you're certain the opponent has lower health than you. This isn't much different from being certain that the opponent has low enough health to die from a melee, is it?

 

[Dirtbag]

someone should try and get ferrex to comment in this thread.. I'm not sure he's even seen it yet.

At least then he could maybe offer up the thinking on why the melee system is the way it is...
that is, if he felt like it... and IF we aren't total assholes about it.

That'd be pretty cool.

 

[Photolysis]

If your opponent takes "several seconds to react", he's dead.

Obviously. That was a hypothetical example aimed to show you the flaw in your reasoning.

The strategy with the new melee is pretty simple - try to avoid it if you have low health, and only go for melee when you're certain the opponent has lower health than you. This isn't much different from being certain that the opponent has low enough health to die from a melee, is it?

Why should this aspect of the game - and no other - not be based on who reduces a player to zero health first?

If I start shooting you first, all other things being equal, you die. But if I melee attack you first, I die?

 

[chapel]

I have had this happen in multiplayer. On my screen, my rocket has left the weapon, but presumably due to latency the game decided that I didn't fire before dying, so he got away with no damage. Same thing with shotguns. Lag is a bitch.

People are over-estimating the window of melee opportunity. If your opponent takes "several seconds to react", he's dead. I obviously don't know how big the window is, but I would guess it's about 100ms from the host's perspective. Adding on average latency and you're looking at about a fifth of a second.

The strategy with the new melee is pretty simple - try to avoid it if you have low health, and only go for melee when you're certain the opponent has lower health than you. This isn't much different from being certain that the opponent has low enough health to die from a melee, is it?

I think that a weapon like rockets should not be negated by death, but its an issue with lag more than anything and not a system they setup on purpose.

There should be no window of opportunity to get in a rebuttal melee, as with the rocket example, there is no window of opportunity and so whoever gets killed first losses their opportunity. No health calculations there outside of if the rocket is enough to kill you.

Anything under half shields is death to a melee strike. But thats the thing, if the have enough health to die from a melee strike, they should die from the first hit, not based on who has more health... I could understand if they used it to defuse ties when it comes to melees, but its obvious the window of opportunity is great enough that we can perceive something wrong.

 

[urk]

On my screen, my rocket has left the weapon, but presumably due to latency the game decided that I didn't fire before dying, so he got away with no damage. Same thing with shotguns. Lag is a bitch.

But why didn't Bungie adopt a system where the game kills only the player with less health to compensate?

Lag is a bitch. Has been since the genesis of online play. But I don't think this corrective measure does much to remedy it for those who are affected by it.

The strategy with the new melee is pretty simple - try to avoid it...

Exactly. And since Bungie considers it one of the three pillars of Halo combat, that fucking sucks. Same thing happened at Halo 2 launch with the grenade nerf.

I could understand if they used it to defuse ties when it comes to melees, but its obvious the window of opportunity is great enough that we can perceive something wrong.

Easy enough to tell. I press B and nothing happens.

 

[Photolysis]

I should reiterate, that if this system worked on a frame by frame basis, i.e. our melee connects in the exact same frame, then giving the victory to the player with most health is fair (though I still think both players should die).

But that's not how the system works, hence this discussion.

 

[alisdair]

But why didn't Bungie adopt a system where the game kills only the player with less health to compensate?

Oops, yes, that's completely right. I am wrong. My argument doesn't make sense.

Melee is a unique case for this lag-window thing and I wonder why. Maybe it's not by design after all?

 

[chapel]

Oops, yes, that's completely right. I am wrong. My argument doesn't make sense.

Melee is a unique case for this lag-window thing and I wonder why. Maybe it's not by design after all?

Well it has to be by design because in Halo 2 it worked just fine and in the beta it wasnt this bad if they had any system in place then.

 

[Dirtbag]

Oops, yes, that's completely right. I am wrong. My argument doesn't make sense.

Melee is a unique case for this lag-window thing and I wonder why. Maybe it's not by design after all?

Also, if you watch that video..
you'll notice the same thing happens in a LAN game and same box splitscreen. It's not a latency thing at all.... that just makes the system even worse.

Well it has to be by design because in Halo 2 it worked just fine and in the beta it wasnt this bad if they had any system in place then.

And I didnt notice any problems in the beta either... but I didn't play nearly as many matches in the beta as I have by now in Halo3.
So either it was there and I didnt have the time to notice it... or it wasn't, and they could just drop in the old melee coding in a future patch and make me a happy camper (and most of the halo nation probably wouldnt even notice the difference. Cept for the more competitive players like myself, that rely on accuracy to make tactical decisions)

It really reminds me of Gears of War and chainsaw battles. But with the problem reversed, but still a problem....
if that even makes sense.

 

[brokenwatch]

Does anyone else consistently get matched with people who are ridiculously higher level than them? Maybe its because everyone hasn't reached their peak in every playlist, but it seems like every game I play is comprised entirely of people who have 30s and 40s as their highest skill (I only recently reached 22 in one playlist for comparison). Particularly in BTB.

It also doesn't seem to take the highest skill into consideration when dividing up the teams. Anybody else have the same experience?

 

[Dirtbag]

Does anyone else consistently get matched with people who are ridiculously higher level than them? Maybe its because everyone hasn't reached their peak in every playlist, but it seems like every game I play is comprised entirely of people who have 30s and 40s as their highest skill (I only recently reached 22 in one playlist for comparison). Particularly in BTB.

It also doesn't seem to take the highest skill into consideration when dividing up the teams. Anybody else have the same experience?

Nope

(If you go into the game with a mixed party - which means a range of ranks... you get matched with any/all mixed parties).

Unsure what the rank differential is, that defines a mixed party though.. Probably 5-7 ranks difference on your team is my guess.

You need to stay with people ranked right around your number... or don't go into ranked playlists alone. This is to prevent rank boosting. And halo3 ranks still haven't leveled out yet. Give it just a little more time.

 

[chapel]

I think he is referring to entering social games.

I believe for social games they dont take your skill levels into account. I have had a full team for BTB with everyone at least at 15 and at least a silver rank. We have multiple times been pitted against privates people with very little gametime or skill level to compete not to mention having additional guests. Its pretty sad sometimes.

 

[Dirtbag]

I think he is referring to entering social games.

I believe for social games they dont take your skill levels into account. I have had a full team for BTB with everyone at least at 15 and at least a silver rank. We have multiple times been pitted against privates people with very little gametime or skill level to compete not to mention having additional guests. Its pretty sad sometimes.

The system is in place so it doesnt split up parties when it doesnt have to. I dont want myself nor my high level friends shifted around on different teams if we dont have to.
The solution is go into the game with a full group built however you want.

 

[brokenwatch]

I am referring to both ranked and social, but I'm talking about their highest level, not their level in that particular playlist. I set it to prefer games with closer skill levels, but I still end up playing people who are 40s who pretty much slaughter me. I also generally do not enter matchmaking with a party.

Edit: Chapel, in Halo 2 at least, there was a rank for unranked playlists, it was just hidden. I imagine Halo 3 is the same way (but could be wrong).

 

[Dirtbag]

I am referring to both ranked and social, but I'm talking about their highest level, not their level in that particular playlist. I set it to prefer games with closer skill levels, but I still end up playing people who are 40s who pretty much slaughter me. I also generally do not enter matchmaking with a party.

Highest level is only the highest level they've ever achieved in a playlist... not taking into acount if they lost 20 ranks since then. In football there is a saying "what have you done for me lately".. it applies. And for those that are 48's in slayer and playing around in team doubles, etc.. they will level out eventually. Why build the system for a temporary fix?

unranked is unranked... just have a good time. its worth playing against better players anyway to learn in an environment without being penalized.

 

[BuzzJive]

I should reiterate, that if this system worked on a frame by frame basis, i.e. our melee connects in the exact same frame, then giving the victory to the player with most health is fair (though I still think both players should die).

But that's not how the system works, hence this discussion.

Halo 3 does not send a full game update to every player for every frame. So on system A, it may look like player B is in range for a finishing melee attack, but on system B he actually isn't close enough yet. What then? Reflexes are relative to what each player is seeing. Latency issues and movement prediction will always be a factor - and rewarding a guy who has a better connection (especially in P2P gaming) is not the ideal solution either.


Melee is the only system where distance is also a major factor in when it can happen - that's my guess as to why this is the only system that suffers from this issue. There's an exact distance at which a melee becomes an option for attack, and when latency is involved, exact distances aren't so exact.


Once again - if I have more health than you and we melee at roughly the same time - I should win every time. Maybe the current definition of "roughly the same time" needs tweaking, but I think this is the correct model to go with for melee.

 

[chapel]

@brokenwatch:

They created the exp system and the military ranks as a way to show experience regardless of which skilled playlist you are in, and I would hope they use it somewhat in matchmaking. As far as ranked playlists, I find that they party myself and whoever I am with with similar level people, I really could care less about their highest level. I have beat 40's and my highest is 31, the highest rank means nothing to me.

 

[Dirtbag]

Halo 3 does not send a full game update to every player for every frame. So on system A, it may look like player B is in range for a finishing melee attack, but on system B he actually isn't close enough yet. What then? Reflexes are relative to what each player is seeing. Latency issues and movement prediction will always be a factor - and rewarding a guy who has a better connection (especially in P2P gaming) is not the ideal solution either.


Melee is the only system where distance is also a major factor in when it can happen - that's my guess as to why this is the only system that suffers from this issue. There's an exact distance at which a melee becomes an option for attack, and when latency is involved, exact distances aren't so exact.

the same melee glitch applies to LANs and split-screen play.
you are incorrect sir.

Once again - if I have more health than you and we melee at roughly the same time - I should win every time. Maybe the current definition of "roughly the same time" needs tweaking, but I think this is the correct model to go with for melee.

agree to disagree.
we should both die.

 

[chapel]

Halo 3 does not send a full game update to every player for every frame. So on system A, it may look like player B is in range for a finishing melee attack, but on system B he actually isn't close enough yet. What then? Reflexes are relative to what each player is seeing. Latency issues and movement prediction will always be a factor - and rewarding a guy who has a better connection (especially in P2P gaming) is not the ideal solution either.


Melee is the only system where distance is also a major factor in when it can happen - that's my guess as to why this is the only system that suffers from this issue. There's an exact distance at which a melee becomes an option for attack, and when latency is involved, exact distances aren't so exact.


Once again - if I have more health than you and we melee at roughly the same time - I should win every time. Maybe the current definition of "roughly the same time" needs tweaking, but I think this is the correct model to go with for melee.

Well the general consensus is that as it stands there is too much of a window where someone can melee back and have a chance to win. As it stands most games take whichever client responds first with a kill, and thats what halo 3 does for everything but melee.

 

[BuzzJive]

the same melee glitch applies to LANs and split-screen play.
you are incorrect sir.

MEH - they are just using the same "relatively same time" timers for LAN and split-screen as they are for XBL. They could have used different timers I suppose, but you'll have to ask Bungie why they didn't. That doesn't mean I'm wrong.

agree to disagree.
we should both die.

Both dying in a melee attack is pretty stupid - but I'd be okay with that happening. Anything to make melee less of a first option is fine by me.

 

[BuzzJive]

Well the general consensus is that as it stands there is too much of a window where someone can melee back and have a chance to win. As it stands most games take whichever client responds first with a kill, and thats what halo 3 does for everything but melee.

I would assume the host has some say in which kills are valid. Projectile kills are likely easier to determine since they generally have some amount of travel time and aren't instant kills. It also doesn't look as bad when two people shoot eachother at "roughly the same time" and they both die.

 

[chapel]

I would assume the host has some say in which kills are valid. Projectile kills are likely easier to determine since they generally have some amount of travel time and aren't instant kills. It also doesn't look as bad when two people shoot eachother at "roughly the same time" and they both die.

Well they never both die, well it rarely happens by both shooting a gun. Melee would seem easier to calculate to me, since it has a defined distance and a set amount of damage, not only that you can only melee so fast where as shooting has more data to deal with.

 

[Karg]

To stray offtopic, but thought this was funny:

http://gameroom.mlgpro.com/view/iz8HZxCBDBg.html

Conedeath!

 

[op_ivy]

can someone explain EXACTLY how the melee system works? reading through the last few pages and i'm a bit confused. sounds like if 2 people melee at roughly the same time, it doesnt matter who melee'd first, its the person with more health (however little that might be) that wins?

i knew there was something strange about the way in which it works, i just thought it was a host or ping advantage, but i guess its more then that.

has bungie confirmed this system you guys are discussing is how it works? have they said anything about this problem, correcting it or otherwise?

 

[urk]

has bungie confirmed this system you guys are discussing is how it works? have they said anything about this problem, correcting it or otherwise?

Bungie has said that in instances of true simultaneous melee strikes, the player with the most health will get the kill.

It seems from a combination of experimentation and video review, that "simultaneous" may include melee strikes that occur within a certain window of time, rather then at the exact instant. The result is a "cancellation" of sorts of a landed melee strike that would typically reduce the health of the targeted player completely.

Basically, you press X, see your melee land on a whithered opponent, but they not only survive, but are able to subsequently launch a melee of their own and kill you.

 

[Dirtbag]

To stray offtopic, but thought this was funny:

http://gameroom.mlgpro.com/view/iz8HZxCBDBg.html

Conedeath!

And the best soundtrack in homemade video of the year award goes to......

cone had more health - confirmed

 

[JdFoX187]

I'm still not seeing the amount of melee problems some of you have reported. Although, I am noticing a higher amount of times where we both melee, and mine just doesn't connect. I compare it to a game of dice or rock/paper/scissors. There's too much randomness with the melee system right now.

However the larger problem with the game is the wretched spawns. Those just need to be fixed. I don't know what Bungie did, but spawns were never that bad in Halo 2. I don't know why they had to go and mess them up for Halo 3.

 

[Dirtbag]

I'm still not seeing the amount of melee problems some of you have reported. Although, I am noticing a higher amount of times where we both melee, and mine just doesn't connect. I compare it to a game of dice or rock/paper/scissors. There's too much randomness with the melee system right now.

However the larger problem with the game is the wretched spawns. Those just need to be fixed. I don't know what Bungie did, but spawns were never that bad in Halo 2. I don't know why they had to go and mess them up for Halo 3.

Its a problem I run into in nearly every match at least once. Or at the very least someone on the team complains about it if it doesnt directly effect me. So I either have the problem, or I have to hear about it. Once you start to understand whats wrong with the setup, you might find you'll notice it more often then not. What's bad-ass about bungie though, is they listen to their fans complaints and are quick to correct things if enough people deem it broken. So you can unfortunately count on my constant chatter about it.

 

[chapel]

Its a problem I run into in nearly every match at least once. Or at the very least someone on the team complains about it if it doesnt directly effect me. So I either have the problem, or I have to hear about it. Once you start to understand whats wrong with the setup, you might find you'll notice it more often then not. What's bad-ass about bungie though, is they listen to their fans complaints and are quick to correct things if enough people deem it broken. So you can unfortunately count on my constant chatter about it.

Yeah, I get it at least once a match just like you. I will be as vocal as possible about it without being one of those award winning internet personalities.

 

[urk]

However the larger problem with the game is the wretched spawns. Those just need to be fixed. I don't know what Bungie did, but spawns were never that bad in Halo 2. I don't know why they had to go and mess them up for Halo 3.

I got a triple kill in a 3 on 3 CTF match yesterday right near blue flag on Narrows. They had put down a bubble shield in the back corner and I sat in it for a few seconds to get my health back, when to my horror, the entire squad literally appeared before my very eyes not more than ten steps in front of me. So fucking lame.

 

[JdFoX187]

I got a triple kill in a 3 on 3 CTF match yesterday right near blue flag on Narrows. They had put down a bubble shield in the back corner and I sat in it for a few seconds to get my health back, when to my horror, the entire squad literally appeared before my very eyes not more than ten steps in front of me. So fucking lame.

I've lost count of the number of times that's happened to me. I had a guy spawn inside the bomb plant area in High Ground while I was trying to hold it off. He assassinates me and I die, the bomb gets disarmed. I keep hearing excuses about how we shouldn't sit on the spawn points, but that's kind of hard to do when they're everywhere. Spawns and melees are the two things that are really pulling Halo 3 down. Bungie fixes those two things and the game will be the best online experience there is.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Also, if you watch that video..
you'll notice the same thing happens in a LAN game and same box splitscreen. It's not a latency thing at all.... that just makes the system even worse.

That video is a bit disturbing...

and explains a lot of the bs and weirdness that goes on in the melee system

 

[Dirtbag]

I got a triple kill in a 3 on 3 CTF match yesterday right near blue flag on Narrows. They had put down a bubble shield in the back corner and I sat in it for a few seconds to get my health back, when to my horror, the entire squad literally appeared before my very eyes not more than ten steps in front of me. So fucking lame.

spawns only seem off for me on High ground and Narrows. I think its cuz they try and force spawn conditions in those two. Those are classic, enemy spawning behind you maps. Maybe cuz the maps are in such straight lines. I dont have problems with spawns on any other maps.

Snowbound has some wierd spawns too, but it doesnt seem to have the spawn suicide that I run into on the other two.

Yeah, I get it at least once a match just like you. I will be as vocal as possible about it without being one of those award winning internet personalities.

I think about that every time I post something. I never want to be one of the "Hero's of the Web". :lol

 

[chapel]

I find the spawns mildly frustrating but maybe its my play style that keeps me from noticing the problems as much. I really do not like assaulting a base on valhalla and having the defenders spawn inside the base with me as I just planted the bomb. Its unfair when I clear our the base and plant it only to have guys respawn right above me and kill me and defuse the bomb when if they had spawned outside the base where they should the timer would have been much closer to detonation.

 

[Deleted member 21120]

can someone explain EXACTLY how the melee system works? reading through the last few pages and i'm a bit confused. sounds like if 2 people melee at roughly the same time, it doesnt matter who melee'd first, its the person with more health (however little that might be) that wins?

i knew there was something strange about the way in which it works, i just thought it was a host or ping advantage, but i guess its more then that.

has bungie confirmed this system you guys are discussing is how it works? have they said anything about this problem, correcting it or otherwise?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAwiELHDEdA
That video seems to be very well done. Watching it, I mean... it seems to leave no room for interpreting it otherwise, and it explains why I die a lot when I feel like I shouldn't. I thought I just hadn't "gotten the hang of it" yet.

I haven't been following this discussion at all, but it seems to me that they did it that way to prevent host-advantage.

 

[urk]

I haven't been following this discussion at all, but it seems to me that they did it that way to prevent host-advantage.

From what they've said, it's supposed to utilize health as the deciding factor when both strikes occur simultaneously. It may be that this system, coupled with latency, is the culprit. Either that, or it's not really, truly built for simultaneous occurrence, but rather a window of time. To me, it feels like the latter. Something like simultaneous = within 1,000 milliseconds.

 

[GDJustin]

The flipside of the spawn issue is that I've used it to my advantage on maps like Isolation. Although there *are* other spawn points, for the most part players will spawn on both far sides.

So, if I have a power weapon. I've been known to patrol a side and kill people as they pop into being.

I know Halo 3 is supposed to look at where the enemy players are and not spawn anyone close to them, but it does it anyway, sometimes.

 

[urk]

To be clear, I'm really enjoying the game. The Matchmaking system seems to have underwent a number of welcome improvements, weapons changes and additions are for the most part for the best, and at the core, it's still a really fun and enjoyable multiplayer experience.

I'm just being douchey and pointing out the small chinks in the armor so perhaps the blacksmiths will rework a small link here and there.

 

[TDG]

If any of you "people" yell at people in the pre-game lobby to veto, you are part of the problem. People seem to have a pretty good idea of how the veto system works. They don't need jackasses to scream at them and make up their minds for them.

I know if I want to veto Shotty Snipers on Narrows (I don't), I'm in no mood to be screamed at by some total strangers to veto. Whenever someone yells to veto, they get instantly muted by me. It's a shame, because there's a small chance that they might have something useful to say during the game. Yes, they are likely pedophiles, but there is that small chance.

 

[chapel]

To be clear, I'm really enjoying the game. The Matchmaking system seems to have underwent a number of welcome improvements, weapons changes and additions are for the most part for the best, and at the core, it's still a really fun and enjoyable multiplayer experience.

I'm just being douchey and pointing out the small chinks in the armor so perhaps the blacksmiths will rework a small link here and there.

Yeah I am loving Halo 3 and would never go back to Halo 2 or 1 unless it was like a grudgematch or a lan party or something.

The only things I have issues with are melee, spawns, and that they make it impossible for a lower level guy to gain levels with a higher level party. I know they did that for boosting reasons, but as it stands the dont even gain as much as the higher level guys or even as much as if they were playing alone. Its like getting 10% of all the possible skill increases available. Add in that the higher level guys have an increased penalty having to play against lower level guys, there should be some trade off somewhere.

 

[Striker]

The only things I have issues with are melee, spawns, and that they make it impossible for a lower level guy to gain levels with a higher level party. I know they did that for boosting reasons, but as it stands the dont even gain as much as the higher level guys or even as much as if they were playing alone. Its like getting 10% of all the possible skill increases available. Add in that the higher level guys have an increased penalty having to play against lower level guys, there should be some trade off somewhere.

I'm happy they did this, though.

Too many times you'd see a level 4 playing with level 40's or high 30's in MM on Halo 2. Most of the time the level 4 is attempting to standbying or bridge host, basically netting a sure win for the higher levels.

Also, you should try to get at least 2nd place in team matches. If you get fourth and third every game, you won't get as many points as your teammates and your rank won't go up as faster.

 

[dralla]

is there anyway to set spawn points for certain teams? i made a dodgeball variant and I want certain players to spawn in a certain area [near their teams bench]

 

[Striker]

is there anyway to set spawn points for certain teams? i made a dodgeball variant and I want certain players to spawn in a certain area [near their teams bench]

Go into your monitor and set the gametype (press Start) to Slayer.

Then you can place Start points as well.

You press X to choose if they are attackers, defenders, etc.

 

[dralla]

mmm i thought that was only for offense/defense gametypes. guess ill try it out.

 

[zam]

If any of you "people" yell at people in the pre-game lobby to veto, you are part of the problem. People seem to have a pretty good idea of how the veto system works. They don't need jackasses to scream at them and make up their minds for them.

I know if I want to veto Shotty Snipers on Narrows (I don't), I'm in no mood to be screamed at by some total strangers to veto. Whenever someone yells to veto, they get instantly muted by me. It's a shame, because there's a small chance that they might have something useful to say during the game. Yes, they are likely pedophiles, but there is that small chance.

I do the same thing, I don't want to hear som douchebag screaming "veto! veto!! VETO!!".

I love how easy it is to mute people, even without the X button in game it only takes a couple of quick clicks in the pre/post-game lobby. Every game should follow suit (CoD4, I'm looking at you).

 

[op_ivy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAwiELHDEdA
That video seems to be very well done. Watching it, I mean... it seems to leave no room for interpreting it otherwise, and it explains why I die a lot when I feel like I shouldn't. I thought I just hadn't "gotten the hang of it" yet.

I haven't been following this discussion at all, but it seems to me that they did it that way to prevent host-advantage.

wow, that is just dumb, and explains an aweful lot of the issues i've had. i really hope this is something bungie is working to fix. like urk has been saying, its a good idea for when melees are occuring at the same time, but the window is just entirely too long for that second melee to successfully get pulled off.

by the way, what happens if the guy with slightly MORE health gets off the first melee? does the second melee STILL get priority, or will it in that case still award the victory to the player with more health?

 

[Karg]

I do the same thing, I don't want to hear som douchebag screaming "veto! veto!! VETO!!".

I love how easy it is to mute people, even without the X button in game it only takes a couple of quick clicks in the pre/post-game lobby. Every game should follow suit (CoD4, I'm looking at you).

100% agreed that it should be a new standard. Being able to mute an entire Big Team Battle team in about 15 seconds is awesome.

 

[chapel]

I'm happy they did this, though.

Too many times you'd see a level 4 playing with level 40's or high 30's in MM on Halo 2. Most of the time the level 4 is attempting to standbying or bridge host, basically netting a sure win for the higher levels.

Also, you should try to get at least 2nd place in team matches. If you get fourth and third every game, you won't get as many points as your teammates and your rank won't go up as faster.

Well I know why they did it, but they don't even let the lower level guys gain any experience at all, well they do but it is such a castrated amount its almost not worth playing unless youre just playing for fun, and at that point we might as well just play social.

To be honest it didnt matter in 25 wins and only 3 losses, I went up 2 levels with a 26,25 and 13 from 21 to 23 in team slayer and I would say I was 1st or second at least half or more of those games. The 26 and 25 guys went up 2 levels each and the 13 went up 1.