• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Halo |OT18| We're Back Baby!

God, Halo 3 is almost unplayable at times. I've had 3 back to back red bar matches. Halo 3 is fun, but when it's bad, it's FUCKING BAD.

Halo 3's such a weird patchwork of decent base gameplay and bad almost everything else going back to it. Veto-only feels like the most condescending multiplayer experience ever at this point: "We don't really trust you to pick fun things, little ones, leave that to us."
 
Just tried to charge up a mauler like it was a fuckin boltshot

I chuckled

Halo 3's such a weird patchwork of decent base gameplay and bad almost everything else going back to it. Veto-only feels like the most condescending multiplayer experience ever at this point: "We don't really trust you to pick fun things, little ones, leave that to us."

Better than Halo 2's which offered no alternative at all and could very possibly leave you playing smg starts on Coag. Each online Halo game improved upon its predecessor in that regard. It's debatable whether Halo 4's is better than Reach's; the ability to back out by pressing B if you don't like the vote/think the other team is too good is asinine and makes a nonsense of the team doubles playlist but I think I prefer the fact that you couldn't change your vote. They should take that further by making the overall vote clandestine until the vote timer has expired.
 

Omni

Member
Halo 3's such a weird patchwork of decent base gameplay and bad almost everything else going back to it. Veto-only feels like the most condescending multiplayer experience ever at this point: "We don't really trust you to pick fun things, little ones, leave that to us."

Were they wrong?

But hey, if you like playing Infinity Slayer on Ragnarok a million times in a row, more power to you. Reach was just as bad... Blood Gulch again?
Obviously I fall into the category of people that always preferred Halo 3's veto system
 
Halo 3's such a weird patchwork of decent base gameplay and bad almost everything else going back to it. Veto-only feels like the most condescending multiplayer experience ever at this point: "We don't really trust you to pick fun things, little ones, leave that to us."
It'd be one thing if it was BR/AR across the board, but I hate having to worry about sifting through AR starts on the Pit, to get BRs on fucking Snowbound. They're both shit combinations.
Were they wrong?

But hey, if you like playing Infinity Slayer on Ragnarok a million times in a row, more power to you. Reach was just as bad... Blood Gulch again?
Obviously I fall into the category of people that always preferred Halo 3's veto system

Like I said, if they had all good gametype and map combinations, i'd be down for whatever system, but that's not the case.
 

Obscured

Member
I chuckled



Better than Halo 2's which offered no alternative at all and could very possibly leave you playing smg starts on Coag. Each online Halo game improved upon its predecessor in that regard. It's debatable whether Halo 4's is better than Reach's; the ability to back out by pressing B if you don't like the vote/think the other team is too good is asinine and makes a nonsense of the team doubles playlist but I think I prefer the fact that you couldn't change your vote. They should take that further by making the overall vote clandestine until the vote timer has expired.

I think that is a great idea.

One thing I liked in theory about Halo 3's method was that you typically ended playing on a variety of maps and some maps that maybe wouldn't have gotten much love at the outset got more of a chance and become more popular. But I think it is actually better to give players the options, I think after a while they will get tired of grinding the same map and move to something else. If you give the game enough legs eventually all the maps would get enough playtime that they can live and die on their own merits.
 

Striker

Member
Better than Halo 2's which offered no alternative at all and could very possibly leave you playing smg starts on Coag. Each online Halo game improved upon its predecessor in that regard. It's debatable whether Halo 4's is better than Reach's; the ability to back out by pressing B if you don't like the vote/think the other team is too good is asinine and makes a nonsense of the team doubles playlist but I think I prefer the fact that you couldn't change your vote. They should take that further by making the overall vote clandestine until the vote timer has expired.
It depends how well designed the maps and gametypes. We've had SMG/AR starts on big maps in three of these games, and yeah, it's shitty. But for the most part the gametypes in that game were pretty great. And let's say I'm forced to play Turf and Sanctuary instead of Snowbound and Epitaph. The quality is enormous. Also, if you loved objective based games more than anything else in Halo, like I do/did, you're also shut out because Assault got its balls cut off, Plots was removed, and CTF had no change to its return time despite map size differences.

What I mean is, if there's no voting but the map quality is solid and there's a handful of great gametypes to be offered, there should be little complaints. At the same time if I'm being forced to play bad maps with lifts everywhere or shield doors, or play a bad map/gameytpe combo like 2-flag Isolation, yeah I'll be upset. Voting in Reach but with locked selections is probably the *best* we've seen offered so far, but I still don't see it all as ideal. We still aren't seeing tremendous maps all around, gametypes are iffy at best, it's a mess.
 

Obscured

Member
I still dont' get why AR starts were a thing. Why not BR and AR? Satisfy everyone that way.

I think I wrote this before. You know how you watch something like Braveheart and everyone rushes toward each other and clashes in the middle in a huge battle, but there is that anticipation before they meet but are running full speed toward destruction? I always thought that was what they were going after, you can see someone but you can't engage so you rush each other.

I don't know if that is what they wanted, but that was the only thing I could ever come up with. I don't think it ever elicited that feeling though and just bugged the hell out of people.

BR/AR starts are the way to go and if you want to give the AR a chance have maps that allow movement without constantly being pinged by BRs.
 
Were they wrong?

But hey, if you like playing Infinity Slayer on Ragnarok a million times in a row, more power to you. Reach was just as bad... Blood Gulch again?
Obviously I fall into the category of people that always preferred Halo 3's veto system

I dunno, getting actual Blood Gulch (not Hemorrhage) with SMG starts just because or Valhalla ARs because the first option was Shotty Snipers on Snowbound was pretty bad. I always play with a party anyway, so we generally can swing the vote most of the time.
 
GGs guys, sorry for the d/c.

As for voting systems, I think a combination of Reach's and 4 would be best.

This needs the BF3 style player toggles with minimum selection requirements that feed dynamically into the matching and then again into the vote options presented.

Nothing hardcoded and all dynamic based on player toggle choices, playlist chosen, solo vs. teams, skill/region/reputation matching and then present the voting options that correlate based on the matched players/toggles.

Bam, the best matchmaking experience that will hopefully help return Halo to king of multiplayer.
 
Quickoshet is beating Legendary Ricochet on Halo Waypoint.

Go vote!

Quickochet

Quickochet is the intersection of Ricochet and Halo: Reach’s “Hot Potato.” Loadouts and overall game settings are identical to Ricochet, but after a certain period of time, the ball will explode at random. Get ready to string together some passes!

Shotgun Ricochet

In Shotgun Ricochet, teams must move together as they inch across the map and eliminate each line of defense. Players are equipped with Shotguns, Plasma Grenades, and Thruster Packs. With lots of in-your-face combat, this game type makes Ricochet up close and personal.

Legendary Ricochet

Legendary Ricochet pits teams against one another with preset starting Loadouts in Halo 4’s Legendary experience (Battle Rifle starting weapon, no Armor Ability, Motion Tracker enabled).
 

Voted legendary and now it's 2 votes in the lead; 49 to 47 against quickochet. So happy to see Waypoint/343i using polls and direct community feedback to decide vote variants or playlists. Well played and the iterative approach is getting better all the time.


Long post warning:
A few cloud speculations off the top of my head:
(anything to add?)

1. No host migration & no black screen waiting while host changes. There is no host to quit out.

2. No interrupted game statistics, all your Waypoint statistics will be accurate and not inaccurate due to host migrations or host quitting etc.

3. More interactive maps as the synchronisation between players is easier with cloud/dedicated servers.

4. Faster updates to playlists/game settings, potentially even behind the scenes with no waiting to download updates by players.

5. Far less host advantage in game.

6. Improved regional player matching and therefore higher quality game experiences.

7. Far more simultaneous player per game e.g. 32 or 64 or 128 players in one match.

8. Coop play could reduce or eliminate input latency e.g. campaign coop or spartan ops or firefight could be buttery smooth while allowing far more detail in maps or interactive elements.

9. Seamless matchmaking like Destiny done in game in real time.

10. "Smart Match" background matchmaking as X1 advertise so you can do other things while searching for specific games/modes etc.

11. Potentially a custom playlist search or community published content in real time.

12. Potentially cloud processing of background AI, persistent or shared world(s).

13. Potentially cloud processing of graphics using a Level of Detail (LOD) system so things in use or on screen or close to the player or done on the console where all other things about to come into view or off screen etc are preloaded or calculated by the cloud.

14. Things like ghost players e.g. mario kart time trials or Forza Drivatar etc.

15. New game settings, tweaks, patches, content, maps, playlists etc can be added by developers in real time without the need for patches or download waiting etc.

16. Far less cheating e.g. no host bridging, no bandwidth throttling, no standby, no purposeful host quitting, anti-boosting/banhammer improvements etc.

17. In game ranks meaning far more e.g. statistics are far more accurate due to accuracy and reliability of no client host or host migrations or split games etc.

18. There is also potential for a hybrid system with cloud hosting and P2P (peer to peer e.g. Xbox Live on 360). This is being done with Call of Duty Ghosts and could likely appear in Halo as well. Just in case the cloud Azure datacentres and Content Distribution Networks (CDNs) aren't local to you it may benefit some international players to remain on P2P in place of overseas dedicated servers.

19. Automated clip saving in the cloud, save game sharing, access from multiple devices, game streaming to tablets or mobiles.

20. Spin off games like Spartan Assault or RTS that contribute in real time back to a Halo FPS multiplayer game e.g. Dust/Eve online.

21. Dedicated servers are just that, fixed into a location with specific resources, settings and geolocation etc. Cloud based systems to the global scale of Azure/Compute provide redundancy (no fall back playlists), scalable performance as needed and where (e.g. Australia get lots of players online at differing times/days to the USA and this will automatically be catered for). Servers don't need to go offline like Halo 2 PC servers as cloud scales up or down as needed.

22. Potentially shared party viewing of saved games or screenshots etc. Cloud or dedicated servers enable these sorts of services far better than P2P. So being in a party with 3 other mates you could watch your campaign or multiplayer game together without the slow loading or skipping of frames etc. This could be a real benefit.

23. Far more storage for saving or potentially editing game videos to the cloud. Again could access this from multiple devices or view with multiple people on multiple devices etc.
 
Voted legendary and now it's 2 votes in the lead; 49 to 47 against quickochet.

So happy to see Waypoint/343i using polls and direct community feedback to decide vote variants or playlists. Well played and the iterative approach is getting better all the time.

Agreed. I'd like to see that same ideaology be applied to game design, but that won't ever happen, lol :p
 
Agreed. I'd like to see that same ideaology be applied to game design, but that won't ever happen, lol :p

Screw that, Halo fans clearly don't know what's best for them.

Look at how many people like radar and think Halo 3 has good gameplay. Blows my mind.
Joking, radar is ok but games play better without it.
Sound-based radar would be best for Halo as it doesn't gimp map movement and increases player awareness, thus increasing the entire skill demographic resulting in better gaming sessions.
 

Fuchsdh

Member
This needs the BF3 style player toggles with minimum selection requirements that feed dynamically into the matching and then again into the vote options presented.

Nothing hardcoded and all dynamic based on player toggle choices, playlist chosen, solo vs. teams, skill/region/reputation matching and then present the voting options that correlate based on the matched players/toggles.

Bam, the best matchmaking experience that will hopefully help return Halo to king of multiplayer.

I don't know about the efficacy of a system like you say. It *would* be interesting to see some maps/gametypes "bubble up" in response to user voting data dynamically rather than requiring 343 to look at the data and make the adjustment themselves, but I think the natural issue with that would be calcifying certain choices and stultifying variety--eventually the most popular gametypes would be cemented at top because there wouldn't be other options.
 
I don't know about the efficacy of a system like you say. It *would* be interesting to see some maps/gametypes "bubble up" in response to user voting data dynamically rather than requiring 343 to look at the data and make the adjustment themselves, but I think the natural issue with that would be calcifying certain choices and stultifying variety--eventually the most popular gametypes would be cemented at top because there wouldn't be other options.

You can design such elements in or out of a dynamic system like this by mixing it with some static decision making, for example:
  • Default all player toggles initially to everything on, players who are new or don't care are therefore providing the widest matches for quick matchmaking.
  • Minimum number of maps or settings required so it keeps the available matching pools open. Tweak this up or down as need.
  • The number of vote rounds or slots (permutations of avaialble maps/gametypes)
  • Developers could "lock" some maps as always toggled on
  • Developers could "lock" some toggles based on playlist

The real benefit is say player A has all the popular stuff toggled ON then they would have quick matches and vote on what they want to play.

Player B toggles ON all unpopular stuff then they wait for matches longer but eventually get to play/vote on what they actually want with similar players.

The current and previous system removes player choice by a large margin and takes control away from players/teams to a much larger extent. The developers are doing the hardwork and creating hits/misses all the time. This system just does what they do far more efficiently while providing a friendly system like matchmaking but delivering on player choice far more often.

You'll also find things like player skill matching will be far more accurate because players who like/learn certain maps and settings will play each other far more often than the current system as well. Playlists are good for broad matching but very poor in the vote process for actually playing what you want. By introducing dynamisms to the toggles that flow through the voting of maps/gametypes as well it drastically increases the hits per player while reducing the misses per player.

When matching on teams I would suggest taking the party leader toggles and giving them weighting based on the number of players in that party, it's more complex than just doing per player stuff in this regard but again far more control/accuracy is given to the team this way. Further all players get a single vote during the voting process anyhow, it's the matching and dynamic vote variant selections that matter in my proposed solution.
 

Booties

Banned
HqJX3kk.png


Really? And then it let me use the same exact password. Not quite the escape from Alkatrez I was expecting.
 

Obscured

Member

Voted... for Quickochet. I kid, Legendary has another. how are there less than 150 votes?


This needs the BF3 style player toggles with minimum selection requirements that feed dynamically into the matching and then again into the vote options presented.

Nothing hardcoded and all dynamic based on player toggle choices, playlist chosen, solo vs. teams, skill/region/reputation matching and then present the voting options that correlate based on the matched players/toggles.

Bam, the best matchmaking experience that will hopefully help return Halo to king of multiplayer.

Be curious how the new matchmaking capabilities of the the XB1 will play out. sounds like you would have those kinds of options, if the developer implements them. So much potential, but wonder how it will work in practice.

HqJX3kk.png


Really? And then it let me use the same exact password. Not quite the escape from Alkatrez I was expecting.

I just got that too, somebody must have kicked a plug somewhere.
 
Halo 3 had the worst:

  • Aiming
  • Movement
  • Weapons
  • Lag
  • Inconsistencies
But the best:

  • Theater?
I know I'm missing some things but that's what immediately jumps out at me. Dat nostalgia though.
 
Yup.

I think they convoluted the forerunner plot line way too much.

I read the books and it was a total bore for the most part for me. They should have just kept it the way it was originally where the Forerunners were humans. The Halo universe has enough diverse races and confusion. Then what they do with them, make them part of the Covenant. Even the villain, The Didact I found myself almost siding with
Guy was betrayed by everyone in the books, even Bornstellar
.
 
I wish they redid it and made you move around a lot faster but hitscan the br.snipe. Fixed the unrocket when you die while shooting it and made the AR beatdown a little less fast, I swear sometimes I get AR'd by two bullets and the beatdown kills me, yet I can 3 shot with the BR and my beatdown doesn't count.

They really just need to release Halo All-Stars day one for Xbone. Halo CE w new Live, Halo 2 and Halo 3 also. All with condensed playlists to support lower playercounts between them all. 60fps for all. N stretch goallsss : Crossplay with Steam players. :eek:
 
Top Bottom