Support NeoGAF

[Shake Appeal]

I think it is a cutscene. Sure wasn't it confirmed that we don't take damage, but instead that the vehicle does. And are the players shields being bypassed?

Such an Irish phrasing. :lol

My wild guess is that it's a (dramatic) in-engine cutscene that goes on to tell you the basics of Invasion. Just to introduce the basic concept to people so they aren't completely lost.

 

[Dirtbag]

I wonder if Overlook is actually an invasion map, as in Generator Defense is going to be a sliver of gameplay (1/3) from a 3 tier invasion map.

 

[Geoff9920]

MW2 is definatly faster at actually getting matches going, but it doesnt take into account levels and stuff right?

I dont think its a population issue as I get slow matchmaking times even in popular playlists at times on Halo 3. Of course I prefer a slower matchmaking which gets me even matches, but if Reach can do this faster I will be happy!

It uses a hidden trueskill rating, but I believe your military rank gets ignored.

 

[Spirit3]

I don't notice much of a difference in finding a match between h3 and mw2, and its much faster than halo wars. (3 games I still play online)

Granted if you have a huge rank discrepancy with the people you are playing with it can take a while.

A game of MW2 can take from 10 to 30 seconds to find and start. A regular game of Halo 3 usually takes up to 2 minutes. I really hope their refreshed networking code is really as good as they make it out to be.

 

[Gui_PT]

Such an Irish phrasing. :lol

My wild guess is that it's a (dramatic) in-engine cutscene that goes on to tell you the basics of Invasion. Just to introduce the basic concept to people so they aren't completely lost.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. We might be horribly wrong though. *Waits for a bungie worker to read all of this and laugh*

 

[metareferential]

My wild guess is that it's a (dramatic) in-engine cutscene that goes on to tell you the basics of Invasion. Just to introduce the basic concept to people so they aren't completely lost.

It's a good guess.

Though I want to believe it's in some way playable that way.

Please. :lol

 

[NJ Shlice]

I don't notice much of a difference in finding a match between h3 and mw2,

You're crazy. The speed at which MW2 gets you into a game is like lightning compared to H3. The only thing bad about MW2's MM speed is the intermission between games when you keep the same lobby.

 

[RebornYeti]

Vroom.

http://i42.tinypic.com/2eo8q60.gif

Sorry to be out of the loop, but what is that a picture of?

 

[Diablohead]

You're crazy. The speed at which MW2 gets you into a game is like lightning compared to H3. The only thing bad about MW2's MM speed is the intermission between games when you keep the same lobby.

MW2 throws you into already active games too though, I don't remember halo 3 doing that, or if it did it was for social only.

The MW2 method also seems to be rather light in features, how does it match up player skill? on the pc free weekend myself who was new was being put into games with level 50+ who would rape me, halo at least pairs you with someone close in skill.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

MW2 throws you into already active games too though, I don't remember halo 3 doing that, or if it did it was for social only.

The MW2 method also seems to be rather light in features, how does it match up player skill? on the pc free weekend myself who was new was being put into games with level 50+ who would rape me, halo at least pairs you with someone close in skill.

Yeah you cant really compare them they set out to do different things. Halo's is a lot more robust, but CoD's is a lot quicker, I would like a middle ground.

 

[Gui_PT]

Sorry to be out of the loop, but what is that a picture of?

It's part of the GiantBomb video, right at the beginning. And we're discussing if it's a cutscene, gameplay or a theater camera angle

 

[Shake Appeal]

I wonder if Overlook is actually an invasion map, as in Generator Defense is going to be a sliver of gameplay (1/3) from a 3 tier invasion map.

While that would be nice an' all, I still hope that whoever put forward that idea about it being covertly related to an expanded Firefight is right.

If your theory was correct, I could understand why they'd want to test the game rules, but not why it was called a Network Test. (or why they'd tease us with that name, or why the gametype couldn't be tested internally, like everything else is/was) There must be something relating to netcode that they're tinkering with that they want to observe in the wild across thousands of instances.

My remaining wishlist for (the multiplayer side of) Reach is basically:
1. A "proper" Bumper Jumper controller layout.
2. Spartan Laser shot into the moon.
3. Increased Forge functionality, so talented people can make even better maps for me.
4. Host-client Firefight (i.e. no slow-motion synchronization lag, which hurt or killed maybe ~50% of my FF games) with expanded customization and better balance to scoring and the length of games.

That last one is probably too much to ask for, but I want to believe.

 

[taylor910]

You're crazy. The speed at which MW2 gets you into a game is like lightning compared to H3. The only thing bad about MW2's MM speed is the intermission between games when you keep the same lobby.

Getting put into active games doesnt count. Building a lobby can easily take 1 minute or longer. Its really not that much different.

 

[~ Zyzomys ~]

I enjoyed watching Luke play but it worries me that I am a little out of my depth. I am really hoping that trueskill works and I get matched with other similarly weak players.

 

[Trickster]

MW2 throws you into already active games too though, I don't remember halo 3 doing that, or if it did it was for social only.

The MW2 method also seems to be rather light in features, how does it match up player skill? on the pc free weekend myself who was new was being put into games with level 50+ who would rape me, halo at least pairs you with someone close in skill.

Levels in MW2 don't really mean anything though since you can't rank down. Just an indicator of how much the person has played the game

I enjoyed watching Luke play but it worries me that I am a little out of my depth. I am really hoping that trueskill works and I get matched with other similarly weak players.

the game in luke's video wasn't a video from a matchmaking game though, just a custom game from a press event.

 

[NJ Shlice]

Agreed MW2 throws you into the middle of the game and saves time on lobby building, etc. But after H3's lobby is built and the map is picked, the time it takes the map to load and launch from that point is still not as fast as me turning on my xbox and getting into a MW2 match, middle of the game or not it still has to load the map.

 

[Shake Appeal]

A game of MW2 can take from 10 to 30 seconds to find and start. A regular game of Halo 3 usually takes up to 2 minutes. I really hope their refreshed networking code is really as good as they make it out to be.

I think part of the reason Halo endures for me is that it's the (console) FPS that seems most like a "sport". It's colourful and bright, the rules and scoring are solid, it's statistically deep, and things feel symmetrical, or at least balanced, in terms of how the teams square off. (And the Arena is going to take this to the next level; it really is going to feel like a virtual sport, and I love that.)

Matchmaking does its best to help this: it at least tries to create fair contests between determined teams of players, who are there from the start of the game and see it out to the end (provided they don't quit, which is the biggest issue with the model).

Years of this has put me completely off the drop-in, drop-out of MW2 or games like it. I can start a game in 10-15 seconds, sure, but I might only be catching the tail end of a blowout... or I'll start a game with a few people but over the course they drop out and others replace them, so I don't feel a sense of continuity. There's no individual "game" I can focus on, just a series of gamelike events with random people stumbling in and out (with guns).

In Halo, unless people quit, you're getting a match-up. One team (or player) wins, the others lose. It feels like stepping onto a playing court or field, and I'm happy to wait another minute or two if it improves the reliability of that experience.

It still baffles me why Halo 3 does a bunch of loading and THEN asks if you want to veto the map it apparently just loaded.

Fixed in Reach. The lobby arrives without loading a map, everyone votes for the combination of map and gametype they want (there's also a "None of the Above" option) within a fixed timer, and only then does the game load the required map.

 

[randomlyrossy]

Agreed MW2 throws you into the middle of the game and saves time on lobby building, etc. But after H3's lobby is built and the map is picked, the time it takes the map to load and launch from that point is still not as fast as me turning on my xbox and getting into a MW2 match, middle of the game or not it still has to load the map.

It still baffles me why Halo 3 does a bunch of loading and THEN asks if you want to veto the map it apparently just loaded.

Faster matching would be great but I personally am more annoyed by then getting into matches only for people to have quit before it started or drop out shortly after. I know there's not much that can be done about that but maybe being able to replace those people would be a good thing. It has been happening alot in Halo 3 lately and it more often than not spoils the experience.

 

[Portugeezer]

Haven't they confirmed SSAO in the game already, thought I heard it didn't make it into the Beta.

 

[Gareth Bale]

I enjoyed watching Luke play but it worries me that I am a little out of my depth. I am really hoping that trueskill works and I get matched with other similarly weak players.

I prey on the weak. Just remember to set your social preference to BK and you should be fine.

 

[Proven]

I think part of the reason Halo endures for me is that it's the (console) FPS that seems most like a "sport". It's colourful and bright, the rules and scoring are solid, it's statistically deep, and things feel symmetrical, or at least balanced, in terms of how the teams square off. (And the Arena is going to take this to the next level; it really is going to feel like a virtual sport, and I love that.)

Matchmaking does its best to help this: it at least tries to create fair contests between determined teams of players, who are there from the start of the game and see it out to the end (provided they don't quit, which is the biggest issue with the model).

Years of this has put me completely off the drop-in, drop-out of MW2 or games like it. I can start a game in 10-15 seconds, sure, but I might only be catching the tail end of a blowout... or I'll start a game with a few people but over the course they drop out and others replace them, so I don't feel a sense of continuity. There's no individual "game" I can focus on, just a series of gamelike events with random people stumbling in and out (with guns).

In Halo, unless people quit, you're getting a match-up. One team (or player) wins, the others lose. It feels like stepping onto a playing court or field, and I'm happy to wait another minute or two if it improves the reliability of that experience.


Fixed in Reach. The lobby arrives without loading a map, everyone votes for the combination of map and gametype they want (there's also a "None of the Above" option) within a fixed timer, and only then does the game load the required map.

You just helped me flesh out why games from PC developers get on my nerves.

 

[Thagomizer]

I'm not out of University until the end of the week. Is it possible for me to "reserve" a spot on the HALOGAFBETA tag?

Spoiler

my GT is different than the one I use on this site for privacy reasons

 

[taylor910]

I think part of the reason Halo endures for me is that it's the (console) FPS that seems most like a "sport". It's colourful and bright, the rules and scoring are solid, it's statistically deep, and things feel symmetrical, or at least balanced, in terms of how the teams square off. (And the Arena is going to take this to the next level; it really is going to feel like a virtual sport, and I love that.)

Matchmaking does its best to help this: it at least tries to create fair contests between determined teams of players, who are there from the start of the game and see it out to the end (provided they don't quit, which is the biggest issue with the model).

Years of this has put me completely off the drop-in, drop-out of MW2 or games like it. I can start a game in 10-15 seconds, sure, but I might only be catching the tail end of a blowout... or I'll start a game with a few people but over the course they drop out and others replace them, so I don't feel a sense of continuity. There's no individual "game" I can focus on, just a series of gamelike events with random people stumbling in and out (with guns).

In Halo, unless people quit, you're getting a match-up. One team (or player) wins, the others lose. It feels like stepping onto a playing court or field, and I'm happy to wait another minute or two if it improves the reliability of that experience.

Spot on, spot on

 

[Not a Jellyfish]

I enjoyed watching Luke play but it worries me that I am a little out of my depth. I am really hoping that trueskill works and I get matched with other similarly weak players.

Take in account that he has played the game for well over a year and was playing against game media who had only been playing for a couple of hours...also that he is the mighty Luke. :lol

 

[Slightly Live]

I'm not out of University until the end of the week. Is it possible for me to "reserve" a spot on the HALOGAFBETA tag?

Spoiler

my GT is different than the one I use on this site for privacy reasons

No problem.

 

[Shake Appeal]

You just helped me flesh out why games from PC developers get on my nerves.

There are things the server browser model is great for (when you're part of a community that has a private server, e.g. for L4D or TF2, I love hopping on at any time of the day and getting to play against people I know; it's like dropping into a local bar to see who's there), but I don't think creating competitive environments on the fly is one of them... unless you're willing to organize clan matches.

But there are advantages and disadvantages to every approach, and widespread quitting (which is an unfortunate but unavoidable reality) is a serious black mark against Halo's matchmaking.

 

[AwesomeSyrup]

I'm not out of University until the end of the week. Is it possible for me to "reserve" a spot on the HALOGAFBETA tag?

Spoiler

my GT is different than the one I use on this site for privacy reasons

Just use xbox.com to add it.

 

[The Librarian]

http://gamerscoreblog.com/press/archive/2010/04/26/kz982.aspx

Game kicks off at either 7.45 pm GMT or 8.00 pm GMT so should finish just before 10 pm GMT.

Looks like I'll be watching V tonight.

 

[Chinner]

matchmaking is pretty slow for europeans. apart from that being fixed, i wish bungle could fix the quitter problem as shake appeal mentioned.

however in my mind the multiple load out could at least make it fair for teams who've lost a large portion of their team. imagine this: so you're playing a match and you lose 3 members of your team, to help compensate for your loss of numbers you get a new load out of more powerful weapons.

could be pretty chill.

 

[Hydranockz]

Such an Irish phrasing. :lol

My wild guess is that it's a (dramatic) in-engine cutscene that goes on to tell you the basics of Invasion. Just to introduce the basic concept to people so they aren't completely lost.

Hahaha was it that obvious?

I'd have to agree. When are we getting the Beta Guide?

 

[Shake Appeal]

however in my mind the multiple load out could at least make it fair for teams who've lost a large portion of their team. imagine this: so you're playing a match and you lose 3 members of your team, to help compensate for your loss of numbers you get a new load out of more powerful weapons.

could be pretty chill.

One thing I considered, when I used to think about these things, was wiping the "contribution" of net negative quitters.

i.e. if a guy was going -12 when he quits (becuase he was awful, or lagging out, or not even playing), those points are wiped off the board (excepting suicides). If your team was down 40-17 when he quits, for example, the score would be adjusted to 28-17. If he was going positive, however, nothing is changed. The players who got kills on the quitting player would still have them, obviously, and they would still appear in stats... but the game's score would be adjusted.

But then I realized it would just lead to people consatntly bellowing at "BKs" to quit.

It's difficult to legislate for the fact that people are often assholes.

 

[DualX]

And I was specifically referring to NON situational, constant music - which is why I referred to "soundtrack". So we agreed, without knowing it. Sorry to make you dig up that post for nothing.

Glad to see we're on the same page at least.

 

[Captain Blood]

matchmaking is pretty slow for europeans. apart from that being fixed, i wish bungle could fix the quitter problem as shake appeal mentioned.

however in my mind the multiple load out could at least make it fair for teams who've lost a large portion of their team. imagine this: so you're playing a match and you lose 3 members of your team, to help compensate for your loss of numbers you get a new load out of more powerful weapons.

could be pretty chill.

I think something like that would be asking for abuse. A team gets the lead and there isn't a ton a time left so the lesser players quit leaving the best player so he can hide and camp with this more powerful loadout.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

CoD is quicker my ass. Sure it might take under a minute to find something, but then you've got to load up the game, find that it's already over, load the lobby, and watch everyone bail out of the room.

After experiencing the utter failboats of MW2 and BC2 matchmaking, I don't want a damn thing changed for Reach.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Glad to see we're on the same page at least.

Yup. It's pretty funny in hindsight, and I should have been more clear at the time. I was clearly grouchy.

1up's videos were I think posted, but I though the Sword Base and Overlook videos were worth calling out. Rather than straight gameplay they just pan the camera around the maps during the match, which gives a nice overview of how they work.

Sword Base | Overlook

 

[taylor910]

I agree, quitting is so rampant, but its also so hard to punish. I think there should be something like NBA basketball with technical fouls. If you quit up to 9 times nothing happens, but if you quit a 10th time you lose 5000cr or something. Then 11-19 nothing, but 20 times you lose 10000cr.

This would make it so if you lost connection or whatever a few times there would be no penalty, but if you are a habitual quitter you will lose something important.

 

[Monocle]

Is there a HQ version of this available somewhere?

The resolution is high enough for decent full screen viewing, as long as you're not using a ginormous monitor.

 

[squidhands]

Looks like I'll be watching V tonight.

Just record it, you'll thank me later.

 

[The Librarian]

Just record it, you'll thank me later.

I'll be doing something else during the actual show. I got it covered!

Also, from watching the videos of Headhunter, I think I'm already confident enough in saying that it's unnecessary for the announcer to say "Skull taken!" for every other skull you pick up.

Edit: I love the muted sound effect when you engage active camo.

 

[U2NUMB]

Faster matching would be great but I personally am more annoyed by then getting into matches only for people to have quit before it started or drop out shortly after. I know there's not much that can be done about that but maybe being able to replace those people would be a good thing. It has been happening alot in Halo 3 lately and it more often than not spoils the experience.

I have wanted since Halo 2 to have a 30 min sit out period if you quit a match. In that you can only do custom games.. no matchmaking for 30 min if you quit a game.Uncharted 2 does it and I think that is a very good way to get people to stay in games.

 

[Trickster]

CoD is quicker my ass. Sure it might take under a minute to find something, but then you've got to load up the game, find that it's already over, load the lobby, and watch everyone bail out of the room.

After experiencing the utter failboats of MW2 and BC2 matchmaking, I don't want a damn thing changed for Reach.

no one is saying that bungie should make matchmaking work the same way as MW2 or BC2, just that it would be great if you could get into games quicker in reach than you can in halo 3, honestly it's a pain having to wait 2-3 minutes everytime you want to get into a game.

I have wanted since Halo 2 to have a 30 min sit out period if you quit a match. In that you can only do custom games.. no matchmaking for 30 min if you quit a game.Uncharted 2 does it and I think that is a very good way to get people to stay in games.

WTF Are you insane dude? Games are supposed to be fun, I really don't think it would be very fun for anyone to have to choose between playing on map/gametype they hate, or leave and and not being allowed to play the game they paid for, for half an hour.

 

[JaggedSac]

4. Host-client Firefight (i.e. no slow-motion synchronization lag, which hurt or killed maybe ~50% of my FF games) with expanded customization and better balance to scoring and the length of games.

That is probably what Network Test 1 is testing. It only allows 2 player split screen if I recall. Which is the same as campaign and firefight.

EDIT: There are probably some invisible jackals out there shooting blanks at ya

 

[GhaleonEB]

That is probably what Network Test 1 is testing. It only allows 2 player split screen if I recall. Which is the same as campaign and firefight.

Yup. I think that's the big tell as to what it's up to.

 

[Devin Olsen]

4. Host-client Firefight (i.e. no slow-motion synchronization lag, which hurt or killed maybe ~50% of my FF games) with expanded customization and better balance to scoring and the length of games.

I honestly don't think this will ever be possible, given the way Firefight/Co-op works.

Which is unfortunate because Firefight and co-op without any synchronizing lag would be amazing.

 

[PedroLumpy]

I prefer really really fast matchmaking over the promise of a level playing field. It's a nice thought but it doesn't really seem to work out, matches are still a blowout all the time, people de-level or whatever to exploit the system, and a dude quitting can fuck it up for everyone. You guys mock joining games in progress, but is the alternative of someone else quitting having an impact on your play experience really better?

Also the really fast matchmaking gives you back a great deal of the choice that matchmaking generally takes away. Shitty map? Quit, find new match in <30 seconds. Shitty gametype? Quit, find new match <30 seconds. Griefers? Laggy? etc. etc. you get the idea. Longer times take this ability to have some choice in the experience away from you as it just gets impractical.

That being said I did appreciate that I could play Halo 3 online. Gears 2 literally wouldn't find me a match. I was not terribly enthused by that.

 

[kylej]

If you punish quitters, the people who want to play will suffer.

 

[Subtervotion]

CoD is quicker my ass. Sure it might take under a minute to find something, but then you've got to load up the game, find that it's already over, load the lobby, and watch everyone bail out of the room.

After experiencing the utter failboats of MW2 and BC2 matchmaking, I don't want a damn thing changed for Reach.

Are you kidding? Sometimes it take minutes to find a match on H3. And you have to start a search after EVERY game. In CoD4 and MW2, after you find a game, you're normally set for a while.

I understand maybe you are against joining mid game, and that's fine. I'm not going to tell you joining mid-game is better. It an opinion/preference. But you spend far less time in the menus/lobby in CoD4 and MW2. I don't see how people can argue that.

 

[Kraut]

Have the Bungie folk ever addressed the ability to add match-made players to a game in progress? It would make quitting a much less game crippling problem. Their current match-making tech is definitely top-notch, but there's a lot of improvements that I think would benefit everybody.

 

[JaggedSac]

I prefer really really fast matchmaking over the promise of a level playing field. It's a nice thought but it doesn't really seem to work out, matches are still a blowout all the time, people de-level or whatever to exploit the system, and a dude quitting can fuck it up for everyone. You guys mock joining games in progress, but is the alternative of someone else quitting having an impact on your play experience really better?

Also the really fast matchmaking gives you back a great deal of the choice that matchmaking generally takes away. Shitty map? Quit, find new match in <30 seconds. Shitty gametype? Quit, find new match <30 seconds. Griefers? Laggy? etc. etc. you get the idea. Longer times take this ability to have some choice in the experience away from you as it just gets impractical.

That being said I did appreciate that I could play Halo 3 online. Gears 2 literally wouldn't find me a match. I was not terribly enthused by that.

To be honest, matchmaking is still in its infancy. Algorithms for detecting proper matches are getting tweaked every new game. Reach is already adding extensive capabilities for a whole magnitude of user preferences to specify which part of the population is going to provide me with the best experience. Quitters and delevelers are definitely an issue, but those are things that can be dealt with via design by removing whatever it was that those things are done because of. Delevelors in Reach should be pretty much taken care of as the TruSkill ranking for matchmaking is invisible and Arena stats reset. Hopefully quitting saw some design decisions to reduce the number of those instances.

EDIT: Also, and possibly the biggest reason I do not like join in progress systems, is that it almost completely takes away the feeling of the win. Sure you won, but you don't know who you won against. Has the entire other team been there the whole time, or is it basically a completely different one. In Halo, the people there in the starting lobby are going to be there at the post game lobby.

 

[Not a Jellyfish]

If you punish quitters, the people who want to play will suffer.

This. I see people who would normally just quit out stick around and do things like give the other team vehicles, weaken their own teammates, or just sit there and do nothing, all to make the match go by quicker.