-
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.
Remember R E A C H |OT2|
- Thread starter GhaleonEB
- Start date
- Status
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
Plywood said:
Can I not get matched up with quitters!?
Really hoping MLG playlist will "fix" this, if it doesn't I probably won't bother anymore. The next iteration of halo needs to have a social drop in/drop out. Keep ranked the way it is now, but there at least needs to be a drop in drop out mode, quitters ruin games.
This game is way better than Black Ops, but I don't want to put up with quitters. At least with Black Ops I know I will be in a game with full teams usually.
It's a damn shame they can't patch drop in drop out into social matchmaking.
Hydranockz
Member
Yes, you would. I think the only 'precaution' is that once you max them, you cease having a reason to cheese it... but that's not really a great precaution.Ramirez said:
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
Tashi0106 said:
No, Battlefield and MOH have trueskill, with drop in drop out.
Still, even if it would mess with it, I would take a social play list where I was guaranteed to get a full game over a game where half or more of my team quits resulting in a giant waste of time.
bobs...onGaf
Member
Drop in drop out would be fine in social, but when it comes to ranked I like how I can start off a game and play the same people all the way through, it feels a lot more personal than on CoD for example. It feels more like a match against them. On CoD im basically a mercenary doing my own thing, Im still playing for the win, but its a lot less match oriented. Imagine a sports game - its only so interesting because its always player set x verses player set y.
That doesnt make sense at all does it. :lol
That doesnt make sense at all does it. :lol
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
Striker said:
It also had a skill number assigned to the player, MOH like I said also does trueskill with drop in drop out.
And while it wasn't ALWAYS equal or full, it is consistently more full and equal than a game (Halo Reach) that does not have drop in drop out.
Not sure what you were really trying to add.
bobs99 ... said:
That's exactly my point. Leave Ranked as a locked in game where that team plays and only that team plays. Leave social as drop in drop out.
I don't know why they didn't do this in the first place. Rainbow Six does this and other games do too I'm sure. It's just a huge oversight IMO, and as I have said before, the quitters are ruining the experience for me and others.
Hypertrooper
Member
I'm Lt. Colonel Grade 3 again?
Alienshogun said:
Oh alright.
I know if a Halo Playlist(social) had drop in/drop out where I couldn't control it (I couldn't decide if I wanted to drop into a match if available or not) I wouldn't enter that playlist. That's just me, I can't stand when that shit happens in CoD. I get the desire for the other side though and maybe something can be done in future games. I love Reach matchmaking as it stands right now though.
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
Tashi0106 said:
You are probably a person who always has a full group to play with, not everyone (especially older folks like me) has that luxury. Drop in/Drop out allows there to be a consistently full and relatively even playing field.
Getting in a room only to have the inevitable snowball of quitters is a sure fire way to get the game left out of my rotation, and I know plenty of people who feel the same way.
Social matchmaking with drop in drop out would remedy that.
Captain Blood
Member
I think I can safely say the thing I hate most about CoD games is getting thrown into a match where my team is already getting dominated. Fuck drop in drop out.
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
Captain Blood said:
You act like it happens all the time, which it doesn't. Also, who cares in a SOCIAL game, like I said, leave ranked the same. When that "losing" game ends you will start in a full room in a full game for the next round. It's hardly a bad thing.
Tashi0106 said:
That's another problem, you should have to just accept it. It's a fundamental flaw of the system right now and has ruined the game, which sucks, since the game itself is amazing.
I played BC2 enough to know your argument holds little merit considering most often it's one team full of higher ranks beating down on 10's. Not to mention after the game, the teams face off more until you eventually quit and get booted back to the menu. That system is nothing like Halo.Alienshogun said:
Besides, a 8 vs 8 or 10 vs 10 Battlefield game is far, far different than 4v4 Halo. Conquest and Gold Rush are different gametypes than what we hold dear in Halo, like capture the flag. These games are won by the capture and are timed based.
What are you trying to add other than making up theories as to why drop-in/drop-out will work in Halo just because other games do it? Nobody wants to stay in a game of Slayer if the score is 39-12, either. It could work, but the amount of work and money behind the scenes might be too high for some studios to want to endure. It's all moot anyhow.
bobs...onGaf
Member
Alienshogun said:
Rather than drop in drop out Bungie should just add that thing they talked about ages ago. If half your team drops out you should either get better load outs than the other team or you should be able to surrender, ending the match.
I like the surrender option more tbh, on some modes having less people on your team can be a huge advantage. I think both teams should have the option to end the game, theres nothing worse than playing hide and seek with a dude whos the only guy left on his team. :lol
Drop in Drop out leads to a bunch of situations on CoD where a better team hammers theyre opponents, theyre opponents leave, and unlucky players get shoved in theyre spots to get annilated by the killstreak rewards the better team got. Its not a great system, and I find that CoD games usually play through with totally uneven teams. Worst of all is when the game suddently dumps a bunch of people into your game mid match and you get shot up expecting to see a lot less people.
Captain Blood
Member
Alienshogun said:
I don't know dude generally my experience has been that people quit out of matches where they are losing and frusterated and those are the matches that people are going to get thrown into.
Edit: On the other hand CoD doesn't have bloom
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
Striker said:
Your argument isn't addressing my point at all. In Halo people end up fighting people ranked above them all the time as well, depending on who they are in a party with. While 8 v 8 may be different than 4 v 4, don't act like that is all Halo is either, there are still other larger modes of play, likewise CTF isn't the only mode to compare to other FPS, you are limiting your stance to convenient pieces of evidence that do not stack up.
Nobody wants to stay in a losing game period, that's the point. If you get drop in drop out you will inevitably get people to stick around anyway and finish out the losing game to get to the next round with a full lobby, I do it when it happens in any game with drop in drop out. I would rather enter the end of a losing match and be assured of a full game 5 minutes from now, than be guaranteed to be fighting 4+ other guys by myself for 10-15 minutes over and over.
Like I said, I would only want it for SOCIAL playlists, Ranked should not ever have drop in drop out.
It isn't moot, I don't know why you would be so quick to dismiss it. I know it's impossible for Reach, I'm talking about in FUTURE games.
Captain Blood said:
That will happen in any game, it's not a reason to dismiss drop in drop out, because without it you just end up getting ass raped alone which is arguably less fun than getting stuck in a full losing game.
Games like CoD and Battlfield are more for rewarding the players for what they do in the current game, and unlocking further items in their inventory. None of that is involved in Halo. That's one reason why, outside getting a few more points, I never cared if I lost in Conquest. It doesn't hurt me or my rank. I'd also wager Halo games are more tiered toward team based rather than individual, like it is in those other two.
Hypertrooper
Member
http://twitter.com/#!/DavidEllis/status/4627236313370624
Cant wait to see a full match on Tempest and Breakpoint.
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
Striker said:
That's not even what I'm talking about.
Having a drop in drop out social playlist won't change any of that.
Domino Theory
Crystal Dynamics
Pete Rock said:
The game just needs to add the Ranked/Social barrier. Call Arena ranked and every other playlist social just like Halo 3.
Calling Living Dead, Multi-Team (infested with Elite Slayer) and Team SWAT "competitive" is an insult and I honestly think not having the Ranked/Social barrier is part of what scares certain players away and makes people quit as often as they do. It isn't the root cause, but it's one of many probabilities.
But what they shouldn't do is just start making a playlist for every gametype because then we're going to split the population up too much.
There needs to be a Grab Bag playlist that consists of Grifball, Elite Slayer, SWAT and Snipers. There shouldn't be one playlist for each.
Multi-team and Infection aren't appealing to the casuals... news to me.
Much rather have a custom game browser/lobby than anything else. That would ease the purpose of having so many, futile social playlists.
I don't mind Snipers being connected with Competitive, though Snipers Pro is much better than regular because of the absence of the Pistol as the secondary weapon. SWAT I never cared for with all the camping. I wouldn't miss it.Domino Theory said:
I got it, social playlist. Why get bent out of shape over a social playlist for losing is just a little absurd.Alienshogun said:
Much rather have a custom game browser/lobby than anything else. That would ease the purpose of having so many, futile social playlists.
It's all superficial if the Arena settings are still trashyDomino Theory said:
I agree that none of those playlists should be classified as competitive, whether its due to gametypes or the amount of teams in combination with the spawning issues. I'm not sure I perceive how that directly relates to quitting however, or how that would change if there were fewer playlists or they were classified as something else.
To me this argument is flagrant bullshit and has been since Halo 3.
Is this game about the players having fun, or is this game about being in the top 5 on Major Nelsons weekly list? Because one of those matters to my experience and the other is completely irrelevant.
If you wanted to take the "population" argument seriously in terms of playlist justification, Invasion should be cut in its entirety. But they could never do that, because they've invested so much in the presentation and segregation of said games/data on Bungie.net, because they've baked two of the worst BTB maps ever made onto the disk, etc ad infinitum
RR in Halo 3 had matchmaking times that were generally amazing as long as there were 500 people in the playlist. It averaged 2-3K every day and they still cut it. What do you think those 3,000 fans did with their time, transition to SWAT or something else that they fucking hated? :lol
electricpirate
Member
The removal of the classic ranked playlists in exchange for the arena has been one of the best moves Bungie has done to improve the quality of games. Near the end of Halo 3 I was getting the "jump and shoot afk" people, or multi accounters 3 out of every 4 games. Now the vast majority of my games are more competitive, have less bullshit, and fewer quitters. The exception to that is in BTB, which is a cesspool of quitters in reach.
While yes, we've given up a number next to our names (meh), and a set of playlists with no guests (this one does suck), and no ranked modes for objective games (this is bullshit).
At the end of the day, the reach system has cut 80% of the bullshit out of the experience of playing online.
As far as population goes, as long as a play list is maintaining enough people to maintain reasonable matching times and decent matches, there's no reason to reduce the amount of choice. The only playlist even at risk right now is team objective, which is sad, because it's one of the best playlists.
While yes, we've given up a number next to our names (meh), and a set of playlists with no guests (this one does suck), and no ranked modes for objective games (this is bullshit).
At the end of the day, the reach system has cut 80% of the bullshit out of the experience of playing online.
As far as population goes, as long as a play list is maintaining enough people to maintain reasonable matching times and decent matches, there's no reason to reduce the amount of choice. The only playlist even at risk right now is team objective, which is sad, because it's one of the best playlists.
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
Striker said:
More or less, a loss in social play list isn't a huge deal, the name denotes that it's SOCIAL, it's for fun. If you want super competitive that's what Ranked is for and I 100% agree that, that should be LOCKED players.
Social playlists are more often than not made up of solo minded jackasses. I.E betraying for power weapons, blocking vehicles, driving off in vehicles on their own, etc. Which is exactly what you were worried about drop in drop out turning Halo into, my point is not only does it not matter since it's social, but those jackasses are in social anyhow.
Getting dropped into a losing social game would be less annoying/frustrating that consistently being put into games with quitters, as I have stated before.
I just really hope 343 considers this and for the love of god, whatever Bungie does later has some sort of drop in drop out.
Self Induced
Member
Was procrastinating before class and decided to tinker around with the custom game settings a little bit. I recorded some stats for the starting weapons to compare to different levels of weapon damage and I'm posting the default stats here cause they're rather interesting.
DMR
Shields: 4 Shots, Health: 3 Shots, Total: 7 shots to kill, 4 if 4th shot is a headshot - 2.5 seconds to kill when spamming the trigger/1.8 seconds with headshot, 3.2 seconds to kill with ideal pacing/2.5 seconds with headshot
Needle Rifle
S: 6 Shots, H: 3 Shots (Supercombine) T: 9, 7 w/ headshot - 2.5 seconds with full auto/1.8 seconds with headshot, 3.2 seconds with ideal pacing/2.5 seconds with headshot
Assault Rifle
S: 11 Shots, H: 9 Shots T: 20 - 1.8 seconds at full auto, 3.2 seconds with ideal pacing at 25 at a range of 25 meters
Plasma Repeater
S: 11 Shots (5.5 Battery), H: 7 Shots (3.5 Battery) T: 18 Shots (9 Battery) - 1.8 seconds at full auto, 3.2 seconds with ideal pacing at a range of 25 meters
Needler
S: 6 Shots, H: 6 Shots (Supercombine) - 1.4 Seconds
Plasma Pistol
S: 3 Shots, H: 6 Shots T: 9 - 2.4 seconds
Overcharge: Shields + 4 Health Bars
note: This is with each and every shot fired hitting the target. "Ideal Pacing" refers to firing the next shot at the exact instant the bloom returns to its resting position in the reticule. All times are more for comparative purposes because I doubt they're exactly accurate.
So... looks like the needle rifle is nearly the same as the battle rifle save for firing speed. The AR and PR looks like they are actually designed to match the DMR and Nerfle at close to mid range, which surprised me because I find they're basically worthless at mid range. I guess bloom and trigger spam have a much larger effect on the weapons than I thought they did.
DMR
Shields: 4 Shots, Health: 3 Shots, Total: 7 shots to kill, 4 if 4th shot is a headshot - 2.5 seconds to kill when spamming the trigger/1.8 seconds with headshot, 3.2 seconds to kill with ideal pacing/2.5 seconds with headshot
Needle Rifle
S: 6 Shots, H: 3 Shots (Supercombine) T: 9, 7 w/ headshot - 2.5 seconds with full auto/1.8 seconds with headshot, 3.2 seconds with ideal pacing/2.5 seconds with headshot
Assault Rifle
S: 11 Shots, H: 9 Shots T: 20 - 1.8 seconds at full auto, 3.2 seconds with ideal pacing at 25 at a range of 25 meters
Plasma Repeater
S: 11 Shots (5.5 Battery), H: 7 Shots (3.5 Battery) T: 18 Shots (9 Battery) - 1.8 seconds at full auto, 3.2 seconds with ideal pacing at a range of 25 meters
Needler
S: 6 Shots, H: 6 Shots (Supercombine) - 1.4 Seconds
Plasma Pistol
S: 3 Shots, H: 6 Shots T: 9 - 2.4 seconds
Overcharge: Shields + 4 Health Bars
note: This is with each and every shot fired hitting the target. "Ideal Pacing" refers to firing the next shot at the exact instant the bloom returns to its resting position in the reticule. All times are more for comparative purposes because I doubt they're exactly accurate.
So... looks like the needle rifle is nearly the same as the battle rifle save for firing speed. The AR and PR looks like they are actually designed to match the DMR and Nerfle at close to mid range, which surprised me because I find they're basically worthless at mid range. I guess bloom and trigger spam have a much larger effect on the weapons than I thought they did.
Major Williams
Member
This really is one of Halo's short comings that falls short. Talk whatever you want about limitations, but the other AAA titles have it, and even smaller titles have it. It's a wonderful feature that helps the game actually play like it's supposed when people drop.Alienshogun said:
Okay, what the hell. We just had a host migration half-way through a match in Multi Team. Afterward, it had split the game in two. Some people were in one game, some were in the other.
We continued to play. My separated teammate won, I came second. I have yet to look at bnet's record.
We continued to play. My separated teammate won, I came second. I have yet to look at bnet's record.
Major Williams
Member
Halo GAF is sad in the Online Forum section
Also, Blame Stosh has been not too good the past two weeks IMO - the video I believe Shake posted awhile back of the two guys melee-ing each other in AL was 10x more entertaining.
Also, Blame Stosh has been not too good the past two weeks IMO - the video I believe Shake posted awhile back of the two guys melee-ing each other in AL was 10x more entertaining.
Was the errant core in the last fortnight? Because if so, fuck you, that was brilliant.Major Williams said:Halo GAF is sad in the Online Forum section
Also, Blame Stosh has been not too good the past two weeks IMO - the video I believe Shake posted awhile back of the two guys melee-ing each other in AL was 10x more entertaining.
neoism
Member
Damn man...Plywood said:
I've had games like that on that map, but for the most part, I'm just really lucky, and rarely die. I just always do good on Hermmorhage for some reason. :/ It isn't really a great map, I just do sooo well on it, It's become my favorite... along with the sniper . Also what GT are you using...? I won't quit on you <3
Hydranockz
Member
I am pretty sure that video was from the beta... and was a blame stosh way back when.Major Williams said:Halo GAF is sad in the Online Forum section
Also, Blame Stosh has been not too good the past two weeks IMO - the video I believe Shake posted awhile back of the two guys melee-ing each other in AL was 10x more entertaining.
Major Williams
Member
As much as I love multiplayer map DLC, a part of me really wishes for more CONTENT from a Bungie DLC.
Some campaign DLC about an Elite, or whatev, maybe even more armor and armor abilities, whatever.
Something besides maps would be so fun to see. Not to say maps are great, I've just always hoped for more out of Bungie. They pioneered DLC maps on console, maybe its time to branch out a bit? Get activision's cash cow (CoD) a run for their money when they ask $15 for maps.
Some campaign DLC about an Elite, or whatev, maybe even more armor and armor abilities, whatever.
Something besides maps would be so fun to see. Not to say maps are great, I've just always hoped for more out of Bungie. They pioneered DLC maps on console, maybe its time to branch out a bit? Get activision's cash cow (CoD) a run for their money when they ask $15 for maps.
Glowingmonx
Member
neoism said:DAMN seriously guy probably hasn't seen outside in like 3 months.. :lol
Doesn't matter because he's almost a HERO
in reach
The Librarian
Banned
I can only imagine the numbers it would be doing had it been called Halo 4.GhaleonEB said:
Edit:
It doesn't imply that at all, dude.bobs99 ... said:
bobs...onGaf
Member
GhaleonEB said:
NPD thread? Are those numbers sales related?
If those numbers are sales related thats not a good sign, it implies that less people are interested in Halo. I know people who didnt buy Reach simply because they didnt like the beta/ didnt like the game when they tried it but still, thats pretty grim news. I hope it doesnt impact Microsofts decisions when they decide what to do with Halo.
Thinking about it, a few people may have been let down by ODST/ Halo Wars - I loved both games, but I can certainly see why people would be a little haloed out by now.
Not only that, but the ad campaign seemed non existant for Reach, Halo 3 seemed to have tons more hype going into it.
EDIT: I also hope it doesnt imply that Dax.
Your first sentence is forgetting a game, Halo 3. I bought Reach despite being let down at 3, but there's surely been others who were inclined to pass after playing Halo 3. Most blame, I think, should be for releasing ODST. Not the pricing, really, but the lack of content for the long haul (outside getting those Halo 3 maps).bobs99 ... said:
Halo 3 did have more hype going into it, but that was because Halo 2 became such a monstrosity of an online game for Xbox Live, basically booming it to allow it to become what it is today. It was suppose to be a sequel and carry on from that.
Demoncarnotaur
Member
GhaleonEB said:
Wow, I know not as many people were going to give it a try, but still.. ODST left a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths. I loved it, but a lot of people didn't really know wat it was and were hugely disappointed. Halo 3 also could have been better IMO also, which probably have some people wary.
Ironically, a lot of my CoD fans that I know are switching over to Reach after finding Black Ops too much of the same.
- Status