Halo 3 Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Who is playtesting Halo3 for balance?
  • Subject: Who is playtesting Halo3 for balance?
Subject: Who is playtesting Halo3 for balance?
  • gamertag: DR0CX
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Ric_Adbur
No one should ever be afraid of looking stupid, so long as they are making a rational effort to expand their understanding.

For the most part, don't Devs playtest their own games? Who playtests EA Sports? Who playtested PDZ, Quake 4 or GRAW?

Posted by: OksanaBayul
Just curious. I assume NoF has a hand in this. He'd better be one of the testers. Is the whole staff responsible for playtesting?

Will some power weapons not respawn when held?

  • 06.14.2006 1:53 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Stryker1138
Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: Stryker1138
The vast majority of Halo's fanbase is made up of people who just want to have fun and enjoy the experience of playing the game.


EXACTLY!!!! Thats my point. They will play the game regardless of who its tailored too; they wont know the difference or care if they did. Why shouldnt the game be made more balanced and skill based? It will make the "hardcore" crowd happy and the common gamers will still play the game and have fun. What makes you think a more balanced, skillfull game is not fun?


No. If Bungie made this game completely for the hardcore professional players, there's no way it would be as popular. It would simply be a harder and more boring game to play, and people would lose interest. What I've been trying to say is let Bungie to their own thing and make games the way they've been doing them in the past, with some community input but mostly their own ideas.


Yeah, I've never really cared for the whole "people will play it anyway so let them do it how they want it" argument- it just doesn't hold a lot of water. I think that the mass gametype out there should be whatever provides the user the most options in play. Personally, I don't like always playing with MLG settings- it gets stale, and old. I want my games to have variety, and I think there are many more that agree with me in the whole population of Halo players. Sure, there is a group that likes to play only one way- but in the end, the specialized group that only likes to play the game a certain way shouldn't get any more say in development than a group that likes to play Needlers only.

I think the best way to playtest the game is to get people from all ages and skill levels, hear what they say, and try to find compromises- in the end, you're not going to make everybody happy.

  • 06.14.2006 1:56 PM PDT

Posted by: Stryker1138
Yes, I played Halo 1. And yes it was popular. However, Halo 2 is more popular, not only because of its predecessor, but because it's a genuinely fun game that everyone can enjoy. The sheer volume of games still played on Live to this day is testament to that. I'm not saying it should be unbalanced at all. I do want balance, but I don't want "MLG balance," which consists of the BR, Sniper, and Rocket.


Where are you getting those statistics? I played Halo CE the entire span of its life (and then some, I still do) and Halo 2 for about 7 months on and off. Are you trying to say that Halo 1 wasnt a genuinely fun game? Im pretty sure Halo 2 didnt sell 55 bigillion preorders because people wanted to take a gamble, they sold them because Halo 1 was amazing. Im interested to know what you define as balance also?

  • 06.14.2006 1:56 PM PDT

Death by figure skater.

Posted by: Achronos
Yeah - everyone who's worried about my feelings being hurt don't need to worry. I am fully capable of defending myself. I also enjoy a good heated discussion, and as anyone who knows me will attest to, it is very difficult to actually make me angry. Considering some morons have sent death threats after being banned, someone who simply "disagrees" with me is hardly cause for me to get riled up about.

Anyway, as to your question, spawns and weapon balance are a big deal when designing a map (as well as designing a spawn system for both players and weapons). The map designers go through lots of iterations. Don't worry - we know the flaws of the previous efforts better than anyone. We also have the advantage of knowing why the previous iterations were made like they were, which is an important aspect to consider. I know it doesn't really answer much, but I can say we know it is a huge aspect to the games, and we hope to set it up the right way for each map and weapon configuration.

Hopefully in the future when more about multiplayer is public, we can talk about this more. For now, that's about as much detail as I can get into.

Posted by: OksanaBayul
Oh he'll be ok. Relax. We disagree, we jabbed at each other a wee bit, it's really no big deal.

Back to topic: When testing for balance issues on maps, do you guys think about starting spawns with relation to power weapons more this go round? Is this a standard practice when coming up with the new spawn system.

Distance to the power weapons at starting spawn and balance has to be a tough design issue, because the spawn system is tricky business. Can you make a starting spawn that spawn players equidistant, but genreates randoms spawns thereafter?


Excellent news regarding the spawn system!!! Now that is some quality information and my confidence is bolstered. This is why I post on the forums. Arghhh, now it's killing me to wait for Halo3. I want to play it right now! :)

Thanks Achronos.

  • 06.14.2006 1:56 PM PDT

Those without swords can still die upon them.

Posted by: Pwnocchio
Posted by: Stryker1138
Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: Stryker1138
The vast majority of Halo's fanbase is made up of people who just want to have fun and enjoy the experience of playing the game.


EXACTLY!!!! Thats my point. They will play the game regardless of who its tailored too; they wont know the difference or care if they did. Why shouldnt the game be made more balanced and skill based? It will make the "hardcore" crowd happy and the common gamers will still play the game and have fun. What makes you think a more balanced, skillfull game is not fun?


No. If Bungie made this game completely for the hardcore professional players, there's no way it would be as popular. It would simply be a harder and more boring game to play, and people would lose interest. What I've been trying to say is let Bungie to their own thing and make games the way they've been doing them in the past, with some community input but mostly their own ideas.


Yeah, I've never really cared for the whole "people will play it anyway so let them do it how they want it" argument- it just doesn't hold a lot of water. I think that the mass gametype out there should be whatever provides the user the most options in play. Personally, I don't like always playing with MLG settings- it gets stale, and old. I want my games to have variety, and I think there are many more that agree with me in the whole population of Halo players. Sure, there is a group that likes to play only one way- but in the end, the specialized group that only likes to play the game a certain way shouldn't get any more say in development than a group that likes to play Needlers only.

I think the best way to playtest the game is to get people from all ages and skill levels, hear what they say, and try to find compromises- in the end, you're not going to make everybody happy.


Yes, thank you. This is what I've been trying to articulate. Apologies to any I may have started an argument with, but the words just won't come right today.

  • 06.14.2006 1:57 PM PDT

Those without swords can still die upon them.

Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: Stryker1138
Yes, I played Halo 1. And yes it was popular. However, Halo 2 is more popular, not only because of its predecessor, but because it's a genuinely fun game that everyone can enjoy. The sheer volume of games still played on Live to this day is testament to that. I'm not saying it should be unbalanced at all. I do want balance, but I don't want "MLG balance," which consists of the BR, Sniper, and Rocket.


Where are you getting those statistics? I played Halo CE the entire span of its life (and then some, I still do) and Halo 2 for about 7 months on and off. Are you trying to say that Halo 1 wasnt a genuinely fun game? Im pretty sure Halo 2 didnt sell 55 bigillion preorders because people wanted to take a gamble, they sold them because Halo 1 was amazing. Im interested to know what you define as balance also?


By statistics you mean popularity? I was referring to the total copies sold of each game. I don't remember the exact numbers off the top of my head (it may have even been "55 bigillion") but Halo 2 has definitely sold more. And my definition of balance incorporates every aspect of the game and doesn't exclude things like the motion tracker, sword, etc.

[Edited on 6/14/2006]

  • 06.14.2006 2:01 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Achronos
Sigh. While it is true I do get tired dealing with people like you who think that they know everything, thankfully most people around here are much more understanding.

Anyway, you seem to have completely missed the point. Matchmaking's purpose IS to match gamers up with people of similar skill, but quickly. This means less time in menus and more time actually playing the game. I was using it as an example of something in Halo 2 that nobody "requested" but after implemented, found it was a good solution to a problem with the status quo that nobody had ever solved in that way. Apparently, you latched on to the idea that playlists are our way of telling you how to play the game... which isn't the case at all. If it were, Custom Games wouldn't exist. Like so many others, you're complaining about a fault in the party system (it is hard to find other players to fill your party's empty slots) rather than the matchmaking system. Of course, we weren't talking about that particular issue, so I'm wondering what relevance it had to the actual conversation. Or are you just one of those people who talks at other people, rather than participating in the conversation? Ironic that you accused me of the same thing... at least I was on topic.

Regarding your other statements... well, I'm not sure what to say. I don't recall working on a game for children. I recall working on two M rated games that by all measures are successful. I'm sorry you think I'm preachy. Usually the only people who ever make silly claims like that are ones who either don't like what they're hearing (usually people who are getting banned) or people who can't discuss things on topic without making things personal. It is possible to disagree with what I've said without trying to insult someone. You should try it - maybe you should try to post again, and explain your position. Then we can engage in a real debate of ideas, and hopefully come off better for it. Or, you can post more drivel, and waste everyone's time some more. But that would probably irritate everyone else who enjoys having a good debate of design ideas. I think we just have a different perspective on the game. It is unfortunate that you use this forum (that the designers of the game read!) to be close minded instead of trying to get your throughts heard.

Here, I'll try and restart the discussion, to make things easier. I do believe most people don't know what they want. This isn't about playlists (focusing on that is simple-minded and not what I mean, pay attention now) - once you're presented with a list of features (say, all the customizations possible in a game of Halo 2), most people are easily capable of knowing what they want. I'm referring to the possibilities of what people want for Halo 3 - while some people are trying to think of new things they want in terms of gameplay, far more people just want "it to be like Halo 1", or "be like Halo 2", but with more maps and guns and better graphics. This becomes especially true the more popular something is - witness the calls we still get for a remake of Halo 1 that has Xbox Live capability. We think it is a good idea as a studio to include some stuff people expect, but that a sequel should tread off the beaten path and change up the status quo. Hence... matchmaking, destructible vehicles, etc. in Halo 2. They changed a lot about the way the game played. But we figure if we make then new game fun, then people have a reason to get the game versus playing its previous incarnation. It would have been easier in Halo 2 to simply make a new campaign, up the graphics a bit, and add a basic Xbox Live implementation. But I doubt the game would have been as popular, or as fun.

Anyway, this post is already too long. But maybe that will spur some relevant discussion. OksanaBayul, I'm sure you have some insightful comments to make, just stop trying to make it personal - this is supposed to be a discussion forum, not a place to insult people just because they have a different perspective on things.

Posted by: OksanaBayul
That's odd. I thought Matchmaking came about to match gamers up with other gamers of equivalent skill level. Now it also exists because people don't know what they want, and you are gracious enough to spoonfeed it to us. I see. I find your attitude egotistical and patronizing. It's always been your problem Tom. Take a page out of NoF's book. He listens. He converses. You preach. You talk at us, not with us. And you presume too much because you're probably burning out. And I don't blame you, you deal with children all day, because you designed a game for children. How ironic.

Kids don't know what they want most of the time, so you are correct with regard to children. Why? Because most experiences are new to them. Kids don't really know themselves...they are in the process of getting to know themselves. But kids aren't supposed to be playing your game. It's quite violent.

You presume too much about people knowing what they like. I've been walking around this planet long enough to know what I like and dislike. But thanks for your generalized opinion. It was fascinating.

I disagree. Matchmaking in H2 is a joke. It doesn't match you up with similar skilled people.
The game give you too much help to even put in matchmaking. Do you think it is good when I can shoot you to the side of the head when the retical is not even near you and still get a head shot? All you have to do in this game is just look in the general direction and hit B or R and it still gives you a head shot or a shot registration or melee for you. Do you think thats fun. Where is the challenge of do it yourself. This game doesn't seperate the beginners from the better players. Once you hit lvl 28 the line blurrs. Im sorry I mean 25. Yet you still call that matchmaking? Do you think getting matched up with people 10 lvls below you is fun? Its boring! Also is it skill when you play in internet time? Do you call it fun when im arournd the corner on my screen and still die or get hit from a pp bolt because the other person still sees me in the open?
Posted be me above
we have to send our info across the coutry to the host before it goes to the persons box so that causes it to lag and shots not register. We have to send our info to the middle man instead of skip the middle man so the info goesn't go from point A to C but with H2 it has to go from point A to point B than to point C.

Skill=Fun because you are being paired up with people who think as fast as you on you and that is fun and a challenge.Why because its in human nature to be the best and be better at what we do. When you create a game that realies on skill the fun follows and the payoff comes later. It's just a formula that goes hand in hand. Not only that but also that game will still sell 10 or more years later. Dont believe me look at Starcraft, Warcraft, Counter Strike and those few others. Blizzard, Valve and those few others. set up a formula in there games that is going to make more people play it more in the comming years. Look at Starcraft. Korea and Asia have TV stations dedicated to it and it is becoming more and more popular over here in the USA and Europe. Those games that I mentiond above are still being played by the thousands and growing and are still use in the WCG and others after 10 years! Why because the developer saw the long term and not the $ sign and its still paying off. The same formula worked with H1 but the reason its not played as much is cause there is no online play. I believe it is called the boomerang formula.
So if you want to say that im wrong please say it. I gave my reason as to why H2s matchmaking doesn't work and a reason why skill equalls fun. So now please enlighten me O holy one.

  • 06.14.2006 2:02 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: Stryker1138
Yes, I played Halo 1. And yes it was popular. However, Halo 2 is more popular, not only because of its predecessor, but because it's a genuinely fun game that everyone can enjoy. The sheer volume of games still played on Live to this day is testament to that. I'm not saying it should be unbalanced at all. I do want balance, but I don't want "MLG balance," which consists of the BR, Sniper, and Rocket.


Where are you getting those statistics? I played Halo CE the entire span of its life (and then some, I still do) and Halo 2 for about 7 months on and off. Are you trying to say that Halo 1 wasnt a genuinely fun game? Im pretty sure Halo 2 didnt sell 55 bigillion preorders because people wanted to take a gamble, they sold them because Halo 1 was amazing. Im interested to know what you define as balance also?


I'll say it again, you can't say Halo 2 is more popular than CE, given the fact that CE never had its day on live. Personally, I only play H2 because of LIVE. XBC is too much of a gamble at finding a good game. So, that statement is not pertinent until they(if ever) make a LIVE version of Halo:CE.

IMO, Halo:CE would murder H2 and drink its blood if it were to ever become LIVE enabled

  • 06.14.2006 2:03 PM PDT

Posted by: Stryker1138
By statistics you mean popularity? I was referring to the total copies sold of each game. I don't remember the exact numbers off the top of my head (it may have even been "55 bigillion") but Halo 2 has definitely sold more. And my definition of balance incorporates every aspect of the game and doesn't exclude things like the motion tracker, sword, etc.


Now isnt it possible that Halo 2 sold so many copies because of its relationship to Halo 1? Isnt it also possible that if the two games had been completely unrelated to each other and sold simply on the strength their own merit that Halo CE would have outsold Halo 2? I think it is more than possible. Unfortunately, we will never know, so we cant go on claiming that one is more popular than the other.

So do you think a game is balanced if it rewards players for circumstantial events or is it balanced if it rewards the player who is more skilled?

  • 06.14.2006 2:04 PM PDT

Tom Achronos
Bungie.net Overlord
twitter: http://twitter.com/Achronos

"I have no words that would do justice to the atrocities you commit to the English language, as well as your continued assaults on the concepts of basic literacy and logical reasoning."

Well, we define the problem a bit differently than you guys commonly think of it, but weapons (new and old) obviously are being designed for Halo 3 gameplay. I'm sorry for being a bit vague, but let's just say that "weapon balance" is probably not the proper term for it in context of how we think of it, so it is hard to talk about without talking too much about things we're not talking about yet.

Posted by: TheBigShow
If you can, answer me this....

Are they focusing on weapon balance (or imbalance) as much or more than the spawn system?

  • 06.14.2006 2:08 PM PDT

Those without swords can still die upon them.

Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: Stryker1138
By statistics you mean popularity? I was referring to the total copies sold of each game. I don't remember the exact numbers off the top of my head (it may have even been "55 bigillion") but Halo 2 has definitely sold more. And my definition of balance incorporates every aspect of the game and doesn't exclude things like the motion tracker, sword, etc.


Now isnt it possible that Halo 2 sold so many copies because of its relationship to Halo 1? Isnt it also possible that if the two games had been completely unrelated to each other and sold simply on the strength their own merit that Halo CE would have outsold Halo 2? I think it is more than possible. Unfortunately, we will never know, so we cant go on claiming that one is more popular than the other.

So do you think a game is balanced if it rewards players for circumstantial events or is it balanced if it rewards the player who is more skilled?


Balance to me is the same as it is to anyone else: no one single thing completely overpowers the others and dominates the game. And yes, MLG is balanced. But my point is it's boring to play that all the time. The majority of the people don't play MLG regularly, which they would have to do if Bungie made it for the professionals.

[Edited on 6/14/2006]

  • 06.14.2006 2:09 PM PDT

Posted by: Achronos
Well, we define the problem a bit differently than you guys commonly think of it, but weapons (new and old) obviously are being designed for Halo 3 gameplay. I'm sorry for being a bit vague, but let's just say that "weapon balance" is probably not the proper term for it in context of how we think of it, so it is hard to talk about without talking too much about things we're not talking about yet.

Posted by: TheBigShow
If you can, answer me this....

Are they focusing on weapon balance (or imbalance) as much or more than the spawn system?


Agreed, "weapon balance" is not the correct term; if the weapons were balanced, there would be no diversity. The term I was looking for is Gameplay Balance. The trick is, getting the different weapons to create balanced gameplay. There needs to be a weapon that gives players a chance to get themselves out of most unfortunate situations that arise from circumstances out of their control (spawning in front of an enemy, etc.), now I wont say the "P" word because that would bring the idiots out of the woodwork, but that weapon was lacking from Halo 2. The Battle Rifle came close, but didnt fill the niche adequetley enough in my opinon.

Another thing I felt was overlooked in Halo 2 was long range combat. Everything seemed to be focused on up-close encounters. The "mid-range" weapons drastically lost their effectiveness over ranges that were less than reasonable. Even the sniper rifle had a range to it, which was incredibly frustrating.

  • 06.14.2006 2:16 PM PDT

July 15, 2008... The day the timer stood still.

Do you guys keep in mind what you like or disliked about previous projects when desigining maps? Like, for example, people loved lockout, but not many liked burial mounds. Will you take that into consideration?

  • 06.14.2006 2:17 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Stryker1138
Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: Stryker1138
By statistics you mean popularity? I was referring to the total copies sold of each game. I don't remember the exact numbers off the top of my head (it may have even been "55 bigillion") but Halo 2 has definitely sold more. And my definition of balance incorporates every aspect of the game and doesn't exclude things like the motion tracker, sword, etc.


Now isnt it possible that Halo 2 sold so many copies because of its relationship to Halo 1? Isnt it also possible that if the two games had been completely unrelated to each other and sold simply on the strength their own merit that Halo CE would have outsold Halo 2? I think it is more than possible. Unfortunately, we will never know, so we cant go on claiming that one is more popular than the other.

So do you think a game is balanced if it rewards players for circumstantial events or is it balanced if it rewards the player who is more skilled?


Balance to me is the same as it is to anyone else: no one single thing completely overpowers the others and dominates the game. And yes, MLG is balanced. But my point is it's boring to play that all the time. The majority of the people don't play MLG regularly, which they would have to do if Bungie made it for the professionals.


Agreed. Balance is no one thing dominates all others. Unfortunately, the current iteration of Halo has numerous "dominations" of other things in the game. But, I honestly don't believe we have to worry about halo3 catering solely to MLG, IMO.

I'm not a MLG lover, but i think the only reason there is a MLG setting(not talking bout glitches, jus weapons) is because of these dominations. I don't remember anytime in Halo:CE MP having to remove any weapons due to balance issues, becuase the game was packaged with impecuable(sp) balance, even with most of the power weapons we have in H2. Apparently the transfer didn't process to well to H2 because now the power weapons dominate, where as they dind't before. They were powerful, but at the same time manageable by those who didn't have them in a match. So, as long as Halo3 comes with the same balance as Halo:ce, there won't be any need for MLG gametypes or any others like it.

  • 06.14.2006 2:23 PM PDT

Death by figure skater.

Posted by: Usedtabe
Posted by: Stryker1138
Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: Stryker1138
By statistics you mean popularity? I was referring to the total copies sold of each game. I don't remember the exact numbers off the top of my head (it may have even been "55 bigillion") but Halo 2 has definitely sold more. And my definition of balance incorporates every aspect of the game and doesn't exclude things like the motion tracker, sword, etc.


Now isnt it possible that Halo 2 sold so many copies because of its relationship to Halo 1? Isnt it also possible that if the two games had been completely unrelated to each other and sold simply on the strength their own merit that Halo CE would have outsold Halo 2? I think it is more than possible. Unfortunately, we will never know, so we cant go on claiming that one is more popular than the other.

So do you think a game is balanced if it rewards players for circumstantial events or is it balanced if it rewards the player who is more skilled?


Balance to me is the same as it is to anyone else: no one single thing completely overpowers the others and dominates the game. And yes, MLG is balanced. But my point is it's boring to play that all the time. The majority of the people don't play MLG regularly, which they would have to do if Bungie made it for the professionals.


Agreed. Balance is no one thing dominates all others. Unfortunately, the current iteration of Halo has numerous "dominations" of other things in the game. But, I honestly don't believe we have to worry about halo3 catering solely to MLG, IMO.

I'm not a MLG lover, but i think the only reason there is a MLG setting(not talking bout glitches, jus weapons) is because of these dominations. I don't remember anytime in Halo:CE MP having to remove any weapons due to balance issues, becuase the game was packaged with impecuable(sp) balance, even with most of the power weapons we have in H2. Apparently the transfer didn't process to well to H2 because now the power weapons dominate, where as they dind't before. They were powerful, but at the same time manageable by those who didn't have them in a match. So, as long as Halo3 comes with the same balance as Halo:ce, there won't be any need for MLG gametypes or any others like it.


I don't want to have to use the "P" word. But boy does it cure some balance ills. :)

  • 06.14.2006 2:27 PM PDT

Posted by: Usedtabe

Agreed. Balance is no one thing dominates all others. Unfortunately, the current iteration of Halo has numerous "dominations" of other things in the game. But, I honestly don't believe we have to worry about halo3 catering solely to MLG, IMO.

I'm not a MLG lover, but i think the only reason there is a MLG setting(not talking bout glitches, jus weapons) is because of these dominations. I don't remember anytime in Halo:CE MP having to remove any weapons due to balance issues, becuase the game was packaged with impecuable(sp) balance, even with most of the power weapons we have in H2. Apparently the transfer didn't process to well to H2 because now the power weapons dominate, where as they dind't before. They were powerful, but at the same time manageable by those who didn't have them in a match. So, as long as Halo3 comes with the same balance as Halo:ce, there won't be any need for MLG gametypes or any others like it.



Great post.

  • 06.14.2006 2:28 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: OksanaBayul


I don't want to have to use the "P" word. But boy does it cure some balance ills. :)


Like you've never seen done before

  • 06.14.2006 2:31 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Appreciate it. Glad to see some like-minded individuals

  • 06.14.2006 2:35 PM PDT

This is the last place I expected to find one.

  • 06.14.2006 2:50 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: TheBigShow
Another thing I felt was overlooked in Halo 2 was long range combat. Everything seemed to be focused on up-close encounters. The "mid-range" weapons drastically lost their effectiveness over ranges that were less than reasonable. Even the sniper rifle had a range to it, which was incredibly frustrating.

Did you read my post quote about the host and A,B, and C. That will answer you question.

  • 06.14.2006 3:05 PM PDT

Posted by: operativeace
Posted by: TheBigShow
Another thing I felt was overlooked in Halo 2 was long range combat. Everything seemed to be focused on up-close encounters. The "mid-range" weapons drastically lost their effectiveness over ranges that were less than reasonable. Even the sniper rifle had a range to it, which was incredibly frustrating.

Did you read my post quote about the host and A,B, and C. That will answer you question.


I dont think the host has anything to do with the overabundance of close-range weapons, thats purely a design issue.

  • 06.14.2006 3:07 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: operativeace
Posted by: TheBigShow
Another thing I felt was overlooked in Halo 2 was long range combat. Everything seemed to be focused on up-close encounters. The "mid-range" weapons drastically lost their effectiveness over ranges that were less than reasonable. Even the sniper rifle had a range to it, which was incredibly frustrating.

Did you read my post quote about the host and A,B, and C. That will answer you question.


I dont think the host has anything to do with the overabundance of close-range weapons, thats purely a design issue.

Not really cause you have to send all the info to the host before it goes to your target. Thats why shots fizzel out and dont register after 30 halo yard and host can shoot 100 halo yards bacause off host you are shooting in internet time. Host you are shootin in real time.

  • 06.14.2006 3:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

A Guide to Networking, Matchmaking, and Host in Halo (HBO mirror)

Bungie Friends and Family invitee, and sender of "random emails" about networking.

Well, we define the problem a bit differently than you guys commonly think of it, but weapons (new and old) obviously are being designed for Halo 3 gameplay. I'm sorry for being a bit vague, but let's just say that "weapon balance" is probably not the proper term for it in context of how we think of it, so it is hard to talk about without talking too much about things we're not talking about yet

I'm very glad and reassured to hear that you guys are aware of flaws in the game last time, which hopefully means things will be improved next time.

Personally, I don't mind the vague nature of your replies; how things will be fixed can wait. The fact that they will be addressed however, is exactly what people want to hear.

So, any word on the melee lunge and if we can carry more ammo this time? And will there be no more respawning vehicles to endlessly fight this time? ;-)

  • 06.14.2006 3:30 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

We dont need the melee lunge and I like to see if achronos would reply to what I said to him.

  • 06.14.2006 3:32 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Wiltron
I believe the preferences of professional gamers matter LESS than the preferences of the "average" gamers. We (the average gamer) are their core audience. The professionals are a small, but vocal, minority. We are their cash cow. It would be a disaster if they made the game balanced, but inaccessible to the average Joe.

FUN>BALANCE


FUN + BALANCE = AWESOMNESS

  • 06.14.2006 4:02 PM PDT