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:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Achronos
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.


If you guys wanted to give us more choices in Halo 2, why wasn't a public server browser included in Halo 2 in addition to the matchmaking system?

[Edited on 6/16/2006]

  • 06.16.2006 12:35 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: One One Seven

Assuming that the more complex models for netcode work in a real networking environment, it'd be far more reliable off host, if there's no problems with the network. So if you 4 shot someone with green bars, it doesn't matter about the latency, the shots will still count because the host has deemed the connectivity accurate, and so counted it ... even if the players aren't at the same position on the host's screen*

*Note that this occurs in a special circumstance in Halo 2; client-side sniping. However, sometimes on highly latent connections, the trust displayed isn't always sufficient to get a hit, but sniping generally works better than most other weapons.

In short: Bungie are aware of the frustrations and problems of latency and are working on ways to reduce the problem next time around. I can't give specific quotes because it's from a private email.

The player are going to be in the right position on the host screen cause he sees you in real time. He has 0ms to everybody. His actions are faster and his shots count know matter the distance he is from you.
When I play a game and my enemy is in NY and im in Philly but the host is in LA. When I shot the person in NY it still feels like im shooting him across country like theres 100ms added when there is suppose to be 9ms between each other. But there isn't bacause the info has to go across country to him then to NY and it isn't fun when the packets get lost in route to him cause they are going across country than back so shots dont register and other stuff. Like the dude above me said about p2p. That would probably work alot better cause then we could shoot people 100 halo yards and shots still register instead of the current system where off host you can only shoot 30 halo yards if that. It may not be where they are on your screen but it would help alot in closing the gap so people cant get a cheap kill because they saw you in the open when you around the wall on your screen.

  • 06.16.2006 12:44 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

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?


hahaha. I know what your trying to say. Your one of those "lets not have another halo 2, because it did NOT meet my expectations" people. Now you are all just praying for halo 3 to not suck. While we average gamers, cant wait for the next installment to come out. Your "people" while try to critisize anything they can about halo 3 as soon as it gets in the 360. While we average gamers, will be ignoring your "points" and "suggestions" about the game that wanted it be. Although i think that for a game to not meet your expections is strictly phsycological by saying, for example, "no game will be better than halo 1". Then halo 2 comes out. I personally love all the Halo games

Too sum it up, in the end, the average gamers will be playing, without a doubt, one of the more popular games to made in 2007.

  • 06.16.2006 1:27 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Recon Number 54
Posted by: USATitan
Posted by: Achronos
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.


If you guys wanted to give us more choices in Halo 2, why wasn't a public server browser included in Halo 2 in addition to the matchmaking system?

I didn't see the term "more choices" in what you quoted. I did see the term "match people of similar skill, but quickly".

MatchMaking does that. I don't think that it was intended to do something other than that.


"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."

It can be interpreted from this quote that Achronos is trying to say that Bungie wants to give gamers choices online, and therefore gave us a Custom Games option.

But my question is, if Bungie wanted to give us choices by giving us Custom Games, why didn't they go "all out" and give us a Server Browser as well? Afterall, that Server Browser Systems are simple, effective, and gives the gamer plenty of choices. Why would Bungie get rid of such an effective system, and instead put a Matchmaking system in place? Why didn't Bungie choose to implement both systems?

  • 06.16.2006 2:52 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Vostok2065
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?


hahaha. I know what your trying to say. Your one of those "lets not have another halo 2, because it did NOT meet my expectations" people. Now you are all just praying for halo 3 to not suck. While we average gamers, cant wait for the next installment to come out. Your "people" while try to critisize anything they can about halo 3 as soon as it gets in the 360. While we average gamers, will be ignoring your "points" and "suggestions" about the game that wanted it be. Although i think that for a game to not meet your expections is strictly phsycological by saying, for example, "no game will be better than halo 1". Then halo 2 comes out. I personally love all the Halo games

Too sum it up, in the end, the average gamers will be playing, without a doubt, one of the more popular games to made in 2007.
Maybe being an "average" gamer is not always the greatest thing to be. There's nothing special about being average.

So why don't you "people" try and listen to other "points" and "suggestions." Is that enough "quotations" for you?

  • 06.16.2006 2:56 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Recon Number 54
Posted by: USATitan
Posted by: Achronos
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.


If you guys wanted to give us more choices in Halo 2, why wasn't a public server browser included in Halo 2 in addition to the matchmaking system?

I didn't see the term "more choices" in what you quoted. I did see the term "match people of similar skill, but quickly".

MatchMaking does that. I don't think that it was intended to do something other than that.

You cant match people up because it doesn't work. How does matchmaking match you up with similar skilled players when the game is a do it for you game?It is not a do it yourself game. All you do is shoot in the general direction or look in the general direction and hit a button and the game engine does it for you. Im not flaming you recon but I asked you a quesion. If I was flaming in a tone than I would use ! instead of .

[Edited on 6/16/2006]

  • 06.16.2006 3:11 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Can someone please tell me how to get text in my signature?

Posted by: operativeace
If I was flaming in a tone than I would use ! instead of .

Ah yes, '!', the internationl symbol of flaming

  • 06.16.2006 3:40 PM PDT

I say, evolve, and let the chips fall where they may.

Posted by: PREDAT0R
It would be very wise for Bungie to hire at least a few professional Halo/Halo2 gamers with no bias towards the average gamer population to help with balance.



No bias? You have to be joking. 'Pro' gamers? No bias? Hahaaaa

Really, you had me laughing there.

No bias, HAHAHAAA. Good one.

  • 06.16.2006 3:45 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Recon Number 54
I didn't see the term "more choices" in what you quoted. I did see the term "match people of similar skill, but quickly".

MatchMaking does that. I don't think that it was intended to do something other than that.

As for Halo 2's Matchmaking system quickly matching people of equal skill levels, I totally disagree.

Halo 2's ranking system inaccurately measures one's skill, and is easily exploited. Halo 2's ranks are a friggin joke. Halo 2's ranking system takes into account what your team does more than what you do. Countless times have I done rediculously well in a TS game, only to lose the game and delever because of crappy teammates. Why should I be deleveled for going 24-10, while an opponent on the winning team levels up for going 5-15? That point alone makes Halo 2's ranks innaccurate. In additioin to that, you have to play a lot of games in order to level up in Halo 2. In addition to that, all the cheating, boosting, teamkilling, quitting, etc. make Halo 2's ranking system a joke. You guys even had to take down the Halo 2 leaderboard, because it was so full of illegitimate players.

Also Halo 2's MM system does a bad job of putting you into games quickly. In games (Counterstrike, Halo PC, Unreal Tournament, Rainbow Six 3, etc.) with Server Browsers, it usually takes me about 1-2 minutes at the max to find a game I WANT and start playing. While in Halo 2's MM system, it usually takes anywhere from 2-4+ minutes for the MM system to find me a random game that I rarely like, match me with players, and get me into the game. Also, the wait times in Halo 2 are only going to get worse as Halo 2's online popularity continues to decrease. What is going to happen 3 or 4 years from now when Halo 2 has so few players online that the Matchmaking system can't sustain itself? Is there going to be one playlist the choose from, or is the whole system going to be shut down? Either way, the game will be practically unplayable online with absoulutely no way of finding a public game.


I'll reply to your second response later, I g2g.

[Edited on 6/16/2006]

  • 06.16.2006 3:46 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: operativeace
Posted by: Recon Number 54
Posted by: USATitan
Posted by: Achronos
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.


If you guys wanted to give us more choices in Halo 2, why wasn't a public server browser included in Halo 2 in addition to the matchmaking system?

I didn't see the term "more choices" in what you quoted. I did see the term "match people of similar skill, but quickly".

MatchMaking does that. I don't think that it was intended to do something other than that.

You cant match people up because it doesn't work. How does matchmaking match you up with similar skilled players when the game is a do it for you game?It is not a do it yourself game. All you do is shoot in the general direction or look in the general direction and hit a button and the game engine does it for you. Im not flaming you recon but I asked you a quesion. If I was flaming in a tone than I would use ! instead of .

You're overexaggerating so much, it's not even funny.

EDIT: Usually, people use "?'s" when asking questions.

[Edited on 6/16/2006]

  • 06.16.2006 3:46 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Dr Yuk
Posted by: operativeace
If I was flaming in a tone than I would use ! instead of .

Ah yes, '!', the internationl symbol of flaming

I wasn't flaming him LOL. I was just asking him a question. Sorry my typing may feel like flaming but it isn't. I just keep things heated.
2. back on topic Just because we competitive players have an nack for seeing these differences that make a game based on skill and no skill doesn't mean that we so called minority dont have a say in how the sequal should only be for the avarage gamer and not the copetitive player. Is it that hard to know that we the competitive player want to work for our kills instead of having them given to us on a silver platter.

  • 06.16.2006 3:56 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Recon Number 54
Posted by: USATitan
But my question is, if Bungie wanted to give us choices by giving us Custom Games, why didn't they go "all out" and give us a Server Browser as well? Afterall, that Server Browser Systems are simple, effective, and gives the gamer plenty of choices. Why would Bungie get rid of such an effective system, and instead put a Matchmaking system in place? Why didn't Bungie choose to implement both systems?

Server browsers are the standard for PC gaming and understandably so. It is an effective system, but it is effective for the type of gamers that are used to and able to use it.

The most likely reason is because PC gamers and console gamers are two very different breeds of gamers. Because of that, the way that the two systems connect and find their games online are also quite different.

Dedicated servers, user-hosted servers and browsing those servers became online PC standards not long after people first started Internet gaming.

Console gamers (that do not PC game) tend to use a console for a reason. They want a streamlined, simple, and non-technical way to get into a game quickly and not have to browse or scroll through menus, selecting options and settings. They want to press as few buttons as possible and get into a game as quickly as possible.

That's one of the reasons that online console gaming is only now becoming possible. Prior to XBL, online console gaming was possible, but it wasn't widely accepted or popular. The main complaint with most consolers was that, "if I wanted to scroll through menus, check boxes and type in options, I would have gotten a PC!"

That is the purpose (and the reason for the success) of XBL, Halo 2 MatchMaking, and the recent additions of the XBL-360 system such as TrueSkill. They are meant to be a smoother and less complex experience. People can call it "dumbed down" if they want, but since the point is to get online and play a game, we weren't talking about something that should be too complex.

So, if you were looking for or expecting a PC game experience in a console-based game (which only really has been gaming seriously online for a few years), you were setting yourself up for a disappointment.


Yes, Server Browsers are a very effective and simple, but you got one thing wrong, Server Browsers are the standard systems used for BOTH PC and CONSOLE games. Halo 2 was the first (or one of the first) console games to use a Matchmaking system, and before Halo 2 came out, hundreds of online console games for the PS2 and Xbox used a Server Browser as the standard system for finding public games. And on the Xbox 360, only a couple games (COD2 and Quake IV) so far have used a Matchmaking system (and the MM system in both of those games turned out to be horrible), while a great majority of the rest have continued to use a Server Browser system for finding public multiplayer games.

When you consider the fact that hundreds of online console games that use a Server Browser as the primary means of finding public games, while only a few console games that utilize a Matchmaking system have been released, I would say that console gamers are more accustomed to Server Browsers.

Also, I think console gamers are more than “able” to use Server Browsers. Server browsers are extremely simple and easy to use, and after all, Halo 1, 2, & 3 are/will be Mature rated games, so the 17+ year-old gamers that play the Halo games should be very capable of utilizing a Server Browser.

I have to disagree with your second point as well; PC and Console gamers are not two different breeds of gamers. I and many other console gamers are PC gamers as well and vice versa. If you were to visit the Haloplanet site, you would see that many members there are also PC gamers. And if you were to visit sites like Planet Half-Life or Planet Doom, you would see that many of the PC gamers there own the Xbox, PS2, or Xbox 360. And as consoles become more like PC’s, and as video gaming in general becomes more popular, more and more people will fall under both the PC Gamer and Console Gamer category.

In your post you say “Dedicated servers, user-hosted servers and browsing those servers became online PC standards not long after people first started Internet gaming,” but the fact you left out the fact that Dedicated Servers, user-hosted Servers, and Server Browsers also became XBL standards when people first started playing over XBL. All Xbox Live games from the launch of XBL in November 2002, up until November 9, 2004 had dedicated servers, user-hosted servers, and server browsers. Xbox games like Unreal Championship, Ghost Recon, Soldier of Fortune 2, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Rainbow Six, Splinter Cell, Counterstrike, Project Gotham Racing 2, Madden, etc. all had those features. And besides a select few games (Halo 2, Call of Duty 2, and Quake IV), most online Xbox and Playstation 2 games continued to have Server Browsers, dedicated Servers, and user-hosted servers.

As for your next point (that Server Browsers are too complicated for Console gamers), I totally disagree and find that insulting towards console gamers. Server Browsers are already extremely simple, quick, and easy; all you have to do is choose from a couple of game settings (player #, gametype, map, team killing, etc.), press “A” or “Start” to do a search, and press “A” or “Start” to select a game you WANT to play. It is extremely simple. If a player is not capable of pressing a couple buttons and DECIDING FOR THEMSELVES what game they WANT to play, then how the hell are will they be able to play something as complicated as a FPS?

In your next paragraph you say “People can call it "dumbed down" if they want, but since the point is to get online and play a game, we weren't talking about something that should be too complex,” which I also disagree with. THE POINT OF PLAYING A GAME ONLINE IS TO HAVE FUN AND PLAY GAMES YOU LIKE TO PLAY. What’s the point of spending $50 or $60 on a game, and another $50 on a XBL subscription if you are going to be continually forced to play gametypes you hate, on maps you hate, witch cheating/unskilled teammates and enemies that you hate? I’ve been primarily a console gamer all my life and have had XBL since it came out, and I’ve watched how XBL has evolved, and for the most part, I’ve liked what I have see, but there are two things I hate about the evolution of XBL: 1.) Gamers are being given fewer choices when it comes to finding games that they want to play 2.) The overall maturity and attitude of the XBL community has gone straight to hell. Despite the positives of XBL, if these 2 trends continue, I honestly can’t see myself playing XBL games (I might actually give PS3 online a try) a few years down the road.

Lastly, you say “So, if you were looking for or expecting a PC game experience in a console-based game (which only really has been gaming seriously online for a few years), you were setting yourself up for a disappointment.” I was not expecting a PC game experience on a console-based game. I was expecting a console experience on a console-based game. And up until Halo 2, all popular online-console based games had Server Browsers, user-hosted games, and many even had dedicated servers.

Hopefully you read this and respond to this, because I think I do bring up some very good points and would like to see what you have to say (not trying to be arrogant or cocky or anything).

Also, I got one final question; I meant to ask you this in the Wednesday Humpday Challenge with Haloplanet, but because I got home late, I was not able to participate as an alternate in the match….In addition to Matchmaking and Custom Games, will there also be a Server Browser in Halo 3? Why not give us the best of both worlds in Halo 3: a Server Browser for people that like to choose what they want to play, and a Matchmaking system for those simple-minded folks?

You might not be able to answer that question, but seeing as this is not plot or gameplay related and seeing as how you guys have already confirmed that there will be a Matchmaking system in Halo 3 (in a recent weekly update), I don’t think there should be a problem with you confirming/denying the existence of a Server Browser system in Halo 3.


[Edited on 6/16/2006]

  • 06.16.2006 7:24 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Recon Number 54
Posted by: USATitan
But my question is, if Bungie wanted to give us choices by giving us Custom Games, why didn't they go "all out" and give us a Server Browser as well? Afterall, that Server Browser Systems are simple, effective, and gives the gamer plenty of choices. Why would Bungie get rid of such an effective system, and instead put a Matchmaking system in place? Why didn't Bungie choose to implement both systems?

Server browsers are the standard for PC gaming and understandably so. It is an effective system, but it is effective for the type of gamers that are used to and able to use it.
The most likely reason is because PC gamers and console gamers are two very different breeds of gamers. Because of that, the way that the two systems connect and find their games online are also quite different.

Dedicated servers, user-hosted servers and browsing those servers became online PC standards not long after people first started Internet gaming.

Console gamers (that do not PC game) tend to use a console for a reason. They want a streamlined, simple, and non-technical way to get into a game quickly and not have to browse or scroll through menus, selecting options and settings. They want to press as few buttons as possible and get into a game as quickly as possible.

That's one of the reasons that online console gaming is only now becoming possible. Prior to XBL, online console gaming was possible, but it wasn't widely accepted or popular. The main complaint with most consolers was that, "if I wanted to scroll through menus, check boxes and type in options, I would have gotten a PC!"

That is the purpose (and the reason for the success) of XBL, Halo 2 MatchMaking, and the recent additions of the XBL-360 system such as TrueSkill. They are meant to be a smoother and less complex experience. People can call it "dumbed down" if they want, but since the point is to get online and play a game, we weren't talking about something that should be too complex.

So, if you were looking for or expecting a PC game experience in a console-based game (which only really has been gaming seriously online for a few years), you were setting yourself up for a disappointment.


I know a ton of games on consoles that use a server browser, also fi somebody wanted to hit a few buttons to get into a game they can always select a quick match option. Server browsers are a huge sucsess. Not just on PC but on consoles also. Actaully, Matchmaking is nothing but "quickmatch" option in server browsing capable games that hardly ever gets used but, since there is no true optimatch in Halo2 we are forced to play "quickmatch" or what you call "matchmaking."

[Edited on 6/16/2006]

  • 06.16.2006 7:43 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I'm not sure the reigonal filter would help. If you lag, it's probably because you're connection doesn't download fast enough, or their host doesn't upload fast enough. I play MLG all the time, and whenever you are on the east coast and play against a west coast team, you don't notice an overall lagging in the game, but just a shot lag that's noticeable while BR'n. I'm not sure who should be testing, but balance is key. People that are saying balance will make it less fun are wrong. Do you have fun being spawn raped on Burial Mounds flag/assault, or getting destroyed by more than 20 kills on Ivory Tower team slayer? All that happens because you spawn with a weapon that isn't near as good as the ones on the map. An SMG vs Sniper, no contest. SMG vs Carbine/BR Mid-Long range, no contest. Magnum vs anything but the needler, no contest. Maps are generally made decent enough for gameplay, but it's the weapons that make things unbalanced. As for who's testing, Bungie can have whoever they want to test, but I do think it'd be a good idea for them to at least get a few people off of MLG's pro player committie to get a few ideas or just reviews of the system so far. It probably won't happen, but it would not be a bad idea at all as long as Bungie doesn't go public and say they have a role in testing it because then every Mastercheif223462 would be going nuts over here.

  • 06.17.2006 5:44 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: chad7989
I'm not sure the reigonal filter would help. If you lag, it's probably because you're connection doesn't download fast enough, or their host doesn't upload fast enough. I play MLG all the time, and whenever you are on the east coast and play against a west coast team, you don't notice an overall lagging in the game, but just a shot lag that's noticeable while BR'n. I'm not sure who should be testing, but balance is key. People that are saying balance will make it less fun are wrong. Do you have fun being spawn raped on Burial Mounds flag/assault, or getting destroyed by more than 20 kills on Ivory Tower team slayer? All that happens because you spawn with a weapon that isn't near as good as the ones on the map. An SMG vs Sniper, no contest. SMG vs Carbine/BR Mid-Long range, no contest. Magnum vs anything but the needler, no contest. Maps are generally made decent enough for gameplay, but it's the weapons that make things unbalanced. As for who's testing, Bungie can have whoever they want to test, but I do think it'd be a good idea for them to at least get a few people off of MLG's pro player committie to get a few ideas or just reviews of the system so far. It probably won't happen, but it would not be a bad idea at all as long as Bungie doesn't go public and say they have a role in testing it because then every Mastercheif223462 would be going nuts over here.


Possibly one of the best posts. Also, I understand auto-aim but there was no need for as much as Halo2 had. Also, lag can be tuned down with proper network code so there would be less use for auto-aim. It is really horrible when I am trying to kill someone and another person walks in front of me and my screen actually starts turning to follow them...

  • 06.17.2006 5:57 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I think the playtesting is extremely important for Halo 3 but some other things are equally important to me.

I am one of the biggest Halo fans you will ever find. I played Halo in 2001 when it came out and found it fun but had no idea what was in store. I used to play splitscreen and eventually lanned and in summer of 02 found out about gamespy arcade and xbc. I have played 1000's upon 1000's of games of Halo 1(Prolly 20 or 30 games alone on XBC last night) and it is by far my favorite game ever. Because of my love for this game I scanned the internet for 2 years straight trying to find any info on Halo 2 that I could and I looked forward to it more than I had ever looked forward to anything. Halo 2 was the biggest disappoinment in my life BUT it is still a fun game and somewhat competitive. I personally rarely ever play it but it is a much better game than most others out there. The weapons and balance bother me immensely but there are other problems that I hope will be addressed.

1) The engine and physics of Halo 2 are what ruins it most for me. I think the guy who developed Halo 1's engine moved to wideload but I could be wrong but it was PERFECT. Falling damage and so many other things make Halo 2 much worse than it has to be. Halo 1 was so beautiful because you knew exactly how your shots and nades would land/fall and could become extremely skilled at the game. I don't like how a Master Chief can run into another MC and "bump" or "push" him. Although that may be more realistic, I don't think either Halo game is striving for maximum realism. Gamers want fun and randomness that makes you lose is NOT fun.

2) The weapons and powerups are probably the next biggest issue at hand. Everyone that seems to have a grasp of Halo and the idea that the better person should win agrees balance is of the utmost importance. This isn't Candyland. If I am better I should win, if I'm not, I should lose. I'm not saying the Pistol has to come back but it worked very well in Halo 1. The starting weapons, powerups, and the weapons included on the map and where they are located are extremely important issues. I also sincerely believe that weapons and powerups that don't spawn at a set time leave too much up to luck. Avid Halo 2 players may not be as sincere about the timing of respawns of weapons and powerups but I think the Halo 1 style was perfect. If you were smart enough to time then everyone knew when certain things were coming back and they all tried their best to get whatever it was. This got rid of a lot of camping and made sure some "lucky noob" didn't walk along and luckily find a rocket and shoot an unsuspecting pro with it. It absolutely boggles my mind that someone could say timing is for cheaters or p*ssies. They could include a timer within the game and make it easier for everyone and no one could have an excuse for not timing. It could even talk about it in the game manual that comes with Halo 3. "This is timing...this is why you should do it..." I know timing was a great tourney innovation by TDT for Halo 1 but now that nearly everyone knows about it, it might as well be included.

3) I think the reason that Halo 1 possibly plays so well is that it wasn't designed for online play. That may sound dumb but it was designed for Lan experience where there is no randomness and BS happening. They "optimized" Halo 2's code so it would play "well" online with the host not having to have a fast upload speed.

In Halo 1, on XBC you couldn't host a very big game with 256 up but on H2 you can. With broadband speeds increasing everywhere and prices dropping, I think they should make Halo 3 use more bandwidth per player/box in order to have a more exact Halo experience like Halo 1.

Everyone says that Halo 1 would have been HUGE if it was a Live title. I fully agree and would play Halo 1 on Live 24/7. If they added more maps and took out the jump/turn glitch and infinite reload(for when you play idiots) Halo 1 would actually be PERFECT. Also I don't like how your shots are all over the place and rockets completely misfire is you just sat on a grenade. But that is my opinion and I guess that would be less realistic.

4) Halo 2 added a plethora of new options for multiplayer that could be added to Halo 1 today and still not ruin it. It's the engine/physics, weapons, and network coding that are at fault. I dreamed of having Halo 1 with 4 teams and more Koth options and even Assualt is not really that bad. But the engine, balance of weapons and powerups, and coding need vast improvments and could make Halo 3 the best game ever.

  • 06.17.2006 2:30 PM PDT

Twelve Large ²

An army of sheep led by a lion would defeat an army of lions led by a sheep.

Posted by: JDuB 9684
This got rid of a lot of camping and made sure some "lucky noob" didn't walk along and luckily find a rocket and shoot an unsuspecting pro with it.


What are you doing playing with noobs? Do you say this everytime someone beats you? I thought Halo 2 ranked players over time by a player or teams ability to overcome adversity and kick ass? Anyone who is "legitimately" ranked up in the top spots on the Halo 2 leader boards isn't a "noob." Regardless of how they come across the SPNKR.

  • 06.17.2006 2:50 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I don't know- to me, I think there would be just as much complaining about Halo CE if it were over Live as there is about Halo 2. I think the problem is that in CE, you played it with only your friends, and it was easy to be the top of the game, because it's you against a circle of maybe the same 10 people over and over. You had unwritten rules: don't get the Rocket launcher, no spawn killing, etc. And even if you didn't, the dude that got the Rocket Launcher first and always was made fun of or outcast- and this is all well and good amongst friends. Translate that to XBox Live, though, and I think you have the same complaints that you would have about Halo 2...

Suddenly, you're not the big shot, and you get beat alot, because the competition is much more fierce now. When I play amongst my friends on Halo 2, I still whoop them. When I play matchmaking, I don't win as much. When I play with my friends, the same "unbalanced" issues are still there. Do I whine about it? No, because I'm playing with my friends. I only seem to care when I'm playing strangers.

I think this is part of the shock that people have experienced with Halo 2 over Live. Suddenly, you're not the best. Halo CE had plenty of issues as well- they just weren't put under the magnifying glass of XBox Live. I'm not saying that Halo 2 doesn't have issues- but I think people would care less if they played for fun, and not for... I don't even know what some of you people play for.

Besides, if Halo 2 was "unbalanced" that would mean that no matter who you are, you would not be able to beat the team with the power weapons, which I think is simply absurd. I find that I am a good play, and I still win the majority of the time I play over XBox Live, and I do pretty well- this is consistent. If the game was "unbalanced", shouldn't I only win if I had power weapons, and lose when I don't have them?

  • 06.17.2006 3:19 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

fun=/=balance?

i dunno where you guys grew up, but when i played on a soccer team, the teams were even. we didnt play 5v3. and we didnt play 4v4 but one team was full of guys in wheelchairs. balance means fun. bungie has made a near perfectly balanced game before, and i dont see why they cant again. playtesters, professional ones at that, could help with some serious suggestions towards gameplay. fair and fun weapons are the name of the game, and ill say that the haloCE plasma pistol was far more fair and far more fun than the POS that apeared in halo2.

whoever thinks halo2 was more fun because they made the rocket launcher shoot faster is talking out of their ass. balance is what it is, and the pros say halo2 is lacking in it, and haloCE had it. they are right. they play hte game more than any one else here, and they notice imbalances. fixing them doesnt require that the gun be removed from halo3... so why not?

other than saying you dont care in a sarcastic manner.

  • 06.17.2006 4:02 PM PDT

Posted by: chad7989
I'm not sure the reigonal filter would help.

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

  • 06.17.2006 4:14 PM PDT

Twelve Large ²

An army of sheep led by a lion would defeat an army of lions led by a sheep.

Posted by: Pwnocchio
I don't know- to me, I think there would be just as much complaining about Halo CE if it were over Live as there is about Halo 2. I think the problem is that in CE, you played it with only your friends, and it was easy to be the top of the game, because it's you against a circle of maybe the same 10 people over and over. You had unwritten rules: don't get the Rocket launcher, no spawn killing, etc. And even if you didn't, the dude that got the Rocket Launcher first and always was made fun of or outcast- and this is all well and good amongst friends. Translate that to XBox Live, though, and I think you have the same complaints that you would have about Halo 2...

Suddenly, you're not the big shot, and you get beat alot, because the competition is much more fierce now. When I play amongst my friends on Halo 2, I still whoop them. When I play matchmaking, I don't win as much. When I play with my friends, the same "unbalanced" issues are still there. Do I whine about it? No, because I'm playing with my friends. I only seem to care when I'm playing strangers.

I think this is part of the shock that people have experienced with Halo 2 over Live. Suddenly, you're not the best. Halo CE had plenty of issues as well- they just weren't put under the magnifying glass of XBox Live. I'm not saying that Halo 2 doesn't have issues- but I think people would care less if they played for fun, and not for... I don't even know what some of you people play for.

Besides, if Halo 2 was "unbalanced" that would mean that no matter who you are, you would not be able to beat the team with the power weapons, which I think is simply absurd. I find that I am a good play, and I still win the majority of the time I play over XBox Live, and I do pretty well- this is consistent. If the game was "unbalanced", shouldn't I only win if I had power weapons, and lose when I don't have them?


Agreed 5000%. There are some just complaints, and I'm sure they'll be addressed, but I'm sure a lot of the complaining stems from.. I'm not going to say it.

And even some of the old pros are having a hard time dealing with the new competition. That's why they're "old." Out with the old, in with the new..

[Edited on 6/17/2006]

  • 06.17.2006 4:26 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

if anybody from bungie reads this please send me a message i wou;d like to test out the final design for halo 3 =)

  • 06.17.2006 4:29 PM PDT