-
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.
343 has pretty much ruined Halo CE multiplayer with the latest patch
- Thread starter mcfrank
- Start date
I came back to MCC for the first time after launch, trying to be hopeful about all the patches they've put out. I was a long time Halo 2 fan, played like 10k matches and had like 90k kills.
Decided to play some Team Hardcore, as I loved MLG play on Halo 2 back in the day. Matchmaking worked fine, it found a game pretty fast. Then when the game started, it was 5 v 2. and I said fuck this and turned it off.
Halo is dead to me. At least the campaigns work, otherwise I would have asked for my money back.
Decided to play some Team Hardcore, as I loved MLG play on Halo 2 back in the day. Matchmaking worked fine, it found a game pretty fast. Then when the game started, it was 5 v 2. and I said fuck this and turned it off.
Halo is dead to me. At least the campaigns work, otherwise I would have asked for my money back.
I think we're both in agreement on the particular issue of magnetism, we'd both like a middle ground to be found between how it was and how it is, so I'll continue our tangential discussion because it's still related to the topic.
Well mcfrank, as the saying goes, you may be entitled to your own opinions, but you aren't entitled to your own facts, and facts are what I'm concerned with. Unless one remains willfully ignorant of them, I don't see how there can be any contention over this point. You've now reiterated that CE is most competitive when "every team is on equal footing," as you wrote, despite that remaining untrue. While what's "most interesting" is an entirely subjective matter, what we were discussing prior to that shifting of the goal posts was the question of what's most competitive. That question has a more objective answer - competitive games are widely accepted as those which emphasis and reward skill, rather than luck, to give a basic definition. Halo CE is an arena shooter, like Quake and Unreal Tournament, and in an arena shooter the means by which a player beats an opponent are almost always through the use of special items. These weapons and power-ups unquestionably confer an advantage to the player who has them - there's no semblance of equality in these games. To claim an arena shooter like CE is most competitive if it's the case that players have "the same information," or more generally, have equality, is to declare a gross misunderstanding of a foundational characteristic of arena FPS.
You ascribed several qualities to static timers in your reply that are flat out wrong as well. For example, suggesting that there is a "strategy" in deciding whether to take a power-up or kill an enemy player trying to do the same thing. This is a false dichotomy - there are no practical situations in which these goals would be mutually exclusive - hence there's no strategic decision to be made between the two options. You suggested that static timers "forced out campers," however this is simply untrue. In and of itself, static timers don't encourage movement around an arena any more than player-controlled timers, items remain where they are and hold influence over players in either event. Infact, relative to player controlled timers, static timers present considerably less incentive to move around the map for respawning items because they will often respawn concurrently, making them strategically unwise if not impossible to collect. This isn't as much of a problem with player-controlled timers. You also claimed that static timers "concentrated fighting," but this is a red herring. Distance between opponents is determined by too many factors to be distilled down to one cause, but more importantly, such a thing has no direct relationship with the degree of competition in a game.
The fact is that having player agency control item respawns adds a level of strategic decision-making to an arena that is simply absent with static timers - this is a fact. There becomes a real strategic decision to be made with controlled timers when one takes an item because when one does so one will initiate a timer. The logic here is very simple to grasp, in one case, there's a choice and a potential for strategy, in the other, the choice is already made and there's no meaningful strategy. Having control over an item takes on further depth with Quake-style timers because not only is one simply in possession of an item, one also controls the item and has a more accurate idea of when it will return. This allows for each item in the arena to necessitate individual attention to be "owned," adding a level of strategy and competition.
At the end of the day though, all of this discussion leads up to one critical point - that systematization of CE is bad. Since CE is almost a fourteen year old game, it's understandable that it's mechanics are simple by today's standards. The single biggest mechanic that's exploited by systematic players is the respawn system - both for players and for items. What is systematization and why is it a bad thing? It's the process of breaking a game down into it's most simple components and then exploiting those components to produce the most favorable outcome. Why is that bad? Play tic-tac-toe against a systematic opponent and you'll quickly learn that the player who takes their turn first is guaranteed to tie or win if they play systematically. The same is true for checkers and even for chess. While it's certainly challenging, it isn't fun to play chess against an advanced A.I. for the same reason - the computer is programmed to play systematically - it makes every move based on assessments and reassessments of probability, rather than on intuition, skill, "feel," or experience like any human opponent. In poker, decks are reshuffled constantly and players often exit pots without revealing their hands to prevent their opponents from beating them in a systematic fashion, that is, by counting cards, which is actually regarded as cheating in that game because it's so problematic. To give a specific example from Halo, when pitted against opponents who play systematically on a map such a prisoner, what may effectively determine the outcome of the game is simply where the teams spawn - similar to how turn order can decide a game of checkers before it's began. In both cases, factors that are outside of one's control may end up determining the outcome of a game - not because of a random factor - all things are random to an extent - but because the game enables systematic play. The systematic approach to games enables people to be good at "playing a game" rather than being good at the game. Like randomness, it's antithetical to a skillful, competitive game and can't be eliminated, only minimized. Those who memorize player spawn locations and exploit that knowledge and who utilize timers are playing CE systematically, those player's success is owed not to a skill, but to reducing a weak system down to probabilities. For this reason, it would be for the best if new player respawn points were added to each map and if opponent based visibility-checking was implemented. Anything that impedes a player's ability to win a game of CE by playing it systematically is good. Not only is it decidedly unfun to play games against opponents who have systematized them, those games are uncompetitive because a reduction of outcomes to mere probabilities becomes a surer path to success than skill. Fixing a game itself is necessary to fix a player's exploitation of it, though.
Well mcfrank, as the saying goes, you may be entitled to your own opinions, but you aren't entitled to your own facts, and facts are what I'm concerned with. Unless one remains willfully ignorant of them, I don't see how there can be any contention over this point. You've now reiterated that CE is most competitive when "every team is on equal footing," as you wrote, despite that remaining untrue. While what's "most interesting" is an entirely subjective matter, what we were discussing prior to that shifting of the goal posts was the question of what's most competitive. That question has a more objective answer - competitive games are widely accepted as those which emphasis and reward skill, rather than luck, to give a basic definition. Halo CE is an arena shooter, like Quake and Unreal Tournament, and in an arena shooter the means by which a player beats an opponent are almost always through the use of special items. These weapons and power-ups unquestionably confer an advantage to the player who has them - there's no semblance of equality in these games. To claim an arena shooter like CE is most competitive if it's the case that players have "the same information," or more generally, have equality, is to declare a gross misunderstanding of a foundational characteristic of arena FPS.
You ascribed several qualities to static timers in your reply that are flat out wrong as well. For example, suggesting that there is a "strategy" in deciding whether to take a power-up or kill an enemy player trying to do the same thing. This is a false dichotomy - there are no practical situations in which these goals would be mutually exclusive - hence there's no strategic decision to be made between the two options. You suggested that static timers "forced out campers," however this is simply untrue. In and of itself, static timers don't encourage movement around an arena any more than player-controlled timers, items remain where they are and hold influence over players in either event. Infact, relative to player controlled timers, static timers present considerably less incentive to move around the map for respawning items because they will often respawn concurrently, making them strategically unwise if not impossible to collect. This isn't as much of a problem with player-controlled timers. You also claimed that static timers "concentrated fighting," but this is a red herring. Distance between opponents is determined by too many factors to be distilled down to one cause, but more importantly, such a thing has no direct relationship with the degree of competition in a game.
The fact is that having player agency control item respawns adds a level of strategic decision-making to an arena that is simply absent with static timers - this is a fact. There becomes a real strategic decision to be made with controlled timers when one takes an item because when one does so one will initiate a timer. The logic here is very simple to grasp, in one case, there's a choice and a potential for strategy, in the other, the choice is already made and there's no meaningful strategy. Having control over an item takes on further depth with Quake-style timers because not only is one simply in possession of an item, one also controls the item and has a more accurate idea of when it will return. This allows for each item in the arena to necessitate individual attention to be "owned," adding a level of strategy and competition.
At the end of the day though, all of this discussion leads up to one critical point - that systematization of CE is bad. Since CE is almost a fourteen year old game, it's understandable that it's mechanics are simple by today's standards. The single biggest mechanic that's exploited by systematic players is the respawn system - both for players and for items. What is systematization and why is it a bad thing? It's the process of breaking a game down into it's most simple components and then exploiting those components to produce the most favorable outcome. Why is that bad? Play tic-tac-toe against a systematic opponent and you'll quickly learn that the player who takes their turn first is guaranteed to tie or win if they play systematically. The same is true for checkers and even for chess. While it's certainly challenging, it isn't fun to play chess against an advanced A.I. for the same reason - the computer is programmed to play systematically - it makes every move based on assessments and reassessments of probability, rather than on intuition, skill, "feel," or experience like any human opponent. In poker, decks are reshuffled constantly and players often exit pots without revealing their hands to prevent their opponents from beating them in a systematic fashion, that is, by counting cards, which is actually regarded as cheating in that game because it's so problematic. To give a specific example from Halo, when pitted against opponents who play systematically on a map such a prisoner, what may effectively determine the outcome of the game is simply where the teams spawn - similar to how turn order can decide a game of checkers before it's began. In both cases, factors that are outside of one's control may end up determining the outcome of a game - not because of a random factor - all things are random to an extent - but because the game enables systematic play. The systematic approach to games enables people to be good at "playing a game" rather than being good at the game. Like randomness, it's antithetical to a skillful, competitive game and can't be eliminated, only minimized. Those who memorize player spawn locations and exploit that knowledge and who utilize timers are playing CE systematically, those player's success is owed not to a skill, but to reducing a weak system down to probabilities. For this reason, it would be for the best if new player respawn points were added to each map and if opponent based visibility-checking was implemented. Anything that impedes a player's ability to win a game of CE by playing it systematically is good. Not only is it decidedly unfun to play games against opponents who have systematized them, those games are uncompetitive because a reduction of outcomes to mere probabilities becomes a surer path to success than skill. Fixing a game itself is necessary to fix a player's exploitation of it, though.
Diablohead
Member
I've not played MP for a while either but when I did all I touched was Halo 2 classic, it had the best working 4 v 4 at the time and felt fun to play, H2A MP has frame drops, huge load times and always felt off when there was lag involved, halo 2 had this issue too but only half as bad for some reason.
BuggeryBugz
Member
Got this game for cheap so I'm replaying all the campaigns but will try multi this weekend and hopefully I can get a few good games.
By the way, I finished halo CE and it wasn't as fun this play through. Don't know why but it felt like a chore. And the flood can go and get stuffed, worst enemy in halo in my opinion.
By the way, I finished halo CE and it wasn't as fun this play through. Don't know why but it felt like a chore. And the flood can go and get stuffed, worst enemy in halo in my opinion.
I'm not going to bother discussing any of this right now as it's very late for me and your post is rather complex. However I would like to point out that the vast majority of the Halo competitive community (pros included) disagree with almost everything you're saying.
Especially regarding static spawn timers for weapons and power ups.
The CE spawn system is a bit more contentious, however it's still regarded as being very skillful by the majority.
I look forward to your reply jem. Yes, I'm very much aware of the general consensus among Xbox CE players, I find it incredibly disheartening.
e:
It's understandable, really. Take a game produced at the turn of the millennia, and an audience of young adults, give them fourteen years of time to play and learn, and an unprecedented and unforeseeable advancement in technology along with it's capacity to make one's life easier, and the outcome isn't shocking. It comes as little surprise that reductionist strategies have been applied to so many aging games. It's equally predictable that those who have invested so much time into mastering their systematization of a game will defend what they do and not want to see what they've learned go to waste because of adaptation, even if they concede on a subconscious level that what they've mastered is exploitative. In their minds, it seems, it's acceptable to adapt to a game in any way possible to gain an advantage, but it's not acceptable for the game to adapt in like fashion. A good example would be the entire idea of tool-assisted speed-running.
I've actually been slowly chipping away at CE this week and the Assault on the Control Room unfortunately felt like it took me 3 years.
I'm going to get the XBO Halo White console but I'm waiting to hear if MS will release a slimmed down console or possibly another price drop or bundle. I'm a huge Halo fan, have been since the original Xbox launch, and the multiplayer impressions from Halo fans is extremely disappointing to hear but I'd put the blame on MS more for trying to launch the game than on 343.
I'll at least play the Halo single player campaigns in preparation for Halo 5 when I get my XBO. Halo 5 will make or break the franchise though so I hope 343 knocks it out the park.
I'll at least play the Halo single player campaigns in preparation for Halo 5 when I get my XBO. Halo 5 will make or break the franchise though so I hope 343 knocks it out the park.
Welfare
Member
There is going to be a 1TB console with MCC, possibly announced at E3. Unless MS are impatient, we won't be seeing a slim model until they can build on with 16nm chips.
BuggeryBugz
Member
Yep, it was a lot harder than I remembered also.
Aha, honestly I'm not sure I'd really be able to provide an adequate response; I'm no where near as knowledgeable as some as to the intricacies of CE. Especially considering you seem to have put quite a lot of effort into your posts.
You'd probably find people far more capable of discussing this on Teambeyond. Although I'm sure some would be happy to discuss this with you here.
RoslindaleOne
Member
I'm no Halo CE expert but the pistol seems fine to me. It may have been changed since the update, but it is not as bad as that gif being shown here.
n0razi
Member
You don't even have to aim in Destiny, literally anything remotely close to the head and you pull off instant head shots.
its a console game... it would not be fun at all except to a handful of hardcore masochists without a well tuned aim assist
TaintedHotSauce
Member
Have to disagree with you there. Because some people aren't able to master aiming with analog sticks doesn't mean there should be an aim-assist. I enjoy Killzone: Shadow Falls's multiplayer because there's no aim-assist so there's no bullshit doing on.
You should be rewarded for mastering your aim and not just giving everyone a low-skill ceiling handicap.
Princess Carl
Member
That's all I got left. It used to be pages. I used to be like juices, I wanted to help, I wanted to make it better; now I don't even care.
Good job Frankie and co., you win.
I am not going to respond to this whole thing point by point as you want to be very philosophical about the whole thing, I will just say you seem to like to use the phrase "the fact is..." and then proceed to give an opinion. You also like to say that my opinions are "simply untrue" when, my 14 years of playing Halo CE at a high level tells me they are very true. There are absolutely times when it pays to watch the power up and kill people going for it rather than going for it yourself. There are absolutely times when you know you are not going to make it to a certain power up before the other team, so you need to switch strategies and go for a different powerup or replan your attack with the knowledge that your opponent now has the rocket launcher or overshield (i.e. picking up a plasma rifle). My impression from the Halo CE community and my own opinion is that the majority of high level Halo CE players disagree with you and about weapon and power up spawns but may somewhat agree with you about player spawns. You are certainly entitled to your opinion about what is more competitive or fun to you, but they are just that your opinions.
It is now almost two weeks in and this is still not fixed. Frankie - care to provide a timeline to when people who paid hard earned money can go back to enjoying what we paid for? I know Bravo tweeted that it is next on the agenda, but some timelines would be helpful.
jediyoshi
Member
Finally, some good ol <60 fps advocates. And GAF said they didn't exist
Narpas Sword0
Member
I will absolutely take a near-locked 30 over a variable 15-60, and I don't think that's an uncommon opinion for games in general.
Mr. Enigma
Member
Yes. Patch is out. Downloading now. 178MB.
Yes it's live, it's the Halo CE pistol fix and a couple other things according to Stinkles.
It has been fixed to a reasonable state yes. It still has some issues due to players dropping during games, etc. but its very much playable.
Night Angel
Member
By almost all accounts it seems to depend on your definition of reasonable.
If "as advertised" is your threshold, then it wasn't prior to this patch. I can't tell you if this patch made any improvements at this time.
blue_phazon
Member
It's been in a reasonable state for over a month
Most people, including me, can shoot fine in games like Killzone. And I am far from the type of gamer you describe here (in fact, I rarely ever shoot stuff online). I do not mind aim assist myself, but I disagree with it being essential for console shooters.
If "reasonable" means decent port quality, decent matchmaking playlists setting and matching quality, and decent implementation of peripheral features such as theatre and file systems, then it's still not particularly reasonable.
If "reasonable" means that things won't constantly break left and right, then it's been reasonable for a while.
Basically, the game feels like what you'd expect from a collection of rushed ports. It's got tons of room for improvement in a large number of areas, but it does "work" most of the time.
Narpas Sword0
Member
I attempted to play Delta Halo in online co-op last night and had it crash out both times. Good thing they are scrapping split screen going forward!
Damn dude. Sorry to hear that.
Okay, then. The reason why I've asked, is that my friend and I are looking for a local co-op game, and we are both itching to play Halo: Combat Evolved again. I think it will be cheaper to just pick up the Xbox 360 port.
BabyFaceKillah
Member
GOOD!
Fahzgoolin
Banned
CE's fixed everyone. The proper aim assist/magnetism is back in.
fixed.
Oops!
Similar threads
- Locked