Support NeoGAF

[FilthyLies]

That isn't necessarily a COD feature. It's a 'good game that peple actually play' feature.

You can see where Bungie was coming from with the no drop in/ drop out, tring to keep the adversarial relationship and still have some importance attached to a win, rather than the all-important K/D of COD, but at a point they need to realize that getting crippled by quitters time and time again JUST. FUCKING. SUCKS.

 

[zethren]

You can see where Bungie was coming from with the no drop in/ drop out, tring to keep the adversarial relationship and still have some importance attached to a win, rather than the all-important K/D of COD, but at a point they need to realize that getting crippled by quitters time and time again JUST. FUCKING. SUCKS.

But when you pull out a victory against all odds it makes the quitters worth it...lol

 

[Everdred]

You can see where Bungie was coming from with the no drop in/ drop out, tring to keep the adversarial relationship and still have some importance attached to a win, rather than the all-important K/D of COD, but at a point they need to realize that getting crippled by quitters time and time again JUST. FUCKING. SUCKS.

Both COD and Halo need to implement a "If game is less than 50% complete allow people to join." Halo has the issue of droppers and COD has the issues of throwing you in a game with 1 or 2 points/kills left.

 

[The Xtortionist]

How about join in progress in social, not ranked.

 

[Slightly Live]

How about join in progress in social, not ranked.

I wouldn't be opposed to this. Particularly for something like social BTB.

But... the hosting and host migration needs a kick up the arse first. Host migration is just as bad as quitters right now.

 

[Barrow Roll]

Dedicated servers for next Halo please. Just played a few hours of Gears 3 and not a single host switch.

 

[FyreWulff]

How about join in progress in social, not ranked.

Only in Big Team and FFA. for 4v4.. no.

And in those lists, it should give the person that disconnected something like a minute to try and get back in if they disconnect before they're given a DNF.

 

[The Xtortionist]

Why not for 4v4

 

[stephen08]

I would rather not have Join in Progress at all. I finish my games and I do not want some quitters sloppy seconds.

Chances are they quit out of that game because things were not going their way. I'd hate to join a game just to find the other team has all the vehicles in BTB and is wrecking shop with them or something.

 

[daedalius]

I'd be fine with a join in progress for the first, I don't know, 2 minutes of the game, just to fill in those slots for the scrubs that don't want to play that variant and quit before the match even starts.

Once the game is rolling in full swing, you'd hopefully not need any more joins in progress.

 

[Striker]

They're always going to be joining into big leads also, e.g. score will be 75 to 20, and who wants to play that?

I'm not sure where I would welcome that. Social BTB? No. Why not? I want Big Team to be RANKED. I want Big Team to be a competitive beast it was in Halo 2 and not filled with guests, which only further cause more quitters, and cause less enjoyable competition (hello BTB in Reach and Social BTB in Halo 3). Make a Team Training playlist that features only guests and a mixed bag of slayer/objectives. Ship it. The wide spread permission for guests is a bigger hindrance for me than outright quitters.

Duplicate playlists like we've seen in Halo 3 only cause more harm than good. Trim them down FFS.

 

[Arnie]

Join in progress shouldn't be a feature in Halo, and those pining for it quite simply do not understand Halo multiplayer. Such a silly request.

 

[The Xtortionist]

If there's no join in progress then please let there be a checkmate condition so I don't have to play 4v1 or some shit.

 

[reggie]

.

 

[Arnie]

If there's no join in progress then please let there be a checkmate condition so I don't have to play 4v1 or some shit.

The tedium of only having one opponent should be buoyed by the near certainty that you've won. In Halo it's all about winning. That's why Halo differs from nearly every other game out there, including all those with join in progress.

Forget Reach, but in Halo 2 and 3 you legitimately gave a shit about winning as, at least in team games, that was what brought your individual skill level up. I'd rather keep it that way, and have you live and die by your team, than turn Halo into this free for all melee where it's acceptable for players to just jump in, and out, of games.

 

[The Xtortionist]

The tedium of only having one opponent should be buoyed by the near certainty that you've won. In Halo it's all about winning. That's why Halo differs from nearly every other game out there, including all those with join in progress.

Forget Reach, but in Halo 2 and 3 you legitimately gave a shit about winning as, at least in team games, that was what brought your individual skill level up. I'd rather keep it that way, and have you live and die by your team, than turn Halo into this free for all melee where it's acceptable for players to just jump in, and out, of games.

Uh, I don't like having my time wasted. When the teams are horribly unbalanced, it's a waste of time to be on either side.

And there were no skill levels in Halo 3's social playlists so jumping in and out wouldn't really affect anything if Halo 4 had a similar group of playlists. Ranked obviously should emphasize competition and ignore join in progress, like how Gears 3 does it.

 

[FyreWulff]

Uh, I don't like having my time wasted. When the teams are horribly unbalanced, it's a waste of time to be on either side.

And there were no skill levels in Halo 3's social playlists so jumping in and out wouldn't really affect anything if Halo 4 had a similar group of playlists. Ranked obviously should emphasize competition and ignore join in progress, like how Gears 3 does it.

Halo 2, 3, and Reach have skill levels in every playlist. Social just hid/hides them.

Fortunately though, games are getting away from displaying Trueskill ranks. Hopefully they never come back in a Halo game.

 

[dragonelite]

Would have no problem with join in progress in social games.
Better then ending up with 4 vs 1 or even worse in big teams.

 

[CitizenCope]

Would have no problem with join in progress in social games.
Better then ending up with 4 vs 1 or even worse in big teams.

We don't understand Halo.

Join in progress shouldn't be a feature in Halo, and those pining for it quite simply do not understand Halo multiplayer. Such a silly request.

 

[Slightly Live]

Join in progress shouldn't be a feature in Halo, and those pining for it quite simply do not understand Halo multiplayer. Such a silly request.

JIP can have a place in Halo, provided it's restricted to certain playlists and clearly communicated.

Do you really think I don't understand Halo multiplayer?

 

[erpg]

Join in progress belongs in every multiplayer game mode that isn't made for team competitive play. And as we all learned this week, Halo is no longer competitive.

 

[stephen08]

Uh, I don't like having my time wasted. When the teams are horribly unbalanced, it's a waste of time to be on either side.

And there were no skill levels in Halo 3's social playlists so jumping in and out wouldn't really affect anything if Halo 4 had a similar group of playlists. Ranked obviously should emphasize competition and ignore join in progress, like how Gears 3 does it.

That's absolutely a fair point. Alternate game ending conditions need to be implemented. There are those who exploit the fact that these do not exist.

If there was some kind of mercenary playlist with teams that were constantly rebalanced then it would be alright.

My biggest issue with it is that I do not want to get sucked in to losing games that I did not contribute to. I don't mind it so much if people are filling up spots in a game I am in but it should be something you have control over.

 

[The Real Napsta]

Not even full games with even teams? It's the only thing keeping me from going back to Reach. The quiters & uneven teams can make it annoying. I want to go back to Halo as MW3 blows but this is the only thing holding me back.

Play with a party. Problem solved.

 

[squidhands]

Play with a party. Problem solved.

Could you be a little more asinine, please?

 

[The Real Napsta]

Could you be a little more asinine, please?

I could try...

 

[stephen08]

Play with a party. Problem solved.

Ehhh that's only part of it. While that takes care of people on your end quitting out opponents will still do it. That just makes those games boring.

 

[daedalius]

Ehhh that's only part of it. While that takes care of people on your end quitting out opponents will still do it. That just makes those games boring.

8v4 games are super challenging and fun, when you're on the 8 player side. Really.

 

[The Real Napsta]

Ehhh that's only part of it. While that takes care of people on your end quitting out opponents will still do it. That just makes those games boring.

Right, it solves the losing because your teammates quit problem. You can't control the other team unless you play customs.

 

[hayejin]

Is the connection issue ever resolved?

I bought it at launch from newegg and sold it back when I kept getting kicked out during online coop session.

http://www.amazon.com/Halo-Combat-Evolved-Anniversary-Xbox-360/dp/B0050SYY5E/ref=sr_1_cc_1?tag=videogames063a-20&s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1324706745&sr=1-1-catcorr

Amazon has it for 24.99 now. Tempting but the constant dropping during coop really pissed me off last time I played with my friend.

 

[The Real Napsta]

Is the connection issue ever resolved?

I bought it at launch from newegg and sold it back when I kept getting kicked out during online coop session.

http://www.amazon.com/Halo-Combat-Evolved-Anniversary-Xbox-360/dp/B0050SYY5E/ref=sr_1_cc_1?tag=videogames063a-20&s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1324706745&sr=1-1-catcorr

Amazon has it for 24.99 now. Tempting but the constant dropping during coop really pissed me off last time I played with my friend.

I think that issue was on your end. I've never lost connection during co-op.

 

[Rickenslacker]

Join in progress shouldn't be a feature in Halo, and those pining for it quite simply do not understand Halo multiplayer. Such a silly request.

Join in progress was a feature in the very first online Halo game and worked just fine. What's silly is wanting to keep this goofy matchmaking structure that might throw you into games you don't want to play as well as constantly enduring lopsided matches through quitters on either team with nothing that can be done about it.

 

[JdFoX187]

Join in progress was a feature in the very first online Halo game and worked just fine. What's silly is wanting to keep this goofy matchmaking structure that might throw you into games you don't want to play as well as constantly enduring lopsided matches through quitters on either team with nothing that can be done about it.

Funny. I played more than 10,000 games of Halo 2 and never saw a join-in-progress game.

 

[Rickenslacker]

Funny. I played more than 10,000 games of Halo 2 and never saw a join-in-progress game.

Who said anything about Halo 2?

 

[Striker]

Join in progress was a feature in the very first online Halo game and worked just fine. What's silly is wanting to keep this goofy matchmaking structure that might throw you into games you don't want to play as well as constantly enduring lopsided matches through quitters on either team with nothing that can be done about it.

Are you talking about Halo PC? Because obviously that's going to be different.

 

[Rickenslacker]

Are you talking about Halo PC? Because obviously that's going to be different.

I'm just saying on a conceptual level and going forward JIP and Halo aren't incompatible.

 

[Striker]

I'm just saying on a conceptual level and going forward JIP and Halo aren't incompatible.

They're totally different setups. If they're going to use something from Halo PC, use custom game browsers.

 

[Rickenslacker]

They're totally different setups. If they're going to use something from Halo PC, use custom game browsers.

Absolutely, I'd love that. There's nothing in the game design of Halo that makes it so that JIP would be infeasible.

 

[Arnie]

JIP can have a place in Halo, provided it's restricted to certain playlists and clearly communicated.

Do you really think I don't understand Halo multiplayer?

Join in progress is fine if it's relegated to social playlists.

I got the impression, and responded accordingly, that the request was for JIP to be a universal fixture in Halo multiplayer, something which I'm very much opposed to.

Perhaps I was being close minded when I made my statement, but that reflects how I personally digest Halo multiplayer. It's Ranked only for me, so I guess I didn't regard the other sides Halo has to it's game. I treat Halo as a competitive sport, rather than a bit of lighthearted shooting.

Uh, I don't like having my time wasted.

See that's where we differ (not that I want to have my time wasted). To me, playing a social playlist, especially against a fluid, constantly changing team is the definition of wasted time.

I don't want to sound like I'm telling everyone how to play, but for me, I play Halo for the team based, skill reliant focus on gameplay. And I appreciate there's a different side to Halo that I just don't really recognise.

So after some good debate, I change my mind, I'm fine with JIP in Social playlist for the simple reason that I'll never see it. And that's what's so great about Halo: that there can be such variation without diluting a specific part of the game that one group loves.

 

[Rickenslacker]

Join in progress is fine if it's relegated to social playlists.

I got the impression, and responded accordingly, that the request was for JIP to be a universal fixture in Halo multiplayer, something which I'm very much opposed to.

Perhaps I was being close minded when I made my statement, but that reflects how I personally digest Halo multiplayer. It's Ranked only for me, so I guess I didn't regard the other sides Halo has to it's game. I treat Halo as a competitive sport, rather than a bit of lighthearted shooting.

Oh I'm very much a proponent for JIP but yeah, DEFINITELY NOT for ranked, it completely conflicts with that setup. The current matchmaking approach is perfect for that.

 

[Chittagong]

On the topic of JIP, it's the only thing that would bring me back into Halo MP. It's a shame because Halo MP is so much richer than, say, MW3 with well balanced yet wildly different weapons, superb vehicles, great teamplay, amazingly designed symmetric maps. It would definitely be my MP game of choice if it wasn't for the quitting problem.

When I started with Halo 2 quitting wasn't a huge problem. It existed, was annoying but not ubiquitous. Maybe the community was more mature. Same with Halo 3 Beta. People would mostly play properly. But then Halo 3 proper rolled and I found myself constantly sitting chasing the only enemy guy left on the map and decided it's no fun. I hoped Halo Reach would fix it, but there the quitting got even worse and killed Halo MP for me.

So here I am, playing MW3 MP with its fairly shallow mechanics but constant gratification without matches of waiting agony.

I honestly believe JIP will make or break Halo 4 community. The archaic online system needs to get with the times.

For the purists, create a separate ranked playlist with no JIP. For the most of us, just let us have our action.

 

[Future PhaZe]

I think now is the perfect time for Halo to move towards a more Battlefield type of experience. The multiplayer being more in line with the epic battles that take place in the campaign is just the type of shot in the arm that the series needs to challenge the CoD series.

Look, I went to tournaments in Halo CE and Halo 2, I love the more traditional DM aspects of these games, but they've reached a wall with those mechanics. You saw Bungie grasping at straws in Reach with the armor abilities and the tacked on Invasion mode but it came short. If Halo 4 makes a jump that's similar to Reach (more of the same with great add-ons) its just going to be another blimp on the radar and get beat out by random CoD game #7 made by Treyarch.

CoDifying the series or better yet looking more towards Battlefield would be a great idea. You start with JIP for sure.

There's such a rich opportunity by going with brand new mechanics. The lore already supports
a wide amount of class systems that you could envision (ODST's, Spartans, Elite Zealots, Jackel snipers, etc), and by this point even a variety of different weapon systems (DMR, BR class weapons, multiple pistols on human side, AR's, etc).

Personally give me Battlefield: Halo with the innovation and more twitch based play that Halo's mechanics and shield system bring to the table. You bring that to the table, firefight to go with it and 4 player coop...I'm drooling.

Obviously a lot of fans here will disagree. Personally I think they've gone as far as they can with the old mechanics. I can't imagine those old mechanics being iterated for ANOTHER trilogy. I mean...how long do people want to keep playing one of those games? Halo Anniversary should be the nail in the coffin for that stuff.

Commence flaming.

 

[The Antitype]

I think now is the perfect time for Halo to move towards a more Battlefield type of experience. The multiplayer being more in line with the epic battles that take place in the campaign is just the type of shot in the arm that the series needs to challenge the CoD series.

Look, I went to tournaments in Halo CE and Halo 2, I love the more traditional DM aspects of these games, but they've reached a wall with those mechanics. You saw Bungie grasping at straws in Reach with the armor abilities and the tacked on Invasion mode but it came short. If Halo 4 makes a jump that's similar to Reach (more of the same with great add-ons) its just going to be another blimp on the radar and get beat out by random CoD game #7 made by Treyarch.

CoDifying the series or better yet looking more towards Battlefield would be a great idea. You start with JIP for sure.

There's such a rich opportunity by going with brand new mechanics. The lore already supports
a wide amount of class systems that you could envision (ODST's, Spartans, Elite Zealots, Jackel snipers, etc), and by this point even a variety of different weapon systems (DMR, BR class weapons, multiple pistols on human side, AR's, etc).

Personally give me Battlefield: Halo with the innovation and more twitch based play that Halo's mechanics and shield system bring to the table. You bring that to the table, firefight to go with it and 4 player coop...I'm drooling.

Obviously a lot of fans here will disagree. Personally I think they've gone as far as they can with the old mechanics. I can't imagine those old mechanics being iterated for ANOTHER trilogy. I mean...how long do people want to keep playing one of those games? Halo Anniversary should be the nail in the coffin for that stuff.

Commence flaming.

It's not an insane idea by any means, I just prefer Halo as something between the infantry focus of CoD and the massive-scale vehicle-centric battles of BF. The seamless back and forth between infantry and vehicle, and the way that ANY player stands a chance against vehicles, even those without the proper class setup, is part of what I love about the games - the other part being the longer kill times brought on by shields and great weapon balance.

I'd rather 343i just worry about making the best, most fun Halo game possible than worry about whether it will outsell CoD or not.

Just make 'Join in Progress' a check-box for matchmaking searches.

Let the people like me, who don't mind waiting a little longer to start up a full game uncheck it to make sure we're never thrown into a full match.

Let those who don't care and are willing to jump into a half-complete match on the losing team check it and get matches faster. And maybe add a +25% EXP or Money bonus for being willing to check it.

 

[Sean]

Join in progress is an absolute must imo.

There's nothing more annoying than having half your team quit out in the first twenty seconds just because they didn't like the map choice or whatever. Especially in BTB Social objective-based games like CTF/Assault where teamwork is necessary.

Then you're left to either quit and take an XP penalty too, or suffer through 20 minutes of being spawn killed. It's a shitty situation that can be easily solved, lots of other games have join-in-progress. Even if 343 made JIP be limited to the first round/first few minutes or whatever it would go a huge way.

 

[blamite]

The closer Halo gets to a CoD or Battlefield style class system the less interested I am in playing it. Reach is already pushing it in that regard. There's still plenty of room for innovation within the traditional foundation, especially through perfecting Halo 3's equipment and improving map design. Midship style arena maps can still be improved, and big team games can add more secondary objectives like activating the teleporter on Relic, or opening the gates on High Ground or Zanzibar. Adding more redundant weapons or offering an arbitrary choice between the DMR or BR isn't going to fix anything. There's already a strong foundation of gameplay in place from Halo 2 and 3, it just needs to be fully polished and played on good maps.

Speaking of join in progress, wasn't there a bit of talk pre-Reach of giving players who's teams had quit the option to forfeit the game rather than quitting? I think that there's some potential there.

 

[Stinkles]

Join in progress would not work in a Halo game. It is a game primarily of weapon and map control, it would be a case of joining games with no way of winning.

It works for Call of Duty and others because you can join at any time and still be on a level playing field. It's a bad solution to an even bigger problem, it would only make matters worse.

Join in progress always compromises your ability to win, so its a question of how much and how else is the player rewarded in that session beyond binary victory.

 

[The Antitype]

Join in progress would not work in a Halo game. It is a game primarily of weapon and map control, it would be a case of joining games with no way of winning.

It works for Call of Duty and others because you can join at any time and still be on a level playing field. It's a bad solution to an even bigger problem, it would only make matters worse.

Quake 3 had join-in-progress and it worked fine, and it was every-bit the skill based, map control centric game that Halo is.

 

[Rickenslacker]

I would be willing to go out on a limb and say it has more of an emphasis on skill and map control than Halo does.

Join in progress always compromises your ability to win, so its a question of how much and how else is the player rewarded in that session beyond binary victory.

Frankie, let me make a personal appeal to you right here and now.

Please let me carry the flag and drive a vehicle at the same time in Halo 4.

I beg you.

 

[Chittagong]

I do not think a class system really benefits Halo. The charm is that all players are equal, and there is a race for the best weapons on each map. Getting the sword is a significant victory, and trying hold to it is part of the charm.


Back to the topic of Halo: Combat Evolved Aniversary - I'm blown away by how well the gamepay has (not) aged. Legendary makes every enounter meaningful unlike in any other game this side of Dark Souls. The combat, AI, scenarios, sandbox is so utterly brilliant that rarely is it exceeded even in 2011 games. Also love the visual updates, makes it tie in nicely with Reach. It's hard to remember how barren the original was - turning on Classic is always a revelation, especially outdoors. I do agree that it changes the mood a bit however.

Damn I love Halo. Just fix the MP for 4 and I play nothing but.

 

[Slightly Live]

Join in progress always compromises your ability to win, so its a question of how much and how else is the player rewarded in that session beyond binary victory.

I think you're right about rewards but punishment is also an important factor. Also, the consequence needs to be clearly communicated to player.

I think that's why there's a perceived dramatic increase in the amount of quitting in Reach compared side-by-side with Halo 3. Halo 3 had the edge over Reach in terms of both punishment, losing your numerical rank, and communicating the punishment to the player.

I actually think quitting would increase if drop-in was put into place as players would see quitting out as something the developers expected and planned for.

I would be willing to go out on a limb and say it has more of an emphasis on skill and map control than Halo does.

Frankie, let me make a personal appeal to you right here and now.

Please let me carry the flag and drive a vehicle at the same time in Halo 4.

I beg you.

You can already enable it for custom games. Enabling it in MM would negate the point of teamwork and co-operation.

 

[Jedeye Sniv]

So looking at this thread I think I might be the only person who got this for Unnecessary Present Day. Enjoying the shit out of it so far, and I'm finding myself super impressed with the graphical update and remembering how well this game plays. The simplicity of the overpowered AR (and the beefy bass sound it kicks out) is a joy to play with. In 3 and Reach the AR is my least used weapon, but in CE it's godly, I'm not missing the BR at all.

The graphics are fantastic too. I saw a lot of people poo-pooing it on release, but I think it's gorgeous. The lighting especially puts it in another league, it makes the game so much more pleasurable to play. In previous playthroughs (even when it originally came out on PC when I first played it) I choked down the bad lighting and ugly environments, but now it's a pleasure to play. Well done 343.

One issue I'm having is that the game will forget my controller settings when I start playing it which is weird, has anyone else come across this?