yah bono here Posted September 29, 2011 Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 ladies and gentlemen, please express your opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MightyLordRay Posted September 29, 2011 Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 No certain one person should ever host a game. Bungie's good connection option in halo reach is flawed beyond reason. The game should be about skill, and not about having the best connection. I'm sure many of you are aware of "lag switchers, aka standby users." What about "laggers, aka lag bast****?" We have too many people playing halo with horrible speeds that everyone must deal with. It's hurting everyone. Aren't you tired of playing a slow matchmaking game? If you are, then vote for open hosting. Also, one of the best things that 343 could do is setup servers exclusively for each area...midwest, eastcoast, west coast, ect. Then the servers could connect to either each other, or parenting servers. This way the options for good connection could mean something, and one could easily decide to play with people in his/her corresponding area. Sick of lag Out 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectral Jester Posted September 29, 2011 Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 Ypu get this a lot in Grifball, being based in the Uk, Grifball is fune during the daytme here, when its mainly Uk players then when USA wakes up the games get laggy as hell, for me the search restrictions dont seem to do anything at all except slow down the searching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MightyLordRay Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 There doesn't seem to be anyway that 343 can undo the connection and server mess that bungie left for Halo Reach. With a new title, however I think 343 can really shine, because arguably the worst thing to happen to halo is lag/slow downs ect. Microsoft should have several vantage points that can be used to combat this situation. 343 if you are listening...the best thing you can do for the future of halo is give everyone a fighting chance. Give everyone the chance to optimal in game connection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhearfuI Posted November 5, 2011 Report Share Posted November 5, 2011 We need the servers to be like H3. With a ranking system so that the players that want to have fun (Social) and for the more competitive players (Ranked) to give them the challenge they deserve. The idea of quitting out and someone replacing you is absurd. Unless it is only for specific Social playlist otherwise the majority of the competitive halo players will move on to a better game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sneakylilchief Posted August 15, 2012 Report Share Posted August 15, 2012 No certain one person should ever host a game. Bungie's good connection option in halo reach is flawed beyond reason. The game should be about skill, and not about having the best connection. I'm sure many of you are aware of "lag switchers, aka standby users." What about "laggers, aka lag bast****?" We have too many people playing halo with horrible speeds that everyone must deal with. It's hurting everyone. Aren't you tired of playing a slow matchmaking game? If you are, then vote for open hosting. Also, one of the best things that 343 could do is setup servers exclusively for each area...midwest, eastcoast, west coast, ect. Then the servers could connect to either each other, or parenting servers. This way the options for good connection could mean something, and one could easily decide to play with people in his/her corresponding area. Sick of lag Out well they did make the option of filtering your search methods. like finding people with similar skill, but it would take longer. better connection as well those kinda things Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liot Posted August 15, 2012 Report Share Posted August 15, 2012 We need the servers to be like H3. With a ranking system so that the players that want to have fun (Social) and for the more competitive players (Ranked) to give them the challenge they deserve. The idea of quitting out and someone replacing you is absurd. Unless it is only for specific Social playlist otherwise the majority of the competitive halo players will move on to a better game. Precisely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoctorB77 Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 I am ok with players joining servers on 2 conditions. 1) The person that joins the game is around the same skill level of the person who left. 2) You have the option not to join games in progress. Just lobbies like before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Wolf Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 Halo: Reach has much less lag. I don't care for the idea of join in progress. I've liked that each game of Halo is a commitment. Of course, I understand that a lot of players think nothing of this, and leave at the drop of a hat. I don't care for the idea for 4v4, but I think it could save BTB. As it stands, BTB can become a downright bore when everyone starts leaving, and there's still 20 minutes on the clock. And BTB is more of a just for fun cluster**** anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gundamatrix Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 I liked the fact that in halo you are never thrown into a match where you're team is losing heavily or a match where the game is about to end. It made the game much fairer on the player and didn't punish them for no reason. However i did find lag a huge issue. I am biased towards halo 3 and so i would say i prefer that system much more. Thats just me though, i have a rather low opinion of Halo: Reach as a whole.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinreaper Posted August 27, 2012 Report Share Posted August 27, 2012 There is always going to be lag. You can't control a numerous amounts of things that can and usually do, result in a laggy match. 1. Other household members internet usage. 2. ISP throttling 3. Router incorrectly configured for port forwarding, opening NAT (not everyone is a wiz) 4. High bandwidth usage among customers on the same ISP service 5. Out of region party members/players. These are just a few. Having a dedicated server to delegate out as host, does not take away the amount of lag you will experience. Remember, a dedicated server is still a pc running an OS, and because of this, the CPU threads and affinity status can change depending on the tech maintaining it, or requirements outside the LIVE code...aka updates, comms to other servers, server data offloading, etc... The best way to handle it yes is to have a large company put money into fresh servers, but at what cost is Microsoft willing to go? I posted before the average size of a gaming server room, and some the specs I believe. Now unless M$ wants to spend around 5 million dollars on just servers + pay additional techs to service them, it ain't gonna happen and we will be stuck using partitioned off Reach data collection servers for Halo 4. Or we may see the Halo 3 servers re serviced and used instead. Not sure which is likely to happen, but it will happen one way or another. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1kkie Posted August 30, 2012 Report Share Posted August 30, 2012 - I would prefer dedicated servers, and was great during CS big time, but that will probably never happen. - A better way to limit the search of players in matchmaking. I live in Sweden and I don't want to be matched to people outside Europe. If the host becomes outside Europe there will be to much lagg for me to enjoy the game. - We need to be able to see our latency during game time. Kind of a big deal to see what our delay is so you can adjust your play style accordingly. These bar-thing doesn't say anything. Never seems to work in any Halo game. - To be able to join a game in session is not good imo. The player that joins have no clue when powerweopens spawn, where opponents is located and might be thrown in a game where the team is losing badly. Its just not fair. For me the reach server system has been much better then Halo 3. I experienced much more lagg in Halo 3 then in Reach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarknessX03 Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 I am ok with players joining servers on 2 conditions. 1) The person that joins the game is around the same skill level of the person who left. 2) You have the option not to join games in progress. Just lobbies like before. I totally agree with this. I wouldn't want to join a game already in progress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sneakylilchief Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 the ranking systems were equally cool for me, since i tend to lean on and off between them, but the servers i definietly liked reach's more because say an example would be multiple choices of map selection instead of vetoing a map, definietly helps for things such as much specific achievements. and they already confirmed there is a "drop in and drop out" feature in matchmaking, but they made it work so its all good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IxNFCTxLEGEND Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 I don't think it should be open joining exspecially for games like infection and grifball. Infection because they would quit as zombies and join back as humans and grifball because if theyre about to score and you need every person to take out grif but someone leaves they score and you lose 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.