Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo: The Master Chief Collection

Hit Detection is unacceptable for competitive play

OP THE qrunt

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3
Hexor wrote:
Hexor wrote:
Halo 3 wasn't nearly as bad online as Halo 2 was (I played both quite a bit). Host advantage was much stronger in Halo 2 as well. I agree that the bullet refunding, blood shots, etc was very frustrating.

Idiolectic wrote:
See, you'd think I'd pull host all day, ya'know with Gigabit internet being a thing... But no, I rarely pull host. It's upsetting when it's P2P, and people are lagging all about because the host is streaming Netflix, Youtube, Twitch, and a Twitter feed on seven different tablets. Meh, at least I get on dedi's consistently.

These games released exactly how they are now, when they released then. Halo 3 was a laggy pile, Halo 2 was a laggy pile, Halo CE was a laggy pile, Halo 4 was a laggy pile. They always had lag, especially refunding, there's nothing to do about it, this is what people wanted, but that's what rose colored glasses do to you. Everyone remembers these games working perfectly, but some of my fondest memories in Halo 2 was watching people get pissed at the lag-- it was funny.

In all reality however, the games do need work on their netcoding. There's no excuse for how it is, even if this is how it originally was. People expected perfect gameplay, but sorry to break it to you, dedicated servers aren't a magical box that makes it so there's no issues. They need to take the time to completely gut the netcode, and rewrite it-- And that's going to take a considerable amount of time, especially when taking into account that there's currently five separate games, all running on different engines, all working on separate servers, whilst using different code. It's hard, tedious work, that needs to be done.
no, halo 2 did not release in 2004 the way it is on MCC. when halo 2 originally released on xbox, it would take like 5 melees to kill someone, grenades were much weaker, and the BR was as bad as halo 3's. MCC's version is obviously Halo 2 Vista, complete with its notoriously awful hit detection. as for halo 3, it always sucked online. sluggish, poor hit detection, useless sniper.
Have you watched snipedown or any pro play online with a sniper? Hardly useless. Hit detection was easily good enough to play, but was poor enough that if the host was bad, then shots were so hard to hit. People that say the comments you did about either are parroting other people that hate the game, or never was good enough or played enough to experience competitive halo (MLG Playlist).
Did you actually just say host advantage was stronger on a client-side hit detection game than on a server-side hit detection game? LOL. Halo 3 is terrible to play online. The hit detection is awful and about as good as GOW 1 hit-detection. Having host on Halo 3 makes me twice as good because my shots actually hit my opponents. I'll average a 1.5 K/D off-host but I've yet to have under a 3.0 K/D game while host on Halo 3. I don't think Walshy wasn't good either.
COuld you link me to where Walshy said H3 sniper was useless? Keep busy with that :)

ANd you mustnt have played H2 online much then. I woudl take host in H2 over host in H3 anyday of the week. H2 host was the biggest advantage of any halo game... ever. Reasons include an automatic 4 shot BR cros map, winning every BxB and BxR fight, and the melee system is set up so that the host always wins. Go try team swords or a boxing game against the host... you will never win. Now... none of the above is true for Halo 3, and I played through most of my professional Halo 3 career offhost online. Was it frustrating wen the host was way over on the west coast? Yes. But was it worst than Halo 2? not at all.
Well if the hit detection is terrible, that applies to the sniper. So I already gave you the link. :)

I've played a ton of Halo 2 games online and know how the system works very well.

Halo 2 host wins if both players melee at the exact same time. But that happens so rarely it's almost a nonfactor. We're talking about a third of a blink in time. If you're always meleeing the host at the same time within 100 ms, you deserve to lose. Unless you're bad at Halo, this might impact maybe 1 kill a game. In Halo 3, if it's even remotely close, you just trade kills. This isn't a better solution because you end up trading a lot more often than you should have. The shooting advantage with host in Halo 3 is far more significant than it is in Halo 2. In Halo 2 it's an ever so slight improvement, a lot of times not even noticeable unless at extremely far distances. In Halo 3, at any distance besides close range, it's night and day.
Just no. It hurts my head just imagining a world where what you say is true. Halo 2 host is way more noticeable. I out BR the host in H3 all the time. In Halo 2, if i see host 1v1, i disengage because if they are med or far- they win br figt easy. If they are close, they win every melee or BxB or BxR. ANd that crap above about "only exact same time mellee host wins", news flash- most players will punch at the same time at close range after a br fight. Host is always 100 ms ahead due to ping.... have you ever played on a tv with a 30 or 40 ms response rate? now double or triple that and that is how delayed your punches are.
Hexor wrote:
Hexor wrote:
Halo 3 wasn't nearly as bad online as Halo 2 was (I played both quite a bit). Host advantage was much stronger in Halo 2 as well. I agree that the bullet refunding, blood shots, etc was very frustrating.

Idiolectic wrote:
See, you'd think I'd pull host all day, ya'know with Gigabit internet being a thing... But no, I rarely pull host. It's upsetting when it's P2P, and people are lagging all about because the host is streaming Netflix, Youtube, Twitch, and a Twitter feed on seven different tablets. Meh, at least I get on dedi's consistently.

These games released exactly how they are now, when they released then. Halo 3 was a laggy pile, Halo 2 was a laggy pile, Halo CE was a laggy pile, Halo 4 was a laggy pile. They always had lag, especially refunding, there's nothing to do about it, this is what people wanted, but that's what rose colored glasses do to you. Everyone remembers these games working perfectly, but some of my fondest memories in Halo 2 was watching people get pissed at the lag-- it was funny.

In all reality however, the games do need work on their netcoding. There's no excuse for how it is, even if this is how it originally was. People expected perfect gameplay, but sorry to break it to you, dedicated servers aren't a magical box that makes it so there's no issues. They need to take the time to completely gut the netcode, and rewrite it-- And that's going to take a considerable amount of time, especially when taking into account that there's currently five separate games, all running on different engines, all working on separate servers, whilst using different code. It's hard, tedious work, that needs to be done.
no, halo 2 did not release in 2004 the way it is on MCC. when halo 2 originally released on xbox, it would take like 5 melees to kill someone, grenades were much weaker, and the BR was as bad as halo 3's. MCC's version is obviously Halo 2 Vista, complete with its notoriously awful hit detection. as for halo 3, it always sucked online. sluggish, poor hit detection, useless sniper.
Have you watched snipedown or any pro play online with a sniper? Hardly useless. Hit detection was easily good enough to play, but was poor enough that if the host was bad, then shots were so hard to hit. People that say the comments you did about either are parroting other people that hate the game, or never was good enough or played enough to experience competitive halo (MLG Playlist).
Did you actually just say host advantage was stronger on a client-side hit detection game than on a server-side hit detection game? LOL. Halo 3 is terrible to play online. The hit detection is awful and about as good as GOW 1 hit-detection. Having host on Halo 3 makes me twice as good because my shots actually hit my opponents. I'll average a 1.5 K/D off-host but I've yet to have under a 3.0 K/D game while host on Halo 3. I don't think Walshy wasn't good either.
COuld you link me to where Walshy said H3 sniper was useless? Keep busy with that :)

ANd you mustnt have played H2 online much then. I woudl take host in H2 over host in H3 anyday of the week. H2 host was the biggest advantage of any halo game... ever. Reasons include an automatic 4 shot BR cros map, winning every BxB and BxR fight, and the melee system is set up so that the host always wins. Go try team swords or a boxing game against the host... you will never win. Now... none of the above is true for Halo 3, and I played through most of my professional Halo 3 career offhost online. Was it frustrating wen the host was way over on the west coast? Yes. But was it worst than Halo 2? not at all.
Well if the hit detection is terrible, that applies to the sniper. So I already gave you the link. :)

I've played a ton of Halo 2 games online and know how the system works very well.

Halo 2 host wins if both players melee at the exact same time. But that happens so rarely it's almost a nonfactor. We're talking about a third of a blink in time. If you're always meleeing the host at the same time within 100 ms, you deserve to lose. Unless you're bad at Halo, this might impact maybe 1 kill a game. In Halo 3, if it's even remotely close, you just trade kills. This isn't a better solution because you end up trading a lot more often than you should have. The shooting advantage with host in Halo 3 is far more significant than it is in Halo 2. In Halo 2 it's an ever so slight improvement, a lot of times not even noticeable unless at extremely far distances. In Halo 3, at any distance besides close range, it's night and day.
Just no. It hurts my head just imagining a world where what you say is true. Halo 2 host is way more noticeable. I out BR the host in H3 all the time. In Halo 2, if i see host 1v1, i disengage because if they are med or far- they win br figt easy. If they are close, they win every melee or BxB or BxR. ANd that crap above about "only exact same time mellee host wins", news flash- most players will punch at the same time at close range after a br fight. Host is always 100 ms ahead due to ping.... have you ever played on a tv with a 30 or 40 ms response rate? now double or triple that and that is how delayed your punches are.
If you want to be ignorant that's fine with me. The average blink and response time for humans is ~300 ms. If you think a 60-100 ms melee advantage, which again is 1/5-1/3 the human reaction and blink time is more advantageous than being able to consistently land BR & Sniper shots without having to have an additional, random latency lead, then there's no arguing with you. I'll accept that you're wrong and your opinion can't be swayed.
The arguments on here are the pettiest I've ever seen.
Please fix this and please don't let the enemy have host, ty amen.
Yup. The game still has major issues. I have actually thrown 2 grenades at once in H3 before. Hopefully they are fixing all of this at the same time they are getting ranks out.
Hexor wrote:
Hexor wrote:
Hexor wrote:
Halo 3 wasn't nearly as bad online as Halo 2 was (I played both quite a bit). Host advantage was much stronger in Halo 2 as well. I agree that the bullet refunding, blood shots, etc was very frustrating.

Idiolectic wrote:
See, you'd think I'd pull host all day, ya'know with Gigabit internet being a thing... But no, I rarely pull host. It's upsetting when it's P2P, and people are lagging all about because the host is streaming Netflix, Youtube, Twitch, and a Twitter feed on seven different tablets. Meh, at least I get on dedi's consistently.

These games released exactly how they are now, when they released then. Halo 3 was a laggy pile, Halo 2 was a laggy pile, Halo CE was a laggy pile, Halo 4 was a laggy pile. They always had lag, especially refunding, there's nothing to do about it, this is what people wanted, but that's what rose colored glasses do to you. Everyone remembers these games working perfectly, but some of my fondest memories in Halo 2 was watching people get pissed at the lag-- it was funny.

In all reality however, the games do need work on their netcoding. There's no excuse for how it is, even if this is how it originally was. People expected perfect gameplay, but sorry to break it to you, dedicated servers aren't a magical box that makes it so there's no issues. They need to take the time to completely gut the netcode, and rewrite it-- And that's going to take a considerable amount of time, especially when taking into account that there's currently five separate games, all running on different engines, all working on separate servers, whilst using different code. It's hard, tedious work, that needs to be done.
no, halo 2 did not release in 2004 the way it is on MCC. when halo 2 originally released on xbox, it would take like 5 melees to kill someone, grenades were much weaker, and the BR was as bad as halo 3's. MCC's version is obviously Halo 2 Vista, complete with its notoriously awful hit detection. as for halo 3, it always sucked online. sluggish, poor hit detection, useless sniper.
Have you watched snipedown or any pro play online with a sniper? Hardly useless. Hit detection was easily good enough to play, but was poor enough that if the host was bad, then shots were so hard to hit. People that say the comments you did about either are parroting other people that hate the game, or never was good enough or played enough to experience competitive halo (MLG Playlist).
Did you actually just say host advantage was stronger on a client-side hit detection game than on a server-side hit detection game? LOL. Halo 3 is terrible to play online. The hit detection is awful and about as good as GOW 1 hit-detection. Having host on Halo 3 makes me twice as good because my shots actually hit my opponents. I'll average a 1.5 K/D off-host but I've yet to have under a 3.0 K/D game while host on Halo 3. I don't think Walshy wasn't good either.
COuld you link me to where Walshy said H3 sniper was useless? Keep busy with that :)

ANd you mustnt have played H2 online much then. I woudl take host in H2 over host in H3 anyday of the week. H2 host was the biggest advantage of any halo game... ever. Reasons include an automatic 4 shot BR cros map, winning every BxB and BxR fight, and the melee system is set up so that the host always wins. Go try team swords or a boxing game against the host... you will never win. Now... none of the above is true for Halo 3, and I played through most of my professional Halo 3 career offhost online. Was it frustrating wen the host was way over on the west coast? Yes. But was it worst than Halo 2? not at all.
Well if the hit detection is terrible, that applies to the sniper. So I already gave you the link. :)

I've played a ton of Halo 2 games online and know how the system works very well.

Halo 2 host wins if both players melee at the exact same time. But that happens so rarely it's almost a nonfactor. We're talking about a third of a blink in time. If you're always meleeing the host at the same time within 100 ms, you deserve to lose. Unless you're bad at Halo, this might impact maybe 1 kill a game. In Halo 3, if it's even remotely close, you just trade kills. This isn't a better solution because you end up trading a lot more often than you should have. The shooting advantage with host in Halo 3 is far more significant than it is in Halo 2. In Halo 2 it's an ever so slight improvement, a lot of times not even noticeable unless at extremely far distances. In Halo 3, at any distance besides close range, it's night and day.
Just no. It hurts my head just imagining a world where what you say is true. Halo 2 host is way more noticeable. I out BR the host in H3 all the time. In Halo 2, if i see host 1v1, i disengage because if they are med or far- they win br figt easy. If they are close, they win every melee or BxB or BxR. ANd that crap above about "only exact same time mellee host wins", news flash- most players will punch at the same time at close range after a br fight. Host is always 100 ms ahead due to ping.... have you ever played on a tv with a 30 or 40 ms response rate? now double or triple that and that is how delayed your punches are.
If you want to be ignorant that's fine with me. The average blink and response time for humans is ~300 ms. If you think a 60-100 ms melee advantage, which again is 1/5-1/3 the human reaction and blink time is more advantageous than being able to consistently land BR & Sniper shots without having to have an additional, random latency lead, then there's no arguing with you. I'll accept that you're wrong and your opinion can't be swayed.
LOL im guessing you havent played on a 50 ms response rate tv? GO try and then come back. You clearly know nothing. Nice debating, but i feel like im reasoning with a 1st grader.

peace.
Halo 3 wasn't nearly as bad online as Halo 2 was (I played both quite a bit). Host advantage was much stronger in Halo 2 as well. I agree that the bullet refunding, blood shots, etc was very frustrating.

Idiolectic wrote:
See, you'd think I'd pull host all day, ya'know with Gigabit internet being a thing... But no, I rarely pull host. It's upsetting when it's P2P, and people are lagging all about because the host is streaming Netflix, Youtube, Twitch, and a Twitter feed on seven different tablets. Meh, at least I get on dedi's consistently.

These games released exactly how they are now, when they released then. Halo 3 was a laggy pile, Halo 2 was a laggy pile, Halo CE was a laggy pile, Halo 4 was a laggy pile. They always had lag, especially refunding, there's nothing to do about it, this is what people wanted, but that's what rose colored glasses do to you. Everyone remembers these games working perfectly, but some of my fondest memories in Halo 2 was watching people get pissed at the lag-- it was funny.

In all reality however, the games do need work on their netcoding. There's no excuse for how it is, even if this is how it originally was. People expected perfect gameplay, but sorry to break it to you, dedicated servers aren't a magical box that makes it so there's no issues. They need to take the time to completely gut the netcode, and rewrite it-- And that's going to take a considerable amount of time, especially when taking into account that there's currently five separate games, all running on different engines, all working on separate servers, whilst using different code. It's hard, tedious work, that needs to be done.
no, halo 2 did not release in 2004 the way it is on MCC. when halo 2 originally released on xbox, it would take like 5 melees to kill someone, grenades were much weaker, and the BR was as bad as halo 3's. MCC's version is obviously Halo 2 Vista, complete with its notoriously awful hit detection. as for halo 3, it always sucked online. sluggish, poor hit detection, useless sniper.
Have you watched snipedown or any pro play online with a sniper? Hardly useless. Hit detection was easily good enough to play, but was poor enough that if the host was bad, then shots were so hard to hit. People that say the comments you did about either are parroting other people that hate the game, or never was good enough or played enough to experience competitive halo (MLG Playlist).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHsmcgIE3Rg
lol i went to youtube, typed snipedown halo 3 picked the 4th or 5th video down and watched it. in the first minute i see him miss a shot, miss a head shot then die. Respawns, comes across opponent using the snipe who is easily dispatched. He dies, on deathcam we see no one has picked up the snipe from the previous kill but we do see an opponent trying (and failing) to get a kill with a snipe. Next instance of a snipe is around 1:39 we see someone completely miss a snipe shot, then another miss around 2:03. Snipedown gets the snipe again around 2:45 then proceeds to get a body shot, miss a long range no scope, get another body shot and then completely miss two wide open shots...then proceeds to miss several wide open br shots. got tired of watching at that point.

this is all within 3 mins and 30 seconds and with one of the best players in the world so if that's competitive then yea i'm good on that. i also noticed that in a map with TWO SNIPER RIFLES, i never once saw it say "x player sniped y player". i'm not parroting anything, i speak from my own experiences. when h3 came out i was in love because hey, it was a next gen halo game. took maybe a month tops before i just couldn't lie to myself any more. it never felt right and never felt as smooth or responsive as Halo 2. that being said, i still enjoy halo 3 and think it's a great game so there you go.
Hexor wrote:
Hexor wrote:
Hexor wrote:
Halo 3 wasn't nearly as bad online as Halo 2 was (I played both quite a bit). Host advantage was much stronger in Halo 2 as well. I agree that the bullet refunding, blood shots, etc was very frustrating.

Idiolectic wrote:
See, you'd think I'd pull host all day, ya'know with Gigabit internet being a thing... But no, I rarely pull host. It's upsetting when it's P2P, and people are lagging all about because the host is streaming Netflix, Youtube, Twitch, and a Twitter feed on seven different tablets. Meh, at least I get on dedi's consistently.

These games released exactly how they are now, when they released then. Halo 3 was a laggy pile, Halo 2 was a laggy pile, Halo CE was a laggy pile, Halo 4 was a laggy pile. They always had lag, especially refunding, there's nothing to do about it, this is what people wanted, but that's what rose colored glasses do to you. Everyone remembers these games working perfectly, but some of my fondest memories in Halo 2 was watching people get pissed at the lag-- it was funny.

In all reality however, the games do need work on their netcoding. There's no excuse for how it is, even if this is how it originally was. People expected perfect gameplay, but sorry to break it to you, dedicated servers aren't a magical box that makes it so there's no issues. They need to take the time to completely gut the netcode, and rewrite it-- And that's going to take a considerable amount of time, especially when taking into account that there's currently five separate games, all running on different engines, all working on separate servers, whilst using different code. It's hard, tedious work, that needs to be done.
no, halo 2 did not release in 2004 the way it is on MCC. when halo 2 originally released on xbox, it would take like 5 melees to kill someone, grenades were much weaker, and the BR was as bad as halo 3's. MCC's version is obviously Halo 2 Vista, complete with its notoriously awful hit detection. as for halo 3, it always sucked online. sluggish, poor hit detection, useless sniper.
Have you watched snipedown or any pro play online with a sniper? Hardly useless. Hit detection was easily good enough to play, but was poor enough that if the host was bad, then shots were so hard to hit. People that say the comments you did about either are parroting other people that hate the game, or never was good enough or played enough to experience competitive halo (MLG Playlist).
Did you actually just say host advantage was stronger on a client-side hit detection game than on a server-side hit detection game? LOL. Halo 3 is terrible to play online. The hit detection is awful and about as good as GOW 1 hit-detection. Having host on Halo 3 makes me twice as good because my shots actually hit my opponents. I'll average a 1.5 K/D off-host but I've yet to have under a 3.0 K/D game while host on Halo 3. I don't think Walshy wasn't good either.
COuld you link me to where Walshy said H3 sniper was useless? Keep busy with that :)

ANd you mustnt have played H2 online much then. I woudl take host in H2 over host in H3 anyday of the week. H2 host was the biggest advantage of any halo game... ever. Reasons include an automatic 4 shot BR cros map, winning every BxB and BxR fight, and the melee system is set up so that the host always wins. Go try team swords or a boxing game against the host... you will never win. Now... none of the above is true for Halo 3, and I played through most of my professional Halo 3 career offhost online. Was it frustrating wen the host was way over on the west coast? Yes. But was it worst than Halo 2? not at all.
Well if the hit detection is terrible, that applies to the sniper. So I already gave you the link. :)

I've played a ton of Halo 2 games online and know how the system works very well.

Halo 2 host wins if both players melee at the exact same time. But that happens so rarely it's almost a nonfactor. We're talking about a third of a blink in time. If you're always meleeing the host at the same time within 100 ms, you deserve to lose. Unless you're bad at Halo, this might impact maybe 1 kill a game. In Halo 3, if it's even remotely close, you just trade kills. This isn't a better solution because you end up trading a lot more often than you should have. The shooting advantage with host in Halo 3 is far more significant than it is in Halo 2. In Halo 2 it's an ever so slight improvement, a lot of times not even noticeable unless at extremely far distances. In Halo 3, at any distance besides close range, it's night and day.
Just no. It hurts my head just imagining a world where what you say is true. Halo 2 host is way more noticeable. I out BR the host in H3 all the time. In Halo 2, if i see host 1v1, i disengage because if they are med or far- they win br figt easy. If they are close, they win every melee or BxB or BxR. ANd that crap above about "only exact same time mellee host wins", news flash- most players will punch at the same time at close range after a br fight. Host is always 100 ms ahead due to ping.... have you ever played on a tv with a 30 or 40 ms response rate? now double or triple that and that is how delayed your punches are.
If you want to be ignorant that's fine with me. The average blink and response time for humans is ~300 ms. If you think a 60-100 ms melee advantage, which again is 1/5-1/3 the human reaction and blink time is more advantageous than being able to consistently land BR & Sniper shots without having to have an additional, random latency lead, then there's no arguing with you. I'll accept that you're wrong and your opinion can't be swayed.
The 300ms reaction is from a visual stimulus that you react to. It's a hand-eye test from seeing the dot change color, the sensory informations going to your brain, and then the motor message going from your brain, to your hand---a hand eye response to a randomly timed stimulus.

Timing your melees is a completely different matter. In this case you are seeing the stimulus coming towards you, and you specifically time the motor response based on learning the timing of melee engagements. If you had a countdown 5,4,3,2,1 *push the button* I guarantee you it would be less then 30ms. Yes 30, not 300.

i agree with you otherwise man! But that reaction time value is not the same as timing your melee to something you know is coming! 300ms would be more accurate from turning your view away from slender man in that weak horror game.
Hexor wrote:
Hexor wrote:
Hexor wrote:
Halo 3 wasn't nearly as bad online as Halo 2 was (I played both quite a bit). Host advantage was much stronger in Halo 2 as well. I agree that the bullet refunding, blood shots, etc was very frustrating.

Idiolectic wrote:
See, you'd think I'd pull host all day, ya'know with Gigabit internet being a thing... But no, I rarely pull host. It's upsetting when it's P2P, and people are lagging all about because the host is streaming Netflix, Youtube, Twitch, and a Twitter feed on seven different tablets. Meh, at least I get on dedi's consistently.

These games released exactly how they are now, when they released then. Halo 3 was a laggy pile, Halo 2 was a laggy pile, Halo CE was a laggy pile, Halo 4 was a laggy pile. They always had lag, especially refunding, there's nothing to do about it, this is what people wanted, but that's what rose colored glasses do to you. Everyone remembers these games working perfectly, but some of my fondest memories in Halo 2 was watching people get pissed at the lag-- it was funny.

In all reality however, the games do need work on their netcoding. There's no excuse for how it is, even if this is how it originally was. People expected perfect gameplay, but sorry to break it to you, dedicated servers aren't a magical box that makes it so there's no issues. They need to take the time to completely gut the netcode, and rewrite it-- And that's going to take a considerable amount of time, especially when taking into account that there's currently five separate games, all running on different engines, all working on separate servers, whilst using different code. It's hard, tedious work, that needs to be done.
no, halo 2 did not release in 2004 the way it is on MCC. when halo 2 originally released on xbox, it would take like 5 melees to kill someone, grenades were much weaker, and the BR was as bad as halo 3's. MCC's version is obviously Halo 2 Vista, complete with its notoriously awful hit detection. as for halo 3, it always sucked online. sluggish, poor hit detection, useless sniper.
Have you watched snipedown or any pro play online with a sniper? Hardly useless. Hit detection was easily good enough to play, but was poor enough that if the host was bad, then shots were so hard to hit. People that say the comments you did about either are parroting other people that hate the game, or never was good enough or played enough to experience competitive halo (MLG Playlist).
Did you actually just say host advantage was stronger on a client-side hit detection game than on a server-side hit detection game? LOL. Halo 3 is terrible to play online. The hit detection is awful and about as good as GOW 1 hit-detection. Having host on Halo 3 makes me twice as good because my shots actually hit my opponents. I'll average a 1.5 K/D off-host but I've yet to have under a 3.0 K/D game while host on Halo 3. I don't think Walshy wasn't good either.
COuld you link me to where Walshy said H3 sniper was useless? Keep busy with that :)

ANd you mustnt have played H2 online much then. I woudl take host in H2 over host in H3 anyday of the week. H2 host was the biggest advantage of any halo game... ever. Reasons include an automatic 4 shot BR cros map, winning every BxB and BxR fight, and the melee system is set up so that the host always wins. Go try team swords or a boxing game against the host... you will never win. Now... none of the above is true for Halo 3, and I played through most of my professional Halo 3 career offhost online. Was it frustrating wen the host was way over on the west coast? Yes. But was it worst than Halo 2? not at all.
Well if the hit detection is terrible, that applies to the sniper. So I already gave you the link. :)

I've played a ton of Halo 2 games online and know how the system works very well.

Halo 2 host wins if both players melee at the exact same time. But that happens so rarely it's almost a nonfactor. We're talking about a third of a blink in time. If you're always meleeing the host at the same time within 100 ms, you deserve to lose. Unless you're bad at Halo, this might impact maybe 1 kill a game. In Halo 3, if it's even remotely close, you just trade kills. This isn't a better solution because you end up trading a lot more often than you should have. The shooting advantage with host in Halo 3 is far more significant than it is in Halo 2. In Halo 2 it's an ever so slight improvement, a lot of times not even noticeable unless at extremely far distances. In Halo 3, at any distance besides close range, it's night and day.
Just no. It hurts my head just imagining a world where what you say is true. Halo 2 host is way more noticeable. I out BR the host in H3 all the time. In Halo 2, if i see host 1v1, i disengage because if they are med or far- they win br figt easy. If they are close, they win every melee or BxB or BxR. ANd that crap above about "only exact same time mellee host wins", news flash- most players will punch at the same time at close range after a br fight. Host is always 100 ms ahead due to ping.... have you ever played on a tv with a 30 or 40 ms response rate? now double or triple that and that is how delayed your punches are.
If you want to be ignorant that's fine with me. The average blink and response time for humans is ~300 ms. If you think a 60-100 ms melee advantage, which again is 1/5-1/3 the human reaction and blink time is more advantageous than being able to consistently land BR & Sniper shots without having to have an additional, random latency lead, then there's no arguing with you. I'll accept that you're wrong and your opinion can't be swayed.
LOL im guessing you havent played on a 50 ms response rate tv? GO try and then come back. You clearly know nothing. Nice debating, but i feel like im reasoning with a 1st grader.

peace.
There's a difference in your melee being sent to the host with 50 ms latency and having what's on your screen be behind by 50 ms. If you can't tell the difference I don't even know why you're bringing it up.
Hexor wrote:
Hexor wrote:
Hexor wrote:
Halo 3 wasn't nearly as bad online as Halo 2 was (I played both quite a bit). Host advantage was much stronger in Halo 2 as well. I agree that the bullet refunding, blood shots, etc was very frustrating.

Idiolectic wrote:
See, you'd think I'd pull host all day, ya'know with Gigabit internet being a thing... But no, I rarely pull host. It's upsetting when it's P2P, and people are lagging all about because the host is streaming Netflix, Youtube, Twitch, and a Twitter feed on seven different tablets. Meh, at least I get on dedi's consistently.

These games released exactly how they are now, when they released then. Halo 3 was a laggy pile, Halo 2 was a laggy pile, Halo CE was a laggy pile, Halo 4 was a laggy pile. They always had lag, especially refunding, there's nothing to do about it, this is what people wanted, but that's what rose colored glasses do to you. Everyone remembers these games working perfectly, but some of my fondest memories in Halo 2 was watching people get pissed at the lag-- it was funny.

In all reality however, the games do need work on their netcoding. There's no excuse for how it is, even if this is how it originally was. People expected perfect gameplay, but sorry to break it to you, dedicated servers aren't a magical box that makes it so there's no issues. They need to take the time to completely gut the netcode, and rewrite it-- And that's going to take a considerable amount of time, especially when taking into account that there's currently five separate games, all running on different engines, all working on separate servers, whilst using different code. It's hard, tedious work, that needs to be done.
no, halo 2 did not release in 2004 the way it is on MCC. when halo 2 originally released on xbox, it would take like 5 melees to kill someone, grenades were much weaker, and the BR was as bad as halo 3's. MCC's version is obviously Halo 2 Vista, complete with its notoriously awful hit detection. as for halo 3, it always sucked online. sluggish, poor hit detection, useless sniper.
Have you watched snipedown or any pro play online with a sniper? Hardly useless. Hit detection was easily good enough to play, but was poor enough that if the host was bad, then shots were so hard to hit. People that say the comments you did about either are parroting other people that hate the game, or never was good enough or played enough to experience competitive halo (MLG Playlist).
Did you actually just say host advantage was stronger on a client-side hit detection game than on a server-side hit detection game? LOL. Halo 3 is terrible to play online. The hit detection is awful and about as good as GOW 1 hit-detection. Having host on Halo 3 makes me twice as good because my shots actually hit my opponents. I'll average a 1.5 K/D off-host but I've yet to have under a 3.0 K/D game while host on Halo 3. I don't think Walshy wasn't good either.
COuld you link me to where Walshy said H3 sniper was useless? Keep busy with that :)

ANd you mustnt have played H2 online much then. I woudl take host in H2 over host in H3 anyday of the week. H2 host was the biggest advantage of any halo game... ever. Reasons include an automatic 4 shot BR cros map, winning every BxB and BxR fight, and the melee system is set up so that the host always wins. Go try team swords or a boxing game against the host... you will never win. Now... none of the above is true for Halo 3, and I played through most of my professional Halo 3 career offhost online. Was it frustrating wen the host was way over on the west coast? Yes. But was it worst than Halo 2? not at all.
Well if the hit detection is terrible, that applies to the sniper. So I already gave you the link. :)

I've played a ton of Halo 2 games online and know how the system works very well.

Halo 2 host wins if both players melee at the exact same time. But that happens so rarely it's almost a nonfactor. We're talking about a third of a blink in time. If you're always meleeing the host at the same time within 100 ms, you deserve to lose. Unless you're bad at Halo, this might impact maybe 1 kill a game. In Halo 3, if it's even remotely close, you just trade kills. This isn't a better solution because you end up trading a lot more often than you should have. The shooting advantage with host in Halo 3 is far more significant than it is in Halo 2. In Halo 2 it's an ever so slight improvement, a lot of times not even noticeable unless at extremely far distances. In Halo 3, at any distance besides close range, it's night and day.
Just no. It hurts my head just imagining a world where what you say is true. Halo 2 host is way more noticeable. I out BR the host in H3 all the time. In Halo 2, if i see host 1v1, i disengage because if they are med or far- they win br figt easy. If they are close, they win every melee or BxB or BxR. ANd that crap above about "only exact same time mellee host wins", news flash- most players will punch at the same time at close range after a br fight. Host is always 100 ms ahead due to ping.... have you ever played on a tv with a 30 or 40 ms response rate? now double or triple that and that is how delayed your punches are.
If you want to be ignorant that's fine with me. The average blink and response time for humans is ~300 ms. If you think a 60-100 ms melee advantage, which again is 1/5-1/3 the human reaction and blink time is more advantageous than being able to consistently land BR & Sniper shots without having to have an additional, random latency lead, then there's no arguing with you. I'll accept that you're wrong and your opinion can't be swayed.
The 300ms reaction is from a visual stimulus that you react to. It's a hand-eye test from seeing the dot change color, the sensory informations going to your brain, and then the motor message going from your brain, to your hand---a hand eye response to a randomly times stimulus.

Timing your melees is a completely different matter. In this case you are seeing the stimulus coming towards you, and you specifically time the motor response based on learning the timing. If you had a countdown 5,4,3,2,1 *push the button* I guarantee you it would be less then 30ms.

i agree with you otherwise man! But that reaction time value is not the same as timing your melee to something you know is coming! 300ms would be more accurate from turning your view away from slender man in that weak horror game.
It's not exactly the same but it's very similar. You can predict when the melee range is coming up but you generally don't lunge until you see that you're within melee distance on your screen. This is the dot changing color. You could anticipate the countdown until you're within melee distance but this is harder to do an more unreliable because your opponent might jump or back away at the last frame (plus you're probably shooting them and focusing on that). Using the sword is a more relatable scenario. You don't lunge until you see your reticle turns red.
For what it's worth, I'm really glad you brought up the bullet refunding as a measure of messed up networking. I used to get frustrated that my br shots weren't counting, and why my br would have only 1 or two bullets in the last shot (instead of 3) before I reload or shoot my last shot. I wasn't even aware of refunding.

i now go into theater after particularly rough games and slo mo through my shots to see that, yes, about 30% of my shots are refunded.

On another note, I watched Roy play today around 11am est. I saw his br going off mainly in chunks of 3, with at least 1 or two bullets being refunded each encounter... But I would also see the bullets being taken away... As if he was firing 4-5 per burst which I found odd. I am NOT saying he is bad, clearly he is at the top right now. But god, if I had a consistent network connection like his, I wouldn't really ever log off! Hahaha. We can only hope net neutrality improves our nation's network (probs won't though). South Korea is so wired that it's like playing on LAN. I blame half of it on 343 and half on ISP's. My advice... Don't sweat it too much. Ranks will make the games more fair when things spread out in a month. It's not your rank but how much fun you have playing that counts!
OP sums it up perfectly. Even Halo CE (which seems the best out of the 4) still feels "off." Halo 3 is downright unplayable and good luck trying to get a consistent snipe shot on H2C....This collection is pathetic 6 months later. Seems like it should have been released late 2015 or early 2016. Rushed product that will never be "exactly how we remember"
For what it's worth, while I understand the passion behind the Halo 2 / Halo 3 argument going on above, the main point of this post was not to rank exactly which games are worse or better in terms of hit detection off-host; that was just a way to help prioritize issues. The main point is that there is a desperate need for improvement in terms of netcode and hit registration in the collection as a whole. I think we can all agree that Halo 2 and Halo 3 both perform very poorly online in their own unique ways, regardless of which one might be "worse."
Added two more clips I captured tonight. One is a Halo 3 pistol battle ruined by bad hit detection, and the other is a decent clip I got of some potential issues with Halo 1's pistol at medium range.
i don't know how to f with reddit but i tried to put these up on your post there but i'll put them here as well:
this shows the sniper and br both being pretty much worthless at somewhat of a range, i wouldn't even consider long range at all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYF42HtJiyk

H3 sniper inconsistency:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbeS2FuaFg8

H2C BR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEn-ULSEgtY

H2A i think this is bullet refunding? this is a new concept to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip_tJA1O_hI
Hexor wrote:
Hexor wrote:
Halo 3 wasn't nearly as bad online as Halo 2 was (I played both quite a bit). Host advantage was much stronger in Halo 2 as well. I agree that the bullet refunding, blood shots, etc was very frustrating.

Idiolectic wrote:
See, you'd think I'd pull host all day, ya'know with Gigabit internet being a thing... But no, I rarely pull host. It's upsetting when it's P2P, and people are lagging all about because the host is streaming Netflix, Youtube, Twitch, and a Twitter feed on seven different tablets. Meh, at least I get on dedi's consistently.

These games released exactly how they are now, when they released then. Halo 3 was a laggy pile, Halo 2 was a laggy pile, Halo CE was a laggy pile, Halo 4 was a laggy pile. They always had lag, especially refunding, there's nothing to do about it, this is what people wanted, but that's what rose colored glasses do to you. Everyone remembers these games working perfectly, but some of my fondest memories in Halo 2 was watching people get pissed at the lag-- it was funny.

In all reality however, the games do need work on their netcoding. There's no excuse for how it is, even if this is how it originally was. People expected perfect gameplay, but sorry to break it to you, dedicated servers aren't a magical box that makes it so there's no issues. They need to take the time to completely gut the netcode, and rewrite it-- And that's going to take a considerable amount of time, especially when taking into account that there's currently five separate games, all running on different engines, all working on separate servers, whilst using different code. It's hard, tedious work, that needs to be done.
no, halo 2 did not release in 2004 the way it is on MCC. when halo 2 originally released on xbox, it would take like 5 melees to kill someone, grenades were much weaker, and the BR was as bad as halo 3's. MCC's version is obviously Halo 2 Vista, complete with its notoriously awful hit detection. as for halo 3, it always sucked online. sluggish, poor hit detection, useless sniper.
Have you watched snipedown or any pro play online with a sniper? Hardly useless. Hit detection was easily good enough to play, but was poor enough that if the host was bad, then shots were so hard to hit. People that say the comments you did about either are parroting other people that hate the game, or never was good enough or played enough to experience competitive halo (MLG Playlist).
Did you actually just say host advantage was stronger on a client-side hit detection game than on a server-side hit detection game? LOL. Halo 3 is terrible to play online. The hit detection is awful and about as good as GOW 1 hit-detection. Having host on Halo 3 makes me twice as good because my shots actually hit my opponents. I'll average a 1.5 K/D off-host but I've yet to have under a 3.0 K/D game while host on Halo 3. I don't think Walshy wasn't good either.
COuld you link me to where Walshy said H3 sniper was useless? Keep busy with that :)

ANd you mustnt have played H2 online much then. I woudl take host in H2 over host in H3 anyday of the week. H2 host was the biggest advantage of any halo game... ever. Reasons include an automatic 4 shot BR cros map, winning every BxB and BxR fight, and the melee system is set up so that the host always wins. Go try team swords or a boxing game against the host... you will never win. Now... none of the above is true for Halo 3, and I played through most of my professional Halo 3 career offhost online. Was it frustrating wen the host was way over on the west coast? Yes. But was it worst than Halo 2? not at all.
Well if the hit detection is terrible, that applies to the sniper. So I already gave you the link. :)

I've played a ton of Halo 2 games online and know how the system works very well.

Halo 2 host wins if both players melee at the exact same time. But that happens so rarely it's almost a nonfactor. We're talking about a third of a blink in time. If you're always meleeing the host at the same time within 100 ms, you deserve to lose. Unless you're bad at Halo, this might impact maybe 1 kill a game. In Halo 3, if it's even remotely close, you just trade kills. This isn't a better solution because you end up trading a lot more often than you should have. The shooting advantage with host in Halo 3 is far more significant than it is in Halo 2. In Halo 2 it's an ever so slight improvement, a lot of times not even noticeable unless at extremely far distances. In Halo 3, at any distance besides close range, it's night and day.
Just no. It hurts my head just imagining a world where what you say is true. Halo 2 host is way more noticeable. I out BR the host in H3 all the time. In Halo 2, if i see host 1v1, i disengage because if they are med or far- they win br figt easy. If they are close, they win every melee or BxB or BxR. ANd that crap above about "only exact same time mellee host wins", news flash- most players will punch at the same time at close range after a br fight. Host is always 100 ms ahead due to ping.... have you ever played on a tv with a 30 or 40 ms response rate? now double or triple that and that is how delayed your punches are.
I followed competitive Halo pretty closely throughout H2 and H3 and I've never heard of you. So stop proclaiming yourself as a pro player. If the Sudds aren't pros, you aren't a pro, random.
Personally the only game that gives me any issues is Halo 2 anniversary. I cannot 4 shot for the life of me.

Halo 2 classic I'm fine with. Unless it's a long range BR fight, I feel like the hit detection is a bit off then, but it could just be that I'm missing.

Halo3? Has always had bad detection, especially when you take into account the projectile system they used, plus every game you play having different levels of lag therefor requiring you to lead shots on a different basis.

Keep in mind I never got the hang of the BR in Halo 3. I was still playing halo 2 more than 3, so It could be just bc I suck.

Halo 4? Have played like 5 games of that trash, so can't comment.

I do feel like there is some hit detection issues, butTttttttt it's no where near as bad when the game first came out, Halo 2 classic was unplayable off host pre March update. I could literally watch bullets not registering in close quarter BR fights.
i don't know how to f with reddit but i tried to put these up on your post there but i'll put them here as well:
this shows the sniper and br both being pretty much worthless at somewhat of a range, i wouldn't even consider long range at all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYF42HtJiyk

H3 sniper inconsistency:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbeS2FuaFg8

H2C BR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEn-ULSEgtY

H2A i think this is bullet refunding? this is a new concept to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip_tJA1O_hI
Thank you for the videos. I added them to the reddit thread, and I also added three more Halo 3 clips I got today. Please, if anyone else has more videos of this stuff, post them and I will continue to add them.
My only issue was playing Halo three and Halo two classic. Halo three is hit text send along with Halo two's are beyond playable and ruins the experience altogether. The only games that I have very high success rates with his Halo CE, halo 2 anniversary, and halo 4. Those three games I rarely have any issues with.
H2A is where I see most of my bullets not registering. I have a 10MB upload speed so it's not an internet issue. I have not played much H2 classic yet so no idea if it's just as bad, but for me personally H2A i see a lot of fights where I will put 3 bursts into someone's body and then do the headshot and their shields won't even pop.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3