Jump to content

t3h m00kz

Member
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. sounds to me like you're just playing in the worst possible servers
  2. Seven months is a fairly big gap, but I wouldn't say it was much later in it's life. A huge feature like a full-fledged editing kit would take a long time to polish up for distribution. Honestly, they should have released with it from the start. PC: September 30, 2003 CE: March 15, 2004 It's true without a doubt a game should not be left broken and to rot. GB never fixed the issues in their netcode, and shame on them for it. Their patches never fixed any of the game breaking issues. The only patch that "fixed" anything was Bungie's 2014 patch to allow them to host the main server internally when Gamespy was going down. It's hard to say what the population would look like today if mods weren't in the picture. By turning off custom maps in the filter, the population right now is a bit smaller.
  3. there were tournaments back in the day, yes. nothing huge or official, but they existed. I knew multiple people who competed. even with it's flaws, the competitive community for PC in it's prime was fairly big. not nearly as big as H2 which was released same year and was the new hotness, but pretty big. these days, there's no real tournaments. I'd guess there's at least four or five servers that have people playing fairly seriously. you'll usually catch it in sniper servers and sometimes, more rarely, in standard slayer servers. no. H1 MCC at launch was a massive degradation from what PC offered stuck behind a monthly paywall and proprietary hardware. PC added features that positively affected the game's longevity. The game's been out since 2003, same year as H2 Xbox, and 1k+ people are still playing it daily. GB broke the game's tick rate (I.E. awkward spawn times, admittedly a pretty bad bug) and broke some visuals, but added actual official online multiplayer networking (albeit broken), user-hosted dedis, a server browser, etc etc, and most importantly, an editing kit packed with Bungie's development tools. by giving the users this kind of power and releasing it on an open platform like Windows, people like Stunt are able to rekindle a competitively viable experience and fix the game's issues. that's why I say the port is "decent." while the new features GB added are broken and new bugs were introduced, they've granted the users the power to mod in fixes/hack in fixes/work around them. comparatively, MCC at launch was nearly a 1:1 port of PC with some console features restored and PC features stripped out. they added new cosmetic features and restored non-binary walking speed and split-screen (with a broken FOV), but stripped out the server browser in favor of their then-broken matchmaking, stripped out any and all support for mods, and introduced warping and anti-aim because PC's netcode apparently doesn't support walking speeds. it wasn't until they started improving the network code and patching the matchmaking when the game offered something worthwhile PC didn't already offer. with each fix, new bugs cropped up. even now, it could still be improved upon. with the nature of the closed platform, users will never be able to fix the problems that exist in H1 MCC. for me, personally, if it came down to PC or MCC, I'll stick with PC
  4. To be fair, and to argue semantics a little bit, doesn't mean "great." It means playable. I did not use the word "great" or even "good" for a reason. Relative to other console-to-PC ports, it's far more playable than most. A "perfect" console-to-PC port rarely, if ever, happens. Technically speaking, as Halo 1 had no official online play, there was no online code for Gearbox to port. The deterministic networking used in the LAN code would not suffice for a shooter over the internet. You get one bad connection in a game of 16 on bloodgulch with all vehicles, and everybody lags and/or the game disconnects (or whatever happens in lockstep) as every client is carrying every other client's weight. It would be especially problematic during the then-current age of transitioning out of 56k. To resolve this they built an entirely new network infrastructure to handle this load. And it just so happened to be garbage. Why they did it makes sense, but their execution was terrible. This restoration project is not built around a "ported" feature, but rather the garbage online support Gearbox added. Unless of course you're referring to something entirely different when you use the word "port."
  5. As a part of the glorious PC Gaming Master Race, I can say for a console-to-PC port, Gearbox did a surprisingly decent job. If they hadn't, I wouldn't have been playing this game since it came out, and the community wouldn't be continuing support the game by adding new features and fixing it's issues. There have been some awful console-to-PC ports in the past, and CE isn't one of them. The functional, fairly bug-free unlocked framerate for example is a telling sign of a decent port. PC gamers expect a different experience than console gamers, and CE hits many of the marks. Admittedly, it isn't without it's issues. - differences in level geometry, - mouse acceleration on by default, - broken shaders - locked aspect ratio without the use of mods The online play is a mixed bag. On one hand, having a server browser, user-hosted dedis, UGC support backed by a powerful editing kit, and official support for online play AT ALL is fantastic. They've given more power to the users than you'd see in many console-to-PC ports these days. The game has 1k+ players online to this day during peak hours. On the other hand, it's clear they slapped in the online play without ironing out the kinks, in their words, "to support 56K connections." Vanilla networking makes me want to hang myself. Regardless of the community hacking in fixes, Gearbox's work on the networking was abysmal. To be honest, I'd say H2V had potential and could have continued to be alive to this day, but Microsoft destroyed it by locking it behind Games for Windows Live and Vista exclusivity, on top of some other, more minor bugs like tick-rate issues.
  6. that makes sense. off-host xbox is really wierd. xbox's networking is 99% lockstep/deterministic, a very simple, very basic form of networking. everything is delayed until everybody in the game agrees on what is happening. players' movements are delayed, inputs are delayed, it's heavy on network traffic as everything in-game is sent to all players, but the benefit is everything seen is the "truth." an exception to the delayed input is first person look input and aiming which is handled locally on each xbox. however if a player drags their reticule and fires, their shot will lag behind their reticule since their look is not synced to the server. halo 3 co-op, odst co-op and reach co-op use this system. you can get somewhat similar results running without the no-lead mod and ticking that "projectile appears server-side" flag we talked about, but it doesn't update properly and is visually broken. personally, for me, I think split-screen behavior is expected to be the golden standard. my opinion is lockstep networking is archaic and should never be referenced for gameplay, but rather referenced for visually showing everything that's happening in the game. host advantage is far too great, and bad connections are at a massive disadvantage. if anything, I would expect everybody to feel as if they are on equal terms to the host and lag is cleverly hidden, never interfering with the game.
  7. such a change is very easy - it's as simple as 0ing out the error fields in the pistol. however the goal of this mod is to be 1:1 with xbox behaviour, and a change like that would impact balance and would change the game.
  8. do you have any videos of this behaviour lying around anywhere confirming this, og xbox had the same spread as pc. there's always been a slight factor of randomness in longer-range pistol fights
  9. interesting. do you have any video examples of this difference? is this flag checked on the xbox projectiles? it's been a while since I've messed with it, but I believe this flag adds the velocity of the player on top of the projectile velocity. if you're strafing left and fire a plasma rifle with this flag checked, the bolt will shift left with your movements if it's not checked, there's something else going on. must be a difference in aim assist over the network or something can confirm. the game's old and, while it wasn't all that optimized for it's time, doesn't require crazy hardware to get really good framerates. I hit upwards of 650 fps on a GTX970 (mid tier of last year's line of nvidea cards). to touch on the tick rates, everything in the game except the player's first person movement and view seems to be locked at 30 -fx -object/character position updates -bullet travel time ticks -etc etc if a projectile's velocity is set to 60 world units a second, it will travel at 2 world units a tick for 30 ticks (MCC would do 1 world unit a tick for 60 ticks). I'm on a 144hz monitor, and player movement is somewhat noticeably jittery. it's noticeable but, in my opinion, it doesn't interfere with gameplay, and keeps the gameplay closer to og xbox. it's pretty clear gearbox couldn't be assed to deal with bugs when they ported CE. but honestly for a console port reliant on the game to run at 30 ticks a second, their method was smart and a good way to unlock the framerate without dealing with tick increase bugs. lazy and low-effort, but smart. halo online is locked at 60 FPS for everything and it pisses me off, because my pc should be able to handle much more late E: fixing image link
  10. There's a bit of a difference between rewriting a game's neatly organized source code vs. modders wading through compiled executables and hacking in fixes. 343 presumably has HPC source code, seeing as they own the franchise and have ported it to Xbone. Unfortunately the bundled PC Editing Kit is bound to the limitations of the compiled code. It's possible, yes, but would take some reverse engineering and injecting of new code. MCC (in the case of pistol/sniper at least): -Shot reg is entirely client-side/client-authoritative. Let's say you shoot at a guy on your screen. If you see your projectile impact, it will do damage regardless of connection, regardless of the spread RNG system. A system like this would be extremely bad for PC, as a hacker could easily modify their client to cheat. MCC also seems to have some serious issues with the auto-aim (bullet magnetism) and magnetism (sticky aim) systems which never got cleaned up. stunt-man's server: - Shot reg is server-side/server-authorative, with massive improvements made by modders and the community. first a crash-course in PC's netcode history. PC had absolutely terrible shot reg back in the day. You had to manually aim ahead based on your connection for your shots to land. Visual lies everywhere. The worse the connection you had, the more unplayable the game. Bungie/Gearbox patched a few things (presumably network tick rates), but the actual issues were never officially fixed. Vanilla PC shot reg (see ~2:55): Modders improved the shot registration by attempting to push other players' models forward based on ping to compensate for lag, removing the visual lie of player positions. Some servers opt out of this mod and run stock PC netcode which is dumb and I hate them. No-lead fix: The problem with this fix being, RNG (such as weapon spread) runs separately on the server and clients, and you can visually see shots hit on your client that miss on the server, doing no damage. Improved, but some visual lies still exist. Stunt-man's servers use the no-lead mod, as well as a few client-side fixes (pretty hacky but very cleverly made, I've looked at the tags). A projectile impact effect will appear on the enemy, but only if the shot hits server-side and does damage. There's some latency before the effect appears, but you can clearly tell when a shot registers. It's very similar to how CS:GO handles things. There are a few very minor visual lies compared to a client-authorative shot system, but it's pretty damn hacker-proof (a trade-off well worth having), and "plays" more or less the same as a client-authorative system would, and feels incredible. Plus it doesn't have all of the aim assist bugs present in MCC. E: Grabbed a video of Stunt Man's FX fix on 100 ping, fixing youtube links:
  11. 360 degree movement would be nice yes, but I believe it may cause more problems that would need to be fixed as a result. the anti-aim bug in MCC for example seemed to be directly linked to walking and moving in directions that were not WASD. a common exploit was performing small, miniscule movements to throw people's aim off with anti-aim. MCC was a port of PC and it's networking (albeit gradually tweaked overtime), so PC's networking presumably wouldn't support anything besides WASD movement. I could be wrong, but it wouldn't surprise me. still, better movement would be really nice.
  12. I'm down to throw down 25 at the very least, though this fix would be worth much, much more. I very much encourage people to consider donating to this... his fix will be huge. the physics warping bug is the biggest, most outstanding, most annoying issue with PC at the moment by far
  13. stunt and I tested, I got it working. it's a small tweak to altis' syncronized effects. we'll be testing it with more people soon. here's a rundown of the functionality
  14. I would need you to send me the most up do date weapon tags you're currently using, with the serverside fx fix. I'll be able to hook something up then. it shouldn't be too hard. it would just be a new damage_effect tag playing along side the serverside impact fx. it would need some over-the-network testing, of course
  15. Doublepost, but for good reason. Stunt, I wanted to pitch an idea your way and see what you think. I have a basic idea of how to improve descope, but I'm not certain how well it will work in practice. When a projectile impacts a player and produces the server-side impact effect upon hitting spartan shields/spartan armor, have it generate an AOE damage_effect of about 0.5-1 world unit and 0 damage (or something really low if 0 doesn't cause descope). In theory, whenever the impact effect plays, it generates an invisible server-side AOE that's big enough to hit the player on their client and cause a descope. This won't entirely fix it, but it may improve it. Potential issues would be descoping other players within the AOE radius, and players with higher pings might be able to move out of the way of the AOE. Here's a visualization: whaddaya think
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.