Jump to content
KurtiZ

Other than nostalgia, why do people like Halo 3?

Recommended Posts

So teamwork = teamshooting

 

that just hurt my brain a little

 

No obviously there is more to it. I was just commenting on one facet of teamwork in Halo

Share this post


Link to post

Can all we please stop using the "personal preference" cop out and actually talk about the game? Coming in and saying "I like X because that's my preference" is great and all, but I already knew that. I want to know why it's your preference.

 

Thanks to those who have given good answers so far :)

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Not exactly.  He's just been saying that it's inferior to H2 because it does affect game outcomes, which is why he would prefer H2 over H3.

 

 

It does not effect 1 person winning an individual BR battle.

 

10/10 times in a BR battle, the person who lost missed or a shot or the enemy ate a shot.

 

It's never because they both hit all 4 shots, but 1 bullet spread a little too far.

 

I'm not saying that there isn't a spread, or that said spread isn't RNG.

 

I am saying that the randomness does not have as great of an impact on the BR battle as you 2 wish it did.

 

If you lose said BR battle, it's because you missed.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

Not exactly.  He's just been saying that it's inferior to H2 because it does affect game outcomes, which is why he would prefer H2 over H3.

 

Well, like I stated earlier, this is an opinion and we won't change each others minds.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, like I stated earlier, this is an opinion and we won't change each others minds.

Probably not . . . and that's fine.

 

 

It does not effect 1 person winning an individual BR battle.

 

10/10 times in a BR battle, the person who lost missed or a shot or the enemy ate a shot.

 

It's never because they both hit all 4 shots, but 1 bullet spread a little too far.

 

I'm not saying that there isn't a spread, or that said spread isn't RNG.

 

I am saying that the randomness does not have as great of an impact on the BR battle as you 2 wish it did.

 

If you lose said BR battle, it's because you missed.

Based on the 40/60 split between 4SK and 5SK at only 33m (and on LAN, no less, so does not even include the effects of latency), your statement above cannot possibly be accurate.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

Probably not . . . and that's fine.

 

 

Based on the 40/60 split between 4SK and 5SK at only 33m (and on LAN, no less, so does not even include the effects of latency), your statement above cannot possibly be accurate.

 

 

Yes it is and I'm really ok with that.

 

 

 

You can't use that test as the basis for your argument.  That was 1 person shooting at a stationary target, zero degree of difficulty, zero chance of a shot missing because of the enemy strafe, zero chance of missing for failure to properly lead shots.  I will say it again, I recognize there is a random spread, but it's not the reason anyone loses a BR battle.  See my point?

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

Can all we please stop using the "personal preference" cop out and actually talk about the game? Coming in and saying "I like X because that's my preference" is great and all, but I already knew that. I want to know why it's your preference.

 

Thanks to those who have given good answers so far :)

I'm not sure what kind of answer you're looking for. 

 

I could go on and list the things Halo 3 did right and wrong after Halo 2, but it wouldn't really represent my preference. I could say i like maps; I don't really like any of the maps in Halo 2 after having experienced them again. I'm sure somebody could come in and say why the maps in Halo 2 are better designed than Halo 3's - and maybe i'd agree - but my experience has said otherwise. Perhaps it's because i don't like the base gameplay, or maybe it's the controls or graphics. Whatever the case, i just haven't liked playing Halo 2 compared to Halo 3. 

 

There really isn't a "why" in my case. I don't care for BRs on Coagulation or Sanctuary or Ivory Tower. It bores me. But throw on some Standoff or Avalanche CTF and I'm right at home. I'm not ignorant of the problems with the game - hell, those maps have pissed me off on occasion - but that preference is based on how often they bother me. Compared to the games before it, it's lower in Halo 3.  

 

Sometimes you like what you like. Maybe that's why Halo fans never agree with one another. 

Share this post


Link to post

Octagon gained a proper boost in Halo 3... Hell, a lot of people used it for fun rather than practice even...

 

EDIT: If this isn't "proper enough" I'm sorry, a contribution to practice is still a contribution.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm still waiting on someone to tell my why H3 was a better game core-gameplay wise. And for Jacob to actually make sense.

Share this post


Link to post

If you lose most of your BR battles, it's because you're missing more often than not.

I reckon this is a better way of putting what you're trying to get across?

 

@@Landonio. The title of the thread is "other than nostolgia, why do people like halo 3.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

There's a difference between something being difficult and something facilitating a skill gap. This applies to shooting in Halo - it's not so difficult in any of the games to be worth making such a big deal about. Yeah, there are aspects of shooting that are done better or worse across the series but overall anyone who has logged the amount of time into it that a lot of players here have will be quite comfortable in any of the games (possible exception being CE if you're unaware that the shooter's momentum also has to be taken into account when leading shots).

 

The Halo 3 aiming mechanics and spread fall into the category of making the game more difficult but not at the benefit of any kind of noteworthy skill gap (be realistic - the Halo 3 BR can't hold a candle to the H1 Pistol when it comes to increasing a skill gap and raising the skill ceiling despite the latter being easier if you go purely by the arguments that H3's grid aiming system & lower aim assist actually matter). It's artificial difficulty caused by a wonky aiming system, absurd spread, and poor registration. The result is mandated teamshooting. Which some people enjoy (and that's fine), but such a thing can easily be viewed as contrary to what Halo is by anyone who has played Halo 1 or even Halo 2 to some extent.

 

Consistency is another factor to consider - a difficult action that is inconsistent is, for the purposes of competitive gaming, less preferable than an easier action that is consistent. In terms of Halo the consistency varies a lot more than the difficult across titles and so that's why detractors of Halo 3 will constantly bring up the BR spread and shoddy melee system - the game does little to promote consistency at an individual level. The only way to make Halo 3 consistent is to play in such a way that these deficiencies don't matter. That is to say, to teamshoot better than the other team. Despite the supposedly more difficult shooting the game actually is less about shooting than it is about chemistry and team coordination.

 

The relentless limitations heaped on the individual by Halo 3 don't appeal to me personally, but it's not wrong to enjoy such gameplay. It's just mystifying to those of us who don't get it and so far nobody has really done a good job of explaining why they like such limitations without simply stating that it's a preference.

 

Anyway, interesting thread but the false correlation between difficulty and skill gap has been bothering me a lot so I felt that it should be brought up.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I'm still waiting on someone to tell my why H3 was a better game core-gameplay wise. And for Jacob to actually make sense.

i have done that but yes @@Stephander is right this is not meant to be which is a better game thread

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, let's let this debate turn into personal attacks, because you're so frustrated that I won't see it your way, even after telling you this.

 

Thumbs up

You're right, that was unnecessary and immature. I'm sorry.

 

Frustration is right, though I would say it's not like I'm expecting you to like the BR less, so I'm not trying to convince you in that sense. Not saying that makes it reasonable to get personal, just that it's not really based on what I think you're saying.

 

What I don't get is the same thing which prompted me to respond to that first post of yours. If you like the way the BR works overall and how that affects the game then, as you say, that's perfectly reasonable and it'd be pompous of anyone to try and push you another way. That's not what I'm trying to say.

 

That's not what I'm getting at when I dispute your position on how big of an impact the randomness has. I'm not saying "actually the randomness is a big deal *and so your opinion on the BR is wrong.*" How either of us quantify the difference it makes doesn't just magically undo you having used it and forming an opinion on it.

 

But I don't get why we can't call a spade a spade. For the style of play I prefer, and was promoted more by other titles in the Halo series (not a value judgement, just an observation), a difference of one shot more or less to kill at mid ranges being up to RNG is a pretty significant change. Basically, there's a difference between me telling you that you shouldn't like the BR (subjective opinion) and disputing this:

 

It does not effect 1 person winning an individual BR battle.

 

10/10 times in a BR battle, the person who lost missed or a shot or the enemy ate a shot.

 

It's never because they both hit all 4 shots, but 1 bullet spread a little too far.

 

I'm not saying that there isn't a spread, or that said spread isn't RNG.

 

I am saying that the randomness does not have as great of an impact on the BR battle as you 2 wish it did.

 

If you lose said BR battle, it's because you missed.

Because that is just objectively incorrect. That's a pretty good example of what I'm finding frustrating here, because you're essentially saying it's impossible for a player to hit a 4 shot (in terms of their aim, not what bullets actually hit) at range where it isn't guaranteed to kill even with perfect accuracy (because of spread). Having your STK going up or down by one as a dice roll even at mid range is going to affect outcomes. That's not a matter of opinion. And at high levels of play where being up or down a shot can make or break an encounter, and also in which even single encounters can be pretty influential to the tide of the game, it's a departure from the role of the utility weapon in the previous two games (even though they were quite different from one another, at least they shared a much higher degree of consistently achievable accuracy), what was gestured to a fair bit more in Reach, and strongly (if not completely) present again in H4.

 

Telling people that something doesn't have a real world effect, when we can objectively observe the randomness in effect with simple tests,just doesn't make sense. Let alone seeing it demonstrated by high level players and, tbh, a decent amount of experience should at least give an inkling even if you're not great, cause I'm sure as hell not but it's literally right there in front of me when I play. So perhaps this is a helpful question:

 

Say someone fires 6 shots at the range I was talking about earlier (30-35M), having hit 1 shot, then missed the 2nd, then hit the 3rd, 4th and 5th, then hit the 6th but the random nature of the spread meant not enough of the burst hit to give a 5 shot kill (this randomness is actually dispersed across all bursts that "hit"). When I say "hit" I mean their accuracy with the reticle itself was consistent over the duration of the burst. This is what is happening in the 6 shot instances I mentioned. Then they die rather than making the kill. In that instance, did they die because of randomness, or because they missed?

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Anyway, interesting thread but the false correlation between difficulty and skill gap has been bothering me a lot so I felt that it should be brought up.

Something that's often occurred to me when this comes up:

 

4v4 Shotty starts on Sandtrap would be harder to display skill in, but that doesn't mean it has a good skill gap.

 

Just like you say, directly equating the pretty vague term "harder" to an increased skill ceiling and curve doesn't really make sense. Making something harder by dropping the skill ceiling, rather than steepening the curve, is not of competitive benefit.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

No it was right on. Reach had the most sophisticated game type ever developed and its mm was the best. Today despite low pop you can still get into a game very fast and consistently.

but you can't get good matches consistently which is the same problem with mcc right now.

 

halo 3 works fine right now as well. if the playlist is 4v4, and there is 8 people searching, you will always find a match and fast. Same thing happens in reach, it's just there is no trueskill so its worse.

 

Last time I searched super slayer on reach, I couldn't find a match for reach and it was pre mcc. reach, halo3, halo2, and mcc can't make players appear out of thin air.

 

halo 3 has skill ranks, xp ranks, playlist xp ranks, a pseudo win/loss record, file share, better voting system, and varied playlists.

halo 2 had skill ranks and varied playlists

halo reach had xp ranks, win/loss record, and varied playlists.

 

also party chat wasnt at halo3's launch which made mm even more enjoyable. so many people with mics!

 

Hence halo3 mm>all

 

and one of the best part of halo 3's mm system is that I could click a player profile, and Bam! I have his high skill, his rank, and his win/loss! Then I click again and can see and browse all of his halo content

Share this post


Link to post
Stuff

 

Using Pegasi's actual in-game results and calculating the associated 90% confidence limit for miss rate, the miss rate due to spread at 33m at least 34% per shot.  Reworking the above example using those numbers yields:

 

No Spread:

 

You:  12

Him:  49

Ties:  39

 

Spread:

 

Your hit rate becomes 49.5% and your 4-shot rate becomes 6%.  His hit rate becomes 59% and his 4-shot rate becomes 12%.  This yields:

 

1.  You 4-shot 6 times.  This gives 1 tie and 5 wins to you.

2.  You 5-shot 47 times.  He beats you 6 times, ties you 24 times, and you win 17 times.

3.  You 6-shot 23 times.  He beats you 15 times, ties you 5 times, and you win 3 times.

4.  You 7-shot 12 times.  He beats you 10 times, you tie once, and you win once.

5.  You 8-shot 6 times.  He beats you 5 times and you tie once.

6.  You 9+ shot 6 times.  He beats you 6 times.

 

You:  26

Him:  42

Ties:  32

 

At 33m, you went from 12 wins to 26 due to the effects of spread alone.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

So in 100 1v1 encounters at only 20m, spread alone changed the outcome for two players of vastly different skill (32% vs. 66% 4SK capability) by 6.5 kills (0.5 because one of his victories became a tie).  The further apart the players are in skill, the larger this effect is (not the reverse).  Also, please note that if I used Pegasi's actual test results, more battles would have flipped because 0 instances of 4-shotting in 10 attempts yields a 90% chance that the actual 4-shot rate is less than 20% - which requires a per-shot miss rate of almost 40%.

The statistical impact is basically what I'm getting at, yeah. I would say there are some issues with the above numbers, though. First off my sample size isn't really significant, it was meant more as a talking point. Extrapolating it to percentages is only going to be so reliable. Plus shrinking the range down, but still using a 1-shot-difference value for randomness established at the longer (and more inconsistent, by our own logic) range, isn't a fair test. Even if you attempt to correct this value, we can only guess so much about how it scales from this tiny set of results.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Do u even read bro?

 

Saying that the H3 BR has a higher skill gap means that the outcome is more influenced by skill.  The outcome of the H3 BR - using your own words above - is less influenced by skill.  Also, I've said before that my biggest issue with the H3 BR was the ballistic rounds.  Doesn't matter how good you are at aiming if your shots evaporate.

 

And if aiming difficulty were the only thing that needed to be considered, why don't you list CE as the title requiring the least skill?  CE's aim assist puts the rest of the titles to shame.  Aiming is easiest in CE.  What CE lacked was H3's level of bullet magnetism:

 

Your assumption about H2 play is totally off-base and not at all what I said.  99% of H2 BR battles are not decided by first-come-first-shoot or teamshooting . . . teamshooting became a much larger part of the game in H3 because of the lesser effectiveness of the BR.  Strafing was a thing in H2, was it not?  Or is everyone except you having a mass hallucination about how effective H2 strafes were (especially when comparing to Reach/H4)?

 

If you haven't figured it out by now, just saying it was "harder" to aim in H3 than H2 is not the whole story, is it?  And that's without mentioning that aiming is not a BR characteristic . . . but spread and ballistic rounds areHere's the TL/DR:  The combination of aim assist, bullet magnetism, and BR characteristics in H2 generated a larger skill gap than the combination of those elements in H3.

 

Yeah.  I said exactly the same thing as you.

 

You're clearly not reading what I said.

 

The H3 BR has a higher AIMING skill gap (which you agreed with in your first reply to me) because between the TIERS of skill, the more skilled BR users will win. As I said, and which you reiterated, the problem is that between players of equal skill, luck becomes a much more pronounced factor.

 

I said 99% of BR battles where you can keep your reticle on the guy the whole time you will win. Obviously there is more at play, the battles don't exist in a vacuum. But if it's 1v1 in open space, whoever sees who first will win. Using the environment, melees and grenades are all part of other Haloes so I don't care about those things, I'm only talking about aim skill of the BRs.

 

Strafes are not effective enough in Halo 2. Back in 2005 when I was actually good at Halo 2 I would consider myself a choke artist if I didn't 4shot someone, including good players who could strafe well. The CQB battles were good because the strafe was more pronounced up close and there was BXR and the high jumping. But mid-range was a joke.

 

 

That video is stupid. The BR has random spread, so yeah if you aim a bit off one of the shots will spread and hit the player. That's not magnetism, that's spread. And yes, it will let bad players hit more bullets, I admit that. But I would still argue it takes more AIMING skill than H2 where there is tons of reticle and bullet magnetism, so much so that it's very hard to miss in H2.

 

 

Are you serious about H1? Yes it has high sticky aim but as you said the bullet mag is the lowest in the series, plus sticky aim isn't effective when you have to lead your shots and have to account for how your strafe affects bullets. In Halo 1 you will miss over 50% of your shots against good strafers. I honestly can't believe you think Halo 1 is the easiest to aim in and it discredits your position to say so as your opinion is born out of pure ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post

You're clearly not reading what I said.

The H3 BR has a higher AIMING skill gap (which you agreed with in your first reply to me) because between the TIERS of skill, the more skilled BR users will win. As I said, and which you reiterated, the problem is that between players of equal skill, luck becomes a much more pronounced factor.

I said 99% of BR battles where you can keep your reticle on the guy the whole time you will win. Obviously there is more at play, the battles don't exist in a vacuum. But if it's 1v1 in open space, whoever sees who first will win. Using the environment, melees and grenades are all part of other Haloes so I don't care about those things, I'm only talking about aim skill of the BRs.

 

Strafes are not effective enough in Halo 2. Back in 2005 when I was actually good at Halo 2 I would consider myself a choke artist if I didn't 4shot someone, including good players who could strafe well. The CQB battles were good because the strafe was more pronounced up close and there was BXR and the high jumping. But mid-range was a joke.

That video is stupid. The BR has random spread, so yeah if you aim a bit off one of the shots will spread and hit the player. That's not magnetism, that's spread. And yes, it will let bad players hit more bullets, I admit that. But I would still argue it takes more AIMING skill than H2 where there is tons of reticle and bullet magnetism, so much so that it's very hard to miss in H2.

 

 

Are you serious about H1? Yes it has high sticky aim but as you said the bullet mag is the lowest in the series, plus sticky aim isn't effective when you have to lead your shots and have to account for how your strafe affects bullets. In Halo 1 you will miss over 50% of your shots against good strafers. I honestly can't believe you think Halo 1 is the easiest to aim in and it discredits your position to say so as your opinion is born out of pure ignorance.

Lol. And you complain about me not being able to read. Go back and reread my post and see if I actually said what you think I said about CE. Hint: the whole point was to demonstrate that aiming alone does not determine the skill gap between titles. Nice dodge on the vid, too.

Share this post


Link to post

I bet if I spent all my time thinking about spread and randomness it would make me lose a lot of 1v1s in h3 too but like I said I never notice it at all. Maybe I'm just really, really lucky?

 

@@JaeTM You have to wonder don't you? Other than ____ 8 years later, why do so many people hate on halo 3? I think that would be a more interesting thread.

Share this post


Link to post

The statistical impact is basically what I'm getting at, yeah. I would say there are some issues with the above numbers, though. First off my sample size isn't really significant, it was meant more as a talking point. Extrapolating it to percentages is only going to be so reliable. Plus shrinking the range down, but still using a 1-shot-difference value for randomness established at the longer (and more inconsistent, by our own logic) range, isn't a fair test. Even if you attempt to correct this value, we can only guess so much about how it scales from this tiny set of results.

In order to ensure I wasn't overstating the impact, I used the 90% confidence limit, which conservatively adjusts the miss percentage based on sample size. Just using your raw data would have shown an even larger effect, which I think all of us would agree is unrealistic.

 

The subsequent post analyzes explicitly for the 33m range and the 90% confidence limit for miss rate. By the way, it is truly a conservative estimate, as it assumes that on average you should have had 2 four-shots, 6 five-shots, and 2 six-shots . . . which is very different from what you actually had.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

No.  I'm not trying to be difficult, either.

 

As range closes, spread has less of an effect on whether a shot will actually hit.  So at some point, what you say is true:  the spread will become irrelevant, and shots will miss based on aiming not on the BR mechanics.  But most BR battles don't occur at close range.  They occur at medium range.  33m is well within the range of most BR battles.  At that range, the 40/60 split in the non-moving state means that - just due to the factor of spread - the BR itself will force you to miss one shot in 60% of the cases and 2 shots in 40% of the cases regardless of your aiming skill*.  The other things - movement, latency, non-spread related hit registration issues - force yet more missed shots.

 

Let's say - given your aiming skill - you would normally miss 25% of your shots against opponent A due to his movement alone.  You will hit all 4 shots 31.6% of the time (0.75 ^ 4).

 

Let's say - given his aiming skill - he would normally miss 10% of his shots against you due to your strafe.  He will hit all 4 shots 65.6% of the time (0.9 ^ 4).

 

Based on skill alone, here are the outcomes for 100 1v1 battles:

 

1.  You will 4-shot 32 times.  In those 32 times, he will 4-shot 21 times.  This yields 21 simultaneous kills and 11 times you beat him.

2.  You will 5-shot 51 times (68 * 0.75).  In those 51 times, he will 4-shot you 33 times.  There will be 17 simultaneous kills.  You will beat him 1 time.

3.  You will 6-shot 13 times (17 * 0.75).  In those 13 times, he will 4-shot you 9 times.  He will 5-shot you 3 times (slightly less, but rounded).  There will be 1 tie.  You will not beat him (after rounding).

4.  You will 7-shot 4 times.  After rounding, he wins all 4.

 

Totals:

 

You:  12

Him:  49

Ties:  39

 

Now let's factor in a miss rate of 25% due to spread.  Based on Pegasi's test at 33m, there were no cases of a 4-shot - so this would be the effects of spread at a closer range - say 20m or so.  This means your hit rate in the above scenario becomes:  56.3% (0.75 * 0.75), and your 4-shot rate becomes 10% (56.3 ^ 4).  His become  67.5% and 21%, respectively.  Calculating the same probabilities:

 

1.  You 4-shot 10 times.  Of those 10 times, 7 are ties and you win 3.

2.  You 5-shot 51 times.  Of those 51 times, he 4-shots you 11 times, you tie 27 times, and you win 13 times.

3.  You 6-shot 22 times.  Of those 22 times, he 4-shots you 5 times, 5-shots you 11 times, you tie 4 times, and you win 2 times.

4.  You 7-shot 11 times.  Of those 11 times, he 4-shots you 2 times, 5-shots you 6 times, 6-shots you 2 times, and you tie once.

5.  You 8-shot (or more) 6 times.  Of those 6 times, he wins 5 and you tie once after rounding.

 

Totals:

 

You:  18

Him:  42

Tie:  40

 

So in 100 1v1 encounters at only 20m, spread alone changed the outcome for two players of vastly different skill (32% vs. 66% 4SK capability) by 6.5 kills (0.5 because one of his victories became a tie).  The further apart the players are in skill, the larger this effect is (not the reverse).  Also, please note that if I used Pegasi's actual test results, more battles would have flipped because 0 instances of 4-shotting in 10 attempts yields a 90% chance that the actual 4-shot rate is less than 20% - which requires a per-shot miss rate of almost 40%.

 

You are free to argue that this is - in your opinion - not a big deal.  That's an opinion, and you are free to have it.  However, stating that spread is not what causes people to lose BR battles is objectively false.

 

*Earlier I thought Pegasi's test showed 60% 4-shot and 40% 5-shot, but I misread.  It was 0% 4-shot, 60% 5-shot, and 40% 6-shot.

 

 

I just want to applaud this answer real quick. Honestly, this is awesome. This is exactly what I was trying to explain, but failing miserably in doing so.

 

Also, I would just like to add the fact that a single kill can affect the entire momentum of the game. When someone dies due to poor luck with the RNG, it is not just a single kill that is lost. I have seen countless times where loosing a single individual battle ended up getting all the other members of a team killed.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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