I bought Reach recently and have been playing Matchmaking non-stop, however I just played a game of Living Dead where I got a Bulltrue on a zombie and was still killed.
I thought the purpose of getting the Bulltrue medal was when you killed a player while they were lunging, therefore the person with the sword should die and not get a kill.
Why can you get a Bulltrue and still die?
Some stupid design decision by Bungie. The only way to get a Bulltrue and survive is to immediately melee right after shotting to initiate a sword block. And depending on how low your shields/health is, you still might die regardless.
> Some stupid design decision by Bungie. The only way to get a Bulltrue and survive is to immediately melee right after shotting to initiate a sword block. And depending on how low your shields/health is, you still might die regardless.
So for Bungies’ last game they decided to be lazy?
> > Some stupid design decision by Bungie. The only way to get a Bulltrue and survive is to immediately melee right after shotting to initiate a sword block. And depending on how low your shields/health is, you still might die regardless.
>
> So for Bungies’ last game they decided to be lazy?
I’d say that for their last Halo game, Bungie decided to do what they think is right and completely ignore the lessons they learned in H:CE, H2, and H3. At least for some things.
I know its so stupid when that happens, its just another thing that bungie did wrong and did not fix. I hope that 343i can clean up bungies mess that they call Halo
People need to understand what this actually does.
It isn’t ‘some stupid design’, nor is it unfair if you die.
I’ve gone through this plenty of times on other Forums, so I’ll keep it simple:
It’s a lag counter, first off. If the Shotgun guy shoots the Sword guy at an ideal range before they get hit by the lunge, they should kill them, right? If the Sword user has Host or the Host is in favour of the Sword guy rather than the Shotgun guy, the Shotgun blast will almost certainly not work, and the Shotgun guy will be cheated out of the kill and weapon.
If the Shotgun guy has Host, or the Host favours the Shotgun guy, the Sword guy will lunge, hit you, and not be rewarded.
In Reach:
The Shotgun guy’s Xbox ensures that they are rewarded for what they did.
The Sword guy’s Sxbox ensures that they are rewarded for what they did.
They then check with the Host AFTER THIS HAPPENS, and the “correct” course of action is chosen. This DOES take lag into account, and means that whoever Host does not favour in this situation is rewarded with a Kill they would have gotten had Host favoured them or not been a factor.
It doesn’t prevent them dying, but for each player to get a kill and die (Reach) is fairer than for the one Host favours to get the kill, survive, and for the other player to get nothing, through no fault of their own (all other games, to my knowledge).
Does it seem stupid?
I’m sure it does, for those who consistently play on Host advantage (you not being the Host but it still favouring you applies in exactly the same way), but you must recognise how annoying it is for those you have an unfair advantage against.
Does it annoy you when your typically green bar self plays on long-distance Host? Of course it does. I’ve been through 10, 000 games in worse lag, I know what it’s like. This solution means that the disadvantage you’re surprisingly facing for once isn’t as strong as it has been in the past, and is therefore less annoying.
I don’t like being killed when it seems clear I should have survived, but online Matchmaking is a game of two people on two separate 360’s and connections, and both sides MUST be taken into account.
Lastly, I hate to tell everyone to bury an ‘issue’ and forget about it, but this is not an issue: it’s a solution. You must realise that you play against other people and both of you must be taken into consideration.
Bury this, forget about it. Accept it. It shouldn’t change, because it isn’t a problem but a solution.
Hope it’s now clear as to why getting a Bulltrue and dying is not a problem.
> People need to understand what this actually does.
>
> It isn’t ‘some stupid design’, nor is it unfair if you die.
>
> I’ve gone through this plenty of times on other Forums, so I’ll keep it simple:
>
> It’s a lag counter, first off. If the Shotgun guy shoots the Sword guy at an ideal range before they get hit by the lunge, they should kill them, right? If the Sword user has Host or the Host is in favour of the Sword guy rather than the Shotgun guy, the Shotgun blast will almost certainly not work, and the Shotgun guy will be cheated out of the kill and weapon.
>
> If the Shotgun guy has Host, or the Host favours the Shotgun guy, the Sword guy will lunge, hit you, and not be rewarded.
> _________
>
> In Reach:
>
> The Shotgun guy’s Xbox ensures that they are rewarded for what they did.
> The Sword guy’s Sxbox ensures that they are rewarded for what they did.
>
> They then check with the Host AFTER THIS HAPPENS, and the “correct” course of action is chosen. This DOES take lag into account, and means that whoever Host does not favour in this situation is rewarded with a Kill they would have gotten had Host favoured them or not been a factor.
>
> It doesn’t prevent them dying, but for each player to get a kill and die (Reach) is fairer than for the one Host favours to get the kill, survive, and for the other player to get nothing, through no fault of their own (all other games, to my knowledge).
> _________
>
> Does it seem stupid?
>
> I’m sure it does, for those who consistently play on Host advantage (you not being the Host but it still favouring you applies in exactly the same way), but you must recognise how annoying it is for those you have an unfair advantage against.
>
> Does it annoy you when your typically green bar self plays on long-distance Host? Of course it does. I’ve been through 10, 000 games in worse lag, I know what it’s like. This solution means that the disadvantage you’re surprisingly facing for once isn’t as strong as it has been in the past, and is therefore less annoying.
> _________
>
> I don’t like being killed when it seems clear I should have survived, but online Matchmaking is a game of two people on two separate 360’s and connections, and both sides MUST be taken into account.
>
> Lastly, I hate to tell everyone to bury an ‘issue’ and forget about it, but this is not an issue: it’s a solution. You must realise that you play against other people and both of you must be taken into consideration.
>
> Bury this, forget about it. Accept it. It shouldn’t change, because it isn’t a problem but a solution.
>
> Hope it’s now clear as to why getting a Bulltrue and dying is not a problem.
How can it be a lag problem if this hasn’t happened on any other Halo game?
> How can it be a lag problem if this hasn’t happened on any other Halo game?
Wanna know why? Because the only other game it’s been in is Halo 3. Reach has new netcode, and differs from Halo 3’s.
Therefore, lag problem.
> > People need to understand what this actually does.
> >
> > It isn’t ‘some stupid design’, nor is it unfair if you die.
> >
> > I’ve gone through this plenty of times on other Forums, so I’ll keep it simple:
> >
> > It’s a lag counter, first off. If the Shotgun guy shoots the Sword guy at an ideal range before they get hit by the lunge, they should kill them, right? If the Sword user has Host or the Host is in favour of the Sword guy rather than the Shotgun guy, the Shotgun blast will almost certainly not work, and the Shotgun guy will be cheated out of the kill and weapon.
> >
> > If the Shotgun guy has Host, or the Host favours the Shotgun guy, the Sword guy will lunge, hit you, and not be rewarded.
> > _________
> >
> > In Reach:
> >
> > The Shotgun guy’s Xbox ensures that they are rewarded for what they did.
> > The Sword guy’s Sxbox ensures that they are rewarded for what they did.
> >
> > They then check with the Host AFTER THIS HAPPENS, and the “correct” course of action is chosen. This DOES take lag into account, and means that whoever Host does not favour in this situation is rewarded with a Kill they would have gotten had Host favoured them or not been a factor.
> >
> > It doesn’t prevent them dying, but for each player to get a kill and die (Reach) is fairer than for the one Host favours to get the kill, survive, and for the other player to get nothing, through no fault of their own (all other games, to my knowledge).
> > _________
> >
> > Does it seem stupid?
> >
> > I’m sure it does, for those who consistently play on Host advantage (you not being the Host but it still favouring you applies in exactly the same way), but you must recognise how annoying it is for those you have an unfair advantage against.
> >
> > Does it annoy you when your typically green bar self plays on long-distance Host? Of course it does. I’ve been through 10, 000 games in worse lag, I know what it’s like. This solution means that the disadvantage you’re surprisingly facing for once isn’t as strong as it has been in the past, and is therefore less annoying.
> > _________
> >
> > I don’t like being killed when it seems clear I should have survived, but online Matchmaking is a game of two people on two separate 360’s and connections, and both sides MUST be taken into account.
> >
> > Lastly, I hate to tell everyone to bury an ‘issue’ and forget about it, but this is not an issue: it’s a solution. You must realise that you play against other people and both of you must be taken into consideration.
> >
> > Bury this, forget about it. Accept it. It shouldn’t change, because it isn’t a problem but a solution.
> >
> > Hope it’s now clear as to why getting a Bulltrue and dying is not a problem.
>
> How can it be a lag problem if this hasn’t happened on any other Halo game?
More to the point, how can it be a lag problem if this keeps happening even in 1-on-1 split-screen custom games?
And no matter what you think, Bob, that IS a design flaw. Why award me a medal for killing an opponent who’s about to get me when I die regardless? This wasn’t how it worked in H2. This also wasn’t how it worked in H3. And considering all the other questionable design decisions and bugs, I’m 100% convinced that this isn’t as it should work in Reach.
It really wouldn’t suprise me if Bungie just kept this bug in the game and declared it a new feature. “Don’t want to fix a bug? Pretend that was on purpose.”
> How can it be a lag problem if this hasn’t happened on any other Halo game?
It isn’t a lag problem, it’s the visible result of a system designed to counteract the effect lag has in this situation.
It WAS a problem in all other Halo games: If I’m from Australia and it’s your American Host, for example:
I hit you with the Sword on my screen, then you Shotgun me on my screen.
OR.
You lunge at me, I shotgun you midway through the lunge. I should have killed you, according to my screen, but instead you walk right through it and kill me.
Now, it’s important to realise that even though I ‘should have’ killed you, on your screen you probably would have hit me too, even had I killed you, simply because of the time it takes any signal to reach the other given the distance between our 360’s.
With this new system, it takes into account both the first example and it being inherently unfair, given that both our screens could very easily show us hitting (and otherwise killing) the other player.
I think that should help to explain but I apologise if it doesn’t really help.
> > How can it be a lag problem if this hasn’t happened on any other Halo game?
>
> It isn’t a lag problem, it’s the visible result of a system designed to counteract the effect lag has in this situation.
>
> It WAS a problem in all other Halo games: If I’m from Australia and it’s your American Host, for example:
>
> I hit you with the Sword on my screen, then you Shotgun me on my screen.
>
> OR.
>
> You lunge at me, I shotgun you midway through the lunge. I should have killed you, according to my screen, but instead you walk right through it and kill me.
> __________
>
> Now, it’s important to realise that even though I ‘should have’ killed you, on your screen you probably would have hit me too, even had I killed you, simply because of the time it takes any signal to reach the other given the distance between our 360’s.
> __________
>
> With this new system, it takes into account both the first example and it being inherently unfair, given that both our screens could very easily show us hitting (and otherwise killing) the other player.
>
> I think that should help to explain but I apologise if it doesn’t really help.
That implies it only happens in games with bad connection. Yet it also happens to me in games with no noticable lag.
> More to the point, how can it be a lag problem if this keeps happening even in 1-on-1 split-screen custom games?
I can’t say why it happens in split-screen games, because if the Shotgun guy is CLEARLY far enough away from the Sword guy for it to be a guaranteed, safe kill, the game shouldn’t allow a dead player to move and hit the Shotgun guy.
There is no lag to deal with there, so I have no explanation for that. You’d need some sort of delay you just don’t get offline for it to happen.
I have never seen it offline, however, so I presume there is something wrong with your test or that you’ve misinterpreted something similar.
> And no matter what you think, Bob, that IS a design flaw. Why award me a medal for killing an opponent who’s about to get me when I die regardless? This wasn’t how it worked in H2. This also wasn’t how it worked in H3.
It’s not a design flaw, but I did explain that earlier…
> In Reach:
>
> The Shotgun guy’s Xbox ensures that they are rewarded for what they did.
> The Sword guy’s Sxbox ensures that they are rewarded for what they did.
>
> They then check with the Host AFTER THIS HAPPENS, and the “correct” course of action is chosen.
In H3:
The Shotgun guy (Host advantage) sends a signal to the Host asking for the Sword guy to be killed.
The Sword guy sends a signal to the Host asking for the Shotgun guy to be killed.
Whichever signal reaches the Host first is applied, since they’re both acceptable actions (Sword kills guy it hits, Shotgun was in range and would also kill). The one that reaches first is chosen while the other one is ignored.
This is Host advantage, and that is why the reward is given BEFORE lag is taken into account in Reach.
> And considering all the other questionable design decisions and bugs, I’m 100% convinced that this isn’t as it should work in Reach.
>
> It really wouldn’t suprise me if Bungie just kept this bug in the game and declared it a new feature. “Don’t want to fix a bug? Pretend that was on purpose.”
It works as intended. It just comes as a surprise to those who have spent the last ten years with a connection advantage.
I will reiterate this:
It is not a flaw, it is a counter for lag. It means that BOTH SIDES OF THE TWO-PLAYER ENCOUNTER are rewarded for their actions, rather than just the one with the connection advantage.
I’m sorry if that means you can’t just sit there and easily dominate those who you previously would have, but there are still advantages to having a better connection. Save some energy to complain about it when those too are given a counter.
Bob, I know how much it sucks playing on a bad or far-away host. I’m from Europe and have to endure that far too often myself already, so I can even begin to imagine how much it must suck for someone from Australia.
However, there is one flaw in the logic of your claim that this is a kind of “lag-induced unfairness prevention mechanism”: Why would Bungie fix only that and leave all the other issues caused by lag and latency untouched?
Furthermore, if this really is a fix Bungie made, it’s obviously not working as intended because now the person earning a Bulltrue gets killed all the time and not only when compensating for lag/latency.
> That implies it only happens in games with bad connection. Yet it also happens to me in games with no noticable lag.
I can’t give the exact reason for that, but remember that another player’s connection situation won’t always be obvious. I believe it’s because there is a window for actions to take place even after a player’s death, however, and that’s because I read it somewhere, I think.
If we’re having a SWAT one-on-one and you hit me in the head (and it’s your Host), I die immediately.
However, if the signal for the headshot I fired before I died (You didn’t see this bullet get fired) gets to your 360 before the window for such actions closes, you’ll see a bullet come out of my gun on the ground or as it’s falling and kill you.
The only situation where this window is a bad thing is in games where there is NO lag, and that means only local, single-Xbox games.
In these games it means that very tight one-on-ones can simply be a series of mutual kills, such as games between you and a player a TINY fraction slower than you are.
> > That implies it only happens in games with bad connection. Yet it also happens to me in games with no noticable lag.
>
> I can’t give the exact reason for that, but remember that another player’s connection situation won’t always be obvious. I believe it’s because there is a window for actions to take place even after a player’s death, however, and that’s because I read it somewhere, I think.
>
> If we’re having a SWAT one-on-one and you hit me in the head (and it’s your Host), I die immediately.
>
> However, if the signal for the headshot I fired before I died (You didn’t see this bullet get fired) gets to your 360 before the window for such actions closes, you’ll see a bullet come out of my gun on the ground or as it’s falling and kill you.
>
> The only situation where this window is a bad thing is in games where there is NO lag, and that means only local, single-Xbox games.
>
> In these games it means that very tight one-on-ones can simply be a series of mutual kills, such as games between you and a player a TINY fraction slower than you are.
Next time I play living dead, I’m chosing good connection as a search priority D:
> However, there is one flaw in the logic of your claim that this is a kind of “lag-induced unfairness prevention mechanism”: Why would Bungie fix only that and leave all the other issues caused by lag and latency untouched?
>
> Furthermore, if this really is a fix Bungie made, it’s obviously not working as intended because now the person earning a Bulltrue gets killed all the time and not only when compensating for lag/latency.
For the first part, if you could detail some examples, that would be great. I can’t think of any issues off the top of my head that aren’t fixed on the same principle.
Anything similar is fixed. If my lagging (New Zealand, actually, but I got sick of having ignorant people asking me if I could drive to the US from here) self fires a Snipe shot and hits someone in the head but I then get killed before it registers, that shot now registers after my death when it was a constant and extreme advantage in H3 (I know more about H3 than H1/2, so I’ll leave those out).
Being beaten down by someone who otherwise would have died by my beatdown and having my beatdown cancelled (the same principle, obviously) is also fixed, since my beatdown registers posthumously. Even with H3’s beatdown system, this was still a massive problem and there was no way I could ever beat someone from the US down on their Host (or their America mate’s Host).
I can’t think of anything else, sorry, but I can’t explain why they wouldn’t fix any other issues. This fix, however, is only H3’s melee system applied to all weaponry, so I can see why it was easy enough to implement.
I know a lot of people hate H3’s beatdown system (though almost all have accepted it over time), but I believe that just like this, it’s a symptom of no longer having such a drastic Host advantage.
For your second part, the person getting a Bulltrue can ONLY be killed if the Sword player hits them on their screen (obviously: if this wasn’t the case, then the game would be assuming an action that hadn’t happened yet in favour of one player, and that WOULD be a very big issue). I don’t see or have a problem with the person getting the Bulltrue being killed lots, since if the Sword player is actually hitting them (I’ll have faith that they are and it isn’t some sentient and compassionate AI or the game).
I presume the frequent deaths only mean that there were a lot of unrewarded players prior to Reach’s release.
Oh, and for the part I clipped out, it definitely sucks man. 10, 000 H3 games and it never gets any better. I do understand it works against both of us though, don’t think I don’t realise it isn’t just me : )
> Next time I play living dead, I’m chosing good connection as a search priority D:
Good idea man, or try to stay out of head-to-head charges.
The good connection will definitely help, because the better two player’s connections are (The Sword and Shotgun guy about to duel, of course), the closer to their real place the other one is when you see them : ) If they’re ACTUALLY at the range you see them at, you have no fear.
If I’m lagging hard, when you see me running up, I might already have stabbed you with my Sword. Once that happens, unless I’m so laggy I miss the window for actions after death, it’s all over for you: You WILL die after you get that Bulltrue. Even the Host of the match no longer has this pure advantage, although it’s more in their favour than other players.
For a gameplay counter, try to avoid this head to head charge : ) Use the Pistol sometimes, try kill Zombies as they rush your mates rather than being the Spartan who gets rushed, so on. As soon as a Zombie gets close to the sword lunge range, they MIGHT have already lunged and hit you (dooming you), because you can’t tell their lag situation.