H4: The end of matchmaking as we know it.

Games Other Halo
1

Years ago when Xbox Live and online multiplayer was a new thing, the forums at Bungie.net began to fill with the lavish praise and visceral hate we have come to know and love today. There are essentially three components to Halo: The Story, the Campaign, and the Online Multiplayer Experience. I don’t know about the Forum Experience during the CE days as I believe I still had dialup service then, but Halo 2 pretty much forced me to get connected and I soon found myself lurking in the forums. In those Halo 2 days the traffic was about an even mix of love and hate over the Big Three: Story, Campaign, and MM. Halo 2 changed up everything so much that there was plenty to… discuss… about all three. With Halo 3, it seems to me that Story and Campaign began to take a back seat to MM. Story flared briefly right after the launch of Reach, but MM quickly pulled ahead and today it’s pretty much the only topic.

So, what happened?

Let me start by saying that what follows is mostly speculation and opinion, and although facts are in there they are given from my interpretation to support my theories and, therefore, my insight may differ from yours. That’s OK. You get a chance to weigh in here or you can start your own thread.

For those that don’t know, Halo started out as an RTS game for the Apple. Someone at Microsoft found out about this talented group of young game designers that had a knack for making a good video game with a compelling story and thought it would be a good idea to have them make their next game for this new Xbox thing.

Now the thing about this new developer, Bungie, was that the game and the story were one and inseparable. The game starts you off after the crap has hit the fan and, if you’re like me (and if you are, my condolences) you had to read the books to get the picture. Bungie put everything into the story and the campaign. Someone, probably from Microsoft, concerned about what players might do with the game after they finished the campaign, suggested that Bungie take advantage of the Xbox’s ability to be linked to a local network and create a vs multiplayer game. This was not a high priority for Bungie, so they took all the elements and mechanics from the campaign that would work, made some maps and, presto! Multiplayer. Sloppy as that sounds, it worked out perfectly. Most people bought CE for the multiplayer.

This is where things went a bit askew for Bungie. Microsoft wanted this game that was highly popular for it’s multiplayer to be the incentive for this new Xbox Live thing they were promoting. Bungie had to oblige, but clearly their emphasis was on the story and the game. Halo 2 online had a bad start, but it got fixed. Mostly. The hate surged forward, and it was mostly about multiplayer. Again, Bungie took what was in the campaign and put what they could into multiplayer.

The story progressed. By Halo 3 things were getting complicated. The UNSC was making more stuff. It all worked well in campaign but was becoming problematic in multiplayer. Weapon balance was an issue and equipment was making gameplay unfair. Aside from VISR, nothing really new was introduced in ODST, but Reach…

Reach may have actually started out as Halo 4 and ended up as a prequel to CE because of the falling out between Bungie and Microsoft, but it was clearly a natural progression in the story that was becoming problematic for online multiplayer. In the story, the UNSC is now going to be deploying more and more stuff. SPARTANS are going to have more and more options. There are two games yet to be made to complete the trilogy. I don’t know what we’re going to get, but it’s not going to be less. If you’re concerned about a player having Jet Pack today, what happens when that player gets Telekinesis? Will Halo still be Halo then?

I made this post because I believe that multiplayer should contain everything possible from campaign, then provide gametypes that have less. Back in Halo 2 we would be talking about SMGs, flashlights and dual wielding. I can’t imagine what we’ll get in Halo 5 because literally anything is possible in the story line now. It’s great for the story and the campaign, but multiplayer is going to be a real problem. We are already at the point where no one can be satisfied. Unless there is a different approach to online matchmaking, it can only get worse.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe just tossing everything into multiplayer and hoping it will work is still the way to go. Perhaps we can trust 343i to get it right.

If not, then the discussion should start now about how matchmaking should work from now on, because the old approach just will not work for future releases.

That’s my opinion. What’s yours?

2

> Weapon balance was an issue and equipment was making gameplay unfair.

Well to start with, I disagree with this.

I think equipment was very fair. It had to be acquired from the maps, in the same way that Camo and Overshield did from the very start of Halo’s life.
It maintained whatever amount of “fair” was already in Halo.

That’s my thought on that anyway.

> If you’re concerned about a player having Jet Pack today, what happens when that player gets Telekinesis? Will Halo still be Halo then?

Well how are we defining what makes Halo, Halo?

Are we talking strictly from a point of view where the game has maintained the same core gameplay mechanics?

> I made this post because I believe that multiplayer should contain everything possible from campaign, then provide gametypes that have less.

I’m not sure I would agree that keeping everything is a priority. I personally think that there is no problem with certain things being left out.
But if there is room for everything, then I’m happy for them to put it all in.

> Back in Halo 2 we would be talking about SMGs, flashlights and dual wielding. I can’t imagine what we’ll get in Halo 5 because literally anything is possible in the story line now. It’s great for the story and the campaign, but multiplayer is going to be a real problem. We are already at the point where no one can be satisfied. Unless there is a different approach to online matchmaking, it can only get worse.

Honestly I can’t see any reason to put everything from Campaign into Multiplayer, just for the sake of putting it there.

I would hope that they have no problem leaving things out, if they can’t find a way to make those things work in Multiplayer.

> Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe just tossing everything into multiplayer and hoping it will work is still the way to go. Perhaps we can trust 343i to get it right.

I don’t personally do trust, unless that trust has been earned. I’ll trust them with Halo 6, if Halo 5 is done well.

> That’s my opinion. What’s yours?

If it will cause problems, then don’t include everything from Campaign in the Multiplayer.
However, if it can be made to work, then go right ahead.

3

I can agree with this thread.

Multiplayer I can care less about for any of the halo’s, I care more for campaign and story.

As you said no can be satisfied anymore which makes me mad because no matter what there’s always going to be haters like the ones now.

Funny how I see what people want,they get it then complain about it.

4

I made this thread because I was seeing various threads being made that started with “Why is [insert AA here] OP?” We went back and forth for a while but eventually came to the conclusion that all these AA’s and equipment were developed for the campaign to be used against AI’s with programmed behavior. When they’re used against human beings their responses are much less predictable. Hence all the issues about balance and unfair advantage. According to my son, the best kind of Halo multiplayer is the kind where you get no special equipment. I’m guessing he wasn’t talking about shields.

I hate to admit it, but I think he’s right. As much as I like playing with all the toys, they are distracting from what is fundamentally Halo, which can be experienced in CE multiplayer where it all started.

I don’t thinks all the neat stuff should not exist in H5 MM, but if I were 343i I would put all the MM hype into a “premier” MM experience that put the emphases on player ability instead of armor ability. That seems to be what kept hundreds of thousands of players online up until Reach.

In my opinion.

5

> Weapon balance was an issue and equipment was making gameplay unfair.

Man I love the internet, where people don’t understand the meaning of “Cheating” and “Fair”.

Let me give you an actual example of “Unfair”

Halo 4, playing Ragnarok BTB, 8v8, the game starts and within seconds the enemy team gets a Binary Drop in the river where they can immediately grab it and we have no chance of grabbing it, thus providing a unilateral (One-sided) advantage to one team and not the other team.

In Halo 3 equipment was typically placed symmetrically in maps. If we were playing BTB, the game would start and both sides would have equal ability to access a bubble shield, a regen field, etc. On rare occasions like Narrows they weren’t symmetrical, but was later changed if I recall correctly.

There wasn’t anything unfair about equipment, the issue is making sure both teams have an equal chance to use it.

Again think of Valhalla/Ragnarok. Both teams spawn with a Sniper at their base. There isn’t anything “Unfair” about the sniper, both teams have an equal opportunity to use it.

Now think of the Laser. While there is only 1 Spartan Laser, it is placed where each team has roughly an equal chance to acquire it.

The only problem is again in games like Halo 4, where unilateral advantages are applied. Even Scorpion Tanks are completely fair as long as you’re playing a mostly symmetrical map and allow both teams an opportunity to grab one.

Thinks like launch day Exile where Red/Blue both have a CHANCE at the Banshee/Scorpion but Blue gets a GUARANTEED Gauss Hog are what is actually unfair.

6

Me and a few friends of mine gave up on MM in Halo 4 almost a month ago, now. (I know, no one is missing us. ; ) )

We really hope things get more ballanced when Halo 5 (or whatever the name) gets out, since we love Halo, but, just like a distant cousin, we may love her because she´s family, but we are not obliged to love all about her, right?

So, we hope…and wait.

Azrael & MataHari
Angry Angels

7

Strange… I usually ignore very huge walls of text, but this one read itself. I guess this fella actually knows what happened to Halo since CE.

Okay, you’re right about CE. The simplicity of the multiplayer (because it wasn’t the focus to keep people at it for years, but to give them something to do besides campaign) made it possible to balance things out perfectly. That’s why it was so competitive and fun and NEVER unfair. Never, ever, EVARRR did I feel being killed by a cheap game mechanic or weapon. Weapon mechanics worked, though the sniper was projectile-based, it was consistent, for example. And you couldn’t spam the pistol, but it was consistent, because of the single shot (no sh*tty H3 BR spread), that’s why folks wanted a single-shot UNSC weapon and got the DMR.
To cut it short: Awesome and long campaign, cool story and music, balanced and working multiplayer. CE was perfect!

H2 messed some things up because of MS seeing the chance of grabbing money, while Bungie wanted to give us the best experience possible. If you watch the Making-Of, you see those poor guys constantly struggling with timing schedule, which was just unnecessary for “dat game”. If you know what was cut from the final game (essentially the first third of H3, that is), you cannot feel but anger for MS not letting Bungie do their jobs.
Here’s the catch: that ruined MP after a while. Too much resources went into the awesome campaign, so the infamous button glitches and super bounces were overlooked and weapon balancing just didn’t go well. The Plasma Rifle in H:CE was fantastic up-close, but the H2 version was impotent to the BR, even in CQB. Again, balancing takes time, especially with the additional covie weapons that were introduced.
In short: H2 still has the best campaign of them all, because Bungie focused on that and were more experienced by that time. Multiplayer was still considered an appendix by Bungie, but MS saw the coin. If they had given Bungie just six more months. Hell, even a year would have been acceptable for the best game available back then!

And H3 is where the trouble began. Bungie gave up and focused more on MP, it was made more beginner-friendly (also destroying consistency for veterans, I’m looking at you, BR spread!), the concept of projectile-based bullets didn’t work for outside-americans and slow connections and the struggle for including new stuff to keep that MP alive at all costs (because campaign was weakened), led to huge imbalancies (ever killed someone with a Spiker or SMG?). Still, despite that, Bungie gave their best and when the game worked, it was pretty enjoyable.
Summary: With H3, Bungie started giving up on the Halo universe, but started focusing on the whole MP matter. As many people as possible were lured into the MP (XBox 360, no credit card, supported that - I AM talking about KIDS), and though Bungie did their jobs, I think here is where they started resignating. It just wasn’t about Halo, the Covenant and the Chief with Cortana anymore, it was about “BRs only!” and “One Shot on my X!”.

I’ll cut it short: Reach was an experiment and Bungie let Halo down. I understand. I don’t appreciate it, but I understand they didn’t feel connected to Halo anymore. 343 gave us the ZBDMR, but Reach was a fail.

343 are tasked now with salvaging what is left from Halo. Problem is, they focused on Reach. Dunno why. It was rushed. They should have focused on the simpler H3 and saved the new gimmicks from Reach for H5. Remember: Bungie was experimenting and never meant to make it actually work perfectly. Perfecting that Reach overflow of gimmicks takes time, and we know from experience, MS don’t give you time.
I like new gimmicks, shooters become a bit stale very fast, but I don’t like them being imbalanced. I firmly believe if those AAs and stuff would work correctly, there was no bashing for 343 and no demand for Legendary Slayer (which is dry now, anyway). If 343 just had taken things slowly and gained experience with the simpler H3 mechanics and saved the sophisticated Reach for later!

That is my opinion on the matter, it agrees with OP and adds stuff mostly. I don’t think 343 are a fail, but they just exhausted themselves. I will hesitate with buying H5, that is unfortunately the consequence, though I kinda regret it.
Oh, and take off Personal Ordnance (had to say it)!

8

Thank you Lord Otto. You have expressed a key issue, in my opinion, which is that when the emphasis is on the campaign, multiplayer seems to take care of itself.

Listening, 343i?

9

> Summary: With H3, Bungie started giving up on the Halo universe, but started focusing on the whole MP matter. As many people as possible were lured into the MP (XBox 360, no credit card, supported that - I AM talking about KIDS), and though Bungie did their jobs, I think here is where they started resignating. It just wasn’t about Halo, the Covenant and the Chief with Cortana anymore, it was about “BRs only!” and “One Shot on my X!”.
>
> I’ll cut it short: Reach was an experiment and Bungie let Halo down. I understand. I don’t appreciate it, but I understand they didn’t feel connected to Halo anymore. 343 gave us the ZBDMR, but Reach was a fail.

i would have to disagree on these points. i wouldnt really say its fair to say you know what was going on at bungie when they made each game. just cuz you dont like it does not mean it was an “experiment” or that they didnt care anymore. in fact people from bungie had stated that reach was the halo game they always wanted to make.

in reach they may have done things that people didnt like (i really only had a problem with movement speed and jump height) but when you are trying to stay fresh theres an occasional misstep.

343 is on the hook for knowing certain features dont work and arent popular among fans and going with it anyway. hopefully halo 5 will be better.

10

Yeah, even though I thanked Lord Otto I don’t agree that Bungie let Halo down. They were under pressure to squeeze out one last game after ODST and do it on Microsoft’s schedule. They made the game they wanted to play with some stuff they wanted in the game for a long time. The whole point of that game was to discourage Lone Wolf gameplay and promote team effort through specialization, because they knew Halo 4 was going to be about SPARTAN IVs.(They wrote this story, remember?)

The vast majority of players freaked when they jumped into Reach matchmaking because they thought they were playing Halo 4. Reach SPARTANS didn’t move like Halo 3 SPARTANS and for some strange reason the Elites were too big could take more damage. There’s all this stuff that wasn’t in Halo 3. WHAT’S GOING ON HERE ?!?

Now people understand what’s going and players are finding that maybe Reach wasn’t that bad after all, but the bandwagon damage has been done. We were supposed to hate Reach and because Halo 4 has Reach stuff, we’re supposed to hate Halo 4 too. When Halo 5 comes out we’ll all appreciate Halo 4 a little better.

The thing is, should 343i promote an Infinity style matchmaking experience for Halo 5 or should they promote a “bare bones” “no frills” experience and offer the Infinity style as a bonus?

11

I agree Halo isnt Halo now. what happened to the classic no sprint of halo. why remove the hornet. why do they care more about matchmaking but not custom games and forge. where the hell is Forge World!!!

12

LOL memory road.

I miss my xbox controller with the transparent/white button and the H2 flashlight.

Bring back the flashlight for Halo 5!