So when is Bungie going to fix Halo 3 Melees?

[QUOTE="Dante2710"][QUOTE="mattyomo99"][QUOTE="Dante2710"][QUOTE="mattyomo99"]

they cant, no standard hard-drive.
because if they send an update then you divide the userbase into people without harddrives and ppl with them

jcant

i thought you could play online with a core-model?

You can. The updates don't save to the hard drive. Some games require a hard drive online though, but that has nothing to do with updates.

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

How can they fix what is not broken?

It plays how they intended it to play.

Thus, they won't fix it.

By the way, they've already commented on it.

Mordred19

Don't you think the guy who's quicker on the melee button should be the one to get the kill?

Yeah but that's not what the topic is asking. It's asking to fix something which Bungie has fully intended.

Although it is logical that the person with the faster reflex be awarded the kill, we're only complaining because we don't like change. You see, we do understand how the system works, so why aren't we adapting to it and using it to our advantage.

By the way, this is what one of the Bungie devs had to say about the topic:

A previous poster called it a "fail-safe," although a better term would be "tie-breaker." In Halo 2 and the beta, the melee could have very unpredictable results, depending on lag, host, etc.

However, in Halo 3, a simulatenous melee has a predictable "tie-breaker" in the even of a simultaneous hit. The guy who has the least health loses. This does necessitate a change in strategy on many players' usual "charge and smack the guy for the killing blow" - if two people do that, then the guy who manages to land more shots before the melee will likely win absent outside influence. In Halo 2, the results were unpredictable, but if you were host, you'd probably win.

This adds a bit more tactical thinking on your part - you have to be more aware of your environment, your health, if there are any others shooting at you, etc. You know, "more skill," as you guys like to say. Funny how some of you say the opposite, which suggests you might be the one lacking the proper skill and or knowledge, not the opponent you are losing too.
Achronos--Bnet Overlord

wtf the melee syste mis perfect.. if i have more health but am 1 second late on my melee i should still win, i was better at aiming.MikeB_74

... then you should continue to shoot to finish him off, not become immune be defaultto a last ditch melee attack from the enemy, whomyou were foolish enough to get in range of.

why should there by any kind of "system" in place to dictate melee attacks? it shouldn't matter if you have full health, less health, more health; whoever lands a melee attack should give a set amount of melee damage, regardless of the health of the other guy in relation to yours.

[QUOTE="MikeB_74"]wtf the melee syste mis perfect.. if i have more health but am 1 second late on my melee i should still win, i was better at aiming.Mordred19

... then you should continue to shoot to finish him off, not become immune be defaultto a last ditch melee attack from the enemy, whomyou were foolish enough to get in range of.

why should there by any kind of "system" in place to dictate melee attacks? it shouldn't matter if you have full health, less health, more health; whoever lands a melee attack should give a set amount of melee damage, regardless of the health of the other guy in relation to yours.

I still kill preople all the time when I have no health and havent hit them much. This new system is only for a virtual tie (less then a second) to eliminate lag factors.

Hmm this explains alot of deaths.....

If struck guys first at point blank with a mighty melee attack, only to be hit back and die - even though I struck first (and before hand filled the guy with assault rifle rounds).

Its also worth noting in moments like these the physics go haywire.

Once after a same situation like this, my body went flying up into the air - and I had been hit by a battle rifle in melee.
A big WTF it was.

Hmm this explains alot of deaths.....

If struck guys first at point blank with a mighty melee attack, only to be hit back and die - even though I struck first (and before hand filled the guy with assault rifle rounds).

Its also worth noting in moments like these the physics go haywire.

Once after a same situation like this, my body went flying up into the air - and I had been hit by a battle rifle in melee.
A big WTF it was.

skrat_01

Lol I love it when the physics go haywire lol.

Hmm.... I have to research a bit more on the melee thing. It takes two hits to kill a guy if a player has shield, regardless of how much he has left.

I'm guessing, by reflex, the person who is already flashing most probably had his/her shield fully depleted, and decided the last desperate attack would be a melee, only to be knocked by the opponent who most probably had the smallest bit of shield left.

I think everyone should concentrate on the sniper hit detection problem that comes up from time to time. Not the melee thing. The former is a bug. The latter is a design choice.

[QUOTE="Mordred19"]

[QUOTE="MikeB_74"]wtf the melee syste mis perfect.. if i have more health but am 1 second late on my melee i should still win, i was better at aiming.TOAO_Cyrus1

... then you should continue to shoot to finish him off, not become immune be defaultto a last ditch melee attack from the enemy, whomyou were foolish enough to get in range of.

why should there by any kind of "system" in place to dictate melee attacks? it shouldn't matter if you have full health, less health, more health; whoever lands a melee attack should give a set amount of melee damage, regardless of the health of the other guy in relation to yours.

I still kill preople all the time when I have no health and havent hit them much. This new system is only for a virtual tie (less then a second) to eliminate lag factors.

You shouldn't exactly be rewarded for taking on more damage just to get off a melee by a second or so.

I like the tweak personally.

-RPGamer-

I honestly thought that this was a joke thread. I agree 100% with you. Why reward someone for taking more hits?

[QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"][QUOTE="Mordred19"]

[QUOTE="MikeB_74"]wtf the melee syste mis perfect.. if i have more health but am 1 second late on my melee i should still win, i was better at aiming.DrinkDuff

... then you should continue to shoot to finish him off, not become immune be defaultto a last ditch melee attack from the enemy, whomyou were foolish enough to get in range of.

why should there by any kind of "system" in place to dictate melee attacks? it shouldn't matter if you have full health, less health, more health; whoever lands a melee attack should give a set amount of melee damage, regardless of the health of the other guy in relation to yours.

I still kill preople all the time when I have no health and havent hit them much. This new system is only for a virtual tie (less then a second) to eliminate lag factors.

Um think about. In a true tie situation the person with most health should win right? Well thats what this is accept Bungie decided to define a tie as within second or so to stop hosts and faster connections from winning every time its close.

By the way, this is what one of the Bungie devs had to say about the topic:

[quote="Achronos--Bnet Overlord"]

A previous poster called it a "fail-safe," although a better term would be "tie-breaker." In Halo 2 and the beta, the melee could have very unpredictable results, depending on lag, host, etc.

However, in Halo 3, a simulatenous melee has a predictable "tie-breaker" in the even of a simultaneous hit. The guy who has the least health loses. This does necessitate a change in strategy on many players' usual "charge and smack the guy for the killing blow" - if two people do that, then the guy who manages to land more shots before the melee will likely win absent outside influence. In Halo 2, the results were unpredictable, but if you were host, you'd probably win.

This adds a bit more tactical thinking on your part - you have to be more aware of your environment, your health, if there are any others shooting at you, etc. You know, "more skill," as you guys like to say. Funny how some of you say the opposite, which suggests you might be the one lacking the proper skill and or knowledge, not the opponent you are losing too.
FrozenLiquid

Wow, that's exactly what I was thinking earlier in this thread. It shouldn't just be who hits first, there should be no award for losing that much health that this becomes an issue. If you're that low, than it's time to take your plans back to the drawing board and become better than those who you're trying this on.

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

By the way, this is what one of the Bungie devs had to say about the topic:

[quote="Achronos--Bnet Overlord"]

A previous poster called it a "fail-safe," although a better term would be "tie-breaker." In Halo 2 and the beta, the melee could have very unpredictable results, depending on lag, host, etc.

However, in Halo 3, a simulatenous melee has a predictable "tie-breaker" in the even of a simultaneous hit. The guy who has the least health loses. This does necessitate a change in strategy on many players' usual "charge and smack the guy for the killing blow" - if two people do that, then the guy who manages to land more shots before the melee will likely win absent outside influence. In Halo 2, the results were unpredictable, but if you were host, you'd probably win.

This adds a bit more tactical thinking on your part - you have to be more aware of your environment, your health, if there are any others shooting at you, etc. You know, "more skill," as you guys like to say. Funny how some of you say the opposite, which suggests you might be the one lacking the proper skill and or knowledge, not the opponent you are losing too.
-RPGamer-

Wow, that's exactly what I was thinking earlier in this thread. It shouldn't just be who hits first, there should be no award for losing that much health that this becomes an issue. If you're that low, than it's time to take your plans back to the drawing board and become better than those who you're trying this on.

I think the best reason is that quite often the host or someone with a fast connection will actually strike second but win because of lag. This system makes it much more fair in close situations.

There is also a bad lag time sometimes. Like I can see my self hitting the persona couple seconds before but he hits me after but the game doesnt register it so i die.sonic_rusher

I nthat case he probably hit you first but you were lagging so you didnt see it.

[QUOTE="DrinkDuff"][QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"][QUOTE="Mordred19"]

[QUOTE="MikeB_74"]wtf the melee syste mis perfect.. if i have more health but am 1 second late on my melee i should still win, i was better at aiming.TOAO_Cyrus1

... then you should continue to shoot to finish him off, not become immune be defaultto a last ditch melee attack from the enemy, whomyou were foolish enough to get in range of.

why should there by any kind of "system" in place to dictate melee attacks? it shouldn't matter if you have full health, less health, more health; whoever lands a melee attack should give a set amount of melee damage, regardless of the health of the other guy in relation to yours.

I still kill preople all the time when I have no health and havent hit them much. This new system is only for a virtual tie (less then a second) to eliminate lag factors.

Um think about. In a true tie situation the person with most health should win right? Well thats what this is accept Bungie decided to define a tie as within second or so to stop hosts and faster connections from winning every time its close.

Seriously? I had no idea! There were many situations when i thought i struck first and thus thought i should have won.. guess i now know why.

Well, now that i know this.. when i play halo 3 again(whenever that is) i'll have to change up my strategy a little! This is definitly something to know!

[QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"][QUOTE="DrinkDuff"][QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"][QUOTE="Mordred19"]

[QUOTE="MikeB_74"]wtf the melee syste mis perfect.. if i have more health but am 1 second late on my melee i should still win, i was better at aiming.DrinkDuff

... then you should continue to shoot to finish him off, not become immune be defaultto a last ditch melee attack from the enemy, whomyou were foolish enough to get in range of.

why should there by any kind of "system" in place to dictate melee attacks? it shouldn't matter if you have full health, less health, more health; whoever lands a melee attack should give a set amount of melee damage, regardless of the health of the other guy in relation to yours.

I still kill preople all the time when I have no health and havent hit them much. This new system is only for a virtual tie (less then a second) to eliminate lag factors.

Um think about. In a true tie situation the person with most health should win right? Well thats what this is accept Bungie decided to define a tie as within second or so to stop hosts and faster connections from winning every time its close.

Anything within a second should count as a tie because there is no true way of knowing who struck first. This happens almost every game, usually several times. In Halo 2 it was just whoever had the fastest connection. Dont you think a situation that can account for several kills per game have a definite outcome and not be just a crapshoot?

How can they fix what is not broken?

It plays how they intended it to play.

Thus, they won't fix it.

By the way, they've already commented on it.

FrozenLiquid

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

How can they fix what is not broken?

It plays how they intended it to play.

Thus, they won't fix it.

By the way, they've already commented on it.

Big_T-Mac

Its fine the way it is. See my above post.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

Hmm this explains alot of deaths.....

If struck guys first at point blank with a mighty melee attack, only to be hit back and die - even though I struck first (and before hand filled the guy with assault rifle rounds).

Its also worth noting in moments like these the physics go haywire.

Once after a same situation like this, my body went flying up into the air - and I had been hit by a battle rifle in melee.
A big WTF it was.

FrozenLiquid

Lol I love it when the physics go haywire lol.

Hmm.... I have to research a bit more on the melee thing. It takes two hits to kill a guy if a player has shield, regardless of how much he has left.

I'm guessing, by reflex, the person who is already flashing most probably had his/her shield fully depleted, and decided the last desperate attack would be a melee, only to be knocked by the opponent who most probably had the smallest bit of shield left.

I think everyone should concentrate on the sniper hit detection problem that comes up from time to time. Not the melee thing. The former is a bug. The latter is a design choice.

Its fine the way it is. See my above post.TOAO_Cyrus1

wait xbl requires broadband. therefore, put the bandwith to use and don't ruin the game :|

[QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"]Its fine the way it is. See my above post.Big_T-Mac

wait xbl requires broadband. therefore, put the bandwith to use and don't ruin the game :|

Broadband still lags enough to make the old system unfair IMO. The only changeI would make is maybe shorten the interval to half a second.

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

You shouldn't exactly be rewarded for taking on more damage just to get off a melee by a second or so.

I like the tweak personally.

wmc540

I honestly thought that this was a joke thread. I agree 100% with you. Why reward someone for taking more hits?

[QUOTE="Big_T-Mac"]

[QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"]Its fine the way it is. See my above post.TOAO_Cyrus1

wait xbl requires broadband. therefore, put the bandwith to use and don't ruin the game :|

Broadband still lags enough to make the old system unfair IMO. The only changeI would make is maybe shorten the interval to half a second.

i've said this millions of times on bungie.net: i'd rather be killed by someone by lag rather than be killed by someone cuz i killed him quicker.

Um think about. In a true tie situation the person with most health should win right? Well thats what this is accept Bungie decided to define a tie as within second or so to stop hosts and faster connections from winning every time its close.TOAO_Cyrus1

here's the biggest point about this: if this is how damage is decided, y is it they didnt adopt it for guns as well? plz plz plz gimme an answer as to why that seems dumb, so i can prove my point about melees.

There is also a bad lag time sometimes. Like I can see my self hitting the persona couple seconds before but he hits me after but the game doesnt register it so i die.sonic_rusher

So if I kill someone but am injured in the process, when another guy comes along I can't get a couple headshots with the BR and hit him first, because he'll just kill me? Awesome. :|

Personally, I liked it better before. At least now I know what the problem is, and can change my strategy accordingly.

[QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"]Um think about. In a true tie situation the person with most health should win right? Well thats what this is accept Bungie decided to define a tie as within second or so to stop hosts and faster connections from winning every time its close.Big_T-Mac

here's the biggest point about this: if this is how damage is decided, y is it they didnt adopt it for guns as well? plz plz plz gimme an answer as to why that seems dumb, so i can prove my point about melees.

With guns you die when you run out of health. Its possilble for both people to kill each other if there is a tie, I have done this a few times. With melee that would be stupid because it would happen 10 times a game.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

Hmm this explains alot of deaths.....

If struck guys first at point blank with a mighty melee attack, only to be hit back and die - even though I struck first (and before hand filled the guy with assault rifle rounds).

Its also worth noting in moments like these the physics go haywire.

Once after a same situation like this, my body went flying up into the air - and I had been hit by a battle rifle in melee.
A big WTF it was.

FrozenLiquid

Lol I love it when the physics go haywire lol.

Hmm.... I have to research a bit more on the melee thing. It takes two hits to kill a guy if a player has shield, regardless of how much he has left.

I'm guessing, by reflex, the person who is already flashing most probably had his/her shield fully depleted, and decided the last desperate attack would be a melee, only to be knocked by the opponent who most probably had the smallest bit of shield left.

I think everyone should concentrate on the sniper hit detection problem that comes up from time to time. Not the melee thing. The former is a bug. The latter is a design choice.

As for the melee, it does seem like a design choice, though this kinda confirms that the best way of taking someone down, is ye old circle strafe and shoot - drawing people towards you, and gunning them down.

As for hit detection, I cant really say much, as nearly every weapon I use is a spray one, I tend to avoid the rifles.

[QUOTE="Big_T-Mac"]

um, think about this. in a true situation the person who kills the other man first should win. regardless of health, one guy got killed and the other guy lived, even if he had less hp than before he killed the other guy.

here's the biggest point about this: if this is how damage is decided, y is it they didnt adopt it for guns as well? plz plz plz gimme an answer as to why that seems dumb, so i can prove my point about melees.

TOAO_Cyrus1

With guns you die when you run out of health. Its possilble for both people to kill each other if there is a tie, I have done this a few times. With melee that would be stupid because it would happen 10 times a game.

EXACTLY. thank you for proving my point. if this wasnt the most logical way of deciding a winner, y should it change now?

So that's what that is. I always wondered that WTF is wrong with this game when I melee somebody first and he doesn't die but then he melees me and I die :? And it always happens after an intensive firefight when both sides have emptied a clip on each other and both of us have our shields down or just very little left.......they should definitely fix that.turaaggeli

I AM GLAD HALO3 has no instant kill melee, IMO it's stupid that it sucks.

Sometimes, especailly in tight corners, I could ALMOST kill somebody with guns and he could just run up to me and kill me with a melee.

I mean it makes people think twice before go out on a melee frenzy, which it should be, that melee should only be used when desperate like low health or outgunned.

I hope they fix it. Its not about reaction time any more but who ever has the most shields at the time which is bs.Lemmywinks_360

Thats stupid. I never even realized this but I felt like I was getting gipped a lot in melee battles. Melee is my preferred method of getting kills too which sucks.

Funny because I made a thread in the 360 forum a couple of days ago and stated these problems with the close combat and the sniper rifle and I got flammed out of the room, by a bunch of noobs that think the game is problem free, what a bunch of crap these movies prove the gripe I've had with the game since launchSauceCaptain

Hell whenever ive spoken of my Halo grievances, there is always someone who is bitter about my thoughts.

I hope they fix it. Its not about reaction time any more but who ever has the most shields at the time which is bs.Lemmywinks_360

This explains ALOT. So many times I go nuts cause I think I should be winning a free for all match with all the hits I get first but I see it doesn't matter who hits first.

It's true it seems then that whoever has a little more health wins

I do pretty well with this system. You can't just go berserk and expect a trigger finger to win the day all the time. (that IS what guns are for, after all)

If it was changed backto who struck first, I probably would die in 99% of those confrontations. So I'd rather it didn't. :P

So if I kill someone but am injured in the process, when another guy comes along I can't get a couple headshots with the BR and hit him first, because he'll just kill me? Awesome. :|

Personally, I liked it better before. At least now I know what the problem is, and can change my strategy accordingly.

Vyse_The_Daring

[QUOTE="Bl00dsmoke"]

It isnt broken. Its who ever strikes first hits firs. If your strike at the same time whoever has more health wins.

Koolsen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU0q2g_PV5A

ahhh so that is why i heard the sound first and thought id striked him first but died

lame