evilryu
03-01-2011, 03:24 AM
After playing on host tonight I realized that ever since Halo 2 when playing on the hosting Xbox the player would appear to have less aim assist/magnetism, which also appeared to be the case for Halo 3 and now Reach. So my question is if other people are experiencing the same for Reach or is it just a different feeling because your shots have no latency?
I would also like to post this by FraGTaLiTy , essentially asking the same question for Halo 3.
FraGTaLiTy said:
Hey guys, i have a question. Many people hate host on LAN because of the lack of auto aim and awkward hit boxes. They would rather be off host because there is more auto aim and less awkward hit boxes for the small price of minimal latency.
On Live, people (for the most part) like being host because you aren't subjected to the lag off host players have to deal with online. However, the awkward hit boxes and less auto aim are still prevalent, but they are overshadowed by the advantages being host brings to the table.
I feel that fundamentally, host on LAN is the same as host on LIVE, and that the only, yet very important, variable is the people's latency connected to the host. This principle applies to LAN and XBL. I feel that aiming while on host on XBL is fundamentally the same as host on LAN, and the only difference is the latency of others connected to you. Going back to what I stated earlier, on LAN, the latency gap is basically leveled, so being off host on LAN is generally considered the preference. Online, many prefer host because the the "power of host" overshadows the awkward hit boxes and less auto aim that are equal in both XBL host and LAN host.
A friend of mine disagrees with this fundamental equilibrium between XBL host and LAN host because he argues that there are two different variations of net coding; one for LAN and one for XBL. Because of this, he states that there are variables that change within the game itself comparing host on LAN versus being host online. Particularly, he says that XBL host is different than LAN host not only because it factors in your opponent's latency, but also has an entirely different hit boxes and amount of auto aim due to the different net coding between the two.
My question is, does host on XBL for Halo 3 feature less auto aim than host on LAN, and does host on LAN have entirely different net coding than host on XBL, or is the only variable latency?
edit. This is not a host vs OFF host comparison; this is a host vs host comparison, with LAN and XBL being the variable.
EDIT: Something else I got from the same thread from MLG.
FraGTaLiTy:
It's possible Bungie knew the advantage of having host on XBL is greater than having host on LAN, and thus added added more compensation (less auto aim) for host on XBL than on LAN, even though it's noticable in both.
Personally, I haven't noticed a stronger presence of these cons on XBL than on LAN, but if others have sworn that they have less auto aim on while being host on XBL than being host on LAN, than that would be a rational theory.
I would also like to post this by FraGTaLiTy , essentially asking the same question for Halo 3.
FraGTaLiTy said:
Hey guys, i have a question. Many people hate host on LAN because of the lack of auto aim and awkward hit boxes. They would rather be off host because there is more auto aim and less awkward hit boxes for the small price of minimal latency.
On Live, people (for the most part) like being host because you aren't subjected to the lag off host players have to deal with online. However, the awkward hit boxes and less auto aim are still prevalent, but they are overshadowed by the advantages being host brings to the table.
I feel that fundamentally, host on LAN is the same as host on LIVE, and that the only, yet very important, variable is the people's latency connected to the host. This principle applies to LAN and XBL. I feel that aiming while on host on XBL is fundamentally the same as host on LAN, and the only difference is the latency of others connected to you. Going back to what I stated earlier, on LAN, the latency gap is basically leveled, so being off host on LAN is generally considered the preference. Online, many prefer host because the the "power of host" overshadows the awkward hit boxes and less auto aim that are equal in both XBL host and LAN host.
A friend of mine disagrees with this fundamental equilibrium between XBL host and LAN host because he argues that there are two different variations of net coding; one for LAN and one for XBL. Because of this, he states that there are variables that change within the game itself comparing host on LAN versus being host online. Particularly, he says that XBL host is different than LAN host not only because it factors in your opponent's latency, but also has an entirely different hit boxes and amount of auto aim due to the different net coding between the two.
My question is, does host on XBL for Halo 3 feature less auto aim than host on LAN, and does host on LAN have entirely different net coding than host on XBL, or is the only variable latency?
edit. This is not a host vs OFF host comparison; this is a host vs host comparison, with LAN and XBL being the variable.
EDIT: Something else I got from the same thread from MLG.
FraGTaLiTy:
It's possible Bungie knew the advantage of having host on XBL is greater than having host on LAN, and thus added added more compensation (less auto aim) for host on XBL than on LAN, even though it's noticable in both.
Personally, I haven't noticed a stronger presence of these cons on XBL than on LAN, but if others have sworn that they have less auto aim on while being host on XBL than being host on LAN, than that would be a rational theory.