Do you know what grinds my hammer? The fact that people seem to be under the thought that neutral host is the answer to balanced gameplay in league matches. Yes, the host is going to have the advantage. We get it. Some people are going to have a large hammer range. Others a quick reload or massive stiffarm. But guess what? That’s why this isn’t a problem – YOU KNOW THAT BEFORE THE GAME STARTS! It’s not like you have no idea that someone in the game is going to have these advantages, and you get caught off-guard. Personally, I think people are too lazy to work on anti-host measures: being patient against a host tank (dance with him/her rather than rushing in), working on timing against a host-stiffarm, etc. I played with a contender for the Amateur Championship the other day, he was constantly calling out, “ok, so and so has a range of about half a square,” and kept figuring it out for each player. That is how you play against host folks.
What really gets me is that some seem to think neutral host games takes away all of the work. You’re still going to have to figure out everyone’s range, get accustomed to the connection (in terms of your own range, the overall feel, etc.), and everything else. I suggested a few months ago that we hold a tournament (in Nebraska, I would like to see some Huskers who work with Corn) to see how everything would play out in LAN. I still stand by that, but when dealing with actual connection issues over XBL, we’re really just masquerading a “solution” which just brings up a group of other issues.
What floored me is that someone on the Rooster Teeth forums said in response to someone suggesting Bungie just get dedicated servers, “That wouldn’t even solve the connection problem because the location of the server will make some people connect better than others, right now neutral host is the best way of making things as fair as possible.” O rly? If said neutral host lives in Colorado, I live in Florida and the other team lives in Washington (state), do you really believe that’s neutral? No, the folks in Washington clearly still have an advantage, albeit a sleight one, the same issue dedicated servers would cause. This my friends just proves that half the people arguing about connections and host have no idea what they’re talking about, we should leave it up to XBL to hand out a host, and the fact that we’re tweaking with things we don’t fully understand is what grinds my hammers.
Posted in 
Tags: 
wow…. +1000 ditto good sir… well put
Couldn’t agree more sir.
Couldn’t disagree more, sir, but I respect your opinion, and you put the argument together a lot better than most.
I agree with that to a point, some people get such massive host that theres nothing you can do(teleporting, no explosions, etc), thats when you need a different or “neutral” host.
Well, I was going to write an article about the neutral host issue but that pretty much sums it up. Thanks!
I like the part about Washington
I disagree on the dedicated server portion. A dedicated server would act as the host. And it would make the delay the same for everyone. In addition I disagree with the bigger hammer range. Their range isn’t bigger, they are just closer than they appear.
@Leo: While that is true, it does create the perception of a large hammer range.
Leo, I don’t think you quite understand the point of a dedicated server. Yes, the server acts as the host, and just like with client-based host (what we have in Halo), everyone has to connect to it. The further you are from a host, the longer it takes you to connect to it (throughout the game), that’s where the entire idea of reload and closer than appearing (as Soviet mentioned) comes into play. That’s why games such as Warcraft (not WoW) have an “East Coast server,” a “West Coast server,” etc. It’s also why Uk and US players cannot connect very well to each other.
And I meant you, not Soviet, pointed out that it’s actually them appearing to be closer rather than range. It’s just common-usage to say, “wow, his range is ridiculous!”
I almost completely disagree with that statement. We all know host has an insane advantage, and we know it can be overcome(see SYLaL entire summer league playoffs), but playing on neutral eliminates the host advantage. It has been shown that teams that consistently pull host in games get destroyed in neutral or games without their host, simply because they get backpacked all season long by the player with host. Last seasons championship is a good example, GSH won a game on host and neutral, and SI destroyed on their “backpacking” host but took it where the sun don’t shine every other game. I can also be certain that if all games were on neutral host this season there would different teams in the playoffs. Now, I know neutral isn’t the fix-all solution, but it is a hell of a lot better than playing against host.
@pie
You do realize that all you’re doing when you play a neutral host game is moving around who’s getting some sort of advantage. There’s ALWAYS going to be someone who connects better to the “hostpuller” than the others. Although he/she may not get all of the advantages, or to the extremes that some (note, only some hosts have “epic” advantages), it’s still something that negates the idea of neutrality.
But when we do the neutral thing, bias CAN occur, how do I know that the other team has played with Zeg, connects well, and that unknowingly me and his connection don’t get along? For example, if Citi’s “neutral,” host, that everyone can claim is clean is the puller for neutral game I’m involved in, I might as well not show up. I’d rather face a guy in the UK. Point is – neutral host brings up it’s own set of issues, neither way is perfect, nor in my opinion better than the other.
The point of neutral host is taking host out of the equation (obviously). And yes, there is no way to totally eliminate the advantages and disadvantages that people get by connecting to said neutral host.
However, having a game where host isn’t a direct factor playing on the court is a much different game than one where host IS playing and going positive some ungodly number.
Neutral host is a step in the right direction in terms of having a fair game where the better TEAM wins, rather than the team that has a massive host puller.
People connecting well to a host will always happen, but in almost all cases it’s better than having the host actually play, especially if it’s not the best of hosts where the host has a ridiculous advantage that is tough to overcome(+105 anyone?).
@ Ron
So you’re saying you would rather play against zeg on host than have him neutral host a game that you’re playing in?
no comment
i plan to stay ‘neutral’ on this matter
and i just wanted to see if my Gravatar is working
Actually, yes. I want that challenge. Will I win that battle at first? No. If he’s better than me, he’s better than me. All that can do is make me grow as a player. Adapting to all circumstances, rather than look for an excuse or crave a solution. Would it be to cool to see a lan? Hell yes. But the game as it is is based around connection and teamwork…we can only do something about one of those without causing other problems.
I have to throw in my lot with Pie on this one.
I disagree, I think we all know that some people connect better than others, but playing neutral host makes it “as fair as possible” for what we have to work with. It doesn’t guarantee a 100% fair game, but neutral host is as close as it gets for fair games.