Halo 3 Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Improvement idea for veto system...
  • Subject: Improvement idea for veto system...
Subject: Improvement idea for veto system...

RaTiOnAl AnArChY

Check out the Woodshop!

I kind of like the idea, but I think it would just create a new subject for arguement. People will then be saying, "How come two objectives came up?", or "Both choices were on the same map!!!", or, ah, screw it, all kinds of stupid stuff. I think it's pretty awesome that we have veto at all, and I worry that given even more choices, many would have even more gripes. The randomness of maps, and gametypes is part of it, and I like it. I love it in LW when people veto KOTH, and we get oddball. I like them both, and I hate the fact that everyone vetos everything but slayer. In that circumstance people would just complain that they couldn't choose slayer.

It would be cool to have more control, and more choices, but considering the reactions you see from many of the people in the forums, sometimes it seems that too much control only illicits desire for more. Fewer choices can be nice. Especially in ranked, I think that choice of gametype/map should be limited. You should have to deal with what you are dealt, and not be able to lean towards your favorites so much. It helps keep the ranking system a little purer in my opinion.

There's always custom games. And, don't get me wrong, I am not disagreeing with you, I am only suggesting the problems with your idea.

  • 11.07.2007 3:46 PM PDT

Fair sounding. Those who are too lazy to pick or don't care don't have too. But whichever one has the most is picked. But if it's a tie then what? If no one voted then what?

  • 11.07.2007 3:50 PM PDT

RaTiOnAl AnArChY

Check out the Woodshop!

Posted by: Bornswavia
Fair sounding. Those who are too lazy to pick or don't care don't have too. But whichever one has the most is picked. But if it's a tie then what? If no one voted then what?


Oooh, good point.

  • 11.07.2007 3:58 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

As for bornswavia: Undecided would not be a choice and everyone would have to choose, the default choice being the left one, and when a tie came then the left one, which is default would be chosen, sort of like it already is.

As for WF Geppetto: The game would only require a minor update.

  • 11.07.2007 4:01 PM PDT

RaTiOnAl AnArChY

Check out the Woodshop!

Posted by: Hot Sauce 147
As for WF Geppetto: The game would only require a minor update.

Um, I think that was meant for permit2kill.
Posted by: permit2kill
The main flaw I see with this is that the game's already been shipped. :/


Again, I like the idea, I'm just pointing out potential problems. More of this, and you might work out a feasable system. That'd be cool, just unlikely to be implemented.

[Edited on 11.07.2007 4:08 PM PST]

  • 11.07.2007 4:06 PM PDT

What about three separate vetos?

Veto the map, Veto the Gametype, or both.

  • 11.07.2007 4:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Achronos
No.

Posted by: RedPhoenix 57
What about three separate vetos?

Veto the map, Veto the Gametype, or both.


how would you determine majority concensus

  • 11.07.2007 4:24 PM PDT

I'll be on my own side.

Seems like it would be spreading the amount of votes too thin. Given that the average number of players in a game is 8-10. In a situation where 3 people wanted the current selection, 3 people wanted the right selection, and 4 people wanted the left, the left one would get chosen, even though 6 of the 10 people didn't want to play it. It's tough to do a majority vote with more than two choices.

There are also too many other variables to be accounted for. What if someone drops in the middle of being matched, and now it's 9 players. What does the game do in the event of a 3-3-3 vote? With only two variables, it's impossible to hit these kinds of snags, and the system is overall much smoother functioning. Sometimes you have to sacrifice things like greater freedom and choice for the sake of simplicity.

I like the veto system how it is now. At least we have the chance to switch it up. Sure, sometimes it goes from bad to worse, but at least the option is there.

[Edited on 11.07.2007 4:46 PM PST]

  • 11.07.2007 4:35 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Nedus, what do you think of my idea with two choices laid out in front of you, the player?

  • 11.07.2007 4:41 PM PDT

Sandswept Studios Design Director

Visit us and check out our games at Sandswept.net!

~~Pardon Our Dust.~~

Posted by: conko bob 43
Posted by: RedPhoenix 57
What about three separate vetos?

Veto the map, Veto the Gametype, or both.


how would you determine majority concensus

Obviously if the Gametype got vetoed, then the map would stay the same, and vice versa. OR both could get vetoed and you'd have something entirely new.

  • 11.07.2007 4:43 PM PDT
Subject: Improvement idea for veto system...
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Not sure if this is considered Halo 3 discussion or community improvement... this concerns the veto system of Halo 3:

Anyway, more times than not people are dissappointed in the game selected whether they regret vetoing the previous game or wish they had. Instead, a much better system in my opinion would be to show both games on either left or right side of the screen. One could hit left on the D-pad to choose the left game and the right to select the right game respectively.

This would clear up the gripes and regrets with vetoing and would ensure that people are choosing what they truely want. Instead of a gamble with vetoing people can democraticly decide which map and gametype they want. Tell me if you like this idea.

  • 11.07.2007 3:36 PM PDT

I'll be on my own side.

Posted by: Hot Sauce 147
Nedus, what do you think of my idea with two choices laid out in front of you, the player?


Oh, crap. I read it wrong! Agh, my mistake! I thought you were saying that there would be two choices in addition to the current one. >_<

Well, this makes it much simpler. This would be a good idea, but I doubt it'll happen, simply because the current system works now, and it would be a bit of a departure from the standard "random map/gametype" procedure.

If one particular map or gametype showed up a lot in a playlist, there's the potential for that map/gametype to be constantly chosen over another one, which could lead to tiresome repetition after a while. Random choosings help alleviate this.

[Edited on 11.07.2007 5:06 PM PST]

  • 11.07.2007 4:47 PM PDT