Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Would you prefer a "Join Active Session" Matchmaking System?
  • Subject: Would you prefer a "Join Active Session" Matchmaking System?
Subject: Would you prefer a "Join Active Session" Matchmaking System?


Posted by: THAT CRAZY TURK
The only way i see this working is if they will be bring back social and ranked playlists. And it would only be implemented into the social playlists. But i'm against the "Join Active Session" because i doubt anyone would like to join a game right before the last kill or cap...etc

  • 11.10.2011 9:19 AM PDT
  • gamertag: MR E0S
  • user homepage:

Halo: Reach is the beginning of a new age for gaming.
It proves that developers can get away with punishing their players instead of fixing their game....and yet the fanboys will still sing praises to them.

-blam!- all of you fanboys!

Depends on how well I'm doing in that game.

IF I join a game and am immediately getting killed upon spawning each and every time. yes I'll leave it after just joining it.

But there are also those times where you join a losing game, and you...are the reason your team came back to win it.

Or have you never experienced that outcome in CoD before?

Quitting is just a way for players to do what Trueskill couldn't. Let the players take matters into their own hands to even the skill levels out.

Competitive = "No. if that -blam!- loser quits, I don't want him being replaced by someone who might hold their own against me. I'd rather I get to continue raping that team while their a man down instead for the rest of the match"

To not want a join in progress feature, makes you a -blam!- loser. Who doesnt' have the first clue what competitive means.

4v3 is not competitive
8v2 is not competitive
UNEVEN TEAMS IS NOT COMPETITIVE!

[Edited on 11.10.2011 9:25 AM PST]

  • 11.10.2011 9:20 AM PDT

Posted by: MR E0S
IF I join a game and am immediately getting killed upon spawning each and every time. yes I'll leave it after just joining it.
Join in progress would take what little responsibility people feel to stay in, so nearly every match would end up with one team outnumbering the other. It would make the quitting problem worse.
Posted by: MR E0S
But there are also those times where you join a losing game, and you...are the reason your team came back to win it.
You take heavy backpacking to the extreme.
Posted by: MR E0S
Or have you never experienced that outcome in CoD before?
lolCoD

[Edited on 11.10.2011 9:24 AM PST]

  • 11.10.2011 9:23 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Horse Repairman
RC RuNz the internet. Like the superintendent.

Posted by: SouthPoIe
Clone is an internet God.

Posted by: DerpRoids
RC Clone is the anti-thesis of a lurker.

@EOS

Being the only not retarded player in a game is not a good feeling. It only makes me rage at the idiocy of the players I'm stuck playing with and against.

  • 11.10.2011 9:34 AM PDT
  • gamertag: MR E0S
  • user homepage:

Halo: Reach is the beginning of a new age for gaming.
It proves that developers can get away with punishing their players instead of fixing their game....and yet the fanboys will still sing praises to them.

-blam!- all of you fanboys!


That random that just went -15 in the first 2 minutes of the game just quit...

Bungie, you need to force my twisted view of responsibility on that guy for quitting out on me when all he was doing was dragging me down.

Oh and while your at it. DO NOT under any circumstances replace that guy, because then that would completely -blam!- up my competitive spirit because, unless I finish the game with the same people I started it with, I AM NOT HAPPY!




[Edited on 11.10.2011 9:38 AM PST]

  • 11.10.2011 9:36 AM PDT

Posted by: RC Clone
Being the only not retarded player in a game is not a good feeling. It only makes me rage at the idiocy of the players I'm stuck playing with and against.
I only half agree, because I laugh at the idiots I play against.

  • 11.10.2011 9:37 AM PDT

Posted by: Recon Number 54
Life is a journey, if you spend all of it with your nose in your map, you may miss some of the best parts.


Posted by: MR E0S

That guy that just went -15 in the first 2 minutes of the game just quit...

Bungie, you need to force my twisted view of responsibility on that guy for quitting out on me when all he was doing was dragging me down.

Oh and while your at it. DO NOT under any circumstances replace that guy, because then that would completely -blam!- up my competitive spirit because, unless I finish the game with the same people I started it with, I AM NOT HAPPY!


I would be glad if a bad player quit.

  • 11.10.2011 9:38 AM PDT

We Surround Them!

I am honestly on the fence with this. I played a Join Session in Progress type game before Reach came out -- Transformers: War For Cybertron. I did enjoy the idea of having a new teammate come in to replace one whose Mommy complained he'd been playing too long. But when it was me joining, I was not all that fond because I often times came in with barely any time left to help make any difference.

And with the Halo system set up as it is for Reach, it sure as -blam!- would be a pain in such things like Firefight or Invasion ... as well as the fact Reach's cR system for game completion gives you more cR for going the full length of the game, reduced the payout for finishing before the final minute of play, and gives you nothing for like the first 3-4 minutes. I've even seen people complain before about getting a Commendation completed, being booted (by lag or by betrayal) and then finding they'd never gotten the cR for completing it yet the system still recorded it as complete.

There really are pluses and minuses for both systems. But Halo has always been a start-to-finish game and I think most people are just used to it.

  • 11.10.2011 9:50 AM PDT

Posted by: spawn031
No thank you.


For someone who clearly can reason a lot out, I don't think you should be so quick to say No. I will try to explain further by addressing some of your points further below...

In all honesty it depends on the ranking system. If you're using a ranking system such as 1-50, there is no way this system is going to work. Do you realize that all the other games that use this "Dropin/out" style of matchmaking only have a progression matchmaking system? Reach is the only game that doesn't do this, where is combines the progressional system with a 1-50 style "lockin" matchmaking.

I agree, I think that this is where a split system can come in real handy. Think Social playlist and Ranked (Arena) playlist. The Social playlist could work perfect with the experience system used in Reach and it could mesh perfectly with a "Join Active Session in Progress" matchmaking system. The type that I laid out in my original post, one where you don't risk taking an undeserved win or loss on your record. It could also be a system that perhaps comes with a locked-out cap; such as if one team stretches it's lead to such a point where it's likely futile for anyone to join and make any real difference. At that point the game would become locked where nobody new will join, but the team which is losing badly will be given an opportunity during each losing player's re-spawn as to whether or not they wish to raise the white flag... if the majority of the team decides to raise the white flag the game will end early by forfeit. Ranked games, or Arena, could make use of an actual skill rank (maybe as you suggest 1-50) for balanced team match-ups, but the point is that these games would not have the "Join Active Session in Progress" matchmaking system.

Even if players join a game when "losing" they are more inclined to quit that game as soon as they join until the find a good one. It's more of a circle of quitting. Players are constantly cycling out until they find that right game.

This has not necessarily been my experience with the Call of Duty games other than when one team is getting absolutely hammered, and even then it doesn't happen as often as one may think... in any case this issue is somewhat addressed above with the potential locking of the match if things get out of hand.

So what is the solution?

1. Bigger population

Bigger popluation leads to fairer matches for everyone. The only reason so many people complain about being spawn killied and losing advantage in a game is because the system matches you with people that are around your skill level, who is searching at the exact same time, in the exact same playlist.

When a population of a playlist is 1000 people, how many of them are in current games? How many of them are searching when you're searching, how many of them are within 4-5 levels of your "trueskill rating system". Not a whole lot. This is why population of online gaming matters.


Exactly, and this is why it's important to get more people to play Halo again. I believe a change to the matchmaking system would be one change that could go a long way towards helping this cause.

2. Incentive to win - See this thread

I'll be honest I didn't look this over yet... but I will say that you have more players now-a-days who will quit the minute they feel there is no possible way for them to win. Again, a reason why I would like to see a way to fill in the shoes of those types of players when they make that decision. I almost always fight to the end of a match... almost.

EDIT: Okay read over your post and found it very insightful. I agree with pretty much everything you said in it, but I still don't think those points you make alone will help the sense of wasted time players get in Halo games when players quit and cost the game it's balance. That is the goal of this topic, to peek interest into a "Join Active Session in Progress" matchmaking system for Halo... and do it in a way that actually works for the game. No one is suggesting it should be a copy and paste of the system used in Call of Duty or any other FPS game. I would like to think that it's prudish to recognize there are ideas out there worth taking note of and adapting to in order to change with the times for the better. I happen to think the matchmaking system is one of those that Halo & Bungie should take notice of and work into their future titles one way or another.

3. Correct matchmaking system

As I mentioned above, a progressional system doesn't work with Locked - in playlist matchmaking. Just look at Reach. Players aren't forced to stay in a game. It doesn't even matter if they win. As soon as they lose advantage and there is no hope for their team - they quit. Now, since new players aren't filtered in, it creates havoc for the rest of the team. What did the initial player lose for quitting? cr? Rank? Exp?

Nope. They lost nothing. The only thing that happens is after a few quits, they get a nice 15 minute timeout from 343 and lose nothing on their service record. That's silly. Halo is suppose to be a game about competing against your opponents to achieve the goal and win the game.


Again, I agree that there should be a real negative to those who would purposely quit a game. I mentioned in my original post that a 3-strike system be used. 1 strike for a quit, but if you reach 3-strikes then you turn those strikes into 3 losses. I also mention a method for removing a strike, which was that by playing 25 games in a row without a quitting then you would take away a strike if you had one... I thought this was important because of the rare times when say a power outage occurs, or your game freezes, or maybe mommy says it's time to eat. However, perhaps this is not enough... maybe there needs to be something even more there... I don't know. I would support Reach's temporary ban, but I think the developers would want as many people playing as possible and not give anyone any reason at anytime to switch to another game. So what does that leave as a stricter method... hmmm, again I don't exactly know?

When there is a low population/online community, no incentive to win games, and a matchmaking system that contradicts the way players should play - you end up with Reach. The solution is not adding the "Join Active Session" option to matchmaking. It lies with a complete revamp of the entire matchmaking system as a whole.

I don't agree that those are what makes Reach, Reach. Reach suffers from the fact that many FPS players have switched to preferring the (easier) gameplay of Call of Duty or even Battlefield games and likely the fact that they are not necessarily Sci-Fi games. Also, as Halo titles encountered real competition for a gamer's play time they (Bungie) didn't really do enough innovating across the board (I say across the board because I truly believe the Halo titles have remained one of the most innovative FPS titles to date, but not in all areas) to keep the past players with them and draw in new ones too... this has lead to a big reason for less players being on Halo at any time. The Bloom to a degree, the Armor Abilities also to a degree (mostly Armor Lock IMO), the point system that doesn't focus on winning as much as it should, and many less then stellar maps, are also reasons why, but I believe that a massive reason why also lies with the sensation of wasted time that general players get after a teammate quits a match. I think this has more to do with players becoming more casual in their dedication to seeing a match play out to it's end, win or loss, not to mention the options they have at their disposal to play other quality FPS games.

[Edited on 11.10.2011 1:40 PM PST]

  • 11.10.2011 9:50 AM PDT
  • gamertag: danr21
  • user homepage:


Posted by: MR E0S
Depends on how well I'm doing in that game.

IF I join a game and am immediately getting killed upon spawning each and every time. yes I'll leave it after just joining it.

But there are also those times where you join a losing game, and you...are the reason your team came back to win it.

Or have you never experienced that outcome in CoD before?

Quitting is just a way for players to do what Trueskill couldn't. Let the players take matters into their own hands to even the skill levels out.

Competitive = "No. if that -blam!- loser quits, I don't want him being replaced by someone who might hold their own against me. I'd rather I get to continue raping that team while their a man down instead for the rest of the match"

To not want a join in progress feature, makes you a -blam!- loser. Who doesnt' have the first clue what competitive means.

4v3 is not competitive
8v2 is not competitive
UNEVEN TEAMS IS NOT COMPETITIVE!

  • 11.10.2011 9:52 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Veteran Legendary Member

The 343 forums suck. They're full of retarded kids and mods who got butthurt in the B.net forums for being told that they're bad.

^You actually agree with that retard?

Halo's online multiplayer is not and cannot be a drop-in/drop-out system. The game's playstyle isn't right for it.

  • 11.10.2011 10:11 AM PDT


Posted by: B Rye
^You actually agree with that retard?

Halo's online multiplayer is not and cannot be a drop-in/drop-out system. The game's playstyle isn't right for it.

  • 11.10.2011 10:14 AM PDT


Posted by: AmericanMuscled

Posted by: B Rye
^You actually agree with that retard?

Halo's online multiplayer is not and cannot be a drop-in/drop-out system. The game's playstyle isn't right for it.


MR EOS is not a retard. In fact he makes good points, although they become trivial amiss his method of conveying them. He's too angry in his attempt to explain and ends up lashing out and attacking other Halo community members. This unfortunately is counter productive in his attempt to win others over to his side of his (the) argument. I am disappointed that the majority of this topic turned into a bashing between him and other members when what it should have been is a method to discuss the reason why a "Join Active Session in Progress" is necessary to some degree for future Halo and Bungie titles.

[Edited on 11.10.2011 1:07 PM PST]

  • 11.10.2011 10:47 AM PDT

I share this account with my brother and friend.
If you got destroyed, it was me.
If you had a decent challenge, it was my bro.
If you observed said account struggling to aim, shoot, or move separately, it was my friend.

It needs it desperately. The current MM system is a holdover from 2001 and needs to update.

  • 11.10.2011 10:51 AM PDT

It should be a preference you can switch on or off.
Or
It should be it's own lobby.

  • 11.10.2011 10:54 AM PDT

Through reading the replies under this topic, I've come to believe that it should be available for Social players and the Social playslists. While Halo's traditional matchmaking system should be reserved for competitive ranked games.

  • 11.10.2011 10:59 AM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: Balbazak
Halo copied enough things, it doesn't need more CoD elements.


Why are gamers so stupid?

  • 11.10.2011 11:25 AM PDT

Posted by: Darkside Eric

Posted by: Balbazak
Halo copied enough things, it doesn't need more CoD elements.


Why are gamers so stupid?

That question is not just reserved for gamers... broaden it to People and then you've asked a question about the first rule of life we all need to learn... People Are Stupid.

[Edited on 11.10.2011 1:09 PM PST]

  • 11.10.2011 1:02 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: eLantern
Posted by: Darkside Eric

Posted by: Balbazak
Halo copied enough things, it doesn't need more CoD elements.


Why are gamers so stupid?

That question is not just reserved for gamers... broaden it to People and then you've asked a question about the first rule of life we all need to learn... People Are Stupid.


Oh I know, just thought I'd narrow it down to gamers in this instance.

Because everyone knows that CoD invented drop-in/out gameplay and that Halo's gameplay is 100% unique.

  • 11.10.2011 1:49 PM PDT

Que Custodiet Ipsos Custodes

--Tea-baggers are funny, it's as if they think they are far more hetero than the people who do it in real life, because they use their e-ballsacks to do it. What a manly victory dance.
~ManBearPig_06~

Joining a loosing game in progress with minutes left on the clock is stupid, and is one of the many reasons I find CoD horribly made. It also encourages quitters because they can think 'oh, someone might take my place, it's fine'.

Cod's already stolen so much from halo, what should be happening is them replacing that garbage mm system, not us picking it up.

[Edited on 11.10.2011 2:00 PM PST]

  • 11.10.2011 1:58 PM PDT

Posted by: i can has drugz
Joining a loosing game in progress with minutes left on the clock is stupid, and is one of the many reasons I find CoD horribly made. It also encourages quitters because they can think 'oh, someone might take my place, it's fine'.

Cod's already stolen so much from halo, what should be happening is them replacing that garbage mm system, not us picking it up.


Just out of curiosity, did you fully read the original post before commenting?

  • 11.10.2011 2:03 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: i can has drugz
Cod's already stolen so much from halo, what should be happening is them replacing that garbage mm system, not us picking it up.


o.O

What is... I don't even...

  • 11.10.2011 2:06 PM PDT

Posted by: RtG ryan 69
I do not wanna join a game when it is going to be an instant loss for me and i have no chance of winning. We do not need this, what we need is a better community. I think they should follow Gears and put no "leave game" option in the start menu, so the only way to quit would be to turn off your console or sign out. This might stop some of the mass quitting, but would also suck for only people left in a game when his team quits on him. Think the only solution is a better community, which will never happen, the community is FUBAR.


So play Ranked games then, which would have the traditional matchmaking system. Also, the "Join Active Session in Progress" would not penalize you with a loss if you joined a team that was losing under the way I'm describing it... you really outta read the post before commenting.

The community you refer to isn't just those who are on here discussing Halo, it is all Xbox gamers and more specifically those who would purchase a quality FPS.

You're suggestion of copying Gears's non-quit option, might as you suggest lessen the mass quitting problem by a tad bit, but what I think it will entail is that those who want to quit will still do it by dashboarding and this will just ultimately lead to providing those who quit a second thought towards switching out Gears for another game. It would seem practical just because they're in the dashboard already and their emotions on the game would be at a level already that would likely boarder disinterest in continuing to play.

  • 11.10.2011 2:19 PM PDT

Its just a game.


Posted by: TomoK12
If someone has quit off of my team, I expect somebody to be put in that persons place or else it's a totally unfair and unbalanced game unless they're complete noobs. And then try quitting...? No no no - You won't be able to play Matchmaking.


Shut up, if you cant win a game because you lost 1 person, then you suck anyway.

  • 11.10.2011 3:22 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: Exiled Vahx

Posted by: TomoK12
If someone has quit off of my team, I expect somebody to be put in that persons place or else it's a totally unfair and unbalanced game unless they're complete noobs. And then try quitting...? No no no - You won't be able to play Matchmaking.


Shut up, if you cant win a game because you lost 1 person, then you suck anyway.


Right, because that's logical.

  • 11.10.2011 3:43 PM PDT