- eLantern
- |
- Exalted Member
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]