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?

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: eLantern

Posted by: Darkside Eric

Posted by: eLantern
Now this is also gives one something to ponder, but I unfortunately I don't believe any (Xbox) Halo game will every have dedicated servers, but I could be wrong... I hope I'm wrong.


Battlefield uses dedicated servers. As does Gears.


I understand that and I enjoy playing Battlefield very much so, but Battlefield was developed from the ground up with dedicated servers in mind... if Halo continues it tradition on in it multiplayer for consoles, then I don't think it will happen. However, as I stated earlier, I hope I'm wrong and if I am wrong indeed, then I would really like to see the Ranked playlist's matchmaking method (system) tweaked to reflect some of the changes you noted.


I honestly do not think drop-in/out works well with P2P systems very well at all.

  • 11.11.2011 1:47 PM PDT


Posted by: Darkside Eric

Posted by: eRage Sanctity
Helps turn it around, but they arent consistently better than the starter.

In the game where Rex Grossman threw 4 INT Beck came in and started to turn it around, but what has Beck done since then? He has yet to win a game as our starter, whereas at least Grossman was 3-2 as our starter.

Hell, Beck has NEVER won a game as a starter.

/redskins vent



How is it someone can be worse than the starter, who is playing badly, can turn around a game the starter was messing up?

Question is... say you do have a better player in your back up queue, how often are you going to willingly quit (potentially killing your rating), just so your team can win?

Or, here's another idea:

For ranked games, players can only step in a certain amount of times to curb boosting in some fashion.

Like I just said. The 2nd string is not consistently better than the starter.

  • 11.11.2011 1:52 PM PDT


Posted by: Darkside Eric

Posted by: eLantern

Posted by: Darkside Eric

Posted by: eLantern
Now this is also gives one something to ponder, but I unfortunately I don't believe any (Xbox) Halo game will every have dedicated servers, but I could be wrong... I hope I'm wrong.


Battlefield uses dedicated servers. As does Gears.


I understand that and I enjoy playing Battlefield very much so, but Battlefield was developed from the ground up with dedicated servers in mind... if Halo continues it tradition on in it multiplayer for consoles, then I don't think it will happen. However, as I stated earlier, I hope I'm wrong and if I am wrong indeed, then I would really like to see the Ranked playlist's matchmaking method (system) tweaked to reflect some of the changes you noted.


I honestly do not think drop-in/out works well with P2P systems very well at all.


I think it works fairly well for the Call of Duty titles, I thought it worked alright for Crysis 2, although Crysis 2 had many other multiplayer issues. I don't believe the issue these games face has anything to do with the Drop-in/out system, it has more to do with lag and hit detection. Also, hoist migration has gotten better with the release of new games. This does not mean that dedicated servers would not be preferred, but I do think the drop-in/out system can work just fine if set up properly regardless to what type of multiplayer system is being used.

  • 11.11.2011 1:58 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: eRage Sanctity

Posted by: Darkside Eric

Posted by: eRage Sanctity
Helps turn it around, but they arent consistently better than the starter.

In the game where Rex Grossman threw 4 INT Beck came in and started to turn it around, but what has Beck done since then? He has yet to win a game as our starter, whereas at least Grossman was 3-2 as our starter.

Hell, Beck has NEVER won a game as a starter.

/redskins vent



How is it someone can be worse than the starter, who is playing badly, can turn around a game the starter was messing up?

Question is... say you do have a better player in your back up queue, how often are you going to willingly quit (potentially killing your rating), just so your team can win?

Or, here's another idea:

For ranked games, players can only step in a certain amount of times to curb boosting in some fashion.

Like I just said. The 2nd string is not consistently better than the starter.


Unfortunately with video games we don't have coaches to determine who is better than who in an online environment (or at least no one takes the time).

Could it be abused by bringing in better players, yeah. But could the abuse be lessened if you control how many times said better player can act as a sub? Absolutely.

As it stands there is zero balance if a teammate quits out. None. If a teammate drops out you just have to suck it up, try and play harder, and probably take the loss.

If you want a good competitive environment it should not be that way, because in good competitive environments the game is either called off, postponed, or an alternate is brought in.

  • 11.11.2011 2:16 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: eLantern
I don't believe the issue these games face has anything to do with the Drop-in/out system, it has more to do with lag and hit detection.


Yes, that is correct.

P2P makes lag and hit detection problems more prominent. Not only that, but P2P system requires things like bullet magnetism and hit scan as well to compensate.

  • 11.11.2011 2:19 PM PDT

Lol


Posted by: eLantern
Posted by:Killer4785
All they have to do is make a system where you strictly win and lose 50/50. All matches will be competitive and balanced. Good people play against good people, bad people will play against bad people. The only reason why they wouldn't make a system like this for a shooter is because everyone's stats would be close to the same. K/D 1.0 etc. People couldn't boost stats or have bragging rights.


Are you referring to a game you created in your head? ...in Imaginationland? Because as you say, "All they (the developers) have to do is make a system where you strictly win and lose 50/50." ...hmmm, do you really think it's that simple? I believe Halo, and other FPS games, have been trying to develop a matchmaking system for some time now that would do pretty much what you're suggesting, that is pair good players against equally good player, and bad players against equally bad players. Thing is, I haven't seen a system that's perfect yet? I think your out of your mind if you think the only reason why they haven't made a system like that is because they want to ensure everyone's stats can be boosted or that people will be able to brag.

Honestly, when I re-read that post, it sounds like you're describing a game where I'd join and maybe get to shoot some people, or cap a flag, or arm a bomb perhaps, but then those tasks and achievement really don't matter, and before the game is over the system will simply determine what is fair... and let's say because I won the previous match, it's now my turn to lose, but at least the people I played against were complete clones of myself and everybody finished with a 1.0 K/D ratio... good think everything I do, they do equally as well. What a bizarre imagination you have sir. What, may I ask, is the point of playing a game like you described?

Look how much Halo has already fallen, look how much people have already returned their MW3 copies? People are tired of being spoon fed the same crap every single year.

I would argue that since Call of Duty's newest game (MW3) just broke the record for sales once again and I don't know how many people you think are taking the game back, but it isn't enough to suggest that people truly are tired of as you suggest "being spoon fed" the same crap every single year. Oh, by the way, Halo's decline in my opinion which is based off of observations and first hand reports from friends and fellow or even former Halo gamers is that the multiplayer matchmaking system has something to do with it. This is a big reason why I finally decided to create a topic on it, here.

I'm willing to lose 2v1 then have someone join me. The reason for this is because when you use a drop in and out system the skill levels for each player can differ. If I was losing before you left and now start winning from a new teammate, that's not right, I deserve to lose. And I expect the same thing vise versa. If I was winning a match earlier and one opponent rage quits and gets a teammate whose better than everyone else in the game and wins that's not fair to the team who was winning before. That's not equality in terms of ethics.

Gezzz... now who's being the selfish person here?


Starcraft 2 uses the very same system I have said. People's selfish desires such as wanting a high k/d ratio shouldn't be taken into consideration when balancing a game. People need to get used to the idea that not everything will go there way just because they are a "paying customer". It doesn't mean there every single beck and call must be heard. Starcraft 2 forces you to either accept playing with and against similar skilled players and only winning half your games or leave to a different game. I guess Starcraft 2 is doing something right considering its the most popular competitive game ever and can't be denied seeing its population both in the game and at tournaments. Look at MLG, it took over the main stage and has the most spectators and players at the moment. Look at GSL compared to any tournament that LoL has had. 1st prize is literally 80k. Starcraft 2 is obviously doing something right as an online game to be that popular both casually and competitively.

  • 11.11.2011 3:30 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: Killer4785
Starcraft 2


Not a FPS.

Drop-In/Out works best with FPS. Many games prove this.

  • 11.11.2011 3:36 PM PDT

Lol

Its good for casuals that don't care about winning or losing. It's bad for people that actually want to do their best to win. The people who care about equal balance. If they would make the drop in and out system strictly for social I wouldn't care but they won't. They're not going to waste extra money and resources to keep two different systems. No company would.

  • 11.11.2011 3:41 PM PDT

Lol

Because I already know what's going to happen. Join in losing games, people I'm beating leaving and giving others a disadvantage when joining a game, joining games that just ended, being forced to wait for the next game to start, not guaranteed that new players coming in are around my skill level. Their so many variables that create balance issues with this system. While there is only like a few issues with the system now. And the big one that sums it all up is a team is placed a disadvantage if one leaves. That sacrifice should be worth it for the greater good. But casuals are so damn selfish in thinking that their "fun" is the only important factor.

  • 11.11.2011 3:46 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: Killer4785
Its good for casuals that don't care about winning or losing. It's bad for people that actually want to do their best to win. The people who care about equal balance. If they would make the drop in and out system strictly for social I wouldn't care but they won't. They're not going to waste extra money and resources to keep two different systems. No company would.


I wasn't aware that the PC era of FPS games was strictly for casuals.

I guess games like Counter Strike, Team Fortress, TRIBES, Unreal, etc were all just filled with people who didn't care about winning or losing.

  • 11.11.2011 3:47 PM PDT


Posted by: Killer4785
While there is only like a few issues with the system now. And the big one that sums it all up is a team is placed a disadvantage if one leaves. That sacrifice should be worth it for the greater good. But casuals are so damn selfish in thinking that their "fun" is the only important factor.


Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You really should speak your words into a mirror pal.

[Edited on 11.11.2011 3:54 PM PST]

  • 11.11.2011 3:53 PM PDT

Lol

In PC you have always had much more freedom, not to mention a lot of times the server mod would just ban you if you were better than them. There was no sense of responsibility. When matchmaking first came out, you no longer had to hop from server to server to find a game where you wouldn't get kicked. Now with this new luxury people should stop abusing it. Sometimes, I do wish it was server base and maybe after getting booted, hacked, banned, and the rest of the stuff maybe they would appreciate a system actually finding them close skilled players.

But it was hard to be a competitive gamer in those games because if you beat the mods badly, you got banned. So yes the vast majority of pc gamers even back then were casual.

  • 11.11.2011 3:57 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: Killer4785
In PC you have always had much more freedom, not to mention a lot of times the server mod would just ban you if you were better than them. There was no sense of responsibility. When matchmaking first came out, you no longer had to hop from server to server to find a game where you wouldn't get kicked. Now with this new luxury people should stop abusing it. Sometimes, I do wish it was server base and maybe after getting booted, hacked, banned, and the rest of the stuff maybe they would appreciate a system actually finding them close skilled players.

But it was hard to be a competitive gamer in those games because if you beat the mods badly, you got banned. So yes the vast majority of pc gamers even back then were casual.


I was never once banned in Counter Strike or TRIBES.

And I used to play TRIBES competitively.

Please do not confuse "casual" with simply being an -blam!-.

  • 11.11.2011 4:01 PM PDT


Posted by: Darkside Eric

Posted by: Killer4785
Its good for casuals that don't care about winning or losing. It's bad for people that actually want to do their best to win. The people who care about equal balance. If they would make the drop in and out system strictly for social I wouldn't care but they won't. They're not going to waste extra money and resources to keep two different systems. No company would.


I wasn't aware that the PC era of FPS games was strictly for casuals.

I guess games like Counter Strike, Team Fortress, TRIBES, Unreal, etc were all just filled with people who didn't care about winning or losing.


Not to mention, the casual gamers is exactly what Halo will want to attract in order to make their next game a bigger success. The strictly hardcore competitive players, will only take Halo sales so far, they will need to expand out to the general FPS fan base and former Halo fans who have since switched to other titles... this doesn't mean that all these players do not care about winning or competition, as I'm pretty sure most gamers in general enjoy playing to win, not simply to walk around in a game to kill time (I'm sure people can find better things to do with their time)... and it is this desire to win, and have competitive, worthwhile, and fun matches, that raises the debate on how to create a better matchmaking system for future Halo titles.

  • 11.11.2011 4:03 PM PDT

I strongly agree with OP.
Also, why would you think that if 343i would do this, they'd be copying COD? That's stupid because back in Halo CE PC demo or full game (2003), you'd be able to join games that were already in progress, which wouldn't be copying COD.

I'd play Halo more often if they did that.

[Edited on 11.11.2011 4:15 PM PST]

  • 11.11.2011 4:15 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: Killer4785
But it was hard to be a competitive gamer


And no, no it's not.

When I play Mario Kart... I want to win. That's my goal. That's why I'm playing the game instead of re~reading The Hobbit. I am playing video games for the entertainment and fun factor of winning said game.

Re. Think. "Competitive."

I play to win, just because I can accept a loss (like "casuals") does not mean I am not competitive.

When I play Mario Kart, I know a Blue Shell can screw me over. I accept that... and yet still play to win.

  • 11.11.2011 4:18 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: rodriguezadam12
they'd be copying COD?


Because gamers are terminally stupid fanboys until proven otherwise.

  • 11.11.2011 4:20 PM PDT

Ah, yes. Forgot about that but I don't think that they'd go that far into saying "Oh they copied that rock formation from COD"... well maybe a few, but not many.

  • 11.11.2011 4:27 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: rodriguezadam12
Ah, yes. Forgot about that but I don't think that they'd go that far into saying "Oh they copied that rock formation from COD"... well maybe a few, but not many.


I wouldn't put it past them to say CoD copied Slayer and just called it Team Deathmatch.

  • 11.11.2011 4:36 PM PDT

I wouldn't put it past them to say CoD copied Slayer and just called it Team Deathmatch.
lol

  • 11.11.2011 4:39 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: rodriguezadam12
I wouldn't put it past them to say CoD copied Slayer and just called it Team Deathmatch.
lol


I'm still waiting for Halo fans (strictly Halo fans mind you, fans of multiple games will know) to tell me what exactly Halo had that was unique to the FPS genre.

I.e. What did Halo bring to the FPS genre that wasn't already there? Not what did Halo bring to console FPS.

  • 11.11.2011 4:52 PM PDT

I dont know how you expect people who only play Halo to know whats unique considering if they only play Halo they dont know whats in other games.

I dont know whats in PC FPSs because I dont play games on the PC, I dont know whats in other console FPSs such as Battlefield, Crisis, etc.

[Edited on 11.11.2011 5:10 PM PST]

  • 11.11.2011 5:03 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: eRage Sanctity
I dont know how you expect people who only play Halo to know whats unique considering if they only play Halo they dont know whats in other games.

I dont know whats in PC FPSs because I dont play games on the PC, I dont know whats in other console FPSs such as Battlefield, Crisis, etc.


The point that was being made:

Stop saying such crap like "Call of Duty is copying Halo, Halo is copying Call of Duty."

Gamers are often ill informed, usually to the degree of total ignorance. When one says "drop-in/out" would make Halo "more like Call of Duty" they are flat wrong. It would make Halo more like Unreal... which it already started out like Unreal.

You, Sanc, are smart enough to realize, even if you haven't played other games, that Halo is similar to prior FPS games just as newer platformers are similar to older, newer racers are similar to older, etc, etc.

It's not about "copying" it's about having mechanics that are often times present in the genre in the first place.

  • 11.11.2011 5:17 PM PDT


Posted by: Darkside Eric

Posted by: rodriguezadam12
I wouldn't put it past them to say CoD copied Slayer and just called it Team Deathmatch.
lol


I'm still waiting for Halo fans (strictly Halo fans mind you, fans of multiple games will know) to tell me what exactly Halo had that was unique to the FPS genre.

I.e. What did Halo bring to the FPS genre that wasn't already there? Not what did Halo bring to console FPS.


ahhh, good thing you clarified at the very end. I was about to jump all over this, but then you made it so I couldn't.

  • 11.11.2011 5:49 PM PDT