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?

I agree with the OP. It's a shame Halo fanboys blindly hate COD and every aspect of it, even if it is actually a very good idea.

  • 11.11.2011 11:35 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: Majatek
Posted by: Darkside Eric
What may sound awful on paper may actually work in practice and vice versa.

Too bad Armour Lock was the exact opposite to that supposed design process.


Armor Lock was simply not balanced well in practice. Overshield is actual proof of that because Overshield is Armor Lock with different weights in the balance scale.

  • 11.12.2011 12:17 AM PDT

http://i.imgur.com/fsISj.png

I disagree, I don't like the Join In Session option being in any game.

That said, I'm glad people are coming up with ideas to improve Halo, and not just the usual "oh noes, this was in <insert other series> before, if this is in Halo it will turn into <insert aforementioned other series>.

  • 11.12.2011 12:26 AM PDT



Now, even though Halo is one of the most different FPS available and requires the most about of skill to play well
Posted by: marklar826
Halo is console Quake, its hardly unique. It also has a tiny skill-gap by comparison.


I should have been more specific... "Halo is one of the most different (/unique Console) FPS available..."

As for a console FPS game, it certainly requires a large amount skill to be good at it then say many other FPS games that are available on a console.

  • 11.12.2011 7:01 AM PDT

It completely ruins the original idea of CE: team v team gameplay. And randoms have a hard enough time winning as it is, who wants to throw them in with a team that's down 49-17? That's just such a dick move on the game's part; a loss for wanting to play but your friends have classes. I can see replacing players who quit within the first 20% of the game's kills, but even then, adding a new player completely changes the other team's strategy. Casuals don't quite get that nuance so they vote yes.

  • 11.12.2011 7:09 AM PDT


Posted by: hisfamily
I agree with the OP. It's a shame Halo fanboys blindly hate COD and every aspect of it, even if it is actually a very good idea.

It's a great idea that should have been a $20 patch every 2 years, rather than a full game. Re-balancing multiplayer and adding a few "spec ops" missions plus a zombie mode would have been enough to keep me occupied, but demanding that I pay full price for a patch? -blam!- THAT!

  • 11.12.2011 7:11 AM PDT


Posted by: Iron Div is Pro
Nope.

Halo has had it right since 04.

It would ruin the very nature of Halo MM.
The system works and always has.

[Edited on 11.12.2011 7:16 AM PST]

  • 11.12.2011 7:15 AM PDT


Posted by: afuzzykitten541
It completely ruins the original idea of CE: team v team gameplay. And randoms have a hard enough time winning as it is, who wants to throw them in with a team that's down 49-17? That's just such a dick move on the game's part; a loss for wanting to play but your friends have classes.


Had you of read my original post, granted it is pretty long and most people seem to have a serious case of ADD these days, you would have seen I recognized the issue of possibly landing into a game where a team was down by a ton and likely in a spawn trap. I attempted within that OP to solve or work around that issue, by explaining how matches would be analyzed on the fly by a game mechanic which would determine an appropriate time to lock a match so that players would not get dropped into a horrible situation. Then I also went on to describe the system ability to avoid undeserved wins and losses... please read next time before commenting.

I can see replacing players who quit within the first 20% of the game's kills, but even then, adding a new player completely changes the other team's strategy. Casuals don't quite get that nuance so they vote yes.

If it's a close game regardless to how far into the game it is when someone is dropped out for whatever reason, I don't think the addition of a new player is a big deal at all, in fact it saves what was a competitive game right to the very end. As for your comment about a new player completely changing the other team's strategy... have you ever heard of changing strategies on the fly? These kinds of games force you to be adaptable. It's just another challenge to face, learn from, and grow from... not something to complain about and whine about, like you're scared to face a changing tactic. I mean what if an opponent simply changed their tactics midway through a game... would you be so outraged because that's not playing within your "unspoken" rules of Halo? I don't think so.

  • 11.12.2011 7:26 AM PDT


Posted by: AcedannyK 7

Posted by: Iron Div is Pro
Nope.

Halo has had it right since 04.

It would ruin the very nature of Halo MM.
The system works and always has.


The system works to a degree, but it certainly doesn't work real well. As is it is a major pain for those who would like to enjoy a game and see it to it's conclusion, but once a quitter occurs, the game becomes nearly or likely pointless... it losses a lot of it's fun factor. Regardless to what side you're on... I don't enjoy knowing my team has gotten the upper hand till the match is over when players of the other team quit, the game quickly becomes about who can located the poor suckers who are left and get the kill... this is not a competitive game this is just a free for all... as in a fox hunt. This system weakens the longer term play-ability of the game and it really needs to be addressed going forward. For those of you who are so fixed against this concept their exists the Ranked matches which should reserve the traditional system, but allow the more casual fans of Halo to enjoy the competitive spirit of the game.

  • 11.12.2011 7:35 AM PDT


Posted by: eLantern

Posted by: afuzzykitten541
It completely ruins the original idea of CE: team v team gameplay. And randoms have a hard enough time winning as it is, who wants to throw them in with a team that's down 49-17? That's just such a dick move on the game's part; a loss for wanting to play but your friends have classes.


Had you of read my original post, granted it is pretty long and most people seem to have a serious case of ADD these days, you would have seen I recognized the issue of possibly landing into a game where a team was down by a ton and likely in a spawn trap. I attempted within that OP to solve or work around that issue, by explaining how matches would be analyzed on the fly by a game mechanic which would determine an appropriate time to lock a match so that players would not get dropped into a horrible situation. Then I also went on to describe the system ability to avoid undeserved wins and losses... please read next time before commenting.

I can see replacing players who quit within the first 20% of the game's kills, but even then, adding a new player completely changes the other team's strategy. Casuals don't quite get that nuance so they vote yes.

If it's a close game regardless to how far into the game it is when someone is dropped out for whatever reason, I don't think the addition of a new player is a big deal at all, in fact it saves what was a competitive game right to the very end. As for your comment about a new player completely changing the other team's strategy... have you ever heard of changing strategies on the fly? These kinds of games force you to be adaptable. It's just another challenge to face, learn from, and grow from... not something to complain about and whine about, like you're scared to face a changing tactic. I mean what if an opponent simply changed their tactics midway through a game... would you be so outraged because that's not playing within your "unspoken" rules of Halo? I don't think so.


Fair enough, adapting on the fly should be an important component of MLG teams. Historically, both generals that have the ability to adapt on the fly and plan basically everything beforehand have succeeded, so it's fair to expect competitive players to plan for a random good player to be dropped in their midst.

Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm still mildly intoxicated from last night and didn't read your entire post before I posted. The thing is, an addition of a new player in a close match to the end can produce a significant change in how that match shapes up. Imagine if players like me and you were playing a close game and suddenly a random quits and someone like cossta or bito joins the game on the team of whoever had the quitter. Who would win then? The better team, or the team who had the player most likely to quit? Obviously, it could work both ways, but it's still random. My experience in CoD is that nearly no one quits from a winning team, which means every time you join a game at random, you have the potential to be placed in a game that's already decided. A much more applicable solution would merely be a "surrender" option for teams with 1/4 of their original complement. They get, maybe, I don't know, some portion of a loss while the victorious team gets a win.

  • 11.12.2011 7:52 AM PDT


Posted by: afuzzykitten541
The thing is, an addition of a new player in a close match to the end can produce a significant change in how that match shapes up. Imagine if players like me and you were playing a close game and suddenly a random quits and someone like cossta or bito joins the game on the team of whoever had the quitter. Who would win then? The better team, or the team who had the player most likely to quit? Obviously, it could work both ways, but it's still random.


Thing is, that if the matchmaking system is working properly the type of player that gets dropped in, in replacement for the player who was lost, should (hopefully) be a player of similar capability. It shouldn't be dropping an MLG pro into a match to replace someone who was playing their first FPS game ever. This goes back to proper implementation and construction of the system itself.

My experience in CoD is that nearly no one quits from a winning team, which means every time you join a game at random, you have the potential to be placed in a game that's already decided. A much more applicable solution would merely be a "surrender" option for teams with 1/4 of their original complement. They get, maybe, I don't know, some portion of a loss while the victorious team gets a win.

I've landed in several games such as you explain, but I've also landed in games where I've assisted in helping the team come back to win, and I've landed in games where the score was pretty even and it was a battle right to the end - win or lose. I agree that a surrender option is also important, it should be available at all times for Ranked games where there isn't a chance of player replacement (unless Halo gets dedicated servers, in which case the player who left should be able to re-join, this is for when a player's leaving was an accident - power surge or whatever) and in Social games the surrender feature I believe would work great for games that get out of hand and become locked, just as I explained in the OP. However, anybody who has to surrender should be ready to accept the loss, none of this half or quarter loss credit.

[Edited on 11.12.2011 8:26 AM PST]

  • 11.12.2011 8:22 AM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.

For people who believe it ruins Halo's teamplay...

Did it ruin the teamplay in Halo PC?

  • 11.12.2011 8:35 AM PDT


Posted by: Darkside Eric
For people who believe it ruins Halo's teamplay...

Did it ruin the teamplay in Halo PC?

Never thought someone would bring it up :D

  • 11.12.2011 9:24 AM PDT

The Halo series was my first and favorite FPS series.
I enjoy most games throughout all systems despite what some people say.

Oh, and on the forums, I tell it like it is, like it or not.

I like Halo the way it is. I don't like the whole "join in, jump in" idea because there are so many aspects of it that don't quite fit right. You have no idea what you may be getting into, and what if the team you get put on is already losing by a substantial amount of points?

It's really not just worth it.

  • 11.12.2011 10:24 AM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: golffore297
I like Halo the way it is. I don't like the whole "join in, jump in" idea because there are so many aspects of it that don't quite fit right. You have no idea what you may be getting into, and what if the team you get put on is already losing by a substantial amount of points?

It's really not just worth it.


Apparently you don't know what server lists are.

  • 11.12.2011 10:48 AM PDT


Posted by: golffore297
I like Halo the way it is. I don't like the whole "join in, jump in" idea because there are so many aspects of it that don't quite fit right. You have no idea what you may be getting into, and what if the team you get put on is already losing by a substantial amount of points?

It's really not just worth it.


Another person who likely voted without reading the post.

  • 11.12.2011 12:06 PM PDT

The Halo series was my first and favorite FPS series.
I enjoy most games throughout all systems despite what some people say.

Oh, and on the forums, I tell it like it is, like it or not.


Posted by: eLantern

Posted by: golffore297
I like Halo the way it is. I don't like the whole "join in, jump in" idea because there are so many aspects of it that don't quite fit right. You have no idea what you may be getting into, and what if the team you get put on is already losing by a substantial amount of points?

It's really not just worth it.


Another person who likely voted without reading the post.


I read the post.

No matter how many times I read the ideas and aspects of this, it never quite sticks right in my mind.

  • 11.12.2011 12:22 PM PDT

"If you want to test a man's character, give him power" -- Abraham Lincoln

GoW3's system works quite well. Thats what should be used.

  • 11.12.2011 12:25 PM PDT


Posted by: golffore297

Posted by: eLantern

Posted by: golffore297
I like Halo the way it is. I don't like the whole "join in, jump in" idea because there are so many aspects of it that don't quite fit right. You have no idea what you may be getting into, and what if the team you get put on is already losing by a substantial amount of points?

It's really not just worth it.


Another person who likely voted without reading the post.


I read the post.

No matter how many times I read the ideas and aspects of this, it never quite sticks right in my mind.


Sure you did, that's why you made the comment, "...and what if the team you get put on is already losing by a substantial amount of points?"

Though, nice try at covering up you're original ignorance.

  • 11.12.2011 12:32 PM PDT

Flash Kicks beat Armor Lock.

TheLab.


Posted by: golffore297

Posted by: eLantern

Posted by: golffore297
I like Halo the way it is. I don't like the whole "join in, jump in" idea because there are so many aspects of it that don't quite fit right. You have no idea what you may be getting into, and what if the team you get put on is already losing by a substantial amount of points?

It's really not just worth it.


Another person who likely voted without reading the post.


I read the post.

No matter how many times I read the ideas and aspects of this, it never quite sticks right in my mind.


The problem could potentially be what's between your keyboard and chair rather than what was on the screen that you read.

  • 11.12.2011 12:35 PM PDT

Arby n The Chief - THER CANZ BE NLY 1

No way, end of story.

  • 11.12.2011 12:35 PM PDT