Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: MM would be better without a score limit (only time limit present)
  • Subject: MM would be better without a score limit (only time limit present)
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: MM would be better without a score limit (only time limit present)
  • gamertag: ankerd
  • user homepage:

Bringing in Fikst. Bringing back lmao.
Inheritor # 475 world,

#6 In the Country.

Halocharts.com

Op must have a legit disability

  • 03.02.2012 7:53 AM PDT

Happiness is a warm gun

No, Because it NEVER takes the full duration of the match to find out which team is superior.

  • 03.02.2012 7:55 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

You've given two main benefits: (1) 100% predictable game lengths and (2) greater translation of skill gap into the score. The former is pointless because players don't normally play during a significant time crunch so game length is not as significant of a factor as gameplay itself during the game. The latter will inflate stats horrendously with a preference for the better players at the cost of the average-joe player which may ultimately be detrimental to the halo community (bluntly put, people will quit if they get as outmatched as you say). If you're truly good, then multiple pwnage games should be common and you shouldn't need uncapped kills to make it evident to yourself or others. Your third pseudo-reason is that it would lead to consistency, although logic dictates that greater score variance and more evident skill gaps would lead to more divergent scores amongst formerly homogenous groups of players.

Economically, people buy the game to enjoy it. Losing by itself is not necessarily unenjoyable, but losing by embarrassing or devastating margins is unenjoyable in any game. People will quit. Unlike sports, where you are physically there with people face-to-face, the anonymity of online multiplayer means that people have no such worries about quitting influencing public/self perception of themselves. Your argument that people will continue to play the game even if they're losing is invalid - they will only continue if (a) the losing margin is small enough, (b) they care about credits (I understand there's a penalty or something?), (c) they care about quit bans, (d) they are unusually resolute and committed to a video game. Average players, like myself, will quit in such circumstances because I didn't pay $60 + XBL to get pwned for 12 minutes.

The current system of score+time limits is good as others have mentioned. The time limit is really intended to be secondary to the score; it only comes into effect in slower/camping games to almost "end the misery/boredom" in a sense.

Hope this is "logical" enough for the OP. Not sure how forums work but it would be nice if he replied.

[Edited on 03.02.2012 8:32 AM PST]

  • 03.02.2012 8:31 AM PDT


Posted by: ManualLive
No... if you really wanna play that way, Custom Map... no need to implement every dumb idea someone post on forums in MM... if the gametype is popular then maybe theyll put it on MM... thats how Grifball was made, thanks to Rooster Teeth of course


thats also how haloball was made

  • 03.02.2012 11:48 AM PDT

Would only really work in FFA..

  • 03.02.2012 11:50 AM PDT


Posted by: ManualLive
No... if you really wanna play that way, Custom Map... no need to implement every dumb idea someone post on forums in MM... if the gametype is popular then maybe theyll put it on MM... thats how Grifball was made, thanks to Rooster Teeth of course

The change I suggested doesn't change anything about the way you play, it only changes the length of time you would play.

  • 03.02.2012 12:21 PM PDT


Posted by: WaysideGerm4
You've given two main benefits: (1) 100% predictable game lengths and (2) greater translation of skill gap into the score. The former is pointless because players don't normally play during a significant time crunch so game length is not as significant of a factor as gameplay itself during the game. The latter will inflate stats horrendously with a preference for the better players at the cost of the average-joe player which may ultimately be detrimental to the halo community (bluntly put, people will quit if they get as outmatched as you say). If you're truly good, then multiple pwnage games should be common and you shouldn't need uncapped kills to make it evident to yourself or others. Your third pseudo-reason is that it would lead to consistency, although logic dictates that greater score variance and more evident skill gaps would lead to more divergent scores amongst formerly homogenous groups of players.

You argument about stats is pointless. Yes, it will mean that better players have a higher K/D ratio and worse players have a lower K/D. That's not a bad thing.

Economically, people buy the game to enjoy it. Losing by itself is not necessarily unenjoyable, but losing by embarrassing or devastating margins is unenjoyable in any game. People will quit. Unlike sports, where you are physically there with people face-to-face, the anonymity of online multiplayer means that people have no such worries about quitting influencing public/self perception of themselves. Your argument that people will continue to play the game even if they're losing is invalid - they will only continue if (a) the losing margin is small enough, (b) they care about credits (I understand there's a penalty or something?), (c) they care about quit bans, (d) they are unusually resolute and committed to a video game. Average players, like myself, will quit in such circumstances because I didn't pay $60 + XBL to get pwned for 12 minutes.
Everyone has their own reasons for purchasing XBL. Perhaps some people wanted to have a few games where they would completely crush their opponents with over 200 kills.

The current system of score+time limits is good as others have mentioned. The time limit is really intended to be secondary to the score; it only comes into effect in slower/camping games to almost "end the misery/boredom" in a sense.
You have no reason to believe you know what the intention of the time limit is. All we know is that most often, the score to win is reached rather than the time limit.

It seems that the only real problem have with this idea is the fear that it would increase the probability a player would quit due to competitive . If reach had a proper MM system where players of equal skill were matched (ie TrueSkill was used) and quitting resulted with harsh penalties on your rank, I think my idea would work very well.

  • 03.02.2012 12:28 PM PDT

WALL OF SHAME-Posting stupidity since 2010
__________________
Posted by: Maximus Decimus
Agreed. All the changes are good and add variety. Do we really want another Halo 3? Just running around with one gun and no armor abilities? It's good that 343 wants to try something new. Do we really want the same thing for three more games?

I already thought of a way to exploit this.

  • 03.02.2012 12:34 PM PDT

@spawn031

"So much of what we do is ephemeral and quickly forgotten, even by ourselves, so it's gratifying to have something you have done linger in people's memories." John Williams

Posted by: KaRiK
I'm interested in hearing people tell me why no score limit is good for football/soccer/basketball but bad for Halo. I can't see how you can think it's good for those games but bad for Halo.

Alright, Here is the big difference, take football for example:

Football has - incentive to win AND when players are injured/tired they are replaced by another member of the team. Halo Reach has no incentive to win (since you can lose games and still rank up). Also, when a player quits they AREN'T replaced.

How awesome would it be to watch a football game where one team has 11 players on the field and the other has 3!!!

It's bad for Halo because if a player quits, that's it. That creates uneven teams unlike football/soccer/basketball. It would only work in Halo if players were replaced when someone quits. Until then, the suggestion your proposed is pointless.

[Edited on 03.02.2012 1:07 PM PST]

  • 03.02.2012 12:45 PM PDT

Welcome to the internet. Joy dies here.

Unlimited games would be alright, but not in place of limited ones. If anything I'd be happiest if they implemented some sort of drop-in/drop-out public customs with no limits. Then the only incentive to stay in the game would be enjoying the game. The way it ought to be.

  • 03.02.2012 12:52 PM PDT

Your presence here is quite unneeded. Begone you!!!


Posted by: KaRiK
I'm interested in hearing people tell me why no score limit is good for football/soccer/basketball but bad for Halo. I can't see how you can think it's good for those games but bad for Halo.

The fact is the only reason people are voting disagree is because it's different and people can't stand change.


You just don't understand what you are requesting. A scoreless time limit would just encourage quitters and boosters or back people up in an already hesitant corner.

  • 03.02.2012 12:54 PM PDT

This is a dumb and pointless idea.
Most full teams hold the objective for the time limit anyways. The only time it would work is in slayer game types, and the truth is most randoms quit now when the game is clearly won within the first 2 minutes. If they had to wait a full 15 with unlimited kills all the randoms would quit which means you wouldn't get your covenanted kills anyways.
I bet you were bad at games like Gears 1 were you had to search ranked solo, and couldn't farm kills against randoms.

  • 03.02.2012 1:04 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Be Brave
Posted by: spawn031
Posted by: KaRiK
I'm interested in hearing people tell me why no score limit is good for football/soccer/basketball but bad for Halo. I can't see how you can think it's good for those games but bad for Halo.

Alright, Here is the big difference, take football for example:

Football has - incentive to win AND when players are injured/tired they are replaced by another member of the team. Halo Reach has no incentive to win (since you can lose games and still rank up). Also, when a player quits they AREN'T replaced.

How awesome would it be to watch a football game where one team has 11 players on the field and the other has 3!!!

It's bad for Halo because if a player quits, that's it. That creates uneven teams unlike football/soccer/basketball. It would only work in Halo if players were replaced when someone quits. Until then, the suggestion your proposed is pointless.

  • 03.02.2012 1:08 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Jace Beleren

Posted by: Be Brave
Posted by: spawn031
Posted by: KaRiK
I'm interested in hearing people tell me why no score limit is good for football/soccer/basketball but bad for Halo. I can't see how you can think it's good for those games but bad for Halo.

Alright, Here is the big difference, take football for example:

Football has - incentive to win AND when players are injured/tired they are replaced by another member of the team. Halo Reach has no incentive to win (since you can lose games and still rank up). Also, when a player quits they AREN'T replaced.

How awesome would it be to watch a football game where one team has 11 players on the field and the other has 3!!!

It's bad for Halo because if a player quits, that's it. That creates uneven teams unlike football/soccer/basketball. It would only work in Halo if players were replaced when someone quits. Until then, the suggestion your proposed is pointless.

this

  • 03.02.2012 1:13 PM PDT

No just no. Your idea sucks.

  • 03.02.2012 2:05 PM PDT


Posted by: spawn031
Posted by: KaRiK
I'm interested in hearing people tell me why no score limit is good for football/soccer/basketball but bad for Halo. I can't see how you can think it's good for those games but bad for Halo.

Alright, Here is the big difference, take football for example:

Football has - incentive to win AND when players are injured/tired they are replaced by another member of the team. Halo Reach has no incentive to win (since you can lose games and still rank up). Also, when a player quits they AREN'T replaced.

How awesome would it be to watch a football game where one team has 11 players on the field and the other has 3!!!

It's bad for Halo because if a player quits, that's it. That creates uneven teams unlike football/soccer/basketball. It would only work in Halo if players were replaced when someone quits. Until then, the suggestion your proposed is pointless.

The point you're making can apply to any gametype. Yes, quitting is bad and ruins games and it sucks. But no gametype is ever going to prevent people from quitting - it will always be a problem.

You haven't said if quitting would be a larger problem or if more people would quit using no score limit. I see no reason of why it would occur more often or would be a larger problem.

  • 03.02.2012 3:02 PM PDT

Why even bother, really?
I rage.


Posted by: ankerd123
Op must have a legit disability

  • 03.02.2012 3:50 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:



Posted by: KaRiK
You argument about stats is pointless. Yes, it will mean that better players have a higher K/D ratio and worse players have a lower K/D. That's not a bad thing.


If you read closely, my real argument was that a greater disparity would lead to more quitting as players would not want to go through the negative experiences that much.

Everyone has their own reasons for purchasing XBL. Perhaps some people wanted to have a few games where they would completely crush their opponents with over 200 kills.

The reason you stated is the same as the reason I stated for buying XBL. Find me someone who bought it just to get repeatedly pwned and then that may lend credence to your initially posted idea. Having fun = winning. Losing does not always still mean you're having fun. This is what I said.

You have no reason to believe you know what the intention of the time limit is. All we know is that most often, the score to win is reached rather than the time limit.

From what you said, given what we know, if we were forced to make an inference, we would say that statistically, the score limit is reached more, which means that the score limit in practice serves as the true "timer/limit" of the game - it continues until a score, not time, is reached most of the time. Logic dictates that the time limit comes in when the score limit fails to end the game, as a kind of failsafe; this happens always in practice.

It seems that the only real problem have with this idea is the fear that it would increase the probability a player would quit due to competitive . If reach had a proper MM system where players of equal skill were matched (ie TrueSkill was used) and quitting resulted with harsh penalties on your rank, I think my idea would work very well.

You are contradicting what you said earlier about getting larger winning margins being a reason you want this by now saying that if you wouldn't have as large margins it would work. If the skill matching system truly worked, games would be just as close irregardless of time limits.

I see you said nothing to reinforce your previously mentioned real-life-sports analogy and reference. I am assuming that the others in this forum and I rendered that viewpoint null. I also see you said nothing to refute my rebuttal of your claim that having a knowledge of exactly how long a game will be is inconsequential to Halo.

Changing your arguments and echoing mine while I keep my arguments implies that my arguments - along with those of others in the forum - are more sound. Bungie/343i must think so too as this is how they made the game.


[Edited on 03.02.2012 5:46 PM PST]

  • 03.02.2012 5:43 PM PDT

@spawn031

"So much of what we do is ephemeral and quickly forgotten, even by ourselves, so it's gratifying to have something you have done linger in people's memories." John Williams

Posted by: KaRiK
The point you're making can apply to any gametype. Yes, quitting is bad and ruins games and it sucks. But no gametype is ever going to prevent people from quitting - it will always be a problem.

Which is exactly my point. Quitting is always a problem in Halo. Quitting is not a problem in soccer/football/basketball. Glad you can finally see the difference between the two.

You haven't said if quitting would be a larger problem or if more people would quit using no score limit. I see no reason of why it would occur more often or would be a larger problem.
it already is a problem, because there is no incentive to win.

  • 03.02.2012 6:39 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member
  • gamertag: tsujen
  • user homepage:

Inheritor #156 :p

Just hto in btb and play like that.. You'll get some games where the kills are like 250-10. But as above people have said people would quit a lot more than they do now, it would only really work good in FFA.

  • 03.02.2012 6:45 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2