So I’ve played Reach from release (on numerous GT’s) and over time I’ve got REAL salty over the voting system. Looking back through games I’ve been forced to play forge world 10 times in a row, sometimes on the same variation. Now this system is definately favored by a large portion of the Reach fanbase, but is it fair that other players limit a minorities experience?
I understand giving the player an option to choose what they want to play, but where is the variety? 9 out of 10 BtB games being Hemorrhage, one being Boneyard. It’s almost intolerable to know that as little as two people can decide what map I’m going to play.
I hope 343 considers the vetoing option, as not only does it give a more varied experience, it’s fair and still gives some power to the players.
voting, so much better than vetoing. I remember the out of the frying-pan into the flames moments on halo 3 (everyone vetoed a mediocre map or gametype and got an even worse one instead).
I still prefer the voting system, just not Reach’s. Vetoing was driven entirely by gametype, while Reach is driven by map.
What Halo 4 should do is have gametype and map voting separate. Pick 1 of 4 maps to play out, with any ties resulting in a randomly selected map, and the same for the gametype. I would also remove any kind of weighing on any 1 map (ie Countdown).
> I still prefer the voting system, just not Reach’s. Vetoing was driven entirely by gametype, while Reach is driven by map.
>
> What Halo 4 should do is have gametype and map voting separate. Pick 1 of 4 maps to play out, with any ties resulting in a randomly selected map, and the same for the gametype. I would also remove any kind of weighing on any 1 map (ie Countdown).
Also, the less variations of a map as possible per playlist will fix this.
> > I still prefer the voting system, just not Reach’s. Vetoing was driven entirely by gametype, while Reach is driven by map.
> >
> > What Halo 4 should do is have gametype and map voting separate. Pick 1 of 4 maps to play out, with any ties resulting in a randomly selected map, and the same for the gametype. I would also remove any kind of weighing on any 1 map (ie Countdown).
>
> Also, the less variations of a map as possible per playlist will fix this.
Agreed. In the end though, I don’t want to go back to the horrible veto system. Every game was BR starts, the map be -Yoink!-.
The voting system at least gives you up to three chances to get what you want. The veto system has you getting rid of one option, and then getting a new one that may be less favorable to you.
It’s partly the reason why I don’t like vetoing much in Halo 3.
If they can make a tie-breaker round in the voting, and make the maps much more varied, I’d absolutely adore the voting system even more.
> > > I still prefer the voting system, just not Reach’s. Vetoing was driven entirely by gametype, while Reach is driven by map.
> > >
> > > What Halo 4 should do is have gametype and map voting separate. Pick 1 of 4 maps to play out, with any ties resulting in a randomly selected map, and the same for the gametype. I would also remove any kind of weighing on any 1 map (ie Countdown).
> >
> > Also, the less variations of a map as possible per playlist will fix this.
>
> Agreed. In the end though, I don’t want to go back to the horrible veto system. Every game was BR starts, the map be -Yoink!-.
The problem is that people want something so different from Reach that they are blind to Reach’s improvements. The voting system is definitely an improvement and could work perfectly with some tweaking.
The voting is exactly why reach became boring so fast, everyone picks the same few maps and games. yah stinks when you don’t get what you want every time but variety helps to break up the monotony.
> > > > I still prefer the voting system, just not Reach’s. Vetoing was driven entirely by gametype, while Reach is driven by map.
> > > >
> > > > What Halo 4 should do is have gametype and map voting separate. Pick 1 of 4 maps to play out, with any ties resulting in a randomly selected map, and the same for the gametype. I would also remove any kind of weighing on any 1 map (ie Countdown).
> > >
> > > Also, the less variations of a map as possible per playlist will fix this.
> >
> > Agreed. In the end though, I don’t want to go back to the horrible veto system. Every game was BR starts, the map be -Yoink!-.
>
> The problem is that people want something so different from Reach that they are blind to Reach’s improvements. The voting system is definitely an improvement and could work perfectly with some tweaking.
I’d rather have the game select the options for us sort of like Halo 2’s style. But if we can’t have that, then let’s get the Veto option back. Voting for Reach maps/gametypes just makes the overall options look worse than they are.
People just vote for the same maps everytime. Everytime I play Rumble Pit people vote either for Sword Base or Countdown.
You can probably say the same for the Team Snipers/Hemorrhage voting.
> I’d rather have the game select the options for us sort of like Halo 2’s style. But if we can’t have that, then let’s get the Veto option back. Voting for Reach maps/gametypes just makes the overall options look worse than they are.
Agree 100 percent, I don’t think I have ever played 1 bomb in MP in Reach. Sad…
yester-/today i played reach again for the first time since months and this (OP) is one of two things that made me not spend hours online and eventualy quit playing reach (the other thing being betrayals for vehicles & powerweapons).
Voting doesn’t work, it gives to many “unlearned” players to many options. Vetoing is iffy, but I don’t mind it. What I really want to see is Halo 2’s system, you get it, you play it and its done.