Vetoing is bringing in the same problems as Voting guys, because people will still quit if they do not get the maps they want or a certain map they want for matchmaking even after vetoing the first selection of maps, why is this so hard to understand??!! This gets into my other post about bring back veto or voting for maps, that is why there is the CGB you can play whatever map you want to play on or even your favorite maps you want to play. Hence both systems promote favoritism, which certain groups of people will start to take advantage of.
Back to the topic on hand, because of people deleting maps from the map folder so they only play the maps they want to play on and so they force matchmaking to pick the maps that one person has installed, this is exactly the same crux of the problem with people abusing the voting system or circumventing it to play only the maps they like and everyone else has to deal with it, leading to other people quitting more. Having the system choose the map for your instead, creates an even playing field of not promoting favoritism and just play what is offered to you. Voting or Vetoing leads to more people quitting in the end, that is all that system ever has done in a serious environment where you level up your character through XP or ranking up.
I guess 343 could just remove the quit option from the start menu if we brought back vetoing or voting to hopefully reduce people quitting right, but that would be a crazy idea here right? But unfortunately, you can already get around that by quitting to the Home screen, or Task Manager on PC and quit out of the game, etc. But you still get banned for doing that anyways when going back in game (I got banned recently from the game crashing on me).
Veto is not meant to stop people quitting forever and for always, its meant to mitigate the issue in the cleanest and most user friendly way possible. Its not as exploitable as Vote, puts all maps on an even playing field, and stops the composer from getting locked on giving players the exact same map and mode that causes the majority of a lobby to quit.
What youâre suggesting is what we have now, and therin lies the very issue that has been causing people to stoop to map deletion and quitting at volumes far above and beyond what it should be; there is no Veto to allow the majority of players any control over the lobby from getting stale. On top of that, in a time where CGB now exists, there is no excuse why Veto hasnât been added to Matchmaking.
Ok, lets make a compromise here, if we could allow Vetoing at least to come back (as you said to allow some control over what maps to pick so the same maps do no come up over and over again, which I do agree somewhat, although once again as I said already, all the voting or vetoing does is allow favoritism and exploiting of the matches where certain players start trolling other player in the match if they control it too much of what gets picked and is going to still cause people to quit, the it starts to spread like wildfire to where only a select number of maps gets picked from the list that is available in the match composer selection and THEN certain maps do not get played on and no it definitely does not allow an even playing field of maps to choose from, certain maps will get picked constantly if this does get implemented and were back to the same problem with the current system of certain maps coming up over and over again), the following features below absolutely has to be included in MCC Matchmaking BEFORE any kind of vetoing system can be in Matchmaking:
Join in Progress is a complete requirement for vetoing to come back, so we avoid unbalanced matches, and we can keep a full roster for the matches,
When a player quits in a match, Bots need to be introduced in PvP Matchmaking (and PvE coop for Firefight as well) for MCC and Custom Games so the bot can replace a person if he or she leaves.
If the two features above do not get implemented, I will NOT support any kind of voting/vetoing in matchmaking whatsoever, only for custom games browser right now could get vetoing or voting.
Veto only gives the players the control to reroll the game settings, they canât pick the maps and modes as you can with Vote, and unless a majority agrees, the reroll cannot happen. If certain maps and modes are continually Vetoed, then it is democracy at its finest as the majority has spoken. One major boon to bringing veto back now is that unlike in legacy, those maps and modes can be hosted on the CGB, negating the only major issue that Veto had.
As for the features you mentioned though, Join in Progress is something everyone can agree shouldnât just be for CGB, however it cannot be stressed enough that it being added alongside Bots is an unreasonable ask, as although JiP already partially exists, bots would need the engines reworked and rebalanced for 6 different engines.
Players are STILL doing this. Iâm currently watching a team of 4 that have deleted several maps (Orbital, Waterfall, Icebox, etc) and are excited to type in chat about how they have âVetoedâ certain maps.
343 should realistically stop putting trash maps in the rotation with such a heavy probability weight to them as well. Literally getting on Halo Reach multiplayer especially BTB, all you get 95% of the time is DLC maps which nobody really ever preferred because they didnât play as well as the forge world maps or even the maps at launch.
You canât just modify anything, certain files that provide an advantage are syncâd on launch for integrity. You canât just have a free for all with the files, plus I would rather have people delete maps they donât want to play rather than have them quit out of throw so the game ends quicker. Realistically the maps in rotation are not weighed equally or even fairly so most games are the same 3 or 4 maps over and over and over. Again, I would rather have a better system in place for this not to happen period but there not being one, players will ultimately leave or make their own fix and not much can be done at that point.
This reminds me of the Xbox 360 days of Halo: Reach when people would scratch up their game discs to avoid playing Forge World and Sword Base. I HATED it when I got that âmap failed to loadâ glitch and I got stuck in the lobby causing half the players to quit. I donât know why they didnât ever ban the people who did that.
They could also add a toggle saying âI donât want to play on Halo Online mapsâ that would keep people from doing this.
From what Iâve seen on other forums most PC players who do this donât want to play on the H:O maps as they are built with sprint in mind and donât conform to the H3 artstyle (being not fun or aesthetically pleasing).
I feel like a toggle (with the obvious expectation that matchmaking times may be longer) would also aid in this issue without just outright banning people because they want to play classic Halo 3.
Going around banning people left and right is a surefire way to help make the already small MCC population smaller.
People had this same attitude anytime new maps were added to H3 back in the day.
Itâs great that in 2022 we can act like everyone loved all of the 13 new maps added via map packs (and ofc Cold Storage included which was free) but the reality was the community reacted to some of those maps in similar ways. Even non-DLC maps received a lot of hate, I remember players scratching their discs to avoid Last Resort for example.
The community ought to be thankful that there is still some variety being injected into Halo 3 that doesnât change core gameplay. Stomping your feet and crying that you donât want to play on 3 Maps (Edge/Icebox/Waterfall - and eventually Reactor fingers crossed!) is exactly that. Free content provided at no additional cost, no game pass no battle pass no microtransactions? Perfect.
If you delete maps youâre altering game files and should be actioned and/or unable to queue in Matchmaking. Period. We could make an argument that vetoing should exist again, but unilaterally destroying lobbies because you are too scared/unwilling/(insert emotion here) to learn a new map is silly.
Just because content is free doesnât mean its good.
I donât delete maps (well, obviously as I play on Xbox), but I understand the strong dislike for H:O maps and wanting to not play on them in matchmaking.
Besides that point, I agree that vetoing should absolutely be brought back and is probably a better option than a toggle. Let the people of that lobby decide if its a map worth playing.
I personally feel that if lobbies being thrown away is an issue because we have to wait long times for a match, then banning more of the population isnât a good solution, but finding ways to make everyone happy.
This has been an idea tossed around for a while, but generally people agree it shouldnât just be the Anvil maps. The best idea so far has been map-pack by map-pack, so that its more in-line with legacy Halo when someone didnât have certain map-packs by choice.
Most of these people are directing grievances with Edge towards all of the new maps, even though Waterfallâs issues are purely performance related, and Icebox tends to be given a pass when its pointed out how its a Halo 2 remake not too dissimilar from Blackout.
Ironically its the same response old map-packs used to have
I think the bigger discussion on Icebox is that the spawns are very improperly balanced - or at least give that appearance, due to its size and gametypes in the rotation.