I think that we can all agree that voting on maps in not a good idea. It lowers variety and makes the experience very repetitive. This is exactly why I was all for map rotation when Josh Holmes said that’s what Halo 5 would have. Sadly though, this hasn’t helped map variety at all. I’ve played Urban 6 of my last 12 games. It’s always like this.
Veto is perfect for something like this. It gives people control, without giving them too much. Map rotation would improve, and variety would increase. I understand that this might be impossible, but if it isn’t 343i should work on this as soon as possible. it would make the game so good.
One of the reasons I stopped playing H5 is due to the horrid map rotation. I’m sorry but when I play Overgrowth 5 out of 6 games I really don’t ever want to play the game again.
I don’t think so, just a better rotation. I do seem to get stuck in a rut of certain game types or maps a lot. I’m not sure a veto would fix that. One thing that bothers me is how much team slayer is in team arena. I have played only a handful of games in team slayer because it comes up so much in team arena.
/begin rant/
STRONGHOLDS STRONGHOLDS STRONGHOLDS
STRONGHOLDS STRONGHOLDS STRONGHOLDS
isojsdv hiopnwni dowhwhskldodbdjwpownsndnmd Incoherent screaming about strongholds
/end rant/
Almost every time I play this gametype, I am either winning or losing by a landslide. Sounds like warzone. I hope we can veto gametypes as well.
> 2533274875982754;3:
> Map rotation should be better, I wish they explained how this works. Not sure a veto system is any different than voting.
Veto has a danger to it. With voting you always get the “best” option. With veto there is a chance that you get a worse thing than what you originally had. This sounds bad, but what that does is increase the variation, while still giving you choice. If you don’t want to play CTF on Basin there is still the chance that you get Strongholds on Deadlock (who actually likes that?). With voting you play Slayer on Whatever every time.
> 2533274805497312;7:
> Meh. Never really liked vetoing. In fact, I actually liked it less than voting. Especially in playlists with multiple gametypes.
This is an issue for sure, but better playlist management would make it not as big of an issue.
> 2533274800772611;10:
> > 2533274875982754;3:
> > Map rotation should be better, I wish they explained how this works. Not sure a veto system is any different than voting.
>
>
> Veto has a danger to it. With voting you always get the “best” option. With veto there is a chance that you get a worse thing than what you originally had. This sounds bad, but what that does is increase the variation, while still giving you choice. If you don’t want to play CTF on Basin there is still the chance that you get Strongholds on Deadlock (who actually likes that?). With voting you play Slayer on Whatever every time.
I think there’s a far easier way to sort this out, implementing a veto system will be extra work for 343, however if they changed the way the maps are rotated so you don’t get one map that always pops up more majority of the time I think that will resolve the issue, we just need more even rotations.
> 2533274800772611;11:
> > 2533274805497312;7:
> > Meh. Never really liked vetoing. In fact, I actually liked it less than voting. Especially in playlists with multiple gametypes.
>
>
> This is an issue for sure, but better playlist management would make it not as big of an issue.
To me, the “well, the second option was worse than the first option” negative outweighs the positive. I can already see myself getting mad, “Great, they vetoed Strongholds on Guillotine because they want Slayer, now we get Slayer on freaking Recurve.” /throws up
> 2533274800772611;1:
> I think that we can all agree that voting on maps in not a good idea. It lowers variety and makes the experience very repetitive. This is exactly why I was all for map rotation when Josh Holmes said that’s what Halo 5 would have. Sadly though, this hasn’t helped map variety at all. I’ve played Urban 6 of my last 12 games. It’s always like this.
>
> Veto is perfect for something like this. It gives people control, without giving them too much. Map rotation would improve, and variety would increase. I understand that this might be impossible, but if it isn’t 343i should work on this as soon as possible. it would make the game so good.
Veto is NOT a good either…think about how often maps would get Veto…we’d end up playing the same maps over, over. Random is better since it means less chance of missing out on maps…it’s the reason why so many maps in MCC are ignored so it makes no sense to include the feature in H5.
> 2533274829873463;15:
> > 2533274800772611;1:
> > I think that we can all agree that voting on maps in not a good idea. It lowers variety and makes the experience very repetitive. This is exactly why I was all for map rotation when Josh Holmes said that’s what Halo 5 would have. Sadly though, this hasn’t helped map variety at all. I’ve played Urban 6 of my last 12 games. It’s always like this.
> >
> > Veto is perfect for something like this. It gives people control, without giving them too much. Map rotation would improve, and variety would increase. I understand that this might be impossible, but if it isn’t 343i should work on this as soon as possible. it would make the game so good.
>
>
> Veto is NOT a good either…think about how often maps would get Veto…we’d end up playing the same maps over, over. Random is better since it means less chance of missing out on maps…it’s the reason why so many maps in MCC are ignored so it makes no sense to include the feature in H5.
Do you understand how the veto system works?
For the sake of the argument, let’s say that you are vetoing whether or not you get heads in a coin toss.
The chances of getting heads is 50% without a veto system.
With a veto system in place, if you get tails the first flip, then you can essentially try again and the chance of getting heads is still 50% (although I know this isn’t exactly how it works in halo, but there are many maps/gametypes so the variability is much greater). This makes the chances of getting heads 75% and tails 25%. So you will get what you want (heads) more often than what you don’t (tails), yet you still have variability (it isn’t 100% heads).
Why wouldn’t this work? People should not have to be forced to play maps that they don’t like as much as maps that they love - yet this accounts for differences in opinion and therefore the person that loves an unpopular map will still get the opportunity to play it (although not quite as often as the popular maps).
This is the same threads that went on during the course of Halo 2 and Halo 3 Matchmaking. Then it was implemented, and nobody liked it because everyone would vote for the same couple map and gametype combinations.
The best solution is to just have a solid rotation so you please as many as you can. To say it’s needed badly is an exaggeration for sure.
> 2533274827230981;16:
> > 2533274829873463;15:
> > > 2533274800772611;1:
> > > I think that we can all agree that voting on maps in not a good idea. It lowers variety and makes the experience very repetitive. This is exactly why I was all for map rotation when Josh Holmes said that’s what Halo 5 would have. Sadly though, this hasn’t helped map variety at all. I’ve played Urban 6 of my last 12 games. It’s always like this.
> > >
> > > Veto is perfect for something like this. It gives people control, without giving them too much. Map rotation would improve, and variety would increase. I understand that this might be impossible, but if it isn’t 343i should work on this as soon as possible. it would make the game so good.
> >
> >
> > Veto is NOT a good either…think about how often maps would get Veto…we’d end up playing the same maps over, over. Random is better since it means less chance of missing out on maps…it’s the reason why so many maps in MCC are ignored so it makes no sense to include the feature in H5.
>
>
> Do you understand how the veto system works?
>
> For the sake of the argument, let’s say that you are vetoing whether or not you get heads in a coin toss.
> The chances of getting heads is 50% without a veto system.
> With a veto system in place, if you get tails the first flip, then you can essentially try again and the chance of getting heads is still 50% (although I know this isn’t exactly how it works in halo, but there are many maps/gametypes so the variability is much greater). This makes the chances of getting heads 75% and tails 25%. So you will get what you want (heads) more often than what you don’t (tails), yet you still have variability (it isn’t 100% heads).
>
> Why wouldn’t this work? People should not have to be forced to play maps that they don’t like as much as maps that they love - yet this accounts for differences in opinion and therefore the person that loves an unpopular map will still get the opportunity to play it (although not quite as often as the popular maps).
When there’s barely any maps, people are constantly veto’ing maps…you’re more than likely to see the same maps over, over.
It makes more sense just to create a server browser like Battlefield does and just let people play whatever they want instead of hoping their favourite maps get picked. It works better for dlc too when they were paid dlc since the obvious playlist route doesn’t work well for 343i. The veto system has already been proven to be exploitable which is why games like Halo 3 where maps are vetoed often enough until they get something like Valhalla for the 50th time. Either way rotations are better than votes or veto’s because players are more likely to find maps instead of a majority picking the same map over, over.
We definitely should have SOME input on what we are about to play for the next 12 minutes. When Overgrowth first came out I had to go buy COD because of it.
Map voting, or Veto. 1 or the other is absolutely necessary, this will also help with some of the quitters.
Its another example of something that worked perfectly fine, yet 343 decided to break it. Add it to the list, probably page 5 or 6.
