Halo 5 doesn’t allow you to avoid any players for any reason whatsoever. Something needs to be done about this. I’m tired of starting my Halo sessions and losing 5+ matches in a row because of at least one player who goes 2-20. There are plenty of reasons to have the option to avoid someone, but this is my main reason.
I hate that, especially for the people who join a match just to go AFK. Good thing 343i implemented a rule to kick inactive players.
> 2533274966517097;2:
> I hate that, especially for the people who join a match just to go AFK. Good thing 343i implemented a rule to kick inactive players.
The ones I’m referring to aren’t inactive though. They run straight into the enemy without knowing what weapon they’re using or how to use it. A few minutes before making this post, I had one guy on the same team as me do just that and then quit halfway through. So he caused the game to go bad on his own and then left his mess.
Besides, kicking inactives has been a thing in online play forever. 360 games allowed you to avoid players so it’s a step back not being able to do so at the moment. I get why it was done for Ranked, but it should not be a global rule that you cannot avoid anyone. There are other types of toxic players too and players should be able to avoid them.
> 2533274824050480;3:
> > 2533274966517097;2:
> > I hate that, especially for the people who join a match just to go AFK. Good thing 343i implemented a rule to kick inactive players.
>
> The ones I’m referring to aren’t inactive though. They run straight into the enemy without knowing what weapon they’re using or how to use it. A few minutes before making this post, I had one guy on the same team as me do just that and then quit halfway through. So he caused the game to go bad on his own and then left his mess.
>
> Besides, kicking inactives has been a thing in online play forever. 360 games allowed you to avoid players so it’s a step back not being able to do so at the moment. I get why it was done for Ranked, but it should not be a global rule that you cannot avoid anyone. There are other types of toxic players too and players should be able to avoid them.
Yeah I know what you mean now
Fun fact: back when Warlords was first implemented, the Xbox Live Block feature actually prevented matchmaking with blocked players in that playlist.
The result was all the teams blocked other teams that were better than them so they wouldn’t play them again. This resulted in matchmaking quality in Warlords being so poor that barely anyone was able to play. So they turned off that feature.
This is what happens when blocking prevents matchmaking. People abuse it beyond the scope of avoiding toxic players (actual toxic players, like teamkillers, griefers, quitters, and people who spew terrible things over chat). Being a bad player isn’t a crime and shouldn’t be treated as such.
They should just have an Overwatch type system that let’s you put up to two people on an avoid list that lasts up to 7 days. During that time you can’t be matched up against or with them. After 7 days they come off and then you can be again. You could also take someone off sooner if you wish too.
I would like this type of system in Halo 6
> 2533274817408735;5:
> Being a bad player isn’t a crime and shouldn’t be treated as such.
It should in games with no ranked modes. It sucks to lose 50-20 because your teammates go 1-15 and then leave. That is WORSE then them being AFK.No reason for the game to be ruined because people are bad. Especially in Halo, where it now it is so dead you’re only playing 2 matches an hour.
> 2533274883279798;7:
> > 2533274817408735;5:
> > Being a bad player isn’t a crime and shouldn’t be treated as such.
>
> It should in games with no ranked modes. It sucks to lose 50-20 because your teammates go 1-15 and then leave. That is WORSE then them being AFK.No reason for the game to be ruined because people are bad. Especially in Halo, where it now it is so dead you’re only playing 2 matches an hour.
No kidding. The absolute worst I’ve seen AFKers do is 0-10 in BTB. I’d much rather these deadweights be treated as “criminals” because right now it’s like all the other players on a team being penalized for being anywhere from decent to quite good. As it is, AFKers are given too much leeway and being forced to match with 0-20’ers is a joke. You have to really try to perform that poorly and I don’t want that level of unintelligence on the same team as me.
> 2533274824050480;8:
> > 2533274883279798;7:
> > > 2533274817408735;5:
> > > Being a bad player isn’t a crime and shouldn’t be treated as such.
> >
> > It should in games with no ranked modes. It sucks to lose 50-20 because your teammates go 1-15 and then leave. That is WORSE then them being AFK.No reason for the game to be ruined because people are bad. Especially in Halo, where it now it is so dead you’re only playing 2 matches an hour.
>
> No kidding. The absolute worst I’ve seen AFKers do is 0-10 in BTB. I’d much rather these deadweights be treated as “criminals” because right now it’s like all the other players on a team being penalized for being anywhere from decent to quite good. As it is, AFKers are given too much leeway and being forced to match with 0-20’ers is a joke. You have to really try to perform that poorly and I don’t want that level of unintelligence on the same team as me.
AFKers and unskilled players are two different things. I’ll agree that an idling player is a detriment, even a type of griefing, and such players should be booted and punished. I would also agree that anyone purposefully playing badly (i.e. actively feeding the enemy team kills, tossing them weapons, damaging friendlies, etc.) are also griefers. But just your run-of-the-mill newbie or bad player shouldn’t be punished or treated as a griefer just for being unskilled. Someone going 2-20 with no betrayals sounds like an enthusiastic but unskilled player who was earnestly trying to play the game. And while I can understand you not wanting someone like that on your team, such scenarios only happen because a better match could not be found in a good amount of time for either you or that player. Sometimes your team gets such a player, sometimes the opposing team gets such a player. The negative experiences tend to stick in your mind as more prominent, even if the instances average out. To me, it’s not worth the inevitable abuse an avoid system would bring just to give you the ability to not match that kind of bad but legitimate player again.
> 2533274817408735;9:
> > 2533274824050480;8:
> > > 2533274883279798;7:
> > > > 2533274817408735;5:
> > > > Being a bad player isn’t a crime and shouldn’t be treated as such.
> > >
> > > It should in games with no ranked modes. It sucks to lose 50-20 because your teammates go 1-15 and then leave. That is WORSE then them being AFK.No reason for the game to be ruined because people are bad. Especially in Halo, where it now it is so dead you’re only playing 2 matches an hour.
> >
> > No kidding. The absolute worst I’ve seen AFKers do is 0-10 in BTB. I’d much rather these deadweights be treated as “criminals” because right now it’s like all the other players on a team being penalized for being anywhere from decent to quite good. As it is, AFKers are given too much leeway and being forced to match with 0-20’ers is a joke. You have to really try to perform that poorly and I don’t want that level of unintelligence on the same team as me.
>
> AFKers and unskilled players are two different things. I’ll agree that an idling player is a detriment, even a type of griefing, and such players should be booted and punished. I would also agree that anyone purposefully playing badly (i.e. actively feeding the enemy team kills, tossing them weapons, damaging friendlies, etc.) are also griefers. But just your run-of-the-mill newbie or bad player shouldn’t be punished or treated as a griefer just for being unskilled. Someone going 2-20 with no betrayals sounds like an enthusiastic but unskilled player who was earnestly trying to play the game. And while I can understand you not wanting someone like that on your team, such scenarios only happen because a better match could not be found in a good amount of time for either you or that player. Sometimes your team gets such a player, sometimes the opposing team gets such a player. The negative experiences tend to stick in your mind as more prominent, even if the instances average out. To me, it’s not worth the inevitable abuse an avoid system would bring just to give you the ability to not match that kind of bad but legitimate player again.
I get what you’re saying, but just yesterday I had 5 matches in a row where I lost matches for that very reason. And the next 5 weren’t total blowout wins or necessarily wins either. One teammate carried the opposing team over and over. This wasn’t an isolated incident as it happens daily. It hasn’t been averaging out to be a 50-50 sort of deal on multiple fronts which is why I’ve been getting very frustrated. So it’s not a case of the negatives being more prominent as I’ve lost a good number of Warzone matches over the past few days and I don’t bear resentment for any of those games or players. I know I’m not the only one because players I’ve partied up with after Arena matches have sent me messages discussing how we lost totally due to the very presence of one player.
That avoid system doesn’t have to be a “hard avoid,” if that makes sense. It can be a preferential thing where the matchmaker searches for a long time to get both sides with no deadweights (and I personally have no problem with waiting in a situation like this). But as far as match quality goes, it’s a burden on the entire team to have such players regardless of whether they’re new, unskilled, trolls, or whatever. I would much rather go in with one less player if it comes to that. But, I’m not okay with being paired up with the same player multiple matches in a row.
It’s better to have the ability to avoid players and only have them in the same match if absolutely no other player could be found. That improves the experience of the other 3-7 teammates (in Arena) which is more important than allowing an unskilled player in the same match. After all, everyone expects to have good quality matches and this falls under that category. Right now, that’s not the case and I end up quitting as soon as the match starts if a deadweight player from a previous match is on my team in a subsequent match. Sometimes I give them a second chance, but there has yet to be one that shows that first match to be a fluke. You tell me, is it not better to have more satisfied players than not? Isn’t that what matchmaking strives for in the first place with things like connection quality? This is one feature that was around and was removed for reasons that can be amended, such as by creating a “soft avoid.”
I have mentioned that I sometimes observe these players when I see there’s no chance of winning with that player’s presence. There’s no enthusiasm. It’s a total lack of attention to their weapon, their environment, and their teammates. A normal player realizes after a certain point they need to slow things down and not rush out so much because they keep dying. That in itself would minimize the number of deaths which in turn is helpful to the team. I mention this in matches over chat. Of course, no one pays attention because they’re too busy getting wrecked.
Last point, one that I’m uncertain if I emphasized enough, is that my complaints are for Slayer matches where a near-zero KD does make a difference. If there’s no system like this for objective gametypes, I have no problem with that since one or two players not getting kills won’t be a total detriment as long as they attempt to capture the flag, for instance. Again, should also mention I don’t ever expect every player on both sides to be an all-star, but they should have enough sense to realize that a -15 or greater spread is not acceptable especially if they quit out and leave their mess for everyone.
Meh, if you’re bad, you’re bad, not much can be done about that. I however would like the option to blacklist certain maps. I’ve played Battlefront 2 for a while, and some of the maps are just atrocious. Crait being my most hated one. It’d make my life a lot easier if i could just permanently remove it from any playlists. So yeah, i’d like to do that in Halo Infinite also.
You know what I would love? Back to a mature rating with blood and some gore. No little kids allowed, any child account/account with parental settings present cannot play. And I don’t care if this makes me sound grouchy!
> 2535415539486588;12:
> You know what I would love? Back to a mature rating with blood and some gore. No little kids allowed, any child account/account with parental settings present cannot play. And I don’t care if this makes me sound grouchy!
Sounds good in theory, but it wouldn’t do much in the grand scheme of things. I was getting trash talked by 8 year olds all the way back in Halo 2
> 2533274794684102;13:
> > 2535415539486588;12:
> > You know what I would love? Back to a mature rating with blood and some gore. No little kids allowed, any child account/account with parental settings present cannot play. And I don’t care if this makes me sound grouchy!
>
> Sounds good in theory, but it wouldn’t do much in the grand scheme of things. I was getting trash talked by 8 year olds all the way back in Halo 2
I know you’re right that it won’t stop all of them but surely it’s worth trying to reduce their numbers?