UPDATE: Well, it sounds like join-in-progress will indeed be present in Halo 4. Hopefully this is restricted to social games, and the traditional wait-to-start option is still present in ranked play.
Social Matches- Continuous hoppers, drop in/drop out functionality, guests/full parties allowed, experience-based rank progression. Matchmaking prioritizes search speed and match quality over skill. Automatic team balancing occurs between matches.
Ranked Matches- Functions just like Halo has in the past. Match doesn’t start until lobby is full, no guests, parties are limited to team size, skill-based rank progression. Matchmaking prioritizes skill and match quality over search speed.
Just my two cents, forgive me if this has been discussed elsewhere. I feel this multiplayer model would address valid concerns on both sides of the Reach fence.
Agree, disagree? Discuss.
> > This of course also brings into question 343’s stat tracking and ranking system. If I join a game when its 49-23 and lose, does it count as a loss for me? Sure its social, but for some they would actually care.
>
> If it were up to me, with drop in/drop out a quit should always count as a loss, dropping in/incomplete games should count for ZERO. Consider it a warm up; no stats tracked, wins or losses until you start a new game and play it to completion.
> > I think it would be cool, but I think it would be better if there were quality AI bots so that there’s constant action.
>
>
>
> > Forge maps, complicated gameplay dynamics, etc. would likely break bots, so it’s hardly worth discussing. And allowing new players to join midgame is a better fix to the same problem that bots would address.
> > But even more importantly, nobody stays after a game is over; there should be something that encourages players to stay, IMO. Nothing in-game, but something that is fun for pre/post-game lobbies.
>
> How about a ‘social carnage report’ that starts at zero, and accumulates individual player stats across multiple games for as long as they keep playing in that particular lobby? Similar to player matches in Street Fighter, a running scoreboard that starts at zero and tracks W/L for that particular set.
>
> Take it a step further, and use those stats to assign a dynamic performance rating which, in turn, could be used to auto-balance teams between matches.
>
> All of these stats/ratings would be temporary, accumulating as you continue to play more matches within that lobby, and resets back to zero when you leave.
> > Disagree, that encourages more people to leave the match. Whats the purpose of teamwork if your gonna get random teammates all the time? bad idea really really bad idea
>
> Momentum/snowball effect. One player quits, which causes two more players to quit, and so on. The situation eventually gets so bad for the shorthanded team that the players left see little reason to continue playing. This is particularly common in objective games.
>
> My guess is that less people will quit, knowing that someone will be along shortly to even up the odds.
>
> As far as the randoms dropping in/out, I’m right there with you. One of the biggest reasons I play Halo is the consistency of the Matchmaking system; matching players of comparable skill, and waiting for a full lobby before starting a game. But this hardly works in Reach, due to the social nature of the playlists, allowing guests, and the fact that online gaming in general reaches a far wider audience than it did when Halo 2 first launched. Remember when everybody wore mics?
>
> I wouldn’t expect the type of player who frequents the Halo forums to welcome this social model as their personal preference when playing games, I sure wouldn’t. Rather than focusing on how drop in/drop out affects the social side, think of how much it could improve the quality of traditional ranked matches.