Social bans should be like they were back in the days of Reach 5-10 minutes max.
I can agree if the user isnt a serial abuser.
But if someone sits and quits over and over and over and over simply eating the 5 minute ban, I disagree that activity shouldnt be punished.
The rest of us shouldn’t be punished for a few bad apples.
Can you help me to understand how removing bans for occasional disconnects but enforcing bans/timeouts for serial abusers would punish “the rest of us”?
1 Like
Because you can’t tell the difference between a serial abuser and someone who has stuff to do.
The reality is quit bans have ALWAYS been stupid in social. There were no quit bans in Halo 3 social and nothing went wrong. You ever stop to think that maybe people quit because they are now being forced into maps and modes that they don’t want to be in?
Sure voting made popular maps the most played, but those maps were popular FOR A REASON. Does it get tiresome? Yes. Is it better than removing player choice? Absolutely.
The point here is that quitting is the result of a terrible weighting system, and if serial abusers of quitting are a thing then why are there so few of them compared to the overall remaining community?
1 Like
Well today less people quit because the quit bans exist - they just go AFK instead since thats not bannable to my knowledge.
The quit bans exist for a reason. Quitting was rampant, and in typical 343 fashion they took an unmeasured approach and made every single quit bannable.
If you completely remove the ban system, people will abuse that fact. And rather than let people quit every game they want nonchalantly, you can detect serious abuses of quitting and punish those.
If someone quits 100s of matches a month its obvious they aren’t just “someone who has stuff to do”.
Also, I skipped this point - maybe you didnt play much Halo 3 back after the second title update, but people purposefully quit to make their XP go more and more negative.