Halo Veto System

Did anyone else prefer the h2/3 veto system in comparison to reachs/h4 voting system?

Personally i preferred the veto system because it kept the maps much fresher. I always hated playing maps like isolation and snowbound but when you did get a good map it made it all the more enjoyable.

With the voting system i get burned out playing the same 2 maps over and over and over and over…

When you vetoed, you only got a chance to play on two different maps. Most of the time I didn’t even enjoy those maps, so yes, I do like the voting system and I usually don’t get bored of playing the same map over and over again.

> When you vetoed, you only got a chance to play on two different maps. Most of the time I didn’t even enjoy those maps, so yes, I do like the voting system and I usually don’t get bored of playing the same map over and over again.

The other option is to have every map be outstanding. Like the h3 mlg playlist for example. Every gametype/map played is awesome. Except for TS Amplified, but only because the spawns absolutely blow.

I did prefer the veto system over the vote system. It kept choices fresher to say the least.

IMO, removing the None of the Above option helped a bit.

The one major problem I had with Halo 3’s veto system is not knowing what the new gametype would be after a veto. For example, say I find a player match in Team Slayer and the random gametype was Team BRs on Isolation. I hate Isolation. I want to veto, but there is a chance I will get Team Slayer (AR-only starts), which I hate even more. Unwilling to roll the dice, I just stick with Team BRs on Isolation.

With the voting system, there are three choices, and I have the power to choose which gametype/map combination I like the most or dislike the least.

I like the definite choices with voting, but I dislike the overplaying of the more popular maps (which sucks in particular if I don’t like the popular maps or gametypes). I’m undecided.

Gonna be honest here, as someone who played Halo 3, Reach, and still 4; I do agree that the veto system was by far the best voting system.

It’s tiring to play on the same maps/game-types, and to add further, when you have a party, they dominate the choices taken.

Halo’s before Reach did it right.

The veto system didn’t always work out. It was nice to veto ARs in hopes of BRs, but you were still ultimately gambling for a good map and gametype combo.

On the other hand, Reach’s had a LOT more freedom of choice; perhaps there was too much freedom. It gets annoying when people constantly reject, say, Countdown by hitting “none of the above” and then selecting Sword Base. And then there was the issue of the top choice always taking precedence in case of a tie.

What we have now is not much different from Reach’s, except there’s no NOTA option. I’d honestly prefer what Call of Duty has been doing for years: offer two definite choices and a random option, then, if the same map is voted for two games in a row, it gets locked for one game. It’s a perfect balance between optimal map rotation and freedom of choice.