…please give us another choice instead of giving it to the map/gametype that is on the top of the list.
I always hate when that happens and I get ARs on Countdown or Pinnacle.
I’d prefer it to choose randomly, out of the two that have tied.
I’d prefer the old veto system.
Yeah, the top-option wins in case of a tie thing we had in Reach is bull crap. It should either choose another map/gametype at random, or another round of voting starts with more options. One of the dumbest moves Bungie made with Reach.
I’d rather have no voting system what so ever. Random maps all the time… I hate getting stuck with the one or two most popular maps in a specific playlist. Halo 3 style would be best possible option though. Like this map? No, ok take this one instead…
I think it should a modified Halo 3.
Ex: >5 out of 8 veto.
>2 out of 3 veto
>Random select
Veto system is also a good idea. That way we won’t be playing the same maps over and over again and slayer… over and over again.
> I’d rather have no voting system what so ever. Random maps all the time… I hate getting stuck with the one or two most popular maps in a specific playlist. Halo 3 style would be best possible option though. Like this map? No, ok take this one instead…
> I’d prefer it to choose randomly, out of the two that have tied.
How does that solve anything?
> I’d prefer it to choose randomly, out of the two that have tied.
I like this idea. I think it would work the best.
> > I’d prefer it to choose randomly, out of the two that have tied.
>
> I like this idea. I think it would work the best.
But how?
> I’d prefer the old veto system.
The veto system was terra bad. Reach’s voting system albiet flawed was an improvement that just needs more refinment.
> > > I’d prefer it to choose randomly, out of the two that have tied.
> >
> > I like this idea. I think it would work the best.
>
> But how?
Well think about it, you still can keep the Reach system. But when there is a tied, instead of the top one winning, it will randomly pick between the two instead of knowing that the top one will win. I’m still not totally sure what you mean by how though?
I would like it if there is a tie that it puts 3 other maps up and people vote again.
Who ever said they would carry reach’s system over in the first place? I prefer halo 3’s. You get the option to veto something but whatever comes up after that your stuck with. There are lots of gametype and map combinations i NEVER get to play because of this “mainstream” voting nonsense. Everyone votes for the same thing over and over and its irritating.
> > > > I’d prefer it to choose randomly, out of the two that have tied.
> > >
> > > I like this idea. I think it would work the best.
> >
> > But how?
>
> Well think about it, you still can keep the Reach system. But when there is a tied, instead of the top one winning, it will randomly pick between the two instead of knowing that the top one will win. I’m still not totally sure what you mean by how though?
If there is a tie for an important election you just don’t give that position to one of them. You do a whole new vote.
I’d rather the return of the Halo 3 style veto, except that you know what you’ll end up with if the first round fails.
I love playing Invasion in Reach, but I only ever get vanilla Boneyard or The Spire. Can’t remember the last time I played some Invasion Skirmish or Invasion Slayer.
I’d really like to have some kind of “lock your vote” feature where once you’ve made up your mind you can’t change your vote. This way we don’t get players changing their votes every second based on what everyone else is voting for. Now they’ll actually have to put some thought into the choices instead of immediately voting for the one that says “Slayer” because it caught their eye first, knowing that they can change it later.
> I’d rather the return of the Halo 3 style veto, except that you know what you’ll end up with if the first round fails.
Why not combine Reach’s w/ Halo 3’s system? Allow players to vote from a selection, and if the majority of players don’t like the winner then they can veto it for another round of maps.
I cant believe people are calling for the veto system back over actual voting. What the hell is wrong with you people? Is it true that people just want to do things the old way regardless, or what?
They could have some sort of instant runoff vote in the even of a tie i suppose. Or just randomise the winner instead of the top option. But veto system? no mang.
> > > > > I’d prefer it to choose randomly, out of the two that have tied.
> > > >
> > > > I like this idea. I think it would work the best.
> > >
> > > But how?
> >
> > Well think about it, you still can keep the Reach system. But when there is a tied, instead of the top one winning, it will randomly pick between the two instead of knowing that the top one will win. I’m still not totally sure what you mean by how though?
>
> If there is a tie for an important election you just don’t give that position to one of them. You do a whole new vote.
This is a game, but I do see your point.