Absent from MCC and Guardians Beta, do you think the same awaits for the actual game?
Do do you think that we need it?
Yes.
I think we need it, I also think it will be absent from the game.
It’s not in 343i’s best interest to show the population if the game ends up being a failure.
> 2533274819302824;3:
> I think we need it, I also think it will be absent from the game.
>
> It’s not in 343i’s best interest to show the population if the game ends up being a failure.
Haha, that’s how I feel, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the time constraint excuse pops up for it.
I’m almost certain they’d prefer to keep such vital info to themselves. I mean that’s how they regulate playlists. Would be disappointed if it didn’t return, as it would show their lack of confidence with their game. I personally think Guardians population will look a lot better than Halo 4.
I never really saw into it more than list wars situations. I mean, there have been times I go into a mplaylist that has 200 players in it and find matches relatively quickily while BTB, with a population in the thousands somehow takes longer to connect. (Not just MCC, mind you but also Reach and 4. Halo 3 took too long for any playlist in general.)
I dont think its necessary. I think all it does is create threads on the forums of people whining that Halo 5 is not #1 on Xbox Live 24/7 with millions and millions of players.
It doesn’t matter how many people play this game because someone will complain that it’s not enough for some strange reason to push their own idea of what Halo truly, truly is.
I would still like a population counter for when my favorite playlist gets low and I need to find a higher-populated one…
Yes. I feel it is Required. So you can see which playlists is more populated. Which is a huge issue in MCC. They hid the counter to cover their *** from the amount of people who bought it, so now it’s hard to judge which playlist is the best to search in.
I don’t mind whether it’s implemented or not.
> 2533274819302824;3:
> I think we need it, I also think it will be absent from the game.
>
> It’s not in 343i’s best interest to show the population if the game ends up being a failure.
I’m pretty sure they’re more confident than that.
Even titanfall has a pop counter, it would seriously piss me off if they dont include it in halo 5. Besides the fact that it is a cool and interesting feature, it helps me choose the playlist with the shortest search times.
We need it
> 2533274974984138;8:
> Yes. I feel it is Required. So you can see which playlists is more populated. Which is a huge issue in MCC. They hid the counter to cover their *** from the amount of people who bought it, so now it’s hard to judge which playlist is the best to search in.
No, they hid them because “roflmao my halo is better than your halo here’s proof” threads would be everywhere. It’s four games that many in the community are very divisive over. They had them in Halo 4 and I don’t see why they wouldn’t have them in Halo 5 since those are standalone games. It would just start flame wars in the MCC. Remember when they released that list of the most played playlists? This place exploded.
It’s more of a -Yoink- waving tool than anything, but it may come off as tempting fate a bit to include a population counter after the unmitigated disaster that was the MCC.
The problem with population counters are already evident in this thread with a bunch of people saying: “it helps me find a playlist with high population so I can have low search times”.
This is an issue for two reasons:
-
Most people usually pick whatever the first option is available or which is at the top of the playlist list.
-
most people will see a playlist with low population and avoid it because they think it will lead to low search times which makes the problem worse. More people repeat this over and over and a playlist continues to have low search times.
If there are no population counters, people wouldn’t know if the playlist has low population and they would search in it which would boost its population.
EG: Player in North America logs in, sees that Playlist X has 1000 people playing while Playlist Y has 10,000 playing. Thinking he will have a problem finding a match quickly, he picks Playlist Y.
Several thousand more players across North America pop online and see the same thing and pick Playlist Y. The cycle continues over and over making Playlist Y larger and larger.
If there was no population counter for playlists, odds are those players would choose what to pick based on what they would want to play, not how many players are playing it, making Playlist X higher than 1000.
> 2533274795233660;15:
> The problem with population counters are already evident in this thread with a bunch of people saying: “it helps me find a playlist with high population so I can have low search times”.
>
> This is an issue for two reasons:
>
> 1) Most people usually pick whatever the first option is available or which is at the top of the playlist list.
>
> 2) most people will see a playlist with low population and avoid it because they think it will lead to low search times which makes the problem worse. More people repeat this over and over and a playlist continues to have low search times.
>
> If there are no population counters, people wouldn’t know if the playlist has low population and they would search in it which would boost its population.
>
> EG: Player in North America logs in, sees that Playlist X has 1000 people playing while Playlist Y has 10,000 playing. Thinking he will have a problem finding a match quickly, he picks Playlist Y.
>
> Several thousand more players across North America pop online and see the same thing and pick Playlist Y. The cycle continues over and over making Playlist Y larger and larger.
>
> If there was no population counter for playlists, odds are those players would choose what to pick based on what they would want to play, not how many players are playing it, making Playlist X higher than 1000.ll
Good point, the counter does have some influence on what playlist I play, but I choose what I really feel like playing the majority of the time. Even with low pop, finding a match doesn’t take that long unless A. The game has had problems like MCC or B. The game has been out for so long like Halo 3. Other than that, low pop in Halo doesn’t necessarily mean you will have longer wait time.
Itd be nice to have. But it won’t be there.
> 2535459483445834;11:
> Besides the fact that it is a cool and interesting feature, it helps me choose the playlist with the shortest search times.
I think this is a good reason to not have a counter. The counter can further multiply playlist population issues as unpopular lists will become even more unpopular because they look unpopular and playlists that don’t need more population will get more players because theyl look popular.
It wouldn’t surprise me if 343 doesn’t include it, it would be just another excuse for haters to argue how “low” the population is. Then they would start using that as their main argument and post links to that stupid graph like they did with Halo 4…Gimme a -Yoinking!- break.
> 2533274819302824;3:
> I think we need it, I also think it will be absent from the game.
>
> It’s not in 343i’s best interest to show the population if the game ends up being a failure.
agree with this