This most common complaint I’ve seen about Join in Progress is that it has an adverse effect of people’s win/loss ratio. This is not necessarily the case.
If you join a match in progress towards the end and you win, then you have a free win. But of course that isn’t what people are getting worked up about.
If you join a match towards the end and you lose, then the most prudent thing to do is to stay in the lobby. If you win the next match, net-zero, and your Win/Loss is exactly the same as it was. If you lose the next match, you probably would have lost the match you joined at the end of, so it didn’t do anything that wouldn’t have happened anyway.
You’re assuming games you join have the same probability for wins/losses. However, most games I have joined in progress are a result of people quitting due to getting crushed. Losses are far more common than wins.
If you remain in the lobby and play the game again, you’re not guaranteed to get all the same players again, unless all stay. Even if all stay, you’re not guaranteed to get the same teams. The next game would most likely be completely unrepresentative of what would have occurred had you been there at the beginning.
You assume that if you remain in the lobby and win the next game, then your net loss is zero. That’s not true. If you have a 100 average in a class, then score a “0,” your average moves down to 50. Scoring another “100” on the next test doesn’t mean you have a 0 net loss, as your average only goes up to about a 67. Obviously if you have more tests (or games played), the results become somewhat negligible, but if you receive 1 loss every 10-15 games from a JIP (my anecdotal experience), that certainly adds up.
I know you’re focused on w/l here, but you also have to realize that it wastes a ton of time. Many times I go in towards the beginning of a match, but there have been plenty of times I’ve gone in with a score of 3 to 0 in flag, or 147 to 30 in KOTH. Not only does that waste my time going in and getting slaughtered by people who have positions and weapons, but I don’t get to have the full experience of starting strategies and other things that come along with playing a full game. On top of that, think about what that does to your k/d ratio going up against an entrenched team. I personally don’t care about that, but it’s awfully frustrating getting killed a ton without having much chance.
It is more likely that you would join a game that you are about to lose, but it is still less of an issue if you can go on to win the next round.
In my experience I end up with roughly the same teams more often than not. Also this is not an issue at all in FFA game types.
When you talk about going from an average of 100 to an average of 50 in one game, that only happens if your 100 average was based on a single game. Even if you have one 0 per 10-15 100’s then your average would still be between 90 and 94 percent.
If we assume that joining the game early on and being there from the beginning then the JiP actually saved you time, but you are absolutely correct that joining when you are too far behind to win is a time waster, and that it can potentially wreck havoc on your K/D.
I’ll have to pay more attention to see how that works. However, I do know for sure that most of the times I have remained in the lobby, there are at least a couple people who back out.
That’s true, but 5-10% is fairly significant. If it was school, that could mean a whole letter grade. On top of that, some people care more about the amount of wins. If you’re a QB in the NFL and you get 5-10% of your TD passes taken away, that could be the difference between just another QB and a record holder. Again, I couldn’t care less, but I think for those that do, this is significant enough to complain about.
Also, I have said several times this is anecdotal. I could be off either high or low. It would be interesting to track 100 games and see what the average is really like.
That’s a good point. However, I think the way it is - with the ability to join pretty late in the game - it doesn’t balance out. Let’s say you save 30 seconds in the lobby, but you go into a game 240 seconds in where you’re losing. The negative side of things adds up far more quickly. But to make it a benefit, they could just limit entries to 30 or 60 seconds into a match.
Personally, I like the JIP. I like that I’m not the only person left on a team and getting spawn killed all the time. It does have its moments when it’s pretty bad, but I’m ok with it overall. However, I think it’s good to critique it and provide various perspectives. Even though I agree with you, I know there are those who would espouse the position I am taking in this thread.
I by no means think that it is a perfect system, but I’m tired of people claiming that it is ruining the game. It’s a small issue that could be fixed. I think the idea of limiting the join opening to the first minute or so would be a fantastic improvement.
JIP makes more sense in Call of Duty. I’m fine with joining winnable games that are less then say 35% over. But when I’m put into a game where its 550 to 350, how exactly am I supposed to win? The enemy team wins in 5 kills. I think they could have finished the game without me.
JIP makes me more likely to have to have a party before playing something that isn’t BTB. That way I don’t get put into unwinnable games.
Just have a mercy win if enough people quit and the score is bad enough, and then get the new people into the match.
I agree that it would be better to have JiP only work with games that were in the early stages.
Many people are angry with the lack of teamwork and communication so I don’t see the fact that you feel encouraged to go in with a party as a bad thing.
But honestly, can you imagine the outrage that would happen if they were ending games before they ran their course because people quit?
I don’t think it would be that bad. Halo has always been about winning games. JIP works for COD because the only things that matter in COD are personal points and for some people KD ratio. So basically a lot of people don’t care if they lose the game to a certain extent. Also the Call of Duty lobbies seem to stay together longer, so you don’t have to keep finding new games.
Yeah it’s definitely a problem. It was a problem in CoD, it’s a problem in Halo. People quit games because they are losing. Why put someone into a game they are going to lose the vast majority of the time.
> I’m pretty sure it is as big a problem as I think it is. I really don’t even feel like explaining to people that have no common sense.
Yea this. Its definitely a problem.
More people quit when loosing. Fact. I don’t see how this was ever overlooked. Maybe its because of this “everyones a winner, who needs wins when I still rank up for loosing” attitude.
It just needs to be strict, adding me to the end of someones running riot is just dumb , joining in lobby and the first few minutes of the game I’m more then OK with
-Yoink- the stats it’s just 2 -5 minutes of infuriating gameplay . Winning or losing it usually lags my game out badly when it starts adding and removing people sporadically