Join in progress needed

We need “Joint in Progress” in halo 5. Too many times I’ve been in matches that are 4 on 1, it’s not fun for either side. It happened to me 3 times in a row earlier today, has it been happening to anyone else?

JIP is fine for social playlists and Warzone, but one of the biggest complaints about Halo 4 was having it in ranked playlists. I don’t mind JIP games, even if I join a losing side (which will almost always happen as people rarely quit out if they’re winning), but as Halo 5’s ranked playlists are purely win/loss then I know it’s not going to be accepted. This is especially crucial when you get to Onyx and Champion ranks, where you would run the risk of dropping rank by joining a losing game.

What Halo 5 really needs is the addition of more social playlists when JIP can be enabled for people that don’t mind dropping into a game. 343 have said they’re looking into this so I’m hopeful to see their inclusion early next year (January early)

This is why I’d like to see this playlist breakdown as it provides JiP for the more socially driven game types and bigger team sized playlists while not jeopardizing the overall health of the matchmaking system.

I think a join in progress system could be added with very little effect to the competitive nature of the game.

It’s simple. Since Halo 5 ranks are determined by win/loss you could make it so that anyone that is thrown into an ongoing match doesn’t take the rank penalty for the loss. If they can somehow pull out the win they would still rank up but they wouldn’t lose rank when joining a losing battle mid-game.

This way everyone is happy. No more unbalanced suck fests and no worries about losing your rank when you don’t get in from the start.

Let’s line up the main elements of this issue:

In matches, teammates can drop at any time for any reason. Rage quit, IRL emergency, DC; it really doesn’t matter. Players can and will drop.

No JIP:

  • The team with less players are pretty much toast. They will suffer a loss and hit to their rank (especially a primarily wins based ranked system). And even with a player experience argument, ignoring rank, it’s just not a fun experience facing the numbers game. - Penalty for quitting is often more severe to mitigate quitting, but all my years playing theses games tells me you will never ever stop people from quitting short of a hardcore 3-Strikes month ban punishment. Other than something has hard as that, you will never stop people from quitting. - Nothing can change the fact that disconnects will happen over technical issues. Short of a global infrastructural shift to optic cables. And even then, people will drop. - No game, to my knowledge, rewards players for staying in a game they were outnumbered in. No game lowers the rank increase of players who win games by sheer number. The game treats the match the same, and that it a problem in itself.JIP:

  • Matchmaking adds players to team that are disadvantaged. This often means joining a team that was fighting a losing battle more often then not. This is something people against JIP continually fail to understand. - It shortens time looking for games, at the cost of joining an uphill battle. - Most games do not account for joining a losing battle and the loss you take counts on your record. - Quitting a game with JIP tends to have less severe or non-existent penalties. - JIP games and game modes often have ranks based on performance rather than wins.The common theme is losing games. It always comes down to this. What happens when you lose with or without JIP, not what happens when you quit, it’s what happens when you lose. So the question is what to do about that in each context. Personally, I like JIP. The pros outweigh the cons compared to no JIP where the experience can be demoralizing in a ‘I’m done for the day’ kind of way. That’s just my personal opinion on the matter. I still remember the original reason JIP was made; to keep games balanced by player count and mitigate those bad experiences. I’ll take joining a losing game over playing an unwinnable game any day of the week. That said, here are my ideas for how to work this issue out. Note: Some points may be radical, but my only appeal is the player experience. That is more important than rank and stats, in my opinion.

No JIP: Fireteams/Squads Only Ranked & Odd Man Out Switch

In the context of drops due to rage quits, I like to think social accountability means much more than penalties. Even before a soft or ban is applied, people still have room ‘complimentary quits’. This I imagine is for the innocent drops (emergency, technical issues), but even those drops still means 10+ minutes of somebody else’s play experience extremely soured. By making the barrier to ranked play a full team we mitigate quitters as people will be less likely to bail on friends or agreed team-ups as their reputation is on the line (not talking about Xbox Live’s rep system here, though that does apply as well). It also ensures we have teams who understand that one of their friends does have a kid, or may have an emergency, or has connections issues time to time. I believe this will mitigate the sour experience when you are empathetic to somebody situation, rather than, “He left!? Damn! Why?” This social fog of war has more bearing on the experience than most may think, I believe.

In the event that a drop occurs, the game changes the respawn system of the numerically advantaged team to Odd Man Out. One player stays dead until a teammate dies and he spawns in his place, keeping the match even and everybody playing - albeit with players being benched here and there. I think this is fair to the disadvantaged team and a fair balancing agent to the full team. And this being ranked, everybody should be concerned primarily with balance. You should still earn your win in a competitive set-up. This is how I would do games if JIP is out of the question, ranked or not.

Yes JIP: Opt-In/Out, Calvary Bonus/Hypocrite Penalty & Loss Waver

If there is JIP in ranked or otherwise I would make so you can opt-out if you wish. This way the only people joining likely losing games are people who want to. Players who opt-out will never join games in progress. The balance here is opt-ins will find games more often while opt-outs will not. And opt-ins would likely not mind the struggle of uphill hill battles while opt-outs always start fresh games.

Also I’d add a system where opt-ins who join losing games, but ends up winning with his team, gets a bonus of some kind (game specific, XP, money, RP, whatever). This is the Cavalry Bonus, an added incentive for players who want to help disadvantaged teams win the match. There must be a significant point spread for this to apply. On the other hand if opt-outs quit a game, in such a way the system knows it was bad sportsmanship (drops with specific inputs before hand, etc), they will suffer a Hypocrite Penalty leading to rank drops and/or soft bans.

Moreover, if opt-ins join a losing game and reality ensues, a loss will not go on their record. This is the Loss Waver, specific to opt-ins. These concepts are how I would deal with JIP as per the issues people have with it.

People will drop from games. For any reasons. No penalty will stop this. This is fact. All we can do is mitigate the bad actors, reward good sports fairly, and incentive those willing to deal with instances of uphill battles. We need to stop thinking about it in terms of ‘Me, me, my record, I hate losing’. That’s the only perspective I see in the forums as if that has anything to do with the reality that people will drops from games and something needs to be done to help the experience of everybody involved and keep matches balanced.

All I have to say about that.

> 2533274797640604;5:
> If there is JIP in ranked or otherwise I would make so you can opt-out if you wish. This way the only people joining likely losing games are people who want to. Players who opt-out will never join games in progress. The balance here is opt-ins will find games more often while opt-outs will not. And opt-ins would likely not mind the struggle of uphill hill battles while opt-outs always start fresh games.

An opt-in/out JiP system undermines the purpose of the JiP system itself; nobody in their right mind would opt-in as most people will only want the real benefits of the system (someone filling-in when another player leaves) not the consequences of such a system (being dragged into a match in-progress). The thought that opt-ins wouldn’t likely mind the struggle of an uphill battle is simply wishful thinking on behalf of rationalizing your argument.

> 2775209234672000;6:
> > 2533274797640604;5:
> > If there is JIP in ranked or otherwise I would make so you can opt-out if you wish. This way the only people joining likely losing games are people who want to. Players who opt-out will never join games in progress. The balance here is opt-ins will find games more often while opt-outs will not. And opt-ins would likely not mind the struggle of uphill hill battles while opt-outs always start fresh games.
>
>
> An opt-in/out JiP system undermines the purpose of the JiP system itself; nobody in their right mind would opt-in as most people will only want the real benefits of the system (someone filling-in when another player leaves) not the consequences of such a system (being dragged into a match in-progress). The thought that opt-ins wouldn’t likely mind the struggle of an uphill battle is simply wishful thinking on behalf of rationalizing your argument.

So what do you think are the feelings of people asking JIP? Wouldn’t they, by principle, not mind occasionally joining games on losing teams?

And talking about it terms of enjoying it is not even the point. The idea is whether we like joining games or not; we HATE games where teammates quit more.

Also, did you completely skip the incentives of opt-in?

We definitely need JIP games, it should be a system like in other videogames that when you JIP, the game prevent your loss stats to update with your stats, I think this would balance the game A LOT.

People leave way too often and it is hard (and a waste of time) to try and fight when outnumbered.

> 2533274797640604;7:
> > 2775209234672000;6:
> > > 2533274797640604;5:
> > > If there is JIP in ranked or otherwise I would make so you can opt-out if you wish. This way the only people joining likely losing games are people who want to. Players who opt-out will never join games in progress. The balance here is opt-ins will find games more often while opt-outs will not. And opt-ins would likely not mind the struggle of uphill hill battles while opt-outs always start fresh games.
> >
> >
> > An opt-in/out JiP system undermines the purpose of the JiP system itself; nobody in their right mind would opt-in as most people will only want the real benefits of the system (someone filling-in when another player leaves) not the consequences of such a system (being dragged into a match in-progress). The thought that opt-ins wouldn’t likely mind the struggle of an uphill battle is simply wishful thinking on behalf of rationalizing your argument.
>
>
> So what do you think are the feelings of people asking JIP? Wouldn’t they, by principle, not mind occasionally joining games on losing teams?
>
> And talking about it terms of enjoying it is not even the point. The idea is whether we like joining games or not; we HATE games where teammates quit more.
>
> Also, did you completely skip the incentives of opt-in?

I know what my feelings are and I am asking for a limited JiP to be added to BTB as well as the Weekend Social playlists; nevertheless, if offered the choice to so-called “opt-in” verses “opt-out” of being JiP’d into matches while still theoretically being capable of receiving the real benefit of JiP (someone may join my team if another player left) then of course I’d chose to opt-out because why would I want to deal with the consequences of JiP if given the option to not have to deal with it and yet potentially I may even receive the benefit (which becomes highly irregular to near never because who’d have reason to opt-in?).

Do you understand what I’m trying to point out to you?

Do you understand the fundamental flaw with an optional (player choice) JiP system?

Unless you’re planning on segregating the population within the game between those who elect to play matches with JiP enabled verses those who don’t want it enabled there really isn’t an incentive to opt-in; also, just so you know I’m not suggesting or promoting that the player base be segregated under those circumstances to create an incentive because doing so would greatly harm the matchmaking system.

Go back to my first post under this thread to see exactly what I’d prefer for Halo 5 and if you have further questions regarding my position based on what you see from that let me know and I will try to provide answers or further explanation.