I’ve been playing war zone assault and every single time someone starts winning, half of the opposing team just leaves. And that’s not fair nor competitive for either team so I was thinking and the best solution is making the misconduct panalitazio a since the first time you leave a match and making the cold own last longer. What are your thoughts?
Well leaving already makes it so you don’t get do or req points and doing it a lot gets you temporarily banned I got nothing I quit game when I want to join my friends so really there isn’t a better way to penalize players
Yeah, something tells me harsher quitting penalties aren’t going to solve the problem.
If you want people to get punished for quitting, file an Xbox Live complaint against them for it.
In the endless circle that all of us keep making around this issue I’m constantly surprised that 99% of the proposals involve trying to punish people more harshly. Assuming that quitters are bad people, assuming that harsher “punishments” will, in fact, be interpreted by quitters as painful, and will therefore cause them to alter their behavior. They’re not, they won’t, and it doesn’t.
This is a broad stroke, I admit, and could be interpreted in a thousand different ways, but: give people a reason to stay. Make of that what you will.
I’ll also add a little recon homily on the subject of quit-proofing a game. PUBG has been much on my mind lately as the first game to draw my attention (ever so slightly) away from Halo since Portal 2. I understand that comparisons between the two are problematic on a number of levels, but the big picture is this: PUBG is a quit-proofed game. Period. Quit all you want. Don’t quit at all. No one cares. Gameplay is unaffected. Nobody’s experience is “ruined.” How to apply that lesson to a team-based game? I have absolutely no idea. I only know that Bungie first, and now 343, have built a game so vulnerable to player caprice that I’m constantly reading threads about quitting, about bad teammates, about every single thing that can possibly go wrong when you force strangers to work together (or fail to work together)… and nobody in the history of Halo has ever started a thread titled, “Why all the things I hate about Halo are my own fault for not going into a team-based game with a full team.”
Harsher penalties wont solve the problem.It will only create more threads against ban system.
> 2535408730995228;6:
> Harsher penalties wont solve the problem.It will only create more threads against ban system.
only from the quitters
I’d say that some sort of 2-3 minute cooldown on MM for all quitters, after leaving a match, regardless of when they leave. This is a decently low time but it can be done better than it is in MOBAs like LoL and DotA by allowing them to access customs. It makes for a good idea but not without its downfalls
> 2533274873843883;5:
> In the endless circle that all of us keep making around this issue I’m constantly surprised that 99% of the proposals involve trying to punish people more harshly. Assuming that quitters are bad people, assuming that harsher “punishments” will, in fact, be interpreted by quitters as painful, and will therefore cause them to alter their behavior. They’re not, they won’t, and it doesn’t.
>
> This is a broad stroke, I admit, and could be interpreted in a thousand different ways, but: give people a reason to stay. Make of that what you will.
>
> I’ll also add a little recon homily on the subject of quit-proofing a game. PUBG has been much on my mind lately as the first game to draw my attention (ever so slightly) away from Halo since Portal 2. I understand that comparisons between the two are problematic on a number of levels, but the big picture is this: PUBG is a quit-proofed game. Period. Quit all you want. Don’t quit at all. No one cares. Gameplay is unaffected. Nobody’s experience is “ruined.” How to apply that lesson to a team-based game? I have absolutely no idea. I only know that Bungie first, and now 343, have built a game so vulnerable to player caprice that I’m constantly reading threads about quitting, about bad teammates, about every single thing that can possibly go wrong when you force strangers to work together (or fail to work together)… and nobody in the history of Halo has ever started a thread titled, “Why all the things I hate about Halo are my own fault for not going into a team-based game with a full team.”
Thanks for the well thought out response! Absolutely correct: no matter what, people cannot be brow-beaten into refusing to quit early. I just wish we didn’t all have to have the Moment of Lag in memory of each player who quits.
I do think there may be some remedies that are both technically “penalties” but in fact incite voluntary decisions to remain in the match. A suggestion by another commenter is a short ban on online matchmaking after voluntary quitting, to which I would suggest adding warning text to the Quit option to the effect of “Are you sure? Online MM will be disabled for at least 5 minutes.” Then, a portion of the early-quitting population can elect to avoid a penalty entirely by just continuing the match. The incentive to keep MM uninterrupted would be in front of the penalty, and the decision to adjust behavior can occur in that moment without the need for some meta-rehab over time of player tendencies, which–as you said–would probably not work anyway.
Per your comment about going in with a full team, 343i needs to tighten up join-in-progress consistency for fireteams. I almost always play with friends and there is a failed JIP for at least one fireteam member per gaming session. This requires that all other team members dashboard, re-form the fireteam, and then re-enter MM, which burdens the just-started match’s other players with essentially early quits from their team. I’m no dev, but there must be some way for the system to detect when a player quits after a failed JIP occurs within their fireteam. If not, I would personally still be fine with the 5-minute MM ban for dashboarding due to failed JIP as it’s shorter than an entire match where 3 people are playing while 1 person waits because they can’t join their own match or risk mistiming with the rest of the team for the following match.
> 2533274873843883;5:
> I’ll also add a little recon homily on the subject of quit-proofing a game. PUBG has been much on my mind lately as the first game to draw my attention (ever so slightly) away from Halo since Portal 2. I understand that comparisons between the two are problematic on a number of levels, but the big picture is this: PUBG is a quit-proofed game. Period. Quit all you want. Don’t quit at all. No one cares. Gameplay is unaffected. Nobody’s experience is “ruined.” How to apply that lesson to a team-based game? I have absolutely no idea. I only know that Bungie first, and now 343, have built a game so vulnerable to player caprice that I’m constantly reading threads about quitting, about bad teammates, about every single thing that can possibly go wrong when you force strangers to work together (or fail to work together)… and nobody in the history of Halo has ever started a thread titled, “Why all the things I hate about Halo are my own fault for not going into a team-based game with a full team.”
Yeah, unfortunately PUBG is too different a game to draw parallels to Halo’s approach on handling quitting. The whole battle royale gametype inherently doesn’t need to worry about quitting, because it’s essentially squad-based free for all. You don’t get matched with a squad in matchmaking; you either go in with a pre-made party, or you go in solo. And going in solo isn’t even all that bad because you can hide and let all the other teams take each other out. So as you said, you can’t apply PUBG’s approach to handling quitting to Halo, unless you’re trying to say that Halo should fundamentally change it’s gameplay style.
As for your second point, of course you only see threads about people blaming others. What introspective player is going to make a thread about how they realised they were approaching team-gaming wrong? They’ll just alter how they play. Remember that the percentage of Halo players who actually use Waypoint (or forums in general) is not a majority. So while it’s unfortunate that many threads are people blaming everything but themselves, we can’t call that a representation of the community at large. Ultimately, games like Halo (team shooters) need matchmaking regulations. Is harsher quit penalties across the board the right move? I don’t know; probably not. But neither is removing quit penalties altogether. Not all quitters are inherently bad, but in a team shooter, quitters negatively affect the remaining players, and that has to be addressed. Otherwise, you’d have zero consistency in this type of game. I don’t believe that all quitters are bad, but I do believe most are selfish. I think only a small percentage of the total quits are unintentional (network issues, power outages, real life emergency, etc.); the other quits are because a player isn’t getting the experience they want (they aren’t winning, they don’t like their teammates, they don’t like the map, etc.). And since gaming is entertainment, I understand wanting to maximize the pleasure of your personal experience. Otherwise, why game? But in a team shooter like Halo, when you match with other people randomly, it no longer becomes just your experience. And I think more people need to realize that, or if they realize it, then act on it.
Sometimes I have to quit games because my game crashes or my internet cuts out like it does consistently. Not everyone who quits is a quitter or a sore loser, and if harsher punishments are brought it I feat it’ll hit more innocent players than guilty ones.
> 2533274873390670;9:
> > 2533274873843883;5:
> >
>
> I just wish we didn’t all have to have the Moment of Lag in memory of each player who quits.
Oh so true.
> 2533274873390670;9:
> > 2533274873843883;5:
> >
>
> I do think there may be some remedies that are both technically “penalties” but in fact incite voluntary decisions to remain in the match. A suggestion by another commenter is a short ban on online matchmaking after voluntary quitting, to which I would suggest adding warning text to the Quit option to the effect of “Are you sure? Online MM will be disabled for at least 5 minutes.” Then, a portion of the early-quitting population can elect to avoid a penalty entirely by just continuing the match. The incentive to keep MM uninterrupted would be in front of the penalty, and the decision to adjust behavior can occur in that moment without the need for some meta-rehab over time of player tendencies, which–as you said–would probably not work anyway.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with any of the above suggestions, unless we implemented them with the unshakeable conviction that they would turn unhappy people into motivated teammates. My guess is that you might, in fact, have less actual quitting, but that the incidence of “afk with periodic thumbstick nudges” goes up proportionally. Or, thanks to the re-introduction of friendly fire, you might find that the incidence of team griefing goes up. Or, or, or… the list of frustration-induced, anti-social behaviors is not a short one.
It’s an intractable problem, no doubt about it. And I’m all for 343 trying anything they think might help, even if that leads to harsher bans. I don’t think that would help anything (except maybe to drive the population down even farther), but it’s their game and their right to address the problem as they see fit. But I sure do wish they’d do an HCFP on quitting. Boy, would they get an earful from me.
> 2533274817408735;10:
> > 2533274873843883;5:
> >
>
> Yeah, unfortunately PUBG is too different a game to draw parallels to Halo’s approach on handling quitting. The whole battle royale gametype inherently doesn’t need to worry about quitting, because it’s essentially squad-based free for all. You don’t get matched with a squad in matchmaking; you either go in with a pre-made party, or you go in solo. And going in solo isn’t even all that bad because you can hide and let all the other teams take each other out. So as you said, you can’t apply PUBG’s approach to handling quitting to Halo, unless you’re trying to say that Halo should fundamentally change it’s gameplay style.
Ah, but is PUBG’s formula really too different from Halo’s for us to be able to draw some valuable conclusions? When I look back at the evolution of Halo, from ODST to Reach to Halo 4, I see games that put serious options on the table for the solo player. More options than just campaign. Speaking only for myself of course, these options were a boon in two ways. First, I just plain prefer solo PvE gameplay. But almost as importantly these game modes gave me somewhere to go for a multiplayer cooldown, whether the cooldown was self-enforced or thrust on me by a scowling game.
Beyond that, I would definitely say that Halo could do with some fresh ideas gameplay-wise. I’m not saying they need to scrub team slayer to make way for Spartan Battle Royale, but if you think about what they’ve added to the multiplayer portfolio (breakout comes immediately to mind) what I see is some minor adjustments to the same old same old 4v4 Halo gameplay. Warzone gave me a lot of hope at first. The idea of AI in a multiplayer format seemed like a real nod to firefight, but the reality was not as enticing as the promise, and the whole thing is buried underneath a Byzantine req system which adds complexity without adding fun (obviously, imo). I still hold out great hope for Warzone as it evolves in Halo 6, but I sure would like to see more change than more stay-the-same.
I realize that outside-the-box thinking has not always been warmly received by the community, and I understand 343’s reluctance to pour resources into risky and costly new forms of gameplay. But I also know that after 18 years of it I’m pianfully bored with 8 players on two teams on a small map with too many power weapons and a max kill count coupled to a timer, all subservient to skill assessment and ranking, designed seemingly to remind the majority of players of their desperate inadequacy.
> 2533274873843883;13:
> Ah, but is PUBG’s formula really too different from Halo’s for us to be able to draw some valuable conclusions? When I look back at the evolution of Halo, from ODST to Reach to Halo 4, I see games that put serious options on the table for the solo player. More options than just campaign. Speaking only for myself of course, these options were a boon in two ways. First, I just plain prefer solo PvE gameplay. But almost as importantly these game modes gave me somewhere to go for a multiplayer cooldown, whether the cooldown was self-enforced or thrust on me by a scowling game.
Yes, I think PUBG is too different from Halo. Yes, Halo has evolved differently over time. Halo 3 introduced Forge and Custom Games, which provided oodles of creative new ways to play thanks to innovative community members. ODST introduced Firefight, an amazing addition to the franchise. Even Spartan Ops had charms, expanding the story post main campaign, something no Halo did before. But while these things were all playable solo, they were designed around co-op or multiplayer play, because Halo, at its core, is designed around that. But I think that’s besides the point. Going back to PUBG, I fail to see how that provides a “multiplayer cooldown”, or satisfies your desire for solo PvE.
> 2533274873843883;13:
> Beyond that, I would definitely say that Halo could do with some fresh ideas gameplay-wise. I’m not saying they need to scrub team slayer to make way for Spartan Battle Royale, but if you think about what they’ve added to the multiplayer portfolio (breakout comes immediately to mind) what I see is some minor adjustments to the same old same old 4v4 Halo gameplay. Warzone gave me a lot of hope at first. The idea of AI in a multiplayer format seemed like a real nod to firefight, but the reality was not as enticing as the promise, and the whole thing is buried underneath a Byzantine req system which adds complexity without adding fun (obviously, imo). I still hold out great hope for Warzone as it evolves in Halo 6, but I sure would like to see more change than more stay-the-same.
Fresh ideas would be nice. I think most players can agree on that. Whether in the main games or in spin off titles. But the thing with long standing franchises is that the core gameplay can’t be changed too much. Yeah, most changes in Halo titles are, as you say, minor adjustments to the same old gameplay. Because Halo still needs to be Halo. If Halo throws away its core, it might as well be called something else. And whether the changes are minor is a point of contestation. You’re no stranger to the controversy of the changes made to Halo in 4 and 5. Both titles were highly divisive, with many saying the core formula was changed too much.
I agree with you in that Warzone did not meet my expectations as a game mode, and that was in part due to REQs. I would have rathered a more traditional Firefight experience.
> 2533274873843883;13:
> I realize that outside-the-box thinking has not always been warmly received by the community, and I understand 343’s reluctance to pour resources into risky and costly new forms of gameplay. But I also know that after 18 years of it I’m pianfully bored with 8 players on two teams on a small map with too many power weapons and a max kill count coupled to a timer, all subservient to skill assessment and ranking, designed seemingly to remind the majority of players of their desperate inadequacy.
I can understand getting tired of something. Hell, it’s why I won’t touch CoD or Assassin’s Creed. But if you expect Halo to ever ditch 8 players on two teams on maps with power weapons with a max kill count coupled to a timer, with skill based matchmaking, then it might be time to move on from the franchise. And I don’t say that to mean “don’t like it, get out”. I’m just being realistic. There are some things about Halo that will never change, and shouldn’t ever change. Because at the end of the day, it needs to remain familiar to those who do want to stick with it. Look, I get your sentiment. I too with age am shifting towards long single player experiences in games over competitive multiplayer. I just don’t feel the need to be super competitive. I hate eSports, I have no desire to reach a certain rank or skill level. That’s partially why I stopped Halo 5. But while I do hope that Halo 6 will do better in the areas that Halo 5 lost me, I don’t want Halo to deviate too far from its origins. I don’t want a Halo Battle Royale. I don’t want Halo Battlefield. I don’t want Call of Halo. I just want Halo. And I don’t even expect that 100% of the content in Halo 6 will interest me, and it doesn’t have to. A good campaign/story and strong social multiplayer offering is all I really want. And Firefight. And I’d be perfectly happy with that. A little innovation would be nice too, but nothing that jeopardizes Halo’s identity.
> 2533274904158628;3:
> Yeah, something tells me harsher quitting penalties aren’t going to solve the problem.
It doesnt. All it does is piss everyone off and makes players play different games beside Halo.
Oh well. It isnt just Halo…quitters are in every game. its the human factor we gotta live with.
> 2533274873843883;5:
> In the endless circle that all of us keep making around this issue I’m constantly surprised that 99% of the proposals involve trying to punish people more harshly. Assuming that quitters are bad people, assuming that harsher “punishments” will, in fact, be interpreted by quitters as painful, and will therefore cause them to alter their behavior. They’re not, they won’t, and it doesn’t.
>
> This is a broad stroke, I admit, and could be interpreted in a thousand different ways, but: give people a reason to stay. Make of that what you will.
>
> I’ll also add a little recon homily on the subject of quit-proofing a game. PUBG has been much on my mind lately as the first game to draw my attention (ever so slightly) away from Halo since Portal 2. I understand that comparisons between the two are problematic on a number of levels, but the big picture is this: PUBG is a quit-proofed game. Period. Quit all you want. Don’t quit at all. No one cares. Gameplay is unaffected. Nobody’s experience is “ruined.” How to apply that lesson to a team-based game? I have absolutely no idea. I only know that Bungie first, and now 343, have built a game so vulnerable to player caprice that I’m constantly reading threads about quitting, about bad teammates, about every single thing that can possibly go wrong when you force strangers to work together (or fail to work together)… and nobody in the history of Halo has ever started a thread titled, “Why all the things I hate about Halo are my own fault for not going into a team-based game with a full team.”
I’m not saying quitters are “bad people”. I’m just saying that if the system was a little bit harsher, maybe players wouldn’t be leaving. And it’s not may fall if I’m going into a team based game mode with no team. I do that to get a team . I don’t mind if they are skilled or not. If they join a team, they should not leave. Maybe take out the leave match option and this is not just player caprice since it does affect gameplay. If someone in free for all leaves, I have no problem, since it doesn’t affect entirely the gameplay, but it’s not ok when you are on a 4 v 12 game.
> 2533275018277062;11:
> Sometimes I have to quit games because my game crashes or my internet cuts out like it does consistently. Not everyone who quits is a quitter or a sore loser, and if harsher punishments are brought it I feat it’ll hit more innocent players than guilty ones.
Ok. You’ve got a point. But maybe taking out the leave match option? In these days I don’t think it will affect more innocent players. As stated before. In every match I play in war zone assault, every time someone starts winning, half the team just logs out. I don’t think that half the team got a problem connection in the very same moment.
> 2533274817408735;10:
> > 2533274873843883;5:
> > I’ll also add a little recon homily on the subject of quit-proofing a game. PUBG has been much on my mind lately as the first game to draw my attention (ever so slightly) away from Halo since Portal 2. I understand that comparisons between the two are problematic on a number of levels, but the big picture is this: PUBG is a quit-proofed game. Period. Quit all you want. Don’t quit at all. No one cares. Gameplay is unaffected. Nobody’s experience is “ruined.” How to apply that lesson to a team-based game? I have absolutely no idea. I only know that Bungie first, and now 343, have built a game so vulnerable to player caprice that I’m constantly reading threads about quitting, about bad teammates, about every single thing that can possibly go wrong when you force strangers to work together (or fail to work together)… and nobody in the history of Halo has ever started a thread titled, “Why all the things I hate about Halo are my own fault for not going into a team-based game with a full team.”
>
> Yeah, unfortunately PUBG is too different a game to draw parallels to Halo’s approach on handling quitting. The whole battle royale gametype inherently doesn’t need to worry about quitting, because it’s essentially squad-based free for all. You don’t get matched with a squad in matchmaking; you either go in with a pre-made party, or you go in solo. And going in solo isn’t even all that bad because you can hide and let all the other teams take each other out. So as you said, you can’t apply PUBG’s approach to handling quitting to Halo, unless you’re trying to say that Halo should fundamentally change it’s gameplay style.
>
> As for your second point, of course you only see threads about people blaming others. What introspective player is going to make a thread about how they realised they were approaching team-gaming wrong? They’ll just alter how they play. Remember that the percentage of Halo players who actually use Waypoint (or forums in general) is not a majority. So while it’s unfortunate that many threads are people blaming everything but themselves, we can’t call that a representation of the community at large. Ultimately, games like Halo (team shooters) need matchmaking regulations. Is harsher quit penalties across the board the right move? I don’t know; probably not. But neither is removing quit penalties altogether. Not all quitters are inherently bad, but in a team shooter, quitters negatively affect the remaining players, and that has to be addressed. Otherwise, you’d have zero consistency in this type of game. I don’t believe that all quitters are bad, but I do believe most are selfish. I think only a small percentage of the total quits are unintentional (network issues, power outages, real life emergency, etc.); the other quits are because a player isn’t getting the experience they want (they aren’t winning, they don’t like their teammates, they don’t like the map, etc.). And since gaming is entertainment, I understand wanting to maximize the pleasure of your personal experience. Otherwise, why game? But in a team shooter like Halo, when you match with other people randomly, it no longer becomes just your experience. And I think more people need to realize that, or if they realize it, then act on it.
I agree with you in several points, but I don’t agree with you insinuating I blame everything but myself for not approaching a team based game with a full game. I mean, if I don’t have a team, I still want to play. And that’s what matchmaking its for. I don’t mind if my teammate are skilled or not. But once everyone starts quitting it’s not the same. And that’s when I suggest to makharsher or quicker misconduct actions. I know the developers doesn’t have the fault of players quittin, but they should make something to make it harder, or make em think twice about it.
> 2535421230449458;18:
> > 2533274817408735;10:
> > > 2533274873843883;5:
> > > I’ll also add a little recon homily on the subject of quit-proofing a game. PUBG has been much on my mind lately as the first game to draw my attention (ever so slightly) away from Halo since Portal 2. I understand that comparisons between the two are problematic on a number of levels, but the big picture is this: PUBG is a quit-proofed game. Period. Quit all you want. Don’t quit at all. No one cares. Gameplay is unaffected. Nobody’s experience is “ruined.” How to apply that lesson to a team-based game? I have absolutely no idea. I only know that Bungie first, and now 343, have built a game so vulnerable to player caprice that I’m constantly reading threads about quitting, about bad teammates, about every single thing that can possibly go wrong when you force strangers to work together (or fail to work together)… and nobody in the history of Halo has ever started a thread titled, “Why all the things I hate about Halo are my own fault for not going into a team-based game with a full team.”
> >
> > Yeah, unfortunately PUBG is too different a game to draw parallels to Halo’s approach on handling quitting. The whole battle royale gametype inherently doesn’t need to worry about quitting, because it’s essentially squad-based free for all. You don’t get matched with a squad in matchmaking; you either go in with a pre-made party, or you go in solo. And going in solo isn’t even all that bad because you can hide and let all the other teams take each other out. So as you said, you can’t apply PUBG’s approach to handling quitting to Halo, unless you’re trying to say that Halo should fundamentally change it’s gameplay style.
> >
> > As for your second point, of course you only see threads about people blaming others. What introspective player is going to make a thread about how they realised they were approaching team-gaming wrong? They’ll just alter how they play. Remember that the percentage of Halo players who actually use Waypoint (or forums in general) is not a majority. So while it’s unfortunate that many threads are people blaming everything but themselves, we can’t call that a representation of the community at large. Ultimately, games like Halo (team shooters) need matchmaking regulations. Is harsher quit penalties across the board the right move? I don’t know; probably not. But neither is removing quit penalties altogether. Not all quitters are inherently bad, but in a team shooter, quitters negatively affect the remaining players, and that has to be addressed. Otherwise, you’d have zero consistency in this type of game. I don’t believe that all quitters are bad, but I do believe most are selfish. I think only a small percentage of the total quits are unintentional (network issues, power outages, real life emergency, etc.); the other quits are because a player isn’t getting the experience they want (they aren’t winning, they don’t like their teammates, they don’t like the map, etc.). And since gaming is entertainment, I understand wanting to maximize the pleasure of your personal experience. Otherwise, why game? But in a team shooter like Halo, when you match with other people randomly, it no longer becomes just your experience. And I think more people need to realize that, or if they realize it, then act on it.
>
> I agree with you in several points, but I don’t agree with you insinuating I blame everything but myself for not approaching a team based game with a full game. I mean, if I don’t have a team, I still want to play. And that’s what matchmaking its for. I don’t mind if my teammate are skilled or not. But once everyone starts quitting it’s not the same. And that’s when I suggest to makharsher or quicker misconduct actions. I know the developers doesn’t have the fault of players quittin, but they should make something to make it harder, or make em think twice about it.
It sounds like you misunderstood something. I said that I believe most quitters are selfish. It sounds like, since you are advocating for harsher quit penalties, that you yourself are not a quitter. Therefore, I wasn’t insinuating anything about you.
also I said “many” threads are people blaming everything but themselves. Not all. But even so, sometimes blame can be rightfully directed elsewhere. Other times, people are wrongfully blaming everything other themselves. It’s a generalization but it’s a careful one, and one that didn’t necessarily include you. If you aren’t complaint about teammates being unskilled, then you aren’t the kind of person I had in mind when I made that statement.