Let us pick our maps

Bad maps take away from the experience in matchmaking. Each player has there own set of maps they love and despise so ‘just making better maps’ will not solve the problem

We need better control over what maps we get sent into in Halo 4.

Here is how I see it working… Every map is represented and you can mark it as like, hate, will play or blank. You are then matched with a priority on maps that you want to play.

What do you guys think of a system where you fill out a list on map priority?

Good idea it. But people will say “It’s like call of duty!”

Oh come on,
I’m sure that 343i will ship Halo 4 with good Multiplayer maps.

I’m not saying that it’s wrong with what you suggest, but who knows maybe 343i will show us some Multiplayer maps.

> Good idea it. But people will say “It’s like call of duty!”

I didn’t know Call of Duty had that feature. btw good idea! I would probably keep it off to maximise the amount of games I could find

> Oh come on,
> I’m sure that 343i will ship Halo 4 with good Multiplayer maps.
>
> I’m not saying that it’s wrong with what you suggest, but who knows maybe 343i will show us some Multiplayer maps.

I don’t doubt that at all. I also don’t doubt that there will be maps that don’t fit my style of gameplay and that are popular. I will not want to play these maps and there should be a better way to avoid doing so than quitting out on my team.

Social should allow you to use tick boxes to only search for games on certain maps. Ranked should stay with the voting or veto system.

Terrible, terrible idea. Almost as bad as the Reach voting system

I made a thread about this before and most people agreed with me: the veto system needs to make a return.

There are several reason for this. One, this means that the least popular gametypes and maps actually get played, which, whilst maybe not a popular choice at the beginning of a game, may be appreciated later on; how many times have you sat in a lobby as a vote was passed for something you didn’t like, only to actually enjoy the following game?

On the flipside of that, there are some Forgeworld variants I have never played, simply because everyone else in the lobby didn’t want them How the -Yoink- am I supposed to experience those if everyone votes against them?

Reach’s voting system is awful, and if Halo 4 is going to use the same system I shan’t be happy.

> Terrible, terrible idea. Almost as bad as the Reach voting system
>
> I made a thread about this before and most people agreed with me: the veto system needs to make a return.
>
> There are several reason for this. One, this means that the least popular gametypes and maps actually get played, which, whilst maybe not a popular choice at the beginning of a game, may be appreciated later on; how many times have you sat in a lobby as a vote was passed for something you didn’t like, only to actually enjoy the following game?
>
> On the flipside of that, there are some Forgeworld variants I have never played, simply because everyone else in the lobby didn’t want them How the -Yoink!- am I supposed to experience those if everyone votes against them?
>
> Reach’s voting system is awful, and if Halo 4 is going to use the same system I shan’t be happy.

You are missing the point entirely. You can still have the superior veto system but you match up with others that prefer a similar map list to you… so if there is a map that everyone on your list hates then guess what? It does not show up. You have more control over what you play, how is that bad?

I’d prefer if they just used the Halo 2 system. You get dropped into whatever map the game chooses and if you don’t like it too bad, either quit or deal with it.

> > Good idea it. But people will say “It’s like call of duty!”
>
> I didn’t know Call of Duty had that feature. btw good idea! I would probably keep it off to maximise the amount of games I could find

In Call of Duty 2 you were able to specify maps you did not want to play on.