How would you like it changed from Reach? Did you like Halo 3’s Veto System more?
I hope it’s different than Reach’s, I absolutely hated Reach’s system; I preferred it back in Halo 3 where it’s random what you get.
In Halo Reach there are players where they quit immediately if the one they voted on didn’t get picked, with Halo 3 it’s random so even if you like a Map and it gets voted against there’s still a chance it could be back with a different gametype. (And splitscreeners don’t have 2 votes toward the map of their choice)
Well, Halo 3 voting system was better…
But I wouldn’t know for Halo 4…
I think we should go back to the Halo 3 settings so there is some variety instead of the same stuff being picked everytime, and if you like playing stuff most people don’t you never win.
It should be different then in Reach, but not like Halo 3s. They need to find a way to offer more variety.
Halo 3’s system was absolute crap. Reach’s system was much better, 343i would just have to focus on adding more variety in the voting options.
I was playing Mario Kart Wii online with my mate the other say and It actually had a cool idea on how the map is picked. Each player chooses the map they want to play. It picks a random map which was selected by the players.
Do you think an idea similar to this could possibly work?
Bring back Halo 3’s veto system. It was better because it forced variety and if a game type or map was broken then it was still brought up and the Devs had an impetus to fix it.
Probably the veto system.
With Reach’s voting system people tend to quit before the match even starts because the one they voted for was not picked.
> In Halo Reach there are players where they quit immediately if the one they voted on didn’t get picked, with Halo 3 it’s random so even if you like a Map and it gets voted against there’s still a chance it could be back with a different gametype. (And splitscreeners don’t have 2 votes toward the map of their choice)
I think you must be forgetting that halo 3 was worse for people quitting because they had less control over gametype and map. Bungie ended up creating the halo reach veto system based on complaints about halo 3’s.
No matter how well something is made someone will always find something to hate about it and say that the previous version was better. the problem is that nostalgia makes you forget what was wrong. its just like people saying that goldeneye for n64 was the best fps ever … until they go back and try to play it now.
Dumbest title for a democratic system that adopts change.
> A veto only gives power to stop changes, not to adopt them. The veto therefore conveys to its holder an ability to protect the status quo.
Reach’s system isn’t much different from Halo3’s beyond proper titling. They’re both meant for us to vote on the map/gametype we want to play and at no point ask us which gametype/map we don’t want to play.
Being able to choose a gametype and map separate from each other is the only change that can offer more “control” to us.
I definetly think it should be more like halo 3s veto system or black ops(gimme a sec). In reach the voting system is broken because you usually end up playing the same maps/ gametypes in every playlists because everyone picks the same ones and you dont get the complete expierence of that playlist. We all know halo3s system but in black ops you got three choices
-
New map/gametype
-
New map/ gametype
-
Random
This system worked great because it didnt let you automatically play the same game you just played the match before and it added in a lot of versitality. This little thing goes a long way. Imo it adds a lot more playtime. Thanks 
Good point. I liked Reach’s better. But people do quit.
If it’s like Reach: Make it pretty much the same but the split-screen players can have
their own vote each. So the two split-screen people can both vote for something else.
If it’s like 3: Make it so that you have to say Yes or No. If you don’t pick yes or no
your vote doesn’t count.
Actually Reach’s system was one thing I think Bungie really innovated on in terms of matchmaking. Halo 3 had a true veto system, Reach has a voting system. They are different. Personally, I think Reach has the better system. It only seems broken and without variety because for whatever reason 343 puts like 1 map at a time for all three options, or something equally annoying like A)Slayer/Sword Base, B) Slayer Pro/Sword Base, or C) Plasma Pistol Hot potato King of the Hill Heavy/Asylum. If they mixed the maps up more and had three different maps each with differing playing styles (small, large, cqb, etc) as opposed to simply switching up gametypes then I think it would work out very well. If Halo 4 managed that I would be thrilled.
I liked the Halo 2 system. A map and gametype is selected and you had to play it.
NB This only works when every map is half decent and no map is atrocious.
Halo 3 system FTW. In Reach it was nearly impossible to play some unpopular gametypes. I was also sick of playing overestimated maps (e.g., Sword Base) and gametypes all the time.
Not Reach’s system. The community just chooses the maps that are easiest to camp on.
> Not Reach’s system. The community just chooses the maps that are easiest to camp on.
This.
Reach system or bust. Not enough variety in the halo 3 voting system for my taste.
The Halo Reach system gave the players too much power. It made it so that any playlist that featured a slayer variant became a de facto slayer playlist, because that is the only thing a majority of players want to play. It makes matchmaking so boring. If the system ends up being like Reach, I probably will quit a few games because I’m sick and tired of Big Team Heavies/ TU Slayer/ Slayer.
> Reach system or bust. Not enough variety in the halo 3 voting system for my taste.
H3’s system forced variety. When we’re presented with a voting system, people vote for the same maps every time. I have played Slayer on Swordbase literally 5 times in a row.