So I’ve been looking over the forums about people leaving matches. Yes, it seriously sucks when you get against a team that is way better than you and you take the L. What sucks even more? People quitting and not just finishing the game. It’ll probably be over sooner than you think. But this is more about the one person on the losing team that hasn’t quit and refuses to. If you have been in this situation where you are the last man against people who are way better than you, hats off to you. My suggestion isn’t to punish those who quit more than they are. I feel like we need more positive reinforcement to the one or two players who stick with the game. Something like this may be in place in the form of extra req points or something but I have yet to notice. So if there is a reward in place, I feel that it should be beefed up or if not it should be implemented.
This is coming from numerous experiences on reach and i believe one or two on H5. Again, there might be something in place that I don’t know about(highly probable, bc I am still slightly new to multiplayer) but I have yet to notice it. If there is, feel free to correct me.
Edit: Pretty sure this would be easier to put in place than to track down those who continuously quit. As in, who determines how many times is too many(yes I can tell they’ve already determined this)?
No. There’s no reward for sticking games out, and there shouldn’t be. You get XP and REQ points, even if you lose. You don’t get any if you quit, so you could say the reward is already built in.
I’m one of those who will stay in a 1v8 btb match just to spite the enemy as they’re sending me messages saying I should quit too. However, I don’t feel like I should get any extra reward, rather I would like to see the quitters get punished more severely.
> 2533274843634673;3:
> I’m one of those who will stay in a 1v8 btb match just to spite the enemy as they’re sending me messages saying I should quit too. However, I don’t feel like I should get any extra reward, rather I would like to see the quitters get punished more severely.
Yup quitters should be punished by a more strict way
> 2535455640858746;1:
> People quitting and not just finishing the game. It’ll probably be over sooner than you think.
Only if they aren’t stat padders and it’s not a slayer game. Slayers usually take the entire game with uneven teams and obviously padders will take the entire game as well which could be over 20 minutes in an objective game. Not many people are gonna want to stick around for that long while getting destroyed. I’ve played in plenty of those types of games and I’ll usually hang around, but I’ll hide for the majority of the game. I quit every once in a while, but I’ll stay for the most part because I’m using a boost and I don’t want to rack up my quit ban amounts.
They already have a small reward in ranked which is you won’t get a ban if you aren’t the first to quit, but you still lose CSR. I kind of wish that was in social as well.
> 2535455640858746;1:
> If you have been in this situation where you are the last man against people who are way better than you, hats off to you.
Yeah, hats off for being obstinate, for valuing req points over anything else, and for padding other player’s stats with what has got to be the most twisted form of pride I’ve ever seen.
> 2533274843634673;3:
> I’m one of those who will stay in a 1v8 btb match just to spite the enemy as they’re sending me messages saying I should quit too. However, I don’t feel like I should get any extra reward, rather I would like to see the quitters get punished more severely.
> 2535455640858746;7:
> > 2533274843634673;3:
> > I’m one of those who will stay in a 1v8 btb match just to spite the enemy as they’re sending me messages saying I should quit too. However, I don’t feel like I should get any extra reward, rather I would like to see the quitters get punished more severely.
>
> Ok, what should the punishment be?
I think they just need to implement temporary bans sooner. As it is now, it seems like quitters get away with it too many times before temporary bans start kicking in.
An improved matching system would eliminate the incentive to quit, at least for most players. That being said, I think that the Banhammer should remain the same, but a player may not join a new game until the game he quit is over.
> 2535460550943257;9:
> An improved matching system would eliminate the incentive to quit, at least for most players. That being said, I think that the Banhammer should remain the same, but a player may not join a new game until the game he quit is over.
The first part is 100% the truth. The second part would probably only result in players staying in the match but not actually playing, or feeding kills to the enemy, or griefing their teammates. Careful what you wish for.
> 2535460550943257;9:
> An improved matching system would eliminate the incentive to quit, at least for most players. That being said, I think that the Banhammer should remain the same, but a player may not join a new game until the game he quit is over.
No, it wouldn’t. Even when the teams are fair, people are so quick to quit when the other team jumps out to an early lead, or quit at the very end when they’re about to lose. No system is going to fix a player’s mentality.
> 2586218893181855;12:
> > 2535460550943257;9:
> > An improved matching system would eliminate the incentive to quit, at least for most players. That being said, I think that the Banhammer should remain the same, but a player may not join a new game until the game he quit is over.
>
> No, it wouldn’t. Even when the teams are fair, people are so quick to quit when the other team jumps out to an early lead, or quit at the very end when they’re about to lose. No system is going to fix a player’s mentality.
> 2533274873843883;11:
> > 2535460550943257;9:
> > An improved matching system would eliminate the incentive to quit, at least for most players. That being said, I think that the Banhammer should remain the same, but a player may not join a new game until the game he quit is over.
>
> The first part is 100% the truth. The second part would probably only result in players staying in the match but not actually playing, or feeding kills to the enemy, or griefing their teammates. Careful what you wish for.
Do you know what the matching system is based off of right now? I’ll see if I can do a little research on it but what should the matching system be based on then?
> 2535455640858746;13:
> > 2586218893181855;12:
> > > 2535460550943257;9:
> > > An improved matching system would eliminate the incentive to quit, at least for most players. That being said, I think that the Banhammer should remain the same, but a player may not join a new game until the game he quit is over.
> >
> > No, it wouldn’t. Even when the teams are fair, people are so quick to quit when the other team jumps out to an early lead, or quit at the very end when they’re about to lose. No system is going to fix a player’s mentality.
>
> Can you see any harm in trying it?
Not at all. I’m just saying I doubt we’d actually see any difference in the quitting, even if the system was somehow improved.
> 2533274843634673;3:
> I’m one of those who will stay in a 1v8 btb match just to spite the enemy as they’re sending me messages saying I should quit too. However, I don’t feel like I should get any extra reward, rather I would like to see the quitters get punished more severely.
> 2535455640858746;14:
> > 2533274873843883;11:
> > > 2535460550943257;9:
> > > An improved matching system would eliminate the incentive to quit, at least for most players. That being said, I think that the Banhammer should remain the same, but a player may not join a new game until the game he quit is over.
> >
> > The first part is 100% the truth. The second part would probably only result in players staying in the match but not actually playing, or feeding kills to the enemy, or griefing their teammates. Careful what you wish for.
>
> Do you know what the matching system is based off of right now? I’ll see if I can do a little research on it but what should the matching system be based on then?
I’m pretty sure that it works how it always has, which is to say it spends about ten seconds looking for a “perfect” match, then another ten seconds looking for a “respectable” match, then, if the first twenty seconds haven’t produced a result, it resorts to something as near to random matching as makes no difference. The only reason the first twenty seconds so often fails is because the population is low, and because people search in groups with skill disparities, and there’s really nothing to be done about the compromises skill-based matchmaking has to make for either of those situations.
My preferred solution would be a much narrower skill-gap to the game, so that the delta between low-skilled and high-skilled would not be anything like as wide as it is now, and therefore the skill gaps resulting from low-population matchmaking would be correspondingly less. But I’m pretty sure that every player with a competitive streak (most of them, I’m guessing) would see me banned from Waypoint and from Halo in general rather than have to contemplate a game which is less hard to play.
> 2533274873843883;17:
> > 2535455640858746;14:
> > > 2533274873843883;11:
> > > > 2535460550943257;9:
> > > > An improved matching system would eliminate the incentive to quit, at least for most players. That being said, I think that the Banhammer should remain the same, but a player may not join a new game until the game he quit is over.
> > >
> > > The first part is 100% the truth. The second part would probably only result in players staying in the match but not actually playing, or feeding kills to the enemy, or griefing their teammates. Careful what you wish for.
> >
> > Do you know what the matching system is based off of right now? I’ll see if I can do a little research on it but what should the matching system be based on then?
>
> I’m pretty sure that it works how it always has, which is to say it spends about ten seconds looking for a “perfect” match, then another ten seconds looking for a “respectable” match, then, if the first twenty seconds haven’t produced a result, it resorts to something as near to random matching as makes no difference. The only reason the first twenty seconds so often fails is because the population is low, and because people search in groups with skill disparities, and there’s really nothing to be done about the compromises skill-based matchmaking has to make for either of those situations.
>
> My preferred solution would be a much narrower skill-gap to the game, so that the delta between low-skilled and high-skilled would not be anything like as wide as it is now, and therefore the skill gaps resulting from low-population matchmaking would be correspondingly less. But I’m pretty sure that every player with a competitive streak (most of them, I’m guessing) would see me banned from Waypoint and from Halo in general rather than have to contemplate a game which is less hard to play.
I definitely like this idea as well. You may be right about some thinking that the game will be less hard to play. Taking some time to think about it, if 343 decides to make the skill gap smaller, it will inevitably make the game much more competitive. Matches will be a lot closer and will in turn be more exciting for everyone at every skill level.
> 2535455640858746;18:
> > 2533274873843883;17:
> > > 2535455640858746;14:
> > > > 2533274873843883;11:
> > > > > 2535460550943257;9:
> > > > > An improved matching system would eliminate the incentive to quit, at least for most players. That being said, I think that the Banhammer should remain the same, but a player may not join a new game until the game he quit is over.
> > > >
> > > > The first part is 100% the truth. The second part would probably only result in players staying in the match but not actually playing, or feeding kills to the enemy, or griefing their teammates. Careful what you wish for.
>
> I definitely like this idea as well. You may be right about some thinking that the game will be less hard to play. Taking some time to think about it, if 343 decides to make the skill gap smaller, it will inevitably make the game much more competitive. Matches will be a lot closer and will in turn be more exciting for everyone at every skill level.
I would like to think that the results would be as you describe, but my experience with fellow Halo players, and with their egos, leads me to believe that any, and I mean any, narrowing of the skill gap would be a complete deal breaker for the “compeitive” types. They only seem interested in playing a game if the other 95% of players are wallowing in a pool of their own ineptitude. Or says me. I’m sure they would say that it’s stupid to dumb-down a game just so we can get better matches for scrubs who probably never even played Halo before and who will probably leave the game after three weeks. Exaggeration and hyperbole on both sides, I suppose. But I’ll continue to plug for an easier game until I’m blue in the face.
> 2533274843634673;3:
> I’m one of those who will stay in a 1v8 btb match just to spite the enemy as they’re sending me messages saying I should quit too. However, I don’t feel like I should get any extra reward, rather I would like to see the quitters get punished more severely.
So you waste 8 people’s time because you’re inconsiderate? Good to know.