New Machtmaking-System as solution for "all"

Cheers,

after the announcement of Halo 5 I realised more than ever how the community is split in two: The competitive gamers and the social ones.

No, that’s not a new conclusion at all - but it’s an important one.

I believe that a different way of matchmaking could solve the conflict between those two fractions and by the way many more problems Halo 4 matchmaking caused.
But first things first:

Competitive gamers are very conservative. They wish everything should be the way it was in Halo 1 to 3.
This might not speak for all, but to sum it up, their demands are:

  • No loadouts
  • No personal ordnance
  • No armor abilities
  • No perks
  • Just rudimentary equality

The social gamers are a bit more “open minded”, when it comes to something new. They like the ability to customize all those things to their personal needs and preferences.
They might find it boring to have all those options gone.
And they don’t mind if a game isn’t about map control or whatever.

As a competitive gamer you don’t have to like this, but you need to understand that this part of the community is as important as your own. There is no wrong or right.

So instead of saying “get rid of Infinity Slayer, AA, Perks, PO, this weapon, that stuff and so on”, just give them the option “to live their own life”. Basically you need two multiplayer modes.

Here’s the problem with Halo 4:
When you want to play online, you first of all have to choose a playlist.
There are clearly competitive playlist, clearly social playlist…and those who aren’t really defined. And those cause the actual trouble.
Some playlists are mixing competitive and social gamers together.
I think BTB is a good example for this. Here you’ve got IS and BT Slayer. Both kinda go in different directions, even though it could be starker.
So there are those two fractions of gamers in one group of 16 people and they have to agree on one thing - it’s impossible. But they have to. And if you have to play IS, because there are slightly more social gamers in this group, pisses the competitive gamers off. It kinda takes away the BTB playlist for them.

So this is just one problem caused by playlists.
Another ones:

  • You play certain maps over and over again
  • you play certain game modes over an over again
  • quitters - because they dislike a map/mode
  • DLC maps kinda never appear
  • even Forge Island is quite rare
  • the endless discussion which gametype fits in which playlist. which should stay and which should go?

This creates an unsatisfying gaming experience.
Most of the time you play a compromise - but this is not the exact game you want.
And all because you get mixed up with a bunch of random-players per playlist.

The solution: If 343 should get rid of anything, it’s not AA, not IS, not the SAW. They should get rid of the idea of playlist.

It would cause less anger, if you could chose a more direct way.
Instead of playlist, you see a list that can be sorted by map, game type, popularity, DLC, featured, new, old…whatever.

So you could say “hey, I want to play something on Exile”. You pick it.
Then you say “I hate IS, so lets pick LS” - you pick that too.
An then you wait until 7, 13 or 15 other players join.
Those players would have chosen the exact match like you. Everyone really WANTS to play this match. It’s no compromise. You weren’t mixed up with social players. They won’t outvote you and force you to play something you don’t even like.
On the other hand you would have IS matches where nobody gives a -Yoink- weather there are Loadouts, ordnance or mapcontrol.
Live and let live (:

Other advantages:

  • You could easily say “Naaah I already played Ragnarok 3 times in a row. Lets chose something else”.
  • You could say “I really really feel like a game of KOTH on Exile right now”. And you will get it. You don’t have to hope it’s one of the three random maps you can vote on. You don’t have to depend on the other players in you group to vote the same.

Because when you think about it: There are like 7 maps in a playlist. Every map offers around 3 Gametypes. So cou have 21 possibilities - but matchmaking offers only 3 random maps out of 21? Even 3 out of 15 or 3 out of 10 is just a small piece of what you could be able to play. And it’s random. So you have to eat or shut up.

Oh and you won’t depend on all of the other 7-16 players in your group to accidentally have the DLC maps. You just pick the map and wait for other DLC-owners to join.

Of course you should still have a quick-match-option.
You should see how popular a map/gametype is, so you know how long you might have to wait.

Problems that should be solved by this:

  • it won’t mix up competitive and social gamers
  • so no more discussions about new elements vs. oldschool Halo - let the others play IS, you could play the real stuff.
  • you would be actually be able to play DLC maps
  • no complaining about “Husky Raid all the time”
  • no complaining about “Ragnarok all the time”
  • no more eat or die

In the end you should have the exact matches you want, and most of all a satisfying gaming experience.

So to me, or let’s say in my mind this feels like the best solution to end many discussions and many complaining. I believe there are many details missing that should be thought through (e.g. ranking?). So this is not final. It’s just a direction.
You can also say this is total -Yoink- - playlist are the best thing ever. So feel free to discuss and optimize.

This is not a dichotomy, players enjoy different sets of gameplay and tastes of a single individual often encompasses multiple play stiles. To put it bluntly more variety is needed.

The problem is, as a general rule, you want to keep the number of playlists as small as possible, because every time you divide the population up you increase search times. Just picking a map would be a divisor on par with the current system. If you then also pick a gametype and if you want Infinity Slayer or Legacy Slayer, you’re down to a tiny fraction of the full population. I very much doubt it would be viable for all but the most popular map/gametype combos. As such, your system would have the ironic effect of giving people less choice than they currently have due to an overabundance of options.

> Competitive gamers are very conservative.[…]
> The social gamers are a bit more "open minded[…]
> <mark>This might not speak for all</mark>.

There you go.
That’s why we shouldn’t try to fit the entire Halo fanbase, all competitive and all social players into two stereotypes.

Putting the people into two stereotypes caused the bias that apparently all competitive people are stubborn traditionalists that want a Halo 3 with better graphics as the next game while apparently all social players enjoy dumbed down and broken gameplay. Eventually both sides blindly blame and flame each other.

Competitive players vary in their believes and preferences when it comes to Halo just as much as social players do.

> just give them the option “to live their own life”

That option has always existed with custom games and forge actually, though its development has stagnated or even regressed since Halo 4.
So, improve the options in custom games, improve forge and implement a custom game browser and people could truly “live their own life”.

However, for the default online multiplayer I would prefer one consistent and structured experience.

The settings of a well designed game can get played competitively just as well as socially. What primarily will (or rather should) change is the atmosphere, not the settings themselves.

> So instead of saying “get rid of Infinity Slayer, AA, Perks, PO, this weapon, that stuff and so on”, just give them the option “to live their own life”.

What do you think Halo 4 is? and look at how many people are playing it. It sucks.

Less than 20k people is not worth adding extra playlists for. Those people can go back to playing cod while the dormant 400k halo fans come back to play real halo.

They just need to reassess how they’ve got multiplayer strutured. Ideally, Halo 5 could to be like this at launch:

Core - Custom loadouts, “main” game modes
Rumble Pit
Team Slayer
Capture the Flag
Dominion
BTB
Etc

Legendary - equal start gametypes, focus on competitive play with in-game CSR
Lone Wolves
Legendary Slayer
Legendary Objective
Proving Ground (stripped down MLG style gameplay)

Social -asymmetrical, non-standard game modes
Flood
Action Sack
Grifball
Race
Etc

Special - rotational, test and DLC playlists
Double XP Playlists
DLC Playlists

Ideally, there would be a Legendary-style section of matchmaking at launch to ensure the old class are catered to. Personally, I’m content to have loadouts so long as they’re improved from Halo 4’s.

I like the idea of multiple playlists. What I have been missing since Halo 3 is the ranked matchmaking playlist. Was it at times frustrating to rank up - yes. But once I accepted my rank for what it was, I took it as a challenge to get better, communicate more, play with your teammates and not as a lone wolf who happens to be on a team. I’m not sure what happened with Reach and Halo 4 but I would welcome back the ranking system from Halo 2/3. Maybe not so punishing of a deranking system. What I miss most is teammates who worked with you and strategized with you, seems like no one mics up and if the do they are just there to be an a-hole. Not sure how to fix that but perhaps a change to make your rank/level mean something. I don’t care about unlocking/customizing weapons or new skins for guns. Just make multiplayer matches meaningful again please.

> The problem is, as a general rule, you want to keep the number of playlists as small as possible, because every time you divide the population up you <mark>increase search times</mark>.

This came into my mind as well. It’s a guess it might take longer. But I cannot foresee whether it will be a few seconds or minutes.
On the other hand I talked about still implementing a quickmatch-option for those who just wanna play.

> Just picking a map would be a divisor on par with the current system. If you then also pick a gametype and if you want Infinity Slayer or Legacy Slayer, you’re down to a tiny fraction of the full population. I very much doubt it would be viable for all but the most popular map/gametype combos. As such, your system would have the ironic effect of giving people less choice than they currently have due to an overabundance of options.

I speculate on a different effect. There are enough people who will become bored when a map shows up over and over again.
Yes, there will be a peak at some maps. On the other hand you just need a hand full of players to get a match running besides this peak.

So how about this:

You offer several basic options:

  • Quickplay
  • Classic Playlists
  • Optimised settings (Halo 2 did have stuff lite this, didn’t it?)
  • Custom

In Quickplay you don’t even care about Playlists. You just get mixed up with whatever comes up.

The Classic Playlist will be what we have right now.

In Optimized Settings you can choose certain maps and gametypes you prefer - or you don’t want to deal with.

And Custom is picking up the exact match you want.

The magic will be, how someone who uses the Custom-Way will be mixed up with someone out of the Playlist-Way.
I guess you have to switch the progresses order a little.
Right now it’s: Choose a playlist > Wait for others > Choose a map
How it should be: Choose a playlist > Choose a map > wait for others
This way “the system” would now “okay, here are some people who want to play this map - and here are some other guys who are requesting it. Let’s bring them together”.