The dodgy betrayal system was one of the worst things about Reach, what with the team killing and betraying for weapons. Not to say that these things didn’t happen in previous games, but seasoned betrayers (traitors?) knew how to fool the game’s betrayal metric to team kill without the victim receiving the boot prompt. Things like that really hurt the experience.
But, see, we’re going about this all wrong. Why should we worry about how the game can know who betrays who, when the game can just track betrayals and ragequits and such, and then lump offending players into a hidden search metric that remains permanently assigned to that gamertag if the betrayal/disconnect ratio remains past a certain point?
It’s like how in Tatsunoko vs. Capcom and Marvel vs. Capcom 3, Capcom designed their matchmaking function to include a “rage quitter hell,” where every player with a certain disconnect percentage was matched against other players with high disconnect ratios to keep the main body of matchmaking participants as disconnect-free as possible, and to irritate/discipline the main offenders by placing them in a matchmaking pool where they would receive enough tastes of their own medicine to constitute a lethal overdose.
If 343 is going to do this right, they should be matching people with abnormal disconnect and betrayal numbers against other people with abnormal disconnect and betrayal numbers, and NOBODY ELSE. Once enough people start flooding the forum with posts like “Y IS EVRYONE QUITTAN AND BETRAYAN ALL THE TIEM” and they see that all the people who experience this problem have high disconnect ratios and high betrayal counts, they’ll know to curb their crappy behavior if they want to enjoy the full matchmaking experience.
Your thoughts?
No. Just… no.
Betrayals are a problem… but there’s nothing you can do about it without ruining the game for the mass community.
One thing I found REALLY annoying in Reach? The quit ban… Why? I have a terrible connection… Now I know that kind of is my fault. However, why make it to where I can’t play if my connection decides it doesn’t want to work anymore? That’s unfair.
Now, before you talk about how unfair it is for some people to put up with the whole thing? Remember… This is why you play with FRIENDS. Searching alone, you’re going to find a whole world of players like this. Who actually rage quit, or betray just cuz.
Moral of the Story? Make friends, and stop making unnecessary changes.
i like this idea. i got booted from a game yesturday because i betrayed a guy who was harassing me for the spartan laser. he was punching an shooting me for like 2 minutes untill i killed him for being such a pain in the yoink. i then got booted for being the justified betrayer. that’s why i proposed a Harassment Boot system that gives you the option to boot if someone keeps shooting and hiting you. the people who just pop ur shield but wont kill you is just annoying.
> i like this idea. i got booted from a game yesturday because i betrayed a guy who was harassing me for the spartan laser. he was punching an shooting me for like 2 minutes untill i killed him for being such a pain in the yoink. i then got booted for being the justified betrayer. that’s why i proposed a Harassment Boot system that gives you the option to boot if someone keeps shooting and hiting you. the people who just pop ur shield but wont kill you is just annoying.
That is what I mean by people who exploit the betrayal system. I can’t imagine it’d be difficult to implement a metric that tracks friendly shield pops and shield damage (it would all be player-side, and sent after the game) to that effect. Sure, there will be terrible players that accidentally kill friendlies or who throw plasma grenades wildly, EMP-ing a few teammates, but the people that intend to do so will exhibit much higher numbers than the people who do it accidentally.
Don’t play btb and expect anything but people.
While this theory is good on paper, quite good actually, it would have a few complications. Some people have bad connections that make them disconnect sometimes. Should they be punished even more due to something that is out of their control?
Or what about accidental betrayals? Some people love to use heavy weapons and vehicles (Wraith, Banshee, etc.). The downside to these are a powerful splash damage, so you’ll inevitably betray more often than most people without meaning to. Should those people also be punished due to preferring a certain playstyle?
I know these two cases aren’t very common and are rather extreme, but it’s still something to take into consideration.
I’ve heard someone else suggest this and I think it is a wonderful idea. And for the person who quits a lot because of a bad internet connection: That’s unfortunate, but why should you’re lousy connection ruin the good times of others? And as for accidental betrayals: in reach, you had to show a pattern of betrayal. You should be fine if you betray on accident from time to time.
> While this theory is good on paper, quite good actually, it would have a few complications. Some people have bad connections that make them disconnect sometimes. Should they be punished even more due to something that is out of their control?
>
> Or what about accidental betrayals? Some people love to use heavy weapons and vehicles (Wraith, Banshee, etc.). The downside to these are a powerful splash damage, so you’ll inevitably betray more often than most people without meaning to. Should those people also be punished due to preferring a certain playstyle?
>
> I know these two cases aren’t very common and are rather extreme, but it’s still something to take into consideration.
Well, for the first case, didn’t Reach have a way to delineate between a ragequit and a random disconnect? I’m pretty sure Bungie said as much. Even so, if certain people truly have a poor enough connection that this type of matchmaking would ruin their gameplay experience, then it would probably be ruined even without the ragequitter/betrayal hell, so it might not matter who they get matched to, because they likely won’t be finishing the match, in the first place.
As for people who like to run over things with heavy vehicles, I don’t see how lumping them in with more rowdy players would be detrimental to the game they want to play. They still get to play, although people might try to betray for vehicles, which would give them a new perspective on how to treat other players when said other players are on foot and the rowdy players are all doing donuts in Warthogs. Besides, while they might have more betrayals than the average player, those who intentionally betray with regularity are going to be head and shoulders above even people who just like to play carmageddon, which means that it’s far more likely they’ll just get paired with the normal players.
In short, the outliers are miniscule. How miniscule, exactly, is anybody’s guess. You can’t satisfy every single person (seriously, have you SEEN these forums lately?) but barring that, 343 should try to satisfy as many people as they can.
> > While this theory is good on paper, quite good actually, it would have a few complications. Some people have bad connections that make them disconnect sometimes. Should they be punished even more due to something that is out of their control?
> >
> > Or what about accidental betrayals? Some people love to use heavy weapons and vehicles (Wraith, Banshee, etc.). The downside to these are a powerful splash damage, so you’ll inevitably betray more often than most people without meaning to. Should those people also be punished due to preferring a certain playstyle?
> >
> > I know these two cases aren’t very common and are rather extreme, but it’s still something to take into consideration.
>
> Well, for the first case, didn’t Reach have a way to delineate between a ragequit and a random disconnect? I’m pretty sure Bungie said as much. Even so, if certain people truly have a poor enough connection that this type of matchmaking would ruin their gameplay experience, then it would probably be ruined even without the ragequitter/betrayal hell, so it might not matter who they get matched to, because they likely won’t be finishing the match, in the first place.
>
> As for people who like to run over things with heavy vehicles, I don’t see how lumping them in with more rowdy players would be detrimental to the game they want to play. They still get to play, although people might try to betray for vehicles, which would give them a new perspective on how to treat other players when said other players are on foot and the rowdy players are all doing donuts in Warthogs. Besides, while they might have more betrayals than the average player, those who intentionally betray with regularity are going to be head and shoulders above even people who just like to play carmageddon, which means that it’s far more likely they’ll just get paired with the normal players.
>
> In short, the outliers are miniscule. How miniscule, exactly, is anybody’s guess. You can’t satisfy every single person (seriously, have you SEEN these forums lately?) but barring that, 343 should try to satisfy as many people as they can.
Those are good points, and I agree with them completely. Overall, your idea is quite sound, and I believe it would work out quite well in Halo 4. I guess some people would be frustrated by this new system, but the majority would have a better experience. In plus, like you said, it would force people to be on their best behaviour too, making the multiplayer experience so much better overall.
As for Reach being able to differentiate between a disconnect and a rage quit, I’m not sure. I’ve never really looked into it too much.
I totally agree with you coz it’s so annoying when people piss you off, you kill them and then get booted. The rule is so strange as well. I hosted a custom game and accidentally betrayed someone. I then got booted. I mean, what happens next is just stupid. The game continued and I was the host, but got booted. 343 should make some exception rules as well.
The betrayal system needs to be scrapped altogether. Its the worst thing about Halo’s multiplayer. Without it, there wouldn’t be any need to fix the booting system because there would be no betrayals in the first place.
Having kids kill you for weapons or for the lulz is not fun. Fingers crossed 343i scraps this for Halo 4.
> The betrayal system needs to be scrapped altogether. Its the worst thing about Halo’s multiplayer. Without it, there wouldn’t be any need to fix the booting system because there would be no betrayals in the first place.
>
> Having kids kill you for weapons or for the lulz is not fun. Fingers crossed 343i scraps this for Halo 4.
Are you suggesting no friendly fire? I think friendly fire is important.
> The betrayal system needs to be scrapped altogether. Its the worst thing about Halo’s multiplayer. Without it, there wouldn’t be any need to fix the booting system because there would be no betrayals in the first place.
I don’t see what you’re getting at, here. Are you saying that people would stop team killing if there were no boot prompt?
> Having kids kill you for weapons or for the lulz is not fun. Fingers crossed 343i scraps this for Halo 4.
I think it should be scrapped, if only to be replaced with the type of system like the one outlined above. People use the boot system to quit out of gametypes they didn’t vote for without it counting as a ragequit, and exploit it to get other people removed from games, but if the game matched those people up with others who do the same, it would essentially remove those people from games where they shouldn’t be while still punishing them for actions taken in-game WITHOUT giving players in-game a new option to exploit for personal purposes, i.e. it would do the betrayal system’s job better than the betrayal system ever could.
But Friendly Fire isn’t. I think it’d be much less painful just to remove it altogether. Maybe then people would actually have to start to use team work or go play Camp of Doody where they can grief to their heart’s content.
> No. Just… no.
>
> Betrayals are a problem… but there’s nothing you can do about it without ruining the game for the mass community.
>
> One thing I found REALLY annoying in Reach? The quit ban… Why? I have a terrible connection… Now I know that kind of is my fault. However, why make it to where I can’t play if my connection decides it doesn’t want to work anymore? That’s unfair.
>
> Now, before you talk about how unfair it is for some people to put up with the whole thing? Remember… This is why you play with FRIENDS. Searching alone, you’re going to find a whole world of players like this. Who actually rage quit, or betray just cuz.
>
> Moral of the Story? Make friends, and stop making unnecessary changes.
Well, that’s one of the problems. Bad connections. I wonder if you can get a better connection or upgrade. I have bad connections too, but getting an upgrade is impossible right now until the technology makes things more available.
With betrayals I think if possible there should be a system where it counts the amount of betrayals someone has committed and divides it by how many games they have played. If the resulting figure is higher than a certain number (e.g. 0.1) then they get put in the “betrayer hell” or earn less exp per game until the figure drops.
> With betrayals I think if possible there should be a system where it counts the amount of betrayals someone has committed and divides it by how many games they have played. If the resulting figure is higher than a certain number (e.g. 0.1) then they get put in the “betrayer hell” or earn less exp per game until the figure drops.
Precisely. That is certainly one way to do it.
If a person has, on average, 2 betrayals per game(which is a pretty high number) across 1600 games in matchmaking playlists, they would be a prime candidate for being included in the betrayer’s hell search metric.
> But Friendly Fire isn’t. I think it’d be much less painful just to remove it altogether. Maybe then people would actually have to start to use team work or go play Camp of Doody where they can grief to their heart’s content.
Definitely not. Friendly fire is very important. A little bit of control is all it takes to keep from inadvertantly killing teammates. I’m thankful ff is in Halo.
> > But Friendly Fire isn’t. I think it’d be much less painful just to remove it altogether. Maybe then people would actually have to start to use team work or go play Camp of Doody where they can grief to their heart’s content.
>
> Definitely not. Friendly fire is very important. A little bit of control is all it takes to keep from inadvertantly killing teammates. I’m thankful ff is in Halo.
I don’t even see how removing friendly fire is even considered an acceptable option in Halo. removing it would cause who knows how many problems within the matchmaking ecosystem and would serve as a rather enormous indirect buff to explosive ordnance, since the only people you could kill with it are enemies and possibly yourself.