Players with guest who quit should have it count as quit for every person they have as a guest, plus themselves on their account.
So, say for instance, you jump on to play a little Skirmish, you see someone who has two guest in the pre-game lobby and you begin to pray that they are not on your team. Despite your fervent pleas to the Halo Gods that they not be on your team, they are.
The game starts.
This person and his guests immediately quit.
Then for some reason, JIP refuses to replace them for the entire game.
Needless to say this creates a very un-enjoyable experience for all that are left to suffer the total decimation that usually follows almost a half of your team quitting. So, this person is credited with their normal quit on their account, plus a bonus two, one for each of their guest.
Halo needs quit penalties. There aren’t any quit penalties right now (I don’t count bans as penalties, since they require excessive quits), so even if 343i were to double the penalty if a player has a guest, 0 times 2 is still 0.
Sometimes when a guest quits it can be the best thing for a team especially when they are the main reason the team is losing and with them gone there still might be a chance to at least gain some ground back.
Overall I have to agree that players who bring guests into a match should be held accountable for everything their guest does when it comes any sort of disruptive playing and I guess that would include quitting.
This is another reason why the ranked social split is such a big deal. In ranked you don’t have to worry about clueless guests.
Not that jumping on the game and reveling in how comically bad you are can’t be fun, but it was nice when there was a place you didn’t have to worry about it.
> It should be like this for EVERYONE:
>
> 1st and 2nd quit: nothing
>
> 3rd and 4th quit: 10 mins ban
>
> 5th quit: 1 hour ban
>
> 6th quit: 6 hours ban
>
> Play 10 games after your last ban, and you can quit again without any penality twice.
>
>
> And if you say that this system sucks because you have a crappy connection, deal with it or upgrade your internet.
I see something a little less rigid being more desirable. It knows your entire history, so it has a pretty good idea if you are a habitual quitter.
Someone that has 50 dnf’s in over a thousand games should get a little more flexibility than someone with a hundred dnf’s in just over 200. Granted, if you aren’t a quitter it won’t normally affect you.
> You don’t have to ban them from the game. The last thing Halo needs is less people playing.
>
> It should be like H3 where you lose experience. Or in this games case, Spartan points. When peoples SR ranks start dropping they might care.
^^^^^ there’s your answer! Start taking away SR ranks for people who always seem to quit…I’m sure you’d get a drop in mindless quitting…I can’t stand quitters…and sadly…usually they’re on my team!
> > It should be like H3 where you lose experience. Or in this games case, Spartan points. When peoples SR ranks start dropping they might care.
>
> That’s how Halo 3 did it, and it worked great.
>
> The problem though is that right now, progressive rank (SR) is tied to loadout unlockables, so Halo would need to get rid of those.
IMO, they should get rid of the tie to SR regardless. If they wish to keep unlocks (which is fine as long as the weapons are balanced) then they should tie the unlocks to commendations instead of SR. Same goes for specializations - those should be tied to commendations. And perks shouldn’t be tied to specializations, as it makes for too many perks that remove functionality for the sole purpose of having a perk. The ability to put “Wetwork” on your gamercard in the lobby for all others to see is plenty enough of a reward. No perks required.
> You don’t have to ban them from the game. The last thing Halo needs is less people playing.
>
> It should be like H3 where you lose experience. Or in this games case, Spartan points. When peoples SR ranks start dropping they might care.
eh. Do both. It doesn’t have to be a huge amount of time that you are locked out for, and it doesn’t have to be an unreasonably fast trigger.
But seriously, the game doesn’t need less people but if someone is quitting out of half their games then you already have effectively less people. I would rather have one less person than someone that is going to negatively impact one in five games they join.
> > It should be like this for EVERYONE:
> >
> > 1st and 2nd quit: nothing
> >
> > 3rd and 4th quit: 10 mins ban
> >
> > 5th quit: 1 hour ban
> >
> > 6th quit: 6 hours ban
> >
> > Play 10 games after your last ban, and you can quit again without any penality twice.
> >
> >
> > And if you say that this system sucks because you have a crappy connection, deal with it or upgrade your internet.
>
> I see something a little less rigid being more desirable. It knows your entire history, so it has a pretty good idea if you are a habitual quitter.
>
> Someone that has 50 dnf’s in over a thousand games should get a little more flexibility than someone with a hundred dnf’s in just over 200. Granted, if you aren’t a quitter it won’t normally affect you.
This could work, but you can get many DNFs even if you never quit ( host migration and black screens)
> This could work, but you can get many DNFs even if you never quit ( host migration and black screens)
I’ve completed 1250 games and have about 50 DNFs. That is a DNF once every 25 games. I can generally count on my wireless router to stop recognizing my xbox at least once every couple days in the middle of a game, so its not like I never have connection problems.
If your connection problems are severe enough that you can’t complete AT LEAST 80% of your games, you probably need to find a hobby other than online gaming.
> > This could work, but you can get many DNFs even if you never quit ( host migration and black screens)
>
> I’ve completed 1250 games and have about 50 DNFs. That is a DNF once every 25 games. I can generally count on my wireless router to stop recognizing my xbox at least once every couple days in the middle of a game, so its not like I never have connection problems.
>
> If your connection problems are severe enough that you can’t complete AT LEAST 80% of your games, you probably need to find a hobby other than online gaming.
The problem is not the connection. This glitch can happen even if there is a perfect connection and then the HOST quits. If you have a very good player in your team that is always the host he will never quit and you won’t get DNFs.
Instead, if someone of the enemy team is the host and he gets spawnkilled, he will leave and you could get a DNF.
I have: 3352 games STARTED— 3083 COMPLETED— 2378 WINS so i have almost 220+ DNFs but i just quit 100-120 matches .
> > > This could work, but you can get many DNFs even if you never quit ( host migration and black screens)
> >
> > I’ve completed 1250 games and have about 50 DNFs. That is a DNF once every 25 games. I can generally count on my wireless router to stop recognizing my xbox at least once every couple days in the middle of a game, so its not like I never have connection problems.
> >
> > If your connection problems are severe enough that you can’t complete AT LEAST 80% of your games, you probably need to find a hobby other than online gaming.
>
> The problem is not the connection. This glitch can happen even if there is a perfect connection and then the HOST quits. If you have a very good player in your team that is always the host he will never quit and you won’t get DNFs.
> Instead, if someone of the enemy team is the host and he gets spawnkilled, he will leave and you could get a DNF.
>
> I have: 3352 games STARTED— 3083 COMPLETED— 2378 WINS so i have almost 220+ DNFs but i just quit 100-120 matches .
And that translates to you completing over ninety percent of your matches. Sounds about right.
Wow. We’re actually having the quit ban discussion again. Ok. Here goes.
I can’t tell from the original post whether you object to quitting in general or whether you object to the failure of JiP to replace groups of quitters. Can I assume it is both?
All I can tell you is that quitting is a fact of life and the pace of it will not slacken much less go away entirely. If you are suggesting we get rid of JiP because in this one instance it failed then you are inviting the horror of this experience in every single match you play instead of just the one in however many thousand that it actually represents.
> All I can tell you is that quitting is a fact of life and <mark>the pace of it will not slacken</mark> much less go away entirely.
I disagree completely. There are nights in Halo 4 when I play for an hour and can’t finish a game with both teams having more than two players.
I never had that bad of a problem in Halo 3 where your prestige was actually affected by it nor in Halo Reach where it seemed to have a quicker trigger on the temporary ban.
Obviously keep JiP in place, but you can certainly put punitive measures in place that will help keep people in games. No one willingly walks into a cattle prod.
> > All I can tell you is that quitting is a fact of life and <mark>the pace of it will not slacken</mark> much less go away entirely.
>
> I disagree completely. There are nights in Halo 4 when I play for an hour and can’t finish a game with both teams having more than two players.
>
> I never had that bad of a problem in Halo 3 where your prestige was actually affected by it nor in Halo Reach where it seemed to have a quicker trigger on the temporary ban.
>
> Obviously keep JiP in place, but you can certainly put punitive measures in place that will help keep people in games. No one willingly walks into a cattle prod.
I found 3 had a lot of quitting and the quit ban introduced in the last months of the game had little effect. Reach definitely hit quitters faster than 4, but the 10 minute ban was toothless. I would argue that the 60 minute is equally useless, although it might be less so if it kicked in quicker.
I guess what I find discouraging is that everyone’s solution for quitting is to implement harsher penalties on quitters. This will only lead to AFK-ing or who knows what other kinds of counter-productive behavior. It will not solve the problem - it will only turn it into a different problem. Long and short is: you can’t make people participate in a match they don’t want to be in, no matter what may be the merits (or lack of) of their reasons. And a large part of quitting (over maps and game types) could be avoided with a little innovative matchmaking design. People who rage quit or quit when they don’t get the warthog - that’s a different story and I don’t know what, if anything, can be done about that. Though I imagine stiffer penalties would probably not dissuade people who are that absorbed in their own problems.