QUITTING SOLUTION-ADD PLAYERS TO IN GAMES SESSIONS

There’s nothing worse than being on an outnumbered team and being forced to die repeatedly, ding your stats, and have zero fun for the next 10 minutes. However a close second is having a full team and being trapped by 343 to stay in a boring, time-wasting, game when only 1 enemy remains.

But let’s face it, we live in a world with random Internet outages, life emergencies, sudden explosive diarrhea, rage quitting, and any number of reasons a player may not be willing or able to complete a game. There’s nothing we can do about that. But that doesn’t mean every remaining player has to suffer through an imbalanced and frustrating game.

The solution is simple… Keep punishing quitters, but MATCH PLAYERS INTO MID-GAME SESSIONS WITH OPEN SPOTS, like Battlefield for example. For any unfairness this may or may not add, it’s nothing compared to the unfairness and vacuum of joy experienced when forced to finish an imbalanced match. I would love to hear arguments to the contrary, as this seems like a no-brainer. If 343 is monitoring, please consider this option.

<<<moving this post from Support to General>>>

I think this is a terrible idea.

the only thing worse than being stuck in a match where your team quit is being forced into a lopsided in-progress match.

I’d rather play my matches from beginning to end.

no this wont work, you are just going to create ragers who get made that they lose their rank because they didnt get to play a hole match and instead joined a loosing match.

> 2676692992818466;2:
> I think this is a terrible idea.
>
> the only thing that worse than being stuck in a match where your team quit is being forced into a lopsided in-progress match.
>
> I’d rather play my matches from beginning to end.

Of course we would all rather play our matches from beginning to end, why even state the obvious? What we’re talking about is an imperfect world where players quit, and as a result every remaining player has to suffer for it. It’s a very real problem that needs a solution, even if it’s a lesser evil. When someone quits your ideal, start-to-finish, scenario has already waved bye bye… time to move on to the solving the problem.

Keep in mind this solution would only apply on those occasions when someone has quit, dropped Internet, etc. It’s not like every game you would join mid-session. Players who drop would be quickly replaced, so if you’re talking about a score imbalance there wouldn’t be that much. I would much rather occasionally join a mid-game session than be forced to finish the torture of an imbalanced match. Who knows it could even be fun to help a team rally, with new and interesting medals/commendation to reflect.

Also quitters can continue being punished to discourage it. This solution needs to be seriously considered imo.

Join in Progress has been discussed before, as it was a major discussing point on Halo 4. Some people don’t like it, others do. Let’s not resurrect the JIP wars again, please.

> 2533274915643658;5:
> Join in Progress has been discussed before, as it was a major discussing point on Halo 4. Some people don’t like it, others do. Let’s not resurrect the JIP wars again, please.

agreed but no i dont agree with op

Halo 4 already did this. It just leads to even more quitting, which leads to getting placed in losing matches.

Warzone currently has join in progress. Joining a match and having the game end in a loss literally seconds later is so fun.

Terrible, hate to be the player added

JIP isn’t a good idea for Arena; it’s too competitive. No one wants to join a game in session just to be placed on a losing team (because who quits when they are winning) and get punished for a loss that they didn’t quite earn.

I think you all are missing the forest for the trees. Do you hate to be the player added MORE than being trapped in a game where all 3 of your teammates have abandoned you? Do you hate it more than having to scavenge around a map for 10 minutes for the 1 player left on a team who’s only chance of preserving his stats is to hide? No I think not.

I understand it’s not ideal to be the player who is added. But I would much rather be the player who is added than the player who was abandoned. You will never have your perfect world where no one quits, so it’s time to find a workable outcome.

The central argument is that it’s far less worse than being trapped in an imbalanced game. The Halo 4 experience was wonderful in this regard. Consider it from the standpoint of being the player abandoned by his 3 teammates and having 3 more teammates added to help out and at least give them a fight.

Finally, why would it encourage more quitting than already exists? You can keep all the punishments that are currently in place, ban hammer, etc.

Quitters are usually solo players. Who will be used to replace that solo player but another solo player, who may decide to quit just as his initiate did when he realizes that he has been placed in a losing game.

Just because misery loves company doesn’t mean you should force an innocent player into a bad situation.

More work should be put into fixing the quitting problem, which is caused by uneven matches.

> 2533274809541057;9:
> JIP isn’t a good idea for Arena; it’s too competitive. No one wants to join a game in session just to be placed on a losing team (because who quits when they are winning) and get punished for a loss that they didn’t quite earn.

Again you’re arguing against outcomes that already exist in GREATER DEGREE with the current Quitters Dilemma.

No one want to be placed on a losing team” – Well that’s exactly what happens when you’re the lucky winner of a quitting teammate.
Why get punished for a loss they didn’t quite earn” – You’re being punished currently for a loss you didn’t earn when your teammates quit.

There is no silver bullet we all know this. But adding players in-session would most definitely reduce these undesired situations.

Umm, there’s a reason why they took ranks out of BTB

Hint: Because JIP + ranked = very pissed off community

> 2533274843540565;12:
> > 2533274809541057;9:
> > JIP isn’t a good idea for Arena; it’s too competitive. No one wants to join a game in session just to be placed on a losing team (because who quits when they are winning) and get punished for a loss that they didn’t quite earn.
>
>
> Again you’re arguing against outcomes that already exist in GREATER DEGREE with the current Quitters Dilemma.
>
> “No one want to be placed on a losing team” – Well that’s exactly what happens when you’re the lucky winner of a quitting teammate.
> “Why get punished for a loss they didn’t quite earn” – You’re being punished currently for a loss you didn’t earn when your teammates quit.
>
> There is no silver bullet we all know this. But adding players in-session would most definitely reduce these undesired situations.

Why add in additional people to a lost cause? From the time that a player quits, to the time a new player is found to replace him, the game will already be down the -Yoink- for the losing team. JIP isn’t instant. The MM system has to find a player and then they have to load the map. That’s a significant amount of time for an already losing team to be shorthanded for. The losing team will have a significant point deficit before they receive a replacement.

Adding a player back into a losing game isn’t likely to produce a win. No one wants to join an almost guaranteed loss. The original team members are the ones that need to bite the bullet and accept the loss. There’s no need to drag a new, innocent player into their dire circumstance.

Just because you’re having a bad game doesn’t mean you need to drag others into your mess.

> 2533274809541057;11:
> Quitters are usually solo players. Who will be used to replace that solo player but another solo player, who may decide to quit just as his initiate did when he realizes that he has been placed in a losing game.
>
> Just because misery loves company doesn’t mean you should force an innocent player into a bad situation.
>
> More work should be put into fixing the quitting problem, which is caused by uneven matches.

Not sure I understand your argument. The epidemic which will always exist is players who quit because they don’t like losing. That will happen if they started the match and start losing, or were added to a match in-session and start losing. Either way there is no net increase or decrease to quitters from this solution, so I don’t see how that argument holds up.

However, there are many upstanding players who aren’t quitters. And the chance of a great gaming experience improves drastically when one of those players is added in-session to replace a quitter. JIP has a high chance for an enjoyable outcome when someone quits. The current situation does not.

I don’t mind join in progress myself, even if I’m the one joining. However, if you joined in and your team loses then that loss shouldn’t count against you because you joined in. Your stats would be in tact, but at least if you joined a losing match then you wouldn’t be punished for that. But hey most hate the idea, few like it, so we’we’ll be stuck with uneven teams at times and I’ve just accepted that at this point.

> 2533274843540565;15:
> > 2533274809541057;11:
> > Quitters are usually solo players. Who will be used to replace that solo player but another solo player, who may decide to quit just as his initiate did when he realizes that he has been placed in a losing game.
> >
> > Just because misery loves company doesn’t mean you should force an innocent player into a bad situation.
> >
> > More work should be put into fixing the quitting problem, which is caused by uneven matches.
>
>
> Not sure I understand your argument. The epidemic which will always exist is players who quit because they don’t like losing. That will happen if they started the match and start losing, or were added to a match in-session and start losing. Either way there is no net increase or decrease to quitters from this solution, so I don’t see how that argument holds up.
>
> However, there are many upstanding players who aren’t quitters. And the chance of a great gaming experience improves drastically when one of those players is added in-session to replace a quitter. JIP has a high chance for an enjoyable outcome when someone quits. The current situation does not.

People don’t quit simply because they don’t like losing… They quit because they don’t enjoy getting stomped into the ground during a severely uneven match, as is all too often the case.

Even during matches where scores are similar, you will have players that aren’t nearly at the same skill level as the rest. So, they get stomped and eventually quit.

The matchmaking system needs to accurately gauge skill and place people of similar skill against each other. It does not currently do that. Additionally, mixed parties go against full arranged parties, which further exacerbates the problem of unfair matchups.

That is why players quit. Uneven matches. Fix that, and quitting will almost entirely disappear.

> 2533274809541057;14:
> > 2533274843540565;12:
> > > 2533274809541057;9:
> > > JIP isn’t a good idea for Arena; it’s too competitive. No one wants to join a game in session just to be placed on a losing team (because who quits when they are winning) and get punished for a loss that they didn’t quite earn.
> >
> >
> > Again you’re arguing against outcomes that already exist in GREATER DEGREE with the current Quitters Dilemma.
> >
> > “No one want to be placed on a losing team” – Well that’s exactly what happens when you’re the lucky winner of a quitting teammate.
> > “Why get punished for a loss they didn’t quite earn” – You’re being punished currently for a loss you didn’t earn when your teammates quit.
> >
> > There is no silver bullet we all know this. But adding players in-session would most definitely reduce these undesired situations.
>
>
> Why add in additional people to a lost cause? From the time that a player quits, to the time a new player is found to replace him, the game will already be down the -Yoink- for the losing team. JIP isn’t instant. The MM system has to find a player and then they have to load the map. That’s a significant amount of time for an already losing team to be shorthanded for. The losing team will have a significant point deficit before they receive a replacement.
>
> Adding a player back into a losing game isn’t likely to produce a win. No one wants to join an almost guaranteed loss. The original team members are the ones that need to bite the bullet and accept the loss. There’s no need to drag a new, innocent player into their dire circumstance.
>
> Just because you’re having a bad game doesn’t mean you need to drag others into your mess.

This is exactly the quitters mentality that eats this game like the plague. You equate losing with being a “lost cause”. This is exactly the reasoning quitters employ before they bail on their teammates. A little news flash… The game is fun even when you lose or know you’re going to lose. But when someone quits and the teams are imbalanced, there’s very little enjoyable play in that. All you can do is die over and over, or hunt down a disadvantaged player.

Also you’re letting the tail wag the dog. Why add an innocent player into dire circumstances you ask? Well why abandon 7 innocent players (who didn’t quit) to a crappy game when you can simply add someone?

> 2533274809541057;17:
> > 2533274843540565;15:
> > > 2533274809541057;11:
> > > Quitters are usually solo players. Who will be used to replace that solo player but another solo player, who may decide to quit just as his initiate did when he realizes that he has been placed in a losing game.
> > >
> > > Just because misery loves company doesn’t mean you should force an innocent player into a bad situation.
> > >
> > > More work should be put into fixing the quitting problem, which is caused by uneven matches.
> >
> >
> > Not sure I understand your argument. The epidemic which will always exist is players who quit because they don’t like losing. That will happen if they started the match and start losing, or were added to a match in-session and start losing. Either way there is no net increase or decrease to quitters from this solution, so I don’t see how that argument holds up.
> >
> > However, there are many upstanding players who aren’t quitters. And the chance of a great gaming experience improves drastically when one of those players is added in-session to replace a quitter. JIP has a high chance for an enjoyable outcome when someone quits. The current situation does not.
>
>
> People don’t quit simply because they don’t like losing… They quit because they don’t enjoy getting stomped into the ground during a severely uneven match, as is all too often the case.
>
> Even during matches where scores are similar, you will have players that aren’t nearly at the same skill level as the rest. So, they get stomped and eventually quit.
>
> The matchmaking system needs to accurately gauge skill and place people of similar skill against each other. It does not currently do that. Additionally, mixed parties go against full arranged parties, which further exacerbates the problem of unfair matchups.
>
> That is why players quit. Uneven matches. Fix that, and quitting will almost entirely disappear.

Call it getting stomped, slaughtered, rocked, powned, whatever… in definitive terms that’s called LOSING. So it sounds like you agree that is the ultimate reason people quit, and always will quit.

Even if there were a million dwarfs hand-selecting matches, there would still be many, many lopsided games. Sometimes players have a bad game while others are on fire. Sometimes players are really good at one map, or one area on a map. Sometimes two players who don’t even know each other happen to work well together. Sometimes an Internet connection will have packet loss for a short window, causing poor performance.

Keep in mind as well some people are dropped from a match who didn’t intend to quit! Counting on absolutely perfect matchmaking with perfectly balanced teams isn’t a realistic solution. JIP is a real solution.

> 2533274843540565;4:
> > 2676692992818466;2:
> > I think this is a terrible idea.
> >
> > the only thing that worse than being stuck in a match where your team quit is being forced into a lopsided in-progress match.
> >
> > I’d rather play my matches from beginning to end.
>
>
> Of course we would all rather play our matches from beginning to end, why even state the obvious? What we’re talking about is an imperfect world where players quit, and as a result every remaining player has to suffer for it. It’s a very real problem that needs a solution, even if it’s a lesser evil. When someone quits your ideal, start-to-finish, scenario has already waved bye bye… time to move on to the solving the problem.
>
> Keep in mind this solution would only apply on those occasions when someone has quit, dropped Internet, etc. It’s not like every game you would join mid-session. Players who drop would be quickly replaced, so if you’re talking about a score imbalance there wouldn’t be that much. I would much rather occasionally join a mid-game session than be forced to finish the torture of an imbalanced match. Who knows it could even be fun to help a team rally, with new and interesting medals/commendation to reflect.
>
> Also quitters can continue being punished to discourage it. This solution needs to be seriously considered imo.

What you are proposing isn’t a solution, it’s just shifting the suffering.

also, JiP really doesn’t work in skill based matchmaking. It’s unfair from the start.

A better approach would be to encourage people to stay in their games no matter what. Give people req packs for consecutive matches w/o quitting…

also give people a reason not to quit, like start matching them with other players who quit often. Or by hitting them where it hurts, in their stats. Start docking kills or adding deaths. Make the outcome of Quitting worse than it would be sticking around.