Don’t know how many people would agree with this but I have had something bother me recently with Halo MCC. I am still fairly new the MCC in particular but I have logged 55.1 hours in about 1 weeks or so already.
The thing that bothers me is in very rare games, I tend to get steamrolled by the other team. Whether it is the team balancing not doing a great job or whatever else, it happens. It doesn’t happen very often mind you and sometimes I am on the giving end of the steamroll but I feel there should be a compensation for players who leave a game that is already set in stone not going to happen. Yes I get abandoning your fellow teammates is bad so I had an idea to have it detect a level of certain requirements.
Take the Extraction game mode for example, I just had a game where the entire other team had already planted 4 extraction bombs and my team hasn’t even gotten close and we weren’t even able to leave our spawn. I feel like once it reaches that certain degree, it should be okay for players to leave the game. I am sure that nobody wants to be sitting through and just witnessing themselves get their -Yoink- beat. It is not all that fun, in my opinion. A majority of people don’t have that much time in the day to play just Halo for 8-12 hours straight. Having them sit through stuff like this is just a waste of time for majority.
Just an idea I had and hope some of you can agree with me. Obviously just opinion.
Let’s not reward and encourage leavers even more, there are too many already. -1
The issue stems from the terrible matchmaking system that was implemented a few seasons ago. Allowing this sort of “mercy rule” would only fix a symptom, but more importantly, is completely counter to the spirit of Halo multiplayer.
Fix the steamroll situation, remove the smurfs (like someone having 20 accounts), things (like leaving and afk) will get fixed automatically.
Don’t make someone regret playing his favorite game because you [or the player who steam rolls because he knows all the spawns, all the power gun timers and also has a full squad who’s knows the same] have been grinding a 13year old game everyday for 20hrs a day since launch.
I think some people need to reminded again and again and people don’t leave for no reason and I believe that the bigger problem here is, steamrolling and NOT “people don’t get favorite maps” or “they don’t get sniper/rocker” or “they’re just cowards” as their primary reason for leaving
But it’s gonna be hard, MCC is now filled with new players and smurfs / pubstompers (and like a lot of them, half of the matches I play have pubstompers and/or smurfs in them sometimes with a full squad of them!), knowing which is which is gonna be really really tough
Reward quitters… That is a strong no for me. Yes steam roll games happen but that doesn’t mean players should be able to just quit. Just play the game out… Why can’t some just take a bad loss that happens. I have been playing Halo since H2 and have been on both sides of a steam roll games and never have I been like well my team is going to lose so I quit… The match making system for MCC isn’t going to be perfect since the population is really low. The game has to make games from the players available. The game has to many quitters so no need to encourage it.
> 2533274871382042;1:
> Don’t know how many people would agree with this but I have had something bother me recently with Halo MCC. I am still fairly new the MCC in particular but I have logged 55.1 hours in about 1 weeks or so already.
>
> The thing that bothers me is in very rare games, I tend to get steamrolled by the other team. Whether it is the team balancing not doing a great job or whatever else, it happens. It doesn’t happen very often mind you and sometimes I am on the giving end of the steamroll but I feel there should be a compensation for players who leave a game that is already set in stone not going to happen. Yes I get abandoning your fellow teammates is bad so I had an idea to have it detect a level of certain requirements.
>
> Take the Extraction game mode for example, I just had a game where the entire other team had already planted 4 extraction bombs and my team hasn’t even gotten close and we weren’t even able to leave our spawn. I feel like once it reaches that certain degree, it should be okay for players to leave the game. I am sure that nobody wants to be sitting through and just witnessing themselves get their -Yoink- beat. It is not all that fun, in my opinion. A majority of people don’t have that much time in the day to play just Halo for 8-12 hours straight. Having them sit through stuff like this is just a waste of time for majority.
>
> Just an idea I had and hope some of you can agree with me. Obviously just opinion.
I’m afraid that you’re just going to have to wait for the CGB. Honestly, I never cared one bit for “Social” Games, and I absolutely Despise it. The biggest reason why Is because it is the only way to play public online multiplayer, even though its system Forces Competitive Gaming. And because there is no way to play casually, then, I’m out until they implement a Causal Gaming system, like the said CGB. Also, I agree that it is not fun smashing, or getting smashed by the other team where it is like 50 - 8, not to mention that it teams up people in clans against you, which is just totally unfair. But even still, I would always stick to the match, but I would not have fun. In fact, it just got to the point to where social games was never fun,. People filling chat with rage, because the way the match was going was against their favor, and when taking a weapon or vehicle that someone else wanted and they try to TK you or get you killed by the enemy team, just made things so much worse. Anyway, I have no problem with Social games existing, in fact, it needs to stay for the people who enjoy it. But what bothers me is that some of these Competitive gamers couldn’t give a care about new players or anything, and they seem to want everything to suit themselves and themselves only, and couldn’t give a single care about the Casual gamers, and tell them that if they don’t like a system that to them seems Majorly Flawed, then they need to leave MCC entirely, which is pure nonsense (Unless that player is continually doing things that are really, really, really bad, in which case they do need to leave). Honestly makes me a little sick. Maybe they don’t realize that people like to play games differently? That is my opinion though on how I see things, but I sure hope I’m wrong.
Rather than “compensated leaving”, some sort of mercy rule would be better. Quitting/leaving should never be encouraged; it would be better for the game to end entirely if it was that one-sided that there was 0 chance for victory for one side. But the critical difference is that the game decides when to end the match, rather than the players. That way its normalized and there is no ambiguity. If it were up to the players then different people would have different ideas of when it would be ok to quit.
Steamrolls occur because the game tries to apply skill-based matchmaking to a population that can’t optimally support it. The game treats a team comprised of a 50, 10, 10 and 10 as equivalent in skill to a team with a 20, 20, 20 and 20. It’s not an ideal system, but if there were no sbmm at all then steamroll matches would be even more one-sided (though not necessarily more frequent). It’s not ideal, but there isn’t really a way to fix it aside from a large influx of players.
> 2533274817408735;7:
> Rather than “compensated leaving”, some sort of mercy rule would be better. Quitting/leaving should never be encouraged; it would be better for the game to end entirely if it was that one-sided that there was 0 chance for victory for one side. But the critical difference is that the game decides when to end the match, rather than the players. That way its normalized and there is no ambiguity. If it were up to the players then different people would have different ideas of when it would be ok to quit.
>
> Steamrolls occur because the game tries to apply skill-based matchmaking to a population that can’t optimally support it. The game treats a team comprised of a 50, 10, 10 and 10 as equivalent in skill to a team with a 20, 20, 20 and 20. It’s not an ideal system, but if there were no sbmm at all then steamroll matches would be even more one-sided (though not necessarily more frequent). It’s not ideal, but there isn’t really a way to fix it aside from a large influx of players.
I really don’t think the playerbase is so small that a proper SBMM system can’t be implemented. I play older CoD games from time to time (2015+) and still get fairly balanced games 90% of the time. I can’t say the same for the MCC, but I am inclined to believe the MCC has more players than a CoD game that is 6 years old with 6 new games ahead of it.
> 2535461724308175;4:
> Fix the steamroll situation, remove the smurfs (like someone having 20 accounts), things (like leaving and afk) will get fixed automatically.
Oh this should be good. Please enlighten us how 343 can stop someone from making a new account and playing when MCC is permanently on gamepass, physical copies for console are still a thing, and Steam doesn’t and cannot lock to a Microsoft account.
Any practical suggestions on how 343 can do that? I will wait.
> 2535445124554549;8:
> > 2533274817408735;7:
> > Rather than “compensated leaving”, some sort of mercy rule would be better. Quitting/leaving should never be encouraged; it would be better for the game to end entirely if it was that one-sided that there was 0 chance for victory for one side. But the critical difference is that the game decides when to end the match, rather than the players. That way its normalized and there is no ambiguity. If it were up to the players then different people would have different ideas of when it would be ok to quit.
> >
> > Steamrolls occur because the game tries to apply skill-based matchmaking to a population that can’t optimally support it. The game treats a team comprised of a 50, 10, 10 and 10 as equivalent in skill to a team with a 20, 20, 20 and 20. It’s not an ideal system, but if there were no sbmm at all then steamroll matches would be even more one-sided (though not necessarily more frequent). It’s not ideal, but there isn’t really a way to fix it aside from a large influx of players.
>
> I really don’t think the playerbase is so small that a proper SBMM system can’t be implemented. I play older CoD games from time to time (2015+) and still get fairly balanced games 90% of the time. I can’t say the same for the MCC, but I am inclined to believe the MCC has more players than a CoD game that is 6 years old with 6 new games ahead of it.
It’s easier to balance games that are easier to play like COD since the majority of the population is some what good. Games with higher learning curves are much tougher to balance.
> 2533274816788253;10:
> > 2535445124554549;8:
> > > 2533274817408735;7:
> > > Rather than “compensated leaving”, some sort of mercy rule would be better. Quitting/leaving should never be encouraged; it would be better for the game to end entirely if it was that one-sided that there was 0 chance for victory for one side. But the critical difference is that the game decides when to end the match, rather than the players. That way its normalized and there is no ambiguity. If it were up to the players then different people would have different ideas of when it would be ok to quit.
> > >
> > > Steamrolls occur because the game tries to apply skill-based matchmaking to a population that can’t optimally support it. The game treats a team comprised of a 50, 10, 10 and 10 as equivalent in skill to a team with a 20, 20, 20 and 20. It’s not an ideal system, but if there were no sbmm at all then steamroll matches would be even more one-sided (though not necessarily more frequent). It’s not ideal, but there isn’t really a way to fix it aside from a large influx of players.
> >
> > I really don’t think the playerbase is so small that a proper SBMM system can’t be implemented. I play older CoD games from time to time (2015+) and still get fairly balanced games 90% of the time. I can’t say the same for the MCC, but I am inclined to believe the MCC has more players than a CoD game that is 6 years old with 6 new games ahead of it.
>
> It’s easier to balance games that are easier to play like COD since the majority of the population is some what good. Games with higher learning curves are much tougher to balance.
The lobbies I regularly get into in games like BO3 and IW says otherwise. The KDR across a team varies wildly. You’ll get teams (both sides of the lobby, not just one team, which is the key) where the top player will have a 6.0 KDR and the bottom player will be .27, but the games are still fun for most people. Unlike in the MCC, where one team will consist entirely of people with 3.0 KDRs and the other team will have a single good player and total noobs, CoD makes sure each team consists of players that match each-other in skill down the board. It’s rare to see one team curb stomp. This is what the MCC needs.
> 2535445124554549;11:
> > 2533274816788253;10:
> > > 2535445124554549;8:
> > > > 2533274817408735;7:
> > > > Rather than “compensated leaving”, some sort of mercy rule would be better. Quitting/leaving should never be encouraged; it would be better for the game to end entirely if it was that one-sided that there was 0 chance for victory for one side. But the critical difference is that the game decides when to end the match, rather than the players. That way its normalized and there is no ambiguity. If it were up to the players then different people would have different ideas of when it would be ok to quit.
> > > >
> > > > Steamrolls occur because the game tries to apply skill-based matchmaking to a population that can’t optimally support it. The game treats a team comprised of a 50, 10, 10 and 10 as equivalent in skill to a team with a 20, 20, 20 and 20. It’s not an ideal system, but if there were no sbmm at all then steamroll matches would be even more one-sided (though not necessarily more frequent). It’s not ideal, but there isn’t really a way to fix it aside from a large influx of players.
> > >
> > > I really don’t think the playerbase is so small that a proper SBMM system can’t be implemented. I play older CoD games from time to time (2015+) and still get fairly balanced games 90% of the time. I can’t say the same for the MCC, but I am inclined to believe the MCC has more players than a CoD game that is 6 years old with 6 new games ahead of it.
> >
> > It’s easier to balance games that are easier to play like COD since the majority of the population is some what good. Games with higher learning curves are much tougher to balance.
>
> The lobbies I regularly get into in games like BO3 and IW says otherwise. The KDR across a team varies wildly. You’ll get teams (both sides of the lobby, not just one team, which is the key) where the top player will have a 6.0 KDR and the bottom player will be .27, but the games are still fun for most people. Unlike in the MCC, where one team will consist entirely of people with 3.0 KDRs and the other team will have a single good player and total noobs, CoD makes sure each team consists of players that match each-other in skill down the board. It’s rare to see one team curb stomp. This is what the MCC needs.
Games like CoD and Battlefield play more like Swat in halo, where snap reflexes are more useful than tracking. So it’s a different type of skill, arguably one such that doesn’t have as much of a gap between the worst and the best. This can be seen in halo swat data showing that lower ranked players are more likely to score kills against high ranked players in swat compared to normal slayer.
> 2533274817408735;7:
> The game treats a team comprised of a 50, 10, 10 and 10 as equivalent in skill to a team with a 20, 20, 20 and 20.
Is that really how the system works? It’s always seemed like that to me, but it’s nice knowing I wasn’t imagining it.
People really need to understand. Yes, getting utterly thrashed by the enemy team absolutely, positively sucks, but it is still an inevitable thing that happens to all of us. No matter how many time you quit out of those games, it’s still gonna happen again. So you’re just gonna have to put up with it and take the loss, because a loss looks better than a quit out. Things like that just happen.
> 2533274847010314;14:
> People really need to understand. Yes, getting utterly thrashed by the enemy team absolutely, positively sucks, but it is still an inevitable thing that happens to all of us. No matter how many time you quit out of those games, it’s still gonna happen again. So you’re just gonna have to put up with it and take the loss, because a loss looks better than a quit out. Things like that just happen.
Yeah, I agree. It’s always going to happen sometime, but what frustrates me is that this is the only way to play online public multiplayer, and that no other way was ever available, which is probably why you have so many people against things like quit bans, Etc. But I agree that if you play a Competitive match, then you should definitely have to stick it out no matter the circumstances, which some people seem to disagree with. Well, hopefully someone will tell us why or what they disagree with, then maybe we can find some middle ground or something.
> 2535415744086631;13:
> > 2533274817408735;7:
> > The game treats a team comprised of a 50, 10, 10 and 10 as equivalent in skill to a team with a 20, 20, 20 and 20.
>
> Is that really how the system works? It’s always seemed like that to me, but it’s nice knowing I wasn’t imagining it.
I think so. Either that or it matchmakes you based on the highest ranked person on your team.
> 2533274817408735;12:
> > 2535445124554549;11:
> > > 2533274816788253;10:
> > > > 2535445124554549;8:
> > > > > 2533274817408735;7:
> > > > > Rather than “compensated leaving”, some sort of mercy rule would be better. Quitting/leaving should never be encouraged; it would be better for the game to end entirely if it was that one-sided that there was 0 chance for victory for one side. But the critical difference is that the game decides when to end the match, rather than the players. That way its normalized and there is no ambiguity. If it were up to the players then different people would have different ideas of when it would be ok to quit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Steamrolls occur because the game tries to apply skill-based matchmaking to a population that can’t optimally support it. The game treats a team comprised of a 50, 10, 10 and 10 as equivalent in skill to a team with a 20, 20, 20 and 20. It’s not an ideal system, but if there were no sbmm at all then steamroll matches would be even more one-sided (though not necessarily more frequent). It’s not ideal, but there isn’t really a way to fix it aside from a large influx of players.
> > > >
> > > > I really don’t think the playerbase is so small that a proper SBMM system can’t be implemented. I play older CoD games from time to time (2015+) and still get fairly balanced games 90% of the time. I can’t say the same for the MCC, but I am inclined to believe the MCC has more players than a CoD game that is 6 years old with 6 new games ahead of it.
> > >
> > > It’s easier to balance games that are easier to play like COD since the majority of the population is some what good. Games with higher learning curves are much tougher to balance.
> >
> > The lobbies I regularly get into in games like BO3 and IW says otherwise. The KDR across a team varies wildly. You’ll get teams (both sides of the lobby, not just one team, which is the key) where the top player will have a 6.0 KDR and the bottom player will be .27, but the games are still fun for most people. Unlike in the MCC, where one team will consist entirely of people with 3.0 KDRs and the other team will have a single good player and total noobs, CoD makes sure each team consists of players that match each-other in skill down the board. It’s rare to see one team curb stomp. This is what the MCC needs.
>
> Games like CoD and Battlefield play more like Swat in halo, where snap reflexes are more useful than tracking. So it’s a different type of skill, arguably one such that doesn’t have as much of a gap between the worst and the best. This can be seen in halo swat data showing that lower ranked players are more likely to score kills against high ranked players in swat compared to normal slayer.
I’m aware it’s different, but that’s not an excuse for the MCC to be utterly incapable of matching players based on skill the way it plays now. They clearly need a better system, and I would argue that CoD’s old system of filling lobbies with plenty of people of different skill levels evenly on each team is far better than what the MCC does.
Games like chess have an option to resign where there is no hope of victory, I wish video games had that option