The Issue of Quitting

Games Other Halo
1

I love Halo. Loooove it. To bits. If I could, I’d marry Halo and create mini-Halo babies and live the rest of my life in happiness…
Where was I? Oh yes. Back on topic.

If there’s one problem with Halo today, it’s the rampant quitting that continues to plague matchmaking. It seems that people are quitting out of the majority of games I play, and it truely destroys team balance and more often than not ruins the fun, which is what most of us are here for, right?

A solution MUST be found, lest the Reclaimer Trilogy be plagued with frustrating matches and low matchmaking population.

I am of a strong belief that negative reinforcement (e.g. probation a la Halo: Reach) is not a good idea. Probation just doesn’t cut it - 10 minutes of no gameplay is more of an annoyance than a punishment. It could even be driving gamers away from Halo towards other games where quitting is not penalised.
Positive reinforcement may be a good idea: where players are rewarded for not quitting. The rewards would have to be substantial though.

Another solution could be the inclusion of drop-in-drop-out gameplay. Other games use it to great effect - you don’t have to worry about the repercussions of quitting (of which there are many). Yes, it is annoying when you join a 3/4 complete game but that’s really the only flaw I can see.
This would be for Social Playlists ONLY where fun>stats. It would not be present in Ranked matches.
You could argue that it’s ‘simply not Halo’ and that it shouldn’t be present because none of the past games had it… here’s the problem: FPS games are an extremely competitive market and Halo needs to evolve with the times to keep a decent amount of gamers playing - people can and will switch to other games.

Maybe we need to look at the cause of quitting to reach an effective solution, but that is an entirely different topic. At least I hope we can all agree that something NEEDS to be done.

Soooooo, forum, what are your views on quitting? Any ideas for a solution to this massive problem?

2

Nobody quit Reach because of the quit probation. People stopped playing it because Bungie tried to turn it into every other shooter on the market.

The best way to keep the Halo fanbase is to make a Halo game. Oh, and give us the ability to have community-hosted servers and lobbies. PC shooters have much greater longevity than console shooters because of this system. Matchmaking always shortens a game’s lifespan.

3

The Reach system is actually positive punishment, not negative reinforcement…

(unnecessary response from a psychology minor)

4

This is something I posted on a different thread:

> Social Playlists: Join in session, longer games. (1-75 for 4v4)
> Ranked Playlists: No join in session, shorter games. (1-50 for 4v4)
>
> I can’t believe how many people leave games in Halo: Reach. All the CoD players can automatically assume they can leave whenever they want without consequence. Players also leave because they do not like the chosen map/gametype. We absolutely NEED join in session… at least for the Social Playlists.

There is nothing I hate more than your team quitting just because you are losing slightly.

5

> Positive reinforcement may be a good idea: where players are rewarded for not quitting. The rewards would have to be substantial though.

Well, in a way that’s still negative reinforcement. As in “if you quit you won’t get X bonus.” If we want, however, to stay positive in a meaningful way we shouldn’t be looking for a solution at the back end of the quitting process, but instead the front end of gameplay. By this, I mean focus on making the game fun as a first priority so the question ceases to be “how can we get people quit less” and instead becomes “how can we get people to play more” such that we can rely on people to have some sort of independent drive and motivation rather than some sense of mindless duty or obligation to their team, or the rewards mechanics.

> Another solution could be the inclusion of drop-in-drop-out gameplay. Other games use it to great effect - you don’t have to worry about the repercussions of quitting (of which there are many). Yes, it is annoying when you join a 3/4 complete game but that’s really the only flaw I can see.
> This would be for Social Playlists ONLY where fun>stats. It would not be present in Ranked matches.
> You could argue that it’s ‘simply not Halo’ and that it shouldn’t be present because none of the past games had it… here’s the problem: FPS games are an extremely competitive market and Halo needs to evolve with the times to keep a decent amount of gamers playing - people can and will switch to other games.

Good point. As I just posted somewhere else around here there’s absolutely no reason to forgo Drop-in-drop-out gameplay in firefight, campaign, and yes social matchmaking. Ranked kiddies could probably never accept it because to them the ancillary -Yoink- of stats, points, and winning trumps the very practical benefits of a team structure which can accommodate quitters, but I will suggest one more thing for social that will make the system work (as it does for most other shooters, and far better ones than COD and Halo mind you all.)

Persistent lobbies. In matchmaking nowadays the people you’re set up with only stick with you for one mere game. After which you’re thrown back into the wilds to find another bunch of faceless drones to have an entirely asocial experience with because in no way are you equiped to deal with such a torrent of fleeting personalities. That’s an especially big problem, however, if there’s no guarantee that the match you find will be a complete one. IE. if you can join in progress. So what you do is keep the people together such that if you find a match which in it’s waning seconds you know that despite how trivial it might be for you to compete then you will have a full game for the very next go. Teams will have to be flopped around with each new game (lest the outcome be pre-determined by the matchmaking system itself) but with very little work otherwise you could deliver one mighty fine multiplayer system.

Plus this has the added benefit (and probably more important one too) of allowing a more normalized social setting where with time you can get to know your fellow player in a much more meaningful way than just “that -Yoink!- who hogged the sniper rifle that one game.” It’s the difference between, say, walking down the street and walking into a cafe.

6

> Nobody quit Reach because of the quit probation. People stopped playing it because Bungie tried to turn it into every other shooter on the market.
>
> The best way to keep the Halo fanbase is to make a Halo game. Oh, and give us the ability to have community-hosted servers and lobbies. PC shooters have much greater longevity than console shooters because of this system. Matchmaking always shortens a game’s lifespa.

Nonsense! Halo reach was on great big splurge to the conventions of the Halo franchise. The worst evils (domineering semi-automatic weapons, ridiculous power weapons, terrible vehicle balance, -Yoink–backwards campaign levels, AI designed to frustrate you only, gimmicky side-show abilities, and weak dialog) were accentuated to the point where even the fans couldn’t as easily justify their involvement while what few positives there were (Forge, Sabres) were given station far beyond their actual merits. If there were any similarities between these particular sins and any other game it was merely coincidental to their mutual lack of respect for balanced game design.

NERD RAGE!!!

Anyway, I agree with you otherwise. The PC system does have weaknesses when you apply it to a game with as many options as Halo (see the dangers of joining a random person’s custom game) so in applying it to H4 you will need to still have some managed matchmaking system to set people up with a controlled environment that ensures a fun and well constructed experience.

But, once you have that you can just let it run with an automated rotation of maps and gametypes without the worries of host-abuse.

7

for the problem of joining 3/4 the way through, they could make it so after a certain amount of time/points, joining in session is no longer allowed, unless like, via invite. being 1 player down for the last minute is better than joining 2 kills from the end of the game

8

My suggestion is to have all three that have been brought up.

  • Quit Ban
  • Bonuses for games played in a row without Quitting
  • Social Area that has drop in/drop out feature but is much better then cod’s. Hint don’t let other’s join when the game is pretty much over.
9

Well, I think quitting is a fundamental problem inherent to how Halo is (and has been) played. One thing driving the way halo games are set up is working with a team to win. Games are meant to be a team effort, and even if you match with random people in the pregame lobby, you can work with teammates and develop strategies on how to win a game, or control a map as the game goes on. You figure out your teammates’ strengths and weaknesses and can adapt (or are supposed to adapt).

Don’t get me wrong, all games have quitters, and each deals with it in their own way. There is the drop-in option, but even that has its flaws. That condones an approach to games of “every person for themselves” and an atmosphere where people only care about their stats or what they need to achieve to get to the next unlockable perk.

Halo CE didn’t have multiplayer, and that dramatically set the standard for how the series’ multiplayer was designed. No one quit, since you had to be physically with your friends for multiplayer games.

Halo 2 really revolutionized online multiplayer, and introduced clans to Halo and other stats to keep players focused on winning and not quitting. It was fast-paced, energetic, variable, and extremely fun.

Halo 3 introduced a different ranking system to keep players invested in finishing a game, and also eventually came out with the banhammer to punish quitters and cheaters. But many players deranked, bought higher ranks, or somehow flew up ranks that shouldn’t have been at those levels (negatively impacting gameplay). The introduction of equipment started to slow down gameplay and drag out encounters.

Halo Reach introduced a credit system which was designed to keep players invested in the game long-term, and to punish a quitting player’s chances of getting large credit payouts. However, people either didn’t care about the credits (for various reasons), weren’t hurt by a 10 minute ban, etc.

People become very proud of and protective of their stats. Despite the fact that their k/d or whatever has no bearing on how each game plays out (and has no effect on real life). I think this is how Halo will eventually try to reduce the number of people quitting games. What if quitting negatively impacted a player’s k/d, or new ranking system, or win/loss, etc. I think a system will need to be put into place to target a player’s stats to be effective…for now. Sure, 343 could add AI bots, but how can a team coordinate with a computer character who can’t strategize with human players or even communicate with them?

I guess to me, I feel that any solution that is created to address quitting will result in a new reason for people to quit. It’s like an arms race, or a defender trying to create an impenetrable defense, while an attacker continues to find ways around that defense, and around and around it goes. There’s never going to be a perfect solution. But hopefully Halo 4 will offer a positive solution.

10

People seem to REALLY care about XP and cR. We need to hit them where it hurts. If you quit a game, you lose all the XP or cR or whatever from your next game too.

11

Most people who quit do not care for Credits and XP, AKA the people who only want to play for fun. Which leads to quitting if they are losing.

12

> I am of a strong belief that negative reinforcement (e.g. probation a la Halo: Reach) is not a good idea. Probation just doesn’t cut it - 10 minutes of no gameplay is more of an annoyance than a punishment. It could even be driving gamers away from Halo towards other games where quitting is not penalised.
> Positive reinforcement may be a good idea: where players are rewarded for not quitting. The rewards would have to be substantial though.

Finally someone who takes a different approach to the quitting problem than punishement. I completely agree with you. It’s been scientifically proven in many psychological studies that humans are much more patient and willing to do something in hopes of a reward than in fear of a punishement.

In reality, quit bans do absolutely nothing. They’re only succesful at making the player even more frustrated after they get banned for ten minutes. And you can bet they won’t be coming back to matchmaking that day. Positive rewards on the other hand let the player quit, bur after quitting the player may regret the quit. And as they really can only blame their impatience for not getting the reward (it feels much easier to seek the problems from yourself when not getting something positive than when getting something negative).

And on the other hand, punishing player for quitting because they don’t enjoy the game is plain cruel. Let’s be honeat, why do you quit if not because of real life duties or network problem? Unless you’re a complete jerk, most likely because you don’t feel the game enjoyable at the moment. No one shouldn’t be forced to do something they don’t enjoy. This leads me to another way to make quitting less of a problem…

Make the game more fun. Simple, if people are quitting, they do it because of not having fun. The best way to counter that is to let them have fun. One of the top reasons people don’t find the game enjoyable ae unfair matches. That’s why matchmaking needs strict party restrictions and a strict TrueSkill system. That’s how people get to play against other people on their skill level and won’t get dominated by full parties. Again, giving them a better gameplay experience.

That’s all I have to add to your post. I hope it helped.

13

> People seem to REALLY care about XP and cR. We need to hit them where it hurts. If you quit a game, you lose all the XP or cR or whatever from your next game too.

IDK about that. What if you have a shoddy connection? This is why we need to host servers. -Yoink!- can afford it I promise! I have a pretty good connection. I rarely lag out of games. but then again, when certain people host, I have awful lag. I just chalk that up to someone with a broadband connection with 79281798 devices connected to it.

I play for a few reasons, fun being the main one The other is my k/d. Idc about stats except that one stat. I won’t sit in a game where its 6 v 1. I’ll take my 10 min ban, go smoke a cigarette and come back to play again. Its not fun to get sandbagged.

Force Teams to play against Teams and solos get matched with other people soloing it out. Those 3 solo Majors and the solo private will thank you for not matching them against a team of 3 inheritors and a foreruner. I promise! Yes Rank means nothing. My friend is a Hero and he SUCKS something fierce! lol But most people with a really high rank have a really good KD… Most of the time. Which i means their experience in butt-kickery will far outweigh that of someone who’s been playing for a month. True Experience will always win. I see it everyday when I play Reach.

I’m scared to even get Halo 4 now with all the shenanigans that Bungie was apart of and now 343i is an Inconceivable blunder(see what i did there? :P) with these “updates”.

I really hope Halo 4 will not have a lot of these blemishes that Halo Reach has had.

14

I must thank you all for such great responses, I’ll get round to replying to them soon!