Lol I’d prefer certain maps to come up never.
But I’m willing to tolerate the bs for a better mcc firefight
2 Likes
Everyone saying they would rather have variety with the RNG maps that we have now, well that wouldn’t be a problem if me and my friends kept playing the same awful maps. no matter what gamemode we play.
But hey, we go and play some Fire Fight doubles and it’s the same problem with more on top, can’t pick our own gamemodes unless we just want to play sniper fight or rocket fight or RNG fire fights and of course we get random maps that we don’t get to choose that either
I’m so glad we have this system to play the same maps over and over again without a choice no matter the Halo game and no matter the gamemode we play
I’m glad we get this “variety”, it’s obviously “working”, we play “all” the maps and play them quickly, ready to play the next “cool” map and “not” the same one again 
. Glad it’s been exactly like this for all of MCC’s life on PC
3 Likes
Do you know how boring multiplayer would be for MCC? Having to play the same maps over and over and over? No thank you. There is a reason why it’s not in here anymore. Go play Reach and 3 if you want to experience that annoyance… oh, wait, they pulled the plug on them.
2 Likes
Voting has its problems. When Halo 3 was temporarily added to the Halo 2 Team Hardcore playlist, every match would be on Halo 3 (voting hadn’t been removed from MCC yet). When the Xbox 360 version of Halo: Reach was still around, every match would be on boring grey Forge maps. People often choose poorly.
EDIT: I somehow initially confused “veto” with “voting”. Keeping the reply up as it’s still relevant to the discussion.
2 Likes
Did you not read my reply? We already play the same maps over again! There isn’t a veto system right now, yet it’s boring AF to play the same maps without a way to select more maps right now.
This is for PVP and PVE matchmaking
the amount of times I’ve played Anchor 9 in Halo Reach MCC is ridiculous. If we could have a way to vote for a map, this wouldn’t be a major problem but, no, we play “all” the maps in all the Halo games “equally”. I’m really glad Halo reach only let’s us play Anchor 9
3 Likes
For me it always seems to be Zealot.
1 Like
Back to re-state a couple of things:
VETO system does not equal the VOTING system. VETO preserves variety through not knowing what map/gametype will be selected if the current one is veto’d. Trust me, I played a TON of halo 3 social slayer back in the day and even though Snowbound is held up as the iconic veto-every-time map, I still played a LOT of matches on that map. Bringing veto back does not mean certain maps and gametypes will automatically disappear. It also does not guarantee you will be “playing on the same maps over and over”. HOWEVER, the percentages will probably change a bit. Here is how that is a GOOD thing:
VETO system = greater player feedback. If the majority of players don’t want to play ANOTHER sandbox variant and veto it, that is a good outcome. The majority of players will be happy that they were able to have a little say in what map they get to play on. There is NOTHING inherently wrong with that. Valuing the players’ feedback is not a step backwards! And yes, I know that what is undesirable for me may be desirable for others. That is why we each have our OWN veto that we can elect to use.
Finally, bringing up dashboarding because of frustration has 0% bearing on this conversation considering that it can be done right now without a veto system. There is no reason to expect this to play a significant factor.
4 Likes
Did you not read my reply? I’m talking about what we would be constantly forced to play because the “pros” know the maps every advantage.
1 Like
You’re absolutely right, playing the same maps over and over again is boring AF and the pros would know the maps very well compared to others
it sucks that right now we do play the same maps over and over again, wish I can change that, but no, you guys want this RNG map system, and it makes me play the same maps over and over again
2 Likes
I’d gladly play great maps like sword base and countdown over and over again than be forced to endure god-awful ones like Select or Condemned/Uplink even once. A veto/vote system would be even better in firefight as we could more consistently avoid playing on bad maps such as waterfront, unearthed, and installation 04.
1 Like
Select is absolute trash, I can’t stand it. And the -Yoink!- seems to be selected (no pun intended) so often. Plus Condemned is the worst DLC map of the bunch. Thankfully I don’t seem to get it too frequently.
2 Likes
I play FFA almost exclusively now, Select never appears in that playlist. Condemned however does and none of those games are either enjoyable or memorable. It’s far too big of a map for 8-player FFA. If either of the aforementioned maps came up first with a veto system in place neither would be played over 95% of the time
You mean what people are doing right now?
I completely stopped searching Action Sack and Zone Control because chances are VERY high that it’s going to be a mode or map pretty much everyone in the lobby uniformally hates and would have veto’d/voted AGAINST in the old days. E.g Dino Blasters.
1 Like
So the system needs to be weighted differently every so often. I would rather 343i change the odds of certain gamemodes and maps appearing rather than give the playerbase the power again.
If 343i decided to add a veto system, it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the game. I wouldn’t like it as I am firmly against such a thing but I could make my peace with it.
1 Like
Still a no to veto, all people do is dashboard quit as soon as they see it not going their way. What truly needs to happen is expand the composer so players can turn maps on/off and game types on/off. Then you are guaranteed 
percent of the time to get games on maps you want.
you also percent guarantee that the matchmaking will slow to a crawl and die for 95% of the options.
what you’re suggesting is essentially how a quickplay button for the CGB should be, which mind you is a great idea now that all the titles are there, but doesn’t apply well at all to matchmaking.
Veto is still the best option for MCC’s current matchmaking since it requires a majority of players to Veto, which balances randomness and player control over the system to prevent the matchmade lobby from cycling the same maps and modes, while at the same time reducing the amount of frustration induced quitters without both slowing the lobbies down too much, nor completely allowing the exploitation that the Vote system from before encouraged.
Why would matchmaking slow down just because players could turn maps on/off and games on/off. I guess if you turn off a lot of maps and games it would be slow for them. The only real reason some want veto back is so they can dash board quit as soon as they see it’s a game they don’t like and avoid quit bans.
1 Like
Dino blasters is the worst, I absolutely abhor being forced to use one of the handicap settings. When I spawn I inherently try to sprint to get to a better position and am instead greeted by slightly elevating myself.
Yes. If they do NOTHING other than adding veto then people are going to leave when they see the map/gamemode is a bad mix.
If they however drop the godawful “weight” system for maps and modes and completely leaves it to RNG to pick maps, you’re gonna see far less quitters than you do NOW.
Why? Because as of now there are only a handful of maps chosen at all by 343, 1 of which have like an 80-90% weight meaning you are VERY likely to get that specific map. It doesn’t matter if it’s a decent map, nobody wants to play on the same map 15 times in a row.
Leaving it to RNG would more or less guarantee that you would never see the same map as often as you do now. Having it being RNG would mean that every map in the pool has an equal chance of being picked (343 can still control pool so you don’t get like FFA on Bloodgulch or something).
People don’t leave because “it’s not my favorite map”, they leave because “I’ve played this map/mode so many times I would rather suffer a 5 min ban than play this garbage again”.
2 Likes
I’d gladly play a map like sword base or countdown 100 times in a row than an awful one like condemned even once. In firefight, I’d rather play 1,000 games on holdout than even one on installation 04.
At least if a veto/voting system were in place we could have some kind of say in regards to the game we are about to play. Currently we are forced into whatever the algorithm decides. If such a veto/vote system was in place and the majority of players voted for a bad map like condemned simply for a change of pace, I’d be fine with that but being forced into it without any say at all is awful. How hard would it really be for 343 to replicate the same matchmaking system that the original games had?
1 Like