Veto/Voting Sucks, Server Browser is future

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

I see people saying “bring back voting” or “bring back veto”. I know time allows people to forget but veto and voting had huge problems. They had issues like voting got some maps way overplayed and gave no other maps a chance. Veto was annoying, you had to pray enough people would veto and instead you would a lot of times get a worse map than the one you had previously and than would regret vetoing. Not to mention all the people yelling veto in the mic. And with Halo 5’s current mute system, you can’t mute til after game starts or you have to mute yourself entirely to avoid it if the veto system were in place. Imagine that.

But lets be real, almost every new major Halo FPS adds a new way to do map selection. it was veto, than voting, now map rotation. I don’t believe in mid game they are going to change the entire map selection system. Halo 5 will remain map rotation. Instead the next halo game, halo 6 if that is what it is going to be called, will have a new system. What we need is, not veto/voting or even map rotation but, server selection/server browser.

Now I think the reason why more people aren’t advocating this is because not many people even know about it. they are just looking in the past and want to go back to an old system because they don’t know anything new or are not use to change. well times are a changin and we must evolve, not devolve. Server Selection Filter or also known as, Server Browser, gives everyone what they want. This has been very popular and successful in Dice games like Battlefield and Battlefront, you can see choose map on bottom left corner of screen. You select the map or game type you want to play. Everyone gets what they want. You can get the maps and game types you want and I can get the maps and game types I want without forcing the other, based on majority, to play a map that is not fun to the other player. to get what this might look like for Halo 5 for instance would be this. I wen’t over this when I was talking about why map rotation was better that veto/voting and giving people a refresher on history of the old systems and why they were done away with. But now I want to advocate Halo 6 should have Server Browser. No more advocating the lame veto/voting system, you must start advocating for a better system that gives players more choice and makes it more enjoyable for everyone. So go out there and start advocating for Server Browser.

2

The problem is what if the population is real low and not a lot of people are playing the game what then??

3

sounds like a great idea.

4

> 2535455004788248;2:
> The problem is what if the population is real low and not a lot of people are playing the game what then??

than you play what most people are playing than. aka Halo MCC. that, in itself, is the game’s rep on the line. and when we force more bad ideas, like ridiculous ban hammer punishments, cripple players more with over kill stopping power and going back to a system like veto or voting that made few players feel like their opinion of the maps n game types they wanted to play were voiced over by a majority so they had to stick with playing games they didn’t like. this give everyone what they like which encourages better rep for the game with more replay value so people will feel less incline to leave the game. a lot of games now, there out incentive to stay is for the grind. how many people will still be in MM after they finish grinding for all the legendary gear? exactly. they need to think of what is the fun in it before you add grind because once that is finish, they are off to the next game.

Also in Battlefield they have this issue too. again you play what is popular. Hardcore mode, the ones with friendly fire on that most people hate. They have really low pop count. so you have to play where the action is. it also proves even in a way more skilled and tactical game that FF is extremely unpopular. but anyways, server browser gives players more choice. seriously, i want to play Fracture more but instead i going played on it twice. this will also stop a lot of TKs because people will finish there commendations quicker and people will more focus on the actual game. you can’t believe how many people TK me for the mantis. even when i get it people on my team will rather kill me than let me have it.

5

> 2535455004788248;2:
> The problem is what if the population is real low and not a lot of people are playing the game what then??

they will play the good maps. they need good maps, and people will come and play.

6

Agreed. Don’t trash matchmaking entirely though, it should be an option for people who just want a quick game and don’t particularly care where or what.

7

> 2533274823519895;6:
> Agreed. Don’t trash matchmaking entirely though, it should be an option for people who just want a quick game and don’t particularly care where or what.

and the fun part is you can select JIP or not. and the maps are still run on possibly the map rotation. but when your match finishes, it takes you out of that server and puts you into the next server that fits your preference. which would be an even better improvement that BF’s.

8

So bad easily exploitable maps (Sword base) or highly popular maps (Pit) will have a high population and good but less exploitable maps will be near vacant and so you’ll end up playing the same one or two maps over and over again. What is the difference between the Vote/Veto system again? I’d prefer the veto system as you have a say, but you don’t know what you’ll end up with if you veto it. Voting was pretty easy to manipulate. No system is perfect, but veto was the best of the three.

9

> 2533274880633045;8:
> So bad easily exploitable maps (Sword base) or highly popular maps (Pit) will have a high population and good but less exploitable maps will be near vacant and so you’ll end up playing the same one or two maps over and over again. What is the difference between the Vote/Veto system again? I’d prefer the veto system as you have a say, but you don’t know what you’ll end up with if you veto it. Voting was pretty easy to manipulate. No system is perfect, but veto was the best of the three.

Bad, easily exploitable maps being placed in the trash where they belong is a bad thing? Don’t get me wrong, I see what you mean, but I’d be more worried about those middling, nothing to write home about maps that are serviceable enough but not exactly fan favorites.

10

> 2533274880633045;8:
> So bad easily exploitable maps (Sword base) or highly popular maps (Pit) will have a high population and good but less exploitable maps will be near vacant and so you’ll end up playing the same one or two maps over and over again. What is the difference between the Vote/Veto system again? I’d prefer the veto system as you have a say, but you don’t know what you’ll end up with if you veto it. Voting was pretty easy to manipulate. No system is perfect, but veto was the best of the three.

so because the map is broken that’s the server browsers fault? no, they get the special treatment like Urban is getting right now. and clearly you haven’t played battlefield because you are exaggerating. if you played you would know this is false. Operation Metro is one of the most popular maps and still you can find other maps that are full. so in reality you are just being paranoid over nothing. and if you look at my link. i explain veto and voting and why they were terrible systems. “you don’t know what you’ll end up with if you veto it.” that was the annoyance that people asked Bungie to get rid of veto for voting. i remember the forums being all about that. Nothing like “oh guardian, come on any DLC maps? veto everyone. Veto! VETO!! VETO!!!” finally everyone just happens to be at their controller and veto to avoid the screaming “oh for -Yoink- sake it’s snowbound for the 30th -Yoinking!- time!” it was terrible. Especially if you wanted lone wolves but you didn’t want objectives. so you have a less than 20% chance of getting slayer. you get odd ball and someone knows the map too well than they go 50 and everyone gets 0 seconds and everyone down ranks. there was all sorts of issues. And anything that was manipulated in voting was also in veto. I bet you were thinking “people can use guests to vote for their maps”. Well guess what? so did veto, they did the same thing. Oh and if you didn’t want to play on a certain map, there was a way to force a new map. put the maps on a portable hard drive and than disconnect and reconnect. this one guy showed how he could get any map he wanted in halo 3 all by ejecting a hard drive. he kept the maps he wanted to play on the actual xbox and the rest on an external hard drive and would just yank it when he didn’t get the map he wanted. and ever since that vid, everyone did it. so Sandtrap 24/7 for BTB for the longest time.

No, server browser is the best.

11

I would still prefer veto over Battlefields system.

12

Veto 4 BRs!

13

> 2535449665894532;11:
> I would still prefer veto over Battlefields system.

no explanation? To me it sounds like you are being close minded, which we don’t need for future titles. or you have a gambling addiction. the game is suffering in population by being way to strict with things like punishment and over nerfing heavy vehicles and not even putting them in maps anyways and forcing and it’s just not as enjoyable when people feel they have less options to work with. You are forced to play what it has. this gives players more freedom to play what they want giving what people like. Also veto already had a map selected. so you didn’t no it but technically you were already “voting” for the other map they just didn’t show you. so veto was still like voting you just din’t know what the alternative was.

> 2533274938856878;12:
> Veto 4 BRs!

you aren’t even trying anymore, are you? #letsbehonest. I really am getting the feeling that people for veto really are closed minded as i try explaining what Server Browser is and they can even research it but they talk about scenarios that don’t exist, not the browsers fault or Browser solved. and than it just comes down to. “i just prefer veto. but in actuality, browser does fix everything that is wrong with veto but i don’t want to admit it because i’m too stuck in the nostalgia to try new things.”

14

> 2533274823519895;9:
> > 2533274880633045;8:
> > So bad easily exploitable maps (Sword base) or highly popular maps (Pit) will have a high population and good but less exploitable maps will be near vacant and so you’ll end up playing the same one or two maps over and over again. What is the difference between the Vote/Veto system again? I’d prefer the veto system as you have a say, but you don’t know what you’ll end up with if you veto it. Voting was pretty easy to manipulate. No system is perfect, but veto was the best of the three.
>
>
> Bad, easily exploitable maps being placed in the trash where they belong is a bad thing? Don’t get me wrong, I see what you mean, but I’d be more worried about those middling, nothing to write home about maps that are serviceable enough but not exactly fan favorites.

You didn’t read my post carefully, Bad easily exploitable maps will be popular for example sword base. Everyone wanted to play on sword base so they could stand at the top of the bloody lift with a shotgun or sword. It was a horrible map. In the suggested plan that would be full and The good or middle of the road maps wouldn’t have any population under that plan.

> 2533274800212919;10:
> > 2533274880633045;8:
> > So bad easily exploitable maps (Sword base) or highly popular maps (Pit) will have a high population and good but less exploitable maps will be near vacant and so you’ll end up playing the same one or two maps over and over again. What is the difference between the Vote/Veto system again? I’d prefer the veto system as you have a say, but you don’t know what you’ll end up with if you veto it. Voting was pretty easy to manipulate. No system is perfect, but veto was the best of the three.
>
>
> so because the map is broken that’s the server browsers fault? no, they get the special treatment like Urban is getting right now. and clearly you haven’t played battlefield because you are exaggerating. if you played you would know this is false. Operation Metro is one of the most popular maps and still you can find other maps that are full. so in reality you are just being paranoid over nothing. and if you look at my link. i explain veto and voting and why they were terrible systems. “you don’t know what you’ll end up with if you veto it.” that was the annoyance that people asked Bungie to get rid of veto for voting. i remember the forums being all about that. Nothing like “oh guardian, come on any DLC maps? veto everyone. Veto! VETO!! VETO!!!” finally everyone just happens to be at their controller and veto to avoid the screaming “oh for -Yoink- sake it’s snowbound for the 30th -Yoinking!- time!” it was terrible. Especially if you wanted lone wolves but you didn’t want objectives. so you have a less than 20% chance of getting slayer. you get odd ball and someone knows the map too well than they go 50 and everyone gets 0 seconds and everyone down ranks. there was all sorts of issues. And anything that was manipulated in voting was also in veto. I bet you were thinking “people can use guests to vote for their maps”. Well guess what? so did veto, they did the same thing. Oh and if you didn’t want to play on a certain map, there was a way to force a new map. put the maps on a portable hard drive and than disconnect and reconnect. this one guy showed how he could get any map he wanted in halo 3 all by ejecting a hard drive. he kept the maps he wanted to play on the actual xbox and the rest on an external hard drive and would just yank it when he didn’t get the map he wanted. and ever since that vid, everyone did it. so Sandtrap 24/7 for BTB for the longest time.
>
> No, server browser is the best.

I remember it being exploited, that doesn’t change the fact that I prefer that system. You can vote “no” twice then your stuck with what you get. Do you have any idea how many matches I played on the pit? The pit is a good map and I hated it for a long time, because every other match was on it. There were times I prayed for a snowbound or a construct, just for a change. Could you get games on the less popular maps under the suggested system, maybe, but it wouldn’t be near the variety of play styles you would see with matchmaking. They could easily modernize Veto and make it work.

15

I definitely agree with you, veto and random map rotation make me sad, playing over the same map. Dedicated servers by 343 would work, where we can choose game mode and map, than having personal servers.

16

I think it too many parameters segmenting the population. I know it could work, but I still don’t like it. People would all only play 2-3 maps and 1-2 gametypes. Even if the population could sustain the level of fragmentation this would allow for (15-20 maps, 5-8 gametypes would mean up to basically 160 playlists…) it would get boring pretty quickly. Plus how does this sort of option affect ranking, etc.?

I like the veto system because it a coin flip. You have some say in the next choice but nothing more than it will be different. Not perfect, but still has decent variety while weeding out some of the bad maps.

I would be in favor of open/searchable custom lobbies where you could scroll through a list of games currently being played and jump in.

17

Actually you can mute people before the game now. Hit the right thumb stick.

18

How would it work with no JIP though?

19

> 2533274880633045;14:
> > 2533274823519895;9:
> > > 2533274880633045;8:
> > > So bad easily exploitable maps (Sword base) or highly popular maps (Pit) will have a high population and good but less exploitable maps will be near vacant and so you’ll end up playing the same one or two maps over and over again. What is the difference between the Vote/Veto system again? I’d prefer the veto system as you have a say, but you don’t know what you’ll end up with if you veto it. Voting was pretty easy to manipulate. No system is perfect, but veto was the best of the three.
> >
> >
> > Bad, easily exploitable maps being placed in the trash where they belong is a bad thing? Don’t get me wrong, I see what you mean, but I’d be more worried about those middling, nothing to write home about maps that are serviceable enough but not exactly fan favorites.
>
>
> You didn’t read my post, Bad easily exploitable maps will be popular for example sword base. Everyone wanted to play on sword base so they could stand at the top of the bloody lift with a shotgun or sword. It was a horrible map. In the suggested plan that would be full and The good or middle of the road maps wouldn’t have any population under that plan.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274800212919;10:
> > > 2533274880633045;8:
> > > So bad easily exploitable maps (Sword base) or highly popular maps (Pit) will have a high population and good but less exploitable maps will be near vacant and so you’ll end up playing the same one or two maps over and over again. What is the difference between the Vote/Veto system again? I’d prefer the veto system as you have a say, but you don’t know what you’ll end up with if you veto it. Voting was pretty easy to manipulate. No system is perfect, but veto was the best of the three.
> >
> >
> > so because the map is broken that’s the server browsers fault? no, they get the special treatment like Urban is getting right now. and clearly you haven’t played battlefield because you are exaggerating. if you played you would know this is false. Operation Metro is one of the most popular maps and still you can find other maps that are full. so in reality you are just being paranoid over nothing. and if you look at my link. i explain veto and voting and why they were terrible systems. “you don’t know what you’ll end up with if you veto it.” that was the annoyance that people asked Bungie to get rid of veto for voting. i remember the forums being all about that. Nothing like “oh guardian, come on any DLC maps? veto everyone. Veto! VETO!! VETO!!!” finally everyone just happens to be at their controller and veto to avoid the screaming “oh for -Yoink- sake it’s snowbound for the 30th -Yoinking!- time!” it was terrible. Especially if you wanted lone wolves but you didn’t want objectives. so you have a less than 20% chance of getting slayer. you get odd ball and someone knows the map too well than they go 50 and everyone gets 0 seconds and everyone down ranks. there was all sorts of issues. And anything that was manipulated in voting was also in veto. I bet you were thinking “people can use guests to vote for their maps”. Well guess what? so did veto, they did the same thing. Oh and if you didn’t want to play on a certain map, there was a way to force a new map. put the maps on a portable hard drive and than disconnect and reconnect. this one guy showed how he could get any map he wanted in halo 3 all by ejecting a hard drive. he kept the maps he wanted to play on the actual xbox and the rest on an external hard drive and would just yank it when he didn’t get the map he wanted. and ever since that vid, everyone did it. so Sandtrap 24/7 for BTB for the longest time.
> >
> > No, server browser is the best.
>
>
> I remember it being exploited, that doesn’t change the fact that I prefer that system. You can vote “no” twice then your stuck with what you get. Do you have any idea how many matches I played on the pit? The pit is a good map and I hated it for a long time, because every other match was on it. There were times I prayed for a snowbound or a construct, just for a change. Could you get games on the less popular maps under the suggested system, maybe, but it wouldn’t be near the variety of play styles you would see with matchmaking. They could easily modernize Veto and make it work.

" You can vote ‘no’ twice then your stuck with what you get" that sounds dumb and no, in Halo 3 you only vetoed once “YOVO”. and here is one of the videos, this was for DLC only, but there was a way to do it with maps you wanted, but didn’t work for DLC only if you tried that. and yes on the suggested system you can. seriously, go out and play Battlefield 3 or 4 or hardline and try it. you can get any map you want because the game runs every map and if no one is playing it than it must not be a great map. so if you play a map, that some how millions of players don’t want to play, that it must be bad. but in BF4, that i still play, i can play on any regular map i want and find lobbies that are full. and it would be way more variety. and how could the modernize veto? all it is, is voting to the other map. so it selects guardian but hidden is snowbound. when you veto, that’s what you are getting. so it’s less free will to choose. it’s more like voting for a US president, you are just voting for which you think sucks less. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

> 2535456165221911;15:
> I definitely agree with you, veto and random map rotation make me sad, playing over the same map. Dedicated servers by 343 would work, where we can choose game mode and map, than having personal servers.

also this could big time save 343 money. less micro transactions and do dices way of people can even rent servers like BF and they open a playlist of maps they want to play with the approved 343 settings they allow and you can have matches running with what you like so when you get on, you play right away with what fits your play style and play with others that are like minded.

20

> 2533274803521121;16:
> I think it too many parameters segmenting the population. I know it could work, but I still don’t like it. People would all only play 2-3 maps and 1-2 gametypes. Even if the population could sustain the level of fragmentation this would allow for (15-20 maps, 5-8 gametypes would mean up to basically 160 playlists…) it would get boring pretty quickly. Plus how does this sort of option affect ranking, etc.?
>
> I like the veto system because it a coin flip. You have some say in the next choice but nothing more than it will be different. Not perfect, but still has decent variety while weeding out some of the bad maps.
>
> I would be in favor of open/searchable custom lobbies where you could scroll through a list of games currently being played and jump in.

all i can say is that this is all defeated in one word, Battlefield. It’s not too many parameters segmenting population.and as i said with comedyshermit that wouldn’t be true. operation metro s the most popular BF3/4 map and yet still you can find full lobbies of the other kind. so that is false. All your questions can be answered. Go to your local gamestop or online etc and buy BF:Hardline or BF4, pop it in, play MM, test it out. Wabam you have the maps you selected. you want something new? no problem, back out, make a different selection, wabam you now have a new selection list. I feel like the shazam guy right now it’s so easy. A boring selection makes a boring life.

and sry its not like a coin flip. in a coin flip there is only 2 sides. in Halo MM there is sometimes 8+ maps and you get to choose the 2 you probably could care less about playing. so you really are selecting the lesser of 2 evils at that point which bored people to death. you know that i played more Assembly on Halo MCC than Halo 3? halo 3 is my 2nd most played game, Halo 2 as the most played. That says something about the veto system. it discriminated against way too many maps.

and what you just said at the end is in fact the Server Browser lol

> 2533274970658419;18:
> How would it work with no JIP though?

its an option, you choose to wait for a match that is on that map/gametype you want to become available with other people lining up like the beginning of a match in a normal halo game but the map is already selected.