Plain and simple; Do you want the voting system a la Reach, or the veto system a la Halo 3 in Halo 4? Personally, I’d rather seeing vetoing.
Vote, discuss.
I’d personally prefer the system of Halo 3 out of these two. In fact, I’d rather have no system at all and force people to play the map that initially appears there. Why? Because it increases variety. If there is one thing in the matchmaking system of Reach I hate, excluding the lack of skill based matchmaking and bad maps and gametypes, it’s the lack of variety. Take BTB for example, each time Hemorrhage pops up as a choice, it gets voted. Most of the time it’s certainly even not the best choice for a map, but is the most popular and therefore I have played it until I’ve got bored of it.
It’s pretty much the same deal with gametypes. In playlists where Slayer and objective are mixed, Slayer almost always get voted. Slayer is fun, but playing objective is fun too. So that’s why a system that doesn’t give chances of choice is better. it introduces map variety which not only makes the less played maps more played, but also makes all maps last longer because you don’t get to play them all the time.
Very well said, tsassi. I share that opinion with you, I’m just too lazy to type it out myself. n_n
Another example concerning BTB is Heavies. Ever since it’s been introduced, it’s ALL that’s been voted for. I despise it. People end up voting for the same maps over and over, even the god-awful ones like Spire and Uncaged. That is why I’d like to see the return of vetoing.
It depends on
If the game types are better then im fine with less options but if its crap and more crap then maybe a good game type…
I want more options
what funzbob said.
> I’d rather have no system at all and force people to play the map that initially appears there. Why? Because it increases variety.
This. There are so many maps/gametypes that people would enjoy, but that never make it past the voting system. Vetoing isn’t as bad in this regard, but it’s the equivalent to nerfing Armour Lock - while it may be an improvement, it’d still be better to just ditch it altogether.
I personally would like to see vetoing. It ultimately gives you a map and you deal with it. When you vote you get little variety in maps. And if the map you want is on the bottom and the vote ties the top one gets played even though half the people in the lobby don’t want to play it.
how about this idea:
maybe it’s a bit broken but here it is:
in the main menu you can customize your top 5 favorite maps.
based on the top5 of each player in a certain game, the game will choose a popular map. and it can be veto’d once just like in halo 3.
solving the ‘i play on the same map everytime’ problem:
(noobs that have never touched this system in the menu have a random list each time they sign in. once you have created your top 5 it wont randomly change by it self)
tell me what you think?!
> how about this idea:
> maybe it’s a bit broken but here it is:
>
> in the main menu you can customize your top 5 favorite maps.
> based on the top5 of each player in a certain game, the game will choose a popular map. and it can be veto’d once just like in halo 3.
>
>
> solving the ‘i play on the same map everytime’ problem:
> (noobs that have never touched this system in the menu have a random list each time they sign in. once you have created your top 5 it wont randomly change by it self)
>
> tell me what you think?!
So, we still get the same few maps over and over again, only now the lesser gems aren’t even featured in the options?
Vetoing gets my vote. If we get a map that plays like crap with a terrible gametype, we should have the option to play something else, but I don’t want voting.
Voting limits variety in Matchmaking. It’s always the same maps and gametypes in Reach’s system. That’s boring. I want to play crappy maps every once and while just so that I can appreciate better maps that much more.