A polarizing issue people have with halo 4 is Infinity settings vs Legendary Settings. The typical argument from both sides is that the other side sucks.
How can we fix this issue? We can’t fix it by eliminating one, we are past the point of social vs ranked playlists. So, what can we do?
My idea is that that we revamp the voting system in matchmaking by one of two options.
When you find a game and your team and the opposing team picks the map/gametype that they want the far left option has priority which is Infinity settings.
Here are my two different fixes.
- The gametypes appear in random order so that the far left option isn’t always infinity slayer BUT, infinity still appears as an option. (compromise)
Ignore option 1 completely, new scenario below.
- Both teams vote max for their option (4 votes on two different choices), the matchmaking system allows a 50/50 chance for each to be chosen instead of the far left priority system currently implemented. I feel that this is a more even keel approach. (Weighted approach)
As you can see these two above options seem more fair. I believe fairness is what brought halo its prior success. Also, these above patches can work together so both could hypothetically be implemented. The maps/gametypes could appear in random order and your team and the other team could have a 50/50 chance of getting the gametype/map your team wants to play. I don’t understand any other possible way you could come to a fairer conclusion.
Let me know what you think about my idea, and please give me constructive criticism and not biased information in regard to one side.
Thanks
> snip
I disagree with this. This is because it’s never a 50/50 shot. While the options both realistically OFFER a 50/50 shot, there will always be people who’s options get picked 75% of the time while there’s other people who’s options get picked only 25% of the time.
The sole fix, is whichever option gets the highest vote FIRST, that option gets picked. This forces teams to vote together, and quickly, which also makes it fair because a team has a solid choice and a chance to get it if they vote quickly.
If it is a 50/50 shot, like a coin flip, how is it that you get 75% and 25%?
Also, you only challenged one of the two possible fixes. Option 2- The random ordering still uses the current system of the left has priority which would fix the current issue of only infinity being the left slot.
The problem with teams voting first is that depending on the host, there is sometimes lag that makes people unable to vote or choose before the choice gets locked in.
You could argue the same about voting with my system but mine doesn’t rely on the quickness to vote but gives equal probability that each get chosen(if both are voted as a team). Also, the random map slot generation allows for the far left one to be random which equates to fairness.
Because even in a scenario such as flipping a coin, where there’s a 50/50 outcome of heads or tails, the end result is that it’s not the same for everyone. Let me explain this scenario:
10 people have a quarter each.
Each person flips their own quarter 10 different times with the following outcomes. For this exercise, we’ll assume Heads is a Win and Tails is a Loss. (Win = Their voted choice gets randomly picked, Loss = Their choice doesn’t get picked).
Person 1: 2 Heads; 8 Tails / 20%
Person 2: 3 Heads; 7 Tails / 30%
Person 3: 4 Heads; 6 Tails / 40%
Person 4: 5 Heads; 5 Tails / 50%
Person 5: 5 Heads; 5 Tails / 50%
Person 6: 6 Heads; 4 Tails / 60%
Person 7: 6 Heads; 4 Tails / 60%
Person 8: 7 Heads; 3 Tails / 70%
Person 9: 8 Heads; 2 Tails / 80%
Person 10: 9 Heads; 1 Tails/ 90%
So, out of the 10 people who flipped a coin with a 50/50 chance of either, only 2 of them had 50/50 ratio of getting their choice, while 5 others got their choice favored more often, and 3 people who get their choice picked less than half the time. The Percent listed is the rate at which their tied option got picked. As you can see, it will always unfavor some and favor others, albeit not intentionally, that’s just how statistics work. Random plauses will always give random outcomes, so you’ll never have a happy “middle” or “median” value to go off of.
Also, I’m arguing against any of your suggestions, because it’s not the best in my opinion. The best option should always be the most decisive, and nobody likes playing or being around indecisive people. If a team is confident and chooses their vote before others, then they should get the winning vote in case of a tie. Host wont matter, because in Halo XBO, there’s only your connection to worry about to the server as there is no host. In Halo 4, the way you vote will never change so our best bet is to come up with a solid idea on Halo 5.
So, your giving me a lesson in statistics by describing a situation where there is 10 different scenarios. The problem is that they are short term scenarios. Another assumption is that any of those scenarios are better than the current system that is going on, I think if you have a 10% chance of playing the map your team wants it is better. (but you actually have a 50% chance)
The situations you are describing are simply possibilities, either way the likelihood of playing a gametype/map in my system is currently better than the current system running. Because even if you are one of the most unlucky individuals and get 1/10 you still have a 10% higher chance than prior. (But in the long run you average 50/50.)
Here is my scenario: You join a game and some guy with two guests and two other guys choice raganarok in CTF. (Far left Option) (5 votes)
My team chooses simplex (5 votes)
Currently the far left option would win. I would rather the system allow a 50/50 chance that doesn’t favor either higher, aka 50/50 chance.
If it chooses ragnarok then so be it, if it chooses simplex awesome! I don’t see how this is unfair, because there is a 50/50 shot that it chooses either.
This system does not eliminate infinity settings but allows people with different perspectives of the game to have a equal probability of playing the gametype/map they want to play.
Either way my other option for the randomizing of how the selections appear would fix this problem as well.
The goal here is to allow fairness, and to not have a bias toward one setting vs another and I feel one of my ideas could do that.
Also, the current system is 100% favor to the left slot if max voted and 0% to the other if max voted.
I’m trying to make a solution that is fair to both parties. If you can debunk either of my strategies logically then I will adapt them.
You answered it yourself. You said they are “possibilities,” which means it’s probable that it can happen. If it CAN happen, then it WILL happen. Say your way of randomly picking a tied vote happens. Let’s say I play 100 games in such scenario. In my 100th game, I’m going to assume everyone else in the 4v4 playlist (7 people) have also played 100 games.
I can take everybody’s vote win % and easily deduce that only roughly half the people in the lobby would have a tied win % of 40-60%, while there are other people that out of their last 100 games would win their votes 80% of the time and the other remaining players have vote win rates as low as 20 or 30%.
I’m thinking of the long-term since that’s what people seem to rely on when it comes to issues with Halo. Long term issues. I certainly wouldn’t want to play a game where it seems like my vote doesn’t matter strictly because I lose my 50/50 tie more often than not.
Again, the solution I posted is that whichever gets the highest vote first, gets picked, that way a team can’t simply vote to the left to outvote your vote. 50/50 just isn’t fair because the random pick isn’t 50/50 over the long run per person and will surely frustrate players if they win under half of their 50/50s.
Actually, everyones vote is close to50% over the long run. You have a 50% chance each game, it is highly unlikely that you will stray below or above the 40%-60% range.
You are completely ignoring the fact that either way it is better. If you want to make a post about your idea then make one. I am asking for constructive criticism about my ideas.
My way of “randomly picking” is a 50/50 chance which is a heck of a lot better then then current left choice wins system.
You estimate half would be in the 40%-60% range when the real number would probably be more like 80%, try taking a look at a bell curve.
You talk about your vote not mattering, in the current system if the left is voted your vote 0% matters, in my system you have a 50/50 shot, I’d say it matters a lot more.
The randomly ordered method takes the entire infinity problem out of the equation, it makes all three options equal in the long run.
You don’t even have to take into account the 50/50 method. I posted two methods. So, what is wrong with randomly ordering the three different gametypes?
> Actually, everyones vote is close to50% over the long run. You have a 50% chance each game, it is highly unlikely that you will stray below or above the 40%-60% range.
>
> You are completely ignoring the fact that either way it is better. If you want to make a post about your idea then make one. I am asking for constructive criticism about my ideas.
>
> My way of “randomly picking” is a 50/50 chance which is a heck of a lot better then then current left choice wins system.
>
> You estimate half would be in the 40%-60% range when the real number would probably be more like 80%, try taking a look at a bell curve.
>
> You talk about your vote not mattering, in the current system if the left is voted your vote 0% matters, in my system you have a 50/50 shot, I’d say it matters a lot more.
>
> The randomly ordered method takes the entire infinity problem out of the equation, it makes all three options equal in the long run.
>
> You don’t even have to take into account the 50/50 method. I posted two methods. So, what is wrong with randomly ordering the three different gametypes?
There’s nothing wrong with the Random-Order method, other than people will always complain about something. I’d be all for the Random-Order method compared to your 2nd method, but I’m just giving feedback based on the Random-Pick Method you listed.
Why are you complaining about what I said? You wanted constructive criticism and I’m giving it to you. I’m handing you facts right out the door.
A bell curve isn’t going to apply to this. For there to be an 80%, there must be a 20%. Everybody can’t have an 80% vote success rate because everybody doesn’t play with everybody else. It doesn’t work that way. It will NEVER be an equal 50/50. Yes, your idea IS better than the current standard, but it’s still not the best for the reasons I gave. Me listing them and explaining them is constructive criticism. If you can’t handle the criticism, then don’t post and ask for it.
Also, the reason I like my idea better is because it requires people to actively participate as a group, and it doesn’t matter how the combos show up because only the most-voted for one first would be the one that matters regardless of the position that it shows up in.
/end
You mis-read what I said. I said 80% of people would be in the 40-60% range and 90% would be in the 30-70% success range.
I wasn’t complaining, you gave constructive criticism, I read it and gave you my response. Also, just because you say something doesn’t make it fact lol.
A bell curve DOES apply to this because people fall into somewhere on the curve with the majority being around 40-60%, even more faling between 30-70% and a very small margin beyond these. That is the statistical approach that applies here. By generically calling this a random approach which it is not, it is a equally weighted approach where each option has an equal probability to succeed.
While I didn’t say it was flawless, isn’t it kind of nit picky to focus on the rarity of a couple people when it will help the majority? Especially when in the long run everyone will average around 50% when prior nobody gets a second map choice.
I don’t dislike your idea of first choice but I think that would be harder for 343 to implement than to arrange the choices to appear in a random order.
Both of Josh’s ideas should be implemented. It’s impossible to have a perfect system and Jolly’s solution, while not perfect, is an easy fix for a broken voting system. If my entire team votes for legendary slayer, I would love to have a 50/50 chance of getting legendary.
Also for every game that there is a tied vote, you will have a 50% chance of getting your vote with this system. Your odds of getting your choice in tied vote scenarios is always 50%.
If you still never get your choice, it doesn’t mean that the system isn’t fair it just means that you have bad luck. I don’t think that 343i should worry about some poor kid’s bad luck. They just need to implement a more fair voting system.