I’m sure this isn’t the first thread of this kind, but why is the boot system so broken, and why is everyone so boot happy?
So many times, if my team is in a fight, and I accidentally kill one, no mater how well I’m doing in the game or how many enemies I’ve taken out, I always gett booted the first time.
For instance, playing some slayer, I saw my teammate go into armor lock surrounded by enemies. I threw a sticky and right before it went off, he came out of AL. I killed him and three enemies. BOOTED.
Any time I get betrayed, accidentally or on purpose, it often takes 2-3 betrayals for me to have the option.
> 1 betrayal isn’t enough, on its own, to prompt your teammate to boot you.
>
> Every player has a value that tracks the damage they’ve done to their teammates, and the system that governs that value takes into account many things. The value has a threshold, and if you commit a betrayal that pushes you over the threshold or if you are over the threshold and commit a betrayal your teammate will be prompted to boot you. The value is in a constant state of degradation but it decays slowly and carries over between games. This is done to ensure that a problematic player doesn’t have their slate wiped clean and regain the ability to commit excessive flagrant actions against their allies every time they load into a game. A player may have two or three betrayals in a game and not get booted, but when that’s the case there is a good chance a teammate in the next game will be prompted to boot them on their first betrayal in that new game.
>
>
> MMST
> LW
That’s how the boot system works, it works as intended and explains why you barely get the option.
> Well, that certainly explains why the option comes up, but not why people are so boot-happy.
I became “boot happy” only after I read that explanation. What it’s telling me is that if I am given the option of booting you, it’s because you’ve already caused recent damage to one or more of your teammates that is of sufficient magnitude to trigger the option. It is not, hence, an isoloated incident. This makes it quite likely that you are either a careless player who endangers others, or one who purposely attacks teammates, or both. It doesn’t guarantee it, but it does make it too likely for me to feel forgiving, unless I am absolutely certain my dying was totally due to my own stupidity.
I usually boot without question unless it’s a friend. It’s not that I don’t give them the benefit of the doubt but usually they are dragging the team down. One less teammate usually means one less -12 teammate on my team =)
Instead of letting one person on a team decide to boot a player for a betrayal, it should be a team decision based upon what happens. Too often little kids boot team mates who accidentally betray them because they feel empowered. That empowering is by design and is the center of what makes it all wrong.
I can’t tell you how often I won’t boot someone for betraying me when I have the option presented and it is from an accident that is clearly in the middle of a fire fight. But I would say I get booted nearly every time I hear Jeff announce betrayal occurred. The point I am making is that it happens too often to me when I am too often patient with others. A person’s patience with others should be tracked and honored. The more patient I am with others, the more patient the system should be before allowing someone to boot me. That would bring some fairness to the issue.
Another feature that would add fairness is to track the number of times someone boots a team mate. If they are on the high end of impatience (they boot often and choose quickly) then they are offered the choice less often. In other words, the system should determine that they are too quick to use the boot mechanism, that they cannot be entirely trusted with it.
It would be nice if when one person is given the boot option at death, that the other team mates are given the boot option during game play where they have say 15 seconds to respond. A majority boots the player or saves them on the team. I think that would allow cooler heads to prevail as well.
And then there is the team mate that disrupts their team, but is never booted because they don’t kill their team. They weaken their team and contribute to their death, but do not directly cause the kill count. A team mate who dies under those circumstances should be able to get the boot option. That would discourage a lot of the bs I see from players that just want to keep YOUR kill count down so they can keep their kill count higher, or just want to mess with you and frustrate you. These are the very kinds that I would boot in a heart beat.
> The boot system is entirely broken by design.
>
> Instead of letting one person on a team decide to boot a player for a betrayal, it should be a team decision based upon what happens. Too often little kids boot team mates who accidentally betray them because they feel empowered. That empowering is by design and is the center of what makes it all wrong.
I agree.
Picture this: Your team mate betrays you. During your death screen you are given the option to vote “Yes” or “No” to boot them in your death screen. You check “Yes”.
When one of your team mates dies, he/she is also given the option to vote on said subject. Once the votes hit majority, boom, the guy is out of the game. Obviously, this system could have the same flaws, such as nobody voting, but it’s an idea.
The thing I really dislike is when you boot someone and the game goes black screen for a minute because apparently it takes a lot of computing power to migrate hosts.
> I usually boot without question unless it’s a friend. It’s not that I don’t give them the benefit of the doubt but usually they are dragging the team down. One less teammate usually means one less -12 teammate on my team =)
I can see that, but does it really help you when there are say 5 players grouped together team shooting you and your other 2 team mates are not around to help? (Assuming 2 of your team mates got the boot, after all they were just dragging you all down…)
There will never be a “perfect” system. The reasoning behind Reach’s system, however, is a very flawed concept. A “perfect” system would be able to recognize the difference between accidental betrayals (usually grenades) and intentional betrayals (usually a beatdown for a power weapon). If it was accidental, it follows the “second-chance” concept. If you betray that same person again, regardless of whether or not it was accidental, the betrayed individual would be given the prompt to either 'Forgive or ‘Boot Player’. If it was intentional, the prompt would be given immediately.
> There will never be a “perfect” system. The reasoning behind Reach’s system, however, is a very flawed concept. A “perfect” system would be able to recognize the difference between accidental betrayals (usually grenades) and intentional betrayals (usually a beatdown for a power weapon). If it was accidental, it follows the “second-chance” concept. If you betray that same person again, regardless of whether or not it was accidental, the betrayed individual would be given the prompt to either 'Forgive or ‘Boot Player’. If it was intentional, the prompt would be given immediately.
I think the fairness factors I mention above would be really helpful, but I agree I don’t think it will ever be done. As for automated detection of intention, it is pretty easy for the system to note when player A and B are both racing toward the sniper, A grabs it, B kills A and takes the sniper. The moment B takes the sniper he should be banned for the rest of the day. Of course, then you have B’s buddy C kill A so B can take the sniper, but you get what I am saying here. It can figure out what the intent is a lot of the time and when it is griefing for a weapon it should be a 24hr ban. THAT WOULD CUT DOWN ON A LOT OF GRIEFING!
And for anyone wondering how difficult this would be, here is some pseudo code for 343i to implement:
if ( A.kills(B) )
{
if (A.takesPowerWeaponFrom(B))
{
if (!AnyEnemiesNear(A))
{
BootForTime(A, _24Hours);
}
}
}