343, why is there no Veto option in matchmaking?
Instead of vetoing a match that you don’t like, you instead vote for matches you do like. It works the same way.
What kind of question is this? There’s a voting system which is mostly better than veto anyways.
There should no voting at all just like Halo 2, it placed you into a match which allows the more voted for map gets less stale as fast
> Instead of vetoing a match that you don’t like, you instead vote for matches you do like. It works the same way.
Not when everyone likes to play BTB on Ragnarok.
> Not when everyone likes to play BTB on Ragnarok.
And if veto was brought back, players would just veto all other maps in order to get Ragnarok.
> > Not when everyone likes to play BTB on Ragnarok.
>
> And if veto was brought back, players would just veto all other maps in order to get Ragnarok.
Not if you can only veto once like in Halo 3.
Because Democracy, That’s why
Reach had a good system actually, you had a few options and then the “none of the above” option.
I would be happy with that system.
> Reach had a good system actually, you had a few options and then the “none of the above” option.
>
> I would be happy with that system.
I would be okay if they brought that back as long as a tie meant a tie and refresh the options instead of giving it to the first map on the list that tied. Or instead of refreshing the list just give us a random map.
I’m torn. I like the variety that Halo 4 provides, but the map quality restricts what gets played in reality.
Halo 3’s system was simpler, but that’s not always a good thing.
I think Halo 5 needs to do something completely different. There’s a decent-enough solution to consistently getting a good match, but I don’t know we’ve experienced it yet.
As much as I hated Reach the matchmaking system they used IMO was the best
I liked having 3 options with a none of the above option
I’m torn, I think from a standpoint of “the best map should get played the most” then the voting as it was in Halo Reach was the best. But from a variety standpoint, the veto system from halo 3 was better, because it meant that you had to roll the dice, which was just fine for me from a variety point of view, and it kept me from getting bored with the maps.
With a voting system, I end up playing the same map over and over and over and over again because that’s all people want to play and then there are some on disc maps that I have barely played at all. I recognize that they need to keep people playing by letting them play the maps they love, but there has to be a middle ground.
I think a good compromise would be that if the majority of players in a lobby were in the previous game together, then the game could detect that and remove the previously played map from the matchmaking rotation for one game. Then it would allow variety while still allowing people to vote
My personal guess is it was to make the voting statistics more meaningful to the developers. Veto was like a default selection just to see what else was available so it skewed the data for the sustain team(s) to create future playlist/setting tweaks.
I agree with Sol Reclaimer, there needs to be a balance between choice/democracy and variety.
343 tracks all players games and stats, I see no reason that they cannot take into consideration the last map everyone played and eliminate a map from voting if the majority of players just played that map in the previous game. This way players still get to influence what maps get played and feed that back to 343 while helping to ensure that a variety of maps get played.
Yeah I can see what you guys are saying about rotating all of the maps and letting people choose. Personally I liked the none of the above because it did allow you to avoid playing bad maps and gametypes. Maybe they should just make it so that there are only two maps to choose from and a none of the above, that way each map has a smaller chance of showing up, keeping things more random.
However another thing to keep in mind is that because they have the voting 343 is able to see what maps/gametypes aren’t popular and remove those from the playlist, creating a better experience overall.
Halo 3 system was best for variety, you would only veto if you really didn’t like the game type, because the next map could be anything.
With the halo 4 system and reach you will very frequently play the same maps. Also full parties can always play the map they’re best in, which is a big advantage.
Voting ruined the game! Random maps is fair, fun, and keeps the game fresh!
> Voting ruined the game! Random maps is fair, fun, and keeps the game fresh!
Personally I prefer the idea of player toggles. Every map and gametype is ON per player by default. There are minimums for say 3-5 maps and gametypes for each player, so you can’t just always search one map and gametype etc.
Ranked could remove this and social keep it so rank isn’t skewed to skills in one map or gametype. The matchmaking systems then finds players who’s toggles match and after that dynamic maps/gametypes are created for the voting process.
It will lead to far less quitters, improve closer game outcomes, improve skill matching as players will face others that prefer the same maps/experience and there is no need for a second round of voting or veto.
I want a veto system working with a system letting players pick a handful of prioritized maps before they search for a game.
Player 1
Player 1 wants The Pit, Guardian and Construct to show up in the voting lobby.
Player 2
Player 2 wants The Pit, Guardian and Assembly to show up in the voting lobby.
Player 3
Player 3 wants The Pit, Construct and Narrows to show up in the voting lobby.
As all 3 players want to play The Pit, the pit is going to be the veto option. If the players choose to veto The Pit, either Guardian or Construct will show up and they will have to play one of them.