Speaking of avatars, I miss your Buffy one.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Halo |OT4| Trust's a Tough Thing to Come by These Days
- Thread starter GhaleonEB
- Start date
Speaking of avatars, I miss your Buffy one.
Der Flatulator
Member
You guys made me hungry
*goes to make delicious toasted cheese sandvich*
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
Just dress like Mister Chief.
I'd be fine with no remakes if the launch maps were good enough. Nuff said
Pretty sure Frankie's already got that covered.
HaloGAF and weirdGAF are one in the same.
ncsuDuncan
Member
I've written up a map/gametype voting system before, but since then I've decided that was a little overcomplicated for what I wanted to accomplish (in terms of UI and button presses required).
Here's what I (currently) think would be ideal:
- Keep map/gametype pairs. Splitting them up is just going to make voting take too long and open the potential for bad pairings (even if there are steps in place to prevent that you know some will slip through).
- Three pairs and a fourth "None of the Above" option seems to work well in Reach. Keep that number of options.
- The voting period is signalled by a clearly audible sound. Reach's sound is far too quiet.
- You get one vote and one veto. Highlight an option you like and press A to vote for it. Highlight an option you dislike and press X to vote against it. Note: You don't have to do both, but that doesn't mean you can vote or veto twice.
- Votes are +1. Vetos are -1. In the event of a tie for first, the option with the fewest vetos wins. If there is still a tie, the option higher on the voting list wins.
- The winning option must have a net vote of +1 or greater. (i.e. if all four options are tied at +0, None of the Above is automatically chosen.) This requirement is ignored on round two of voting as there wouldn't be a None of the Above option.
- Votes (and vetos) are hidden but not locked. (i.e. you can change your mind, but you can't see what everyone else is choosing) Totals are shown after voting ends.
Examples: (8 player lobby, e.g. 4v4)
A +4, -2
B +2, -0
C +2, -2
D +0, -4
Option B wins. Both A and B have a net vote of +2, but B has fewer vetos.
A +4, -2
B +0, -3
C +4, -2
B +0, -1
Option A wins. Both A and C have a net vote of +2 and have 2 vetos, but A is higher on the list.
A +6, -6
B +2, -2
C +0, -0
D +0, -0
Option D (None of the Above) wins. All four options are tied at 0.
I really think hiding votes is the best way to stop people from trying to grief or game the voting system, but then a veto is needed to keep you from accidentally "wasting" your vote.
Thoughts?
Here's what I (currently) think would be ideal:
- Keep map/gametype pairs. Splitting them up is just going to make voting take too long and open the potential for bad pairings (even if there are steps in place to prevent that you know some will slip through).
- Three pairs and a fourth "None of the Above" option seems to work well in Reach. Keep that number of options.
- The voting period is signalled by a clearly audible sound. Reach's sound is far too quiet.
- You get one vote and one veto. Highlight an option you like and press A to vote for it. Highlight an option you dislike and press X to vote against it. Note: You don't have to do both, but that doesn't mean you can vote or veto twice.
- Votes are +1. Vetos are -1. In the event of a tie for first, the option with the fewest vetos wins. If there is still a tie, the option higher on the voting list wins.
- The winning option must have a net vote of +1 or greater. (i.e. if all four options are tied at +0, None of the Above is automatically chosen.) This requirement is ignored on round two of voting as there wouldn't be a None of the Above option.
- Votes (and vetos) are hidden but not locked. (i.e. you can change your mind, but you can't see what everyone else is choosing) Totals are shown after voting ends.
Examples: (8 player lobby, e.g. 4v4)
A +4, -2
B +2, -0
C +2, -2
D +0, -4
Option B wins. Both A and B have a net vote of +2, but B has fewer vetos.
A +4, -2
B +0, -3
C +4, -2
B +0, -1
Option A wins. Both A and C have a net vote of +2 and have 2 vetos, but A is higher on the list.
A +6, -6
B +2, -2
C +0, -0
D +0, -0
Option D (None of the Above) wins. All four options are tied at 0.
I really think hiding votes is the best way to stop people from trying to grief or game the voting system, but then a veto is needed to keep you from accidentally "wasting" your vote.
Thoughts?
Duncan - the problem with your system is that it's nearly impossible to explain to people (succinctly) how it works - which means it's a black box to most players. They'll have no idea what's going on, or why/how maps are picked.
(Hiding the votes will make it sort of like Arena voting is now - except that you DO get to see results at the end of that process; interpreting "4 votes, 3 vetoes" will be much, much harder.)
(Hiding the votes will make it sort of like Arena voting is now - except that you DO get to see results at the end of that process; interpreting "4 votes, 3 vetoes" will be much, much harder.)
In response to Greenskull's video - This was posted over at Waypoint, and despite common trends about not listening to anyone over there I definitely thought that this was worth posting over here.
Link to thread
Link to thread
User 73706
Banned
I could see it working with a separate UI. The closest example I can think of is in Smash Bros, when you're not using stocks +1, -1, etc. icons show up when you get a kill, suicide, etc. at the end of the voting process, a blue positive and a red negative could show up on either side of the voting options. Maybe even have it use the "loading bar" thing, but have it operate as a poll system, and the item with the most clearly prominent bar flashes and you get that map/game type. I definitely think it could work, but it would have to have the UI built around it to communicate results properly.
This, right here, is the problem with this person's argument. THIS IS NOT TRUE.
They care - they just care DIFFERENTLY than you do. (I suppose I should say "we ", not "they".)
Until people on BOTH sides of this issue can acknowledge that their opponents have valid reasons for the opinions they hold, nobody's gonna get anywhere with the discussion.
ncsuDuncan
Member
As Zee-V70 says, I think the vote/veto system could be communicated fairly well within the UI. Basically have the game show a quick animation adding up the votes and then subtracting the vetoes.
The tie-breaking system I proposed might be a little too difficult to display graphically, so maybe just going back to the "higher on the list" method would be best. I still think having a veto is important.
Until people on BOTH sides of this issue can acknowledge that their opponents have valid reasons for the opinions they hold, nobody's gonna get anywhere with the discussion.
Hmm, where have I heard this before... and it also never seems to happen.
I think his system would work so long as 1) the votes are kept public, and 2) the winning option is highlighted in the UI, ala Reach, as votes flow in and the selection is made.
I don't think there's a lot of griefing going on at the voting screen, and the benefits of having the process be transparent (players understanding the exact impact of their vote, such as whether changing it would sway a tie) outweigh any negatives.
I don't think there's a perfect solution to the voting situation.
You're back. 3 sleeps.
squidhands
Member
Standards, maybe. Decency, probably not. ;-)
If votes are hidden, how do you know you're wasting a vote?
This, right here, is the problem with this person's argument. THIS IS NOT TRUE.
They care - they just care DIFFERENTLY than you do. (I suppose I should say "we ", not "they".)
Until people on BOTH sides of this issue can acknowledge that their opponents have valid reasons for the opinions they hold, nobody's gonna get anywhere with the discussion.
The issue is they called out the competitive community for basically caring for a series a lot of us love. The features that we want implemented don't hinder their experience in anyway and only effect us overall. The problem with the video too is he goes to the Waypoint forums to see what competitive people think, yes some do post there but that isn't the "bee hive" of the true competitive community he is referencing.
I do get what they are saying though, but if a casual gamers or any fan of Halo wants to have something in Halo 4 let them talk, I see no issue with it.
Poker Face
Member
Until people on BOTH sides of this issue can acknowledge that their opponents have valid reasons for the opinions they hold, nobody's gonna get anywhere with the discussion.
Halo can't survive with just one group playing it. IMO the reason why Halo 2 is love by the community is it appealed to everyone. Every type of player. Competitive players had ranked playlists that were filled with competition. Casual players had social playlists, unranked, but still just as fun because no one took them seriously. And the beauty was no one was confined to anything.
Casual players could play competitively if they so desired, and competitive players could play casually if they so desired. And most importantly, despite Halo 2's infinite amount of glitches/flaws/setbacks or whatever you called them, the game was incredibly fun.
Obviously this is how I saw things with my experience, but I hope 343 looks to Halo 2/3 for matchmaking as opposed to Reach, that way a lot more people can be happy as opposed to Reach's completely unranked system. (Besides arena which I despise)
RebornYeti
Member
343, you should come to Utah some time. We have... Mountains and..... Green Jell-o. You know you want some.
yeah, i absolutely prefer to have the votes visible. nearly every vote it seems i change from my first pick map that has basically no chance of winning (hi powerhouse) to my second choice if it has a chance of passing.
User 73706
Banned
Depending on how precise the stat tracking can get, to compromise for shitty maps, maybe there could be a "map leaderboard" option? For example, let's say Reach uses Duncan's UI and the options are Invasion on Uncaged, SWAT Potato on Overlook, and Team Slayer DMRs on Refuge. Due to unknown reasons, everyone gets the votes to make a net zero across the board. But on the overall leaderboard for the playlist HaloGAF Hijinks:
Uncaged Invasion is #58.
Overlook SWAT Potato is #49.
Refuge TS DMRs is #4.
So even though Uncaged Invasion is on the top of the list, Refuge is more popularly played, and as a result it would be selected instead.
$20 says he answer everything we know. I have not played the beta and I could go on and pretend how to do it right now.
Poker Face
Member
most likely. still curious as to what they ask him and how he answers them
Bregmann Roche
Member
I'm not sure you can classify yourself as "casual" Wu. You've played over 4,000 games of competitive multiplayer in Reach.This, right here, is the problem with this person's argument. THIS IS NOT TRUE.
They care - they just care DIFFERENTLY than you do. (I suppose I should say "we ", not "they".)
Until people on BOTH sides of this issue can acknowledge that their opponents have valid reasons for the opinions they hold, nobody's gonna get anywhere with the discussion.
My friends who play Halo casually don't like Reach, but for reasons that are completely different from "the AR is too powerful" or "the pistol's clip is too shallow". They dislike Reach because of things like armor lock, weak maps, slow movement, and terrible vehicle combat. If Halo 4 fixes those issues, they will be happy. Casuals do care differently but most of the changes that hardcore Halo fans argue over are changes that my casual friends wouldn't notice or wouldn't care about.
The Kat edit? It's by far my favorite I've ever used.... but GAF had to go ahead and kill animated avatars, so I had to retire her.
ncsuDuncan
Member
Votes are only hidden during the voting period. Once all of them are locked in you see the results. (A UI animation shows your individual vote icons being added to the total.)
Ideally, everyone would vote and veto according to their personal taste, irrelevant of what other people are voting for. That would give the matchmaking team the best data on actual community preferences.
Der Flatulator
Member
3:00:00:00.00
Have you ever played with him? He's as bad as I am! Best he stays casual...
Bregmann Roche
Member
AIs are logical enough to know that there is nothing indecent about nudity. Especially at cool parties.
Let's keep the scathing criticisms of American politics in the PoliGAF thread please.
I think that's the problem with this discussion. Someone that plays a lot of Halo, posts on the internet about it, AND runs a website that is a hub for the community, is not a "casual" player. Wu might not be great at Halo, but his opinions are significantly more valuable than a real "casual" player who plays the MP of a game for a few weeks and then drops it to play whatever the next AAA game du jour is.
This "casuals" argument needs to be refrained as something else because as long as the blainsquad keeps defining the other side of the argument as "casual players" nobody is going to get anywhere.
Franklinator
Member
That's interesting to think about. I will change my vote to a map I don't even like if it means I don't have to play on Sword Base.
Kibbles
Member
I misread this as "H4 Beta being released soon", and not as in the podcast is releasing soon. =|
ElzarTheBam
Member
Yes.
User 73706
Banned
My only real criticism about your system is that the votes would have to be hidden until final results for everything to display cleanly on the UI. Otherwise it'd be a clusterfuck of information if they tried switching to showing votes, think shield feedback in Reach when they put bleed through in.
Der Flatulator
Member
Ooops. too hyped, lol.
If you're looking for a brothel, head on up to Ontario.
Bregmann Roche
Member
You would then be matched up with representatives of the 90% of Halo players who have selected Sword Base as one of their favorite maps.
This, right here, is the problem with this person's argument. THIS IS NOT TRUE.
They care - they just care DIFFERENTLY than you do. (I suppose I should say "we ", not "they".)
Until people on BOTH sides of this issue can acknowledge that their opponents have valid reasons for the opinions they hold, nobody's gonna get anywhere with the discussion.
Casuals lock on to whatever the developer gives them with each game and argues that its the best. Thats why during Halo 2, SMG's were the best. Then during Halo 3, ARs were the best. Then during Halo Reach, AA's where the best.
Gameplay factors certainly affect how casuals enjoy the game, but they are completely seperate than what Competitive players are asking for. The one Halo game that all of my casual gamer friends played was Halo CE; they stopped playing when Halo 2 came out.
Competitive and casual gamers are not mutually exclusive. Bungie forced them to be at odds with each other when they sacrificed the competitive integrity of their game for the sake of their mistaken idea about what casuals want. The original BR argument of Halo 2 really started this whole thing because Bungie refused to allow players to spawn with a weapon that gave them a chance off spawn.
You're right, casuals care DIFFERENTLY. Thats the point. What we want doesn't affect them as long as they don't see it as coming from "competitive players." If the developer gives it to them, they think its perfect.
ncsuDuncan
Member
Here are the problems I see with visible voting:
Votes Visible, Votes Unlocked (i.e. you can change your vote)
- People constantly change their votes to "sway a tie", instead of voting for their #1 choice.
- The options that take an early lead get more votes than they would normally. "I would vote for X, but Y and Z are winning so I'll vote for Z instead because I hate Y."
Votes Visible, Votes Locked
- Everyone wants to be the last person to vote so they can break any ties. So nobody votes until the last second, which means you might as well just have hidden voting.
Votes Visible, Votes Unlocked (i.e. you can change your vote)
- People constantly change their votes to "sway a tie", instead of voting for their #1 choice.
- The options that take an early lead get more votes than they would normally. "I would vote for X, but Y and Z are winning so I'll vote for Z instead because I hate Y."
Votes Visible, Votes Locked
- Everyone wants to be the last person to vote so they can break any ties. So nobody votes until the last second, which means you might as well just have hidden voting.
Demoncarnotaur
Member
I am in the camp that thinks votes should be invisible, I think it would help people vote for what they really want and ultimately not have votes change for weird reasons.
hmm.. Yeah I doubt we will learn anything new.
hmm.. Yeah I doubt we will learn anything new.
squidhands
Member
So where does the veto come in play, after the voting round? Not sure if I'd want to draw out the voting any longer than it already is in Reach.
I thought we were talking about LA
Bregmann Roche
Member
DMR starts on Y aren't so bad.
They are actresses playing AIs, and to be true to their characters, they use logic to overcome silly ideas like modesty and sobriety.
I like this idea. Expanding on play style and game types, adding an option to search maps and variants would be neat as fuck.
Der Flatulator
Member
I don't see those as problems.
Ideally, we'd actually have decent maps to pick from, that way there wouldn't be as many unacceptable maps. In Reach, most of the maps were literally unplayable; that makes a voting system hard to swallow.
I don't see anything wrong with the Reach voting system or the CoD style of voting system (pretty similar), but the maps were so terrible that it threw a wrench in it.