This reads like a haiku. Brilliant.
-
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 |OT6| I will not allow you to leave this thread!
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
Oh shit, that one dude who spawned next to me grabbed the only BR in the vicinity. I'll just go walk across half the map that get a decent weapon.
Halo 3
We were playing with 10 people 5v5. Not sure if you can do that in ranked. Either way you can blame Elzar.
That would be a more interesting theory
What if... Didact became an ancilla after his death.... Then bornstellar somehow got didact as his ancilla
Didact could then become rampant while still having a physical form
Or something
Xx Overkill VR
Banned
Well then there's Halo 4... spawn with anything you want.
Precursors and Forerunners are more alike than humans and Forerunners (minus John if you're going with the whole "John's part Forerunner" theory in Halo 4).
Forerunners are seen more as a continuation of the Precursor legacy, they're more closely related despite them going to war with each other.
Precursors are like the first cousins of Forerunners, where humans are like a step-brother-in-law. From my understanding anyways.
Yeah those were the days. Thankfully we've made a lot of progress in regards to the transparency of matchmaking decisions. 343 knocks it out of the park.
ElzarTheBam
Member
GG all on H3.
I'm fascinated by the Valve system of shunting quitters off into a special matchmaking area of their own, populated only by other quitters.
Letting people spawn with both the DMR/BR and the AR would've accomplished practically the same.
Since we know that Spartan Ops has matchmaking, I have a question.
Will skill or at least experience be a factor in matchmaking for Spartan Ops? Firefight in Reach does not factor that in, prioritizing connection (understandably, given the networking model). But the number of times I've had a good, skilled player in Reach Firefight is comfortably in single digits, out of thousands of games.
Since Spartan Ops looks to be a less grinding, more co-op Campaign style of mode, good partners will be even more important. Will good players find themselves getting paired with good players? And if not, in what ways will the mode encourage careful play and discourage poor? (Limited, non-pooled lives; pooled points during the mission; and so on.)
Firefight in many ways encourages bad players to go nuts, or at least does not motivate them to be careful. The pooled lives in Limited is one example of this; one bad player can drain the entire life pool, and unlimited lives removes any sense of challenge or consequence, turning the mode into a score attack fest. Whether Spartan Ops is fun in matchmaking will be determined by these kinds of decisions.
Will skill or at least experience be a factor in matchmaking for Spartan Ops? Firefight in Reach does not factor that in, prioritizing connection (understandably, given the networking model). But the number of times I've had a good, skilled player in Reach Firefight is comfortably in single digits, out of thousands of games.
Since Spartan Ops looks to be a less grinding, more co-op Campaign style of mode, good partners will be even more important. Will good players find themselves getting paired with good players? And if not, in what ways will the mode encourage careful play and discourage poor? (Limited, non-pooled lives; pooled points during the mission; and so on.)
Firefight in many ways encourages bad players to go nuts, or at least does not motivate them to be careful. The pooled lives in Limited is one example of this; one bad player can drain the entire life pool, and unlimited lives removes any sense of challenge or consequence, turning the mode into a score attack fest. Whether Spartan Ops is fun in matchmaking will be determined by these kinds of decisions.
ElzarTheBam
Member
And also quitters should have to wait until the match they quit finishes, before they are let back in MM.
Xx Overkill VR
Banned
Like in Halo 2 how your level stayed the same until after the results of the match you quit from.
That would be a great way of doing it.
The Librarian
Banned
What qualities would the system use to define good players? K/D? Points? Average difficulty level played? All of the above?
I'm glad you see the error of your ways
My observation cannot be faulted in any way ever.
I'll bet I'm older
Then people wouldn't quit, just AFK. Doesn't solve anything.
Aggrotek
Member
Except in Halo 2 if your team won and you quit it didn't effect your rank. You'd still go up.
Maybe I just hate people (okay, I do), but I can't imagine playing this with the general population.
The only way to really encourage people to play hard in matchmade spops would be to add visible rank to that as well.
At this point I just want a skill based rank system, as much as I would want it to be visible I don't see it happening..
ElzarTheBam
Member
AFK people should get booted, and it should count as a quit.
But every solution, there is a problem.
I can think of several systems, partly based on experience and partly based on K/D. So players who have 1) cleared a lot of missions while 2) not dying often and 3) also killing a healthy number of enemies (to discourage guys from hanging back and getting a good K/D by just not participating) could be paired with players with a similar record. This may not be optimal, however.
In Firefight, with very few exceptions, I finish games with both the highest score and the lowest number of deaths. When I play Limited, it's often very lopsided. I think I'm probably the Firefight equivalent of a 45-50 player, so I realize it is probably hard to find many of the same skill set (not trying to boast, just reality; I play a LOT). But more often than not it's me and a member of the Bozo and the Banana Brothers clan. I think there are ways to improve this, both by factoring in something into matchmaking, and by encouraging a different style of play in the game settings.
Given the importance of a good connection in co-op modes due to the asynchronous networking model, I don't think adding a skill based filter would be ideal, unless it was secondary to connection speed (sort of like the Social Settings in Reach). I think game settings will be the best way to achieve this, by encouraging team play, or at least more thoughtful individual play. Again, stuff like non-pooled lives and pooled points (during the game). Perhaps have a player preference for difficulty level, as another possibility.
I can honestly say that I've never actually welcomed other players in Reach Firefight, other than playing with friends. In every single game, ever, I've wanted the other players to quit. But I love co-op games!
Xx Overkill VR
Banned
Yeah thats what I said.
If you quit but the team won then you went up so the results of the match weren't communicated until it ended.
Incorporate that but in a way where you can't start another match until the last one ended to curb quitting.
Score per minute. That value incorporates all the important things like k/d, W/L and all that good stuff.
I damn well want to either quit or AFK a game where my team mates are braindead morons (apologies to braindead and morons).
Can we please get a MM system that works well and game that is fun enough that you don't get matched with idiots nor you have any reason to quit or AFK?
Aggrotek
Member
But you shouldn't go up if you quit. The results should be null for you.
Xx Overkill VR
Banned
Well in regards to making you wait until the game is over in order to play again it has no relevance to the topic.
Thinking about the Halo 2 ranking system really makes me want a clan matchmaking system again.
Aggrotek
Member
I understand that. I'm merely stating that if you quit it should negatively impact your rank.
Some people have no souls.
I should know, I'm a ginger.
User 73932
Banned
Someone messaged me on eBay asking if I was intentionally inflating the prices of the auction. I then noticed that his history of selling is made up entirely of selling signed merchandise (fixed prices) for hundreds of dollars.
I assume this guy wanted to win a poster and then sell it at a higher price to profit. Gross.
I assume this guy wanted to win a poster and then sell it at a higher price to profit. Gross.
But what warrants an "AFK"? A time limit of no movement?
If it were up to me, five deaths in a row with no damage dealt should be enough grounds for a boot. Also, down by 20 kills should warrant a game over in 50-point slayer gametypes. I wonder how that would change matchmaking.
Either way, quitting games/AFK'ing, or not being beneficial to your team should have a rough punishment, especially in more competitive playlists.
MaximumFlipFlop
Banned
Can a Flood Infected Forerunner enter a Crytum? duh duh duhhhhhhhhhh
Hypertrooper
Member
Seriously what? Why does he think that?
An EA employee I assume.
How much you raised so far? Damn good you are donating it to CP by the way
Top work. I'll go give it a plug on Waypoint. Got any links?
Whoa wtf. This would be awful.
xxjuicesxx
Member
Yea, well it's not like they have someone at 343 and Bungie whose job is specifically to communicate with the Halo fans and communities.
...
I'm still hoping that Spartan Ops will use asynchronous networking like multiplayer. I'm sure that they would have to sacrifice AI/no of enemies, but to be honest a game that is slightly less complex but is playable >>>> a complex game that isn't.
User 73932
Banned
An EA employee I assume.
How much you raised so far? Damn good you are donating it to CP by the way
Just over $800. I wasn't even expecting half that amount! Still 1 day left.
Aggrotek
Member
I feel like those types of people are parasites. I'm boggled by the ethics of some people in this world.
As soon as you have a negative K/D, you get booted. Last man standing on the team wins.
The number of "x"s in their GT.
User 73932
Banned
When I was searching for SDCC tickets for Domino there were two offers on eBay for 4-day passes. $600 and $800. I made them offers of $200-$250, $15-$75 more than original price, and they replied simply by simply saying "lol".
Jerks.
Hopefully.Might see a big shift an hour before it ends.
Zoso Achilles
Member
So in a 4v4 the maximum score would be 4? Fascinating.
Edit: I guess you could actually get to 7. You really nerd sniped me with this, I can't stop thinking about it lol
Think about it. It'd totally be fun the first two times you play it. It'd literally be a YOLO gametype.
HiredN00bs
Member
As it stands now, in Team Objective and Grifball in Reach, you earn more cR for winning than you do for completing the game (this "Performance Bonus" is 140% of the "Game Complete" cR payout) . The Performance Bonus used to only be 20% of the Game Complete payout (and it still is everywhere else in Reach matchmaking).
As an example, I just played a game of Grifball where my team won and my payout was as follows:
GAME COMPLETE 2048
PERFORMANCE BONUS 2867
COMMENDATIONS 135
SLOT MACHINE 374
TOTAL: 5424
If I had lost the match, my payout would have been:
GAME COMPLETE 2048
COMMENDATIONS 135
SLOT MACHINE 374
TOTAL: 2557
As you can see, I earn more than twice the cR if I win the match.
MaximumFlipFlop
Banned
Got bored, made this. Feel free to use it for whatever.
Holy shit, nice work. Love to see this on a hoodie.
- Status