Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

How would you fix Halo's betrayal problem?

OP WhoLikesChicken

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3
I'm going to lead with my solution and the follow up with the reasons.

I would make it so a player who betrays another player loses the right to perform any "action". An action in this example is defined as...
  1. Picking up a weapon
  2. Getting into a vehicle
  3. Picking up ammo or grenades from weapons on the ground
So if you betray a team mate, essentially you can use the weapons, ammo, and grenades you already have, but you can't replenish any of them, and you can't get into any vehicles you may have tried to kill someone for.


First, let's look at the problem. Why do people generally betray team mates? --
  1. Some players just want to watch the world burn.
  2. Some players feel entitled to a power weapon/vehicle, and don't care what it takes to get it, including killing team mates.
  3. Some players want to make sure they get the ammo off a new power weapon spawn because (for example) "their sniper skills are a gift from God, and yours are trash."
  4. Some players got betrayed, and they're going to take down that a-hole no matter the cost to their team.
So how does my idea address this? Let's apply it to each case above. --
  1. Players who betray for no real reason will at least have their impact lessened. Rather than betraying team mates continually, they'll simply run out of ammo and grenades shortly after their first betrayal. Once they betray someone, they'll have to wait for their next respawn to get more ammo and nades.
  2. Let's look at the classic "someone betrayed me for the sniper" situation. My idea would essentially remove this from being possible. If you pick up the sniper first, it's yours. If your team mate betrays you because they want it, they wouldn't be able to pick it up, so why would they bother?
  3. Let's alter the last example. A team mate got one sniper, and wants the ammo from the next one that spawns. You pick up the sniper with the ammo they want. If they were to betray you, they simply couldn't get the ammo out of the gun. They'd keep whatevers left in their sniper, but the 12 new rounds would not transfer from the gun on the ground into their load out. So the only incentive to betray in this situation is gone.
  4. If this idea results in less nonsense Betrayals, then there would also be less revenge Betrayals. Hurray!
This idea would also have some impact on accidental Betrayals, but wouldn't be detrimental. Hurst like your elongated respawn timer, it's just a reminder to be careful around team mates.

How would you try and fix Halo's betrayal problem? Does this sound like there's a glimmer of hope to the idea, or do you have something better?

Sorry for any typos, I wrote this out on my phone. I'll try and make corrections later.
I think the current system of being able to boot a player after two betrayals is a good start. But, there are trolls who simply damage their teammates. These “players” don’t get hit with a betrayal even though they directly caused their teammate’s death. Thus, as has been suggested before, I think players should be automatically booted once they dish out enough damage to their teammates. With these two systems in place, it should be enough to cover nearly all scenarios and reduce the amount of unsporting conduct.

The problem with an “action denial” system is that there will definitely be some false positives and false negatives. Even if there aren’t, a system like it would use some stats like damage to teammates and distance to a weapon, for example. Might as well keep it simple and use just those stats.
I think the above systems would work well, but what about situations where the troll does a betrayal that the game decides is a suicide? (Image you're in a warthog near the edge of the map and someone hits you with a gravity hammer, knocks you off, and the game decides that it was a suicide on your part:) This is a very niche scenario but it's happened to me a couple of times in MCC and I wish I had the option to boot that guy.
tuhin94 wrote:
I think the current system of being able to boot a player after two betrayals is a good start. But, there are trolls who simply damage their teammates. These “players” don’t get hit with a betrayal even though they directly caused their teammate’s death. Thus, as has been suggested before, I think players should be automatically booted once they dish out enough damage to their teammates. With these two systems in place, it should be enough to cover nearly all scenarios and reduce the amount of unsporting conduct.

Ah yes, good call! When I was noodling this idea stove yesterday I'd had the thought that including both Betrayals as well as friendly-fire-damage in the system would be an improvement over previous titles.

Since H5 already tracks damage dealt, the system for tracking friendly damage is definitely possible.

Edit: I'm confused about your mention of a scenario- specific system. My system I'm proposing would be universal, not specific. If uppity betray a team mate, you lose the right to perform an "action" as defined in the example. That includes all those things, not just one of them dependent on what happened when you betrayed. You betray, you can't pick up any weapon, replenish ammo/ grenades, or get in vehicles.
I think the above systems would work well, but what about situations where the troll does a betrayal that the game decides is a suicide? (Image you're in a warthog near the edge of the map and someone hits you with a gravity hammer, knocks you off, and the game decides that it was a suicide on your part:) This is a very niche scenario but it's happened to me a couple of times in MCC and I wish I had the option to boot that guy.
General solutions to general issues will always experience failures under specific examples.

Failures under specific examples are not enough reason to avoid realizing large gains available through general solutions.

While your scenario has also happened to me over the years, would you feel comfortable arguing that it is as prevalent and needs the same attention as team mates betraying each other for power weapons? My opinion is no, but it's just my opinion.
Yep. The game can easily keep track of the damage caused to team-mates - particularly damage that contributes to a death.

It could easily keep track of all the damage types;
a) opponent damage leading to a kill
b) opponent damage but didn't lead to a kill
c) team-mate damage leading to a kill
d) team-mate damage but didn't lead to a kill

Once you get to a certain amount of c) then you get warned and eventually penalised. Even if you aren't deliberately trolling you are just being a bad team-mate.

The bit in d) is harder... but if it happens while the player isn't under attack from an enemy then it gets added to the damage in c).
Please make the boot option come up first, or have a system that measures how much damage counts as betrayal. We know how much damage counts as an assist, but we don't to count as a betrayal.
tuhin94 wrote:
I think the current system of being able to boot a player after two betrayals is a good start. But, there are trolls who simply damage their teammates. These “players” don’t get hit with a betrayal even though they directly caused their teammate’s death. Thus, as has been suggested before, I think players should be automatically booted once they dish out enough damage to their teammates. With these two systems in place, it should be enough to cover nearly all scenarios and reduce the amount of unsporting conduct.

Ah yes, good call! When I was noodling this idea stove yesterday I'd had the thought that including both Betrayals as well as friendly-fire-damage in the system would be an improvement over previous titles.

Since H5 already tracks damage dealt, the system for tracking friendly damage is definitely possible.

Edit: I'm confused about your mention of a scenario- specific system. My system I'm proposing would be universal, not specific. If uppity betray a team mate, you lose the right to perform an "action" as defined in the example. That includes all those things, not just one of them dependent on what happened when you betrayed. You betray, you can't pick up any weapon, replenish ammo/ grenades, or get in vehicles.
Poor wording on my part, sorry! Updated my first comment.
But what about when you betray an ally but didn't mean to?
For exemple: I have the SPNKR and I shoot a rocket to an ennemy but an ally that I didn't see was near the guy either trying to assassinate him or in a CQC fight and I kill both with the Kaboom. That would punish me for a mistake that I didn't want to commit but did because of circumstances that I couldn't control.
You’re over complicating it. 1st betrayal = nothing
2nd betrayal = The game asks the person betrayed if the betrayer did it on purpose. If person says yes, they’re kicked. Easy.

on the issue of damaging but not killing a teammate, game determines amount of damage over amount of time then asks player if wants to boot.
It needs to take ihto consideration that accidents do happen and many (if not most) betrayals are by accident. People shouldn't be punished for that.
If a player betrays you, you get an option box:
Accidental - does nothing
Not accidental - ban from matchmaking, sends all purchased games to victim, ignites hard drive
Interesting suggestions all round here. I would very much be in favour of tracking friendly fire not just by actual deaths, but also through damage inflicted by 'friendlies.' I haven't seen people flat-out betraying each other for a while, but I've definitely come across the kind where an ally shoots you, only for an enemy to finish you off, and said ally then making off with your power weapon. According to the current systems that wouldn't be a betrayal, but this kind of behaviour is definitely worth something resembling the shape of Italy.

As for the right of action being taken away from the betrayer, that does seem a bit rough. Not that it'd happen much, but it could in theory ruin a perfect slayer match, as you'd have to die at some point to regain your right to use actions. In such a system, I'd prefer to see a timer, and regaining the right to use actions after said timer runs out (30 seconds? 45? 60?)

Better yet, if an ally has had a (significant) contribution to a teammates death, prohibit them from looting any of the weapons said ally dropped. This would not debilitate the betrayer too much as they'd still have all their regular actions. This will be helpful in case the betrayal was accidental. Combine this with the option to boot after 2 betrayals/a certain friendly damage threshold, and I think we're looking at a neat system.
I think this is a very hard thing to do in Halo. The easiest way to stop betraying is to have no friendly fire. The biggest issue is accidental betrayals. Also with other players in party chat communication can be an issue. I suspect most here have seen team mates running into friendly fire, either bullets, grenades, rockets and even juming in front of vehicles.

How does 343i work out what's an accidental betrayal ? How man players deliberately get betrayed to be able to kick a player ? How is does 343i guage deliberate damage to accidental damage ? I think if you unload a clip into an ally and grenade them it's obvious, but a player running in front of you repeatedly happens. How many times have you had team mates strafing in front of you ?

The only sure way is to remove friendly fire. If they can't kill you they can't betray you but that would ruin Halo, and we've had enough removed to last a lifetime imo. The other solution to stop deliberate betrayals is to team up with players you know.
Serial betrayers get a friendly-fire nerf applied to them.

So after betraying a certain number of players or inflicting more than {threshold percentage} amount of damage to friendlies, you either inflict significantly less damage to friendlies or none at all for the rest of the game.
Serial betrayers get a friendly-fire nerf applied to them.

So after betraying a certain number of players or inflicting more than {threshold percentage} amount of damage to friendlies, you either inflict significantly less damage to friendlies or none at all for the rest of the game.
I agree with this. A serial betrayer is easier to track than deliberate / accidental damage percentages. I would have no issues if they implemented your idea.
Serial betrayers get a friendly-fire nerf applied to them.

So after betraying a certain number of players or inflicting more than {threshold percentage} amount of damage to friendlies, you either inflict significantly less damage to friendlies or none at all for the rest of the game.
Well, in gametypes with friendly fire enabled this would actually become an advantage for teammates who betray. If an entire team is kitted out with this friendly fire nerf they can just shoot rockets willy nilly into any fight, without any worries about killing teammates (again). If the opposing team does play by the rules, it means that they'll have an inherent disadvantage against teams who abuse this mechanic.
You’re over complicating it. 1st betrayal = nothing
2nd betrayal = The game asks the person betrayed if the betrayer did it on purpose. If person says yes, they’re kicked. Easy.

on the issue of damaging but not killing a teammate, game determines amount of damage over amount of time then asks player if wants to boot.
I do think this is a good idea.
It could be similar to Rainbow Six Siege, where any damage that someone does to their teammate is returned to them, in the case of damaging but not killing teammates.
I think the above systems would work well, but what about situations where the troll does a betrayal that the game decides is a suicide? (Image you're in a warthog near the edge of the map and someone hits you with a gravity hammer, knocks you off, and the game decides that it was a suicide on your part:) This is a very niche scenario but it's happened to me a couple of times in MCC and I wish I had the option to boot that guy.
General solutions to general issues will always experience failures under specific examples.

Failures under specific examples are not enough reason to avoid realizing large gains available through general solutions.

While your scenario has also happened to me over the years, would you feel comfortable arguing that it is as prevalent and needs the same attention as team mates betraying each other for power weapons? My opinion is no, but it's just my opinion.
I agree with your point, I definitely am not saying that the above proposed solutions should be thrown out because of the edge case I mentioned. I was just interested if there was a way to mold the proposed solutions to also cover the suicide example.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3