Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

Big Team Battle Refresh Feedback

OP ZaedynFel

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 11
  4. 12
  5. 13
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. ...
  9. 49
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making posts that do not contribute to the topic at hand.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
<p></p>
munk07 wrote:
eLantern wrote:
munk07 wrote:
Honestly don't know how to contribute to this post. Any to all suggestions seem to be shot down.
I thought your previous post that I responded to was a contribution. I wasn’t necessarily out to shoot down your ideas with my response. I was simply sharing my own thoughts based on yours. If you didn’t see any merit within my response feel free to respond in kind to what I shared.

This is all part of starting some dialogue and having a discussion on a subject. Give me reasons why you feel your suggestion was better or why mine isn’t as good. This is healthy and helpful as long as it remains civil.
Quote:
I would rather be demolished by Envore, than sitting for an hour in the lobby. What's the point of a game you can't play?
I’d rather not experience either. I’d like to see resources put toward fixing the obvious issues that exist within this game. I’d also like to see quality assurances maintained as best as possible; though, in special or specific circumstances I’d also be okay with some further loosening of those limits. I’ve said as much on several occasions already; in fact, my previous post (to Heavies) even touches on this very thing.
I did not quote you, nor relate you in any way. I wasn't only referring to my own statments but everyones conflicts in this forum. We are arguing to change opinions, but everyone is stubborn with their own ideas.
There are really good players, the average, the poor, and 343 arguing here.

The good players can't play as a team because they will landslide other teams. They have to play solo to allow another team to landslide their team. 343 wants them to lose some matches it seems.

Average players can play with a group after searching for a decent amount of time. (15 - 60 minutes) and play against decently equal teams or smurf accounts.

Poor players get to have a Fatal member on their team while being put against a full team of average players. I've played against the poor players that use ARs and can not manuever the map. It isn't a challenge. It's as if you put a dominate player with a bunch of grunts and expect it to be a fair fight.

343 wants to keep the servers how they are with the limitations at hand, stating that the quit rates are higher if the team balancer is removed. To my understanding, there is a banhammer for a reason for players who quit too many matches. Why now does 343 side with the teams that are quitting?
Ok let's remove the balancer and get everyone banned, that'll help the population...

Honestly if I solo queued into a game and the enemy team has full control on Viking while taking their sweet time with the objective I am going to leave whether I get banned or not and just play a different game.
<p></p>
munk07 wrote:
eLantern wrote:
munk07 wrote:
Honestly don't know how to contribute to this post. Any to all suggestions seem to be shot down.
I thought your previous post that I responded to was a contribution. I wasn’t necessarily out to shoot down your ideas with my response. I was simply sharing my own thoughts based on yours. If you didn’t see any merit within my response feel free to respond in kind to what I shared.

This is all part of starting some dialogue and having a discussion on a subject. Give me reasons why you feel your suggestion was better or why mine isn’t as good. This is healthy and helpful as long as it remains civil.
Quote:
I would rather be demolished by Envore, than sitting for an hour in the lobby. What's the point of a game you can't play?
I’d rather not experience either. I’d like to see resources put toward fixing the obvious issues that exist within this game. I’d also like to see quality assurances maintained as best as possible; though, in special or specific circumstances I’d also be okay with some further loosening of those limits. I’ve said as much on several occasions already; in fact, my previous post (to Heavies) even touches on this very thing.
I did not quote you, nor relate you in any way. I wasn't only referring to my own statments but everyones conflicts in this forum. We are arguing to change opinions, but everyone is stubborn with their own ideas.
There are really good players, the average, the poor, and 343 arguing here.

The good players can't play as a team because they will landslide other teams. They have to play solo to allow another team to landslide their team. 343 wants them to lose some matches it seems.

Average players can play with a group after searching for a decent amount of time. (15 - 60 minutes) and play against decently equal teams or smurf accounts.

Poor players get to have a Fatal member on their team while being put against a full team of average players. I've played against the poor players that use ARs and can not manuever the map. It isn't a challenge. It's as if you put a dominate player with a bunch of grunts and expect it to be a fair fight.

343 wants to keep the servers how they are with the limitations at hand, stating that the quit rates are higher if the team balancer is removed. To my understanding, there is a banhammer for a reason for players who quit too many matches. Why now does 343 side with the teams that are quitting?
Ok let's remove the balancer and get everyone banned, that'll help the population...

Honestly if I solo queued into a game and the enemy team has full control on Viking while taking their sweet time with the objective I am going to leave whether I get banned or not and just play a different game.
The banhammer is already in place. Im playing a different game right now because I barely find matches on Halo. Its boring and the servers are horrible. I tried and tried. No point playing a game that isn't getting fixed.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
Those have always been big team maps... but this thread is about the H5 BTB Refresh.
I haven't played a lot of bob but just reading some of these forums i am going to have to agree with most of these
I like the starting weapons to be a shotgun or br and a magnum
<p></p>
munk07 wrote:
eLantern wrote:
munk07 wrote:
Honestly don't know how to contribute to this post. Any to all suggestions seem to be shot down.
I thought your previous post that I responded to was a contribution. I wasn’t necessarily out to shoot down your ideas with my response. I was simply sharing my own thoughts based on yours. If you didn’t see any merit within my response feel free to respond in kind to what I shared.

This is all part of starting some dialogue and having a discussion on a subject. Give me reasons why you feel your suggestion was better or why mine isn’t as good. This is healthy and helpful as long as it remains civil.
Quote:
I would rather be demolished by Envore, than sitting for an hour in the lobby. What's the point of a game you can't play?
I’d rather not experience either. I’d like to see resources put toward fixing the obvious issues that exist within this game. I’d also like to see quality assurances maintained as best as possible; though, in special or specific circumstances I’d also be okay with some further loosening of those limits. I’ve said as much on several occasions already; in fact, my previous post (to Heavies) even touches on this very thing.
I did not quote you, nor relate you in any way. I wasn't only referring to my own statments but everyones conflicts in this forum. We are arguing to change opinions, but everyone is stubborn with their own ideas.
There are really good players, the average, the poor, and 343 arguing here.

The good players can't play as a team because they will landslide other teams. They have to play solo to allow another team to landslide their team. 343 wants them to lose some matches it seems.

Average players can play with a group after searching for a decent amount of time. (15 - 60 minutes) and play against decently equal teams or smurf accounts.

Poor players get to have a Fatal member on their team while being put against a full team of average players. I've played against the poor players that use ARs and can not manuever the map. It isn't a challenge. It's as if you put a dominate player with a bunch of grunts and expect it to be a fair fight.

343 wants to keep the servers how they are with the limitations at hand, stating that the quit rates are higher if the team balancer is removed. To my understanding, there is a banhammer for a reason for players who quit too many matches. Why now does 343 side with the teams that are quitting?
Ok let's remove the balancer and get everyone banned, that'll help the population...

Honestly if I solo queued into a game and the enemy team has full control on Viking while taking their sweet time with the objective I am going to leave whether I get banned or not and just play a different game.
You're going to leave and just play a different game if you don't get banned? You wouldn't just search again and play in a different match?

If I'm getting farmed or the other team can't/won't willingly win the game efficiently (not coring, not playing the objective, etc) I just leave and re-start a search.
Heaviies wrote:
eLantern wrote:
munk07 wrote:
Make BTB ranked again. Remove the Team Balance. Remove BTB Fiesta.
The Team Balancer is absolutely critical toward ensuring fair matches which (2) it’s just vitally important toward playlist population sustainability. As has been explained, time and again, there’s overwhelming statistical evidence that shows matches with odds outside 61:39 leads to a loss of mid-Tier player retention without which a playlist’s population effectively dies at an accelerated pace.
I keep seeing this over and over. Playlist population sustainability. "Statistical evidence..." But we've never seen any of this statistical evidence. In all the previous Halo's I've played, BTB was a social playlist, and I never remember there being such a system in place. Of course BTB in all the previous Halo's were treated with more respect than Halo 5. Halo 5 didn't even have BTB at launch. At the very least the previous games had a dev-made maps, no issues matching since they were social playlists, and I never once had issues matching due to low population. Heck, even BTB Heavies in Halo 4, I never had issues matching, even months AFTER the release of Halo 5.

There were decisions made throughout H5s life cycle by 343 that destroyed the population. But Josh has already said its not his job to focus on those decisions or fix them. If the playlist is dying as warned and indicated, let's not kid ourselves and trick ourselves into believing its the result of lopsided matches. There's barely any teams that play BTB anymore. It shouldn't take 4-5 minutes for a game to time-out if there are 15/16 players. I think I've spent more time sitting in pre-game lobbies in H5 BTB some nights than I have spent in actual gameplay. We havent had an update to BTB in what 8+ months now?

So its pretty easy to use "statistical evidence" to back up a claims based off of the results of a flawed matching system. It's easier to come to a conclusion that a player quit playing BTB because he had 2-3 games where the other team had a greater that 60% chance of winning, when in reality its because the player only played 3 or 4 games in 2 hours because he had to wait in the pregame lobby because the game wouldn't start. I would be curious to see the wait time and search time data too.
I wouldn't pick a fight with the guy who has all of the data at his fingertips.

The reason you can't stomach the whole 60:40 figure is probably because you are most likely on the 60% side most BTB games that you play considering who you play with. Just because you don't have the issue of losing complete map control doesn't mean other people don't.
Is this the same guy who released the top 100 MMR data that had players who hadn't even played the game in close to a year in the Top 20, even though he specifically said the data was from the previous 3 months? If so, I think I'll be okay. His data also doesn't reflect the amount of time wasted in search times.
Heaviies wrote:
<p></p>
munk07 wrote:
eLantern wrote:
munk07 wrote:
Honestly don't know how to contribute to this post. Any to all suggestions seem to be shot down.
I thought your previous post that I responded to was a contribution. I wasn’t necessarily out to shoot down your ideas with my response. I was simply sharing my own thoughts based on yours. If you didn’t see any merit within my response feel free to respond in kind to what I shared.

This is all part of starting some dialogue and having a discussion on a subject. Give me reasons why you feel your suggestion was better or why mine isn’t as good. This is healthy and helpful as long as it remains civil.
Quote:
I would rather be demolished by Envore, than sitting for an hour in the lobby. What's the point of a game you can't play?
I’d rather not experience either. I’d like to see resources put toward fixing the obvious issues that exist within this game. I’d also like to see quality assurances maintained as best as possible; though, in special or specific circumstances I’d also be okay with some further loosening of those limits. I’ve said as much on several occasions already; in fact, my previous post (to Heavies) even touches on this very thing.
I did not quote you, nor relate you in any way. I wasn't only referring to my own statments but everyones conflicts in this forum. We are arguing to change opinions, but everyone is stubborn with their own ideas.
There are really good players, the average, the poor, and 343 arguing here.

The good players can't play as a team because they will landslide other teams. They have to play solo to allow another team to landslide their team. 343 wants them to lose some matches it seems.

Average players can play with a group after searching for a decent amount of time. (15 - 60 minutes) and play against decently equal teams or smurf accounts.

Poor players get to have a Fatal member on their team while being put against a full team of average players. I've played against the poor players that use ARs and can not manuever the map. It isn't a challenge. It's as if you put a dominate player with a bunch of grunts and expect it to be a fair fight.

343 wants to keep the servers how they are with the limitations at hand, stating that the quit rates are higher if the team balancer is removed. To my understanding, there is a banhammer for a reason for players who quit too many matches. Why now does 343 side with the teams that are quitting?
Ok let's remove the balancer and get everyone banned, that'll help the population...

Honestly if I solo queued into a game and the enemy team has full control on Viking while taking their sweet time with the objective I am going to leave whether I get banned or not and just play a different game.
You're going to leave and just play a different game if you don't get banned? You wouldn't just search again and play in a different match?

If I'm getting farmed or the other team can't/won't willingly win the game efficiently (not coring, not playing the objective, etc) I just leave and re-start a search.
If I didn't get banned I'd probably queue again for an arena playlist that has a healthy population and balanced/competitive settings, but he wants to remove the balancer which means: more frequent instances of leaving -> more people getting banned. The banhammer isn't a good motivator to keep people in the game which seems to be his argument justifying the removal of the balancer.

The population who would be getting stomped would either leave the playlist alienated or get banned...doesn't sound like a way to foster a healthy population.
I believe there should be bigger maps so it allows more vehicles and different routes and plans to take place.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not bump.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
Feedback
Starting Weapons:
  • H5BR with Classic Sights and the default Magnum as the secondary
Vehicle Gameplay:
  • Ghosts are too prominent and over powered. it is almost impossible to take down a ghost on your own without some kind of power weapon or plasma grenade.
  • Warthogs are fine but the gauss and rocket variants are too powerful to be spawn vehicles for both teams. While i do feel like they have their place in btb they need to be treated more like power vehicles and there should only ever be one of each on any map.
Maps:
  • Large scale maps are definitely the way to go. small maps don't work for large scale combat but there definitely needs to be variety in map design. Maps with areas where you can fight from many different ranges are the best in my opinion
Modes:
  • CTF and Assault are too common, when playing btb 90% of the time they are all you play. If Slayer was more common i feel like it would be more fun to play without having to worry about objectives.
  • Strongholds doesn't really work for btb. It isn't fun to play and having 16 players all swarm to different objectives just to stand in them is just chaotic and messy.
Heaviies wrote:
<p></p>
munk07 wrote:
eLantern wrote:
munk07 wrote:
Honestly don't know how to contribute to this post. Any to all suggestions seem to be shot down.
I thought your previous post that I responded to was a contribution. I wasn’t necessarily out to shoot down your ideas with my response. I was simply sharing my own thoughts based on yours. If you didn’t see any merit within my response feel free to respond in kind to what I shared.

This is all part of starting some dialogue and having a discussion on a subject. Give me reasons why you feel your suggestion was better or why mine isn’t as good. This is healthy and helpful as long as it remains civil.
Quote:
I would rather be demolished by Envore, than sitting for an hour in the lobby. What's the point of a game you can't play?
I’d rather not experience either. I’d like to see resources put toward fixing the obvious issues that exist within this game. I’d also like to see quality assurances maintained as best as possible; though, in special or specific circumstances I’d also be okay with some further loosening of those limits. I’ve said as much on several occasions already; in fact, my previous post (to Heavies) even touches on this very thing.
I did not quote you, nor relate you in any way. I wasn't only referring to my own statments but everyones conflicts in this forum. We are arguing to change opinions, but everyone is stubborn with their own ideas.
There are really good players, the average, the poor, and 343 arguing here.

The good players can't play as a team because they will landslide other teams. They have to play solo to allow another team to landslide their team. 343 wants them to lose some matches it seems.

Average players can play with a group after searching for a decent amount of time. (15 - 60 minutes) and play against decently equal teams or smurf accounts.

Poor players get to have a Fatal member on their team while being put against a full team of average players. I've played against the poor players that use ARs and can not manuever the map. It isn't a challenge. It's as if you put a dominate player with a bunch of grunts and expect it to be a fair fight.

343 wants to keep the servers how they are with the limitations at hand, stating that the quit rates are higher if the team balancer is removed. To my understanding, there is a banhammer for a reason for players who quit too many matches. Why now does 343 side with the teams that are quitting?
Ok let's remove the balancer and get everyone banned, that'll help the population...

Honestly if I solo queued into a game and the enemy team has full control on Viking while taking their sweet time with the objective I am going to leave whether I get banned or not and just play a different game.
You're going to leave and just play a different game if you don't get banned? You wouldn't just search again and play in a different match?

If I'm getting farmed or the other team can't/won't willingly win the game efficiently (not coring, not playing the objective, etc) I just leave and re-start a search.
If I didn't get banned I'd probably queue again for an arena playlist that has a healthy population and balanced/competitive settings, but he wants to remove the balancer which means: more frequent instances of leaving -> more people getting banned. The banhammer isn't a good motivator to keep people in the game which seems to be his argument justifying the removal of the balancer.

The population who would be getting stomped would either leave the playlist alienated or get banned...doesn't sound like a way to foster a healthy population.
So by your logic, banning players is inappropriate even though they decided to quit matches repetitively? Do you want to remove the banhammer from all playlists or only BTB?
You know whats worse for the population than getting banned? Not being able to play as a group, with friends because majority of Halo is trash players. This isn't my problem and I should be allowed to play with my friends.

Let them quit out, get banned and give my team the W.
munk07 wrote:
Heaviies wrote:
<p></p>
munk07 wrote:
eLantern wrote:
munk07 wrote:
Honestly don't know how to contribute to this post. Any to all suggestions seem to be shot down.
I thought your previous post that I responded to was a contribution. I wasn’t necessarily out to shoot down your ideas with my response. I was simply sharing my own thoughts based on yours. If you didn’t see any merit within my response feel free to respond in kind to what I shared.

This is all part of starting some dialogue and having a discussion on a subject. Give me reasons why you feel your suggestion was better or why mine isn’t as good. This is healthy and helpful as long as it remains civil.
Quote:
I would rather be demolished by Envore, than sitting for an hour in the lobby. What's the point of a game you can't play?
I’d rather not experience either. I’d like to see resources put toward fixing the obvious issues that exist within this game. I’d also like to see quality assurances maintained as best as possible; though, in special or specific circumstances I’d also be okay with some further loosening of those limits. I’ve said as much on several occasions already; in fact, my previous post (to Heavies) even touches on this very thing.
I did not quote you, nor relate you in any way. I wasn't only referring to my own statments but everyones conflicts in this forum. We are arguing to change opinions, but everyone is stubborn with their own ideas.
There are really good players, the average, the poor, and 343 arguing here.

The good players can't play as a team because they will landslide other teams. They have to play solo to allow another team to landslide their team. 343 wants them to lose some matches it seems.

Average players can play with a group after searching for a decent amount of time. (15 - 60 minutes) and play against decently equal teams or smurf accounts.

Poor players get to have a Fatal member on their team while being put against a full team of average players. I've played against the poor players that use ARs and can not manuever the map. It isn't a challenge. It's as if you put a dominate player with a bunch of grunts and expect it to be a fair fight.

343 wants to keep the servers how they are with the limitations at hand, stating that the quit rates are higher if the team balancer is removed. To my understanding, there is a banhammer for a reason for players who quit too many matches. Why now does 343 side with the teams that are quitting?
Ok let's remove the balancer and get everyone banned, that'll help the population...

Honestly if I solo queued into a game and the enemy team has full control on Viking while taking their sweet time with the objective I am going to leave whether I get banned or not and just play a different game.
You're going to leave and just play a different game if you don't get banned? You wouldn't just search again and play in a different match?

If I'm getting farmed or the other team can't/won't willingly win the game efficiently (not coring, not playing the objective, etc) I just leave and re-start a search.
If I didn't get banned I'd probably queue again for an arena playlist that has a healthy population and balanced/competitive settings, but he wants to remove the balancer which means: more frequent instances of leaving -> more people getting banned. The banhammer isn't a good motivator to keep people in the game which seems to be his argument justifying the removal of the balancer.

The population who would be getting stomped would either leave the playlist alienated or get banned...doesn't sound like a way to foster a healthy population.
So by your logic, banning players is inappropriate even though they decided to quit matches repetitively? Do you want to remove the banhammer from all playlists or only BTB?
You know whats worse for the population than getting banned? Not being able to play as a group, with friends because majority of Halo is trash players. This isn't my problem and I should be allowed to play with my friends.

Let them quit out, get banned and give my team the W.
No, your proposed solution benefits you (which you say yourself is the minority) and would spur the majority of players to leave more matches therefore getting banned. The banhammer is fine but let's not encourage it to be used more. I am just saying that we need to find a different solution.

Your mindset is shared by most of the sweaty BTB players and is really selfish, condescending, and plain toxic to the community as a whole. You don't seem to realize that in the long run your solution would destroy the population even further.

Even I would "benefit" from your solution due to my skill level, but it should be our responsibility to look after the health of the Halo ecosystem, not fracture it.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post inappropriate content.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not repost content a moderator has removed, repost a topic that has been locked, or post about forum moderation decisions. If you have a question or concern about a forum moderation decision, please private message the applicable moderator.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
fvmilivr wrote:
  • CTF and Assault are too common, when playing btb 90% of the time they are all you play. If Slayer was more common i feel like it would be more fun to play without having to worry about objectives.
The current breakdown between modes is fairly well balanced within the playlist; though, I think it could be better.

The current mode representation:
  • CTF = 9. You have an ~31% chance of playing CTF.
  • Slayer = 8. You have an ~28% chance of playing Slayer.
  • Neutral Bomb (Assault) = 7. You have an ~24% chance of playing Assault.
  • Strongholds = 5. You have an ~17% chance of playing Strongholds.
I'd like to see each mode equally represented.
Quote:
  • Strongholds doesn't really work for BTB. It isn't fun to play and having 16 players all swarm to different objectives just to stand in them is just chaotic and messy.
Disagree. I think Strongholds works just fine for BTB and is quite fun; though, the map's design is important.

Also, unlike KotH where you literally have to remain within the territory to continue accruing points Strongholds you only have to remain within the territory for the time it takes to initially capture it; otherwise, you are free to leave it as it remains in your control without your continued presence.

However, you may need to pop back into it in order to contest it if an opponent is trying to capture it. And if they leave or die without capturing it your momentary presence will immediately reset their progress. It really isn't that chaotic or messy, but if your team isn't coordinated whatsoever while facing one that is I'm sure it could possibly feel that way.
I think you should get more xp from games, especially if your trying to get max level,
more open field maps, maps with not a lot of structures
the weapons are good maybe, put some power ups and vehicles are good
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 11
  4. 12
  5. 13
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. ...
  9. 49