Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

Big Team Battle Refresh Feedback

OP ZaedynFel

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 6
  4. 7
  5. 8
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. ...
  9. 27
BTB is what got me hooked on Halo back in the day so I am pleased that 343 is finally giving it the love it deserves. For warthog (and ghost) play, I find Scavenger to be the best simply because you can up to full speed for some time and there are many roads/routes you can drive on while dipping and twisting thus reducing your death rate (driver and gunner) compared to other maps where there simply isn't any vehicle flow such as Port Authority and Traffic Jam. Therefore, any legacy or forge maps similar to Scavenger with multiple and interesting ways to drive the roadways would be ideal.
Volize wrote:
Sypriz wrote:
I think that may be fine include the phaeton, the rest is perfect.
the Phaeton would be OP when teams get it, like how the wasp was and is. I think the wasp is fine in BTB, but the Phaeton would be too much
Agree with you here. The Phaeton would be too much to add to BTB... way too powerful if you ask me.
maybe in customs with friends, but multi player is too much
In my opinion....replace H5br with H2br, Throw all of the old BTB maps back in rotation and add 1 unit of gravity to the ground vehicles so they don't flip when hitting a pebble or a spartan.
eLantern wrote:
ZaedynFel wrote:
I can look into starting w/, e.g., 7v7, but we haven't tried that in a long time, so it would require extensive testing first to make sure it still works the way we expect it to after all the changes since we last used it. That amount of testing alone might be hard given current resources on Infinite.
This. I thought this feature was something phased out long ago. I welcomed the ability for matches to start as even teams down 1 player from max. I remember the old days where 4v4 matches could start 3v3, even though join-in-progress wasn't something we had back in the H2/H3 days.

A lot of the BTB Matchmaking problems that deters people is the 15/16 issue explained. I'm sure more people would be welcome of it dropping 1 person to start the match 7v7, just so it gets the game going and prevents players from waiting 5 minutes for it to error out and potentially repeat the process again. Just ensure if it works that there's no way for the same person to repeatedly get dropped out of a search to balance the teams at 7v7. If the forced drop happens at like the 3 or 4 minute mark that'd even cut back on times even if you were dropped from the first search because rarely do I play and get into a match without a couple failed searches beforehand.
And what if there's no solo players within the lobby? Forcing someone to be dropped who's in a fireteam could lead to the whole fireteam backing out.

And if there is/are solo players, what if dropping one of them throws the team balance way out of wack? In other words, outside the acceptable standards.

Plus, getting dropped by the system can be very frustrating and it may discourage players from wanting to bother continuing to search or play the game.

I'm not outright hating on this idea, but I just want to make sure any unintended consequences are thoroughly thought through relating towards it.

If we're accepting of match odds going beyond the 61:39 limit with a dropped player why not consider allowing the odds to expand a bit more under the "15/16 issue" to help fill that remaining spot by adding a player instead of dropping a player? This is would be more beneficial overall in my opinion.

I don't necessarily like allowing the system to go beyond the 61:39 limit, but it probably would be better than the search timing out. And I'd rather see it occurring by adding someone rather than dropping someone. Or, perhaps the system could choice between the two options based on what allows a more balanced match to occur that's outside the typical 61:39 restriction, but dropping players does still run the risk of players losing interest with the game -- even if not to the same degree of searches timing out.
Because the system knows before placement which players will be on which teams. We just can't physically see that. This means the system can quickly tell what the percentage matchups would be after the specific player is dropped to make it 7v7.

And to be honest, yes, there would be a few edge cases, but at the least, you're talking about an 8v7 scenario dropping to a 7v7 if there's a random to drop from the team of 8. This would FURTHER BALANCE the game more often than not, simply because one team is losing a physical player altogether to make the physical players on each side match. I extremely doubt the win/loss chance to expand further after dropping a player. It would literally make the chances closer to 50/50, 90% of the time.

The edge cases would be teams of 7 finding randoms, but realistically, decent teams of 6+ running don't run into teams of randoms that are decent enough to hold their own, let alone the matchmaking system even allow it most of the time. What would need to happen is similar to work well would need to include checks for:

[Lobby Check]
  • Is Lobby at 15/16 players?
  • Is teams configured to 8v7?
  • Is teams with 8 players have a random player?
  • Is Lobby wait time >4 minutes?
[Player(s) Check] @ 4 minutes
  • Check random players for:
  • -has potential player already been dropped in last lobby search?
  • -will player to be dropped affect win/loss rate negatively? (Outside 60/40)[rarely]
Basically a player that was dropped wouldn't be re-dropped until a match is completed. Still beats going through 2 5-minute searches that fail.
DaxSeven09 wrote:
I assume this has been mentioned, but just in case. I apologize for the redundancy if it has. I have not had a chance to read the whole thread.

Remove some of the anti vehicle weapons. Some maps have combinations of two Snipers, a Spartan Laser, two Plasma Pistols, Rail Gun, and a Hydra. That's too many options which, in higher tiered play, make the vehicles obsolete.

For example Viking: remove Spartan Laser, have only one PP and one Sniper, and maybe even one Banshee.

Basically thin out the vehicles themselves on the anti vehicle weapons, add Pistol starts and we're good to go.

I would say remove the SL from all maps. It's too easy to destroy vehicles with them.
Taking out the laser would be dangerous on Viking UNLESS they thinned out the vehicles. I have always wanted spawns for banshees, ghosts, tanks, wraiths, and wasps to be equidistant from home-base spawns so they could be contested and limited to one per map so one team cannot control multiple vehicles of the same type (both banshees on Viking, both wasps on Dispelled, etc.)

The game should not be decided on a single instance of acquisition, just as Team Arena games aren't decided by who gets a powerup first.
DaxSeven09 wrote:
I assume this has been mentioned, but just in case. I apologize for the redundancy if it has. I have not had a chance to read the whole thread.

Remove some of the anti vehicle weapons. Some maps have combinations of two Snipers, a Spartan Laser, two Plasma Pistols, Rail Gun, and a Hydra. That's too many options which, in higher tiered play, make the vehicles obsolete.

For example Viking: remove Spartan Laser, have only one PP and one Sniper, and maybe even one Banshee.

Basically thin out the vehicles themselves on the anti vehicle weapons, add Pistol starts and we're good to go.

I would say remove the SL from all maps. It's too easy to destroy vehicles with them.
Taking out the laser would be dangerous on Viking UNLESS they thinned out the vehicles. I have always wanted spawns for banshees, ghosts, tanks, wraiths, and wasps to be equidistant from home-base spawns so they could be contested and limited to one per map so one team cannot control multiple vehicles of the same type (both banshees on Viking, both wasps on Dispelled, etc.)

The game should not be decided on a single instance of acquisition, just as Team Arena games aren't decided by who gets a powerup first.
I really like the idea of using team-based shields to prevent opposing teams from being able to leave specific areas where a particular team's vehicle spawns. At least the most impactful vehicles. In my opinion, this greatly helps matches from snowballing out of competitive balance.

For example, I believe it's within the custom map Avalanche where the forger was able to create a small room within the bases where the Wasps spawn and set it up with team-based shields such that only team members from that particular base can leave with their aerial vehicle. Now, for powerful vehicles that can be hijacked opposing team members could strategically camp outside a protected area and attempt to steal them once they leave the confines of the protected room, but there's quite a lot of risk involved with that goal which would probably mitigate it from occurring too often.

Now take a few existing maps within the BTB playlist that feature some heavier vehicle use like Dispelled and Viking; plus, Altar could easily be setup for heavy vehicle use too.

Maybe Dispelled could be updated such that the large bottom entrances into the bases were partitioned in order to allow the Tanks to spawn in a mostly team protected area. Meaning only members of that team could leave the confined area with that powerful vehicle. Something similar might be able to be created for the Wasps on top of the base too, but that'd probably require a bit more redesigning.

On Viking the walls behind the bases could possess caves that house the more powerful vehicles like the Gauss Hogs (maybe), Wraiths, & Banshees. This would help prevent the opposing team from easily stealing them and snowballing a match; plus, it would open up some new fairly protected areas for spawning. These cave areas would need to be accessible by the opposing team, but the team-based shields would still prevent opposing team members from being able to leave that enclosed area with those vehicles.

Altar has those underground spaces behind the bases which could potentially be made to house protected heavy vehicles for each team. Of course all of these ideas come at a cost to the map's budget and I'm pretty certain many of these maps are already balancing a fine line on performance to their budgetary cost. Nevertheless, this is the kind of idea that I like seeing that helps prevent matches from easily snowballing.
eLantern wrote:
I really like the idea of using team-based shields to prevent opposing teams from being able to enter specific areas where a particular team's vehicles spawn. At least the most impactful vehicles. In my opinion, this greatly helps matches from snowballing out of competitive balance.
I think it has positives and negatives. With shielding, you block off a part of the base and that can affect the game unless the map is altered. Using your Dispelled example, blocking off the bottom part would remove two potential entrances for objective games and would only leave two predictable top entrances which also make Warthog runs harder and more exposed. It would help a little with the game not snowballing sooner, but if a team was getting stomped, chances are the vehicle shielding is only delaying the inevitable. I think it could also lead to people camping in the shield when that happens as well which would make the game drag on longer (that's where I would go). Putting in a soft kill zone might help, but death can be avoided if done right.
LUKEPOWA wrote:
eLantern wrote:
I really like the idea of using team-based shields to prevent opposing teams from being able to enter specific areas where a particular team's vehicles spawn. At least the most impactful vehicles. In my opinion, this greatly helps matches from snowballing out of competitive balance.
I think it has positives and negatives. With shielding, you block off a part of the base and that can affect the game unless the map is altered. Using your Dispelled example, blocking off the bottom part would remove two potential entrances for objective games and would only leave two predictable top entrances which also make Warthog runs harder and more exposed. It would help a little with the game not snowballing sooner, but if a team was getting stomped, chances are the vehicle shielding is only delaying the inevitable. I think it could also lead to people camping in the shield when that happens as well which would make the game drag on longer (that's where I would go). Putting in a soft kill zone might help, but death can be avoided if done right.
Just to clarify on the Dispelled example. I was suggesting that the bottom entrance be partitioned such that the lower entrance can still be entered by the opposing team. The way I was envisioning it the lower section would essentially be split nearly in half where one half featured the shielded door and the other didn't. Where the tank spawned with the shielded door in front of it you'd have the existing wall to the left side of the tank, but new walls would need to be put up to the right and behind it. These would effectively split the lower room into two rooms or perhaps better described like a specific garage for the tank and a wide hallway that featured the warthog. The room housing the tank would require a door or multiple door entrances for players to gain access to it including the opposing team if they so wished, but those opponents wouldn't be able to go anywhere with the tank if they got into it. They're just stuck within a tightly confined room. Like I said, with the layout design in my head opponents would still be able to access the lower base and head up either the left or right ramps, so the existing pathing wouldn't alter too much. Though the purpose of the alterations would be to protect the tank from would-be thieves. Wish I could draw you a picture as I think it'd be worth a thousand or more words trying to describe it.
eLantern wrote:
LUKEPOWA wrote:
eLantern wrote:
I really like the idea of using team-based shields to prevent opposing teams from being able to enter specific areas where a particular team's vehicles spawn. At least the most impactful vehicles. In my opinion, this greatly helps matches from snowballing out of competitive balance.
I think it has positives and negatives. With shielding, you block off a part of the base and that can affect the game unless the map is altered. Using your Dispelled example, blocking off the bottom part would remove two potential entrances for objective games and would only leave two predictable top entrances which also make Warthog runs harder and more exposed. It would help a little with the game not snowballing sooner, but if a team was getting stomped, chances are the vehicle shielding is only delaying the inevitable. I think it could also lead to people camping in the shield when that happens as well which would make the game drag on longer (that's where I would go). Putting in a soft kill zone might help, but death can be avoided if done right.
Just to clarify on the Dispelled example. I was suggesting that the bottom entrance be partitioned such that the lower entrance can still be entered by the opposing team. The way I was envisioning it the lower section would essentially be split nearly in half where one half featured the shielded door and the other didn't. Where the tank spawned with the shielded door in front of it you'd have the existing wall to the left side of the tank, but new walls would need to be put up to the right and behind it. These would effectively split the lower room into two rooms or perhaps better described like a specific garage for the tank and a wide hallway that featured the warthog. The room housing the tank would require a door or multiple door entrances for players to gain access to it including the opposing team if they so wished, but those opponents wouldn't be able to go anywhere with the tank if they got into it. They're just stuck within a tightly confined room. Like I said, with the layout design in my head opponents would still be able to access the lower base and head up either the left or right ramps, so the existing pathing wouldn't alter too much. Though the purpose of the alterations would be to protect the tank from would-be thieves. Wish I could draw you a picture as I think it'd be worth a thousand or more words trying to describe it.
To counter this point... if you made it over to the enemy base and stole their vehicle, why can’t players just be rewarded with the fact you did that. Now you have the upper hand. Part of the fun of playing balanced map control games is finding those imbalance that help your team or hinder your enemy. Don’t overthink this though, I understand there are random scenarios. However, the unpredictable game play that it brings make playing the same map more replay able.
D4rkDeath wrote:
eLantern wrote:
LUKEPOWA wrote:
eLantern wrote:
I really like the idea of using team-based shields to prevent opposing teams from being able to enter specific areas where a particular team's vehicles spawn. At least the most impactful vehicles. In my opinion, this greatly helps matches from snowballing out of competitive balance.
I think it has positives and negatives. With shielding, you block off a part of the base and that can affect the game unless the map is altered. Using your Dispelled example, blocking off the bottom part would remove two potential entrances for objective games and would only leave two predictable top entrances which also make Warthog runs harder and more exposed. It would help a little with the game not snowballing sooner, but if a team was getting stomped, chances are the vehicle shielding is only delaying the inevitable. I think it could also lead to people camping in the shield when that happens as well which would make the game drag on longer (that's where I would go). Putting in a soft kill zone might help, but death can be avoided if done right.
Just to clarify on the Dispelled example. I was suggesting that the bottom entrance be partitioned such that the lower entrance can still be entered by the opposing team. The way I was envisioning it the lower section would essentially be split nearly in half where one half featured the shielded door and the other didn't. Where the tank spawned with the shielded door in front of it you'd have the existing wall to the left side of the tank, but new walls would need to be put up to the right and behind it. These would effectively split the lower room into two rooms or perhaps better described like a specific garage for the tank and a wide hallway that featured the warthog. The room housing the tank would require a door or multiple door entrances for players to gain access to it including the opposing team if they so wished, but those opponents wouldn't be able to go anywhere with the tank if they got into it. They're just stuck within a tightly confined room. Like I said, with the layout design in my head opponents would still be able to access the lower base and head up either the left or right ramps, so the existing pathing wouldn't alter too much. Though the purpose of the alterations would be to protect the tank from would-be thieves. Wish I could draw you a picture as I think it'd be worth a thousand or more words trying to describe it.
To counter this point... if you made it over to the enemy base and stole their vehicle, why can’t players just be rewarded with the fact you did that. Now you have the upper hand. Part of the fun of playing balanced map control games is finding those imbalance that help your team or hinder your enemy. Don’t overthink this though, I understand there are random scenarios. However, the unpredictable game play that it brings make playing the same map more replay able.
I fully understand that perspective, but I think it’s important to consider this from the matchmaking side. And within a matchmaking game you are often dealing with teams that are not all that well coordinated as many players either choose not to communicate or they’re only communicating with a select few people within a party.

Restricting the critically impactful vehicles that are intended for each team from being stolen, or easily stolen, the likelihood of that match snowballing into a blowout is effectively reduced. Matches where the impact vehicles become controlled by only one team will often lead to blow outs and motivate individuals to quit the match. Those types of outcomes are not ideal as they don’t assist toward player retention within the playlist.

With that said, crafty players could still hijack particular vehicles, cripple the somewhat protected ones, and steal the less lethal/impactful vehicles, so some of what you refer to is still very much possible.

Lastly, these maps could be allowed to play differently within custom matches or the Big Team Super Fiesta playlist by removing those team-based shield doors intended to prevent easy steals of the truly impactful vehicles meant for a particular team. Then all the things you mentioned would be possible. And within the custom matches there’d be a much higher likelihood of both teams possessing members in full communication to deal with the theifs and within BTSF people are more likely to have the weaponry at hand to deal with the stolen vehicle.
eLantern wrote:
D4rkDeath wrote:
eLantern wrote:
LUKEPOWA wrote:
eLantern wrote:
I really like the idea of using team-based shields to prevent opposing teams from being able to enter specific areas where a particular team's vehicles spawn. At least the most impactful vehicles. In my opinion, this greatly helps matches from snowballing out of competitive balance.
I think it has positives and negatives. With shielding, you block off a part of the base and that can affect the game unless the map is altered. Using your Dispelled example, blocking off the bottom part would remove two potential entrances for objective games and would only leave two predictable top entrances which also make Warthog runs harder and more exposed. It would help a little with the game not snowballing sooner, but if a team was getting stomped, chances are the vehicle shielding is only delaying the inevitable. I think it could also lead to people camping in the shield when that happens as well which would make the game drag on longer (that's where I would go). Putting in a soft kill zone might help, but death can be avoided if done right.
Just to clarify on the Dispelled example. I was suggesting that the bottom entrance be partitioned such that the lower entrance can still be entered by the opposing team. The way I was envisioning it the lower section would essentially be split nearly in half where one half featured the shielded door and the other didn't. Where the tank spawned with the shielded door in front of it you'd have the existing wall to the left side of the tank, but new walls would need to be put up to the right and behind it. These would effectively split the lower room into two rooms or perhaps better described like a specific garage for the tank and a wide hallway that featured the warthog. The room housing the tank would require a door or multiple door entrances for players to gain access to it including the opposing team if they so wished, but those opponents wouldn't be able to go anywhere with the tank if they got into it. They're just stuck within a tightly confined room. Like I said, with the layout design in my head opponents would still be able to access the lower base and head up either the left or right ramps, so the existing pathing wouldn't alter too much. Though the purpose of the alterations would be to protect the tank from would-be thieves. Wish I could draw you a picture as I think it'd be worth a thousand or more words trying to describe it.
To counter this point... if you made it over to the enemy base and stole their vehicle, why can’t players just be rewarded with the fact you did that. Now you have the upper hand. Part of the fun of playing balanced map control games is finding those imbalance that help your team or hinder your enemy. Don’t overthink this though, I understand there are random scenarios. However, the unpredictable game play that it brings make playing the same map more replay able.
I fully understand that, but I think it’s important to consider this from a matchmaking perspective. And within a matchmaking game you are often dealing with teams that are not all that well coordinated as many players either choose not to communicate or they’re only communicating with a select few people within a party.

Restricting the critically impactful vehicles that are intended for each team from being stolen, or easily stolen, the likelihood of that match snowballing into a blowout is effectively reduced. Matches where the impact vehicles become controlled by only one team will often lead to blow outs and motivate individuals to quit the match. Those types of outcomes are not ideal as they don’t assist toward player retention within the playlist.

With that said, crafty players could still hijack particular vehicles, cripple the somewhat protected ones, and steal the less lethal vehicles, so some of what you refer to is still possible.

Lastly, these maps could be allowed to play differently within custom matches by removing those team-based shield doors intended to prevent easy steals of the truly impactful vehicles meant for a particular team. Then all the things you mentioned would be possible and there’d be a much higher likelihood of both teams possessing members in full communication.
Of course I’m considering it from a matchmaking perspective. I just don’t agree, I still hold to my point. Most MM maps are actually incredibly balanced and I just believe that restricting things like that just takes away player options, especially on a symmetrical map. They fewer options players have, the more the match will be predictable and the faster it will become stale. I know not everyone shares this opinion and that’s okay! That’s why the maps vary across the playlist.
To respond to the prompts:

Magnum starts have always made the most sense in Halo 5. I think that is a consistent truth whether we are discussing social, ranked, BTB, or 4v4. As I understand it many of the BTB maps were tested successfully with Magnum starts before entering the playlist and were designed to do so. If there's any time to try it'd be now. Though I would have been much more active in this playlist had this change occurred sooner. I think it objectively the best choice if we ignore the popular aesthetics of the BR.

Although Warthog play can be frustrating for a gunner who is focused down (snipers can be a pain)--with a skillful driver fun can still be had. I actually like the maps most that focus primarily on warthog balance. Scavenger and Eagle Square for example. Ideally I think most BTB maps would prioritize a good intermingling of infantry and warthogs specifically.

Flying vehicles are poorly designed for BTB and ideally I would remove them all--but I find the Banshee particularity infuriating when driven by a skilled pilot who combos the bomb with the loop to savage ends--sometimes even spawn killing. It's not fun obviously. But it also doesn't feel like I have a chance which is frustrating--giving me a reason to find another playlist. Do NOT add Phaetons--please!

As for modes--I like slayer, strongholds, flag, and bomb all. I find bomb the most frustrating when playing solo specifically because often it turns into kill farming from both sides and the objective can be outright ignored. Flag can be similar. But i see no reason to remove any objectives.

Heavies is popular among some--NOT me. Dispelled and Ancestor already feel like heavies maps as is. If it is decided that Heavies MUST be a thing I would actually make other versions of all the maps which already have Wraiths, Mantises, Scorpions, Wasps, and Banshees WITHOUT those heavy vehicles and call the current versions Heavies perhaps with a little extra heavy sauce. That way there can be some balancing of the scales for those less interested in the mode: Heavies folk can fly around and tank around and I can enjoy Fracture without a Mantis and Echoes without something flying over head.

In conclusion, if all BTB maps could support warthogs and had a version without tanks or mechs or planes I'd be more happy to participate more often. If Magnum/AR became the loadout it might just become my main playlist.

I may add addition thoughts on some individual maps later, but I've been working a lot lately and want to make sure my take is fresh. The only map I can think of that I don't like outright is Ancestor. I wish Guillotine came up more often (does it no longer come up for strongholds?)
Vehicle gameplay: the amount of vehicles in Halo 5's BTB is too low. I'm basically pleading for more vehicles in BTB maps. Viking for example has a perfect amount of vehicles, and it is the only map where I wouldn't add any vehicles. Second best vehicle selection is on Altar, but it could be better with additional Wraith tanks that spawn behind both home bases.

BTB has never been about running around huge maps with just your weapon, of which Halo 5's BTB is mostly found quilty. There can obviously be too many vehicles in a map as well, which is also something to avoid, but some of these maps have way too few vehicles and are incorrectly designed and built from the start (no room for vehicle warfare to begin with). I'd be fine with a couple of infantry BTB maps, but I'm not fine with half of all BTB maps being like that.
Is it possible to make Weapons and Vehicles accessible to the team they are labeled under? As in, Blue Team couldn't get in the Red Tank?

This could prevent landslide matches for sure, but I don't know if it's possible not..
munk07 wrote:
Is it possible to make Weapons and Vehicles accessible to the team they are labeled under? As in, Blue Team couldn't get in the Red Tank?

This could prevent landslide matches for sure, but I don't know if it's possible not..
How do you feel about THIS idea?
I redid this post below.
If Heavies were to make it in (not my preference necessarily), what if that was how multiple loadouts could be included in the playlist. In other words, what if in Heavies players spawned with the Kinetic Bolt BR (or whatever the best variant proves to be) to combat the heavy and flying vehicles, but the Magnum was used for the more light vehicle focused maps (regular BTB)?
The only map I can think of that I don't like outright is Ancestor. I wish Guillotine came up more often (does it no longer come up for strongholds?)
At this time Guillotine is Slayer only, but I could see Strongholds returning. I have made some adjustments to Ancestor and the interior of the middle has seen some design changes. We will see how that continues to play out.
As much as I wanna see the tanks back in it can be a bit overpowering. Games ending with a scoreline of 100 to 12 if I'm on the winning team is a blast but flipped lol different story. I just want Vallaha more of it, please!
I was able to get a few of my teammates back into btb for a few games tonight. I gotta reiterate that the absolutely most crucial thing to fix is the lobby freezing and players dropping causing the mm to time out. Fixing that will do so much more to help the population than any refresh. I wish I could stream it and record for you just how bad it is. This isn’t a problem of matching poor players or Better. We matched a team for a few games and had 1 win 1 loss and 1 tie against them.(we actually had to invite a random player from the recent players list to fill the one spot that always sits empty in the mm screen while it idles so the game could load to match this team) Most of the games we played tonight were fairly even and good games. That we can all work with.

But what doesnt work for any of us is constantly freezing up and dropping out of lobbies. Then watching a mm screen for 5 minutes while an acceptable match according to the game auditors standards has been found will not load. This is absolutely crucial to this refresh. If this problem in matchmaking isn’t fixed any refresh will be like putting lipstick on a pig. I’m really looking forward to seeing what kind of magic you guys can pull off with btb. There is no other gaming experience even close to it. Good luck and I really hope it’s either fixed or a acceptable workaround that allows the game to load is found. Thanks.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 6
  4. 7
  5. 8
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. ...
  9. 27