Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

[Locked] Matchmaking Feedback Update – January 29

OP ZaedynFel

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5
Umm, I think Heroic WZFF is near the top more because it's way easier than Legendary than any other reason. Dealing with the "weapons being useless" issue really only benefits Legendary and Mythic.
No, it benefits anyone who plays WZFF. This is because people who only play on Heroic would also like their weapons to be remotely useful. Even on Heroic, almost all req weapons including Mythics can hardly kill a few Soldiers or Elites before they run out of ammo. So currently, they are far from useful compared to vehicles. In WZFF, no matter the difficulty, it is almost never a smart choice to call in a weapon when you could call in a vehicle.

It is frankly awful game design to have a mode that causes its players open req packs, look at all the cool supposedly "powerful" weapons, and then let them collect dust or sell them in the hopes of opening another pack and getting some vehicles instead. That is the nature of the problem. And I pointed out the fact that Heroic is near the top because fixing this problem would make life easier for many Halo 5 players, so 343 should be interested in doing something about it.
I suppose giving people the ability to reload their power weapons once or twice before having to req out a fresh power weapon might help a little, but nothing short of infinite ammo (or infinite req station reloads) is going to put power weapons on the same level as vehicles. And that would make Firefight a pushover mode.
How would putting weapons on the same level as vehicles make it a "pushover mode"? More importantly, no, giving them infinite ammo actually still would not put them on the same level as vehicles, because vehicles would still offer far more protection.

Not only that, but even if it made Heroic even easier, so what? As you said, people like it precisely because it's easier. I see nothing wrong with having easy firefight alongside Legendary and Mythic firefight. But, like I said, I strongly disagree that making weapons more useful in firefight, even to the point of them being equally as useful as vehicles, would cause Heroic to become a "pushover mode".

Regardless, firefight players should be able to open req packs and say "yay I got a Mythic weapon, I can't wait to use this!" just like PvP Warzone players can say. This problem needs to be solved, whether it causes Heroic firefight to become a "pushover mode" or not. Perhaps 343 could find a solution that wouldn't cause Heroic to become a "pushover mode", but either way, it needs to be solved. It's quite ridiculous that firefight players have to deal with their weapons being so pathetically useless compared to vehicles, especially since weapons drop so much more often from packs. It's just bad game design.
I think the reserve ammunition within firefight for REQ weapons needs be increased fairly significantly along with some altering of their REQ costs to better align the effectiveness of those REQ weapons to the REQ vehicles -- again this is specifically related to the firefight mode. It'd also be neat to see the Patrol Case Armor Mod boost the REQ weapon reserve ammunition in similar fashion to how it boosts loadout reserve ammunition -- specifically for the firefight environment. Those changes ought to address the issue at hand without necessarily creating new issues or undermining 343i's interest and desires with the overall REQ system.
RhysWX wrote:
Flame Sama wrote:
Still baffles me that Castle Wars is a permanent playlist.
Did they announce this?
It's not starred and it's placed in the middle of the social playlist pack so I just assumed it was.

EDIT: Just saw now that it isn't, I'm dumb.
I don’t know if you have any control of this, but I hear many want military ranks instead of gold, platinum, etc. Is there any reason not to add them in?
This x1000%! I want them back for Halo 6, it just honestly is a lot cooler to say something like I'm a two star Captain or Brigadier or something over, I'm Gold 5 or Diamond 6.... we are the UNSC right? ....AND it makes more sense lore wise too...and I know how you (343I) are all about your lore, right? Right!! ;)

Is there anything in the pipeline to do a BtB refresh?
It would definitely be nice, but I doubt it.

Any word on restoring Breakout to its former glory?
Hate to break it to you, but I don't think Breakout is going back... You might get a mix of old and new style, but that's about it I think. Also, I don't think the majority of people thought Breakout was ever glorious to begin with, hence why 343I changed it in the first place.
Perhaps I'm Naive, but I don't think a BtB refresh would be very difficult to do. Even cycling some of the older maps back into play would be fine to liven it up.

If it's a matter of testing, I'm sure there are teams out there that would be willing to host customs to get live data for the devs to use in determining whether a map is fair/balanced/unexploitable. There are some great BtB forge maps out there in the community. If the core QA team has moved onto testing H6, how about we get a community manager to recruit some members of the gaming community to help do some QA. Crowd sourcing can work here if we give it a chance.
I don’t know if you have any control of this, but I hear many want military ranks instead of gold, platinum, etc. Is there any reason not to add them in?
This x1000%! I want them back for Halo 6, it just honestly is a lot cooler to say something like I'm a two star Captain or Brigadier or something over, I'm Gold 5 or Diamond 6.... we are the UNSC right? ....AND it makes more sense lore wise too...and I know how you (343I) are all about your lore, right? Right!! ;)

Is there anything in the pipeline to do a BtB refresh?
It would definitely be nice, but I doubt it.

Any word on restoring Breakout to its former glory?
Hate to break it to you, but I don't think Breakout is going back... You might get a mix of old and new style, but that's about it I think. Also, I don't think the majority of people thought Breakout was ever glorious to begin with, hence why 343I changed it in the first place.
You're right that the majority did not like it. I think some of the changes made sense and it would be a huge improvement just to take out shotguns and radar. However, Grifball is consistently last in population but I still think it has a place in the playlist just as Breakout does since there is no other gametype like it.
I want to see a harsher plenty on people who quit out of ranked playlist. When I play 10 games and 7 of those games a team mate leaves 15 secs in it really screws that team over especially when most of those games end up being objective. I think it should be a 24 hour lockout from being able to play any ranked game types.
I want to see a harsher [edit: penalty] on people who quit out of ranked playlist. When I play 10 games and 7 of those games a team mate leaves 15 secs in it really screws that team over especially when most of those games end up being objective. I think it should be a 24 hour lockout from being able to play any ranked game types.
So someone should be punished because their dog tripped over the power cord on their Xbox? Or knocked over their internet router? Or their ISP had a power outage?
eLantern wrote:
I think the reserve ammunition within firefight for REQ weapons needs be increased fairly significantly along with some altering of their REQ costs to better align the effectiveness of those REQ weapons to the REQ vehicles -- again this is specifically related to the firefight mode(s). It'd also be neat to see the Patrol Case Armor Mod boost the REQ weapon reserve ammunition in similar fashion to how it boosts loadout reserve ammunition -- specifically for the firefight environment. Those changes ought to address the issue at hand without necessarily creating new issues or undermining 343i's interest and desires with the REQ system.
Those would also be lovely changes. I really hope 343 is at least considering fixing this issue with firefight in some way.
HCS settings in Doubles please.

Doubles is way too many low skilled kills.

The radar is probably the worst part. Doubles needs HCS radar to promote teamwork and movement. It’s soo easy for teams to know where each other are as it’s only 2v2.

This list is a lower population list. What’s the harm in testing new settings?
I want to see a harsher [edit: penalty] on people who quit out of ranked playlist. When I play 10 games and 7 of those games a team mate leaves 15 secs in it really screws that team over especially when most of those games end up being objective. I think it should be a 24 hour lockout from being able to play any ranked game types.
So someone should be punished because their dog tripped over the power cord on their Xbox? Or knocked over their internet router? Or their ISP had a power outage?
How is the system supposed to know whether the disconnect was accidental or on purpose? Should they have a questionnaire pop up after every disconnect asking “why did you quit?” and just run on the honor system?
I don’t know if you have any control of this, but I hear many want military ranks instead of gold, platinum, etc. Is there any reason not to add them in?
This x1000%! I want them back for Halo 6, it just honestly is a lot cooler to say something like I'm a two star Captain or Brigadier or something over, I'm Gold 5 or Diamond 6.... we are the UNSC right? ....AND it makes more sense lore wise too...and I know how you (343I) are all about your lore, right? Right!! ;)

Is there anything in the pipeline to do a BtB refresh?
It would definitely be nice, but I doubt it.

Any word on restoring Breakout to its former glory?
Hate to break it to you, but I don't think Breakout is going back... You might get a mix of old and new style, but that's about it I think. Also, I don't think the majority of people thought Breakout was ever glorious to begin with, hence why 343I changed it in the first place.
You're right that the majority did not like it. I think some of the changes made sense and it would be a huge improvement just to take out shotguns and radar. However, Grifball is consistently last in population but I still think it has a place in the playlist just as Breakout does since there is no other gametype like it.
Well, in my opinion, now that there is a custom browser, Griftball shouldn't have a playlist. Sure, put it in the rotational playlist every now and then, but other it should be a custom browser thing.

Breakout has to have it's own playlist still no matter how low it's population is because there are commendations linked to it. If 343I took it away, they would hear complaints from people how they can't get them now. 343I would have to offer some alternative way to get them if they did this.
Chimera30 wrote:
I want to see a harsher [edit: penalty] on people who quit out of ranked playlist. When I play 10 games and 7 of those games a team mate leaves 15 secs in it really screws that team over especially when most of those games end up being objective. I think it should be a 24 hour lockout from being able to play any ranked game types.
So someone should be punished because their dog tripped over the power cord on their Xbox? Or knocked over their internet router? Or their ISP had a power outage?
How is the system supposed to know whether the disconnect was accidental or on purpose? Should they have a questionnaire pop up after every disconnect asking “why did you quit?” and just run on the honor system?
You seemed to have missed my point entirely.

Such a drastic "punishment" for a scenario such as one I listed above (accidental disconnects) is excessive, and one I feel would drive away even more players.

And why wouldn't an honor system questionnaire work? People lie to get out of punishments, perceived or real, so if you take away the punishment, people would be more likely to open up truthfully about why they quit. Got disconnected by spotty Wi-Fi? Great! Hate this map? Great! Played the same team 3 times in a row and want a variety? Great!
Another alternative is to maybe require a confirmation that the player is ready. If a response isn't received within a set timeframe, kick that player back out to matchmaking.
Chimera30 wrote:
I want to see a harsher [edit: penalty] on people who quit out of ranked playlist. When I play 10 games and 7 of those games a team mate leaves 15 secs in it really screws that team over especially when most of those games end up being objective. I think it should be a 24 hour lockout from being able to play any ranked game types.
So someone should be punished because their dog tripped over the power cord on their Xbox? Or knocked over their internet router? Or their ISP had a power outage?
How is the system supposed to know whether the disconnect was accidental or on purpose? Should they have a questionnaire pop up after every disconnect asking “why did you quit?” and just run on the honor system?
You seemed to have missed my point entirely.

Such a drastic "punishment" for a scenario such as one I listed above (accidental disconnects) is excessive, and one I feel would drive away even more players.

And why wouldn't an honor system questionnaire work? People lie to get out of punishments, perceived or real, so if you take away the punishment, people would be more likely to open up truthfully about why they quit. Got disconnected by spotty Wi-Fi? Great! Hate this map? Great! Played the same team 3 times in a row and want a variety? Great!
Another alternative is to maybe require a confirmation that the player is ready. If a response isn't received within a set timeframe, kick that player back out to matchmaking.
I didn't miss your point. My point was that removing punishment to try and spare the accidents will just increase the prevalence of purposeful quitting/idling/etc.

How do you know that every person who complains about a ban due to accidental disconnect is telling the truth? Even if you personally have been affected by it, it doesn't mean everyone else who uses that excuse is truthful. That's why an honor system wouldn't work; because either you take away punishment entirely and maybe the quitters are honest about why they quit (but probably not) but it doesn't matter because no one gets punished, or you only take away punishment only for people who label it as accident and so the quitters just lie and say it was accidental to avoid a ban. In both cases, you have people who will abuse the system and quit for non-accidental reasons. Quitting because you hate a map or quitting because you don't want to play a certain set of people isn't "great" and shouldn't be encouraged; it puts the people you leave behind at a disadvantage. In a multiplayer game, this must be combatted. I don't think it's a valid reason to quit just because a map got selected you don't like. Even in previous games when voting/vetoing was around, someone would often end up playing a map that they weren't a huge fan of. So, what, you don't get the map you want you just quit? You see a certain group of people you don't want to play so you quit? How then do we stop people from dodging maps they may not play well on, or dodging players who are better than them, to try and fudge their stats or ranks? What should be done if that kind of behavior was accepted? Allow that match you left to continue and make the stats not count? End the match? Apply JIP to everything? None of those options are perfect, all of them have issues. Quit deterrents aren't perfect either, but they're the option that's easiest to implement while maintaining as much match integrity as possible. If the current amount of deterrent is ineffective, then increasing might have the desired effect. But how often are you experiencing accidents anyway? At a certain point, it seems like it stops being an accident and starts being a problem you need to investigate. If you lose connection once, sure maybe don't get banned for it. But twice or three times, maybe you need to check your connection, or put your dog outside, or whatever.

Asking for confirmation that a player is ready before continuing to search for a game sounds like a fine idea for helping to prevent accidental idling. Slightly better than just making people re-queue after every match.
Chimera30 wrote:
Chimera30 wrote:
I want to see a harsher [edit: penalty] on people who quit out of ranked playlist. When I play 10 games and 7 of those games a team mate leaves 15 secs in it really screws that team over especially when most of those games end up being objective. I think it should be a 24 hour lockout from being able to play any ranked game types.
So someone should be punished because their dog tripped over the power cord on their Xbox? Or knocked over their internet router? Or their ISP had a power outage?
How is the system supposed to know whether the disconnect was accidental or on purpose? Should they have a questionnaire pop up after every disconnect asking “why did you quit?” and just run on the honor system?
You seemed to have missed my point entirely.

Such a drastic "punishment" for a scenario such as one I listed above (accidental disconnects) is excessive, and one I feel would drive away even more players.

And why wouldn't an honor system questionnaire work? People lie to get out of punishments, perceived or real, so if you take away the punishment, people would be more likely to open up truthfully about why they quit. Got disconnected by spotty Wi-Fi? Great! Hate this map? Great! Played the same team 3 times in a row and want a variety? Great!
Another alternative is to maybe require a confirmation that the player is ready. If a response isn't received within a set timeframe, kick that player back out to matchmaking.
I didn't miss your point. My point was that removing punishment to try and spare the accidents will just increase the prevalence of purposeful quitting/idling/etc.

How do you know that every person who complains about a ban due to accidental disconnect is telling the truth? Even if you personally have been affected by it, it doesn't mean everyone else who uses that excuse is truthful. That's why an honor system wouldn't work; because either you take away punishment entirely and maybe the quitters are honest about why they quit (but probably not) but it doesn't matter because no one gets punished, or you only take away punishment only for people who label it as accident and so the quitters just lie and say it was accidental to avoid a ban. In both cases, you have people who will abuse the system and quit for non-accidental reasons. Quitting because you hate a map or quitting because you don't want to play a certain set of people isn't "great" and shouldn't be encouraged; it puts the people you leave behind at a disadvantage. In a multiplayer game, this must be combatted. I don't think it's a valid reason to quit just because a map got selected you don't like. Even in previous games when voting/vetoing was around, someone would often end up playing a map that they weren't a huge fan of. So, what, you don't get the map you want you just quit? You see a certain group of people you don't want to play so you quit? How then do we stop people from dodging maps they may not play well on, or dodging players who are better than them, to try and fudge their stats or ranks? What should be done if that kind of behavior was accepted? Allow that match you left to continue and make the stats not count? End the match? Apply JIP to everything? None of those options are perfect, all of them have issues. Quit deterrents aren't perfect either, but they're the option that's easiest to implement while maintaining as much match integrity as possible. If the current amount of deterrent is ineffective, then increasing might have the desired effect. But how often are you experiencing accidents anyway? At a certain point, it seems like it stops being an accident and starts being a problem you need to investigate. If you lose connection once, sure maybe don't get banned for it. But twice or three times, maybe you need to check your connection, or put your dog outside, or whatever.

Asking for confirmation that a player is ready before continuing to search for a game sounds like a fine idea for helping to prevent accidental idling. Slightly better than just making people re-queue after every match.
No, you've still missed my point, and even proved my point in the process of attacking my posts (i.e. "If you lose connection once, sure maybe don't get banned for it").

My point is that 24 hours is an excessive punishment, one that doesn't fit the "crime," even if the "crime" was accidental.

Since you seem to be a fan of punishment regardless of the reasons and not assuming good faith of others' actions until proven otherwise, how about just banning people every time they leave a match? That'll sure teach them a lesson, right? No, you're right, 24 hours is the perfect amount of time.
Ban times of 24 hours are only going to occur if you have have already received multiple bans prior to that, you never get banned for that length for just a single incident. That's a lot of times your dog needs to have been able to get behind your Xbox and pop the cable out or hit the button on the front.

Chimera wasn't "attacking" your post, he was countering your arguments
Chimera30 wrote:
Chimera30 wrote:
I want to see a harsher [edit: penalty] on people who quit out of ranked playlist. When I play 10 games and 7 of those games a team mate leaves 15 secs in it really screws that team over especially when most of those games end up being objective. I think it should be a 24 hour lockout from being able to play any ranked game types.
So someone should be punished because their dog tripped over the power cord on their Xbox? Or knocked over their internet router? Or their ISP had a power outage?
How is the system supposed to know whether the disconnect was accidental or on purpose? Should they have a questionnaire pop up after every disconnect asking “why did you quit?” and just run on the honor system?
No, you've still missed my point, and even proved my point in the process of attacking my posts (i.e. "If you lose connection once, sure maybe don't get banned for it").

My point is that 24 hours is an excessive punishment, one that doesn't fit the "crime," even if the "crime" was accidental.

Since you seem to be a fan of punishment regardless of the reasons and not assuming good faith of others' actions until proven otherwise, how about just banning people every time they leave a match? That'll sure teach them a lesson, right? No, you're right, 24 hours is the perfect amount of time.
To get a ban of 24 hours in Halo 5, you’ll need to have gotten several bans before. A 24 hour ban suggests a repeat offender. If you’ve got a 24 hour ban, you didn’t just lose your connection one time. I have little sympathy for a person who has accumulated enough bans to reach 24 hrs on their next one, even if that next one is triggered by an accident. If they hadn’t done all those other things that got them previous bans, then they could have had an accident and not worried about a 24 hr ban. And I don’t buy that someone who has reached the point of a 24 hr ban did so solely due to accidental, unintentional disconnects and DNFs.

We appear to have a fundamental difference in how we view the general population of the internet. I see no reason to automatically assume good faith in people when most bans I’ve seen investigated have ended up being the fault of the player. And despite the sarcasm in your post, you actually managed to describe how Halo 5 banhammer works. Sure, you may not get banned for your first leave, or even your second, but the system treats all DNFs the same, because it has to out of fairness. It can’t tell if a person disconnected because of a power outage or because they ripped out their Ethernet cord to try and prevent a loss on their record.

But, yeah, as a player who doesn’t believe in leaving matches that have already started, I wouldn’t mind a system that inacts a cooldown everytime you get a DNF. Out of all my Halo 5 games, I have maybe 3 DNFs, only one of which was an unintentional disconnect; I could have survived getting cooldowns for those, it would probably have amounted to less than an hour of total ban time. Maybe my tune would change if I was the kind of player who has more DNFs on his record, but I’m not, because I actively try not to be that sort of player. And I understand how real life can get in the way, but I do what I can to mitigate it interfering with multilayer game time: if I’m expecting a delivery of food in 10 min, I don’t queue up a game that may go over 10 min; if the phone rings, I’ll answer it and continue playing with the phone in the nook of my shoulder (or ignore the call if it’s not from someone important); if I gotta pee, I’ll do it quick so I’m not gone for over a minute; if I had a young child and was expecting unpredictable moments when I’d have to attend to them, I wouldn’t queue up a multiplayer game at all during such time when I might have to step away; and because I take these precautions, emergencies/accidents that occur that force me to end a game early happen so few and far between that they are negligible to my record. I never quit because I’m getting beat to bad; I never quit because I’m trying to preserve my stats; I never quit because I don’t like the map I’m on; and because I don’t quit for these reasons, I can afford when I disconnect due to a power outage or other accident.

stckrboy, if I could double like your post, I would. <3

edit: a 24 hr ban for a first time offense, accidental or intentional, would be ridiculous and shouldn’t be implemented. Luckily that’s not how the system works. I do think that, after a certain point, even accidents need to be punished.
A few opinions about the nature of bans:

  1. It's really nice that there's now a "soft forfeit" in ranked games, you can leave a game without extra penalty if someone has already quit and you're getting trounced.
  2. In social games, you don't have this option. You risk a penalty even if you're getting brutally farmed in WZ, and only have 4 players remaining on your team. Unless they make the banhammer logic more sensitive and don't penalize people quitting out of these egregious matches, it's important that we are allowed "occasional" DNFs without penalty.
  3. I think the penalty for leaving ranked games should be more severe than it is currently. I've been in SO many winnable games, we're down like 60-20 in a strongholds match but just need to get the next round of powerups and we can make a big comeback, yet one teammate is 1-5, getting wrecked, and he quits. Now the game is legit over, we have no comeback chances cause we're 3v4. There is literally zero acceptable reason to ever quit a game in a ranked playlist, unless some team is farming you in a flag game, or something. It's a ranked playlist, don't play it unless you're gonna work hard to try and win.
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
A few opinions about the nature of bans:

  1. ...
  2. In social games, you don't have this option. You risk a penalty even if you're getting brutally farmed in WZ, and only have 4 players remaining on your team. Unless they make the banhammer logic more sensitive and don't penalize people quitting out of these egregious matches, it's important that we are allowed "occasional" DNFs without penalty.
  3. ...
I thought the soft forfeit feature was in effect for social games too? Was it confirmed not to be and I missed that?
HCS settings in Doubles please.

Doubles is way too many low skilled kills.

The radar is probably the worst part. Doubles needs HCS radar to promote teamwork and movement. It’s soo easy for teams to know where each other are as it’s only 2v2.

This list is a lower population list. What’s the harm in testing new settings?
I don't think having HCS settings in doubles would be a good idea this late into the game. A lot of people don't like the different style of radar that the HCS uses to begin with. I always hear "it's a COD radar" and halo needs to separate it's self from COD, not be more like it. I don't really know though as I don't remember how cods radar works, as I stopped playing that series a very long time ago.

Some people might be more accepting of the HCS radar if it was the default radar off the bat, when doubles launch, but not now. Just look at the amount of blacklash the weapons tuning update has gotten from people. Most would be ok with it if it happen sooner, but because it happen so late in the game, a lot of people are not. HCS settings in other playlists will get the same response, I can guarantee it.

Doubles almost always has low population in every Halo because the nature of the playlist (4 players max) but it's a popular playlist.

Personally, i also think having two types of radars just confuses people. It's totally fine that HCS has it's own settings, but I'm talking the other modes. Not to mention, the radar has acted his way since Halo CE and people like how it plays. For Halo 5, I think HCS settings should stay in the HCS playlist.
eLantern wrote:
I thought the soft forfeit feature was in effect for social games too? Was it confirmed not to be and I missed that?
It's only for ranked because social has JIP.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5