Forums / Games / Halo: The Master Chief Collection (Xbox)

The Official Halo MCC "Why was I banned?" thread

OP stckrboy

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 31
  4. 32
  5. 33
  6. 34
  7. 35
  8. ...
  9. 43
TripOG wrote:
I have absolutely zero responsibility as a user to finish a game, or not betray, I paid for the game, I pay for Xbox live, I play how and when I want.
You paid for a license to play the game. The terms of that license are that 343 can suspend your play for breaking the Microsoft Code of Conduct. One of the defintions of violating that Code includes quitting, which is even listed it's own complaint that people can report players for. Xbox doesn't want you to quit, Microsoft doesn't want you to quit, and 343 doesn't want you to quit; if you do quit, you open yourself up to consequences. It's entirely within their right to apply quit bans.
TripOG wrote:
If 343 isn't going to fix this mess they created just refund my money, I will gladly accept a refund and give back the digital download.
If you want a refund, you'll have to contact the retailer you purchased the game from. If you got your digital game from Microsoft Store, Amazon, Gamestop, etc., then that store is the source you'll need to contact. Given how long you've had the game and how much you've played it, however, I don't think a refund is likely in your case. That's entirely up to the retailer, though.
There's need to be some sort of ban system for those who like to get out of maps as a party constantly in matchmaking, only to abuse or to have fun while the enemies are completely screwed. At least, make it so when they leave the scenarie they're instantly "killed by the guardians".

Note that this issue includes but isn't limited to these Halo 2 Classic maps: Zanzibar (with a jump), Backwash, Terminal (with the Overshield and the train), Headlong (with the Banshee) and Sanctuary (somehow by climbing up the waterfall or doing a superjump, I certainly don't know exactly). Despite the fact that the other maps can be glitched too, they usually need specific vehicles (such as the Spectre) or enemies+allies teamwork, which hardly ever happens in matchmaking.

On the other hand, I'd like to suggest kicking and/or banning people from multiplayer while being AFK in matches.
Chimera30 wrote:
TripOG wrote:
I have absolutely zero responsibility as a user to finish a game, or not betray, I paid for the game, I pay for Xbox live, I play how and when I want.
You paid for a license to play the game. The terms of that license are that 343 can suspend your play for breaking the Microsoft Code of Conduct. One of the defintions of violating that Code includes quitting, which is even listed it's own complaint that people can report players for. Xbox doesn't want you to quit, Microsoft doesn't want you to quit, and 343 doesn't want you to quit; if you do quit, you open yourself up to consequences. It's entirely within their right to apply quit bans.
TripOG wrote:
If 343 isn't going to fix this mess they created just refund my money, I will gladly accept a refund and give back the digital download.
If you want a refund, you'll have to contact the retailer you purchased the game from. If you got your digital game from Microsoft Store, Amazon, Gamestop, etc., then that store is the source you'll need to contact. Given how long you've had the game and how much you've played it, however, I don't think a refund is likely in your case. That's entirely up to the retailer, though.
i paid for a license because it was marketed as being the original game mechanics not this bastardized version of them. Which is a huge problem with games now that you can just release updates which totally changes what i original paid for.
TripOG wrote:
i paid for a license because it was marketed as being the original game mechanics not this bastardized version of them. Which is a huge problem with games now that you can just release updates which totally changes what i original paid for.
This is a unique attitude. You never want the game to be updated? As the popularity of the internet grew updates for games became the norm. It's an expected thing, to the point where a large number of users complain when updates aren't frequent enough or to the scale they were in. This is the norm (and I guarantee the agreement you okayed without reading through it allows for it.) If you want to live in a world without updates you can always choose to go offline. I personally enjoy new content. I enjoy seeing things fixed. The ban system was reworked to address a problem. The update is an attempt to minimize that problem. Now I realize that you are trying your best to make it seem as if the behavior your defending is okay, but it isn't. There are certain expectations that come with any social interaction. For Halo multiplayer 'don't quit, don't grief, don't idle' etc. Are on those lists. The current rework address the first problem of those three. Ideally they will address the last at some point soon.
TripOG wrote:
i paid for a license because it was marketed as being the original game mechanics not this bastardized version of them. Which is a huge problem with games now that you can just release updates which totally changes what i original paid for.
This is a unique attitude. You never want the game to be updated? As the popularity of the internet grew updates for games became the norm. It's an expected thing, to the point where a large number of users complain when updates aren't frequent enough or to the scale they were in. This is the norm (and I guarantee the agreement you okayed without reading through it allows for it.) If you want to live in a world without updates you can always choose to go offline. I personally enjoy new content. I enjoy seeing things fixed. The ban system was reworked to address a problem. The update is an attempt to minimize that problem. Now I realize that you are trying your best to make it seem as if the behavior your defending is okay, but it isn't. There are certain expectations that come with any social interaction. For Halo multiplayer 'don't quit, don't grief, don't idle' etc. Are on those lists. The current rework address the first problem of those three. Ideally they will address the last at some point soon.
Maybe some day the ban system could work for people who accidentally kill themselves or others (it is pretty easy to do that on Halo CE). As for the constant updates, I feel (my opinion) that there are far too many updates that have 15Gb or more in them because this drains space and for people with a good gaming connection, but not a good download speed. People are constantly having to buy external storage devices which never used to happen and shouldn’t have to happen now, games get bigger and so should the storage of the consoles (I apologize for going off topic but I couldn’t just plain not respond to the update talk).
TripOG wrote:
i paid for a license because it was marketed as being the original game mechanics not this bastardized version of them. Which is a huge problem with games now that you can just release updates which totally changes what i original paid for.
This is a unique attitude. You never want the game to be updated? As the popularity of the internet grew updates for games became the norm. It's an expected thing, to the point where a large number of users complain when updates aren't frequent enough or to the scale they were in. This is the norm (and I guarantee the agreement you okayed without reading through it allows for it.) If you want to live in a world without updates you can always choose to go offline. I personally enjoy new content. I enjoy seeing things fixed. The ban system was reworked to address a problem. The update is an attempt to minimize that problem. Now I realize that you are trying your best to make it seem as if the behavior your defending is okay, but it isn't. There are certain expectations that come with any social interaction. For Halo multiplayer 'don't quit, don't grief, don't idle' etc. Are on those lists. The current rework address the first problem of those three. Ideally they will address the last at some point soon.
Maybe some day the ban system could work for people who accidentally kill themselves or others (it is pretty easy to do that on Halo CE). As for the constant updates, I feel (my opinion) that there are far too many updates that have 15Gb or more in them because this drains space and for people with a good gaming connection, but not a good download speed. People are constantly having to buy external storage devices which never used to happen and shouldn’t have to happen now, games get bigger and so should the storage of the consoles (I apologize for going off topic but I couldn’t just plain not respond to the update talk).
Many of the updates we get aren't actually 'additional' size, but instead replace some of the existing size.
I see where you are coming from, and I agree to a point. There certainly are updates that add to the overall size.
But just because an update says it's 15 or 20 gigs, doesn't mean the end product of the game on your console will be that much bigger.
TripOG wrote:
i paid for a license because it was marketed as being the original game mechanics not this bastardized version of them. Which is a huge problem with games now that you can just release updates which totally changes what i original paid for.
This is a unique attitude. You never want the game to be updated? As the popularity of the internet grew updates for games became the norm. It's an expected thing, to the point where a large number of users complain when updates aren't frequent enough or to the scale they were in. This is the norm (and I guarantee the agreement you okayed without reading through it allows for it.) If you want to live in a world without updates you can always choose to go offline. I personally enjoy new content. I enjoy seeing things fixed. The ban system was reworked to address a problem. The update is an attempt to minimize that problem. Now I realize that you are trying your best to make it seem as if the behavior your defending is okay, but it isn't. There are certain expectations that come with any social interaction. For Halo multiplayer 'don't quit, don't grief, don't idle' etc. Are on those lists. The current rework address the first problem of those three. Ideally they will address the last at some point soon.
i dont have an issue with updates that fix broken things like the original mcc game which you couldnt even use multiplayer but imo halo didnt need a ban system like this. halo mcc was marketed as being the original games plus optionally a few updated graphics, which would mean that super jumps, aim, controller schemes, ban system, and whatever would remain as it was when the games were originally released. xbox live has a system in place to report and ban toxic players if needed, changing halo to implement this ban system that bans even innocent players is garbage. youre banning players who are doing things that was built into the game, the game was designed for this stuff to happen, if it was against rules and devs didnt want people to be able do it then it should of never been built into the game. so once again keep halo original, leave policing to users and the xbox report feature.

edit to clear things up a little i do still have an issue with updates that are required to fix things because games are released broken, i remember when xbox first game out microsoft said that the harddrive and internet would not be used as a way for games to be released broken and fixed later, yet that is exactly what has happened over the years. which leads me to the point, with you guys continuing to change these original games and remove things/ ban people eventually games are just going to turn into movies like bandersnatch where you only have a few choices with no actual game play.
TripOG wrote:
i dont have an issue with updates that fix broken things like the original mcc game
Then you're okay with the ban system. The lack of one was broken. Now it's partially fixed.

TripOG wrote:
which you couldnt even use multiplayer
There was a point where it wasn't functioning well, but 'couldn't even use multiplayer' is hyperbole at best.

TripOG wrote:
but imo halo didnt need a ban system like this. halo mcc was marketed as being the original games plus optionally a few updated graphics, which would mean that super jumps, aim, controller schemes, ban system, and whatever would remain as it was when the games were originally released. xbox live has a system in place to report and ban toxic players if needed, changing halo to implement this ban system that bans even innocent players is garbage
If you're getting banned, you aren't innocent. You've done something you weren't supposed to do. You may thing you've justified your actions, but that doesn't change the fact that you did something that violated the rules of matchmaking.

TripOG wrote:
. youre banning players who are doing things that was built into the game,
I think you misunderstand who I am and what I can do. I don't ban people from the games. I don't have or really want that power. I don't work for 343. I haven't set up anything. 343 set up a system that deals with matchmaking misconduct.

TripOG wrote:
the game was designed for this stuff to happen, if it was against rules and devs didnt want people to be able do it then it should of never been built into the game. so once again keep halo original, leave policing to users and the xbox report feature.
People are allowed to quit. There are consequences for their actions. This is essentially an unlocked door argument. 'If you didn't want your car stolen you should have remembered to lock your door.' The real world doesn't work that way. You are always responsible for your actions and should always face the consequences of them.
There was a point where it wasn't functioning well, but 'couldn't even use multiplayer' is hyperbole at best.
I can't take you serious if you actually believe this, it was literally unusable.
TripOG wrote:
There was a point where it wasn't functioning well, but 'couldn't even use multiplayer' is hyperbole at best.
I can't take you serious if you actually believe this, it was literally unusable.
My first MCC match was 6 vs 2 team slayer on epitaph. The game had issues, claiming it was impossible to play is an overstatement. But this is just another red herring you're trying to throw out. Nothing changes the facts. Quitting is against matchmaking rules. You know you aren't supposed to quit. If you do there are consequences. Focus on the misconduct instead of trying to distract from your specious argument.
Chimera30 wrote:
TripOG wrote:
I have absolutely zero responsibility as a user to finish a game, or not betray, I paid for the game, I pay for Xbox live, I play how and when I want.
You paid for a license to play the game. The terms of that license are that 343 can suspend your play for breaking the Microsoft Code of Conduct. One of the defintions of violating that Code includes quitting, which is even listed it's own complaint that people can report players for. Xbox doesn't want you to quit, Microsoft doesn't want you to quit, and 343 doesn't want you to quit; if you do quit, you open yourself up to consequences. It's entirely within their right to apply quit bans.
HAHAHAHAHAHA 343 should really bring that up in their next marketing slogan, see how many happy customers they get. You can't seriously mean what you said there. We pay around 60 euro's/dollars for an FULL game, that means the social multiplayer experience as well. XBOX Live is an extra 40-60 per year as well for the continued online experience. You don't tell an customer you bought a 'license' when it should be an finished and working product (which it was not at release). It's a -yoink- COPY! nothing more. You and Hermit are trying to make it sound as if MCC is a service and not a product. This is not the case however. I own an copy and so does Trip. Whe can do what we want with it. And if the multiplayer experience stands in the way of free will, than that should be the adressed flaw and not the quitters/afks etc. Did Bungie tell us we owned a license? Nope, because it's simply not true. Did the players make an 33 pages long post on Bungie's forums about the banning system? Nope, because it worked. And since Trip and the others brought it up, you should really look back to the old days. Doesn't matter if the gaming industry has changed. Gaming was so much more 'social' when you played with your friends at home or connected through XBOX Live. These days, kids like to stream their games for earning money and stuff, nothing social about it. So you tell me which time was better?

TripOG wrote:
i paid for a license because it was marketed as being the original game mechanics not this bastardized version of them. Which is a huge problem with games now that you can just release updates which totally changes what i original paid for.
This is a unique attitude. You never want the game to be updated? As the popularity of the internet grew updates for games became the norm. It's an expected thing, to the point where a large number of users complain when updates aren't frequent enough or to the scale they were in. This is the norm (and I guarantee the agreement you okayed without reading through it allows for it.) If you want to live in a world without updates you can always choose to go offline. I personally enjoy new content. I enjoy seeing things fixed. The ban system was reworked to address a problem. The update is an attempt to minimize that problem. Now I realize that you are trying your best to make it seem as if the behavior your defending is okay, but it isn't. There are certain expectations that come with any social interaction. For Halo multiplayer 'don't quit, don't grief, don't idle' etc. Are on those lists. The current rework address the first problem of those three. Ideally they will address the last at some point soon.
This is a unique attitude considering MCC NEEDED to be fixed. You can't seriously deny the fact that MCC was broken and that the updates had to save it. If not, whe wouldn't be even talking here. So 343 should always consider that if they made statements like this. See when a customer buys something broken, they usually demand a compensation or refund. In this case, 343 fixed most parts of the game, but that doesn't mean they can decide how players are gonna play. The nerve of them doing this is already infuriating and you're trying to tell us what that updates aren't normal for an 60 eu/dollar game? ESPECIALLY MCC?????
Trip's attitude is completely justified in terms of his own rights and the 'norm' of this time.

By the way, I don't see other dev's that charge extra for updates or patches which fix or even add to the game (Square does it, AND EVEN EA WITH FRICKIN BATTLEFRONT 2! LOOK HOW MANY POSITIVE REACTIONS COME FROM THERE AND GUESS WHAT?? NO BANS WHY DON'T YOU THINK ABOUT THAT, so try and prove me wrong)

Oh and this: 'There are certain expectations that come with any social interaction.' SINCE WHEN? look up vids of people playing old multiplayer games like COD MW2, see if their 'interactions' are so kind and friendly as here. And by the way quitting/afkíng are not interactions, they are the definition of doing the exact opposite. And still we view the old days as more social. Laughed so hard at reading this.

And honestly, I don't even know what monitors do here, but you are definitely not here for having a non-biased discussion.

Oh and just so you know, I quit this discussion.
Reverz3d FL4SH
I don't understand how you can think that using on online service has the same terms and conditions as playing a game on your own.
You bought the right to the disc or digital content you paid for. Then, if you want to use that content in an online environment, you are subject to additional terms and conditions around that.

If you read any of those rules and conditions, you'd realize that your last post is very wrong.

There is a certain part of what you paid for that is in fact a product - but there is also a portion that is a service. They aren't the same. This whole thread revolves around the service portion of the game. The ability to play matchmaking with other individuals.

Now that aside, there is a different discussion, the one that should be focused on.
Is the current system for dealing with undesirable actions (Quitting, AFK, griefing) effective and fair or not?
Obviously, it does not properly address AFK, it only partially addresses griefing, and how it addresses quitting is up for debate.
I am largely in favor of the current system for quitting specifically, except that I think we should all have 1 free quit per day (or 16 hours).
Even with all the excuses people try to give for quitting, it still - OVERALL - hurts the experience.

Stay away from trying to talk about a 'product' or 'service' because it's not really what this thread is about anyway.
TripOG wrote:
There was a point where it wasn't functioning well, but 'couldn't even use multiplayer' is hyperbole at best.
I can't take you serious if you actually believe this, it was literally unusable.
My first MCC match was 6 vs 2 team slayer on epitaph. The game had issues, claiming it was impossible to play is an overstatement. But this is just another red herring you're trying to throw out. Nothing changes the facts. Quitting is against matchmaking rules. You know you aren't supposed to quit. If you do there are consequences. Focus on the misconduct instead of trying to distract from your specious argument.
im glad you can remember your first mcc match online it must of been pretty recent, I know it couldnt of been on release night because the game didnt work then. Youre right nothing changes the facts, and the fact is 343 changed halo with this ban system. there are also consequences for developer misconduct, one being loss of sales meaning i will not buy another 343 halo game.

edit this arguement is even more ridiculous when you mention misconduct as being the only reason for bans, you get banned for accidental betrayals and connection drops. I guess some yard maintenance crew down the road hitting a fiber line is player misconduct now also guess that means 343 is responsibile for betrayal misconduct for spawning a teammate infront of someone sniping.

Even if we pretend the original ban system was corrupt as this current system I still could not fathom how someone could defend and promote a system that punishes innocent people, Its not right and something needs to change.
AshamanND wrote:
Reverz3d FL4SHI don't understand how you can think that using on online service has the same terms and conditions as playing a game on your own.
You bought the right to the disc or digital content you paid for. Then, if you want to use that content in an online environment, you are subject to additional terms and conditions around that.

If you read any of those rules and conditions, you'd realize that your last post is very wrong.

There is a certain part of what you paid for that is in fact a product - but there is also a portion that is a service. They aren't the same. This whole thread revolves around the service portion of the game. The ability to play matchmaking with other individuals.

Now that aside, there is a different discussion, the one that should be focused on.
Is the current system for dealing with undesirable actions (Quitting, AFK, griefing) effective and fair or not?
Obviously, it does not properly address AFK, it only partially addresses griefing, and how it addresses quitting is up for debate.
I am largely in favor of the current system for quitting specifically, except that I think we should all have 1 free quit per day (or 16 hours).
Even with all the excuses people try to give for quitting, it still - OVERALL - hurts the experience.

Stay away from trying to talk about a 'product' or 'service' because it's not really what this thread is about anyway.
Ashaman, you seem like a knowledgeable person so I will at least respond to you, since we have been able to discuss this properly. You saw my comments on the possible ways of improving. However I still feel like 343 (and their monitors) are dodging the question as to WHY these players quit or afk. Maybe it's because their matchmaking is so unbalanced and not fair to unforseen events, even though they know it could be handled differently. Solve the problem at it's cause and not the effects. Can they respond to that?

And as for my other statements, I stand by them as well. Additional rules to using the product in an online environment is fine and all (if it would be limited to interactions with other people like what is said to each other in chats, voice messages etc.) This should all be manageable by Microsoft's terms and conditions for using Live alone. 343 thinks that they should have an say in this and I think not. Their system is flawed and they make excuses for it, not the quitting/afk'ing players that do this because they keep facing spawn killing pro teams or their connection lags out. The quitting rule should just be removed in social matchmaking, because it shouldn't matter what that outcome is. Lot's of people left the game? no prob let's start another one, seriously what would be the problem here? It's just social right? But no mommy and daddy want you to play nice with the other children and so there are 'matchmaking rules'.................

Please give me a break. This stuff never happened when I played Reach or H3, even H4 back in the days. Just to much overwatch by close-minded companies.

And MCC still is an product only and should be viewed as only that, the online usage is an service provided by XBOX Live, if you don't have an subscription, you can't play online so there is the difference between the service and product, MCC is an product which only complements on the online service of XBOX Live. And yes the additional support and updates are service as well, but this is only necessary if an product fails in it's delivery. That's how other services and products work as well. Prove me otherwise. And yes it is important to note that for those who believe MCC and it's banning system is an 'service' for us. I wonder how this would actually would end in court, as a figure of speech.
AshamanND wrote:
Spoiler:
Show
Ashaman, you seem like a knowledgeable person so I will at least respond to you, since we have been able to discuss this properly. You saw my comments on the possible ways of improving. However I still feel like 343 (and their monitors) are dodging the question as to WHY these players quit or afk. Maybe it's because their matchmaking is so unbalanced and not fair to unforseen events, even though they know it could be handled differently. Solve the problem at it's cause and not the effects. Can they respond to that?

And as for my other statements, I stand by them as well. Additional rules to using the product in an online environment is fine and all (if it would be limited to interactions with other people like what is said to each other in chats, voice messages etc.) This should all be manageable by Microsoft's terms and conditions for using Live alone. 343 thinks that they should have an say in this and I think not. Their system is flawed and they make excuses for it, not the quitting/afk'ing players that do this because they keep facing spawn killing pro teams or their connection lags out. And MCC still is an product only and should be viewed as only that, the online usage is an service provided by XBOX Live, if you don't have an subscription, you can't play online so there is the difference between the service and product, MCC is an product which only complements on the online service of XBOX Live. And yes the additional support and updates are service as well, but this is only necessary if an product fails in it's delivery. That's how other services and products work as well. Prove me otherwise. And yes it is important to note that for those who believe MCC and it's banning system is an 'service' for us. I wonder how this would actually would end in court, as a figure of speech.
I appreciate you response, and your respect.

  1. You've acknowledged that separate terms for online play isn't unreasonable. Why then is it unreasonable to think that these terms can't be set by the developer of ANY game, on a game-by-game basis, instead of by MS overall?
    After all, the servers for the online play are generally run by the developers, right? And we're talking about the behaviors in-game that the developers (and the community at large) deem unacceptable. So why can't 343 administer these rules, for their own product/service?
    And really, playing games (MCC or otherwise) online with others is most definitely a service. That service can change over time.
    If you went out an bought a copy of OG Halo 2 right now, you would not be able to participate in the service portion of that game - online play. It's over. I firmly believe that online play is a service, and in this case the burden of providing it is being shared by more than one entity (MS and 343).

    Updates are different from patches/fixes. Yeah, MCC had problems that needed (and some that still do need) fixes/patches. That is different from updates.
    4k, modern aiming, custom game browser (to come) and others are all updates - and this is part of a service to the existing product.
  2. Sorry, I couldn't really discern exactly what your suggestions were for improving the system, maybe because I'm unfamiliar with some of the games/systems you mentioned.
  3. 343 is definitely NOT ignoring issues in the game. That's just crazy. If you didn't know, they have multiple ways of acknowledging and receiving feedback form users. Also for helping users with issues they encounter.
  • Almost every single update blog mentions that they are continuing to monitor feedback and willing to make changes that help the game and community.
    A great example of how 343 responds to feedback (and most importantly, DATA) is the recent change from 75 back to 50 kill limits in CE
    Here's the post that talks about it
  • Feedback is provided to them in multiple threads right here in the MCC stickies - updated and logged each month.
  • Trello keeps us up-to-date with all the other issues they know about and are working on.
  • They've even stickied this particular thread. They're not trying to hide anything! They're being transparent about it all
If the data and feedback combined supported a different course of action with bans, they would take it.
I do hope they tweak the banning, but some of the 'ban nerfs' that some people are asking for, would basically revert us to the pre-ban system, and that's not ideal.
AshamanND wrote:
If the data and feedback combined supported a different course of action with bans, they would take it.
I do hope they tweak the banning, but some of the 'ban nerfs' that some people are asking for, would basically revert us to the pre-ban system, and that's not ideal.
If you read what the mods are stating on this thread they will not listen to feedback, they cant/wont even admit they changed the ban system.
this thread was made for people to feel like they could voice their opinion but more importantly for the mods to tow the company line and silence people who question the system.

the truth is if you want to play original halos you have to play the original games, the mcc edition is not the same.
Ashaman:
1) I just don't think it's necessary for 343 or any other dev to implement bans. Any form of (actual) misconduct like swearing or threatening is in my eyes worth a ban. (exeptional) Quitting is not. Def not in social playlist. And like I said the online service is not provided by 343 and you don't pay 343 to play online, so why let them decide about bans? To give away power over your own choices regarding products you have legally obtained and exploited? (If these choices don't physically or mentally harm another person)
And it is just as you say, patches and updates are not the same, but in all your honesty, don't you think that those updates should have been part of the product at day 1? It should be in my opinion and 343 thinks so as well (they don't charge extra so..). The fact that 343 fixed it now is not an excuse for them to put up new rules in matchmaking when that was not even the issue. I really would like to know what percentage of the active player base complained about quitters, which gave 343 the incentive to implement this banning system.

2) on page 29 you can find my earlier suggestions for improving the banning system but I've copied them here again:
These are some solutions I think could work:
- just add a xp-rank system parameter like reach or Halo 3 in social. Make it so that players between a certain rank (0 to 20, 20-50 and so on) can only match their respective ranks. The MMR system needs to be the second parameter in social. This could easily erase the fact that no-lifers match against fresh noobs. Which is not fun for both.
- Add an expand/focus playersearch feature like H5. Let people choose if they want speed over balance in searching players.
- Add 1 to 3 freebies. This idea has passed so many times already. Just do it.

3) I am completely aware of the feedback that they received and yes I can see other issues getting fixed, But UNBALANCED matchmaking has been an issue for far to long in my opinion, and I honestly don't see any 343 responses about that in this thread, despite being mentioned by Barricade, Trip, me and possibly others that I may have overread. Have you?

And seriously, 33 pages on a banned thread is not enough to even look at it?
TripOG wrote:
AshamanND wrote:
If the data and feedback combined supported a different course of action with bans, they would take it.
I do hope they tweak the banning, but some of the 'ban nerfs' that some people are asking for, would basically revert us to the pre-ban system, and that's not ideal.
If you read what the mods are stating on this thread they will not listen to feedback, they cant/wont even admit they changed the ban system.
this thread was made for people to feel like they could voice their opinion but more importantly for the mods to tow the company line and silence people who question the system.

the truth is if you want to play original halos you have to play the original games, the mcc edition is not the same.
  1. The mods do not control or even really influence the game developers at all.
  2. Not a single person has said the ban system is actually the same. This very thread in the OP acknowledges that it is different.
    Quote:
    Quit Ban Changes as of 13/12/2018
    • Users are no longer banned for quitting in Lone Wolves or Infection
    • Quitters will still receive losses and incur the associated rank penalty in Lone Wolves
    • Users are no longer banned for quitting 1v1s
    • Quitting from the first half of a team incurs bans.
    • Quitting from the second half of a team does not. This is true for all player counts (2v2, 4v4, 8v8)
    Even Comedic Hermit acknowledged, on this very page of this thread that it is different!
    Quote:
    The ban system was reworked to address a problem. The update is an attempt to minimize that problem.
    A 343 employee commented on PAGE 2 that the system was updated
    Quote:
    I want to thank everyone who has been participating in these threads on bans. I want to announce that the Ban rules have just gone live with a change. Unfortunately, this cannot affect those already banned, but several of these threads have been full of great information. The first offense ban has been lowered to 5 minutes from 10, the second offense ban is now a 15 minute ban, the third offense is a 60 minute ban, and the fourth offense is a 16 hour ban. This allows players to play every day.
    Instead of bans clearing after 24 hours of incurring one, they now clear after 16 hours. Let us know what you guys think.
    stckrboy, please update the OP.
  3. Data and feedback are different. And the Developers handle them differently.
    Data showed that after the bans were changed, quitting dropped by more than 50%. I'd say that's a good change.
  4. The only people being silenced are the ones that break the Forum Rules. The rules clearly state what is acceptable and what isn't. Voicing opinions is accepted and encouraged.
  5. MCC is not the original games, everyone knows that.

    The hope is that with enough data and feedback, MCC will become better than it is, and possibly even better than the originals.

    You won't ever convince the Devs, Mods, or greater community that quitting is OK.

    However, you might be able to make a compelling argument for how to deal with quitting in a better way - and I'd happily support it if I agree.
    I think this is where we should focus.
AshamanND wrote:
TripOG wrote:
AshamanND wrote:
If the data and feedback combined supported a different course of action with bans, they would take it.
I do hope they tweak the banning, but some of the 'ban nerfs' that some people are asking for, would basically revert us to the pre-ban system, and that's not ideal.
If you read what the mods are stating on this thread they will not listen to feedback, they cant/wont even admit they changed the ban system.
this thread was made for people to feel like they could voice their opinion but more importantly for the mods to tow the company line and silence people who question the system.

the truth is if you want to play original halos you have to play the original games, the mcc edition is not the same.
  1. The mods do not control or even really influence the game developers at all.
  2. Not a single person has said the ban system is actually the same. This very thread in the OP acknowledges that it is different.
    Quote:
    Quit Ban Changes as of 13/12/2018
    • Users are no longer banned for quitting in Lone Wolves or Infection
    • Quitters will still receive losses and incur the associated rank penalty in Lone Wolves
    • Users are no longer banned for quitting 1v1s
    • Quitting from the first half of a team incurs bans.
    • Quitting from the second half of a team does not. This is true for all player counts (2v2, 4v4, 8v8)
    Even Comedic Hermit acknowledged, on this very page of this thread that it is different!
    Quote:
    The ban system was reworked to address a problem. The update is an attempt to minimize that problem.
    A 343 employee commented on PAGE 2 that the system was updated
    Quote:
    I want to thank everyone who has been participating in these threads on bans. I want to announce that the Ban rules have just gone live with a change. Unfortunately, this cannot affect those already banned, but several of these threads have been full of great information. The first offense ban has been lowered to 5 minutes from 10, the second offense ban is now a 15 minute ban, the third offense is a 60 minute ban, and the fourth offense is a 16 hour ban. This allows players to play every day.
    Instead of bans clearing after 24 hours of incurring one, they now clear after 16 hours. Let us know what you guys think.
    stckrboy, please update the OP.
  3. Data and feedback are different. And the Developers handle them differently.
    Data showed that after the bans were changed, quitting dropped by more than 50%. I'd say that's a good change.
  4. The only people being silenced are the ones that break the Forum Rules. The rules clearly state what is acceptable and what isn't. Voicing opinions is accepted and encouraged.
  5. MCC is not the original games, everyone knows that.

    The hope is that with enough data and feedback, MCC will become better than it is, and possibly even better than the originals.

    You won't ever convince the Devs, Mods, or greater community that quitting is OK.

    However, you might be able to make a compelling argument for how to deal with quitting in a better way - and I'd happily support it if I agree.
    I think this is where we should focus.
sketch or whatever his name is responded to me a few months back saying the ban system wouldnt change, i just had a mod quote the original ban system to me basically saying it was the same system. read through this thread and see how many posts are silenced, mcc was marketed as being the same mechanics, aka the same game.
define greater and i have made a compelling argument, and it shouldnt even need to be an argument that 343 shouldnt change the game. and about quits, lets see more data on that, how many quits were actually disconnects caused by a broken game and how many just turned into afk players.
i know your trying to play nice and be a devils advocate for 343 to get one of those mod positions but lets be real, this system is garbage and there has been zero real discussion from the devs on making any changes to it, the one thing i have read from the devs was directed to my comment and said that the system wont change.

maybe your right maybe 343 is doing everything can to stop quitting, i guess maybe tomorrow ill read in the newspaper 343 has invested in americas broadband infrastructure in an effort to eliminate all downtime
Spoiler:
Show
  1. I don't think you and I are going to agree on the service vs product portion of this, so lets move on.
  2. Great suggestions, I've made similar ones.
    -They're already implementing a behind the scenes skill based parameter to Social matchmaking.
    Quote:
    Another common area of feedback we’ve been receiving is players matching into lopsided games in social. To remedy this, we are introducing some skill-based matchmaking parameters later this month to prioritize matches with players of comparable skill. Note that this will prefer matches of comparable skill but will not require them. Finding matches quickly is still prioritized.
    Link-They're considering adding XP ranks to the game, as it has been requested a number of times in the Wishlist thread. Not sure if they would restrict matching based on that rank though.
    -I 100% agree that one freebie would help.
  3. 343 employees were responding in this thread in the beginning. I think now they choose to simply read and log it, but I can't speak for them. Unbalanced matchmaking is a different discussion, and while it might be a cause for quitting sometimes, it's not the only cause. Unbalanced matchmaking deserves it's own thread.

    TripOG,

    I'm just here because I love Halo, and I comment here because sometimes I think people are being unreasonable.
    I think I remember Sketch's comment, and I understand that you might interpret that as 'never going to change'.
    I interpreted it as 'not going to knee-jerk change because a few people are upset'.

    I've read through this whole post - the only ones being silenced are those breaking for Forum Rules.

    The mod who quoted to you was saying that there were ban systems in the OG games.
    He might not have been explicitly clear in his first response to you that they aren't EXACTLY the same, but I think he clarified that later.

    You know very well that you and I and anyone not at 343 will never see the data.

    Look, I'm not one of those 343 apologists. MCC was broken for a long time, I believe that. H5's campaign was the worst of the series.
    But I think what they've been doing with MCC in the last 6-8 months has been phenomenal. It shows me that things are changing, and I believe they're on the right path.

    I gotta head out for now, but happy to discuss further ideas for improvement later.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 31
  4. 32
  5. 33
  6. 34
  7. 35
  8. ...
  9. 43