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

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

OP stckrboy

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 45
  4. 46
  5. ...
  6. 47
AshamanND wrote:
AshamanND wrote:
LUKEPOWA wrote:
Why is nothing ever done against these type of folks? It seems this is the type of game 343i wants to promote sometimes.
Cause it's not a bannable offense. 343 could do things to make it happen less often like even stricter skill matching, party restrictions or maybe even a surrender option, but I don't think they want to go that route in social.
[snip]
we know how you feel, you spam your opinion on everyone who comments in this thread.
If you actually know how I feel, you'd know that I DON'T think the current system works best, properly, or even as intended. I've written time and time again that I think it should be tweaked.

All I'm getting at with your point is this: 'OG' doesn't mean 'best'.
It can be better, just like the current system can be better.

I agree, this thread is long. It certainly shows that people feel strongly about this. I do too.
When playing the Reach flight, my PC would crash quite a bit. I was getting crazy bans. Ultimately, I know that if that continued on a regular basis, I'd be hurting other people's MM experience and probably deserve some type of ban, but I feel like there should be a bit more forgiveness in the system.

Also,
CE didn't have an actual ban system as it wasn't part of xbox live, but you know this. I'm sure you're talking about betrayals and booting, right?
Because if you're talking about other aspects of how CE plays and feels - that's another thread, not this one. We all already know that the PC Gearbox port didn't feel the same as OG - I totally agree!
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not create alternate accounts to bypass forum bans. Alternate accounts will be permanently banned, and offending users will be subject to both temporary and permanent bans.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
I read this in another thread. "People who are receiving a 24 hour ban after the second quit are receiving it because its their 3rd quit in 24 hours."
-MoreInfoNeeded

This raises some concerns for me, what if I play 80 games in a day? 3 lagouts/gamecrashes doesn't seem too unusual given the volume of games.
Exactly. The current system screws people who actually play the game 16 hours a day and get DC'd once in a while or get stuck in a BTB match with a stacked team spawn killing them etc. There's also no accounting for trolls. There's always the tools that show up and jump on top of the tank trying to get killed cause you beat them to it, etc etc. Would make more sense to ban people based on the percentage/number of games they've completed the past 24 hours. If they've completed like 30 games and quit 1, leave them alone. It's stupid to ban dedicated players. The way the bans worked on Reach back in the day was super annoying cause once you were on "probation," you were screwed for 24 hours no matter how many you played to completion. One DC, accidental betrayal, and you were banned again.
LUKEPOWA wrote:
Why is nothing ever done against these type of folks? It seems this is the type of game 343i wants to promote sometimes.
Cause it's not a bannable offense. 343 could do things to make it happen less often like even stricter skill matching, party restrictions or maybe even a surrender option, but I don't think they want to go that route in social.
See, you say this but when why is there an option to report people on XBL for being "unsportsmanlike". As much as those reports are probably just black-holed/null & voided they have to be at least *aware* of issues such as this, even i they ignore them. I'm personally not even saying these folks should be banned or anything so drastic, I just want matchmaking to do the job it's supposed to do! I don't think that's too much of an ask at the end of the day. On the flip side, if you're winning 99% of the matches then clearly something is wrong with the MM formula and something needs to be addressed.

I'm well aware they probably don't give two cares on what goes on in this thread and most of the forums unless there's some kind of "mass uprising" (and even then...) and for as much effort has gone into MCC over the years it feels like so much of it is half--Yoinked!- and the current banning system is a continuation of that feeling. While they may have partly dealt with part of why I'm sure 99% of people used to quit (not getting the game type/map they wanted) with Composer (I have my own issues with that too, the map frequency is so ridiculously weighted to the point I'm pretty sure I get less variety than before it existed) the other half of the equation (poor matchmaking and un-balanced teams) has been pretty much ignored and instead you've got a ridiculous situation where MM can take up to 10-15mins before a full game is found only to find yourself in a killbox situation and unable to escape it. When that happens 2-3 times in a row, usually in sequential games too, your only choice is "don't play the game" (great for population that one and certainly why I play a lot less often these days) or spend what few hours play time you have fruitlessly trying not to go more than a couple of 10s of negatives on the ol' k/d ratio only to repeat the situation in the very next game.

My game history in MCC must be littered with many multiple examples of where I've been matched up with teams who have played 3k+ games in MCC being matched up with people like me (and maybe one other) who have played around 1-2K games and then the remainder make up with folks who have barely *started* playing the game. You can say it's down to it being social BTB but they've repeatedly refused to put in a ranked version citing population and can you say with a straight face that these matches are the only ideal match going at that time? I'd love to see their reasoning on those ones.

And that's not even getting into the other issues whereby you can get a ban for the the game *itself* crashing as above, you'd think the game would be able to tell when it was the cause of it's own problems but apparently not! Ironically enough the time I've felt MCC was at it's best were the few months before the Composer/new ban system were introduced. The previous update before that seemed to solve 99% of the issues I was having with the game. Teams seemed more balanced (though I still got the odd lop-sided game) and map variety was on the up drastically, then the update was mad and things reverted to being really really poor again.

As I said, I'm well aware I'm probably shouting into the void and 343 really don't give a monkeys but it would be nice to see some of that some much vaunted "we're listening to the fans" actually come true once in a while and have some acknowledgement of the issues.
See, you say this but when why is there an option to report people on XBL for being "unsportsmanlike". As much as those reports are probably just black-holed/null & voided they have to be at least *aware* of issues such as this, even i they ignore them. I'm personally not even saying these folks should be banned or anything so drastic, I just want matchmaking to do the job it's supposed to do!
Unsportsmanlike can be subjective. I don't think the reports on XBL go to 343, but 343 have commented about it in the past and said they weren't going to ban people for that. The current system is doing its job in social for the most part, but it's not made to be very strict at the moment and it also doesn't have permanent party restrictions, but they're currently testing partial party matching in social 4v4 right now to see how it goes.

They could add stricter matching, but the downside is games could take even longer to find or you might not find one at all because the population could already be spread thin due to all the match composer options plus playlists that are already less populated. The best compromise would probably be to make the matching stricter than it currently is, but still have it loosen after a set period time so you can get a game.
LUKEPOWA wrote:
Unsportsmanlike can be subjective. I don't think the reports on XBL go to 343, but 343 have commented about it in the past and said they weren't going to ban people for that. The current system is doing its job in social for the most part, but it's not made to be very strict at the moment and it also doesn't have permanent party restrictions, but they're currently testing partial party matching in social 4v4 right now to see how it goes.
I guess this is where we're going to have to agree to disagree then. While I would agree that unsportsmanlike is open to interpretation and is subjective, I think the vast majority of people would agree that having such lop-sided teams and using that to pad your stats because you got assigned a team well below your skill level just because you can is 100% unsportsmanlike behaviour. You should be finsishing the match and re-entering the queue for a better match. If MM isn't giving you the matches that challenge you then it's broken from your side as well as the team you get matched up against.

IMO while I agree banning is a bit too drastic, the teams are only playing the match matchmaking gave them after all, *something* needs to be done about it and right now the only people that *can* do anything are 343 and they're ignoring it. I've no idea about anyone else but I'd much rather have no game at all so I can give up and switch the game off and go do something else if the population isn't high enough than repeatedly get dumped into horribly lop-sided games and getting stomped on repeatedly with no escape. This is what I mean by clearly not thinking things through on their side. The party matching *may* solve a few of these issues but the issue would still remain about the lop-side

For me, what *should* be happening in a perfect MM world is something like three tiers of matchmaking where the lower and higher groups should have stricter matchmaking (say as an easy example between 1-10 you only match levels 1-10 and 40-50 only match 40-50) while anything in between has much more flexible matching. That way those that are just starting don't just get stomped on in a baptism of fire and those on he higher end have to play those similar to themselves while everyone in between has things a bit more flexible. I'm sure it may take some work but we've already had level restricted playlists in the past, don't see why this would be that much different. There's always the population argument against this as well but I can't honestly think the current matching/banning system helps population much, it's always the fallback argument we have to accept as there's never any numbers to prove either way. "Hey, here's a game where you're going to get spawn camped for 15mins with little to no recourse. Oh and we'll ban you if you back out because MM is broken. Have fun!" I'd love to be proved wrong, but it certainly feels like there's enough population to mitigate what's happening as I keep getting the short end of the stick of rotating "just starting" players against "play it every day" teams.
I guess this is where we're going to have to agree to disagree then.

For me, what *should* be happening in a perfect MM world is something like three tiers of matchmaking where the lower and higher groups should have stricter matchmaking (say as an easy example between 1-10 you only match levels 1-10 and 40-50 only match 40-50) while anything in between has much more flexible matching.
I wasn't really disagreeing with your view, but just pointing out that it can be subjective which could be why 343 doesn't view it as a bannable offense. What you're proposing is basically a hidden ranking system for social which could work in a perfect world, but like you said, you've had games that took 10-15 minutes to get and then you got stomped, so to me that's an indication that there are population issues and with your system you wouldn't have found a game in that situation. I'm not sure which is the lesser poison in that scenario, but if they were to do permanent stricter matching, then they'd be better off implementing the TrueSkll 2 system which can make better matches without isolating players with certain skill levels.
LUKEPOWA wrote:
I guess this is where we're going to have to agree to disagree then.

For me, what *should* be happening in a perfect MM world is something like three tiers of matchmaking where the lower and higher groups should have stricter matchmaking (say as an easy example between 1-10 you only match levels 1-10 and 40-50 only match 40-50) while anything in between has much more flexible matching.
I wasn't really disagreeing with your view, but just pointing out that it can be subjective which could be why 343 doesn't view it as a bannable offense. What you're proposing is basically a hidden ranking system for social which could work in a perfect world, but like you said, you've had games that took 10-15 minutes to get and then you got stomped, so to me that's an indication that there are population issues and with your system you wouldn't have found a game in that situation. I'm not sure which is the lesser poison in that scenario, but if they were to do permanent stricter matching, then they'd be better off implementing the TrueSkll 2 system which can make better matches without isolating players with certain skill levels.
Players with certain skill level SHOULD be isolated. No social gamer wants to play against those ridiculous MLG types. They have no business in social playlists and, as such, should be kept waiting until someone that matches their level is found. On 360, it was impossible to avoid players because the "avoid player" thing didn't actually work on Reach. You'd run into the same people all the time if you played 16 hours a day like me, and it only resulted in dashboarding cause certain people are no fun to play with...especially when they run a full team in BTB etc.
Players with certain skill level SHOULD be isolated.
You don't need to isolate them if you have a good skill system in place because it will match people so it's a fair game when possible. The downside would be when you have population issues which would make them either not find a game or the restrictions would need to be loosened.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 45
  4. 46
  5. ...
  6. 47