Quantcast
Modern Warfare 3 - Hosts backs out, everybody loses?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Modern Warfare 3 - Hosts backs out, everybody loses?

I just want to set the record straight on something that I know has been talked about many times on this and many other forums. When the host of a match leaves a game to avoid a loss (Dashboarding) why should both teams get a loss?

It doesn't make much sense to me at all. I can understand the winning team not getting the win because the game is not finished, but why a loss?

 

Does anybody know the reasoning or method behind this? I don't think it should be set up that way.



Around the Network

Probably something that got overlooked when in development.



           

Well I think it has been in just about every iteration of CoD multiplayer. Other games like Halo don't do this, why would CoD?



Wow, why not just select a new host like they even did way back in Halo 2?

As for your question, it's obviously been made to prevent people from shortening games that they're winning and to prevent people from avoiding a loss.

If you think about it, there really is no better way (other than host switching!).



IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Wow, why not just select a new host like they even did way back in Halo 2?

As for your question, it's obviously been made to prevent people from shortening games that they're winning and to prevent people from avoiding a loss.

If you think about it, there really is no better way (other than host switching!).


Everybody gets a loss, but what happened in the game is not counted. If a host leaves and/or dashboards then the rest of the people in the game should still be able to play and have the game play out as it normally would have. Having everybody lose really does not seem like the right path.



Around the Network
SlipperyMooseCakes said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Wow, why not just select a new host like they even did way back in Halo 2?

As for your question, it's obviously been made to prevent people from shortening games that they're winning and to prevent people from avoiding a loss.

If you think about it, there really is no better way (other than host switching!).


Everybody gets a loss, but what happened in the game is not counted. If a host leaves and/or dashboards then the rest of the people in the game should still be able to play and have the game play out as it normally would have. Having everybody lose really does not seem like the right path.

Which is why I'm sure everyone would prefer choosing another host once the first one quit. But as things look now, giving both teams one loss each is better than giving both teams nothing as the host could just quit if being in the losing team, which makes him avoid a loss.



IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
SlipperyMooseCakes said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Wow, why not just select a new host like they even did way back in Halo 2?

As for your question, it's obviously been made to prevent people from shortening games that they're winning and to prevent people from avoiding a loss.

If you think about it, there really is no better way (other than host switching!).


Everybody gets a loss, but what happened in the game is not counted. If a host leaves and/or dashboards then the rest of the people in the game should still be able to play and have the game play out as it normally would have. Having everybody lose really does not seem like the right path.

Which is why I'm sure everyone would prefer choosing another host once the first one quit. But as things look now, giving both teams one loss each is better than giving both teams nothing as the host could just quit if being in the losing team, which makes him avoid a loss.

I would say that is debatable.

Having the game choose another host and have the game play out as it normally would is a much better solution than the host backing out, everybody gets a loss and no stats from the game are recorded. If the original host were to back out, he still gets a loss and his stats aren't recorded. The only difference is only he is affected by the back out, not everybody.



this is something that has always bugged me aswell, its been like that for a while with cod , you'd have thought they'd have got it fixed by now



SlipperyMooseCakes said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
SlipperyMooseCakes said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Wow, why not just select a new host like they even did way back in Halo 2?

As for your question, it's obviously been made to prevent people from shortening games that they're winning and to prevent people from avoiding a loss.

If you think about it, there really is no better way (other than host switching!).


Everybody gets a loss, but what happened in the game is not counted. If a host leaves and/or dashboards then the rest of the people in the game should still be able to play and have the game play out as it normally would have. Having everybody lose really does not seem like the right path.

Which is why I'm sure everyone would prefer choosing another host once the first one quit. But as things look now, giving both teams one loss each is better than giving both teams nothing as the host could just quit if being in the losing team, which makes him avoid a loss.

I would say that is debatable.

Having the game choose another host and have the game play out as it normally would is a much better solution than the host backing out, everybody gets a loss and no stats from the game are recorded. If the original host were to back out, he still gets a loss and his stats aren't recorded. The only difference is only he is affected by the back out, not everybody.

Isn't that what I just said? :P



Probably haha, I think we're saying the same thing?

Basically what I'm saying is the current format of CoD is not really acceptable.
What it should be is host leaves, only he takes the loss, new host is chosen, the game plays out as it normally would. People get what they played for.