There actually is a reason for the veto going away. One part of it is variety and the lack thereof with the veto system. The other is a technical reason. In Halo 3 for example, the system starts loading the map when you get the required amount of players. If you veto it deloads the map and loads the other one. Or in Reach, it loads the first map. This is why there's a slightly longer load time if you veto a map or pick the second or third map. Now those were peer to peer and our network architecture has changed since then. Here is some conjecture, as there's no official documentation on it, but it's based on observations from the beta and the retail release. When you match into a game, you are matching into a dedicated server and it is what has to do the main work when loading. If you were to veto from there, it would have to deload and then load up a different map. From what I've gathered there's a LOT that the servers are doing behind the scenes, but we have no idea what it actually is doing (it could be programming inefficiency, data collection, physics calculation, etc.).
Giving the players options to choose is better than forcing them to play or dodge a said Map/gametype IMO. As for variety, I can't say it has much.
Appreciate the explanation about the servers,
but when it comes to experience, its the worst. I Don't know what's going on behind the scene, all I know is the game experience is getting worse, Like;
Freezing
Shots doesn't count
Heavy feeling and movement/Slow
lag/latency
All this does change the gameplay in some way, and it varies from game to game.
Like yesterday, we played assault,everything was great and suddenly one player quits and Another one joins and the whole match collapsed, lag and shots doesn't count.
Or another game where we had to press the buttons twice or more for the player to react, really heavy movement,
These problems are not present on other games.
