Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

SBMM - Why it is both good and bad

OP HaloBungie343I

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 6
I don't envy the matchmaking algorithms.

There are so many factors that go into making a team function.

Sadly combinations of K-D-A aren't going to come close to working it out. Throwing four expert snipers together on a close quarters map (with no sniper rifle) is never going to end up well.
Dilly Dilly!
Dilly?
Darwi wrote:
Dilly Dilly!
Dilly?
Budweiser commercial...basically the equivalent to "hear hear", "preach it my brotha" or "i agree"
Darwi wrote:
Dilly Dilly!
Dilly?
Budweiser commercial...basically the equivalent to "hear hear", "preach it my brotha" or "i agree"
You'll have to forgive me. We drink real beer in Australia. :D
Darwi wrote:
Darwi wrote:
Dilly Dilly!
Dilly?
Budweiser commercial...basically the equivalent to "hear hear", "preach it my brotha" or "i agree"
You'll have to forgive me. We drink real beer in Australia. :D
LOL...I didn't know you were from Australia! I had a bunch of extra codes for Infinite content and I would have for sure sent you some. You're always respectful during your posts and seem like a good active member on the forums.
That's why I loved Halo 3's System so much:

Like in Double Team:

You are 40 and your friend 40 so the game will search for players +/-5 Skill levels

When you were 40 and your friend 20 it searched between 30 and 40 [max -10 skill levels from the strongest member of the group].

It was just a really good system. And Social always felt like a pure mixture - how it should be.
So I hope they will throw away that Bronze, Silver, Gold etc [by the way, in nowadays games gold is kinda bad eh? what really sucks] and reeintedruce the 1-50 Skill System.

Or:

Skill Level - Rank
0 - 9 [None]
10 - 19 [Iron]
20 - 29 [Bronze]
30 - 39 [Silver]
40 - 45 [Gold]
45 - 49 [Platin]
50 [Diamond]
To put it in the simplest of terms:

In the H5 system you could potentially (although highly unlikely and an extreme case but still very possible): have a player go negative every game of his career (or even never get a kill in his career-once again a very extreme scenario but under the system, totally possible/plausible) but win every game of his career (if always paired with people who could carry teammates) and reach the ranks of champion/onyx.

I'm sorry but if that's the system called 'True Skill'...then your interpretation of skill is far different from mine and the vast majority of people (including Webster Dictionary).
Darwi wrote:
qlimm wrote:
Loose sbmm parameters in social hurts player retention. Just my experience, but whenever I get easy games I feel like I'm wasting time and whenever I get games where I have 99% chance of losing I end up just getting frustrated. Both scenarios usually lead to quitting the game and doing something else more worthwhile.
According to Josh Menke SBMM increases player retention. I think the big wave of games switching over to SBMM is due to that notion.
Ya, then we look at H5 and Cold War where no game is ever pure fun cause it's all a sweat fest of people with the same skill as you. Remove it or reduce it in social. If we want sweat, we will play ranked
This just doesn't make sense to me?

Surely a close match vs people of similar skill is where the fun is? Close matches for the 'win'.

I don't see how my opponent being 'sweaty' makes my enjoyment of the game any different?

In fact, I think there is something ironic in losing and calling your opponents 'sweats'. You are basically admitting that you care enough about the result to insult the opposition and/or make excuses because you lost. Therefore you are, by definition, a sweat as well.

There is nothing fun about a mis-match in skill - either for the team being stomped or the team doing said stomping. It just ends up being a complete waste of time.
social and ranked are not to play or feel the same. SBMM will still exist in social but in a relaxed state. Ranked would have strict parameters given ranked is designed specifically for competition and self-improvement. Social in generally meant to be more relaxed. There is a reason why h5 is considered sweaty regardless of the mode you play.
That's why I loved Halo 3's System so much:
Halo 5 uses the same TrueSkill system.

Like in Double Team: You are 40 and your friend 40 so the game will search for players +/-5 Skill levels. When you were 40 and your friend 20 it searched between 30 and 40 [max -10 skill levels from the strongest member of the group]. It was just a really good system.
Do we know if/how Halo 5 is different?

And Social always felt like a pure mixture - how it should be.
If by pure mixture you mean completely random... no, I don't think that's the way to do it.

So I hope they will throw away that Bronze, Silver, Gold etc [by the way, in nowadays games gold is kinda bad eh? what really sucks] and reeintedruce the 1-50 Skill System.

Or:

Skill Level - Rank
0 - 9 [None]10 - 19 [Iron]20 - 29 [Bronze]30 - 39 [Silver]40 - 45 [Gold]45 - 49 [Platin]50 [Diamond]
Again, it's the same system underneath. It doesn't really matter what labels you use. Oh, and the old '50' was never the real max - internally it went up to 60 (but only ever displayed 50). Diamond 3 equates to the old '50'. So you'll need to account for that in your new ranks.
Darwi wrote:
That's why I loved Halo 3's System so much:
Halo 5 uses the same TrueSkill system.
Does H5 use the same parameters/ 'True Skill' system that Bungie had back in H3? With everything 343i has changed/touched regarding the franchise I highly doubt that its the same. Let alone using the same parameters in determining ranking.
To put it in the simplest of terms:

In the H5 system you could potentially (although highly unlikely and an extreme case but still very possible): have a player go negative every game of his career (or even never get a kill in his career-once again a very extreme scenario but under the system, totally possible/plausible) but win every game of his career (if always paired with people who could carry teammates) and reach the ranks of champion/onyx.

I'm sorry but if that's the system called 'True Skill'...then your interpretation of skill is far different from mine and the vast majority of people (including Webster Dictionary).
It can be very frustrating. Especially when you get put in with a bunch of highly-ranked team mates who actually aren't that good.

I can see the logic in just using W/L in team games... especially objective based ones.

But surely they can do something to weed out the leeches. Some sort of fancy AI / machine learning algorithm that works out how much you have contributed to the win (or loss).
Darwi wrote:
That's why I loved Halo 3's System so much:
Halo 5 uses the same TrueSkill system.
Does H5 use the same parameters/ 'True Skill' system that Bungie had back in H3? With everything 343i has changed/touched regarding the franchise I highly doubt that its the same. Let alone using the same parameters in determining ranking.
It does.

Not saying a developer can't tweak things to suit... but essentially it's Microsoft's system underneath.

Quote:
We use TrueSkill2 to determine player skill (also called MMR or matchmaking rating), and then we use Elo’s rating system to compare a player’s current CSR to their MMR, their teammates’ MMRs, their opponents’ MMRs, and a given match’s outcome. This results in a probability that the player was expected to win a given match given their CSR and everyone else’s MMR.
Darwi wrote:
To put it in the simplest of terms:

In the H5 system you could potentially (although highly unlikely and an extreme case but still very possible): have a player go negative every game of his career (or even never get a kill in his career-once again a very extreme scenario but under the system, totally possible/plausible) but win every game of his career (if always paired with people who could carry teammates) and reach the ranks of champion/onyx.

I'm sorry but if that's the system called 'True Skill'...then your interpretation of skill is far different from mine and the vast majority of people (including Webster Dictionary).
It can be very frustrating. Especially when you get put in with a bunch of highly-ranked team mates who actually aren't that good.

I can see the logic in just using W/L in team games... especially objective based ones.

But surely they can do something to weed out the leeches. Some sort of fancy AI / machine learning algorithm that works out how much you have contributed to the win (or loss).
I'm speaking strictly on Arena Slayer modes. CTF/objective (outside of the objective of killing) is a completely different animal. When I had friends that were on regularly, we always had different strengths and weakness'. So in each respective mode we may switch roles or if someone was having a bad game we switch roles.
Darwi wrote:
Darwi wrote:
That's why I loved Halo 3's System so much:
Halo 5 uses the same TrueSkill system.
Does H5 use the same parameters/ 'True Skill' system that Bungie had back in H3? With everything 343i has changed/touched regarding the franchise I highly doubt that its the same. Let alone using the same parameters in determining ranking.
It does.

Not saying a developer can't tweak things to suit... but essentially it's Microsoft's system underneath.
I don't know..is there any source on that? I just find it extremely hard to believe that the parameters weren't changed based on the different ranking style/disparities in team members compared to earlier Halo's...Similar to what Dein Exfreund stated regarding the plus or minus determining teams, you have to fall within stricter parameters to be matched/teamed. I don't believe in that system silvers would ever be matched with let alone against onyx/champion ranks of H5 like I've seen/experienced. I'm not one of these guys that's just going to tote the 'old ways' because I'm stuck in them. I personally have enjoyed every iteration of the Franchise {Halo Wars was the first game I've ever played with that style (i think its considered RPG)}. I just find it very hard to believe that the ranking/matching structure wasn't touched back on the aforementioned.
I want connection based matchmaking in social and then whatever in ranked is necessary to balance the matchmaking. Obviously even in social you want some form of balancing amongst the teams, though, so there’s that.
I don't know..is there any source on that? I just find it extremely hard to believe that the parameters weren't changed based on the different ranking style/disparities in team members compared to earlier Halo's...Similar to what Dein Exfreund stated regarding the plus or minus determining teams, you have to fall within stricter parameters to be matched/teamed. I don't believe in that system silvers would ever be matched with let alone against onyx/champion ranks of H5 like I've seen/experienced. I'm not one of these guys that's just going to tote the 'old ways' because I'm stuck in them. I personally have enjoyed every iteration of the Franchise {Halo Wars was the first game I've ever played with that style (i think its considered RPG)}. I just find it very hard to believe that the ranking/matching structure wasn't touched back on the aforementioned.
There is a FAQ stickied in the Matchmaking and Ranking Forum. Plus lots of tidbits dropped in various conversations... particularly by ZaedenFel (343).

The problem, with any system, is having a big enough population to ensure quick matching of evenly skilled players with good connections.
Darwi wrote:
I don't know..is there any source on that? I just find it extremely hard to believe that the parameters weren't changed based on the different ranking style/disparities in team members compared to earlier Halo's...Similar to what Dein Exfreund stated regarding the plus or minus determining teams, you have to fall within stricter parameters to be matched/teamed. I don't believe in that system silvers would ever be matched with let alone against onyx/champion ranks of H5 like I've seen/experienced. I'm not one of these guys that's just going to tote the 'old ways' because I'm stuck in them. I personally have enjoyed every iteration of the Franchise {Halo Wars was the first game I've ever played with that style (i think its considered RPG)}. I just find it very hard to believe that the ranking/matching structure wasn't touched back on the aforementioned.
There is a FAQ stickied in the Matchmaking and Ranking Forum. Plus lots of tidbits dropped in various conversations... particularly by ZaedenFel (343).

The problem, with any system, is having a big enough population to ensure quick matching of evenly skilled players with good connections.
Directly from the thread you mentioned.

MMR or Matchmaking RatingThe most accurate prediction of a player’s ability to win matches. See TrueSkill2 for an in-depth explanation. MMR tells how well a player is expected to play their next match given their history, party size, the playlist, and a given game mode within the playlist. In the data, it is currently hyper-accurate at predicting who will win each match.
CSR or Competitive Skill RatingThe visible rank players see (e.g. Platinum, Onyx 1522, etc.). A visible indicator that combines how much a player has won with how difficult the wins have been for a given playlist. CSR will follow MMR around if players prove they deserve the expected MMR.

my entire gripe of how ranks are determined are solely on wins or how difficult the win was (CSR) and has nothing to do with a persons skill. Then taking into consideration said matches are solely based on how a player is expected to play (MMR-also ironically based on ability to win matches) and grouped together. This means the idea of having onyx, platinum, gold, silver on each team is technically ‘fair’ for the team overall, it is not fair skill wise for the gold or silver ranks on each team to be going against much higher skilled players.

It seems that most of the matchmaking is based on wait times reading further down which is fine for finding quick matches in social but personally I’d rather have evenly matched players on evenly matched teams across Arena and wait an additional 10-20 seconds. Of course the wait time is based on the games population so that’s understandable. Also that entire FAQ leads me to believe that the matching system is specific to H5 only as well.
my entire gripe of how ranks are determined are solely on wins or how difficult the win was (CSR) and has nothing to do with a persons skill.
It's difficult. I can see why they simplified it and just focused on team wins. And the bonus is it's accuracy - the expected team pretty much wins by the predicted margin.

The gripe comes when you are a solo player joining random teams. This exposes you to fluctations in team coherency. Sadly this is me pretty much every game :(

This means the idea of having onyx, platinum, gold, silver on each team is technically ‘fair’ for the team overall, it is not fair skill wise for the gold or silver ranks on each team to be going against much higher skilled players
The important part is that the teams are evenly matched. The lower ranked players aren't expected to have positive K:D - they just need to do their part. It may not be a lot of fun for them though if they are just damage sponges for the grown ups.

And the issue is really only brought to a head by low population numbers.

It seems that most of the matchmaking is based on wait times reading further down which is fine for finding quick matches in social but personally I’d rather have evenly matched players on evenly matched teams across Arena and wait an additional 10-20 seconds. Of course the wait time is based on the games population so that’s understandable.
It's tricky. You want every match to be even... but at some stage you just have to get a game started. The important part is that the game knows that you are mismatched - so you don't lose as much rank when you lose (but you could go up heaps with an upset win).

Also that entire FAQ leads me to believe that the matching system is specific to H5 only as well.
It's written from the perspective of Halo 5 - but the lead match making team has been around for a while (multiple games - but not sure if back to Halo 3). I don't have the link anymore but they gave some interesting talks at GDC a couple of years ago.
Darwi wrote:
That's why I loved Halo 3's System so much:
Halo 5 uses the same TrueSkill system.

Like in Double Team: You are 40 and your friend 40 so the game will search for players +/-5 Skill levels. When you were 40 and your friend 20 it searched between 30 and 40 [max -10 skill levels from the strongest member of the group]. It was just a really good system.
Do we know if/how Halo 5 is different?

And Social always felt like a pure mixture - how it should be.
If by pure mixture you mean completely random... no, I don't think that's the way to do it.

So I hope they will throw away that Bronze, Silver, Gold etc [by the way, in nowadays games gold is kinda bad eh? what really sucks] and reeintedruce the 1-50 Skill System.

Or:

Skill Level - Rank
0 - 9 [None]10 - 19 [Iron]20 - 29 [Bronze]30 - 39 [Silver]40 - 45 [Gold]45 - 49 [Platin]50 [Diamond]
Again, it's the same system underneath. It doesn't really matter what labels you use. Oh, and the old '50' was never the real max - internally it went up to 60 (but only ever displayed 50). Diamond 3 equates to the old '50'. So you'll need to account for that in your new ranks.
Do we know Halo 5 is different?
- Yes, because when I was unranked I got matched with people from Bronze to Diamond
When I was Gold, I got Diamonds and Bronze player in my and the enemy Team. Had a Team where we were 3 Bronze Players and had a Diamond teammate - all 4 random - against a group of 4 Diamonds. Seems different to me.

Also there you see why it's different - cause I got matched with people way beyond my rank.

So tell me, why should Social be not random? I mean you got there all kind of players, from a good one to a bad one, from an newbie to the pro.It's social, where rank doesn't matter - well at least until people quit when there were 5x 5- Star Generals in the Enemy team.

I know the ranking is looking the same but it's less free-room for interpretation with who you got matched.
Halo 3 was always saying in which radius they were looking for your allies and enemies. But in Halo 5? Well it's random af.

Halo 5 is like:

Oh, I'm Gold honey! Wait a second, am I now just playing with Gold players, or some higher silver and some lower platin players? Uhm... Why is there an enemy team of 4 times diamond players while I got 3 times bronze and on my last game 3 unranked players?
HX made a vid about this literally yesterday, I don't really have much knowledge, or any strong opinion, but I found it rather interesting, if anyone missed it, here it is
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 6