Skip to main content

Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

[Locked] Matchmaking Feedback Update – April 3

OP ZaedynFel

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 5
  4. 6
  5. ...
  6. 7
ZaedynFel wrote:
Trying to prevent smurfing by awarding very low CSR to the higher ranked player for a win but taking alot away if they lose seems to cause another problem.

It can make the game negative sum to play with low ranked players (such as my son). I have a Champ rank and he has probably a silver. Playing under this setup makes it a CSR punishment to play together. If we win 10 games, I basically will get nothing but if we lose, my CSR gets crushed. I didnt boost to Champ - my Champ 96 was in FFA. It seems that this anti-smurf method will boost the low level players who accompany the high ranked player. This fix stops boosts for people who abuse playing with lower ranks but now it punishes regular players like me for it.

What about counting each player's interactions with each person they kill or are killed by. Like Champ kills 20 diamond players during a game so gets a certain reduced CSR per kill on lower ranks. Like .75. But when they are killed by a lower rank, they lose 1. However its done, I believe there should be some CSR awarded for win / loss and some awarded for individual stats. That way you can nullify a loss when one or two team mates quit by playing well and going positive.

Also, smurfing would be reduced because individual stats would have some weight. If someone is being carried higher than their skill can carry them by skilled but low ranked team-mates, the individual stats the boosted player puts up should reduce thier reward.

What do you think about that? It would help two issues with one stone?
Playing with your son, who's a Silver ranked account, while you carry a champ level skill on your primary account is a good reason to create a secondary account that would be intended specifically for playing with your son, so that way your CSR impact isn't the priority as much as simply spending quality time in matchmaking with your son, right?

Anyways, just a thought.
nendoras wrote:
Is useful reporting players who are clearly smurfs as "cheating"?
And I refer to a Spartan Rank 3 player having 30+ kills in a match of Golds, perfectly using the sniper, for example.

Might not be the correct thread to ask, but seeing smurfs grinds my gears.
I agree. I played an unranked level 14 player in FFA who destroyed everyone, winning by 10 kills. Even though I finished third, I still lost CSR dropping from Diamond 1 to Plat 6! Is this because the algorithm expected me to win against a "noob" but lost, so I lost CSR for a poor performance? Cause if so Smurfing is ruining the game. I ended up blocking and reporting (for cheating) the guy because by the graces of the servers I was matched against him again a second time, losing yet another not fun, uneven match.
Possible and simple solution to smurfs:

Have player level 1-30 play in one tier, and 31-152 in another. This will protect veterans of the game from smurfs. Noobs will have to grind for a short while unfortunately, but they're unlikely going to rank plat/diamond/onyx in the first month of playing anyways, hopefully preventing them from matching against too many smurfs. But as a day one player, I've had to put up with more smurfs than they ever will once they get past level 30.
Personally I'd love a little more time in the intermission to do what I need to WITH the skip feature. Often times when I'm trying to do small things the game starts before I finished but when I have nothing to do it feels a little long. The longer intermission with a skip function would be awesome!
Josh, Before I continue I really want to express some gratitide for how transparent you've been. I've been playing halo since CE and it's by far my favorite game series and title and I really appreciate the effort you're going through to give the community what it wants. I can imagine reading all these posts is exhausting so a very large THANK YOU is in order!

Myself and a bunch of my friends are closing following this new CSR update. Prior to it I was onyx 1700 and I'm currently diamond 4. I keep playing FFA cause honestly it's my favorite but it is getting a little disheartening that, at diamond 4, I get 2nd to a low champ and lose CSR. Perhaps my MMR is different but for those of us whose MMR is higher than CSR, it's become impossible to move up in the rankings. Could you post an explanation of what changes Have been made?
Definitely a button to skip the intermission would be great!

What are you going to do about Champion players partying with low CSR accounts to rank up faster?
That's all good & swell from the perspective of removing incentive but...
What are you going to do about players who literally quit hundreds, if not thousands of matches in order to keep their rank low?

There's a very obvious difference between a regular high-frequency quitter, and those who quit 30-60% of all their matches, sometimes 4-6 in a row (if done quickly, you can pull it off before the ban "catches up"), for hundreds/thousands of games.

Check the leaderboards for K/D, they are littered with these types. Then on top of leaving their teammates stranded, they come back the next day and go +20 or more every game against complete beginners.

Honestly, just perma-ban them.
Not just that gamertag, but all accounts linked to that Xbox live subscription. Heck, maybe even console ban.

They know what they are doing, are doing it intentionally, and literally ruining the game for thousands of people

I can promise, this has a much bigger effect on the population numbers than you would think....
You just wouldn't hear about it as much as other issues because the players who this happens to are all low rank, most of them newbies, and they quit playing the game & wouldn't be posting about it here.
Their voices don't get heard and there is an obvious, completely deserved solution.

Possible and simple solution to smurfs:

Have player level 1-30 play in one tier, and 31-152 in another. This will protect veterans of the game from smurfs. Noobs will have to grind for a short while unfortunately, but they're unlikely going to rank plat/diamond/onyx in the first month of playing anyways, hopefully preventing them from matching against too many smurfs. But as a day one player, I've had to put up with more smurfs than they ever will once they get past level 30.
This is along the lines of what I've been thinking for a while.
Here's my idea:

Bring back 1-50 as your permanent rank, but keep seasons & make them 50+ only.

This would fix many of the current challenges, as well as catering to both competitive and casual players, since
  • Smurfs skip a lot of the low-level "stomping on newbs" grind: keep placement matches, but raise the amount to 20 while making it only one-time per playlist. This gives the system that extra needed information which currently slows down progression. Placing highly-skilled players straight to 50 would actually be viable
  • Smurfs for the purpose of boosting to champion rank wouldn't work, nor require this "super-low CSR" work-around (which has the unfortunate side-effect of punishing people for playing with friends who's low ranks are legitimate). Instead, simply freeze seasonal CSR progression if players under level 50 are in your party (not including those you randomly match up with of course)
  • Smurfs wouldn't be as common in the first place by adding a "non-seasonal" search preference (which freezes their seasonal CSR/MMR), so competitive players can get the more relaxed warm-up game that they're seeking, without going to the extreme of one-sided matches from switching accounts
  • Alleviates large skill disparities, particularly for solo players, by adding a "seasonal teammates only" search preference at level 50 (if the population can support it)
  • Alleviates the "rank creep" grinding issue at Champion level, since seasons could be shorter. 1 month makes far more sense for the crowd that tends to play the most.
  • More granularity in the Bronze-Onyx ranks, as well as a much bigger goal to aim for from getting into onyx (top 5% of ONLY 50's is significantly more impressive). This adds a ton of replay-ability value.
  • No more annoying resets!! Let's face it: people despise having their rank taken away. For casual players in particular, placement matches currently end up being 20-50% of all their games. It's tedious & unnecessary.
  • Doesn't actually require much change from a UI perspective (relative to benefits), so the reward/cost ratio is huge
And as a bonus, you get what may be the biggest benefit of all from the view of Microsoft executives:
Marketing ("Re-introducing the legendary system that...")

Hmm, there were some other benefits but I can't remember ATM.
I think combining the longer intermission with the skip function would be good.
Too powerful? Automatic weapons (in virtual and realistic situations) are made for razing things to the ground. The AR is the second-or-third least qualified weapon to be labeled OP. If it takes at least half a clip to kill a normally-shielded Spartan, it's not OP. Period
You're looking at the label "OP" only in the most basic sense, while entirely missing bigger picture.
Weapon strength is about so much more.

Some basics:
1. Versatility (how many situations is it useful in)
2. Accessibility (how easily can you obtain it)
3. Difficulty/ease of use (reticle size, aim assist)

For example, shotgun is easy to use AND has very high damage output.
You need to adjust for that by limiting the versatility (only good at close range) and accessibility (there's only 1 spawn location on the map, so you have to fight for it).
Take another example of rockets, you would also consider that opponents are significantly more difficult to kill if they have the height advantage, and they only spawn every few minutes, out in the open where anyone can shoot you before you can reach them.

But here's the thing about AR:
  • It's Super easy to use
  • has good damage output
  • a large magazine
  • smart scope
  • head-shot bonus
  • decent range
  • and there's 0 difficulty in "obtaining" it
It has no weaknesses.

Compare that to Halo 3's AR: much shorter range.
In Reach: lower damage output.

And then there's the most important factor which is ease of use.
Let this be clear: Halo is an Arena-based shooter.

A key component to any Arena-based shooter is this:
  • Easy-to-use weapons are meant to be the weakest
  • Difficult-to-use weapons are meant to be the strongest
Past Halo titles have generally upheld this concept, whereas Halo 5 throws it out the window.
The issue isn't just about relative strength of the weapons. Purely looking at factors like damage & range, the AR really isn't any "stronger" than the pistol.

The big issue here is that AR is one of the easiest weapons to use in the game: its total "overall" strength (as a combination of damage and other benefits) shouldn't even be comparable to the pistol, which is significantly more difficult to use.
The way things are now doesn't make any sense for this genre of shooter and is inconsistent with the very foundation of traditional weapon balance in Halo.

Whether it be range or damage or zoom/magazine/head-shot bonus, something needs to go or it needs to go.


Honestly, I would prefer balancing it more than simply completely removing it.
I think it's a great idea to keep the settings consistent, as well as give lower skilled players something easy to use while they learn the ropes... but experienced veterans shouldn't get mowed down so easily.

In the meantime, at the very least, I think they should add a few AR pick-ups to the map, in locations that are easy to find off spawn.
That way, the people who prefer it aren't left completely out to dry, but you also won't have enough for every player or every spawn. Replacing the SMGs and Storm Rifles would be a good start.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 5
  4. 6
  5. ...
  6. 7