Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

[Locked] Matchmaking Feedback Update – August 28

OP ZaedynFel

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3
Hey folks, with last weeks longer post, I don’t have much in the way of updates this week.

We don’t have a ton of stats yet on the Warzone updates, though some indication that the matches are getting closer.

We haven’t enabled the 12-player party Warzone changes yet because we’ve been busy working on the sandbox updates. It’ll happen, just not yet.

Feel free to leave feedback and questions here.
ETA on 12 man? is it going to happen with the fall update or sooner?
2 months later and there's still only 78 champs in FFA.

I know you mentioned that there was an issue with the initial/starting-out ranks but by this point, it's clearly also a bit too harsh when it comes to progression.
There's only a half dozen or so of those champs with a win/loss under 50%, which seems a bit excessive when there's 5 other players you're going against and many of them are also at that top level.

Even with a low population, there should still be a full 200 champs by the end of a season.
This playlist really can't wait any longer, it's already deserted. Please tell me there's something (more than just initial placements) in store to address this.

Also, I'm not sure how much your role overlaps with this, maybe it's purely for the balance/gameplay guys but...
Do you find it acceptable that the #1 champ has nearly 1/3 of all his kills coming from AR+Melee, the easiest & most noob-friendly mechanics in the game?
ZaedynFel wrote:
We don’t have a ton of stats yet on the Warzone updates, though some indication that the matches are getting closer.
Hi Josh, I'm sure you guys are already aware, but there is some good discussion in the WZ changes feedback thread. Here's a post I made which summarizes some of the issues I perceive (and I've played a lot of WZ games, both sweaty and non-sweaty).

Basically it comes down to this - it feels like the scores may be getting closer numerically, but it's not any easier to flip momentum in a game and have comeback wins, once one team starts to dominate the map. In fact, it may actually be harder to flip momentum now. I personally think this is due to REQ level bonus only being awarded to the players who got boss takedown or base cap credit, whereas before the whole team got to share a fair bit of that credit. See my linked post for more commentary.

So now we have a situation where many games are basically decided when the score is 300-150, but rather than finish 1000-175 with a quick core, it drags on to finish 1000-500 while one team is just pinned in their single armory, unable to advance, but able to call enough REQs to prevent being trip capped. So everyone wastes 10 minutes in a game that's basically over already.

TL;DR - I'm pretty disappointed with the results of this latest update. I really hope you guys revert it, or at least go with a hybrid - like keep the original boss takedown credit system, but slightly nerf the REQ level gain for slays compared to the original, and add a bit of REQ "drip" to compensate.
Hello Josh,

Would it be considered an "unnecessary action" for 343 to start issuing formal warnings for those who take advantage of the archlight glitch on warzone?

I know im not supposed to revive this obstacle that 343 is already working on, but to at least alleviate a situation where many of us find it very unpleasant to depart a field where we fear the use of this cowardly actions against fair contestants.

I believe if 343 delivers a formal advisory to those who continue this immature actions would help reduce the chances to be committed again. Even a temporary prohibition for those who commit the same mistake again.
  • Could you provide an update on where the 343i team is at regarding the amount of weapons being re-tuned? Originally, the picture that was painted appeared to be 14+1 power-up, but now it seems pretty unclear so I'm just wondering what clarity you might be able to add/share on this topic. Will it likely be less or more than that initial possibility?
  • Also, is there any chance that the Warzone modifications become more involved in the attempt to facilitate a more balanced Warzone match or are the current ones only susceptible to being back-tracked depending on test data and player feedback? Honestly, I'm wondering if the 343i team is in a position where they can afford to continue putting resources toward re-working the mode. For example could they change how Legendary and Mystic AI Boss points are rewarded such as the example I provide in this LINK because I think that would be one very critical method they could use to achieve their stated goal.
  • How's the testing coming along for the 12-man Warzone implementation and are you leaning toward turning the "block player" feature off for it if it goes live?
  • Lastly, will the fall update include any performance updates/improvements regarding the game for people not on an Xbox One X? Just curious.
Warzone matches feel better. I've played 10 matches or so and the games are closer, more prone to the losing team being able to fight back.

I'm still experiencing farming, or getting locked down in one base and getting continually killed. It revolves around the Banshees and their ability to roll and dodge with no cooldowns. Also, the players figure out where we spawn and they constantly spawn kill.

Also feel the way points are rewarded should be looked at as well. Give a reward to the team if it does the vast majority of damage to a boss. Boss stealing is not fun, promotes not playing the objective and letting other players do the work until you can cheese the kill.

Thanks for your work on Warzone. Moving in the right direction.
Also feel the way points are rewarded should be looked at as well. Give a reward to the team if it does the vast majority of damage to a boss. Boss stealing is not fun, promotes not playing the objective and letting other players do the work until you can cheese the kill.
Do you mean points should be awarded to a team if they do damage to the boss, even if the enemy team gets the final shot? I'm sorry, but every time I hear people advocating for that option, it makes me roll my eyes. The whole point of Warzone IMHO is that it's fundamentally a PvP mode with a little PvE AI mixed in. If you start awarding points based on damage dealt to a boss, rather than on the team who actually secures the kill, you've just turned WZ into a PvE game mode.

If people want to play PvE, there are 2-3 Warzone Firefight playlists dedicated to that experience. Please, let's keep Warzone a PvP mode. The "Work" in PvP warzone isn't supposed to be sitting there mindlessly melting a Mythic boss with a tank (see: Warzone Firefight), it's out-playing the enemy spartans to win the game, whether by stealing the bosses or capping their bases.
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
Also feel the way points are rewarded should be looked at as well. Give a reward to the team if it does the vast majority of damage to a boss. Boss stealing is not fun, promotes not playing the objective and letting other players do the work until you can cheese the kill.
Do you mean points should be awarded to a team if they do damage to the boss, even if the enemy team gets the final shot? I'm sorry, but every time I hear people advocating for that option, it makes me roll my eyes. The whole point of Warzone IMHO is that it's fundamentally a PvP mode with a little PvE AI mixed in. If you start awarding points based on damage dealt to a boss, rather than on the team who actually secures the kill, you've just turned WZ into a PvE game mode.

If people want to play PvE, there are 2-3 Warzone Firefight playlists dedicated to that experience. Please, let's keep Warzone a PvP mode. The "Work" in PvP warzone isn't supposed to be sitting there mindlessly melting a Mythic boss with a tank (see: Warzone Firefight), it's out-playing the enemy spartans to win the game, whether by stealing the bosses or capping their bases.
I would agree with you if the rewards for Legendary and Mystic AI Bosses weren't as impactful as they are. From my perspective, the fact that they carry the primary values for winning a contested match gives the mode much more of a PvE flair than a PvP battle. If the scoring system put more emphasis on controlling the bases and perhaps earning spartan kills with the AI enemies being more-so supplemental aspects to that scoring system and mostly useful for driving up individual REQ levels then yes I'd agree with your sentiment, but that's not really the case with how Warzone has been built which is why I personally support and advocate for dividing up the large point values based on the effort being put forth between the contending teams as well as by rewarding the killing blow. By making that alteration I think it would foster greater balance to the current design of Warzone.
eLantern wrote:
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
Also feel the way points are rewarded should be looked at as well. Give a reward to the team if it does the vast majority of damage to a boss. Boss stealing is not fun, promotes not playing the objective and letting other players do the work until you can cheese the kill.
Do you mean points should be awarded to a team if they do damage to the boss, even if the enemy team gets the final shot? I'm sorry, but every time I hear people advocating for that option, it makes me roll my eyes. The whole point of Warzone IMHO is that it's fundamentally a PvP mode with a little PvE AI mixed in. If you start awarding points based on damage dealt to a boss, rather than on the team who actually secures the kill, you've just turned WZ into a PvE game mode.

If people want to play PvE, there are 2-3 Warzone Firefight playlists dedicated to that experience. Please, let's keep Warzone a PvP mode. The "Work" in PvP warzone isn't supposed to be sitting there mindlessly melting a Mythic boss with a tank (see: Warzone Firefight), it's out-playing the enemy spartans to win the game, whether by stealing the bosses or capping their bases.
I would agree with you if the rewards for Legendary and Mystic AI Bosses weren't as much as they are. From my perspective, the fact that they carry the primary values for winning a contested match gives the mode more of a PvE than a PvP battle. If the scoring system put more emphasis on controlling the bases and earning spartan kills with the AI enemies being supplemental aspects to that scoring system then yes I'd agree with you sentiments, but that's not really the case which is why I personally support and advocate for dividing up the large point values (150 and 200) based on the effort being put forth between the contending teams.
I don't personally see a problem with the 25 or 100 point bosses - stealing them takes skill and often teamwork, and seems like a totally viable strategy IMO, and part of the fun of WZ. And it's possible to recover if one of them gets stolen. I sympathize with the 200-point mythic bosses being problematic, because they're SO strong, and SO valuable that they cause 400-point swings at the last second. At first I really hated the mythics, for the exact reasons you mention.

Having played a lot more, I've come to accept the mythic bosses in WZ... they only matter in like 25% of games anyway, and the ones they do, they add a bit of excitement / frenzied pushing / and unpredictability, making it possible for a team to clutch it at the last second. Plus, they provide a motivation for everyone to stay aggressive and try to cap bases so the game doesn't come down to someone stealing the mythic.

One point for you to consider: a benefit of the 200 and 100 point bosses right now is that they enable a team to win while only holding 1 armory all game. If you nerfed the boss points, it would be MUCH harder to do that, and the team that capped mid base to start the game would have a bigger advantage. And since the REQ system makes capping bases really hard if enemies choose to turtle up in their bases with power weapons and camo, it's nice to have a path to victory through boss takedowns. Otherwise games would just be really boring affairs of pushing bases and repeatedly dying to guys in fortified positions with power weapons.

This probably isn't the optimal thread for discussion on this precise topic, sorry about that. I'll try and limit my comments on this.
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
eLantern wrote:
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
Also feel the way points are rewarded should be looked at as well. Give a reward to the team if it does the vast majority of damage to a boss. Boss stealing is not fun, promotes not playing the objective and letting other players do the work until you can cheese the kill.
...
I would agree with you if the rewards for Legendary and Mystic AI Bosses weren't as impactful as they are. From my perspective, the fact that they carry the primary values for winning a contested match gives the mode much more of a PvE flair than a PvP battle. If the scoring system put more emphasis on controlling the bases and perhaps on earning spartan kills with the AI enemies being more-so supplemental aspects to that scoring system and mostly useful for driving up individual REQ levels then yes I'd agree with your sentiment, but that's not really the case with how Warzone has been built which is why I personally support and advocate for dividing up the large point values based on the effort being put forth between the contending teams as well as by rewarding the killing blow. By making that alteration I think it would foster greater balance to the current design of Warzone.
...

One point for you to consider: a benefit of the 200 and 100 point bosses right now is that they enable a team to win while only holding 1 armory all game. If you nerfed the boss points, it would be MUCH harder to do that, and the team that capped mid base to start the game would have a bigger advantage. And since the REQ system makes capping bases really hard if enemies choose to turtle up in their bases with power weapons and camo, it's nice to have a path to victory through boss takedowns. Otherwise games would just be really boring affairs of pushing bases and repeatedly dying to guys in fortified positions with power weapons.

This probably isn't the optimal thread for discussion on this precise topic, sorry about that. I'll try and limit my comments on this.
It may not be the optimal thread for this discussion as you say, but it's nonetheless an opportunity for us to leave our feedback on this matchmaking mode which given this week's update here would seem quite acceptable.

I rarely disagree with you, but this is probably an area where we will have to agree to disagree. I don't personally find games that focus on pushing base strongholds to be boring affairs; in fact, I find that game-play concept (ex. 3-Plot, Strongholds, Dominion) a heck of a lot more satisfying than potentially pissing my ammunition away on an AI bullet sponge. Also, in my opinion the current changes to the REQ system have helped reduce the amount of players who fortify themselves into base locations with power weapons because less people are able to continuously rock upper level items if they're not actively involved with the destruction of high value AI enemies which of course isn't occurring if they're simply focused on camping a base.

I do agree though that as part of Warzone's AI implementation design a team should be able to remain competitive score wise, and even possibly win, by maintaining control of their one non-HQ base while focusing most of their effort on earning the majority of AI scoring opportunities which would also grant REQ boosts to the individuals who earned those points for the team. To note: those REQ boosts would improve those individuals chances in overtaking an opposing team's base too. I don't necessarily agree that reducing or dividing the value of the VIP AI points will prevent the team controlling one base from remaining competitive because more lower-level supplemental enemies could be added in-between VIP bosses to help offset any total value difference that splitting or reducing those boss points might be concerned to cause.
Hey Josh here are a few links to my game history. The first one is where a game played fairly consistent all the way through.

https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/games/halo-5-guardians/xbox-one/mode/arena/matches/4c1cc011-67e1-4538-a48d-ad46cc18fa45/players/zippyskippy?gameHistoryMatchIndex=0&gameHistoryGameModeFilter=Arena

This next link the game played slow and sluggish in the beginning until about halfway through. During that time the aim is very hard to control and movement is sluggish and not very responsive. not to mention hit detection is very bad.

https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/games/halo-5-guardians/xbox-one/mode/arena/matches/07c8c197-c66e-4574-af9e-a959497a9995/players/zippyskippy?gameHistoryMatchIndex=1&gameHistoryGameModeFilter=Arena

This last one started out slow and sluggish with bad hit detection and bad aiming control also. But the reason I add this one is because when someone quits or gets dropped from the game the game plays off. Sometimes it frees and becomes less sluggish and sometimes it gets worse. Most of the time though the game frees up and plays much better.. This may be normal but I have very strong doubts about that. Its bad enough losing a player or two but its even worse when ones performance is compromised by it.

https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/games/halo-5-guardians/xbox-one/mode/arena/matches/ecd12a62-cccd-4bcc-8ae2-ce8374c93721/players/zippyskippy?gameHistoryMatchIndex=4&gameHistoryGameModeFilter=Arena

Josh one of the easiest ways to spot what I'm trying to describe is by looking at data in the early start of a game. Players that start out with zero kills and six or better deaths before they actually get a kill may likely be experiencing this issue I have described back in last weeks thread. I don't want to say all but I think its more then one would think. Ive played this with several others and some have noticed this also as we play the game. Not all but some. I just want to make that clear. My problem isn't with ranking system I think you have done a great job at that. My issue is not getting any consistent game play in the performance area. No two games play alike. Not even close. It makes me wonder if I'm consistently staying on the same server or if I'm bouncing around? Again thanks for all your time. I do appreciate it. If you need more links or anything else please let me know.
Zippy.
ZaedynFel wrote:
Hey folks, with last weeks longer post, I don’t have much in the way of updates this week.
We don’t have a ton of stats yet on the Warzone updates, though some indication that the matches are getting closer.
We haven’t enabled the 12-player party Warzone changes yet because we’ve been busy working on the sandbox updates. It’ll happen, just not yet.
Feel free to leave feedback an12v12? questions here.
Could you guys also make assault
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
Also feel the way points are rewarded should be looked at as well. Give a reward to the team if it does the vast majority of damage to a boss. Boss stealing is not fun, promotes not playing the objective and letting other players do the work until you can cheese the kill.
Do you mean points should be awarded to a team if they do damage to the boss, even if the enemy team gets the final shot? I'm sorry, but every time I hear people advocating for that option, it makes me roll my eyes. The whole point of Warzone IMHO is that it's fundamentally a PvP mode with a little PvE AI mixed in. If you start awarding points based on damage dealt to a boss, rather than on the team who actually secures the kill, you've just turned WZ into a PvE game mode.

If people want to play PvE, there are 2-3 Warzone Firefight playlists dedicated to that experience. Please, let's keep Warzone a PvP mode. The "Work" in PvP warzone isn't supposed to be sitting there mindlessly melting a Mythic boss with a tank (see: Warzone Firefight), it's out-playing the enemy spartans to win the game, whether by stealing the bosses or capping their bases.
It doesn't take skill to queue up camo and sit there waiting to assassinate Warden.

The bosses in this game mode are very important. But because of their design, specifically the fact that they are so tanky and take forever to down, makes it almost random as to who will get the last hit. That's what bothers me.

Idk what you mean by mindlessly melting the AI. Your whole post constructs a silly straw man argument to be honest.

Because the health is so high it feels unfair for the players to spend literally a minute or longer taking down a boss only to have a sniper or stealth take the kill and get 100% of the points.

Feel free to disagree, but save your eye rolling for someone else.
eLantern wrote:
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
eLantern wrote:
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
Also feel the way points are rewarded should be looked at as well. Give a reward to the team if it does the vast majority of damage to a boss. Boss stealing is not fun, promotes not playing the objective and letting other players do the work until you can cheese the kill.
...
I would agree with you if the rewards for Legendary and Mystic AI Bosses weren't as impactful as they are. From my perspective, the fact that they carry the primary values for winning a contested match gives the mode more of a PvE flair than a PvP battle. If the scoring system put more emphasis on controlling the bases and perhaps on earning spartan kills with the AI enemies being more-so supplemental aspects to that scoring system and mostly useful for driving up individual REQ levels then yes I'd agree with your sentiment, but that's not really the case with how Warzone has been built which is why I personally support and advocate for dividing up the current large point values (150 and 200) based on the effort being put forth between the contending teams as well as by rewarding the killing blow. By making that alteration I think it would foster greater balance to the current design of Warzone.
...

One point for you to consider: a benefit of the 200 and 100 point bosses right now is that they enable a team to win while only holding 1 armory all game. If you nerfed the boss points, it would be MUCH harder to do that, and the team that capped mid base to start the game would have a bigger advantage. And since the REQ system makes capping bases really hard if enemies choose to turtle up in their bases with power weapons and camo, it's nice to have a path to victory through boss takedowns. Otherwise games would just be really boring affairs of pushing bases and repeatedly dying to guys in fortified positions with power weapons.

This probably isn't the optimal thread for discussion on this precise topic, sorry about that. I'll try and limit my comments on this.
It may not be the optimal thread for this discussion as you say, but it's nonetheless an opportunity for us to leave our feedback on this matchmaking mode which given this week's update here would seem quite acceptable.

I rarely disagree with you, but this is probably an area where we will have to agree to disagree. I don't personally find games that focus on pushing base strongholds to be boring affairs; in fact, I find that game-play concept (ex. 3-Plot, Strongholds, Dominion) a heck of a lot more satisfying than potentially pissing my ammunition away on an AI bullet sponge. Also, in my opinion the current changes to the REQ system have helped reduce the amount of players who fortify themselves into base locations with power weapons because less people are able to continuously rock upper level items if they're not actively involved with the destruction of high value AI enemies which of course isn't occurring if they're simply focused on camping a base.

I do agree though that as part of Warzone's AI implementation design a team should be able to remain competitive score wise, and even possibly win, by maintaining control of their one non-HQ base while focusing most of their effort on earning the majority of AI scoring opportunities which would also grant REQ boosts to the individuals who earned those points for the team. To note: those REQ boosts would improve those individuals chances in overtaking an opposing team's base too. I don't necessarily agree that reducing or dividing the value of the VIP AI points will prevent the team controlling one base from remaining competitive because more lower-level supplemental enemies could be added in-between VIP bosses to help offset any total value difference that splitting or reducing boss points might be concerned to cause.
I like your post. Are you saying that a possible better solution would be to put more lower value AI targets into Warzone?
Would it not be easier to have 12 man Warzone in custom games? Keeps it seperate from everything else. Players have already found a way to play WZ in a 4v4 setting in customs, so it's just a case of increasing the party size.
eLantern wrote:
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
eLantern wrote:
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
Also feel the way points are rewarded should be looked at as well. Give a reward to the team if it does the vast majority of damage to a boss. Boss stealing is not fun, promotes not playing the objective and letting other players do the work until you can cheese the kill.
...
I would agree with you if the rewards for Legendary and Mystic AI Bosses weren't as impactful as they are. From my perspective, the fact that they carry the primary values for winning a contested match gives the mode more of a PvE flair than a PvP battle. If the scoring system put more emphasis on controlling the bases and perhaps on earning spartan kills with the AI enemies being more-so supplemental aspects to that scoring system and mostly useful for driving up individual REQ levels then yes I'd agree with your sentiment, but that's not really the case with how Warzone has been built which is why I personally support and advocate for dividing up the current large point values (150 and 200) based on the effort being put forth between the contending teams as well as by rewarding the killing blow. By making that alteration I think it would foster greater balance to the current design of Warzone.
...

One point for you to consider: a benefit of the 200 and 100 point bosses right now is that they enable a team to win while only holding 1 armory all game. If you nerfed the boss points, it would be MUCH harder to do that, and the team that capped mid base to start the game would have a bigger advantage. And since the REQ system makes capping bases really hard if enemies choose to turtle up in their bases with power weapons and camo, it's nice to have a path to victory through boss takedowns. Otherwise games would just be really boring affairs of pushing bases and repeatedly dying to guys in fortified positions with power weapons.

This probably isn't the optimal thread for discussion on this precise topic, sorry about that. I'll try and limit my comments on this.
It may not be the optimal thread for this discussion as you say, but it's nonetheless an opportunity for us to leave our feedback on this matchmaking mode which given this week's update here would seem quite acceptable.

I rarely disagree with you, but this is probably an area where we will have to agree to disagree. I don't personally find games that focus on pushing base strongholds to be boring affairs; in fact, I find that game-play concept (ex. 3-Plot, Strongholds, Dominion) a heck of a lot more satisfying than potentially pissing my ammunition away on an AI bullet sponge. Also, in my opinion the current changes to the REQ system have helped reduce the amount of players who fortify themselves into base locations with power weapons because less people are able to continuously rock upper level items if they're not actively involved with the destruction of high value AI enemies which of course isn't occurring if they're simply focused on camping a base.

I do agree though that as part of Warzone's AI implementation design a team should be able to remain competitive score wise, and even possibly win, by maintaining control of their one non-HQ base while focusing most of their effort on earning the majority of AI scoring opportunities which would also grant REQ boosts to the individuals who earned those points for the team. To note: those REQ boosts would improve those individuals chances in overtaking an opposing team's base too. I don't necessarily agree that reducing or dividing the value of the VIP AI points will prevent the team controlling one base from remaining competitive because more lower-level supplemental enemies could be added in-between VIP bosses to help offset any total value difference that splitting or reducing boss points might be concerned to cause.
I like your post. Are you saying that a possible better solution would be to put more lower value AI targets into Warzone?
Each team should have a seperate health bar for the big bosses (100+) That way it comes down to who downs it first without the other team getting a last hit after your team has done all the damage.
The Banshee is too freaking powerful in Warzone. It needed to be nerfed a long time ago. It's ability to constantly do flips and tricks makes it near impossible to board, hit with a Spartan laser, railgun, rocket launcher, plasma pistol, Hydra, even sniper rifles. You name it. I just finished a match in warzone while solo-queing and I spent the entire match trying to take down one banshee and it couldn't be done.
This is in desperate need of fixing.
Suggestion:
1. Make the cool down rate for flips much much longer for the banshee. This will give the plasma pistol and other locked-on weapons more effective. It will also punish those players that do flips all over the map with reckless abandon. Even this simple fix will help balance the god-like power of the Banshee. Again, make the cool down rate much much much much longer.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
Rome753 wrote:
The Banshee is too freaking powerful in Warzone. It needed to be nerfed a long time ago. It's ability to constantly do flips and tricks makes it near impossible to board, hit with a Spartan laser, railgun, rocket launcher, plasma pistol, Hydra, even sniper rifles. You name it. I just finished a match in warzone while solo-queing and Ispent the entire match trying to take down one banshee and it couldn't be done.
This is in desperate need of fixing.
Suggestion:
1. Make the cool down rate for flips much much longer for the banshee. This will give the plasma pistol and other locked-on weapons more effective. It will also punish those players that do flips all over the map with reckless abandon. Even this simple fix will help balance the god-like power of the Banshee. Again, make the cool down rate much much much much longer.
Couldn't agree more!
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3