Skip to main content

Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

[Locked] Matchmaking Feedback Update – August 7

OP ZaedynFel

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 4
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
ZaedynFel wrote:
Is there ever going to be a separation of ranked and unranked players?! My universe still revolves around FFA and the skill gap can get pretty ridiculous. Fair matches are relatively fun and frantic but more often then not I still see matches that end with the winning player having 5+ kills over the next closest player. In a majority of these instances the winning player is either
A) Unranked
2) An SR under 20
C) A gamerscore under 100
I have also noticed a growing numer of players wearing recruit armor, while still stomping the field. All these variables (usually a combination of at least 2) indicate a ridiculous rise in Smurf accounts that are effectively ruining the MM experience.

In my experience there's no shortage of unranked players in FFA, because I barely get in to a match without seeing at least 1. Matching against unranked players combined with Smurf players results in hrs of slowly climbing the CSR hill to be undone in minutes. To me FFA has devolved into an unbalanced mess that only exercises my resistance to slamming my controller into the floor mid match. With every update and season FFA seemingly gets less and less fun, and I'm edging closer and closer to uninstalling H5.
I get that FFA has an inherently high skill gap, but deranking in those situations feels more like a kick in the teeth then an appropriate demotion. The way you descibed it makes it seem like leveling up is impossible and the system is intentionally holding us down!
Ignoring the issue of smurfs or boosters for a moment, you guys are ignoring the obvious possibility for this effect you observe: your CSR ranks are accurate. You don't deserve to rank up any further because your CSR actually reflects your real skill. So if lower ranked people beat you, their CSR needs to go up a lot because their CSR is way too low. The only way for them to gain a lot of CSR is for you to lose a lot of CSR (otherwise ranks get inflated simply by playing a lot of games).

I agree that smurfs are an annoyance in this system, although giving the smurf a lot of CSR in this case also makes sense, because their rank is falsely low, so should be raised! That means you're going to lose a lot of CSR. Now you can argue that smurfs shouldn't exist in the first place, but IF they exist, they need to gain a lot of CSR when they beat you.
Im not ignoring -Yoink-. I personally said, the system seems to be accurate after 2 seasons of similar placements.

But its only going to be accurate if the players in a given match are actually playing at the level there at. If some scrub hits champ and decides to make 2+ accounts, there obviously gonna -Yoink- on pretty much every body else that are actually below them, instead of them playing against opponents on their true level. Thats not fair, fun, or healthy for Halos already pathetic population.

Giving smurfs extra CSR makes zero sense. They are called smurfs for a reason. They intentionally play on levels they shouldnt be at to handedly beat other players to feel good about themselves or to boost their friends. Seems like a crappy situation that makes the game worse for everyone and shouldn't be rewarded or allowed. There should never be a scenario where a players rank is falsely lower then it should be, but it will never go away when M$ hands out 10 -Yoinking!- profiles to every Xbox Live gold member, because Microsoft.

I dont have a problem dropping ranks to players legitimately lower then me when i screw up. That is the system working as intended. But I dont deserve to be permanently stuck where im at when the MM system cant produce consistent matches due to scrubs that dont play at the levels they actually are.

The only way MM will function at 100% is when one player is limited to one account. The way you defend smurfs only leads me to believe you are one. Intentionally exploiting a system meant to create fair and fun matches for everyone is indefensible!
You misunderstood my point. I agree that smurfs cause a big problem in matchmaking for exactly the reasons you highlight.

I'm just saying this: right now there isn't a good method to detect or deter smurfs, either within Halo or within XBL. Given that they aren't detected effectively by Halo or XBL, the Halo CSR system has no choice but to treat them as normal players. I wish they could be detected and blocked, but right now they cant.
ZaedynFel wrote:
We said initially that we definitely had to look at the AR because its skill ceiling was a bit low for competitive.

The AR is a pretty core weapon. Any time you change a core weapon, you end up having to nudge other weapons as well.

I'm not a sandbox person, so I can't speak to the exact changes (I don't even know them). But I think it's going to be a comprehensive take that improves the sandbox and weapon interaction balance. Disclaimer: I made most of that up.

But seriously, I've heard good things from multiple skill levels here internally.
Ohhh man, I can't wait.
The AR in H5 is the worst version of any title, it's just depressing that it has taken this long for an update....
it just sucks that an update now is too late to bring any of my old buddies back.

The AR was one of the main reasons they just couldn't stand H5, and they aren't even competitive at all
-- even average gamers dislike things that are BOTH overpowered & overly easy to use..
You don't have to be competitive to see just how broken H5's AR is, it's just a universal concept that balance in games like FPS/RTS/Moba are needed --

and by balance, I don't mean that all tactics should be equally viable, I mean that the most skillful plays should be the most rewarding, not the other way around.
Throwing a wrench in that balance just ruins the fun -- it feels like you aren't making any progress as a player, and the game keeps forcing you back to the more-rewarding nooby style of play, which is often the most basic & boring of all.
And in the case of H5's AR, it's way worse than most balance issues that get brought up in other games, because you literally spawn with it for free every time.

ZaedynFel wrote:
As for the smurfs, we are also building something that will deal with those, but it'll still be awhile to get right on something that tricky.

I seriously hope this fix doesn't involve crossing CSR over multiple accounts.. other people in my household already struggle at Bronze 1, the last thing that's needed is to start matching against Onyx.
And anyway, multiple accounts is literally listed as a main selling point for Gold -- it was a pretty big deal when it was announced. It seems kinda shady if individual games were to circumvent that.
I have a few questions about ranking and matching in MM.

1.) How is it considered fair by the system to subtract CSR for a loss in a game where 1/2 the team quits? 12 of the last 15 MM games I played in had players who quit, leaving their team at a disadvantage. I don't understand why that should have a negative effect on the players who *do* stay in the game. I *really* wish 343 would implement a solution to people quitting matches, as well as not penalize players who do stay in the match, even knowing their CSR is going to get screwed.

2.) What are the matchmaking mechanics behind a match where one team has:
1 x Plat 5
2 x Plat 2
1 x Gold 3
and the other team has:
1 x Plat 1
2 x Gold 6
1 x Gold 4

or another match I had where the other team:
1 x Dia 5
1 x Plat 2
1 x Silver 6
1 x 2-game unranked
my team:
1 x Plat 1
1 x Gold 5
1 x 8-game unranked (who hit 8 kills/14 deaths before quitting out)
1 x 1-game unranked

3.) Why is [intentional] betraying still an issue, 16 years after Halo first came out? In BTB, whether it's for a power weapon, or for a flag, or just people getting their kicks by being -Yoinks!-, I don't understand why it's still tolerated to the point that it's still an issue in any way, I, myself, have several full-on betrayals today, in retaliation to people betraying me. I understand sometimes it happens, but I honestly fail to see why it would be difficult to implement a much stricter solution to it. I know it's beyond the scope of H5 at this point, but the game should be able to differentiate, with a fair degree of accuracy, between an accidental betrayal and intentional. Not to mention limiting someone who just betrayed their teammate to not being able to pick up the dropped loot.

4.) Why is the game incapable of starting a ranked match evenly when one of the players on one of the teams leaves Xbox Live before the game starts? I understand it would suck for one of the players on the opposing team if they were the one to get removed from the game pre-match, but it seems like the only way to still ensure a fair game would be to run it as a 3 vs 3, rather than a 4 vs 3, which would these days probably result in a 4 vs 2, or 4 vs 1.

5.) Dammit, I can't remember what I was going to put here...must not have been important. :P

6.) Not necessarily matchmaking related, but a couple of requests: For H6, could 343 *please* make theater suck worse than it does in H5? I completely understand if it's not possible, and that everything may have already been done to make theater suck as bad as it possibly can, BUT...if it could suck worse, that'd be awesome. /sarcasm (ie: "rewind" in 30 second increments? Not being able to save clips?? Not being able to NAME bookmarked matches so you know wtf they are???? Exiting out of a game kicks you out all the way back to the main menu, instead of back to the list of matches?) And I know I'm old AF, but I remember the menus on an Atari 2600 as being snappier than the menus in H5. Well, pretty much every console/game since then has had snappier-than-H5 menus.

Lastly, and I know it's been discussed elsewhere, but it drives me nuts that in certain playlists (eg: SWAT) that my CSR continuously teeter-totters even though I come out with a positive kill/death in the majority of my matches. (And yes, I understand the concept of "teamwork, etc etc", but if the teamwork in SWAT shouldn't be gauged by a team's collective kills to deaths, what should it be gauged by?)

Thanks for letting me vent. :)
ZaedynFel wrote:
We said initially that we definitely had to look at the AR because its skill ceiling was a bit low for competitive.

The AR is a pretty core weapon. Any time you change a core weapon, you end up having to nudge other weapons as well.

I'm not a sandbox person, so I can't speak to the exact changes (I don't even know them). But I think it's going to be a comprehensive take that improves the sandbox and weapon interaction balance. Disclaimer: I made most of that up.

But seriously, I've heard good things from multiple skill levels here internally.
Ohhh man, I can't wait.
The AR in H5 is the worst version of any title, it's just depressing that it has taken this long for an update....
it just sucks that an update now is too late to bring any of my old buddies back.

The AR was one of the main reasons they just couldn't stand H5, and they aren't even competitive at all
-- even average gamers dislike things that are BOTH overpowered & overly easy to use..
You don't have to be competitive to see just how broken H5's AR is, it's just a universal concept that balance in games like FPS/RTS/Moba are needed --

and by balance, I don't mean that all tactics should be equally viable, I mean that the most skillful plays should be the most rewarding, not the other way around.
Throwing a wrench in that balance just ruins the fun -- it feels like you aren't making any progress as a player, and the game keeps forcing you back to the more-rewarding nooby style of play, which is often the most basic & boring of all.
And in the case of H5's AR, it's way worse than most balance issues that get brought up in other games, because you literally spawn with it for free every time.

ZaedynFel wrote:
As for the smurfs, we are also building something that will deal with those, but it'll still be awhile to get right on something that tricky.

I seriously hope this fix doesn't involve crossing CSR over multiple accounts.. other people in my household already struggle at Bronze 1, the last thing that's needed is to start matching against Onyx.
And anyway, multiple accounts is literally listed as a main selling point for Gold -- it was a pretty big deal when it was announced. It seems kinda shady if individual games were to circumvent that.
I agree with your stance on the AR. It definitely needs a nerf of better balancing.

Im glad you are properly benefiting from XBLs additional profiles. But your scenario is in the minority when it comes to free accounts, I think. FFA is crawling with smurfs who exploit the extra accounts granted by M$ and its ruining matchmaking. I dont think combining multiple CSRs will fix the issue and shouldn't be implemented. But the same bronze 1 players in your household could easily match againast Onyx level players on smurf accounts, so something has to be done!
Populare wrote:
When can we expect an announcement regarding the next Warzone Warlords?
Nah, people going in solo complaining about being stomped by 12-man squads killed 12-man Warzone and perhaps hurt the population.
Populare wrote:
When can we expect an announcement regarding the next Warzone Warlords?
Nah, people going in solo complaining about being stomped by 12-man squads killed 12-man Warzone and perhaps hurt the population.
You have missed my point altogether. I was referencing Warlords. Yes, people were getting stomped, and a fireteam limit was created. But where does that's leave the players who want to run in 12 man teams? There was obviously a demand for it but they weren't catered for. Now those players have just stopped playing altogether because the one aspect of the game they liked has gone. Why couldn't they make Warlords 1 weekend in 4? Or put 12 man in customs? Because they don't care for WZ.

And just to reinforce my original point, sketch has just confirmed that WARLORDS WILL NOT BE BACK IN THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE DUE TO... wait for it LOW POPULATION. You already know what they will say before it's released.
ZaedynFel wrote:
Boomy EU wrote:
Hello all,

I have now been champion in breakout for two seasons and have been very frustrated with the ranking system (A lot of my friends are to).
Today I grinned for a few hours on breakout with my team we had no smurfs or low ranks. We had the search criteria on balanced for the whole time, yet we were still going against low ranks and moving up one point which is nothing. We would rather wait for a fair game in which we will go up in.

Here is an example: http://halo5arena.com/match/4ef3c9d4-8b3b-4c27-820e-7dfb08e4f086/Boomybiscuit45?timeplayed=2017-08-09

In this particular game the enemy team did not win. The ranks they had were very low and resulted us in going up nothing, this is very common and happens on a daily bases. Many of these players are new to the game and may be experiencing their first game of halo 5 but they get put up against champions, full teams and have no fun.

Another issue is the amount of points you lose to a game. For example I was playing with my team, a few of my teammates were having a bad game and we lost. I went positive and was top of the leaderboard yet I lost -30 points. This would take around 2-3 hours of time to get back. I am not saying I should have not lost nothing but I might have well quit the game because you lose 30 points for that.

Example: http://halo5arena.com/match/8d71109e-3829-447c-8b6b-99586c1b49bd/Boomybiscuit45?timeplayed=2017-08-09

If this does not change I will stop playing halo 5 and many other players.
Due to the time it takes to get points back.
Please contact me if you have any further questions.

kind regards,
Boomy
There are a few things going on here I can address.

First off, you are teaming up with Platinum and Diamond players. Your team's average skill is Diamond.

Even if we gave you even Diamond matches, the Ranking system intentionally makes it hard to get very far into Champ if you are only playing against Diamond teams. If you don't want to match against Diamond teams, you need to party up with Champion level players, or at least high Onyx.

The system will let you get to Onyx, but the farther you go after that, the harder and harder it will be to get any points unless you actually play against Champion level teams. And to play Champs, you can't put Plats and Diamonds on your team.

So, as far as the Ranking system is concerned, you have reached the highest it wants you to go, and it will keep pushing you back down until you team up with Champs.

Secondly, since you are queuing as a party of 4, the system tries to only match you at first with a party of 4. But in Breakout, when you searched, there were no parties of 4 of your skill around.

You would have had to wait around 20 minutes to find another party of 4 in Breakout at the time you searched. You may be willing to 20 minutes for a tighter match (Diamond in your case, and still wouldn't give you many points, and still - 30), but not everyone is willing to wait that long, especially in Breakout where skill gaps have less impact on the outcomes anyways.

But your main problem isn't the teams you play, it's that your teammates aren't Champs, and we aren't big on letting players push the Champ leaderboards by beating Diamond teams.
Quote:
unless you actually play against Champion level teams.
Yes, however there a very few champion level teams playing breakout and if they do they have smurfs 80% of the time so you move up nothing if you beat them.
Quote:
You would have had to wait around 20 minutes to find another party of 4
Could there be an optional setting to only go against teams of 4 with similar ranks or a suggested waiting time?
Quote:
and still - 30
Why do I still get -30 when I carried my team, shouldn't it be worked out on your own perfomence, not your team?
Boomy EU wrote:
Spoiler:
Show
You, as a Champ, losing to a far inferior team to yours means you get docked a whole lot of CSR. Likewise, beating teams far inferior to yours means you get a lot less CSR. Kinda rough being at the top of the mountain. As has been stated before, you get these matches from time to time when there is no one else around your level to match you with.
It should be worked out on your performance (not your whole team)
Boomy EU wrote:
Boomy EU wrote:
Spoiler:
Show
You, as a Champ, losing to a far inferior team to yours means you get docked a whole lot of CSR. Likewise, beating teams far inferior to yours means you get a lot less CSR. Kinda rough being at the top of the mountain. As has been stated before, you get these matches from time to time when there is no one else around your level to match you with.
It should be worked out on your performance (not your whole team)
Certainly it could be that way to a degree. But you should still never be able to gain CSR in a losing effort. At the most, the loss of CSR you take would be lessened depending on how well you played relative to your team. Perhaps this could be affected by your KDA. Like if you finish with a KDA of 8.0 or higher, the CSR hit you take in a loss is halved or something (if you stood to lose more than 12 CSR or something. Anything less than or equal to 12, you'll just take the full hit). This way, winning games won't lose its value.
I don't know if it's been proposed before, but what about a putting a maximum on the CSR loss?

What I mean is, if you rank in as a Gold, or work your way up to a Gold, during a season, you wouldn't drop back down to a Silver for the rest of the season. The idea is that at one point, you were skilled enough to be a Gold, so it should keep you with other people who were also Gold-skilled.

Obviously this wouldn't work for Onyx/Champion players.

Thoughts?
I don't know if it's been proposed before, but what about a putting a maximum on the CSR loss?

What I mean is, if you rank in as a Gold, or work your way up to a Gold, during a season, you wouldn't drop back down to a Silver for the rest of the season. The idea is that at one point, you were skilled enough to be a Gold, so it should keep you with other people who were also Gold-skilled.

Obviously this wouldn't work for Onyx/Champion players.

Thoughts?
That's how it used to be but people complained that they were getting artificially inflated and then couldn't de-rank to their actual rank so now you can derank through the tiers.

If you're Gold, you should be able to maintain your Gold no problem. If you got artificially boosted to Plat, you'd derank until you settle back in where you belong.

This way makes more sense.
I don't know if it's been proposed before, but what about a putting a maximum on the CSR loss?

What I mean is, if you rank in as a Gold, or work your way up to a Gold, during a season, you wouldn't drop back down to a Silver for the rest of the season. The idea is that at one point, you were skilled enough to be a Gold, so it should keep you with other people who were also Gold-skilled.

Obviously this wouldn't work for Onyx/Champion players.

Thoughts?
That's how it used to be but people complained that they were getting artificially inflated and then couldn't de-rank to their actual rank so now you can derank through the tiers.

If you're Gold, you should be able to maintain your Gold no problem. If you got artificially boosted to Plat, you'd derank until you settle back in where you belong.

This way makes more sense.
Yeah, people who were stuck at plat 1 but belonged at gold 3 were getting brutally flamed in party chat and via messages ("you -Yoinking!- suck how are you a plat" etc.) - better for everyone to have them de-rank to their actual skill. The ranking system isn't meant to be an ego booster for everyone. It's meant to reflect your actual skill. Now if you can maintain a high rank, you (and everyone else) knows you deserve it.
5.) Dammit, I can't remember what I was going to put here...must not have been important. :P
I remember what else I wanted to ask!

5.) Why, when playing a Slayer-type match, does it rank the "winners" of the team by kills alone? If someone is at 15 kills and 25 deaths, I don't understand how or why they should come in ahead of someone else on their team with 14 kills and 3 deaths. I keep seeing on these forums about how some people agree with the current system, and believe CSR should go down for 3 players on a team if they lose in a SWAT or Slayer match, even if they had a cumulative of 49 kills and 0 deaths, and the fourth player on the team has no kills and 50 deaths, and that CSR should go up or down based solely on the win or loss. (I don't agree with that, but...) But assuming that's the case, and that "individual performance should not come before team performance", then why does individual performance come ahead of team performance when it comes to kills and kills alone (disregarding deaths entirely) when ranking the players with a team at the end of a match? The two systems are contrary to each other.

Edit: Also, while I'm here, I may as well mention one of the other previous questions I had regarding betrayers. Today in countless BTB (and even a couple of ranked slayer) matches, people were betraying teammates for no reason. In one of my first matches of the day, the BTB started with a teammate jumping into the wraith and intentionally driving through everyone else. For the rest of the match, he would shoot or charge teammates, but never enough to kill them, so he never actually got booted. After today, I'm sure my betrayal meter is pretty much full, from retaliating against all of the betrayers I've been experiencing lately...
5.) Dammit, I can't remember what I was going to put here...must not have been important. :P
I remember what else I wanted to ask!

5.) Why, when playing a Slayer-type match, does it rank the "winners" of the team by kills alone? If someone is at 15 kills and 25 deaths, I don't understand how or why they should come in ahead of someone else on their team with 14 kills and 3 deaths. I keep seeing on these forums about how some people agree with the current system, and believe CSR should go down for 3 players on a team if they lose in a SWAT or Slayer match, even if they had a cumulative of 49 kills and 0 deaths, and the fourth player on the team has no kills and 50 deaths, and that CSR should go up or down based solely on the win or loss. (I don't agree with that, but...) But assuming that's the case, and that "individual performance should not come before team performance", then why does individual performance come ahead of team performance when it comes to kills and kills alone (disregarding deaths entirely) when ranking the players with a team at the end of a match? The two systems are contrary to each other.

Edit: Also, while I'm here, I may as well mention one of the other previous questions I had regarding betrayers. Today in countless BTB (and even a couple of ranked slayer) matches, people were betraying teammates for no reason. In one of my first matches of the day, the BTB started with a teammate jumping into the wraith and intentionally driving through everyone else. For the rest of the match, he would shoot or charge teammates, but never enough to kill them, so he never actually got booted. After today, I'm sure my betrayal meter is pretty much full, from retaliating against all of the betrayers I've been experiencing lately...
You'd have a point if where you placed on your team affected anything, but it doesn't, so your #5 is only really an ego thing. And really, it only makes sense that the guy that got the most kills in a game type where the team that has the most kills wins would be on top, regardless of how many times he died. Likewise, the guy who caps the most flags in CTF is on top, regardless of deaths, and the guy who caps the most hills in Strongholds is on top. In other words, playing the objective will put you at the top of your team.

I mean, come on, would you really accept that a guy who went 10-3 and got the top spot over you who went 30-10?
5.) Dammit, I can't remember what I was going to put here...must not have been important. :P
I remember what else I wanted to ask!

5.) Why, when playing a Slayer-type match, does it rank the "winners" of the team by kills alone? If someone is at 15 kills and 25 deaths, I don't understand how or why they should come in ahead of someone else on their team with 14 kills and 3 deaths. I keep seeing on these forums about how some people agree with the current system, and believe CSR should go down for 3 players on a team if they lose in a SWAT or Slayer match, even if they had a cumulative of 49 kills and 0 deaths, and the fourth player on the team has no kills and 50 deaths, and that CSR should go up or down based solely on the win or loss. (I don't agree with that, but...) But assuming that's the case, and that "individual performance should not come before team performance", then why does individual performance come ahead of team performance when it comes to kills and kills alone (disregarding deaths entirely) when ranking the players with a team at the end of a match? The two systems are contrary to each other.

Edit: Also, while I'm here, I may as well mention one of the other previous questions I had regarding betrayers. Today in countless BTB (and even a couple of ranked slayer) matches, people were betraying teammates for no reason. In one of my first matches of the day, the BTB started with a teammate jumping into the wraith and intentionally driving through everyone else. For the rest of the match, he would shoot or charge teammates, but never enough to kill them, so he never actually got booted. After today, I'm sure my betrayal meter is pretty much full, from retaliating against all of the betrayers I've been experiencing lately...
You'd have a point if where you placed on your team affected anything, but it doesn't, so your #5 is only really an ego thing. And really, it only makes sense that the guy that got the most kills in a game type where the team that has the most kills wins would be on top, regardless of how many times he died. Likewise, the guy who caps the most flags in CTF is on top, regardless of deaths, and the guy who caps the most hills in Strongholds is on top. In other words, playing the objective will put you at the top of your team.

I mean, come on, would you really accept that a guy who went 10-3 and got the top spot over you who went 30-10?
Why should someone who went 10-3 be above someone who went 30-10? It isn't an ego thing when gambit Reqs are decided by team placement. What I'm arguing is that the guy who has a lot of kills but MORE DEATHS HURTS the team. How can you possibly argue that he benefits the team objective of a win by having more deaths than kills? Makes no sense what-so-ever.
Spoiler:
Show
But in your initial example, you're basically saying the guy who died the least (14-3) should be in the top spot of a team, not the guy that got the most kills (15-25) in a Slayer game.
I have finally caught up with all of the archived feedback threads, and getting around to posting in one. I wish I had been doing this a lot sooner, but a combination of only paying attention to the Halo 5 forums, as well taking a break from Halo in general for a couple of months, has kept me from it. I won't post some big ole epic question (I already made my epic post ;), anyway my main concern right now is this. There have been multiple references made to possibly merging TA and HCS. I am wondering what would that look like exactly?

There has already been a removal of Skirmish to help MM quality in TA & HCS, since this is still being talked about after removing that, does that mean removing Skirmish didn't help as much as you had hoped? If that is the case may I suggest, instead of first merging them, remove Slayer and add a few more duplicates of Slayer to TA so that it will come up more often.

I know there will be some backlash, but I think it could work, because there has also been an argument of why have Slayer a separate playlist when it's already included in TA. This could help infuse the TA playlist with more players and help the quality of the games as well.

Thank you for making these threads, ZaedynFel, they have been greatly appreciated. As well as all the time put into keeping things balanced. Since April, the last time I played until recently, my matches have been the most consistent in terms evenly matched that I think I ever had in H5.
Oh I understand the concept of why we can't rank up. It's just stupid that we are playing on a system that consistently matches us against opponents that won't give us any CSR. That'd be like back in H3 if someone got to 45 in FFA and the system thought that was their skill range,. So every game after that you matched a Lvl 40,38,36,28,25,22,20 or similar and you just kept winning but always stayed at a 45. But I'm pretty sure there was a 10 Lvl cap on H3 so you were always getting a decent amount of exp for a win.
The main difference is this:

H3:
  • Don't match more than 10 levels apart
  • But pretend anyone 50 and up is the same
  • So 75s can instantly match with 50s and destroy them (which happened most of the times when 75s queued)
  • This is the same as Champ 1 matching instantly with the worst Onyx player. Low Onyx players don't like getting stomped by Pros and AMs, today at least.
H5:
  • Max allowed levels apart is different per playlist, adapted to that playlist's distribution, pop size, and skill ceiling.
  • HCS starts at only 2 levels apart and increases by 0.6 levels every 5 seconds up to 18 levels apart.
  • So 75s won't match lower than 57s, and won't match 50s and destroy them
  • 75s will also try and match other 75s first rather than matching 50s instantly.
  • But 50s will match 32s sometimes, after 2.5 minutes
  • If we don't let 75s match down to 57, they won't be able to find matches at all
  • But if 75s can go down 18 levels to hit 57, everyone else can also go down 18 levels since we can only have one expansion rule
I'm currently evaluating a solution that merges the best of both H3 and H5, which is:
  • Match 75s, etc., against 75s first, and then expand down to 56
  • But match 50s at worst against 40s (actually, no lower than 42)
  • This has to be done within one expansion rule still, so it's a bit tricky
If that works out, I'll let you know.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 4