Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

[Locked] Matchmaking Feedback Update – Feb 13

OP ZaedynFel

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
CSR Ranks
We’ve heard some concerns about the integrity of the top of the ladder. We have reconsidered the tuning and decided some players are getting too many points for defeating worse teams, effectively turning ranks at the top of Onyx and Champion into purely a time investment grind. While we do want some minimum time investment to reach your Rank, it’s currently too biased towards quantity of wins rather than quality. We are retuning that to give an appropriate amount of points based on opponent difficulty.

In those cases where top Onyx and Champion players cannot find a fair match and are matched against easily defeated opponents, they will not get many points. This is needed to maintain the skill integrity of the top of the ladder. The amount of points you get for defeating a team needs to be proportional to how difficult your opponent is. If your opponent can only beat you 1 in 30 games, then you should only get 1 point for beating them, assuming your current CSR is in the right place. Conversely, if you beat a team that usually beats you 29 out of 30 times, you should get 29 points, and they should lose 29 points. This keeps the system accurate.

While the system is adapting to this change, there may be some bumps for the highest-ranked Onyx and Champion players. It will make the end of this season a little more rocky than intended, but will be smoothed out by the beginning of the next season. We intended to wait until the end of the season so as not to affect the current ranks, but this turned out to be the best window for applying the needed change.

We also understand the concerns over the size of Onyx. The original intention I had for Onyx was to be only the top 2% or so players. It looks like it may be larger than intended, so I may cut back in the near future. This may mean that most of you that are currently Onyx would drop to Diamond, so I’d like feedback on how you would feel about that. On the one hand, it makes getting to Onyx more rewarding and a clearer indication of Halo mastery. On the other, it feels bad to lose it. One possible option is to only make this more exclusive change for Team Arena.


Party Restrictions
Some of you have expressed ongoing concerns over party restrictions, so I’ll try and explain a bit more on how we can have our party restrictions cake and eat it too by adjusting skill rather than direct restrictions.
Most of you would agree that the advantage of being in a 4-player fireteam will overcome any group of 4 solo queuing players at your same skill level. That advantage can be quantified. It's just another skill gap. A skill gap literally translates to "how often will team A beat team B" If team A will win 99 of 100 matches vs. Team B, that's a skill gap of around 175 on the CSR scale (give or take). For any record vs. another team, I can find the skill gap. So if a fireteam always beats a non-fireteam, we can “quantify” always in terms of skill rating, and then require the opponents be THAT much better.
Example:
  • Fireteam A has 4 of the best players in the whole system. They each have a solo skill of 4000, so the team average is 4000.
  • Today, Halo 5 would try to find any group with an average of 4000. Including 4 solo players with a skill of 4000 each.
  • But we believe that group of solo 4000-players would get destroyed by Fireteam A.
  • Instead of telling the matchmaker Fireteam A is 4000, tell the matchmaker Fireteam A is 4500. Remember 4175 would be a 1 in 100 chance, so 4500 is a huge gap.
  • Now the matchmaker will not consider a 4500 vs. a 4000. It will look for 4 solo 4500 players or another full fireteam where the individual players are 4000.
  • But there ARE no 4500 solo players, they don't exist. The only way for an even match would be another 4000-rated full Fireteam with that +500 boost (exactly like party restrictions).
  • So the system makes the 4500 team wait a long time because there aren't any 4500s
  • We could allow the Fireteam to eventually match the 4000-rated solos.
This is exactly the same as party restrictions, but more flexible. In the party restriction case you have this:
  • 4000-rated Fireteam A matchmakes
  • matchmaker looks for another 4000-rated Fireteam, but can't find any
  • matchmaker finally lets Fireteam A play vs. 4000-rated solos
Same exact thing. except, in the skill version, we gain the following flexibility:
  • 3000-rated Fireteam searches for either another 3000-rated Firetam OR 4 solo 3500s. A team of four solo 3500s will be more than good enough to compete with a 3000-rated team. Maybe too good.
If we know that "+500" is the right skill offset to compare a Fireteam to a solo, a 3000 Fireteam vs. solo 3500s results in an even match. I've seen this work on millions of matches in other games. It's doable and worth trying.

XP or Progression per Playlist
We know a number of you like the idea of having XP on each playlist, we are also liking the idea internally. But don’t expect this in Halo 5.

[edited and removed a paragraph with incorrect information]


Leaderboards
We’ve heard the desire to have in-game leaderboards. We agree this would be awesome, but this won’t happen in Halo 5. Also, just for a little insight, in-game leaderboards are often a lot harder to integrate into a game than you would expect. Making the data available is often not the bottleneck. Instead, it’s getting the UI / UX design and engineering work done. Even there, the work itself isn’t a huge deal, but the fact that UI/UX designers and engineers are some of the busiest on the team.

That said, we do like leaderboards and I won’t forget about them.

(1 / 2)
Ranking Rewards
We’ve talked previously about both promoting Team Arena as the main playlist for Ranking, and also making Champion more rewarding. I’m currently looking into what we have right now that we could give out as exclusive Ranking system rewards. My current thinking, which is still very rough, is to do something like this, only for Team Arena:
  • Have a season reward based on your final CSR Rank.
  • Top Champions always get the current season reward
  • Lower ranks have a much smaller chance to get the current reward
  • Lower ranks have a much higher chance to get the previous season rewards
  • Example: Diamond players have a 10% chance of getting last season’s reward, and a 40% chance of getting the reward from two seasons ago, but almost no chance of getting the current season reward.
  • Making the current one really hard to get gives Champions something valuable and exclusive to shoot for each season.
This is the rough idea I’m working with right now. I still need to see what can be given, and think about how easy it should be to get rewards for each CSR each season.
I want to try and make the current season reward rare enough to have value for the top players so when you a player with the latest reward you know they are legit.

One caveat: I doubt we will have enough reward content to keep this up forever. I'm hoping for several seasons. This means Champions will be done getting the rewards first. But it also means even after the Champions are done, there will be content for lower ranks to acquire for several seasons after that.


Breakout
We know there is a group of you who misses the old breakout. However, the new breakout is just as popular, if not more so, than before we changed it. So just changing it back would cause the same amount if not more concern as we have now --- just from a different group of players.

But we could consider rotating the old breakout in periodically, both so its fans can enjoy it, and so we can compare its popularity again.


Leavers and Surrender
I have a couple of follow up points here based on some of your comments and questions.
  • Can you tell the difference between network issues and a normal quit? Yes, but we can’t tell the difference between network issues and someone pulling the plug. If you know all you have to do to avoid losing CSR and getting banned is to pull the plug instead of the usual quit, what would you do? Because of this, we have to penalize equally.

  • Can you have a less harsh CSR penalty for surrendering? No, because then everyone would collude to surrender if it looked like they were going to lose. This would make figuring out when exactly we allow a surrender much harder. We have to treat a surrender the same as a normal loss. Any variation on this can lead to exploits. For example, if you lost less points for surrendering because 2 people left the match, then it would be advantageous to convince two teammates to leave so you could surrender and take a smaller hit to your CSR.
(2 / 2)
Thank you for an update on breakout finally!! The information vacuum was a bit frustrating.

A couple points on that.

If the new breakout in equally as popular is it fair to say that you gained nothing by changing it? I play it now and then just to change things up a bit but I still greatly prefer the old style.

Breakout was one of two playlist that were made available to play in the beta. As such I would say that it was made to be one of the major selling points of the multiplayer part of the game. 343 has essentially removed it as the new "breakout" shares very few similarities with the original game mode. I realize that they have the right to change the multiplayer experience as they see fit but I feel a bit ripped off.

I urge you to consider bringing it back on at least a trial basis.

Thank you Josh for hearing our concerns and bringing us these weekly updates. They are greatly appreciated.
ZaedynFel wrote:
XP or Progression per PlaylistWe know a number of you like the idea of having XP on each playlist, we are also liking the idea internally. But don’t expect this in Halo 5.

One question I have for you to think about is this. Halo 3 gated the per playlist rankings on skill. So you could never get to the higher military ranks if you weren’t good enough. I prefer separating skill ranking and XP ranking. I prefer something like, Bronze, Silver, Gold based on skill, and then XP ranking purely based on, e.g., wins – quits. Once you tie skill to a progression system, it starts to muddy the waters and appeals to a confused audience.
Just to clarify - you're saying Halo 3's per playlist rankings (as in 1-50) were gated on skill, not the progression ranking which was as simple as just winning a game, getting XP.
Hey Josh thanks for the update! I'm very glad your reworking CSR. I would have no problem if the requirements to get in onyx become much harder and a lot of us get pushed back into diamond. I'm also on board for adding rewards for placing higher, but I think it should be guaranteed not a matter of luck. The surrender system sounds like a good idea, but I'd like to see it implemented where if you have a team mate quit within the first few minutes you can surrender with minimal loss. I'm a little disappointed you never mentioned any FFA CSR changes though as it's a highly flawed playlist ranking wise. In most cases as long as your not dead last you will gain CSR. That leads to the majority of players being in Onyx. It also turns Champion into a reward for playing the most rather then being the best. I also think a few maps need to be removed from the playlist altogether as they are not enjoyable to play. Fathom is a prime example of this. You almost always spawn in red or blue base. Such predictable spawns lead to a bunch of spawn killing. Other then that everything looks great. I realize I went off on a bit of a tangent, but I hope the feedback helps. I really appreciate your transparency with the community, and look forward to what's to come.
For Arena, have you considered team ranking and an individual ranking. As you say some teams hold advantages, a good indicator as to actual skill is to monitor and report team and individual ranking.
I notice this is primarily about the ranked playlist, but I was wondering if in-game chat would be added to the infection playlist at some point in time? Thank you. :)
Really interesting news, and I hope the party restriction changes work out well!
I know us FFA players are probably the smallest population but can FFA get it's own rank structure and scoring system as well?
8
I have nine Platinum packs... If we match in a game send me a quick message in game saying I see you or something (so I can verify we did match) and a friend request so I can gift you a pack. You don't have to keep me as a "friend" as I am a solo player.
ZaedynFel wrote:
Ranking RewardsWe’ve talked previously about both promoting Team Arena as the main playlist for Ranking, and also making Champion more rewarding. I’m currently looking into what we have right now that we could give out as exclusive Ranking system rewards. My current thinking, which is still very rough, is to do something like this, only for Team Arena:
  • Have a season reward based on your final CSR Rank.
  • Top Champions always get the current season reward
  • Lower ranks have a much smaller chance to get the current reward
  • Lower ranks have a much higher chance to get the previous season rewards
  • Example: Diamond players have a 10% chance of getting last season’s reward, and a 40% chance of getting the reward from two seasons ago, but almost no chance of getting the current season reward.
  • Making the current one really hard to get gives Champions something valuable and exclusive to shoot for each season.
This is the rough idea I’m working with right now. I still need to see what can be given, and think about how easy it should be to get rewards for each CSR each season.
I want to try and make the current season reward rare enough to have value for the top players so when you a player with the latest reward you know they are legit.

One caveat: I doubt we will have enough reward content to keep this up forever. I'm hoping for several seasons. This means Champions will be done getting the rewards first. But it also means even after the Champions are done, there will be content for lower ranks to acquire for several seasons after that.
BreakoutWe know there is a group of you who misses the old breakout. However, the new breakout is just as popular, if not more so, than before we changed it. So just changing it back would cause the same amount if not more concern as we have now --- just from a different group of players.

But we could consider rotating the old breakout in periodically, both so its fans can enjoy it, and so we can compare its popularity again.

Leavers and SurrenderI have a couple of follow up points here based on some of your comments and questions.
  • Can you tell the difference between network issues and a normal quit? Yes, but we can’t tell the difference between network issues and someone pulling the plug. If you know all you have to do to avoid losing CSR and getting banned is to pull the plug instead of the usual quit, what would you do? Because of this, we have to penalize equally.
  • Can you have a less harsh CSR penalty for surrendering? No, because then everyone would collude to surrender if it looked like they were going to lose. This would make figuring out when exactly we allow a surrender much harder. We have to treat a surrender the same as a normal loss. Any variation on this can lead to exploits. For example, if you lost less points for surrendering because 2 people left the match, then it would be advantageous to convince two teammates to leave so you could surrender and take a smaller hit to your CSR.
(2 / 2)
Yay, old breakout might come back.
Thanks for letting us know outright what will not be coming to Halo 5, that's refreshing to get that much transparency. I personally agree with the idea of making Onyx a smaller chunk of players. I also like the idea of combating the "time investment grind" aspect to rising in ranks. I don't care too much about the ranking rewards, as long as it's guaranteed that anyone that does place in a season will eventually get the emblem. Maybe even slightly different colored emblems depending on where you rank, that seems like a better idea to me. Then it's a permanent reminder of where you ranked that season and you can show it off. Thanks for the post.
ZaedynFel wrote:
Just to clarify - you're saying Halo 3's per playlist rankings (as in 1-50) were gated on skill, not the progression ranking which was as simple as just winning a game, getting XP.
Ah, no, what I mean was that the military ranks you were granted based on XP were gated on your 1-50 skill.

For example, even if you had enough XP to go from Lieutenant to Captain, it wouldn't let you unless you had at least a 20 for skill.

You could go deep within a rank instead with your XP, but that was sort of a badge of shame. Like, being a First Lieutenant meant you would never be Captain and your skill was definitely below 20.

That's what I was asking. I personally would prefer not gating on skill within the progression system. Maybe I would consider giving out XP faster to higher-skilled players so they get to XP ranks faster.
I love the idea of rotating old and new Breakout :-)
ZaedynFel wrote:
ZaedynFel wrote:
Just to clarify - you're saying Halo 3's per playlist rankings (as in 1-50) were gated on skill, not the progression ranking which was as simple as just winning a game, getting XP.
Ah, no, what I mean was that the military ranks you were granted based on XP were gated on your 1-50 skill.

For example, even if you had enough XP to go from Lieutenant to Captain, it wouldn't let you unless you had at least a 20 for skill.

You could go deep within a rank instead with your XP, but that was sort of a badge of shame. Like, being a First Lieutenant meant you would never be Captain and your skill was definitely below 20.

That's what I was asking. I personally would prefer not gating on skill within the progression system. Maybe I would consider giving out XP faster to higher-skilled players so they get to XP ranks faster.
Gotcha - just wanted to clarify we both understood the same thing. I'm making another post right now with thoughts on the overall update but I ask that you keep progression and skill ranking separate. There's a reason that most games these days do that.
Awesome update and some great things cooking!

Leaderboards would be so cool to see in a Halo game!

I like the thinking of the reward system for higher ranked players (Champs) but I think you could do it across all ranked playlist. The people who dont know about Team Arena aren't going to be incentivized to play it to get rewards when mostly just the top players will receive them. double xp and req points in team arena on some weekends would surely boost it and create new team arena players (I would play it).

Love these ideas and yeah something that I would love in Halo 6 is a per playlist EXP type system like halo 3's 2009 update added. Maybe could have it so play a game get 1 exp win get 2 exp?
ZaedynFel wrote:
Ranking RewardsWe’ve talked previously about both promoting Team Arena as the main playlist for Ranking, and also making Champion more rewarding. I’m currently looking into what we have right now that we could give out as exclusive Ranking system rewards. My current thinking, which is still very rough, is to do something like this, only for Team Arena:
  • Have a season reward based on your final CSR Rank.
  • Top Champions always get the current season reward
  • Lower ranks have a much smaller chance to get the current reward
  • Lower ranks have a much higher chance to get the previous season rewards
  • Example: Diamond players have a 10% chance of getting last season’s reward, and a 40% chance of getting the reward from two seasons ago, but almost no chance of getting the current season reward.
  • Making the current one really hard to get gives Champions something valuable and exclusive to shoot for each season.
This is the rough idea I’m working with right now. I still need to see what can be given, and think about how easy it should be to get rewards for each CSR each season.
I want to try and make the current season reward rare enough to have value for the top players so when you a player with the latest reward you know they are legit.

One caveat: I doubt we will have enough reward content to keep this up forever. I'm hoping for several seasons. This means Champions will be done getting the rewards first. But it also means even after the Champions are done, there will be content for lower ranks to acquire for several seasons after that.
BreakoutWe know there is a group of you who misses the old breakout. However, the new breakout is just as popular, if not more so, than before we changed it. So just changing it back would cause the same amount if not more concern as we have now --- just from a different group of players.

But we could consider rotating the old breakout in periodically, both so its fans can enjoy it, and so we can compare its popularity again.

Leavers and SurrenderI have a couple of follow up points here based on some of your comments and questions.
  • Can you tell the difference between network issues and a normal quit? Yes, but we can’t tell the difference between network issues and someone pulling the plug. If you know all you have to do to avoid losing CSR and getting banned is to pull the plug instead of the usual quit, what would you do? Because of this, we have to penalize equally.
  • Can you have a less harsh CSR penalty for surrendering? No, because then everyone would collude to surrender if it looked like they were going to lose. This would make figuring out when exactly we allow a surrender much harder. We have to treat a surrender the same as a normal loss. Any variation on this can lead to exploits. For example, if you lost less points for surrendering because 2 people left the match, then it would be advantageous to convince two teammates to leave so you could surrender and take a smaller hit to your CSR.
(2 / 2)
something i want to point out regarding the difference between network disconnect and pulling the plug, i tested this out back when it was very common for me.
A point on interest being that the message that i get in response to each of the 2 types of disconnects is very different, with the wording of each clearly showing that the game/console recognized the source of the problem (xbox has no internet as compared to lost connection to game server)

maybe im wrong, but this observation on my part makes me believe that some degree of differentiation between connection loss and pulling the plug does exist/can be created, preventing innocent and unfortunate players from being penalised with a ban/loss of CSR.
This is fantastic news! This will help my solo queue experience immensely.
I love the idea of rotating old and new Breakout :-)
If that's what has to happen to get old breakout back then I'd be ok with it too.
Rajit123 wrote:
ZaedynFel wrote:
(2 / 2)
something i want to point out regarding the difference between network disconnect and pulling the plug, i tested this out back when it was very common for me.
A point on interest being that the message that i get in response to each of the 2 types of disconnects is very different, with the wording of each clearly showing that the game/console recognized the source of the problem (xbox has no internet as compared to lost connection to game server)

maybe im wrong, but this observation on my part makes me believe that some degree of differentiation between connection loss and pulling the plug does exist/can be created, preventing innocent and unfortunate players from being penalised with a ban/loss of CSR.
Which plug did you pull? We can't differentiate all of them.
Is everything focused on Arena or will you address Warzone and Warzone Assault?

Thanks.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8