Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

[Locked] MATCHMAKING FEEDBACK UPDATE – FEB 28

OP ZaedynFel

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 6
ZaedynFel wrote:
RyInfinity wrote:
When is the soonest we could be seeing actual alterations to Halo 5's CSR/Matchmaking? Obviously a lot of this is theory crafting for future titles but we've had ~10 seasons with little to no changes so we are pretty hungry for some improvements.
We had one CSR change a couple of weeks ago, and we're strongly considering decreasing the amount of games you need to reach your target CSR for next season.
A risk I see with this is that if you have an outlier game (good or bad) it can have a greater impact on your rank than it should have. Remember there are some connection quality issues here too that can have a heavy impact on some games and thus also impacting rank too much if its based on a (too) limited set of games.
This is my main concern about having fewer placement matches. With 10 matches it feels like if you have one off game, or get kicked once, that's not going to completely kill your chances of being a decent rank. However, I'm afraid if there are fewer matches, that won't be the case. I don't know if it's possible or would even be a popular idea, but I'd kinda like to see the number of placement matches stay the same, but maybe only your best, say, 7 or 8 games count toward your rank at the end of placements. Like you said, sometimes things happen that are out of your control that cause you to have a bad couple of games, and I don't think those 1 or 2 games should have too terrible of an effect on your final rank. And it may already be like that, I don't know, but it doesn't always feel like it.
Please just bring back the 1-50 ranking system. Much more appealing than these tiers.
Idk how having a number is better than a pretty emblem to mark your skill...If anything they should use some concepts from halo 3's ranking system..and make it work in Halo 6
I really enjoy reading through everyone's feedback on these threads. A lot of you have really awesome ideas!
MMR needs to reset every few months or the game will be filled with smurf accounts. Takes me over an hour to search if I'm with people my rank because our MMR is so high
What is your opinion on account smurfing? To me this completely undermines the ranking system and doesn't allow for lower skilled players to have an opportunity to improve, it ruins their experience.

What do you think about the possibility of having more divisions at the higher level between Onyx and Champ to differentiate those skill levels. I know that as a season progresses the grind to Champ could be Onyx 3000, so maybe changing dividing Onyx in half or into 1/3s could be really interesting and motivating beyond just hitting Onyx 3000 but not obtaining Champ by the end of a season. Just curious on your thoughts on this.

Is there any progress being made on solo queue vs matching teams? I'd be fine as a solo matching up with a To3 vs another team of the same, I'd be fine as solo matching another solo and a To2 facing the same. But, 4 solo queues vs a Team of 4 is unfair no matter how much you change your ranking system, to me you can't quantify that advantage.

Personally, I am a player who hits onyx on multiple accounts every season in Team Arena, and Team Doubles, and Slayer (Humble Brag) and I wouldn't be motivated by additional REQ points, additional cosmetic rewards, or anything of that nature. I would be ecstatic to see fundamental re-balancing of the ranking system and get better more competitive games and a visual ranking system that isn't as much of a grind by nature.

My 2 cents.
ZaedynFel wrote:
Hey guys, this will be a bit shorter this week, partly because I was traveling. But keep your feedback coming!

Why not show MMR all the time instead?The main reason we don’t splash MMR all over is we reserve the right to use whatever information we can to update your MMR. This can include information that could potentially be unfair to use to update your CSR. We don’t do a lot of this right now, but I could see a world where MMR can be affected by, e.g., how you played in a completely different playlist. In that case, we update your MMR to a more accurate reflection of your current skill, but it would be unfair to de-rank you magically outside of you playing on that playlist. Showing an MMR that is this volatile would be confusing.

CSR should be the most accurate measure of what you deserve to show as your Rank. MMR should be the most accurate measure of where we should matchmake you right now. Those aren’t always the same, and don't always have the same rules of fairness that govern them.

That said, I do also see a future where instead of directly showing the MMR that made the match, we could show some summarized version of your opponents' strength to give you a feel for why you were matched with them. For example, we could tell you that even though your opponents all look Diamond, they just played like Gold players, which matches up nicely with you being Gold.
Seasonal Resets
Since I have less time to play I can't keep up with the seasons. Making it demotivating, after a few hours of playing, I get my skill back on track and feel with the game back. At that point I will have my rank already. It will be a terrible rank. Using soloQ most of the time I will experience pure 'random matchmaking' (since my friends don't play anymore or have busy schedules as well). The matchmaking experience will be terrible.
Being matched against teams based on their average skill and MMR instead of the best player is just bs, especially being matched with someone with no skill or MMR compensating mine will make it impossible to grow my rank. I don't think I can explain, but H3 ranking did it right imo, i would have dropped a few ranks and have been back on track being matched with and against people of the same rank. instead of some randoms with a lower skill/MMR to compensate for my quickly increasing MMR/skill compared to my rank after placement matches. leaving me (probably low plat after placement) with a gold or silver against a team with diamond and onyx in doubles. It just annoys me.

A match should not be made with a 50% chance of winning or losing in mind. Than playing is pointless. A match should be based on people with equal rank (or ranks in close proximate). When the ranks represent something close to the actual skill of the player the chance of winning should be around 50%.

I can't really explain it clearly, but I do hope someone gets my point.
ZaedynFel wrote:
What decision do you need to make that can't be detected automatically?
Oh, I have quite the wish list for that:
  • do I as a single player want to be matched against any party of 2 or more
  • do I want to get matched together with known frequent early quitters
  • I have a headset - do I want to be matched together with players who don't have one
And now a suggestion regarding all the smurf accounts:
Part of the problem seems to be the fact that anyone can have as many 'gold-like' accounts as they want on the Xbox One while in the past people had to go hunting for those short-term Xbox Live Gold codes. A limit on how many of these accounts on any single Xbox One can be used to share the primary's gold privileges would be a start. Plus, there really need to be some serious punishment. Not too long ago I got team-killed in Breakout by 2 guys who then sent me a message stating they were 'champion' on their primary account and wanted to de-rank on this account in order to get some achievements and I was in their way. Frankly, their whole Xbox should have gotten a ban for that.
Maybe in ranked matches it just shouldn't be possible to party up with a bronze or silver if you are a diamond or above?
Are you going to allow champions to be able to solo que and find games. Because in non arena playlists that just isnt possible right now?
What is your opinion on account smurfing? To me this completely undermines the ranking system and doesn't allow for lower skilled players to have an opportunity to improve, it ruins their experience.

What do you think about the possibility of having more divisions at the higher level between Onyx and Champ to differentiate those skill levels. I know that as a season progresses the grind to Champ could be Onyx 3000, so maybe changing dividing Onyx in half or into 1/3s could be really interesting and motivating beyond just hitting Onyx 3000 but not obtaining Champ by the end of a season. Just curious on your thoughts on this.

Is there any progress being made on solo queue vs matching teams? I'd be fine as a solo matching up with a To3 vs another team of the same, I'd be fine as solo matching another solo and a To2 facing the same. But, 4 solo queues vs a Team of 4 is unfair no matter how much you change your ranking system, to me you can't quantify that advantage.

Personally, I am a player who hits onyx on multiple accounts every season in Team Arena, and Team Doubles, and Slayer (Humble Brag) and I wouldn't be motivated by additional REQ points, additional cosmetic rewards, or anything of that nature. I would be ecstatic to see fundamental re-balancing of the ranking system and get better more competitive games and a visual ranking system that isn't as much of a grind by nature.

My 2 cents.
The problem is higher ranks are unable to find games as it is.
Is there any progress being made on solo queue vs matching teams? I'd be fine as a solo matching up with a To3 vs another team of the same, I'd be fine as solo matching another solo and a To2 facing the same. But, 4 solo queues vs a Team of 4 is unfair no matter how much you change your ranking system, to me you can't quantify that advantage.

I would like to see a handicap put in place when a team with a higher player count is matched against single players or teams with lower player count. For example if you have a team of 4 against 4 single players reduce the shield of the team of 4 by 50%, increase their re-spawn time or give them smaller ammo clips.
Personally, I find it highly annoying being matched together with a group of random players (who often don't even have/use a headset) against a full team of 4 or 5.
Is there any progress being made on solo queue vs matching teams? I'd be fine as a solo matching up with a To3 vs another team of the same, I'd be fine as solo matching another solo and a To2 facing the same. But, 4 solo queues vs a Team of 4 is unfair no matter how much you change your ranking system, to me you can't quantify that advantage.

I would like to see a handicap put in place when a team with a higher player count is matched against single players or teams with lower player count. For example if you have a team of 4 against 4 single players reduce the shield of the team of 4 by 50%, increase their re-spawn time or give them smaller ammo clips.
Personally, I find it highly annoying being matched together with a group of random players (who often don't even have/use a headset) against a full team of 4 or 5.
They absolutely should NOT modify arena gameplay in any way based on skill differential. The whole point of arena is even starts... that's a core value of the halo community.

However, they've talked about adjusting matchmaking parameters, to take into account if one team has a full party and the other is solo queueing. That could work, might be at least worth experimenting with.
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
Is there any progress being made on solo queue vs matching teams? I'd be fine as a solo matching up with a To3 vs another team of the same, I'd be fine as solo matching another solo and a To2 facing the same. But, 4 solo queues vs a Team of 4 is unfair no matter how much you change your ranking system, to me you can't quantify that advantage.

I would like to see a handicap put in place when a team with a higher player count is matched against single players or teams with lower player count. For example if you have a team of 4 against 4 single players reduce the shield of the team of 4 by 50%, increase their re-spawn time or give them smaller ammo clips.
Personally, I find it highly annoying being matched together with a group of random players (who often don't even have/use a headset) against a full team of 4 or 5.
They absolutely should NOT modify arena gameplay in any way based on skill differential. The whole point of arena is even starts... that's a core value of the halo community.

However, they've talked about adjusting matchmaking parameters, to take into account if one team has a full party and the other is solo queueing. That could work, might be at least worth experimenting with.
Agreed. They absolutely should NOT modify aspects of the game-play itself.

Below is what Josh has discussed regarding adjusting matchmaking parameters to take into account if one team has a full party and the other is solo queueing.
ZaedynFel wrote:
(Jan 30th) Playing Solo vs. Parties: We’ve definitely heard the community on this one, and have been thinking about this for some time. We need solutions that increase fairness without making players avoid playing with their friends. We’ve heard the following suggestion from the community which is also in line with what we’ve spoken about internally:
  • Better Skill Estimation: We can improve our skill model to know that parties play better than solo players, and matchmake accordingly. So when you do face organized parties, you’re so much better than them individually, that you can still win half the time. For example, we match a party of four Gold players against four Platinum solo players. I’ve seen this approach result in even matches in the other titles. The major upside is most parties don’t have longer wait times. The downside is it doesn’t fix the feeling that when you do lose to a party, it wasn’t fair---even if it really was fair.
(Feb 6th) Better Skill Estimation: It's getting high priority right now because:
  • It solves the problem more efficiently without needing to resort to exclusive matchmaking
  • We need it anyways, for more than just the "solo vs. party" issue. It helps with smurfing too among other things.
If we estimate skill right, solo players will only face fireteams of individually worse players. The higher individual skills of the solo players will counter the higher organization of the fireteam, resulting in an even match. Contrast that with today where experienced full fireteams definitely do better than 50/50 vs. solo teams (on average closer to 60/40, though the high-end players probably even more). I've done this in other games and it results in fireteams going 50/50 vs. solo, so I'm optimistic. That said, if it falls on its head, we will re-evaluate either party restrictions or an exclusive playlist (e.g., solo or duo only, or alternatively 4-player fireteam only).

(Feb 13th) 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.
Having better skill estimations has been successful in other games and it shouldn't have much negative effect on search times which is why I'm looking forward to it. I was actually surprised to learn that it wasn't implemented into the matchmaking search process from the get-go.
If this is a matchmaking feed back page then I would like to ask why Halo5 is lagging so bad? I though Microsoft advertised halo multiplayer as server based connection. I hope 343 industry will reply to my post.

PS. Don't give me network setting page info as reply.
Please make it to where teams of 4 match teams of 4 in team arena. Its way more competitive and more fun. Whats your reasoning on not doing this yet?
Please Please Please, 343 do something regarding Balanced Matchmaking either social or Ranked.
A little bit on my background:
I am currently (Jan-Feb Season 2017):
Gold 5 – Slayer
Platinum 5 – FFA
Gold 3 - Arena

Highest Ranks achieved:
Diamond 1 – Slayer (a while back!)
Diamond 6 – FFA

So!
I played yesterday a little bit of Skirmish, I was getting rekt and beat all over the place. I couldn’t pop out my head without being shot by at least 2 guys at the same time.

When checked the best achieved ranks of the other team on waypoint.
One time there were 2 CHAMPS, AND ONE HIGH ONYX (2,000 and up!
The other 1 CHAMP and 1 High Onyx.
Playing against, diamonds, low plats and even golds.


I get that everybody wants leave the ranked matchmaking for a while, and play for fun….

BUT! HOW IS THIS ENJOYABLE??!! It was not even competitive or balanced.

None Related Topics & Rant:
Not to mention the people who go for playing Slayer all the time! And play Assault with 45 kills 10 deaths and no “ball grab” in the entire game! Can something be done about this?
Or the teammates that constantly shoot you in the back ON PURPOSE, while being in a gun fight (they leave you weak enough not for it to be a betrayal but for the enemy to pick an easy kill…
(this is another topic, but mosf of these a$$-h0les ruin the game)
MilkSquad wrote:
Please make it to where teams of 4 match teams of 4 in team arena. Its way more competitive and more fun. Whats your reasoning on not doing this yet?
Below is what Josh has reported and discussed concerning attempts to pair team sizes within the matchmaking process...
ZaedynFel wrote:
(Jan 30th) Party restrictions (classic Halo style): We’ve discussed preventing solo players or 2-player parties from playing against a team of 3 or 4. A related approach is a separate solo/duo queue. Both have wait time implications for players in larger parties, so we would need to see and make sure there are enough 3- and 4-player parties of close enough skill looking for matches at the same time. This is a fairly simple and understandable solution if the population supports it.

(Feb 6th) ...we will re-evaluate either party restrictions or an exclusive playlist (e.g., solo or duo only, or alternatively 4-player fireteam only).

(Feb 13th) 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.
There are obvious drawbacks to having a party size pairing restriction in place, but it's something they're still taking a look at and considering; however, they're prioritizing Better Skill Estimation as the method to address and alleviate the problem because it's lot more flexible and has a much "softer" impact on the matchmaking process. In other words, by including bonus skill points to party sizes the matchmaking process accounts for the party size (as a boost in skill) when searching. In practice, since this method has been used in several other games, it's proven to be a much more efficient method to deal with the party size problems since it does so without resorting to exclusive matchmaking changes that restrict and in-turn lengthen the search time and lessen the ability to pair people of similar skill.
ZaedynFel wrote:
Hey guys, this will be a bit shorter this week, partly because I was traveling. But keep your feedback coming!

Why not show MMR all the time instead?The main reason we don’t splash MMR all over is we reserve the right to use whatever information we can to update your MMR. This can include information that could potentially be unfair to use to update your CSR. We don’t do a lot of this right now, but I could see a world where MMR can be affected by, e.g., how you played in a completely different playlist. In that case, we update your MMR to a more accurate reflection of your current skill, but it would be unfair to de-rank you magically outside of you playing on that playlist. Showing an MMR that is this volatile would be confusing.

CSR should be the most accurate measure of what you deserve to show as your Rank. MMR should be the most accurate measure of where we should matchmake you right now. Those aren’t always the same, and don't always have the same rules of fairness that govern them.

That said, I do also see a future where instead of directly showing the MMR that made the match, we could show some summarized version of your opponents' strength to give you a feel for why you were matched with them. For example, we could tell you that even though your opponents all look Diamond, they just played like Gold players, which matches up nicely with you being Gold.
Seasonal Resets I’ve seen a few posts discussing the pros and cons of seasonal resets. We don’t have any plans on changing the core mechanics of how season’s currently work. Some nice things about seasons:
  • They give you something to shoot for
  • They filter out inactive players so we don’t need decay or a way to mark activity
  • Can be used as a platform for more competitive constructs
That said, we are evaluating:
  • The number of placement matches
  • How many games it takes to “prove” your rank. This is around 30-50 now.
No news yet on changes, but we’re thinking.
Do I end up 200 CSR back from where my CSR ended last season?No, you end up 200 back from where your MMR moves to during placements. So if you go 10-0, that’s a different spot than where you were before placement, and you could actually start ahead of where you were last season. We aren’t just backing you up again and again.
Matches are better towards the season and when CSR is closer to MMRCSR has no influence on matchmaking at all. The matches you get throughout the season are exactly the same as they are at the end, unless you have actually change[d] as a player, thus moving your MMR. Even though you sometimes see a different range of CSRs in your match, the actual skills are really close.

Are we looking at dealing with parties in Social Matchmaking and Warzone as well?Yes.

Could we have Opt-In seasons?This isn’t something we can do for Halo 5, but I thought it was a cool idea. I could see having an ongoing CSR that never resets (though we’d probably need some decay), and then one for the season if you opt-in. If we did this, I would only give out rewards to players who decided to opt-in to the season. There are other complications, like, which to show on the PGCR, but could probably be worked through.
Are we getting another BTB update? last one was in September. Was wondering if Assault will be added and new maps and revisions on the current ones.
Could we get matchmaking a tutorial for newbies? Im tired of getting match with BKs everytime I solo queue for a game of Slayer. Or just give us a Social Slayer playlist for scrubs to practise. Its so frustrating playing with kids who dont know what spawn controlling is or how to time power weapons or power ups. Or get players who dont communicate and run off causing split spawns or just giving out free Triple Kill medals. We need the search preference system from back in Halo Reach and MM to match equally skilled players not 1-2 reckless Gold and 1 carried Onyx player with a decent Diamond ranked player. Please I know your doing what you can but nowdays matchmaking is becoming a joke and needs a serious update, and I swear I have to carry another team Im going to pull some Jay and Silent Bob bulls***
Is there any progress being made on solo queue vs matching teams? I'd be fine as a solo matching up with a To3 vs another team of the same, I'd be fine as solo matching another solo and a To2 facing the same. But, 4 solo queues vs a Team of 4 is unfair no matter how much you change your ranking system, to me you can't quantify that advantage.

I would like to see a handicap put in place when a team with a higher player count is matched against single players or teams with lower player count. For example if you have a team of 4 against 4 single players reduce the shield of the team of 4 by 50%, increase their re-spawn time or give them smaller ammo clips.
Personally, I find it highly annoying being matched together with a group of random players (who often don't even have/use a headset) against a full team of 4 or 5.
No. Let the rank system accommodate for things like this. The point of halo is that everybody starts on equal footing and lets their skill determine the outcome, not whether or not you happened to be on the team that had full shields. That would be incredibly unfair and jarring experience. nobody would continue to play the game if they knew that was possible.
Ronni416 wrote:
If this is a matchmaking feed back page then I would like to ask why Halo5 is lagging so bad? I though Microsoft advertised halo multiplayer as server based connection. I hope 343 industry will reply to my post.

PS. Don't give me network setting page info as reply.
"Dedicated servers" is as much marketing as it is truth. They are better for fair matches more consistently, but that only applies to people that are in close-ish proximity to them. If you are far away from a dedi, a p2p system would probably be better. The servers may be partially to blame sure, if the code isn't efficient, but usually the connection problem is between the server and the host, where 343 has no control.
MMR needs to reset every few months or the game will be filled with smurf accounts. Takes me over an hour to search if I'm with people my rank because our MMR is so high
I hope the "it takes me over an hour to search" remark is hyperbole because unless you are playing is ANZ at 4 am all the time...... Secondly, i dont think the MMR needs to fully reset, just have an "inactivity decay" implemented. Josh has addressed this before and said its a possibility. For example, if a player doesnt play on a tag for a, their MMR and/or CSR could start to decay, slowly lowering their rank over time. There would have to be a floor to this though where the decay stops, it shouldn't go all the way to zero. If someone is a champ and stops playing for a few months, they aren't going to come back and suddenly be a bronze with no thumbs lol. Their rank could decay from Champ to like Diamond 1 over time. This accomplishes 2 things:

1) Discourages smurphing-and-bailing for "bragging ranks" since those would disappear after a while.
2) maintains the accuracy of the ranks of active players. When you set everybody back to zero, the whole rank structure gets screwed up and basically has to re-learn where everybody should get matched making the swings between opponent quality pretty wild and off putting.
Please just bring back the 1-50 ranking system. Much more appealing than these tiers.
Idk how having a number is better than a pretty emblem to mark your skill...If anything they should use some concepts from halo 3's ranking system..and make it work in Halo 6
1-50 is too linear and limited. Its only better cuz' nostalgia. The fact is a rank system needs some sort of "50+" to compensate for really highly skilled players and players that always play in parties. In past halo's the skill gap between fellow 50's was still immense and that system would get really top heavy. Especially the Halo 3 system where it got harder and harder to move ranks the more total games you played. The matching behind the scenes may have tried to be much more accurate about it, but the visual indication to the player was not.
How about a game status for fireteam members outside of the team's current game? Just a simple time remaining or score counter next to "Waiting to join game in progress" would be nice. It's on the fringe of matchmaking..lol but look at it this way... it might help keep some FTs together that would split out into the muck.

my wishlist in order of pain remedy provided: wz/social, customs, ranked
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 6