Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

[Locked] Matchmaking Feedback Update – Feb 6

OP ZaedynFel

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3
Have a team playlist, that only teams of four can search in. Make it ranked. The top team at the end of the season gets a spot at worlds. BAM incentive to play.
On the smurfing topic...

This needs to stop... it is not even enjoyable....

Why is there a need to do this!?

Been tryin' to upload a picture.

Just played one slayer against one bronze 3,and 3 high Onyx players.

The Bronze 3 did best than all of them
....

My team was plat 5, gold 4, diamond 1 and diamond 2 ( I am the gold 2)

HOW THE HELL THIS IS LOGICAL!!!???
AGAIN, ITS NOT ENJOYABLE.

AND IN SOCIAL PLAYLIST I CHECKED THE RANKINGS TOO... GOT MATCHE UP EVEN AGAINST CHAMP LEVEL.
On the smurfing topic...

This needs to stop... it is not even enjoyable....

Why is there a need to do this!?

Been tryin' to upload a picture.

Just played one slayer against one bronze 3,and 3 high Onyx players.

The Bronze 3 did best than all of them
....

My team was plat 5, gold 4, diamond 1 and diamond 2 ( I am the gold 2)

HOW THE HELL THIS IS LOGICAL!!!???
AGAIN, ITS NOT ENJOYABLE.

AND IN SOCIAL PLAYLIST I CHECKED THE RANKINGS TOO... GOT MATCHE UP EVEN AGAINST CHAMP LEVEL.
a smurf is someone who doesn't wanna play on their high rank because they match teams of four. So basically the smurf is getting screwed over on their main high rank account and they make a new account to screw over lower ranked players because at least they aren't getting screwed over.... This is all a side effect of no party restrictions and boosting. But mainly no party restrictions.
Okay, here is my two cents:

Smurfs - I believe having to reach a certain level in the games progression system is a solid approach to eradicating smurfing, or at least a large percentage of it. I don't think much else needs to be said on this, as it is one of least impactful issues h5 is facing. I believe smurfing is caused from the lack of party restrictions...obviously fixing party restrictions will not completely remove smurfing, but it will substantially decrease it.

Party Restrictions - Okay, here is the big one. The approach proposed is to have full parties match random groups of a higher rank. Simply put, this isn't going to work. It makes sense at a lower tier of skill, but once you reach a higher level any teamwork coming from a full party is going to drastically outweigh the team of randoms, especially considering that their ranks will be only negligibly higher. Not too mention many good players spend a bulk of their time scrimming, making them lower ranks in arena, so when they do search they will be in that range for 'higher ranked randoms' to match; which completely nullifies this solution.

Party restrictions are necessary. We at least need parties of 4 to not be capable of matching randoms. If we can't have this, then we need a search preference, because many players do not want to match parties, and conversely many parties do not want to match randoms. It completely ruins the experience on both sides, and makes the ranks hold zero merit. Your proposed fix seems logical, however it will only work at a low tier. All of this comes much more into effect at a high level, which should be the most important range of a playlist that is supposed to be COMPETITIVE.

Ranks/Placements - In it's current state, the ranking allocation is not ideal. It it is far too easy to achieve Onyx. If we are concerned about smaller population size, we need to mold the ranking system around that. Both lowering the amount of ranking tiers and raising the difficulty of reaching Onyx will give playlists more merit and replayability. As it stands now, there is basically no one below Gold.. so why do we even have Bronze and Silver? It should be to a point where the population scales down drastically with ascension through the tiers (see any game that uses a similar system.)

Leaderboards/Playlist XP - We need to be able to recognize the top people in a playlist far easier. Why even have a 'Champion' rank if nobody knows who is in it? Obviously there are sites that provide this information but the fact that it is not IN THE UI is beyond me. People want to compare themselves to those above them, being able to have that in the game is essential. I should be able to check the leaderboard for a playlist, see who is champ, and view their stats all inside the game. Please fix this.

We also need a progression system tied to each playlist. It is something that doesn't reset when the competitive ranks do, and provides insight on a player statistically in a certain playlist.

Rewards - Champion skins at the end of a season is a gimme. It's hard for me to comprehend how this isn't a thing at least? I would really like to at least see skins for champion tier players. Also, add a different req pack classified for each rank tier, containing different odds for rare drops.

A previous post mentioned having a HWC playlist where you can only search with a party of 4 and having a team qualify through it. This is a perfect idea. A massive once a year playlist that is running for a limited time before Worlds. The top team, that has not already qualified at a LAN event, earns a spot.

In closing;
We seem to be stuck in a mindset of not wanting to alienate the 'casual' community by making things too competitive. However, even casual gamers are driven competitively. EVERYONE knows what eSports is now if they are playing a video game that has an eSports scene. We should be catering to that, not worrying about someone not having fun because something is too competitive or too difficult. People will find their niche in the game, and find the fun, whilst being competitively driven and rewarded.

Halo 5 has all the potential to be great, but it is under performing in so many areas. It's honestly frustrating to have a vision of what this game should be, just to be slapped in the face by what it actually is. There are a lot of things that need altered in gameplay and with the matchmaking system, so thank you for taking the time to address it.

<3
I see a lot of comments on rewards for High ranked players. I agree they should be there, but if you give them banners that show high ranks: why not show the rank in a pregame lobby and (maybe stop with frequent resets of the ranking system).
Just to throw in my tuppance worth, but, the whole solo queuing and matching a to4 thing needs to be sorted asap. Especially when that to4 features an onyx, a diamond and 2 very, very obvious smurfs while I am roughly a wood/plastic tier of player and my fellow solo queue teamates are only just slightly better than me and stunningly don't seem to own a mic between them.

To then match them 4 times on the trot (1 after having left MM and come back in fresh) really takes the cake...
I would love to see some sort of penalty for players who, During swat there was 3 out of 5 total games where 2-3 players quit off the start whenever their team was losing by only a few points. also players quitting in critical objective games (such as strongholds and CTF) which makes it much more difficult for the remaining players to win the match (diminishing their win rate). Mercy rule sounds like a great plan.
AgentFordy wrote:
Just to throw in my tuppance worth, but, the whole solo queuing and matching a to4 thing needs to be sorted asap. Especially when that to4 features an onyx, a diamond and 2 very, very obvious smurfs while I am roughly a wood/plastic tier of player and my fellow solo queue teamates are only just slightly better than me and stunningly don't seem to own a mic between them.

To then match them 4 times on the trot (1 after having left MM and come back in fresh) really takes the cake...
LOL I checked your "wood/plastic" status and I have to place myself at roughly "balsa/cellophane" Tier. You can feel the population taking a nose dive in MM these days, and it don't feel good. It's especially bad for the middle and lower ranks, who should, with time, be the future of the game. I'll repeat what some critical fans of the game have noted: that getting stomped over and over is the one thing that drives new players away. I was going to try to rank in TA again this season and I think I've given up after badly losing my first five placement games. Kids will do most anything to get games and the ones looking for easy wins seem to never go away.
I'm not sure how I feel about the surrender idea. If I'm going to lose CSR, I'd rather just stick it out like I do now and at least give myself a chance to win rather than just taking an automatic loss. As far as why people quit, I personally only quit because of game glitches or if the game crashes. For example, on a couple different occasions I spawned into a game and was stuck on a black screen. I could see my HUD, could move around and shoot, but I couldn't see anything. After waiting a couple minutes to see if maybe it'd correct itself, I quit since I was just a free kill for the other team. I do wish there was a way to distinguish between someone actually quitting and being kicked due to network problems or game crashes. It sucks to be banned for quitting when it was something you had no control over. I would've really liked to have Map vetoes implemented, but I understand that it is a complicated process if there wasn't enough demand to justify it.
Easy solution: include a surrender option, but if you want to stick it out, then don't vote to surrender, and the game won't end!
To fight quitters, why can't be JIP enabled everywhere with the only exception that if you are joining the losing team in a disastrous situation (impossible to come back and win the game) loss won't be registered?
This was recently added also to Titan fall 2, it's a common and working solution.
I like the idea of leavers not being able to play until the game they left is over but, it is likely more programitaclly complex than a simple 30 minute ban. Wouldn't 30 minutes deter most people from intentionally quitting? After the third offense make it 24 hours.

Forget about warlord balancing, you need regular warzone balancing. What is a level 4 with no br and no armor mods doing in a game with 150's? Explain to me how that makes sense? I've seen these < level 10's go 0 and 30. How is that a good experience for them or the people carrying them?
Another idea for leavers. Flag them and consitantly try to match them up with other leavers. Bad rep leavers play with other leavers -- problem solved.
Are quitters not a symptom of bad matchmaking? I hate it when people quit, but sometimes can't really blame them... bronze 2 vs champion 27?! really..??
Matchmaking should improve IMO; Again teams vs teams, soloQ vs soloQ, and equal skill (highest skill in team counts (not average))-->(gold vs gold and diamond vs diamond and champion/ high onyx vs champion/high onyx).

Players with and without placement shouldn't mix that much.
Placement matches....---> Idk how to solve in H5. Every body starting at bronze, or starting on rank past season adjust rank during placement with bigger steps than during normal games.

Any other ideas? Better solutions? questions? disagree? let me/us know..

@SGO SMACK matching them up seems like a good idea as well.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not call out individuals. This includes forum members, moderators, administrators, and non-forum members.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
What's the role and effectiveness of Xbox Live’s social reputation system when it comes to H5 matchmaking? Isn’t it intended to deal with issues such as “leavers” and “smurfs?” Does Microsoft need to improve its side of the equation?

Additionally, you mentioned Warlords but not Warzone or Warzone Assault in your initial post. What can be done for them? Both are awful, thus the Warlords experiment.
LowGi wrote:
On the smurfing topic...

This needs to stop... it is not even enjoyable....

Why is there a need to do this!?

Been tryin' to upload a picture.

Just played one slayer against one bronze 3,and 3 high Onyx players.

The Bronze 3 did best than all of them
....

My team was plat 5, gold 4, diamond 1 and diamond 2 ( I am the gold 2)

HOW THE HELL THIS IS LOGICAL!!!???
AGAIN, ITS NOT ENJOYABLE.

AND IN SOCIAL PLAYLIST I CHECKED THE RANKINGS TOO... GOT MATCHE UP EVEN AGAINST CHAMP LEVEL.
a smurf is someone who doesn't wanna play on their high rank because they match teams of four. So basically the smurf is getting screwed over on their main high rank account and they make a new account to screw over lower ranked players because at least they aren't getting screwed over.... This is all a side effect of no party restrictions and boosting. But mainly no party restrictions.
(Bold) I disagree here somewhat. A Smurf CAN be that, but most of the time I find people that Smurf are people who get tired of playing against people of there skill level and frankly just want to have an easier time at the game. They aren't good enough to cut it at there level pretty much so they do this. They want to go 25-5 everygame. They take screenshots to show there friends, brag about it and do on. I've actually heard multiple people say this is why they make Smurf accounts to me LITERALLY!!

I like the idea that was mentioned by ZaedynFel in his opening post. I'm willing to try it.
ZaedynFel wrote:
JAPANTHR wrote:
does the solo vs party matchmaking option for ranked fall under not doable?
No, I think it would probably be doable if we pushed for it.

However Better Skill Estimation is getting higher 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).
I'll admit, I'm concerned about people wanting this whole "teams play only teams" "solo players play only solos" talk I hear from time to time on the forms.

Yes, In THEORY it's a great idea for full teams to play full teams IF the population of your game is ubur high aka like H2/3 had. Otherwise I don't think it is unless you do some changes to the matchmaking system. How many full BTB teams are out there? Warzone? 4-4 Slayer? And so forth. What if you're in a region that Halo isn't that popular and not a lot of people play, which means they wouldn't be very many full teams. Are you going to be waiting forever to get a match? Are you going to keep playing the same teams over and over and over again.... Because I can tell you right now, neither one is any fun lol

I think the solution is changing the matchmaking system. I don't think it's very feasible to do this and Halo 5 as I'm sure it would require an overhaul or close to one of the matchmaking system.

I'd have it so teams of SIMILAR SKILL (this is important, people never mention this I find) try and get matched against other full teams of similar skill. If you don't do this you're saying it's going to be possible for teams of say gold, platinum players going against full teams of diamond or onyx players. That isn't right at all!! So matching similar skill is important. If a full team of players can't be found of similar skill in X mins, Then I would then try to fill the spots with partial team's next. If they can't be found, then fill in the remainder with solo players. I'd also make it so full teams can't play the same team in back to back matches. I think this is obvious as to why this shouldn't be. These types of things are going to lead to longer wait times most likely, (unless your population is high) but I think in ranked people are more then OK with waiting a big longer if it means matches or more even. I would make this a priority in ranked. Social can have this system too but make restrictions loser. It is soical after all, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a good experience to.

When I play social I don't care if I go against full teams. If my team gets stomped, they get stomped. As long as that's not my experience EVERY single match then it's fine. I see so many people that say they get put up against constant full teams in social and when you go look at their game history it's just not true.

I think a MAJOR thing that would help soical is having your ranked and social playlists stats separate. I know some people don't think stats should be tracked in social at all but I don't agree with that. I love my stats...Love them!!! I'm a stat guy lol and even when I'm playing social I want to see them, but if they were separate you wouldn't have these people in Social just trying to patent their stats as it would only go towards their social stats only. Again, I realized this isn't very feasible in Halo 5 and that's fine but for 6 I definitely would have this.

People that play with their friends shouldn't be penalized just because they're playing with friends. You want to encourage people playing together not deterrent. I play solo queue a lot as well and I know the risks per se of going into ranked play solo. If you go into a team playlist in ranked and expect to do well on your own, not communicating with the rest of your team, odds are you're not going to. How people don't understand this is beyond me. It's ranked, you should expect to go up against full teams of four in ranked. These people are here because they are taking it more seriously. They want to see how good they are compared to others, that's what rank is lol

Just please don't start putting fireteam restrictions on all these playlists. That is not the answer at all and that will only piss off a huge part of the fan base that plays with their friends. Playing with friends shouldn't be limited to rank play only as I've heard some people actually suggest which in my opinion is CRAZY talk!!! I'm a lot better than most of my friends I'd say and if I play ranked with those friends, odds are we lose every time because they are just not good enough. They are the definition of what you would call a casual player, but I still want to play with them. So most of the time we play social and that works perfectly!! Word of advice people at 343I, Make sure all future Halos games always have ranked and social setup like Halo 3 and now Halo 5 has :)

Thanks for reading and having this topic ZaedynFel. This kind of interaction with the community is what's needed :)
So firstly is my concern over the approach of multiple accounts and smurfing, I know it may not be a very wide spread thing, but in my case, I use the home Xbox feature to allow my siblings to play Halo 5. So my question is, if you were to have a cool down period or something similar for multiple accounts on the one Xbox One console, would that affect people in my situation who are using the home gold sharing feature to allow family members to enjoy all that Xbox has to offer. Or would there be some sort of authentication process, which I would be happy to go through.

Addressing the Leavers issue, I would like to say that I do my best not to leave a game, no matter how unfair it may be towards my team (this can be incredibly frustrating) but it gets worse when your team members quit. I may leave the game due to network connectivity issues, or something of significant importance, such as a family emergency, regarding network connectivity issues, would it be possible to track the difference between the user quitting and the user leaving due to network issues? (I realize this may not be possible, and if it has been suggested and addressed previously I would like to know the outcome of that) If this is possible, i would like to see no penalty for leaving due to network issues. In regards to purposefully quitting, full enforcement action should be taken, however there needs to be a balance for those family emergencies and other similar situations, where you either quit the match, or idle, offering free kills for the opposing team.
The Surrender feature would be a plus, however it will need to be done correctly, and by that i mean a tremendous amount of thought by you guys (the developers behind Halo 5) and I would love to see you take into consideration the communities ideas, thoughts and feedback, you could possibly do this through a quiz/questionnaire of some-sort, which, in my opinion should be announced on the message of the day section of the Halo 5 game, to allow for maximum input by the community.
In terms of a CSR penalty I think that if a team chooses to surrender, then it should not be the full CSR loss, but still significant enough to discourage repetitive surrendering and trolling, while still being a little more forgiving for those few matches where your team stands little to no chance of winning. (so maybe a 75% CSR loss, just my thought). I completely agree with giving those who quit before surrendering a full CSR loss.
In regards to surrender feature in social, I believe the community should vote on that one, I am currently on the fence.
Can a full party surrender?, that is a good question, and a gain, i am on the fence.
I like the sounds of the score differential, my question is, would the differential be a set number for example 20 regardless of skill, or would it be a formula based on the opposing teams current score?, or would it be a formula which takes into consideration both teams skill level, making the match fair enough so as to allow either team to win?
Forcing players back into the match they just quit, sounds like a bad idea, since they are more likely to give away free kills to the opposing team so the match is over faster. A time limit on when they can start playing again sounds good, I think that they should need to wait the full amount of time left on the clock when they quit. (so if the clock was on 9:00 left, they will need to wait the full 9:00 minutes before they can play again) A limit placed on how many social games you can quit before you receive enforcement action would be good, so for example you can quit 2 social games, and on the 3rd time you quit, you receive enforcement action, same as what would be handed out for ranked matches, so you will need to wait the amount of time left on the clock when you quit before you can play again.
In terms of the warlords skill matching, Would it be possible to have a set up, where the servers are set up in a way so that fire team 1 can jump into the lobby, and send fire team 2 a game invite, and then fire team 2 can accept and join the lobby, then it will be a match where both teams earn commendations and xp, etc for the game. Obviously the fire teams who want to do this could use the forums to organize game times.

Again my apologies if these ideas/questions have already been posted, or answered elsewhere, i would be interested in any answers/responses to the questions/ideas I have expressed.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3