Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

[Locked] Matchmaking Feedback Update – January 29

OP ZaedynFel

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5
LUKEPOWA wrote:
eLantern wrote:
I thought the soft forfeit feature was in effect for social games too? Was it confirmed not to be and I missed that?
It's only for ranked because social has JIP.
But JiP simply means that people who quit a match will potentially see their slot get filled by another.

I don't take JiP as meaning that quitting should or should not be treated as an undesired action worthy of credit toward a ban penalty. The beauty of the soft forfeit feature is that regardless to what environment you're playing in only the first quitter within a match would be subjected to earning credit toward a ban penalty. At least that's the way I've always perceived the soft forfeit feature operating.

Why would JiP dictate the need to penalize ANYONE who quit a match (via credit towards a ban penalty) verses being able to include the soft forfeit feature which targets the first person?

ZaedynFel, is there at least a difference in the amount of ban credit one receives when quitting out of a social match verses being the first person to quit out of a ranked match where the soft forfeit feature is in effect?

[edited]
eLantern wrote:
But JiP simply means that people who quit a match will potentially see their slot get filled by another. At least that's the way I've always perceived it and thought I understood the soft forfeit feature.
The post linked below is the only thing I found where Josh talks about it and I interpreted it to be because of JIP.

https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/58b8518e005f432381ab99fbcaf931e0/topics/matchmaking-feedback-update-%E2%80%93-may-1/3eef65b3-141f-44a7-8622-dd3d107130f3/posts?page=3#post53.
I'm still trying to understand why there's no mercy rule in Matchmaking to help end toxic matches and blowouts. Easily scriptable if all it is is a score check, and objective game modes just take a little more expanding on what institutes farming to the system, as I've seen objective matches where the winning team was outslayed by a variably large margin of 50+ kills.

In the end tho, it works. You can easily script in games to end once a team gets so far ahead of another.

You can even script in mercy rules to end matches of BTB that are 8v2 and players don't join with scores of 60-30 That the lesser team will never come back from. Keeps from having to play 12 minute matches of doing nothing.

You can even script multi-conditions for flag caps and or bomb arms against kills on a given team to determine farming, (winning 2-0 in a match and having 100+ more kills than the enemy team).

Just things like that. How are we in 2018 where online shooters have been prevalent for like 14 years and we still don't have mercy rules? Hell, both Destiny games have them.
LUKEPOWA wrote:
eLantern wrote:
But JiP simply means that people who quit a match will potentially see their slot get filled by another. At least that's the way I've always perceived it and thought I understood the soft forfeit feature.
The post linked below is the only thing I found where Josh talks about it and I interpreted it to be because of JIP.

https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/58b8518e005f432381ab99fbcaf931e0/topics/matchmaking-feedback-update-%E2%80%93-may-1/3eef65b3-141f-44a7-8622-dd3d107130f3/posts?page=3#post53.
Interesting. I definitely missed that response by Josh; however, in reading it now I wonder if Josh was specifically referring to the ban penalty not existing under Social/Warzone modes or the soft forfeit feature in particular because if there's no ban penalty being applied under those two environments obviously there'd be no reason for a soft forfeit feature to be implemented.
I think it was the soft forfeit because there is a ban penalty in social modes. Probably be better for him to just clarify why it wasn't implemented in social himself the next time he reads this thread instead of us just speculating.
Can anyone elaborate on how "Focused" matchmaking is weighted these days?

I'm based in the US, and Focused no longer seems to have any correlation to "best connections". As far as I can tell, it seems to still to balance out player skills, but connection quality seems to be completely missing from the equation.

I am frequently matched against players in Mexico / Central & South America (based on Spartan clan names) that lag / rubber-band all over the map, which makes no sense given the matchmaking option I've selected. Lately, there seems to be no difference between Focused and Balanced, and the only difference with Expanded is it seems more likely to throw you in a game that is almost already over. I can't tell a difference from a connection quality perspective - the games range from "laggy and irritating but playable" to "so laggy it is unplayable".

[For context, my connection is 200+ mb up / 25 mb down, 27 ms ping on Xbox, no packet loss, no other devices consuming bandwidth during gaming, no buffer bloat, etc. The lag issue isn't on my end. If anything, I seem to be penalized for having too good of a connection.]
eLantern wrote:
LUKEPOWA wrote:
eLantern wrote:
But JiP simply means that people who quit a match will potentially see their slot get filled by another. At least that's the way I've always perceived it and thought I understood the soft forfeit feature.
The post linked below is the only thing I found where Josh talks about it and I interpreted it to be because of JIP.

https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/58b8518e005f432381ab99fbcaf931e0/topics/matchmaking-feedback-update-%E2%80%93-may-1/3eef65b3-141f-44a7-8622-dd3d107130f3/posts?page=3#post53.
Interesting. I definitely missed that response by Josh; however, in reading it now I wonder if Josh was specifically referring to the ban penalty not existing under Social/Warzone modes or the soft forfeit feature in particular because if there's no ban penalty being applied under those two environments obviously there'd be no reason for a soft forfeit feature to be implemented.
There is a quit penalty in social. There's no soft forfeit, because of JIP, is my understanding. i.e. i agree with LUKEPOWA
Soo was playing some wza and it seems that I'm matching a lot of teams. The games are over in less than 5 mins. If this continues could see the playlist lose even more players. I don't mind competition but in these games there is almost no chance. I could normally search solo and get pretty fair matches but not anymore
WZA basically doesn't have the population to go any tighter. During low-pop times, it would be unplayable otherwise.
This x1000%! I want them back for Halo 6, it just honestly is a lot cooler to say something like I'm a two star Captain or Brigadier or something over, I'm Gold 5 or Diamond 6.... we are the UNSC right? ....AND it makes more sense lore wise too...and I know how you (343I) are all about your lore, right? Right!! ;)
Personally, I like the Military ranks on Progression-type scale rather than a skill one so everyone can get them.

But if you want to be a stickler on lore, Spartans are enlisted and not commissioned, so would never go above ranks like Master Chief. So, lore-wise, you wouldn't have Lt., Capt, Major, Generals, etc. as a Spartan.
Can anyone elaborate on how "Focused" matchmaking is weighted these days?

I'm based in the US, and Focused no longer seems to have any correlation to "best connections". As far as I can tell, it seems to still to balance out player skills, but connection quality seems to be completely missing from the equation.

I am frequently matched against players in Mexico / Central & South America (based on Spartan clan names) that lag / rubber-band all over the map, which makes no sense given the matchmaking option I've selected. Lately, there seems to be no difference between Focused and Balanced, and the only difference with Expanded is it seems more likely to throw you in a game that is almost already over. I can't tell a difference from a connection quality perspective - the games range from "laggy and irritating but playable" to "so laggy it is unplayable".

[For context, my connection is 200+ mb up / 25 mb down, 27 ms ping on Xbox, no packet loss, no other devices consuming bandwidth during gaming, no buffer bloat, etc. The lag issue isn't on my end. If anything, I seem to be penalized for having too good of a connection.]
Focused controls what server you will get on.

Anyone else who would accept that server will also play with you.

It turns out parts of Mexico have very good connections to mid US datacenters, so as far as matchmaking is concerned, they are in the US.

Focused guarantees YOUR ping will be low, but NOT the other players. They can be anywhere up to even 500ms, though that will not be common.
stckrboy wrote:
Ban times of 24 hours are only going to occur if you have have already received multiple bans prior to that, you never get banned for that length for just a single incident. That's a lot of times your dog needs to have been able to get behind your Xbox and pop the cable out or hit the button on the front.

Chimera wasn't "attacking" your post, he was countering your arguments
You completely missed the point of my post, too.

edit:

Chimera30 wrote:
edit: a 24 hr ban for a first time offense, accidental or intentional, would be ridiculous and shouldn’t be implemented.
Well, when I first started my initial, long-winded post that I ended up deciding wasn't worth the effort, this edit didn't exist. This is the point I was trying to make all along.
HCS settings in Doubles please.

Doubles is way too many low skilled kills.

The radar is probably the worst part. Doubles needs HCS radar to promote teamwork and movement. It’s soo easy for teams to know where each other are as it’s only 2v2.

This list is a lower population list. What’s the harm in testing new settings?
I don't think having HCS settings in doubles would be a good idea this late into the game. A lot of people don't like the different style of radar that the HCS uses to begin with. I always hear "it's a COD radar" and halo needs to separate it's self from COD, not be more like it. I don't really know though as I don't remember how cods radar works, as I stopped playing that series a very long time ago.

Some people might be more accepting of the HCS radar if it was the default radar off the bat, when doubles launch, but not now. Just look at the amount of blacklash the weapons tuning update has gotten from people. Most would be ok with it if it happen sooner, but because it happen so late in the game, a lot of people are not. HCS settings in other playlists will get the same response, I can guarantee it.

Doubles almost always has low population in every Halo because the nature of the playlist (4 players max) but it's a popular playlist.

Personally, i also think having two types of radars just confuses people. Not to mention, the radar has acted his way since Halo CE and people like how it plays. For Halo 5, I think HCS settings should stay in the HCS playlist.
The way the radar plays is all I care about. Not if it happens to be in other games.

You could be right that people would not be happy with the settings or radar. I would like it tested.

The standard radar promotes too much camping especially in doubles which is small scale and focused. If you can walk off radar (HCS) people are moving vs people crouching the whole match in doubles.
stckrboy wrote:
Ban times of 24 hours are only going to occur if you have have already received multiple bans prior to that, you never get banned for that length for just a single incident. That's a lot of times your dog needs to have been able to get behind your Xbox and pop the cable out or hit the button on the front.

Chimera wasn't "attacking" your post, he was countering your arguments
You completely missed the point of my post, too.

edit:

Chimera30 wrote:
edit: a 24 hr ban for a first time offense, accidental or intentional, would be ridiculous and shouldn’t be implemented.
Well, when I first started my initial, long-winded post that I ended up deciding wasn't worth the effort, this edit didn't exist. This is the point I was trying to make all along.
Yeah, I gathered that eventually. It wasn't clear from your initial response to the guy because all you said was "should you be punished for blank, blank, or blank?", which sounded like you were talking about the ban system as it is and not as that person suggested (though that guy didn't specify whether his desired 24 hour ban should apply to first time offenders, though I guess if it was a blanket punishment then they'd fall under it too). And I feel like I've seen you post before about how you don't think banning is good in general, hence why I thought that was the direction you were going with your questioning.
ZaedynFel wrote:
This x1000%! I want them back for Halo 6, it just honestly is a lot cooler to say something like I'm a two star Captain or Brigadier or something over, I'm Gold 5 or Diamond 6.... we are the UNSC right? ....AND it makes more sense lore wise too...and I know how you (343I) are all about your lore, right? Right!! ;)
Personally, I like the Military ranks on Progression-type scale rather than a skill one so everyone can get them.

But if you want to be a stickler on lore, Spartans are enlisted and not commissioned, so would never go above ranks like Master Chief. So, lore-wise, you wouldn't have Lt., Capt, Major, Generals, etc. as a Spartan.
Well, I never claimed to know the lore really well lol ;) but hey, if Master Chief is the highest rank in the UNSC, that system sounds fine with me.

...but regardless, my point is I just think something like saying "oh what's my rank in Team Slayer? .. Brigadier, yours?" sounds a lot cooler then saying "I'm a diamond 5" or something...if you know what I'm getting at, but that's me.
ZaedynFel wrote:
This x1000%! I want them back for Halo 6, it just honestly is a lot cooler to say something like I'm a two star Captain or Brigadier or something over, I'm Gold 5 or Diamond 6.... we are the UNSC right? ....AND it makes more sense lore wise too...and I know how you (343I) are all about your lore, right? Right!! ;)
Personally, I like the Military ranks on Progression-type scale rather than a skill one so everyone can get them.

But if you want to be a stickler on lore, Spartans are enlisted and not commissioned, so would never go above ranks like Master Chief. So, lore-wise, you wouldn't have Lt., Capt, Major, Generals, etc. as a Spartan.
Well, I never claimed to know the lore really well lol ;) but hey, if Master Chief is the highest rank in the UNSC, that system sounds fine with me.

...but regardless, I just think something like saying "oh my rank in Team Slayer, Brigadier" sounds a lot cooler then saying "I'm a diamond 5" or something...if you know what I'm getting at.
You could have both and Josh has hinted at this previously. You could have your Competitive Skill Rank (CSR) dictated by Iron/Bronze through Onyx/Champ while also having a playlist experience progression rank dictated by military ranks. This would be somewhat similar to what Halo 3 had for its playlists. Not to mention, Halo Reach had a very lengthy military based progression system for its character progression so if they wanted to expand the military progression aspect of the Halo 3 playlist experience system they could borrow some ideas from Reach's character progression system.
ZaedynFel wrote:
This x1000%! I want them back for Halo 6, it just honestly is a lot cooler to say something like I'm a two star Captain or Brigadier or something over, I'm Gold 5 or Diamond 6.... we are the UNSC right? ....AND it makes more sense lore wise too...and I know how you (343I) are all about your lore, right? Right!! ;)
Personally, I like the Military ranks on Progression-type scale rather than a skill one so everyone can get them.

But if you want to be a stickler on lore, Spartans are enlisted and not commissioned, so would never go above ranks like Master Chief. So, lore-wise, you wouldn't have Lt., Capt, Major, Generals, etc. as a Spartan.
Isn't Fred a LTJG though?

*hides*
ZaedynFel wrote:
Soo was playing some wza and it seems that I'm matching a lot of teams. The games are over in less than 5 mins. If this continues could see the playlist lose even more players. I don't mind competition but in these games there is almost no chance. I could normally search solo and get pretty fair matches but not anymore
WZA basically doesn't have the population to go any tighter. During low-pop times, it would be unplayable otherwise.
How about just a "soft tightening" so that you don't get teams more than 2 games in a row?
Let the default stay loose, but spread out the frequency.

eLantern wrote:
ZaedynFel wrote:
This x1000%! I want them back for Halo 6, it just honestly is a lot cooler to say something like I'm a two star Captain or Brigadier or something over, I'm Gold 5 or Diamond 6.... we are the UNSC right? ....AND it makes more sense lore wise too...and I know how you (343I) are all about your lore, right? Right!! ;)
Personally, I like the Military ranks on Progression-type scale rather than a skill one so everyone can get them.

But if you want to be a stickler on lore, Spartans are enlisted and not commissioned, so would never go above ranks like Master Chief. So, lore-wise, you wouldn't have Lt., Capt, Major, Generals, etc. as a Spartan.
Well, I never claimed to know the lore really well lol ;) but hey, if Master Chief is the highest rank in the UNSC, that system sounds fine with me.

...but regardless, I just think something like saying "oh my rank in Team Slayer, Brigadier" sounds a lot cooler then saying "I'm a diamond 5" or something...if you know what I'm getting at.
You could have both and Josh has hinted at this previously. You could have your Competitive Skill Rank (CSR) dictated by Iron/Bronze through Onyx/Champ while also having a playlist experience progression rank dictated by military ranks. This would be somewhat similar to what Halo 3 had for its playlists. Not to mention, Halo Reach had a very lengthy military based progression system for its character progression so if they wanted to expand the military progression aspect of the Halo 3 playlist experience system they could borrow some ideas from Reach's character progression system.
Just straight up copy H3's system but throw monthly seasons on top of that for people who already hit 50, best of both.
Why is team slayer still punishing solo players? I would love to lose due to my performance. Unfortunately, 80% of the time I have to be the DD (the responsible one). So, 50% of those games are lost because I couldn't overcome the selfish play of bad teammates. Then players start quitting and I lose more. Then I get emo and start quitting.

I'm level 150+ so I've played a few games. It is so demoralizing to do well and lose soooo often. Can there be a better metric for vetting teammates? Assists? Number of games in?
Why is team slayer still punishing solo players?
It's a team game, not a solo game. If you want to be rated in a solo environment, there's FFA.
Is the server having issues or are we now in the middle of a modding fest by some players? I've been kicked out of 4 of my last 10 games because either the server is crashing or someone us running a mod like in the old days and I can't see the carnage reports to block users... can someone look into this please?
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5