Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

[Locked] Matchmaking Feedback Update – June 26

OP ZaedynFel

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5
HighMeLow wrote:
You make a good point about not enough Diamonds to match Plats and I just experienced that in my last FFA game. Got matched (on Balanced) with an Onyx 1674, and I'm Plat 1. Everyone else was unranked but their other playlist ranks were at least gold. Needless to say he bet everyone fairly easily. That's infuriating to me. Like I get where you say that when you get matched with players like that you should feel good that you're going up against them, however this is a large skill difference. But, when their 25-5-6, and the next best is me at 12-4-15, he shoots for 63.8 accuracy and i'm shooting 47.7, and nearly a 1,500 damage difference? I know I'm ranting to you at this point and I'm sorry, but that shouldn't be a fair match to start with. Why did the matchmaker make it though? I don't know if the playlist needs the HCS update, but it needs more people for sure to avoid situations like this. I don't want other people experiencing this and then never playing again, cause that's just less and less people in a playlist that didn't have much to start with. Please let me know what you think Josh as it would be greatly appreciated. (If you want reference, go check my game history, it was FFA on Riptide.)
Yeah, these matches are painful. Though you still got +5 CSR for the win. The actual winner only got +1 since it was too easy.

What happened in this case was the combined wait time for everyone in that match before it happened was almost SEVEN minutes! After that long, the matchmaker just makes do with what it has.

If may have been a shorter wait for you, but you didn't search Focused. If you had searched Focused, this wouln't happen for around 3 minutes.
yah0oit wrote:
I don't see too much downside in the idea of combining the two. With Halo 5, even social matchmaking can be as sweaty as ranked the majority of the time, so there's really no difference except in the map/mode combinations. It'd be cool to see something like this, if not for Halo 5 than Halo 6 for sure:

HCS (Ranked Only)
Slayer
Objective
BTB
Swat
Doubles
Breakout/Extermination
Snipers (possibly Shotty Snipes if you choose social?)
FFA (Vetoed's Settings for Ranked, Current Settings [plus King of the Hill, Oddball] for Social)
Action Sack, Griffball, and Infection (Social Only, possibly combined)
I like the idea of combining the two as well, but the most fun I've had with a halo game has been the Super Fiesta playlist. I would be very sad to see it go. It alone pulls me into Halo MP and then I play a couple matches and then move into more traditional playlists. If it was gone, I wouldn't think it a stretch to think I wouldn't play Halo MP until Halo 6 came out simply due to not having anything pulling me towards the game. Don't know how other people feel about it.
ZaedynFel wrote:
Maybe I was unclear. You wouldn't matchmake and "hope" to get Ranked. You would pick between them and then queue for the match. If you choose Ranked, the match counts. If you didn't, it doesn't.

The match itself, might be a mix of people who picked Social and Ranked. The ones that picked Ranked will have the match affect their Ranked CSR/MMR. Those that didn't, won't.

If you pick Ranked, it'll be Ranked, if Social, social.

The win is that you can matchmake them together and get a higher quality experience.
Please do not do this, people have complained that 343 has strayed far enough from what was proven to work just fine, I can already envision the mayhem this will cause.

There's no need to break what wasn't broken. Have set "Social" playlists, and set "Ranked" playlists, it's clear people wanted that from the start of H5.
To be fair, though, the division of playlists could have an impact on each playlists population, declining the quality of matchmaking for everybody and not just the elite. This was my problem with Halo 4. Matchmaking had so few people in it that matches were unbalanced and un-fun.
yah0oit wrote:
I don't see too much downside in the idea of combining the two. With Halo 5, even social matchmaking can be as sweaty as ranked the majority of the time, so there's really no difference except in the map/mode combinations. It'd be cool to see something like this, if not for Halo 5 than Halo 6 for sure:

HCS (Ranked Only)
Slayer
Objective
BTB
Swat
Doubles
Breakout/Extermination
Snipers (possibly Shotty Snipes if you choose social?)
FFA (Vetoed's Settings for Ranked, Current Settings [plus King of the Hill, Oddball] for Social)
Action Sack, Griffball, and Infection (Social Only, possibly combined)
I like the idea of combining the two as well, but the most fun I've had with a halo game has been the Super Fiesta playlist. I would be very sad to see it go. It alone pulls me into Halo MP and then I play a couple matches and then move into more traditional playlists. If it was gone, I wouldn't think it a stretch to think I wouldn't play Halo MP until Halo 6 came out simply due to not having anything pulling me towards the game. Don't know how other people feel about it.
Yeah I play a lot of Fiesta too. Can't believe I forgot it on my dream list lol
Now I really have doubts that I will see the social slayer playlist with dev and forge maps that I've been waiting for. Fudge :(
I think they playlist combination idea could be a pretty good one actually, if it works well. Low population is definitely becoming an issue in some of these playlists. It also might be a good way to bring new players into the ranked playlists who previously haven't felt comfortable playing ranked, but once they start playing the playlist in an unranked mode and get more used to it, they may start dabbling in ranked. Also, implementing in this fashion could actually allow people to get ranked in ANY playlist if they love playing it competitively and really want to sweat! Even warzone, super fiesta, or castle wars, for example. That could be really cool, and it also might help mitigate some of the concerns people have about the 6-man WZ restriction discouraging teams from playing together (because they'd be able to grind for rank if they want). I think it'd be very cool to see my Warzone "rank", for example, even though it's not a tournament-competitive gametype.

I suggest first implementing it on a trial basis, to see how it works. Also, I think the biggest challenge here may in the "communication" to the player base. I suspect there will be a lot of people who don't read these thread, and don't understand what's going on. They'll feel like now as social players they're being forced to play against ranked players/ And people will also complain that the ranks mean nothing anymore because you can gain rank for beating social players. Both those complaints are mitigated when you really understand how MMR works, but few people do...

Two suggestions:
  1. Every player should have totally independent MMRs for ranked play and unranked play in a given playlist. If i just want to play HCS socially, I don't want to worry that my Ranked HCS MMR is going to take a hit (which could indirectly affect my CSR later on). Plus, if I'm playing ranked with a coordinated To4, then go solo queue in social with that same MMR, I'm going to get spanked, which won't be fun.
  2. If you're playing social mode, you shouldn't see ANYONE's rank. They should be totally hidden. In fact, if you don't read these threads, you might not ever realize that you're now playing against ranked players while in social playlists, you'll just see a UI change in the playlist selections. Otherwise people will feel like ranks are corrupting the social playlist. If you're playing in "ranked mode" on the other hand, you should see available ranks, plus the "team average MMR" stats that you have previously suggested, so people can get a sense of which team was the "favorite" to win that game. The team average MMRs would use each players ranked or social MMR, depending which mode they were playing.
Anyway, I think it's a potentially very good idea to increase the playlist populations which will improve MM quality for everyone. Just need to try it out (maybe just for one playlist, to start) and see how it goes.
I used to dislike the idea of combining ranked/social, but I've really changed that thought after years of seeing just how much difference the playlist population can make.
And with some clever tinkering (eg. like you said, adjusting MMR if someone is in social), I think it can be made to work well enough....

It will be terribly received of course, especially at first.
But if it's done well, I'm sure people would come around...

but it has to be good from day 1 (or at very least a week or 2), none of this "it sucks now but we'll fix it in 6 months" that has become the norm.
A change like this would be huuuge to fans, and that first impression could make or break the future population, even extending into Halo 6.
This really, really, really isn't something that can afford to go wrong, everybody needs to be on-call & ready to work overtime.

To really get the full benefit though, I think it would be cool to just make every playlist have a ranked/social option.
So even instead of having a separate screen for Ranked/Social lists, just put a Ranked/Social toggle up at the top next to the search preference.

Social stats should also be disabled for public viewing by default, meaning you can see your own but not others
-- unless they opt-in to make theirs openly viewable.
I certainly know that a lot of my friends would be more willing to play if this was possible, and it would do a lot towards lowering the use of smurf accounts.

Note:
But no matter how clever the tinkering, I still think you guys really need to do some manual moderation/bans --
real people investigating clear abuse, like the people who already do it by quitting out of thousands of ranked games simply to rank down & maintain a 3.0+ K/D by destroying noobs.
The current system is already simple & yet easy to abuse, I really doubt a more complex system will be able to handle everything through algorithms alone.

I'm wondering how Join-in-Progress would work though. I checked each page and maybe I missed it but I didn't see anything.
To really get the full benefit though, I think it would be cool to just make every playlist have a ranked/social option.
So even instead of having a separate screen for Ranked/Social lists, just put a Ranked/Social toggle up at the top next to the search preference.
We were literally thinking the same thing as we both responded. +1 this^

Seriously, this could revolutionize the game if well implemented and communicated effectively. I wish something like this had existed at launch... it might have helped make this game a lot more popular. This solves the problem of everyone wanting both ranked and social options for all the playlists, which the population just can't support if you have to search independent hoppers for ranked/unranked.
ZaedynFel wrote:
HighMeLow wrote:
You make a good point about not enough Diamonds to match Plats and I just experienced that in my last FFA game. Got matched (on Balanced) with an Onyx 1674, and I'm Plat 1. Everyone else was unranked but their other playlist ranks were at least gold. Needless to say he bet everyone fairly easily. That's infuriating to me. Like I get where you say that when you get matched with players like that you should feel good that you're going up against them, however this is a large skill difference. But, when their 25-5-6, and the next best is me at 12-4-15, he shoots for 63.8 accuracy and i'm shooting 47.7, and nearly a 1,500 damage difference? I know I'm ranting to you at this point and I'm sorry, but that shouldn't be a fair match to start with. Why did the matchmaker make it though? I don't know if the playlist needs the HCS update, but it needs more people for sure to avoid situations like this. I don't want other people experiencing this and then never playing again, cause that's just less and less people in a playlist that didn't have much to start with. Please let me know what you think Josh as it would be greatly appreciated. (If you want reference, go check my game history, it was FFA on Riptide.)
Yeah, these matches are painful. Though you still got +5 CSR for the win. The actual winner only got +1 since it was too easy.

What happened in this case was the combined wait time for everyone in that match before it happened was almost SEVEN minutes! After that long, the matchmaker just makes do with what it has.

If may have been a shorter wait for you, but you didn't search Focused. If you had searched Focused, this wouln't happen for around 3 minutes.
Hey Josh thanks for responding it really means a lot! I will try searching on Focused next time if the wait times are getting a little too long. I didn't even think about the amount of CSR for the game and knowing that kinda takes the sting out lol. And hey, I guess sometimes the matchmaker just has to do what has to do. It's amazing try to understand what is going on in game and then reading about the process as you describe it. Really appreciate the work you and the guys at 343i are doing with communicating with us about things like this. Look forward to your updates as they are a really great read and it helps when it comes to playing the game. Hope to see more things to come in the future as I know they'll be the best job ya'll can deliver not only in H5, but in the next Halo title. Thank you very much!
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
I think they playlist combination idea could be a pretty good one actually, if it works well. Low population is definitely becoming an issue in some of these playlists. It also might be a good way to bring new players into the ranked playlists who previously haven't felt comfortable playing ranked, but once they start playing the playlist in an unranked mode and get more used to it, they may start dabbling in ranked. Also, implementing in this fashion could actually allow people to get ranked in ANY playlist if they love playing it competitively and really want to sweat! Even warzone, super fiesta, or castle wars, for example. That could be really cool, and it also might help mitigate some of the concerns people have about the 6-man WZ restriction discouraging teams from playing together (because they'd be able to grind for rank if they want). I think it'd be very cool to see my Warzone "rank", for example, even though it's not a tournament-competitive gametype.

I suggest first implementing it on a trial basis, to see how it works. Also, I think the biggest challenge here may in the "communication" to the player base. I suspect there will be a lot of people who don't read these thread, and don't understand what's going on. They'll feel like now as social players they're being forced to play against ranked players/ And people will also complain that the ranks mean nothing anymore because you can gain rank for beating social players. Both those complaints are mitigated when you really understand how MMR works, but few people do...

Two suggestions:
  1. Every player should have totally independent MMRs for ranked play and unranked play in a given playlist. If i just want to play HCS socially, I don't want to worry that my Ranked HCS MMR is going to take a hit (which could indirectly affect my CSR later on). Plus, if I'm playing ranked with a coordinated To4, then go solo queue in social with that same MMR, I'm going to get spanked, which won't be fun.
  2. If you're playing social mode, you shouldn't see ANYONE's rank. They should be totally hidden. In fact, if you don't read these threads, you might not ever realize that you're now playing against ranked players while in social playlists, you'll just see a UI change in the playlist selections. Otherwise people will feel like ranks are corrupting the social playlist. If you're playing in "ranked mode" on the other hand, you should see available ranks, plus the "team average MMR" stats that you have previously suggested, so people can get a sense of which team was the "favorite" to win that game. The team average MMRs would use each players ranked or social MMR, depending which mode they were playing.
Anyway, I think it's a potentially very good idea to increase the playlist populations which will improve MM quality for everyone. Just need to try it out (maybe just for one playlist, to start) and see how it goes.
I agree with all of this 100%. I don't think it's a bad idea at all if it's done right. I would love to see every playlist have a ranked/social option. There are plenty of social playlists that I'd love to grind (Social Fiesta comes to mind) but would rather spend my time working my way through the ranks. This might also help keep some of these playlists like Snipers around instead of just having it be ranked or social. Social players probably didn't play it because it was ranked, and some of us who solely play ranked may not have played it when it was social. If it was both, both groups could play it and it could hopefully be kept as a permanent playlist.

I also think this would be a nice way to warm up before getting into ranked. For example, I've had major internet issues recently and up until this last week, I hadn't really been able to play in a month. Needless to say I was pretty rusty when I was finally able to play again. In a case like this if each playlist had a ranked/social option (or even just certain playlists) I could've searched social for a couple games to get warmed up rather than risking tanking my ranks because I haven't played in a while. I realize I could've done that already just by searching social, but since there aren't social equivalents of playlists like FFA or SWAT, it wouldn't really help much other than just getting my shot back.

I think the main problem people have with this is they automatically think that someone who primarily plays social is bad, but that's not always the case. I have plenty of friends who are much better than me (not saying I'm good, but I'm not usually terrible) who prefer the playlist options in social. Ranked isn't everyone's cup of tea, that doesn't mean that they're not as good or maybe even better than ranked players.

I do agree that it'd probably be best if they just try this with one playlist to start off and see if it has a positive impact. I just wish people would give it a chance before assuming that it's going to be terrible. Like I think I said in my post on this thread, most of the issues I've seen people claim this would bring about, I already experience in ranked anyway. People already quit out of ranked games all the time. People betray you, team shoot or and nade you, and teabag their own teammates in ranked. And even this far into the game I still run into people in ranked who run the flag to the wrong base, shoot, just a few weeks ago my teammate betrayed me because I wasn't capping the flag even though I couldn't cap it because ours hadn't been returned yet. Will some of these issues become more prominent if they're combined, possibly, but there's no way to know for sure. That's why I'd suggest doing it on a trial basis first, which I feel like they will. I don't see them making such a big change without testing it or first. They could even be sneaky and do it without us knowing it (except the fact that there'd be different playlists in social of course) and just show the social players the same way they show those who haven't earned a rank yet.
How would JiP work within a blended Social/Ranked playlist? Ranked should not have the same type of limited JiP as Social. Also, JiP is too critical to several more socially driven playlists (particularly the bigger team playlists) to not have it included. I feel a blended playlist would ruin the two distinctly different environments that are striven for between Ranked and Social per this particular mechanic.

  • Ranked: Waits till teams are full and locked-in before proceeding to begin the match. Afterwards, no active JiP mechanic exists unless it's modified to only allow someone re-entry into a match they got kicked from... whether it was unintentionally, accidentally, or regrettably.
  • Social: Waits till teams are full and locked-in before proceeding to begin the match. Afterwards, a JiP is active until certain benchmarks are reached within the match that turns it off (aka a restrictive JiP). Those benchmarks should be (1) the score disparity, (2) the match's remaining time, and (3) the amount of people the JiP system has brought into the match. Nobody should be joining a match-in-progress as the match's timer is about to conclude; plus, the score disparity in relation to remaining time should work well for most modes, but for non-slayer based objectives (such as Flag, Bomb, etc.) having a turn-off point that's also based on limiting the total amount of people the system will allow to join a particular team, and perhaps tie that aspect into the remaining time aspect too, should help prevent the system from getting abused by opponents looking to pad their stats (aka kill farming). I do think the initial cut-off numbers for potential people to join a match should coincide somewhat with the initial team size.
eLantern wrote:
How would JiP work within a blended Social/Ranked playlist? Ranked should not have the same type of limited JiP as Social. Also, JiP is too critical to several more socially driven playlists (particularly the bigger team playlists) to not have it included. I feel a blended playlist would ruin the two distinctly different environments that are striven for between Ranked and Social per this particular mechanic.

  • Ranked: Waits till teams are full and locked-in before proceeding to begin the match. Afterwards, no active JiP mechanic exists unless it's modified to only allow someone re-entry into a match they got kicked from... whether it was unintentionally, accidentally, or regrettably.
  • Social: Waits till teams are full and locked-in before proceeding to begin the match. Afterwards, a JiP is active until certain benchmarks are reached within the match that turns it off (aka a restrictive JiP). Those benchmarks should be (1) the score disparity, (2) the match's remaining time, and (3) the amount of people the JiP system has brought into the match. Nobody should be joining a match-in-progress as the match's timer is about to conclude; plus, the score disparity in relation to remaining time should work well for most modes, but for non-slayer based objectives (such as Flag, Bomb, etc.) having a turn-off point that's also based on limiting the total amount of people the system will allow to join a particular team, and perhaps tie that aspect into the remaining time aspect too, should help prevent the system from getting abused by opponents looking to pad their stats (aka kill farming). I do think the initial cut-off numbers for potential people to join a match should coincide somewhat with the initial team size.
I can see two ways to handle this:
  1. Some playlists just can't be Ranked or can't be Social. Those lists keep the usual restrictions for their type.
  2. All playlists (almost) can be Ranked or Social, but some lists just have stricter rules. Like, Super Fiesta would have JIP, etc.. People could play it Ranked, but no one would take those Ranks seriously. HCS, on the other hand, could be played Social (maybe a stretch, but thought experiment), but would have all the restrictions that apply to a Ranked list.
So there are options.
eLantern wrote:
How would JiP work within a blended Social/Ranked playlist? Ranked should not have the same type of limited JiP as Social. Also, JiP is too critical to several more socially driven playlists (particularly the bigger team playlists) to not have it included. I feel a blended playlist would ruin the two distinctly different environments that are striven for between Ranked and Social per this particular mechanic.

  • Ranked: Waits till teams are full and locked-in before proceeding to begin the match. Afterwards, no active JiP mechanic exists unless it's modified to only allow someone re-entry into a match they got kicked from... whether it was unintentionally, accidentally, or regrettably.
  • Social: Waits till teams are full and locked-in before proceeding to begin the match. Afterwards, a JiP is active until certain benchmarks are reached within the match that turns it off (aka a restrictive JiP). Those benchmarks should be (1) the score disparity, (2) the match's remaining time, and (3) the amount of people the JiP system has brought into the match. Nobody should be joining a match-in-progress as the match's timer is about to conclude; plus, the score disparity in relation to remaining time should work well for most modes, but for non-slayer based objectives (such as Flag, Bomb, etc.) having a turn-off point that's also based on limiting the total amount of people the system will allow to join a particular team, and perhaps tie that aspect into the remaining time aspect too, should help prevent the system from getting abused by opponents looking to pad their stats (aka kill farming). I do think the initial cut-off numbers for potential people to join a match should coincide somewhat with the initial team size.
I was also wondering about how social JIP will affect this idea - that's a great question.

At some level, the MMR system must have an ability to deal with JIPs, since even 24-player modes like WZ have hidden MMR and also JIP. And if Josh's data shows that MMRs in JIP playlists are accurate, then they should be able to implement accurate CSR ranks in those playlists without major issues (if you can compute MMR, you can also compute CSR).

But i can definitely see this being a sticking point with ranked players - like if 4 ranked players are matched against 4 social players, and the social team has JIP, what if the social team picks up a better player mid-game, and the ranked team loses? Maybe there will need to be strict MMR criteria for JIP so the social team doesn't magically improve mid-game. Two things might help:

  1. Per Josh's suggestion, ranked players can only match with other ranked players on their team, so they don't complain about social players quitting out or costing the game.
  2. Any JIPs must NOT INCREASE the average MMR of the social team, if there are ranked-mode players in the lobby.
Both those constraints might be difficult or impossible to implement for large team playlists like WZ or BTB, though... Maybe they'd have to be relaxed in those more inherently social playlists. Maybe JIP would only be allowed to very slightly increase the skill of a team mid-game.
The way we handle JIP is to pro-rate your time in the MMR update.
Any chance of making JIP optional (turn on/off) in the future in H5 or H6?

7 of my 9 games last night were JIP games and it's really annoying when my boosts don't work in them.
LUKEPOWA wrote:
Any chance of making JIP optional (turn on/off) in the future in H5 or H6?
JiP can't be made optional or it completely undermines the purpose and usefulness of the system mechanic.
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
I think they playlist combination idea could be a pretty good one actually, if it works well. Low population is definitely becoming an issue in some of these playlists. It also might be a good way to bring new players into the ranked playlists who previously haven't felt comfortable playing ranked, but once they start playing the playlist in an unranked mode and get more used to it, they may start dabbling in ranked. Also, implementing in this fashion could actually allow people to get ranked in ANY playlist if they love playing it competitively and really want to sweat! Even warzone, super fiesta, or castle wars, for example. That could be really cool, and it also might help mitigate some of the concerns people have about the 6-man WZ restriction discouraging teams from playing together (because they'd be able to grind for rank if they want). I think it'd be very cool to see my Warzone "rank", for example, even though it's not a tournament-competitive gametype.

I suggest first implementing it on a trial basis, to see how it works. Also, I think the biggest challenge here may in the "communication" to the player base. I suspect there will be a lot of people who don't read these thread, and don't understand what's going on. They'll feel like now as social players they're being forced to play against ranked players/ And people will also complain that the ranks mean nothing anymore because you can gain rank for beating social players. Both those complaints are mitigated when you really understand how MMR works, but few people do...

Two suggestions:
  1. Every player should have totally independent MMRs for ranked play and unranked play in a given playlist. If i just want to play HCS socially, I don't want to worry that my Ranked HCS MMR is going to take a hit (which could indirectly affect my CSR later on). Plus, if I'm playing ranked with a coordinated To4, then go solo queue in social with that same MMR, I'm going to get spanked, which won't be fun.
  2. If you're playing social mode, you shouldn't see ANYONE's rank. They should be totally hidden. In fact, if you don't read these threads, you might not ever realize that you're now playing against ranked players while in social playlists, you'll just see a UI change in the playlist selections. Otherwise people will feel like ranks are corrupting the social playlist. If you're playing in "ranked mode" on the other hand, you should see available ranks, plus the "team average MMR" stats that you have previously suggested, so people can get a sense of which team was the "favorite" to win that game. The team average MMRs would use each players ranked or social MMR, depending which mode they were playing.
Anyway, I think it's a potentially very good idea to increase the playlist populations which will improve MM quality for everyone. Just need to try it out (maybe just for one playlist, to start) and see how it goes.
Before I respond, just want to say nice post, well though out :)

(Bold) but those are valid complaints that you put and that people will have. Even if every person playing truly understood how the MMR worked, I don't think it'll matter. A lot of people won't like the idea of playing against ranked people if they just want to play soical and vice a versa. I do honestly believe people won't see ranks as genuine anymore if this happens. Someone could get to champion (using H5 system names) by just playing people who picked soical per session. That doesn't seem right AT ALL! And you know people will think it and say it. There will be a backlash, I can all but guarantee it. I do 100% agree that if this is to be tried then it should be tried in Halo 5 before it's put into Halo 6 and see how it goes.

Also (and this isn't directed at anyone either) I hear people say things like people play the same in soical as they do ranked. I'm sorry, I massively disagree with that, MASSIVELY! Speaking for myself and many people that I know, we most certainly do not play the same. In soical, I don't care if I win, lose, or anything. Most of the time I don't call anything out, nor fo my friends. As long as we have fun, that's all we care about. Sure winning is nice, but it's not the be all end all. I play WAY MORE aggressive in soical then I do ranked. As do many other people I know. Why? Because again we don't care how we do. We're playing for fun, to warm up, whatever.... We're chit chatting most of the time if I'm not playing solo. In ranked though, that's a different story. I'm much more defensive, a support type player. I do call outs, I don't chase anywhere near as much and I'm a lot more cautious when I have a power weapon.

I don't want to say I'm totally against the idea, but I seriously have my doubts. I don't like the idea of ranking up (or down lol) playing against people who aren't in "ranked" I don't like the idea of having teammates who aren't taking it as serious as I know I am.

To me this whole conversation stems from a bigger problem. Why aren't people not interested in playing Halo and/or, why are they leaving so soon after launch and not coming back? Those are the issues you should be dealing with. Things like, low population wouldn't be a problem (at least not right away, every game eventually goes down) if these issues weren't issues.

I personally think the clear cut, "These are Ranked playlists and these are Soical playlists" type system works well. Since Halo 3, it's been my favorite set-up out of ANY game. I like the clear cut set up of it, as do MANY other people. Hence the community crying out wanting that type of set up back, and have you heard of people complaining about it since it's been back? Answer, Nope! Why? Because that's what fans wanted and you gave it to them. Yes, they complain about the ranking system and other stuff but we're not talking about anything like that, we're talking about the set up. Tons of games use that kind of set up, lots of successful ones too and for good reason. Look at Overwatch for example. It has moreless a Soical and Ranked playlist style set-up and it's doing fine with it, as does COD and it's still doing fine (Unfortunately...ugh! Sorry just can't stand that series lol)

My point to this is, I don't think the match making system is really the problem here. Other then the above issues I've mentioned, I think not having this setup at Halo 5 launch hurt and not having all the main playlists at launch also hurt (BTB, Doubles, etc) Again, I'm not against trying something new or different here, just trying to make sure point.
Hey ZaedynFel, (please read to the end) I know CSR inflation was bad in FFA and I do believe you 'fixed' that at somewhat. However whenever someone lags out of a game it can take a very long time to get their CSR back due to small gains in CSR most of the time.

I believe that this could be fixed by simply (I think so anyway) by modifying the current CSR gain/loss in FFA by three to make it so you can regain your CSR without having to play 10-15 games at a high level.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this because to me it seems that CSR deflation due to lagouts is an issue now.

FYI I really like to new search in FFA, it is nice to find games consistently even if I have to wait a bit on expanded.
ZaedynFel wrote:
eLantern wrote:
I can see two ways to handle this:
  1. Some playlists just can't be Ranked or can't be Social. Those lists keep the usual restrictions for their type.
  2. All playlists (almost) can be Ranked or Social, but some lists just have stricter rules. Like, Super Fiesta would have JIP, etc.. People could play it Ranked, but no one would take those Ranks seriously. HCS, on the other hand, could be played Social (maybe a stretch, but thought experiment), but would have all the restrictions that apply to a Ranked list.
So there are options.
I think i'd prefer something of a mix between your two ideas.
  • Highly social playlists like super fiesta, warzone, would retain JIP just like now, but allow people to play in ranked mode if they wish, and you might have both ranked and social mode players on either team.
  • Very competitive playlists like HCS could only be played in ranked mode (no social option).
  • Maybe there could be a middle ground for semi-competitive playlists like Team Arena, Slayer, Breakout, SWAT, where there's no JIP but you can still match against social players even if you're playing ranked (though your teammates will all be ranked mode if you're playing ranked). Personally this is the one I'm most worried about, for the reasons that have been discussed: players not liking the idea of mixing ranked and social players in competitive playlists.
https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/games/halo-5-guardians/xbox-one/mode/arena/matches/3c2f42b2-7ec4-4544-9430-ecca132c4653/players/a%20numb%20thumb?gameHistoryMatchIndex=0&gameHistoryGameModeFilter=Arena

https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/games/halo-5-guardians/xbox-one/mode/arena/matches/fd7f6c57-38a1-4c88-858a-d275c7752ea5/players/a%20numb%20thumb?gameHistoryMatchIndex=3&gameHistoryGameModeFilter=Arena

https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/games/halo-5-guardians/xbox-one/mode/arena/matches/a628cc88-7b7c-41f3-84a5-d36a01a50f0b/players/a%20numb%20thumb?gameHistoryMatchIndex=4&gameHistoryGameModeFilter=Arena
https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/games/halo-5-guardians/xbox-one/mode/arena/matches/cee2f8aa-3d03-4efe-b999-b3c5bffc6244/players/a%20numb%20thumb?gameHistoryMatchIndex=6&gameHistoryGameModeFilter=Arena

This is searching focused.
Josh can you explain how any of these are considered to be the best match based on my fire teams skill and connection?
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5