Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

[Locked] Matchmaking Feedback Update – June 5

OP ZaedynFel

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5
ZaedynFel wrote:
Thanks Josh. Appreciate the explanations. How would you define average or bad player? In the hcs list I feel like a bad player. Went from gold to bronze, but in slayer always pretty steady gold, so I feel average.
That sounds about right. Though we matchmake fairly tightly in HCS and Slayer so this shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Hey Josh. With that said im curious how tightly FFA is matched. You and I had a back and forth a couple weeks ago and it gave me the impressions that FFA is matched quite losely. Which is pretty much what it feels like. At the end of our chat you encouraged me to "just have fun". So I put aside my general distaste for H5 to focus on my own performance in every match. In an evening i fought my way up from plat 2 to 3.

What followed soon after was a ridiculous loosing streak, placing 5th or 6th for countless matches. And in every one of those matches I saw a common trend: unranked players winning, players with SRs in the 140s winning or players with extremely low SRs (smurfs) winning.

Its been said that SR doesnt affect matching and if not, it should. A player with an SR in the 140s obviously has to have a ton of XP to get there, making them significantly better then players with lower SRs (myself SR 106).

Losing to unranked players (especially dropping ranks) is infuriating. If the systems knows a players rank but hides it during qualifying then why even reset the ranks. Losing to someone better then you is easier to swallow when you know there better vs. to someone you can only speculate on.

You told me straight up that its common to see a wide skill curve in FFA but I cant help but think FFA needs the tighest matching parameters of any playlist. Matching is important for every mode but noone has your back in FFA. Im constantly bouncing back and forth between low and high skilled players, and getting nowhere. How are we supposed to build lasting skill against players that win by huge margins? Why should we press on with no incentice or chance of getting off this plateau?
LUKEPOWA wrote:
There's literally only 2 people ranked in the FFA leaderboards. If that's not a huge red flag that something needs to change in that playlist, then I don't know what is.

Edit: I looked at the previous seasons and they all had plenty of people placing so maybe it's a ranking issue, but either way FFA does need an overhaul.
It's a tuning issue, not related to population.

We fixed some tuning issues and swung the bar way too high. We're working on re-tuning.
ZaedynFel wrote:
Thanks Josh. Appreciate the explanations. How would you define average or bad player? In the hcs list I feel like a bad player. Went from gold to bronze, but in slayer always pretty steady gold, so I feel average.
That sounds about right. Though we matchmake fairly tightly in HCS and Slayer so this shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Hey Josh. With that said im curious how tightly FFA is matched. You and I had a back and forth a couple weeks ago and it gave me the impressions that FFA is matched quite losely. Which is pretty much what it feels like. At the end of our chat you encouraged me to "just have fun". So I put aside my general distaste for H5 to focus on my own performance in every match. In an evening i fought my way up from plat 2 to 3.

What followed soon after was a ridiculous loosing streak, placing 5th or 6th for countless matches. And in every one of those matches I saw a common trend: unranked players winning, players with SRs in the 140s winning or players with extremely low SRs (smurfs) winning.

Its been said that SR doesnt affect matching and if not, it should. A player with an SR in the 140s obviously has to have a ton of XP to get there, making them significantly better then players with lower SRs (myself SR 106).

Losing to unranked players (especially dropping ranks) is infuriating. If the systems knows a players rank but hides it during qualifying then why even reset the ranks. Losing to someone better then you is easier to swallow when you know there better vs. to someone you can only speculate on.

You told me straight up that its common to see a wide skill curve in FFA but I cant help but think FFA needs the tighest matching parameters of any playlist. Matching is important for every mode but noone has your back in FFA. Im constantly bouncing back and forth between low and high skilled players, and getting nowhere. How are we supposed to build lasting skill against players that win by huge margins? Why should we press on with no incentice or chance of getting off this plateau?
The reason for the wider allowed gap in FFA is because without it, the higher-ranked players weren't able to play FFA at all.

So I had to let them dip down lower.

In theory, if there are enough people around your skill playing, you will match with them before those high player can dip down and snag you --- especially if you are searching Focused.

This is one of my reasons for concern about the population size. Right now, it has enough population to usually find matches for most players, but it can struggle with having enough players to find fair matches in that gap.

If we change it in a way that reduces the size somewhat, then it would struggle even more on that.

We could just switch it to HCS, which could result in some piece not playing anymore. This would make the skill gap even wider in order to matchmake in time, making matches pretty brutal for some.

But at the same time, brutality might be expected on a list titled "HCS"
ZaedynFel wrote:
ZaedynFel wrote:
Thanks Josh. Appreciate the explanations. How would you define average or bad player? In the hcs list I feel like a bad player. Went from gold to bronze, but in slayer always pretty steady gold, so I feel average.
That sounds about right. Though we matchmake fairly tightly in HCS and Slayer so this shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Hey Josh. With that said im curious how tightly FFA is matched. You and I had a back and forth a couple weeks ago and it gave me the impressions that FFA is matched quite losely. Which is pretty much what it feels like. At the end of our chat you encouraged me to "just have fun". So I put aside my general distaste for H5 to focus on my own performance in every match. In an evening i fought my way up from plat 2 to 3.

What followed soon after was a ridiculous loosing streak, placing 5th or 6th for countless matches. And in every one of those matches I saw a common trend: unranked players winning, players with SRs in the 140s winning or players with extremely low SRs (smurfs) winning.

Its been said that SR doesnt affect matching and if not, it should. A player with an SR in the 140s obviously has to have a ton of XP to get there, making them significantly better then players with lower SRs (myself SR 106).

Losing to unranked players (especially dropping ranks) is infuriating. If the systems knows a players rank but hides it during qualifying then why even reset the ranks. Losing to someone better then you is easier to swallow when you know there better vs. to someone you can only speculate on.

You told me straight up that its common to see a wide skill curve in FFA but I cant help but think FFA needs the tighest matching parameters of any playlist. Matching is important for every mode but noone has your back in FFA. Im constantly bouncing back and forth between low and high skilled players, and getting nowhere. How are we supposed to build lasting skill against players that win by huge margins? Why should we press on with no incentice or chance of getting off this plateau?
The reason for the wider allowed gap in FFA is because without it, the higher-ranked players weren't able to play FFA at all.

So I had to let them dip down lower.

In theory, if there are enough people around your skill playing, you will match with them before those high player can dip down and snag you --- especially if you are searching Focused.

This is one of my reasons for concern about the population size. Right now, it has enough population to usually find matches for most players, but it can struggle with having enough players to find fair matches in that gap.

If we change it in a way that reduces the size somewhat, then it would struggle even more on that.

We could just switch it to HCS, which could result in some piece not playing anymore. This would make the skill gap even wider in order to matchmake in time, making matches pretty brutal for some.

But at the same time, brutality might be expected on a list titled "HCS"
Fair enough.

I am of the opinion that ranked matches should be sweaty, even brutal at times, which FFA typically is. Having experienced both I can say I actually do enjoy a challenge. The frustration comes from that challenge being lop sided on a regular basis. I can appreciate high level players finding matches too. It just feels like a situation where "the rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor".

Im not oposed to HCS settings for FFA. If we dont try it we won't know wether or not it works. With that said I dont think a rotational scenario would be beneficial as consistency among playlists has been an issue for H5s life span thus far. Whatever refresh FFA gets needs to be commited to until that potential is realized.

Thanks again for your input!
As much as I'd love seeing more competitive settings in FFA, I have one main concern. I could definitely be wrong since I don't keep up with competitive FFA as much as I should, but aren't there only about 3 maps used for HCS FFA? If it's to be a true HCS FFA playlist, I'd assume that like the regular HCS playlist, and Team Arena prior to that, the only maps in the playlist would be those used for competitive. In my opinion this would get really boring really fast. True there may not be many maps used for competitive 4v4 either, but at least there is a variety of gametypes, so it's not as bad only playing a few maps when you have 3 different gametypes to chose from. But with FFA being Slayer only, I just don't see that being fun for very long with nothing to break up the monotony of Slayer on the same couple maps all the time. Of course you could always just add HCS settings to the current mapset, but then could it really be called an HCS playlist? I do agree that changes need to be made, but for a playlist with an already small-ish population, changes need to be made carefully in order to not split that already small population.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not create alternate accounts to bypass forum bans. Alternate accounts will be permanently banned, and offending users will be subject to both temporary and permanent bans.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
I know this is a bit off topic but are you guys working on anything to combat the mountains of smurf players?
I know this is a bit off topic but are you guys working on anything to combat the mountains of smurf players?
Read through ZaedynFel's archived Matchmaking Feedback threads. (Link) The answer to your question can definitely be found and that answer is yes they are.
As much as I'd love seeing more competitive settings in FFA, I have one main concern. I could definitely be wrong since I don't keep up with competitive FFA as much as I should, but aren't there only about 3 maps used for HCS FFA? If it's to be a true HCS FFA playlist, I'd assume that like the regular HCS playlist, and Team Arena prior to that, the only maps in the playlist would be those used for competitive. In my opinion this would get really boring really fast. True there may not be many maps used for competitive 4v4 either, but at least there is a variety of gametypes, so it's not as bad only playing a few maps when you have 3 different gametypes to chose from. But with FFA being Slayer only, I just don't see that being fun for very long with nothing to break up the monotony of Slayer on the same couple maps all the time. Of course you could always just add HCS settings to the current mapset, but then could it really be called an HCS playlist? I do agree that changes need to be made, but for a playlist with an already small-ish population, changes need to be made carefully in order to not split that already small population.
I agree that FFA needs more attention and should be handled carefully. I think if HCS settings were implemented the entire FFA mapset would/should still be used. With that said a better map rotation where every map in the FFA playlist gets played would be ideal, not 4/5 maps used in a given play seesion.
As much as I'd love seeing more competitive settings in FFA, I have one main concern. I could definitely be wrong since I don't keep up with competitive FFA as much as I should, but aren't there only about 3 maps used for HCS FFA? If it's to be a true HCS FFA playlist, I'd assume that like the regular HCS playlist, and Team Arena prior to that, the only maps in the playlist would be those used for competitive. In my opinion this would get really boring really fast. True there may not be many maps used for competitive 4v4 either, but at least there is a variety of gametypes, so it's not as bad only playing a few maps when you have 3 different gametypes to chose from. But with FFA being Slayer only, I just don't see that being fun for very long with nothing to break up the monotony of Slayer on the same couple maps all the time. Of course you could always just add HCS settings to the current mapset, but then could it really be called an HCS playlist? I do agree that changes need to be made, but for a playlist with an already small-ish population, changes need to be made carefully in order to not split that already small population.
I agree that FFA needs more attention and should be handled carefully. I think if HCS settings were implemented the entire FFA mapset would/should still be used. With that said a better map rotation where every map in the FFA playlist gets played would be ideal, not 4/5 maps used in a given play seesion.
I'd rather see the FFA playlist rotated seasonally between HCS FFA and regular FFA -- at least for 3 or more seasons each. This would allow the players who prefer having the AR as a starting weapon, various automatic pick-ups, perhaps the standard radar, and playing on a wide assortment of maps an opportunity to enjoy that type of FFA playlist while it's available for a season. Vice versa for those who'd prefer to have the FFA playlist with the official HCS settings and maps. Not to mention, I imagine the people who prefer the HCS settings would really appreciate having it available leading up to a major HCS event so that they can use it as a training ground and to see how high they can get ranked within those official settings. For example: I'd certainly recommend having it available leading up into the 2018HaloWC. Now, if it turns out that one version absolutely crushes the popularity (aka population) of the other after they've repeated back-and-forth seasonally for several seasons then perhaps consider making some kind of blend that leans the way of the more popular version or just fully dedicate the playlist to that particular setup and let the matter of claiming that this or that that is really "best" for the FFA playlist finally come to an end because all it is now is just speculation and often times highly biased speculation to boot.
Any chance you could do a quick look into this game and let me know how the match was possible?
I've seen people post individual games before but usually the MMR aspect can explain it (unranked players, losing streaks etc.) but this one I'm a bit stumped by.

Onyx, Diamond 5, Plat 3, Gold 4 (all in a party)
vs
Plat 5, 3x Gold

50-19 (as expected)

  • The party of 4 were mostly wins in their past 20 games, while the party of 3 lower ranks were mostly losses in their past 20 games
  • There weren't even any unranked players to skew the numbers.
  • Even with the Gold 4 on the winning team, I thought the new matching system would downplay his influence anyway
I get that it's based on MMR rather than CSR, but this is just so extreme, there's no way the MMR can be that far off.
Even with the small population, I didn't expect that such a mismatch between teams would be possible.

And would there even be any CSR gain/loss at all? The odds must have been like 100:1, lol.

https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-ca/games/halo-5-guardians/xbox-one/mode/arena/matches/c8bc5c84-70c0-4119-a623-1c03c106c3cf/players/brxfluxxbr
My response to this is simply what if the reason some of these playlists (specifically ffa) have such a low population, is because of settings? People who play arena for the most part enjoy the crouching radar aspect. But when that happens in ffa it ruins the game, which is why me and many other do not play ffa anymore. If the settings were different, the population would most likely increase. Most of the people I see, watch on twitch, play with, everyone agrees ffa needs some sort of refresh. Which is why they don't play.
I haven't played at all for a while. It turned very frustrating. However, I always look forward to reading what Mr. Menke has to say, it is definitely very informative and maybe some day it will bring really great news :)

I have a question though. Are you guys (343) planing to return to the old settings for the HCS? I really enjoyed the new settings way more than the old ones. But from the community update I get the idea that the AR is returning as a starting weapon. Correct me if I'm wrong please.
NOLEX4 wrote:
I haven't played at all for a while. It turned very frustrating. However, I always look forward to reading what Mr. Menke has to say, it is definitely very informative and maybe some day it will bring really great news :)

I have a question though. Are you guys (343) planing to return to the old settings for the HCS? I really enjoyed the new settings way more than the old ones. But from the community update I get the idea that the AR is returning as a starting weapon. Correct me if I'm wrong please.
I have the same fear. I hope we're just reading too much into it, these new settings are so much better and way more competitive.
After not playing Halo matchmaking for a while. I thought I'd give a try again. And the first thing that happens is some -Yoink- betrays you and takes your weapon. -Yoink- Halo
Any chance you could do a quick look into this game and let me know how the match was possible?
I've seen people post individual games before but usually the MMR aspect can explain it (unranked players, losing streaks etc.) but this one I'm a bit stumped by.

Onyx, Diamond 5, Plat 3, Gold 4 (all in a party)
vs
Plat 5, 3x Gold

50-19 (as expected)

  • The party of 4 were mostly wins in their past 20 games, while the party of 3 lower ranks were mostly losses in their past 20 games
  • There weren't even any unranked players to skew the numbers.
  • Even with the Gold 4 on the winning team, I thought the new matching system would downplay his influence anyway
I get that it's based on MMR rather than CSR, but this is just so extreme, there's no way the MMR can be that far off.
Even with the small population, I didn't expect that such a mismatch between teams would be possible.

And would there even be any CSR gain/loss at all? The odds must have been like 100:1, lol.

https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-ca/games/halo-5-guardians/xbox-one/mode/arena/matches/c8bc5c84-70c0-4119-a623-1c03c106c3cf/players/brxfluxxbr
So the system allows a max gap of 300 MMR (converted to the CSR scale).

This match had an average MMR gap between teams of 231, so it was within what the matchmaker allows technically.

However, there's some complexity here.

Because most matches by far only include solo players, that 300 number is tuned based solo players. If we made it much smaller, solo players would wait a lot longer for matches than is really necessary to make good matches.

Unfortunately, that isn't a good number for party to party matchmaking. An average gap of 231 between 2 parties is a total gap of 924, which is huge. It means the better team had about a 90% chance of winning.

If we wanted the same party to party tightness that we get in player-player, we would need to lower that 300 to around 75. But if we did that, like I said, it would make most of our players (solo) wait a lot longer than is necessary for good matches, just to prevent the rare bad party to party match.

So, you may ask, "Why don't you use a different threshold when matchmaking parties?"

Excellent question. Because currently Xbox Live doesn't support that. We are working right now to improve that, but I have no predictions yet on how soon it'll get there.
NOLEX4 wrote:
I haven't played at all for a while. It turned very frustrating. However, I always look forward to reading what Mr. Menke has to say, it is definitely very informative and maybe some day it will bring really great news :)

I have a question though. Are you guys (343) planing to return to the old settings for the HCS? I really enjoyed the new settings way more than the old ones. But from the community update I get the idea that the AR is returning as a starting weapon. Correct me if I'm wrong please.
This isn't something I work on.

But when we originally announced the new HCS settings, we said we were removing the AR to retune it.

If we found an AR tuning that everyone---including the HCS teams---was comfortable with, we would put it back into HCS.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
ZaedynFel wrote:
NOLEX4 wrote:
I haven't played at all for a while. It turned very frustrating. However, I always look forward to reading what Mr. Menke has to say, it is definitely very informative and maybe some day it will bring really great news :)

I have a question though. Are you guys (343) planing to return to the old settings for the HCS? I really enjoyed the new settings way more than the old ones. But from the community update I get the idea that the AR is returning as a starting weapon. Correct me if I'm wrong please.
This isn't something I work on.

But when we originally announced the new HCS settings, we said we were removing the AR to retune it.

If we found an AR tuning that everyone---including the HCS teams---was comfortable with, we would put it back into HCS.
That's nice to see how it goes. Did you clarify in a post that the problems with the AR became apparent when the SMG and Storm Rifle were less present on the map and that the issues revolved around the effectiveness being too similar between Pros down to Diamond players(who are rank as rank 45-57 based on the H5 trueskill system)?

Theres a lot of misinformation and sitgmation against AR users like me that all they like do is crouch and abuse radar for ambushing kills with an "OP" weapon. Awhile back, someone in another matchmaking thread posted a polemic against the weapon and blamed the entire sandbox balance on it. Which I find hard to believe as no data or video proof was given and only rhetoric was provided.
And it's equally far fetched to claim it can kill at "long" distances very quickly as to see how it's optimiazed TTK rises very quickly outside of close range as shown here As info provided by Cayegeebee when H5 came out. And this ain't taking in force multipliers and movement with maps into consideration.
BTW the lowest TTK at point blank the AR is either 1.18-1.24 seconds with 12 bullets (9 shield and 3 head) and highest with 1.42-1.49 with all 15 bodyshots. The variance is based on a .6 margin of error. Important to consider as changing it around to making it higher than the Pistol or BR (whose optimal TTK is 1.35-1.40 and1.28-1.32 respectively) would render the user of it disadvantaged no matter what they do and would likely encourage more camping with it to gain some form of advantage. I'd rather not see it become useless even if it becomes more difficult to kill with. Would serve no peropse in matchmaking competitive or casual.
Omfg! The "heavy aim fix" made my shot even worst than before! The aim is heavier or shots don't register. It's so frustrating! I was a win away from becoming an onix before the update and after the "fix" I'm down to diamond 3.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 5