Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

[Locked] Matchmaking Feedback Update – March 27

OP ZaedynFel

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 8
Ye FLuFFy wrote:
The thing about the current ranking system in Halo 5 that I hate is that there is/was no grind. Back in Halo 3 you started at 1, and you worked your way up to 50. Halo 5 I played my first 10 games and was placed into Champion. Which from your post I went from level 1 to level 58+ in 10 games. When I get on Halo 3 and see my 50's in 7 playlists with 4000+ ranked games I know that I earned those because of the hard work, and dedication I put into the game to get better. When I get on Halo 5 and see that my ranks got reset, and I have to play 10 games to get back into Onyx for the 10th+ time I don't feel that satisfaction like I used to, I don't feel like I've earned this rank. Please Josh! Bring back the grind in Halo!
Then grind from Onyx to Champ. You shouldn't be asking to roll lesser skilled players than you to have fun.
Mzrshy wrote:
Hey Josh, one question - After a match has concluded, why is it faster to find the next Match by backing out to the playlist selection screen and searching as opposed to letting the game search normally?
That would be because there's a 30 or so second cool down timer after each game. Backing out, then searching skips that wait.

The map and game type issue can be solved, or at the very least, lessened with more/new maps. It's always going to feel like we're playing the same maps nearly back to back to back when in certain playlists (Swat most noticeably), there's only like 5 maps in rotation. Or in Team Arena where there's far more of a chance to play Slayer because you can roll Slayer on every map while CTF and Strongholds can only be played on a few of the maps in rotation by comparison. So more variety equals more options.
ZaedynFel wrote:
I've had really mismatched games in FFA as well (Platinum 4 against high Onyx (1800+) and champs (as high as 24) but I don't really mind those as much. I usually am able to make my way up to Onyx in FFA, so eventually end up matching high-ish level Onyx players by the end of the season anyway, so I guess it just doesn't feel much different. Also, for some reason I can hold my own in FFA (tied a champ 88 and beat an onyx 1968 in one game) not sure why it doesn't seem to work that way in Proving Grounds. I guess it's harder to do when you have 4 players who are much better than you, working together to kill you as opposed to every man for himself.
Proving Grounds is kind of "Hard mode" in general right now, especially compared to FFA, because:
  • It's a brand new playlist so skill estimates are still settling down
  • It's popular among more elite players, so overall the average borderline Gold/Plat player in PG is better than a Gold/Plat in other lists
  • FFA is overall still a little too liberal in how it gives out Onyx. I'm still working on a tweak for that.
Thanks for your reply! I agree that it seems way too easy to get Onyx in FFA, especially since from what I've seen, you gain CSR as long as you don't place last. Would it be possible to change this to a system where you gain CSR if you finish in the top 3, and maybe gain if you place 4th or 5th, but the player/s you outplaced were of a significantly higher rank than you (mid platinum beating high Onyx for example)? I like to feel like I've earned my rank not just from playing a ton.
ZaedynFel wrote:
CSR and 1-50 EquivalenciesI’ve seen some interest in knowing how Halo 5’s CSR system relates to Halo 3’s 1-50 system.
It’s like this:
  • We use the same exact system as Halo 3
  • This system gives us a 1-50 for every player like it always did
  • We rename those numbers like this and tell you that’s your Rank:
    • 1-6: Bronze
    • 7-18: Silver
    • 19-31: Gold
    • 31-44: Platinum
    • 45-50: Diamond 1-3
  • Halo 3’s system actually goes above 50, but the game hid that. We use those higher numbers to add Ranks beyond 50:
    • 51-57: Diamond 4-6
    • 58+: Onyx
    • Top 200 Onyx: Champion
Examples:
  • The same exact code that gave you a 43 in Halo 3 still gives you a 43 in Halo 5. We just call you Platinum now instead of 43.
  • The same exact code that gave you a 50 in Halo 3 still gives you a 50 in Halo 5, we just call you “Diamond 3” instead of 50. BUT, read the next example before you think too hard.
  • The same exact code from Halo 3 actually gave some of you a “60” in Halo 3, but it was never shown. If you were a “60” in Halo 3, you were still called a “50”. In Halo 5, we call you “Onyx” instead.
Again, we literally just took the exact same system and just renamed the Ranks. No funny business here.

Some of you may be thinking, “I was 50 in Halo 3 and I’m better than any Diamond”

Sure, then you actually weren’t a “50” in Halo 3, you were a 65, or a 70, but Halo 3 never revealed that so you never knew.

Also keep in mind:
  • Global FPS skill has increased in the last decade from just sheer numbers and playtime.
  • Average Halo FPS skill among players who have been playing consistently over the last decade has also increased. Many of the people you considered “20-30” 10 years ago have gotten better, and play in the 40-50 range. Some of them of caught up and even passed you. That’s life.
Never understood why you didn't just keep the system as the numbers, seeing as that was a better indicator of ones skill, is it that important to mimic LoL ranks because that's a more popular game?
Pretty much every type of legitimate ranked MM system uses a set of progressive symbols in concert with CSR to rank players for a reason. Its not specific to LoL. If you want 1-50 to return, there MUST be a 50+ structure in place for the higher ranked players. If you just continue the numbers onward, then that 50 rank becomes totally arbitrary. Since it's not "The end" it loses its meaning and you can't possibly hope to hit whatever the max happens to be.
If you go the other way and retain 1-50 then add an additional symbol-based system on top of that, there is no continuity there and you have the same loss of meaning as before. If you go back to the strict 1-50 ranks where there is no representation above 50, its not an accurate system.
The current system has continuity, accuracy and can accommodate the 50+ folks. Like any MM system it needs upkeep and tweaking of the way matching works and player feedback but i fail to see how reverting back to a strict 1-50 would be a net positive other than "nostalgia, for the feels man" :)
So if this is literally the same system as Halo 3, does that include the ability to be "locked" into a rank as your Sigma (uncertainty) value gets lower and lower?

One of the primary abuse cases in Halo 3 was that a brand new account could move really quickly, and by queueing with an account with both a low Mu and low Sigma but lots of games played (a "boosting account") you could greatly increase your Mu gains for a period of time.

However, if you were an older account with many games played, it became almost impossible to actually get your Mu to change from a 46 to a 47 -- because your Sigma was so low it essentially gave you zero gains for wins or losses.
Yes, this is also true except for some caveats.
  • we don't let sigma get so low you can really get super locked
  • when a new seasons starts, we increase sigma in a mathematically tricky way to "unlock" you
  • we show more granularity anyways, so you can see movement within your rank. Whereas H3 had little feedback.
  • we're putting some math in to close the boosting loophole you mentioned when playing in parties.
You brought up vetoing and the topic of playing the same maps being the problem, but that's not the only aspect of the veto system. It also provides an option for people to not play unpopular/bad maps, OR for them to play the same map time and time again if they choose to.

Like for example, Antifreeze in the BTB playlist. If veto existed, I think many players would have vetoed this map every single time it came up because it is a bad map. Whether I just played it is irrelevant, I simply don't want to play it.
Or to use a Halo 3 example, I don't think I ever vetoed Guardian because I loved that map and I never got tired of playing it.
It would also provide a much quicker metric for devs to see which maps need work based on how often a map is vetoed, rather than relying on feedback through forums.

Honestly, I don't get all the unnecessary complexity. Rather than spending 16 months trying to refine this system, why don't you just use the one that we already know works?
Never understood why you didn't just keep the system as the numbers, seeing as that was a better indicator of ones skill, is it that important to mimic LoL ranks because that's a more popular game?
No, we're not mimicking LoL. I designed the ranks for the game that LoL mimicked when it changed to this type of system. So technically, they mimicked us. Which is fine. This type of system is the standard in the industry now, and most games have moved on it to.

For more design like reasons, see my earlier updates and find the section titled "Starting from the Bottom", or also see my GDC talk (search on GDC Menke).
Scvds wrote:
Champion is just a reflection of which high onyx players can play the most in a given month.
In general this isn't true. If you are in a certain elite eschelon of players, this was kind of true up until recently, and now it still a tiny bit true. We are removing several inefficiencies that will make Champ a lot harder.

In general, CSR is supposed to be a skill-based Rank placement system, not a progression one. You are supposed to quickly find your skill, and if you want it to change, you have to actually get better relative to people around you.

I do like Progression systems too, but I prefer they not be bogged down with trying to be both "Skill" and "Progression" at the same time. I'd rather have a sweet leveling progression curve based mostly on time investment, though maybe accelerated for higher-skilled players. I'd rather that be a separate system with its own rewards.
ZaedynFel wrote:
Veto and or Not playing the same stuff over and over. How are the map and mode chosen?I’ve spoken a few times on veto, but I’ll reiterate again a little, and give more details about how we choose the map and mode.
We don’t hate veto, but we currently feel like if we can instead prevent you from playing the same thing twice, that probably solves the majority of complaints that lead to a desire to veto.

This is how we currently pick what is played:
  • Every hopper has a list of map-mode combinations (e.g., CTF on Coliseum)
  • Each combination is assigned a unique number
  • A combination CAN appear twice or even more in the list. This effectively doubles or triples the weight of that combination
  • We track, for each player, the last unique combination number they played, and which hopper it was on.
  • After we have a group of players ready to play, we pick the “number” least recently played by everyone.
So here some situations not protected by this method that will cause the same thing twice:
  • A combination appears twice in the list, so has two different unique numbers. The system doesn’t realize it’s doing the same thing twice. We can improve this for sure.
  • You join a match already in progress. In this case, the system did not involve you in the decision process – this is the same with or without veto though.
  • You play a different hopper and then come back to this one, at that point, the system has “forgotten” your last map-mode combination in the hopper. We could also improve this, though it doesn’t feel like as high of a priority.
It is a lot more efficient for us to decrease how often you see a given combination than it is to implement veto, so we would rather start there and see if that solves the problem most of the time. The biggest complain we see isn’t so much “I just wish I could veto” as it is, “I hate seeing the same thing over and over”
I've kind of been a supporter of bringing back a veto system because of the dislike in seeing the same thing over and over, but in all honestly hearing in more detail about how the system works and that you guys could potentially improve aspects of the current system to lessen the chances of seeing the same thing over and over I'm now more in favor of the current system with improvements.

ZaedynFel wrote:
Quitting, Forfeit, and Soft Forfeit
  • We may add a “soft forfeit”. Basically, you can quit if someone else on your team quit first without a penalty. You would still lose the normal amount of CSR as if you lost the match, to prevent exploits and collusion (see previous posts), but wouldn’t be marked for banning. This accomplishes the same as a Forfeit without the explicit feature. You vote to forfeit by leaving. It would also mean you don’t have to sit around 1v4 waiting for them to kill you 50 times to avoid the higher CSR loss / ban risk.
I look forward to this feature in Ranked playlists within future Halo FPS titles.
You brought up vetoing and the topic of playing the same maps being the problem, but that's not the only aspect of the veto system. It also provides an option for people to not play unpopular/bad maps, OR for them to play the same map time and time again if they choose to.
If there are bad maps, we'd rather identify them and just remove them. We do monitor which maps people quit out of the most, and we do remove those in regular cycles.
ZaedynFel wrote:
You brought up vetoing and the topic of playing the same maps being the problem, but that's not the only aspect of the veto system. It also provides an option for people to not play unpopular/bad maps, OR for them to play the same map time and time again if they choose to.
If there are bad maps, we'd rather identify them and just remove them. We do monitor which maps people quit out of the most, and we do remove those in regular cycles.
I usually don't quit games because of the map though, with the possible ban from matchmaking, and it not being fair to the team I leave. Would it not be possible to do the exact same culling of maps based on the veto system?
ZaedynFel wrote:
You brought up vetoing and the topic of playing the same maps being the problem, but that's not the only aspect of the veto system. It also provides an option for people to not play unpopular/bad maps, OR for them to play the same map time and time again if they choose to.
If there are bad maps, we'd rather identify them and just remove them. We do monitor which maps people quit out of the most, and we do remove those in regular cycles.
I don't mean for this to sound rude, but if that's the case, why is Pegasus II still in the SWAT rotation? I don't mind it so much in other playlist, but between the spawns and frame rate issues, it's terrible for SWAT in my opinion (and others, there was a whole thread about this).
ZaedynFel wrote:
Mzrshy wrote:
Hey Josh, one question - After a match has concluded, why is it faster to find the next Match by backing out to the playlist selection screen and searching as opposed to letting the game search normally?
Because we automatically match you after another match, we give some intermission time to review the match results. That's the only difference. If you back out, you are skipping the intermission and jumping right back into matchmaking. We could streamline that I suppose, by letting party leaders skip the intermission. Party members might get irritated, but they could take it out on their friend.
I kind of wish the intermission were a bit longer for those chance encounters where you meet someone you'd like to add to your Fireteam before going into the next match, but as you say allowing a party leader to "skip" the intermission would be a wonderful option for those not interested in wasting time before the next match and it doesn't require the party leader to back their group out of matchmaking before restarting a new search which increases the odds of playing in the same map/mode.
ZaedynFel wrote:
You brought up vetoing and the topic of playing the same maps being the problem, but that's not the only aspect of the veto system. It also provides an option for people to not play unpopular/bad maps, OR for them to play the same map time and time again if they choose to.
If there are bad maps, we'd rather identify them and just remove them. We do monitor which maps people quit out of the most, and we do remove those in regular cycles.
I usually don't quit games because of the map though, with the possible ban from matchmaking and whatnot. Would it not be possible to do the exact same culling of maps based on the veto system?
Exactly! I really try not to quit once the game has started regardless of the map, being outnumbered, etc, so just because I stick it out doesn't mean I like the map. I would think a veto system would be much more accurate to see what maps get consistently vetoed.
ZaedynFel wrote:
You brought up vetoing and the topic of playing the same maps being the problem, but that's not the only aspect of the veto system. It also provides an option for people to not play unpopular/bad maps, OR for them to play the same map time and time again if they choose to.
If there are bad maps, we'd rather identify them and just remove them. We do monitor which maps people quit out of the most, and we do remove those in regular cycles.
I'm not sure if you're really in charge of this but when do you guys decide enough is enough for a certain map? I can't help but think back to Overgrowth in particular and how people have been quitting out on it for the better part of a year no matter how many times its brought back to the team arena/proving grounds audience.
ZaedynFel wrote:
You brought up vetoing and the topic of playing the same maps being the problem, but that's not the only aspect of the veto system. It also provides an option for people to not play unpopular/bad maps, OR for them to play the same map time and time again if they choose to.
If there are bad maps, we'd rather identify them and just remove them. We do monitor which maps people quit out of the most, and we do remove those in regular cycles.
I don't mean for this to sound rude, but if that's the case, why is Pegasus II still in the SWAT rotation? I don't mind it so much in other playlist, but between the spawns and frame rate issues, it's terrible for SWAT in my opinion (and others, there was a whole thread about this).
I was going to bring that up too. Orion and Pegasus both used to give me awful framerate issues making them unplayable and honestly now even though they're fixed they just aren't fun to play anyway. They'd appear all the time in social which isn't the end of the world but they also came up in FFA apparently.
MIb2347 wrote:
ZaedynFel wrote:
You brought up vetoing and the topic of playing the same maps being the problem, but that's not the only aspect of the veto system. It also provides an option for people to not play unpopular/bad maps, OR for them to play the same map time and time again if they choose to.
If there are bad maps, we'd rather identify them and just remove them. We do monitor which maps people quit out of the most, and we do remove those in regular cycles.
I don't mean for this to sound rude, but if that's the case, why is Pegasus II still in the SWAT rotation? I don't mind it so much in other playlist, but between the spawns and frame rate issues, it's terrible for SWAT in my opinion (and others, there was a whole thread about this).
I was going to bring that up too. Orion and Pegasus both used to give me awful framerate issues making them unplayable and honestly now even though they're fixed they just aren't fun to play anyway. They'd appear all the time in social which isn't the end of the world but they also came up in FFA apparently.
It pops up close to every other game in SWAT and because of the spawns (blue base especiallly) all you have to do is camp at the top of the ramp between basement and yellow corner and wait for them to spawn directly across from you. One shot and they're dead. I know influencing spawns is a thing, but this happens regardless of where other players are on the map. It's still not my favorite map (the original was definitely in my top 3 :-( )but at least in FFA or Slayer you have a chance to thrust out of the way and let your shields regen, not so much in SWAT.
smurf accounts are annoying
ZaedynFel wrote:
Scvds wrote:
Champion is just a reflection of which high onyx players can play the most in a given month.
In general this isn't true. If you are in a certain elite eschelon of players, this was kind of true up until recently, and now it still a tiny bit true. We are removing several inefficiencies that will make Champ a lot harder.

In general, CSR is supposed to be a skill-based Rank placement system, not a progression one. You are supposed to quickly find your skill, and if you want it to change, you have to actually get better relative to people around you.

I do like Progression systems too, but I prefer they not be bogged down with trying to be both "Skill" and "Progression" at the same time. I'd rather have a sweet leveling progression curve based mostly on time investment, though maybe accelerated for higher-skilled players. I'd rather that be a separate system with its own rewards.
I look forward to you guys removing the inefficiencies that cheapen the experience the experience at higher ranks. I'm one of the players in the "elite echelon" that you mention and there's been very little motivation to play ranked modes for many of us for a long time. Just wondering, if the current system is nearly identical to the omen that halo 3 used, why not keep the number ranks? It's what the halo community is used to and it made the ranked experience hard yet rewarding and addictive.
Why has Halo 5 never been given a classic-style playlist, with the sprinting and the abilities disabled? Surely, 343 sees that there is a demand for the older playstyle.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 8