Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

[Locked] Matchmaking Feedback Update – March 27

OP ZaedynFel

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 8
I'm a diamond player who has consistently been matching champs in FFA, and I love it. It allows me to improve my game at a much faster rate because I can play people who are better than me. The only issue I have is that when I win (and yes, I have won against champs) I feel like I am proving that my rank should not be diamond, but my csr only goes up a small amount. Would it be possible to increase the max csr change when you defeat people who are ranked much higher than you?
Natabase wrote:
I'm a diamond player who has consistently been matching champs in FFA, and I love it. It allows me to improve my game at a much faster rate because I can play people who are better than me. The only issue I have is that when I win (and yes, I have won against champs) I feel like I am proving that my rank should not be diamond, but my csr only goes up a small amount. Would it be possible to increase the max csr change when you defeat people who are ranked much higher than you?
You know, that is one thing I've been curious about concerning CSR. What determines the amount of CSR you gain/lose in a match? It always feels like a consistent amount between games. Then in certain matches, I seem to gain more or lose more than I expected compared to previous matches. I figured it's tied to the level of competition relative to your rank, but it doesn't really seem that way.
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. Please Josh! Bring back the grind in Halo!
kind of have to agree,a lot of halo youtubers like roniboney have also emphasized and liked this system more cause it gave you more of an incentive to grind,as much as season reset may be good in h5 to some like you having to prove your rank,you dont need to reset cause you can drop below your division anyway
I understand the pub stomping in Proving grounds. There is no rank history therefore everyone is getting placed low and grinding up. Should be better next season with the rank history used from this season for placements.

I think the new radar in Proving Grounds has brought some life to H5 as well as some playability back. Is HCS looking at incorporating this new radar into the competitive settings as well as Team Arena?

I like the idea of soft forfeit, and hope it goes without saying that this soft forfeit option should not pop up as an option until at least one player quits. (Don't make this an option with a full team still in game). Players still dashboard, or quit the build any time they send a map/gametype they don't like. I really hope 343 tracks this and includes this data with other quitting data when it comes time to evaluate whether a map or gametype should be removed from a playlist.

To me, the majority of issues with matching too low or too high of players boils down to player population. Has there been any more discussion regarding consolidating or removing additional ranked playlists?

I am generally an Onyx player in Arena, Doubles, Slayer, etc and find the grind to champ or higher onyx to not be worth effort. I'm not sure what incentives or fixes could be made to make progressing once a player hits onyx to more exciting but it isn't rewarding in the current system. REQ points as a competitive arena only player are essentially only for cosmetics for me, so increasing REQ payout or other cosmetics aren't really an incentive for me to grind more. The wide range of Onyx 1500-Onyx 3000+ at end of season just being a change in number doesn't excite me. What would be really cool is a Top 200 list, for each ranked playlist that shows the current Top 200 Champs in each playlist that is updated regularly. Spotlight on say the Top 10 players from each playlist at the end of the season in a Waypoint update or something would also be interesting, at least you would get some small piece of recognition.

I think for the casual side of Halo, the progression system that shows play time, or wins/playlist like in h3 as a separate rank would be cool and increase playability. It is a bit disheartening to place, rank up, then reset and repeat with the grind from Onyx to Champ and limited play time.
ZaedynFel wrote:
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).
This has been something I've been wondering about - to me this seems like an opportunity to do something for classic Halo fans - you have previously mentioned that there are differences in MMR vs. CSR, And that MMR is mostly hidden... Have you considered making the MMR visible and use the classic 1-50 rating system? So the current CSR tiers are unchanged (I like both systems, and especially your explanation because I'm about a 45 :) happy camper here ), but maybe in the service record there would be a section called 'Highest matchmaking rank' and that rank is rated 1-50... Seems like housekeeping in a way, but it also seems like a way to indulge fans of the classic system, and give stat lovers another stat to track, and make MMR visible and differentiated from CSR?? Idk, I'm sure it's not easy just like everything in development, but I know I would LOVE this addition and seems like it would be almost all value added... What do you think?
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.
Yes thank you for this... Combining level progression over time with skill rank sucks and having comptetitive ranks that are separate is part of what makes Halo, Halo. Thank goodness for this man, best / most informative posts on waypoint :)
ZaedynFel wrote:
CSR and 1-50 Equivalencies and Vetoes
Some really good info here. While the ranking maintains the 1-50 system in the background, the searching parameters are vastly different. Before if you were a 35, you could only match players that were 25-45. It would go 10 up and 10 down. If you were a 50 you would be searching "50 high" which meant 40-50. If you were a 50 and you teammate was rank 1 or any other rank, it still used the 40-50 for searching. It always went off the top player. I'm curious how wide the search parameters are now. Instead of putting searching for players, maybe you could modify that text to reflect: Searching for players (lower search rank - max search rank). So it would look like Searching for players (1523 - 1850). Just an idea, if it can't be implemented in Halo 5, add it into Halo 6 maybe.

Another point I'd like to make since you bring up UI changes. Please find whoever is doing the UI for Halo 6. Whenever you hover a playlist, you should be able to press Y or something similar and have a small menu pop up. It should enable you to scroll through the top 200 players sorted in descending order (the 200 champions). You should be able to see what # champ they are, and how much mmr they have. That way you can see the 200th players as well so that you know the threshold for making it into champ. This is needed in future games. Please let them know before they get too far into the UI design and can't add it. An online web browser version should also exist, but it has to be in game.

Vetoes. I don't understand why people don't like vetoes. People veto bad gamemodes. They don't veto to try to play something new. I could play any of the good gametypes all day long. You give me stasis or torque though and I'm turning my xbox off without hesitation. Veto doesn't force you to play the same maps, it gives you the power to avoid playing dumb stuff that's forced into our playlists. While were on this topic please go find Quinn and get him to remove the extra maps from proving grounds. There's absolutely no reason for them to be in there.

Aside from that I want to thank you again for continuing to post updates for the community. Hope you had a great weekend :)
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.
If the ranking system functions exactly the same as the old one, as you say, then what was the logic behind changing the names of the ranks? It seems like a completely unnecessary change, just another example of "change for the sake of change".
I appreciate your post, and in regards to that information I do not think the 1-50 "curve" on skill is correct. A Diamond 3 is not a "50" IMO. Competition/Skill wise, I would place that more around Onyx 1700. In regards to "veto", someone else already pointed out exactly why people want "veto" = We don't want to play gametypes/maps we dislike. It has nothing to do with playing the same map 2-3x, I will play The Pit on Halo 3 and Haven on Halo 4 all day long. You replied that you would rather remove/fix those gametypes/maps that are disliked, which is fine in theory, but 343 has not proven that they can do this in a timely manner. People raged so hard over Overgrowth/Riptide/Torque, frame rate issues with Pegasus/Orion, etc and they are all still in there. I don't think it's too much to ask that we (the paying customer), have SOME sort of input on what we are about to play for the next 12 minutes. If the majority of a lobby wants to veto for another option, so be it? It doesn't hurt anything, and it potentially saves people from quitting or being stuck on something they dislike.

Now for the ranks in general, here are some of my opinions from a longtime highly competitive Halo player. First off, there is very little incentive to even "get ranked". The reason people grinded so hard in H2/H3 was so they could show off their rank. In Halo 5, you grind your butt off for 2 months and then it disappears and you have absolutely nothing to show for it. Even something as simple as showing someone's "highest skill achieved" very large on the first page of their in-game service record would be a huge upgrade. The grand "reward" for playing ranked is an emblem that no one uses. I mean, seriously. I have recommended "XP" payouts, per rank, per season in a Reddit thread that had some very positive reviews. Instead of the emblem no one cares about, pay out XP per "rank". These would stack, so that after a 2 month season you could get a decent pay out. For example: Champion = 100k, Onyx 75k, Diamond 50k,etc. So if you end the season with 2 Onyx Ranks and a Diamond, you would get a nice 200k XP "reward". This provides a nice incentive for people to actually get rated in every playlist, and continue trying to rank up. It also helps with the ridiculous XP grind from 146-152.

As for matching itself, or why people in general don't want to play Arena...it goes without saying that randoms vs. TO4s is absolutely infuriating and it still blows my mind that this wasn't fixed before launch. It's also infuriating that you are given a rank, yet your "matching" is done by an invisible background rank. It makes the visible rank even more worthless. This has been a major complaint since Day 1. My background MMR has me in Onyx, but I get placed in Plat/Low Diamond, yet I continually face high Onyx/Champions. So from the start I am unfairly having to grind way too hard to get out of Platinum/Diamond to begin with. If my background says I am Onyx, put me in Onyx? Or if you are going to put me in Platinum, let me face Platinums and work my way out of it quickly so I can get to where I am supposed to be. I do not understand why Divisions can't face their own darn Division? What is the point of Divisions if you aren't going to pay any attention to that rank? Combine that with the fact that the matchmaking is designed to keep you at a 50% W/L ratio, it just isn't fun.

It's why people just want the 1-50 because it was so much simpler, and it wasn't designed to keep you at 50% w/l. If you were a level 40, you would face level 37-43ish. You wouldn't face a Level 50, unless you were rolling with a Level 50. According to your Halo 5 1-50+ comparison, I'm a Platinum 1 level 31, matching a level 60+ Champion. That is absolutely absurd, and would never happen in Halo 3 until you reached that rank.

All of this is too little, too late, in regards of saving Halo 5's Arena population, but I just hope all of this feedback helps with Halo 6. I've seen way too many friends leave Halo because of how frustrating the matching is, and how awful the ranking system is. Arena is miserable to me, a 12+ year die hard Halo veteran, I can only imagine how miserable it is for newcomers.
I appreciate your post, and in regards to that information I do not think the 1-50 "curve" on skill is correct. A Diamond 3 is not a "50" IMO. Competition/Skill wise, I would place that more around Onyx 1700. In regards to "veto", someone else already pointed out exactly why people want "veto" = We don't want to play gametypes/maps we dislike. It has nothing to do with playing the same map 2-3x, I will play The Pit on Halo 3 and Haven on Halo 4 all day long. You replied that you would rather remove/fix those gametypes/maps that are disliked, which is fine in theory, but 343 has not proven that they can do this in a timely manner. People raged so hard over Overgrowth/Riptide/Torque, frame rate issues with Pegasus/Orion, etc and they are all still in there. I don't think it's too much to ask that we (the paying customer), have SOME sort of input on what we are about to play for the next 12 minutes. If the majority of a lobby wants to veto for another option, so be it? It doesn't hurt anything, and it potentially saves people from quitting or being stuck on something they dislike.

Now for the ranks in general, here are some of my opinions from a longtime highly competitive Halo player. First off, there is very little incentive to even "get ranked". The reason people grinded so hard in H2/H3 was so they could show off their rank. In Halo 5, you grind your butt off for 2 months and then it disappears and you have absolutely nothing to show for it. Even something as simple as showing someone's "highest skill achieved" very large on the first page of their in-game service record would be a huge upgrade. The grand "reward" for playing ranked is an emblem that no one uses. I mean, seriously. I have recommended "XP" payouts, per rank, per season in a Reddit thread that had some very positive reviews. Instead of the emblem no one cares about, pay out XP per "rank". These would stack, so that after a 2 month season you could get a decent pay out. For example: Champion = 100k, Onyx 75k, Diamond 50k,etc. So if you end the season with 2 Onyx Ranks and a Diamond, you would get a nice 200k XP "reward". This provides a nice incentive for people to actually get rated in every playlist, and continue trying to rank up. It also helps with the ridiculous XP grind from 146-152.

As for matching itself, or why people in general don't want to play Arena...it goes without saying that randoms vs. TO4s is absolutely infuriating and it still blows my mind that this wasn't fixed before launch. It's also infuriating that you are given a rank, yet your "matching" is done by an invisible background rank. It makes the visible rank even more worthless. This has been a major complaint since Day 1. My background MMR has me in Onyx, but I get placed in Plat/Low Diamond, yet I continually face high Onyx/Champions. So from the start I am unfairly having to grind way too hard to get out of Platinum/Diamond to begin with. If my background says I am Onyx, put me in Onyx? Or if you are going to put me in Platinum, let me face Platinums and work my way out of it quickly so I can get to where I am supposed to be. I do not understand why Divisions can't face their own darn Division? What is the point of Divisions if you aren't going to pay any attention to that rank? Combine that with the fact that the matchmaking is designed to keep you at a 50% W/L ratio, it just isn't fun.

It's why people just want the 1-50 because it was so much simpler, and it wasn't designed to keep you at 50% w/l. If you were a level 40, you would face level 37-43ish. You wouldn't face a Level 50, unless you were rolling with a Level 50. According to your Halo 5 1-50+ comparison, I'm a Platinum 1 level 31, matching a level 60+ Champion. That is absolutely absurd, and would never happen in Halo 3 until you reached that rank.

All of this is too little, too late, in regards of saving Halo 5's Arena population, but I just hope all of this feedback helps with Halo 6. I've seen way too many friends leave Halo because of how frustrating the matching is, and how awful the ranking system is. Arena is miserable to me, a 12+ year die hard Halo veteran, I can only imagine how miserable it is for newcomers.
This^^^^ nothing more, nothing less
TY for the post, I have tried to explain this more than a dozen times in the past.
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 have the quit rates for every map, and Pegasus II is fine in that regard. People quit Pegasus II the same they quit all the other maps, so there's no huge signal there.

While we don't have a record of how often people "veto" a certain map, we do have a record of how often people quit them, and we keep an eye on that.
ZaedynFel wrote:
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 have the quit rates for every map, and Pegasus II is fine in that regard. People quit Pegasus II the same they quit all the other maps, so there's no huge signal there.

While we don't have a record of how often people "veto" a certain map, we do have a record of how often people quit them, and we keep an eye on that.
You get punished for quitting, not for vetoing last time I checked. So your registering is biased.
ZaedynFel wrote:
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 have the quit rates for every map, and Pegasus II is fine in that regard. People quit Pegasus II the same they quit all the other maps, so there's no huge signal there.

While we don't have a record of how often people "veto" a certain map, we do have a record of how often people quit them, and we keep an eye on that.
Hmm are these quits counted only when people start playing the match, then quit after it has begun? or does it include when people see the map show up in MM, then go to dashboard and force-close the game so they don't have to start the match at all?
I appreciate your post, and in regards to that information I do not think the 1-50 "curve" on skill is correct. A Diamond 3 is not a "50" IMO. Competition/Skill wise, I would place that more around Onyx 1700.
This means, in your mind, what you remember through the lens of time and memory as a "50" is around Onyx 1700 today. Onyx 1700 players give you the same competition as you remember a "50" did back then. Well, keep in mind that a lot of those "50s" back then were actually "70s" or also got much better in the last 10 years. Most people did.

But I assure you what I wrote is exactly correct. I ask the same system that gave you a "50" in Halo 3 what your skill is, and it if returns "50" I label you "Diamond 3"

If it returns, e.g., "60" I label you Onyx.

Keep in mind I'm not saying "Diamond 3 players are just as good as all Halo 3 50s," because who can even know that without time traveling?

Combine that with the fact that the matchmaking is designed to keep you at a 50% W/L ratio, it just isn't fun.

It's why people just want the 1-50 because it was so much simpler, and it wasn't designed to keep you at 50% w/l.
The current system does not try and keep you at 50/50, it matches you the same way we matched you in Halo 3. Both matchmakers tried for tight matches first and then softened over time. This DOES result in most players have near a 50% win percentage because most matches are tight.

Also, in the current system, you DO get up to where you are supposed to go quickly because when you play Onyx as a Diamond player, we give you much more CSR for the win (e.g. +25) than we do if you were to play Diamond vs. Diamond (+15).
Apoll0 wrote:
Hmm are these quits counted only when people start playing the match, then quit after it has begun? or does it include when people see the map show up in MM, then go to dashboard and force-close the game so they don't have to start the match at all?
Both, and we can separate if need be.
ZaedynFel wrote:
I appreciate your post, and in regards to that information I do not think the 1-50 "curve" on skill is correct. A Diamond 3 is not a "50" IMO. Competition/Skill wise, I would place that more around Onyx 1700.
This means, in your mind, what you remember through the lens of time and memory as a "50" is around Onyx 1700 today. Onyx 1700 players give you the same competition as you remember a "50" did back then. Well, keep in mind that a lot of those "50s" back then were actually "70s" or also got much better in the last 10 years. Most people did.

But I assure you what I wrote is exactly correct. I ask the same system that gave you a "50" in Halo 3 what your skill is, and it if returns "50" I label you "Diamond 3"

If it returns, e.g., "60" I label you Onyx.

Keep in mind I'm not saying "Diamond 3 players are just as good as all Halo 3 50s," because who can even know that without time traveling?

Combine that with the fact that the matchmaking is designed to keep you at a 50% W/L ratio, it just isn't fun.

It's why people just want the 1-50 because it was so much simpler, and it wasn't designed to keep you at 50% w/l.
The current system does not try and keep you at 50/50, it matches you the same way we matched you in Halo 3. Both matchmakers tried for tight matches first and then softened over time. This DOES result in most players have near a 50% win percentage because most matches are tight.

Also, in the current system, you DO get up to where you are supposed to go quickly because when you play Onyx as a Diamond player, we give you much more CSR for the win (e.g. +25) than we do if you were to play Diamond vs. Diamond (+15).
I respectfully agree with Poppins Curbs that a 50 in previous Halo titles is more skilled than any diamond CRS.

I had a 50 in BTB, 4 man, Snipers, etc in Halo 4 and have made it to Champ 96 so far in Halo 5. I understand there may be more tiers now than before. But based on my experience, a level 50 is closer to Onyx 1700 than a Diamond 3.

I'm not sure what 343 is basing this on but I think player experience, while subjective, is still one of the best ways to measure this.

C HUNTER 0NE
I also think it's a shame that BTB ranks are not visible.

It takes away something from the game. It's like gambling but not for real money. Boring. Lol.
ZaedynFel wrote:
Combine that with the fact that the matchmaking is designed to keep you at a 50% W/L ratio, it just isn't fun.

It's why people just want the 1-50 because it was so much simpler, and it wasn't designed to keep you at 50% w/l.
The current system does not try and keep you at 50/50, it matches you the same way we matched you in Halo 3. Both matchmakers tried for tight matches first and then softened over time. This DOES result in most players have near a 50% win percentage because most matches are tight.

Also, in the current system, you DO get up to where you are supposed to go quickly because when you play Onyx as a Diamond player, we give you much more CSR for the win (e.g. +25) than we do if you were to play Diamond vs. Diamond (+15).
Not true: highest skill of a party is not taken into account. Instead you use the average skill, or has this been patched? Also teams are matched against randoms somehow.
https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/games/halo-5-guardians/xbox-one/mode/arena/matches/d2c8baea-3a2a-482d-9541-36f93e162c3a/players/mjbfox?gameHistoryMatchIndex=0&gameHistoryGameModeFilter=Arena
I don't have a single clue on what skill this match has been based for example.
I'm not sure what 343 is basing this on but I think player experience, while subjective, is still one of the best ways to measure this.
I thought I said already what we are basing it on, but I'll say it again.

It's based on the same thing it was based on in Halo 3.

We run your matches through the same system we ran it through for Halo 3. Whenever that system spits out a "50" (just like it did in Halo 3), we take that "50" and rename it to "Diamond 3"

That system also spits out "60" sometimes (and it did in Halo 3 as well, just didn't show you), if it does that, we call you "Onyx"

Simple as that. Again, nothing fancy here. It's the same exact system with renames.
MJBfox wrote:
Not true: highest skill of a party is not taken into account. Instead you use the average skill, or has this been patched? Also teams are matched against randoms somehow.
https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/games/halo-5-guardians/xbox-one/mode/arena/matches/d2c8baea-3a2a-482d-9541-36f93e162c3a/players/mjbfox?gameHistoryMatchIndex=0&gameHistoryGameModeFilter=Arena
I don't have a single clue on what skill this match has been based for example.
Yes, there are some details that are different, but that wasn't the question I was answering.

There's nothing in Halo 5 that looks at your record and goes "welp, he's over 50%, time to throw harder and harder matches at him"

The general search is much like Halo 3's, written by the same team.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 8