Skip to main content

Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

[Locked] Matchmaking Feedback Update – May 21

OP ZaedynFel

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 37
  4. 38
  5. 39
  6. ...
  7. 40
Chimera30 wrote:
Hey Josh, one of the strangest inflations we've seen in this thread has been Juror Number 8 in Doubles. He reached Champion CSR in the playlist early in the season, however when you posted his normalized MMR graph after implementing the CSR correction change, it showed he never exceeded Diamond MMR. But according to him, he continues to win 80-90% of his Doubles games. This had led some to think that Trueskill2 is having trouble correctly gauging skill at the Onyx level and higher, and that next season there will be a large number of high-skill players "rank locked" in Diamond where they will just continually smash weaker players. I'm wondering if you can address this. I'm wondering:
  • How did Juror Number 8 get so inflated in Doubles?
  • How is he managing such a high win rate in Doubles without his MMR seemingly reflecting that?
  • How will such inflation be prevented next season? I don't see how ranking everyone 200 points behind their MMR after quals will prevent inflation from happening after the fact? (e.g. after qualifying, if someone goes on a hot win streak while performing as expected by TS2, won't their CSR go up while MMR stays the same?)
See the post before this about Juror. It's a rare case and won't cause problems for the vast majority of players.

As for inflation, we'll keep using the current +15/-15, +1/-1 system to prevent inflation. We've been running simulations on alternative methods that are more forgiving in giving out points, but they all lead to unacceptable levels of inflation in the cases where win% gets above certain points. Win% can get high, of course, because of matchmaking deficiencies. But we'd like to keep Ranks correct when that happens.

So next season players will start about 200 below their target MMR and go +15/-1 until they get there. This will probably take around 20-60 games depending on win% and just randomness.
ZaedynFel wrote:
Chimera30 wrote:
Hey Josh, one of the strangest inflations we've seen in this thread has been Juror Number 8 in Doubles. He reached Champion CSR in the playlist early in the season, however when you posted his normalized MMR graph after implementing the CSR correction change, it showed he never exceeded Diamond MMR. But according to him, he continues to win 80-90% of his Doubles games. This had led some to think that Trueskill2 is having trouble correctly gauging skill at the Onyx level and higher, and that next season there will be a large number of high-skill players "rank locked" in Diamond where they will just continually smash weaker players. I'm wondering if you can address this. I'm wondering:
  • How did Juror Number 8 get so inflated in Doubles?
  • How is he managing such a high win rate in Doubles without his MMR seemingly reflecting that?
  • How will such inflation be prevented next season? I don't see how ranking everyone 200 points behind their MMR after quals will prevent inflation from happening after the fact? (e.g. after qualifying, if someone goes on a hot win streak while performing as expected by TS2, won't their CSR go up while MMR stays the same?)
See the post before this about Juror. It's a rare case and won't cause problems for the vast majority of players.

As for inflation, we'll keep using the current +15/-15, +1/-1 system to prevent inflation. We've been running simulations on alternative methods that are more forgiving in giving out points, but they all lead to unacceptable levels of inflation in the cases where win% gets above certain points. Win% can get high, of course, because of matchmaking deficiencies. But we'd like to keep Ranks correct when that happens.

So next season players will start about 200 below their target MMR and go +15/-1 until they get there. This will probably take around 20-60 games depending on win% and just randomness.
am i too a rare case in swat?
ZaedynFel wrote:
See the post before this about Juror. It's a rare case and won't cause problems for the vast majority of players.

As for inflation, we'll keep using the current +15/-15, +1/-1 system to prevent inflation. We've been running simulations on alternative methods that are more forgiving in giving out points, but they all lead to unacceptable levels of inflation in the cases where win% gets above certain points. Win% can get high, of course, because of matchmaking deficiencies. But we'd like to keep Ranks correct when that happens.

So next season players will start about 200 below their target MMR and go +15/-1 until they get there. This will probably take around 20-60 games depending on win% and just randomness.
I see. So that means some players will continue to see the +1 CSR for a win situation going on right now, if their CSR gets too high compared to their MMR? How far can CSR diverge from MMR before it's considered inflated/deflated? What are the benefits for continuing to use this "corrected CSR" ranking system over just showing MMR as the public rank? I ask because of how contentious the CSR correction fix has been.
Chimera30 wrote:
Edit: scratch all that, Josh already addressed what I was going to ask. Thanks Josh!

Edit 2: I'm still interested to know how next season will combat inflation. I don't see how ranking people 200 points behind their MMR will prevent inflation after qualifying. E.g. you have a player qualify and then go on a hot winning streak that lasts several games while playing as expected or even underperforming according to Trueskill2. If CSR goes up for winning, won't that sort of player diverge their CSR from their MMR?
Your CSR will start at 200 behind your MMR. If you go on a win streak while playing as expected (or slightly underperforming), your MMR will still be roughly the same as when you finished your placements. Maybe a little lower depending on how often you did worse than what the matchmaker predicted. So your CSR would quickly be catching up to your MMR if you go on a win streak.

Now if you mean their CSR is already even with their MMR when they go on the win streak, they'll only be gaining +1 per win, so the first loss they have will bring them back down quickly.
Is the system somehow smarter in identifying Smurfs in BTB Matchmaking? We played a match on Friday night where we had 7 main accounts and the opposition were recognizable Smurfs with 2 mains and 5 Smurfs. Now we beat them as we would of if they were on their mains. But the curiosity is how the system thought that Smurf loaded team was a fair match up. If fireteams of Smurfs aren't fooling the system anymore that is pretty cool. It seems to good to be true though. I am wondering if the Smurfs MMRs are less relevant on large fireteams.
Chimera30 wrote:
ZaedynFel wrote:
See the post before this about Juror. It's a rare case and won't cause problems for the vast majority of players.

As for inflation, we'll keep using the current +15/-15, +1/-1 system to prevent inflation. We've been running simulations on alternative methods that are more forgiving in giving out points, but they all lead to unacceptable levels of inflation in the cases where win% gets above certain points. Win% can get high, of course, because of matchmaking deficiencies. But we'd like to keep Ranks correct when that happens.

So next season players will start about 200 below their target MMR and go +15/-1 until they get there. This will probably take around 20-60 games depending on win% and just randomness.
I see. So that means some players will continue to see the +1 CSR for a win situation going on right now, if their MMR gets too high compared to their CSR? How far can CSR diverge from MMR before it's considered inflated/deflated? What are the benefits for continuing to use this "corrected CSR" ranking system over just showing MMR as the public rank? I ask because of how contentious the CSR correction fix has been.
Other way around -- if their CSR goes above their MMR they'll see +1 CSR for a win.
Is the system somehow smarter in identifying Smurfs in BTB Matchmaking? We played a match on Friday night where we had 7 main accounts and the opposition were recognizable Smurfs with 2 mains and 5 Smurfs. Now we beat them as we would of if they were on their mains. But the curiosity is how the system thought that Smurf loaded team was a fair match up. If fireteams of Smurfs aren't fooling the system anymore that is pretty cool. It seems to good to be true though. I am wondering if the Smurfs MMRs are less relevant on large fireteams.
Yeah, it's better at detecting smurfs because it's better at measuring skill accurately, and it does so quickly. So a smurf account gets it's correct MMR after only a few games. In this way, it's not like the system is detecting smurfs or labeling them as smurfs, but rather just rendering the smurf account useless after a few games because it gets matched against the right opponents instead of weaker opponents.
ZaedynFel wrote:
As for inflation, we'll keep using the current +15/-15, +1/-1 system to prevent inflation. We've been running simulations on alternative methods that are more forgiving in giving out points, but they all lead to unacceptable levels of inflation in the cases where win% gets above certain points. Win% can get high, of course, because of matchmaking deficiencies. But we'd like to keep Ranks correct when that happens.

So next season players will start about 200 below their target MMR and go +15/-1 until they get there. This will probably take around 20-60 games depending on win% and just randomness.
Just curious if you've tried running a simulation on a system that wouldn't award fixed amounts or simply 2 fixed amounts (+/- 1 or +/- 15)?

Wouldn't a system that could award a variable amount be best (at least within a limit)? If a person's CSR was above or below their MMR it could still reward +/-1 (per a win or a loss) in order to help prevent inflation or deflation, but it could also accurately award a variable amount of points up to a set limit (say 30?) that way players could get a better indication of their performance adjustments (via MMR) in-between matches.

Win, but barely outperform expectations and maybe you see your CSR go +7 in accordance with your MMR.

Win and perform above expectations (both team and individual) and you max out at +30 because your MMR jumped up more than that.

Win and over come the odds stacked against your team, but perform somewhat in line with expectations perhaps you only see a +19 CSR gain which would be less than some others on your team.

Similar situations with losses that could see you drop any variable amount in accordance with your MMR adjustment, but it would still be limited to a maximum drop of -30.

The +/- 30 would also mean that players would see their CSR converge to their MMR more quickly after a season reset (less grinding -- or is this what you want?) and the variable adjustments would mean that they could see the more minute changes in-between matches once they've converged their CSR to their MMR. That detail could also shed a little more light on the value of the expectations the system had for them per the match-up.

Another thought is to award several fixed set amounts between say a +/- 30 (or whatever limit you choose) depending on the MMR adjustment (assuming your CSR and MMR were converged).
+/- 1
+/- 5
+/- 10
+/- 15
+/- 20
+/- 25
+/- 30
Chimera30 wrote:
Is the system somehow smarter in identifying Smurfs in BTB Matchmaking? We played a match on Friday night where we had 7 main accounts and the opposition were recognizable Smurfs with 2 mains and 5 Smurfs. Now we beat them as we would of if they were on their mains. But the curiosity is how the system thought that Smurf loaded team was a fair match up. If fireteams of Smurfs aren't fooling the system anymore that is pretty cool. It seems to good to be true though. I am wondering if the Smurfs MMRs are less relevant on large fireteams.
Yeah, it's better at detecting smurfs because it's better at measuring skill accurately, and it does so quickly. So a smurf account gets it's correct MMR after only a few games. In this way, it's not like the system is detecting smurfs or labeling them as smurfs, but rather just rendering the smurf account useless after a few games because it gets matched against the right opponents instead of weaker opponents.
That's hawt!
So just to briefly sum up what has been discussed in great detail, the new ranking system is meant to more accurately measure individual skill based on gameplay in a team environment rather than just wins and KD. You are no longer playing against your opponents in the match, you’re also playing against your fellow teammates if you care about rank. Attempting to grind out your rank by playing extra hours of slayer will be discouraged because how can you possibly improve your skill based in this new ranking system in 1 day? IMO, we should never attempt to rank a player only by stats. Yes, they should play a crucial part in the ranking but wins are always the most telling stats. You will always have players whose play elevate the players around them even if they aren’t producing the stats deemed as critical. I’ve reiterated this point before, how do you improve when the developers are putting more of an emphasis on even matching? It’s the uneven matching that helps produce skill for those who need to catch up. Yes, it sucks for those are in the higher skill spectrum but those matchups weren’t happening frequently.

I also think it’s ridiculous for moderators to post players’ stats as a counter argument to those who dare critique this recent skill rating update. Grow up. These are paying customers who paid $60 if not more per year to play Xbox live and perhaps only play Halo- they are YOUR customers. I’m appalled by the childish behavior. I haven’t played Halo since Halo 2 so i cant really speculate how Bungie reacted to outcries from loyal members- but i doubt it reached as low as this. Shameful.
ZaedynFel wrote:
@Josh:

f077c259-eafd-4f4f-af95-072b8489e91c
242678af-abe9-4ef3-b005-d0b080b9af84

What were the odds of winning these games? (And were they really Onyxes?)
1) 75/25 for the winner. I see one Onyx pre-match, but the top two in kills after the match were both Onyx.
2) Winner was favored at 58% before the quitter, 94% after. Quitting reduces chances both because you have less players, but also because it serves as a signal that the quitting player was not playing as well as usual, which hurts their team. I see one Onyx on the losing team pre-match, who dropped to Diamond, and a Diamond who became Onyx. So really only one Onyx player in that match.
1. Out of curiousity, does the x/y predictions directly correlate to expected score? I.e. 75/25 equals predicted outcome of 50 to 17? And the 58% equate to 50 to 36?
2. I quit the second game when it was something like 35 to 9, and yet only lost 1 CSR. Bug? Or intentional?
3. Is the population skill cap limit (1.7 for Slayer, iirc) for the matchmaker on a per player basis, or per team? I.e. if I (as a roughly 1.0 player) were to team up with a couple 2.0 players, and another 1.0 player, would our average MMR be 1.5 [(2+2+1+1)/4] or 1.35 [(1.7+1.7+1+1)/4]?
So just to briefly sum up what has been discussed in great detail, the new ranking system is meant to more accurately measure individual skill based on gameplay in a team environment rather than just wins and KD. You are no longer playing against your opponents in the match, you’re also playing against your fellow teammates if you care about rank. Attempting to grind out your rank by playing extra hours of slayer will be discouraged because how can you possibly improve your skill based in this new ranking system in 1 day? IMO, we should never attempt to rank a player only by stats. Yes, they should play a crucial part in the ranking but wins are always the most telling stats. You will always have players whose play elevate the players around them even if they aren’t producing the stats deemed as critical. I’ve reiterated this point before, how do you improve when the developers are putting more of an emphasis on even matching? It’s the uneven matching that helps produce skill for those who need to catch up. Yes, it sucks for those are in the higher skill spectrum but those matchups weren’t happening frequently.
It has been reiterated many times now that Trueskill2 still considers wins as the most important factor when determining skill. Everything is predicated on whether you win or lose. The system doesn't encourage you to compete with your own teammates, because even if you do better than them, it doesn't matter if you lose the match. Trueskill2 doesn't have you compete with your teammates to go up in skill; it has you compete with yourself.

I also think it’s ridiculous for moderators to post players’ stats as a counter argument to those who dare critique this recent skill rating update. Grow up. These are paying customers who paid $60 if not more per year to play Xbox live and perhaps only play Halo- they are YOUR customers. I’m appalled by the childish behavior. I haven’t played Halo since Halo 2 so i cant really speculate how Bungie reacted to outcries from loyal members- but i doubt it reached as low as this. Shameful.
People's MMR are being posted by Josh--a 343i employee--because they want to know their skill rating. Moderators are forum volunteers and don't have access to such info. Any posting of stats is not done to publicly shame people; it's done by their request or to explain the outcome of particular games. Nothing nefarious going on here.
So just to briefly sum up what has been discussed in great detail, the new ranking system is meant to more accurately measure individual skill based on gameplay in a team environment rather than just wins and KD. You are no longer playing against your opponents in the match, you’re also playing against your fellow teammates if you care about rank. Attempting to grind out your rank by playing extra hours of slayer will be discouraged because how can you possibly improve your skill based in this new ranking system in 1 day? IMO, we should never attempt to rank a player only by stats. Yes, they should play a crucial part in the ranking but wins are always the most telling stats. You will always have players whose play elevate the players around them even if they aren’t producing the stats deemed as critical. I’ve reiterated this point before, how do you improve when the developers are putting more of an emphasis on even matching? It’s the uneven matching that helps produce skill for those who need to catch up. Yes, it sucks for those are in the higher skill spectrum but those matchups weren’t happening frequently.

I also think it’s ridiculous for moderators to post players’ stats as a counter argument to those who dare critique this recent skill rating update. Grow up. These are paying customers who paid $60 if not more per year to play Xbox live and perhaps only play Halo- they are YOUR customers. I’m appalled by the childish behavior. I haven’t played Halo since Halo 2 so i cant really speculate how Bungie reacted to outcries from loyal members- but i doubt it reached as low as this. Shameful.
You incorrectly summed it up in a brief manner.

The system still fully 100% operates on a win/loss outcome. The winning team nets a positive MMR adjustment where as the losing team nets a negative MMR adjustment. The amount is dependent on the outcome verse expectation; in other words, what did the system predict your odds of winning or losing were?

The individual stats aspect only takes effect within the manner of the team outcome. In other words, the team outcome is still emphasized as the most important factor.

Here's just one scenario to help break down and understand the individual stat aspect. So, let's say your team just lost and the system (TS2) had predicted your team had a 40% chance of winning and a 60% chance of losing. Also within this scenario the players on your team all managed to fall within their expected Kill/Death range variance per the mode. Therefore, your team takes a net MMR loss and the winning team takes a net MMR gain, but the negative MMR impact to you is quite minimal because the system already knew that your team was facing a more skilled opponent and since nobody performed significantly worse or better than expected that minor negative MMR impact that the team earned is then evenly distributed between the individuals on the team. Now, if teammates had performed well above or below their expectations then that minor negative MMR impact could have been distributed differently; meaning, certain players could have taken the brunt of the team's negative hit where as others may not have even taken a hit at all if their performance was noticeably above expectations. This is a pretty fair way to determine proper distribution of a team's negative or positive skill adjustment, but it's all still centralized on the team outcome and the value that the opponent makes that outcome worth.
ZaedynFel wrote:
@Josh:

f077c259-eafd-4f4f-af95-072b8489e91c
242678af-abe9-4ef3-b005-d0b080b9af84

What were the odds of winning these games? (And were they really Onyxes?)
1) 75/25 for the winner. I see one Onyx pre-match, but the top two in kills after the match were both Onyx.
2) Winner was favored at 58% before the quitter, 94% after. Quitting reduces chances both because you have less players, but also because it serves as a signal that the quitting player was not playing as well as usual, which hurts their team. I see one Onyx on the losing team pre-match, who dropped to Diamond, and a Diamond who became Onyx. So really only one Onyx player in that match.
1. Out of curiousity, does the x/y predictions directly correlate to expected score? I.e. 75/25 equals predicted outcome of 50 to 17? And the 58% equate to 50 to 36?
2. I quit the second game when it was something like 35 to 9, and yet only lost 1 CSR. Bug? Or intentional?
3. Is the population skill cap limit (1.7 for Slayer, iirc) for the matchmaker on a per player basis, or per team? I.e. if I (as a roughly 1.0 player) were to team up with a couple 2.0 players, and another 1.0 player, would our average MMR be 1.5 [(2+2+1+1)/4] or 1.35 [(1.7+1.7+1+1)/4]?
1. Josh has mentioned previously that TS2 doesn't directly factor match spread, only wins and losses. It uses the team MMRs to determine the likely outcome percentage or ratio, but the individual expectation variances can indirectly equate to a score spread for slayer modes (only).

2. If you lost only 1 CSR it was because your MMR (at the time of quitting) was above your CSR. Also, since the odds shifted so heavily in favor of the opposing team the MMR impact to you likely became minimized so significantly that your MMR barely altered; in fact, if you managed to perform better than the changing circumstances (since individual performance is measured on a per minute level) you might have even been able to gain a minor amount of MMR prior to quitting assuming others on the team took the brunt of the negative impact for losing and quitting, but the action of actually quitting the match I'm sure impacted your MMR in a negative manner. The first quitter will always take the most significant impact in both MMR and CSR (-30).

3. That's a question Josh is more equipped to handle.
ZaedynFel wrote:
TheLaw2u wrote:
ZaedynFel I've been curious about this new ranking system. A few things seem out of the ordinary to me. I think I have somewhat improved over time but my improvements most likely do not reflect my current rank. Per example, I have been successful in grinding to ONYX 1616 from Diamond 5 in Slayer. Does my current rank match my actual MMR rating. Is my rank inflated? If so, what is my true rating?P.S This forum has been very informative in regards to MM changes. Very nice.
I'm showing your Slayer MMR as Platinum, but your CSR as Onyx. This means that, yes, you have likely been carried. Your MMR has fluctuated as high as Onyx though, so you might just be tilting low.
All right I resisted for a long time because I know how busy you guys are but I am kindly requesting my MMR in BTB.
I love tye new ranking system honestly, Slayer has been fun! FFA has been brutally tough! I feel like I am where I belong, in Champ MMR. As for Slayer, my MMR is only Onyx. But I can easily get that up. Too many people are upset they are not as good as they thought, but this system is accurate.
Dr. Menke, thank you for answering my question about Warzone a few weeks ago, haven't had a chance to reply since then.

I will say I'm pretty pleased with how pretty much everything else is playing.
ZaedynFel wrote:
TheLaw2u wrote:
ZaedynFel I've been curious about this new ranking system. A few things seem out of the ordinary to me. I think I have somewhat improved over time but my improvements most likely do not reflect my current rank. Per example, I have been successful in grinding to ONYX 1616 from Diamond 5 in Slayer. Does my current rank match my actual MMR rating. Is my rank inflated? If so, what is my true rating?P.S This forum has been very informative in regards to MM changes. Very nice.
I'm showing your Slayer MMR as Platinum, but your CSR as Onyx. This means that, yes, you have likely been carried. Your MMR has fluctuated as high as Onyx though, so you might just be tilting low.
All right I resisted for a long time because I know how busy you guys are but I am kindly requesting my MMR in BTB.
CSR: 1419 (may not be current)
Flag: 1452
Slayer: 1419
Assault: 1361
Strongholds: 1350
ZaedynFel wrote:
Chimera30 wrote:
Hey Josh, one of the strangest inflations we've seen in this thread has been Juror Number 8 in Doubles. He reached Champion CSR in the playlist early in the season, however when you posted his normalized MMR graph after implementing the CSR correction change, it showed he never exceeded Diamond MMR. But according to him, he continues to win 80-90% of his Doubles games. This had led some to think that Trueskill2 is having trouble correctly gauging skill at the Onyx level and higher, and that next season there will be a large number of high-skill players "rank locked" in Diamond where they will just continually smash weaker players. I'm wondering if you can address this. I'm wondering:
  • How did Juror Number 8 get so inflated in Doubles?
  • How is he managing such a high win rate in Doubles without his MMR seemingly reflecting that?
  • How will such inflation be prevented next season? I don't see how ranking everyone 200 points behind their MMR after quals will prevent inflation from happening after the fact? (e.g. after qualifying, if someone goes on a hot win streak while performing as expected by TS2, won't their CSR go up while MMR stays the same?)
See the post before this about Juror. It's a rare case and won't cause problems for the vast majority of players.

As for inflation, we'll keep using the current +15/-15, +1/-1 system to prevent inflation. We've been running simulations on alternative methods that are more forgiving in giving out points, but they all lead to unacceptable levels of inflation in the cases where win% gets above certain points. Win% can get high, of course, because of matchmaking deficiencies. But we'd like to keep Ranks correct when that happens.

So next season players will start about 200 below their target MMR and go +15/-1 until they get there. This will probably take around 20-60 games depending on win% and just randomness.
am i too a rare case in swat?
No, normal amount of inflation for a high win%. Your MMR was in Onyx, but dropped recently due to lower performance than previously in the season.
eLantern wrote:
ZaedynFel wrote:
@Josh:

f077c259-eafd-4f4f-af95-072b8489e91c
242678af-abe9-4ef3-b005-d0b080b9af84

What were the odds of winning these games? (And were they really Onyxes?)
1) 75/25 for the winner. I see one Onyx pre-match, but the top two in kills after the match were both Onyx.
2) Winner was favored at 58% before the quitter, 94% after. Quitting reduces chances both because you have less players, but also because it serves as a signal that the quitting player was not playing as well as usual, which hurts their team. I see one Onyx on the losing team pre-match, who dropped to Diamond, and a Diamond who became Onyx. So really only one Onyx player in that match.
1. Out of curiousity, does the x/y predictions directly correlate to expected score? I.e. 75/25 equals predicted outcome of 50 to 17? And the 58% equate to 50 to 36?
2. I quit the second game when it was something like 35 to 9, and yet only lost 1 CSR. Bug? Or intentional?
3. Is the population skill cap limit (1.7 for Slayer, iirc) for the matchmaker on a per player basis, or per team? I.e. if I (as a roughly 1.0 player) were to team up with a couple 2.0 players, and another 1.0 player, would our average MMR be 1.5 [(2+2+1+1)/4] or 1.35 [(1.7+1.7+1+1)/4]?
1. Josh has mentioned previously that TS2 doesn't directly factor match spread, only wins and losses. It uses the team MMRs to determine the likely outcome percentage or ratio, but the individual expectation variances can indirectly equate to a score spread for slayer modes (only).

2. If you lost only 1 CSR it was because your MMR (at the time of quitting) was above your CSR. Also, since the odds shifted so heavily in favor of the opposing team the MMR impact to you likely became minimized so significantly that your MMR barely altered; in fact, if you managed to perform better than the changing circumstances (since individual performance is measured on a per minute level) you might have even been able to gain a minor amount of MMR prior to quitting assuming others on the team took the brunt of the negative impact for losing and quitting, but the action of actually quitting the match I'm sure impacted your MMR in a negative manner. The first quitter will always take the most significant impact in both MMR and CSR (-30).

3. That's a question Josh is more equipped to handle.
It's capped per player before factoring into matchmaking. It's not capped in TS2.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 37
  4. 38
  5. 39
  6. ...
  7. 40