Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

[Locked] Matchmaking Feedback Update – May 7

OP ZaedynFel

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 13
ZaedynFel wrote:
Super Fiesta
Slayer
Warzone
Heroic Warzone Firefight
Shotty Snipers
Quick Play
[Big Team Battle]Legendary Warzone Firefight
Infection
Triple Team
SWAT
Elimination
Team Arena
Doubles
HaloWC 2018
Mythic Warzone Firefight
Free For All
24p Warzone Assault
Action Sack
Breakout
Snipers
HaloWC FFA
Grifball
Is there a reason that warzone assault is listed as 24 players ? Is there maybe a smaller version coming later ?
Nah, just a copy pasta from a backend name. Fixed.
Thanks for the detailed information, very interesting and I'm excited to have trueskill2 into the future of halo5 and onto halo 6. I placed daimond 1 in breakout this season(first time ever ranking in breakout) which I'm happy with, but my last two matches after placements consisted of 3 champs on 11th match, and 1 champ + 2 oynx. We got smashed. Is this due to low population? my 10 placements, I found games instantly so it seemed like a lot of people playing it at the time. I'm kind of scared to play breakout now.

In triple team, it seems the pattern for team balancing is 1-2 really high level players on each team and then a beginner that goes 0-15. Is that normal?

Lastly, is it possible to reduce the amount of placement matches now that trueskill2 is implemented? It would be nice not having to slug through really tough matches with higher level oynx and champs if I'm winning placements.
Lastly, is it possible to reduce the amount of placement matches now that trueskill2 is implemented? It would be nice not having to slug through really tough matches with higher level oynx and champs if I'm winning placements.
Asked and answered:

Quote:
We've thought about it, but we're not planning to at this point. The UI elements that display the # of placement matches were tuned with 10 in mind, which makes changing it a bit confusing without new art. @ZaedynFel
Lastly, is it possible to reduce the amount of placement matches now that trueskill2 is implemented? It would be nice not having to slug through really tough matches with higher level oynx and champs if I'm winning placements.
Asked and answered:

Quote:
We've thought about it, but we're not planning to at this point. The UI elements that display the # of placement matches were tuned with 10 in mind, which makes changing it a bit confusing without new art. @ZaedynFel
Ahh thanks, missed that part. thanks
eLantern wrote:
Dubola wrote:
I don’t know if this unpopular, it may be. But what is the possibility of getting 1-50 ranks again.
Hopefully, never because it's outdated. It was a poor representation of skill at the low and top ends and matchmaking suffered from its general limitations.
It might've been, but the Halo ring was pretty cool as the 50 symbol. I wouldn't mind stuff like that coming back and it would be more accurate with the new system. I think those symbols would certainly be more interesting to try and achieve over an onyx symbol with a number underneath it.
Link1201 wrote:
I really enjoy the new skill matching. I feel as though I've had some really fun games. It's gotten back into this game lately, especially Warzone.
I agree. The matches have been more closely matched, and as a result I'm having a balst and actually *learning* new things, like how players who are actually at my skill level move, and things I can do, like where to lead shots on what maps, to get better.

I'm really excited to see this roll out and continue.
ZaedynFel wrote:
It will also mean you will lose less CSR on your losses because if your MMR is higher, the CSR update assumes you were more responsible for the win, and less for the loss. Likewise, MMR can go down if you perform poorly compared to the rest of the players on your team, or in your party, resulting in eventual CSR losses.
If I remember correctly, in the previous system, to offset the potential rank shifts that would occur with allowing the matchmaker to expand skill ranges when matches (to compensate for lower populations), losing a match where the skill system predicted you would win would result in greater CSR losses, while winning a match where you were predicted to lose would result in greater CSR gains. Has this been done away with with the implementation of Trueskill2? Or, is Trueskill2 competent enough to tell when an individual player performed better than expected compared to the team expectation? The way you describe the potential of losing less CSR on a loss when having high MMR seems to contradict that previous idea of increasing CSR loss when losing against someone of lower skill than you. Hence my confusion.
LUKEPOWA wrote:
eLantern wrote:
Dubola wrote:
I don’t know if this unpopular, it may be. But what is the possibility of getting 1-50 ranks again.
Hopefully never because it's outdated. It was a poor representation of skill at the low and top ends and matchmaking suffered from its general limitations.
It might've been, but the Halo ring was pretty cool as the 50 symbol. I wouldn't mind stuff like that coming back and it would be more accurate with the new system. I think those symbols would certainly be more interesting to try and achieve over an onyx symbol with a number underneath it.
Actually, I'd rather have a playlist progressive experience rank that's a separate metric from the Competitive Skill Ranks (CSRs). And I'd like to see that experience system move you through a series of military ranks before concluding with a series of intriguing Halo orientated labels that are paired with unique symbols (like Field Marshall, Hero, Legend, Mythic, Noble, Eclipse, Nova, Forerunner, Reclaimer, & Inheritor from Reach's overall experience system; plus, the Halo Ring symbol from H2's rank 50). However, I can't fully decide if I'd rather see those unique labels and symbols reserved for the last stretch of a player's overall Spartan Rank progression (full game experience) instead of a particular playlist's experience progression.
ZaedynFel wrote:
ZaedynFel wrote:
Super Fiesta
Slayer
Warzone
Heroic Warzone Firefight
Shotty Snipers
Quick Play
[Big Team Battle]Legendary Warzone Firefight
Infection
Triple Team
SWAT
Elimination
Team Arena
Doubles
HaloWC 2018
Mythic Warzone Firefight
Free For All
24p Warzone Assault
Action Sack
Breakout
Snipers
HaloWC FFA
Grifball
Is there a reason that warzone assault is listed as 24 players ? Is there maybe a smaller version coming later ?
Nah, just a copy pasta from a backend name. Fixed.
Okay thanks for clarifying
I've been getting repeat maps on Slayer up to four time sometimes. I'm also noticing that the community made forge maps are being cycled way too much. There are so many great base maps like Plaza, Truth, and Fathom that I almost never get to play because forge maps are being picked so much. Or I get Mercy four times in a row. I'm not mad, just curious on why I'm getting so many repeats or forge maps all the time.
I've been getting repeat maps on Slayer up to four time sometimes. I'm also noticing that the community made forge maps are being cycled way too much. There are so many great base maps like Plaza, Truth, and Fathom that I almost never get to play because forge maps are being picked so much. Or I get Mercy four times in a row. I'm not mad, just curious on why I'm getting so many repeats or forge maps all the time.
Stop backing out to the lobby after a match, you're resetting your hopper whenever you do that.
eLantern wrote:
Actually, I'd rather have a playlist progressive experience rank that's a separate metric from the Competitive Skill Ranks (CSRs). And I'd like to see that experience system move you through a series of military ranks before concluding with a series of intriguing Halo orientated labels that are paired with unique symbols (like Field Marshall, Hero, Legend, Mythic, Noble, Eclipse, Nova, Forerunner, Reclaimer, & Inheritor from Reach's overall experience system; plus, the Halo Ring symbol from H2's rank 50).
That would be fine as well. I liked Reach's progression ranks.
I've been getting repeat maps on Slayer up to four time sometimes.
If you stay in the postgame lobby and wait for another game, your chances for getting a repeat map will decrease.
I am glad to see this! As a not so skilled player I have often been put in games with players that are much better than myself and that can be frustrating. This new system sounds like it is much better and will be a lot more fun. Thanks!
ZaedynFel wrote:
You will still be Ranked below people worse than you, and above those better, you’ll just all have a different label.
Okay, am I having a brain fart here. I have read over this a couple of times now, and this just doesn't sound right to me. Why would I want to be rank below people worse and above those better?

Thanks for all of this detail by the way. It will be nice to have more reference for my pro TS2 discussions.
Elliminist wrote:
Where are these publicly posted, I'm interested to see the evidence.
There is also a bunch posted here. Last week's matchmaking thread has a lot of pages but good to scroll through for some of the linked games in question.

This is the beginning of a very interesting twitter thread in my opinion. I love the graphs.
Chimera30 wrote:
ZaedynFel wrote:
It will also mean you will lose less CSR on your losses because if your MMR is higher, the CSR update assumes you were more responsible for the win, and less for the loss. Likewise, MMR can go down if you perform poorly compared to the rest of the players on your team, or in your party, resulting in eventual CSR losses.
If I remember correctly, in the previous system, to offset the potential rank shifts that would occur with allowing the matchmaker to expand skill ranges when matches (to compensate for lower populations), losing a match where the skill system predicted you would win would result in greater CSR losses, while winning a match where you were predicted to lose would result in greater CSR gains. Has this been done away with with the implementation of Trueskill2? Or, is Trueskill2 competent enough to tell when an individual player performed better than expected compared to the team expectation? The way you describe the potential of losing less CSR on a loss when having high MMR seems to contradict that previous idea of increasing CSR loss when losing against someone of lower skill than you. Hence my confusion.
In MMR land the loss / gain takes performance into account.

In CSR land, you can still lose a lot more if you lose a match you were supposed to win.

But, what I mean here is, when we do the update we look at your teammates. Whoever has the higher MMR among your team tends to get more points for a win and lose less for a loss because the CSR system assumes the higher MMR players are doing what they should be, etc. It's pretty indirect though. So if the matchmaker has to put a potato on your team, the CSR update will understand this and not dock the player as hard.

But, if a group of like-skilled players loses to a group of bad ones, yes, everyone's CSR will still drop considerably.

This will still happen to the very top players quite often as they will find themselves going +1/-29 with 29-1 records and staying at a similar CSR. It's not that they're losing points unfairly though. They're just staying at the same level.
DaxSeven09 wrote:
ZaedynFel wrote:
You will still be Ranked below people worse than you, and above those better, you’ll just all have a different label.
Okay, am I having a brain fart here. I have read over this a couple of times now, and this just doesn't sound right to me. Why would I want to be rank below people worse and above those better?

Thanks for all of this detail by the way. It will be nice to have more reference for my pro TS2 discussions.
Elliminist wrote:
Where are these publicly posted, I'm interested to see the evidence.
There is also a bunch posted here. Last week's matchmaking thread has a lot of pages but good to scroll through for some of the linked games in question.
Ha hah, easter egg! jk, phrase-o (vs. type-o).
ZaedynFel wrote:
DaxSeven09 wrote:
ZaedynFel wrote:
You will still be Ranked below people worse than you, and above those better, you’ll just all have a different label.
Okay, am I having a brain fart here. I have read over this a couple of times now, and this just doesn't sound right to me. Why would I want to be rank below people worse and above those better?

Thanks for all of this detail by the way. It will be nice to have more reference for my pro TS2 discussions.
Elliminist wrote:
Where are these publicly posted, I'm interested to see the evidence.
There is also a bunch posted here. Last week's matchmaking thread has a lot of pages but good to scroll through for some of the linked games in question.
Ha hah, easter egg! jk, phrase-o (vs. type-o).
Heehee, glad I asked. I thought since no one said anything I was being a dork and not understanding something I should have.

An excellent example of there are no stupid questions.
Are there some undocumented changes in TS2 that you feel comfortable making the seemingly gross statement that "the new system is right and the old one was wrong all along"? - because the paper doesn't really support that claim. The paper, at best, claims that the new method is right more often- but I don't see how anyone can claim more than that.

According to the paper most of the predictive gains are for squads larger than the max in any ranked playlist (think Warzone, BTB). Squads less than or equal to 4 show minimal predictive improvement over TS1.

Despite the incorporation of kill rate correlations, the expected change of a 10 kill game vs 20 kill game over a full time 4v4 slayer game is <5%.

And while I've seen many players dragged on Twitter who are perhaps rightfully annoyed that their 2 year investment of time was "wrong all along" - I can think of two obvious examples where TS2 didn't predict skill within a couple games. Commonly's 10-0 in HCS is the most public example. Another player I played my placement (tongue twister) matches with, GT: NomsEmoo, placed Diamond 4 in Slayer, is now Champ with a 1.7 k/d and absurd 85-5 record. That's a substantial deviation that does not scream "got carried."

I applaud the addition of improved systems - it just seems we are overselling it with global statements that can't be applied globally.
Are there some undocumented changes in TS2 that you feel comfortable making the seemingly gross statement that "the new system is right and the old one was wrong all along"? - because the paper doesn't really support that claim. The paper, at best, claims that the new method is right more often- but I don't see how anyone can claim more than that.
He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was just simplifying things to make it easier to understand and to get his point across more definitively. If you look at the bolded question which prompted that response, it's easy to understand why he would say it that way because some people just don't get it and will continue to say they were so and so rank before so why are this now even after he gives a detailed explanation.
I am sure that I am not alone in saying this, but I am discouraged to play now that Team Snipers is gone. It was my top and favorite playlist. I spent roughly 90% of my time playing Team Snipers, and now that it's removed, the amount of time I'm on the game has been cut down significantly.

I wish there was some kind of explanation behind this. I remember reading that "it's being removed temporarily" or something along those lines. Is this because it is going to be changed or improved upon? Or maybe because it maybe isn't as popular as other playlists? I just want some justification for this change. From what I have gathered Team Snipers has been taken out in the past, too. I am hoping that Team Snipers returns very soon! I think that the popularity of the Shotty Snipers playlist is a good indicator of people missing Team Snipers.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 13