I honestly don't think it's that big of an issue. I know so many people who are ranked higher than me in (X) playlist, yet I play better than them. It doesn't mean a whole lot if you're a Gold 6 playing a Plat 3. Half the time they're only ranked that cause they get carried to victories.
Of course I realize that while some players may be having an "easy" game, others in that lobby may be struggling mightily in that same lobby, against better players, if you have loose "social" skill matching. So there's no obvious solution to help players find "fun" games in arena game types that doesn't risk turning off or alienating lower skill players. It's a tough balance.
Just my opinion, not saying it's right. this obviously doesn't do anything for possible "sweat fatigue". But that's completely variable.
It seems like tight skill-based matching parameters aren't quite the perfect solution, Because people get "sweat fatigue," though there are benefits to that tight MM approach as well.
I tend to agree with both of you on this. This is why I state that it's 'completely variable'. Being Gold 6 and playing a Platinum 3 is fine if the ranking system gets it right where your skill is relatively equal regardless of rank and
it's not a smurf account (much higher skilled player in disguise).
I would say that in my experience about ~75% of my ranked matches are accurately placed against comparatively equal opponents to my own skill. This isn't a problem in the slightest. I enjoy these games, and to be honest ~75% is really good. I would say there are about ~10% of games that someone just has a bad game where we (or the opposing team) should have won the match, but just doesn't play like they usually do and costs the match. This is also alright; it just happens sometimes - even to the best of us.
It's the remaining ~15% of matches where I feel like we should never have been matched up. There are a few things that can contribute to this. Obviously, there is the smurfing issue where a Diamond/Onyx player creates a smurf account and either parties up with other smurfs for easy matches as RzR J3ST3R points to, (OR) parties up with a genuinely lower partner to help boost a friends rank. The other contributing factor is the matchmaking systems rank averaging that is supposed to estimate a 50/50 win opportunity for each team. I guess I'm flattered if the MM system pits my team against higher Platinum players since it must rationalize that we are playing equally as well as them, but if that were true we would've been winning 50% of those matches. There was a period of time earlier this month where that happened quite often and we lost every time we went up against relatively higher ranked players, even when they were partied with lower ranked players than us. I suppose it's possible that we were running into an over abundance of smurf accounts at the beginning of the season that caused this, and now that they have played more their ranks have settled above ours and now we haven't been running into this problem as much since then. I understand that my partner and I being Gold 6/Platinum 1 would be matched up against Gold 1/Platinum 6 because they are supposed to average out
, but the high skill-gap in Halo means that Platinum 6 is more than sufficiently equipped to dispatch our Gold 6/Platinum 1 team and carry his Gold 1 friend to victory. In this instance I am referencing, the Gold 1 was a legitimate Gold 1 player (he did not do well at all), but we still lost pretty handily. That is a 12 rank placement spread between him and his friend, and to me that seems completely excessive, especially when this Platinum 6 was most likely a genuine Diamond player.
I hope it doesn't sound like I'm complaining that the MM system is 'broken'. I'm not. I'm very appreciative of the changes that the team at 343 has made over the past 11 months. I see and experience the difference in a very significant way when I compare the current state of play to that of 11 months ago. Like I said, ~75% of fair and even matches are really great to have, and with ~10% being the fault of the player having a poor game, that puts the average good ranking experience at ~85%. That's excellent, very respectable. The problems I point to are real problems that I've experienced, but it's not nearly enough to dissuade me from enjoying my time playing ranked playlists.
I don't think my solution is the greatest as it can create other frustrations for players, but I would like to test a ranked playlist where you are only allowed to party up with other players at +/- 1 rank from your own. And maybe extend those limits a bit for players who aren't partied up. So if you're solo queuing you could be matched with partners +/- 3 ranks.
In all reality I know this would create a larger issue of increased wait times to find matches which can cause other frustrations of playing the same teams repeatedly (which is no fun when you're the losing team). This solution only works when there is a clear abundance in player population.
Regardless of the issue, my opinions of it, and my proposed solution - it really doesn't bother me enough to push the issue. I really like Halo's matchmaking system to be honest and whatever they end up doing works for me.
Except for that BR adjustment and GF magnum starts... That's gotta go :P