Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

[Locked] Matchmaking Feedback Update – November 27

OP ZaedynFel

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3
ZaedynFel wrote:
Hey folks, sorry I haven't had a lot of updates on this side lately. Between the holidays and HCS settings work, my schedule has been pretty full with other work.

I do have an update over on the HCS forum for those interested.

For the rest of you, I haven't forgot about social and non-HCS playlist related concerns and they are definitely on my list.

I'll leave this post here for you to continue the discussions we've been having.

If you have HCS-related comments though, please go over to that thread.

Thanks guys!
Anything on reverting the tuning that no one likes? Because I won't play Halo 5 unless everything gets reverted back to what they were originally.
Oh man I really hope they don't do that! And your belief that no one likes it is a little off I would say. I think the worst thing they could do is to completely go back.

Also it has been told to us already that there are some changes coming. Keep an eye out, but if you want everything back like it was I think you are in for some disappointment.
Will the BR/GF starts be implemented in other playlists even though the HCS settings are staying the same?
I still cant even enjoy this game with friends because the system wont find matches at all. 3 of us are High-Diamond in Oddball HCS and it cant even find a single other player to match us against. Every playlist is super slow at finding matches, while the biggest playlist we play, BTB, never seems to find a 16th person, which results in a 4 minute wait until the Timeout error and researching. This will happen searching solo, in groups of 2-3, and even as full teams, and has happened upwards of 4-5 times before finally getting into matches. This is searching under Expanded because the other options yield practically 0 results every time.

Also, huge problem with closing Post Game Carnage reports actually hard-freezing Halo 5, albeit not crashing to the dashboard. Before the Overtime update it would do this but would recover from it with intermittent menu music cutting in and out but now it freezes like 25% of the time after matches. Then we gotta wait to get people back after this happens.

Its not fun waiting almost 20-30 minutes between matches. This game is literally dead now since this update, because if it wasn't the population, it was these new matchmaking parameters and crashes.
DaxSeven09 wrote:
We do not need Skirmish to return. If all you and your friends want to do is shoot their guns and play Slayer than Team Slayer is really the best bet. Better potential for evenly matched games. I saw and had nothing but sweat fest games in Social. I will never understand why people seem to think Social is the be all end all of just chill play.

lLockout wrote:
"If you have HCS-related comments though, please go over to that thread."
Skirmish was a sweat fest because of the strict MMR. It's the ridiculousness of having a ranked 50 go up against guests that let people relax and shoot at the birds in H3. And because "chance to win" was prioritised more than MMR range, the score would be close either way, so people didn't care as much. But when everyone is in the "same league" like H5, that's when you suddenly feel like you have to at least pay attention to avoid getting completely steamrolled, especially since it will let your chances of winning range anywhere from 30-70 as a result of the significantly smaller player pool that result from strict MMR ranges.

And I'm not saying "all we want to do is shoot and play Slayer," I'm saying that I personally know 10-20 people who will only play if it's "Social slayer." I'm not saying that ranked TS can't accomplish the same thing (personally, I don't really care what we play), I'm literally saying that the appearance is more important than even the experience when it comes to this. Social slayer's population absolutely destroyed everything else in the past, it's not even close, and people are attached to that premise that was set in place for so long. They simply won't accept ranked or skirmish as a replacement, regardless of what's "technically better."

Again, I'm not claiming that it's rational, I'm saying that's the reality of the situation for an enormous portion of the population that left the game. Idealism might work for those of us who actually bother to read the updates and post here on the forum.. but we're the minority, and stigma+titles is what matters when it comes to winning over the larger, more casual audience.

Trust me, if I could convince them to just play ranked TS, it would be a lot simpler :p
@ZaedynFel What is your vision with halo 5 success and 343s as well as a whole team?- Im sad that i had to spend so much money just to play this game. I buy new controllers every 3-4 month and upgrade my internet to top of the line and had my house rewired. Yet, i cant enjoy this game. Players lag blank shots, melee inconsistent. I just dont know what to do anymore. I kinda planning to quit playing halo for good and focus in RL since i became ROBOTIC kid who only plays halo5. I need to know your vision with halo 5. I do work in QA Software field and i play halo pretty much every day and discovered lots of bugs. But, im not judging your DEV Ops team nor your QA, BA but i want to know your vision and your engagement with us as a community. We have lost decent amount good players in HCS hate to say that!- But let me say in overall h5. BTB im not even talking i used to enjoy with old BR which was also skillful to use but for some reason 343 realized over a year that its laser focused. I would like to see last settings back and improve your servers instead and give us new map. Also, it would be very beneficial if DEV's could give us PING stat in game so we can see what ping stat has a players when we 1v1 and help you to report the issue by making a clip. I dont mind to help your QA team as a consumer.
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
Jack 0O1 wrote:
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
NODASH wrote:
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.
To that point, I would actually prefer tighter skill-based MM parameters. For example, I'm Gold 6 in Doubles and my partner is ranked about 2 games ahead of me which can either put him matched at Gold 6 with me or at Platinum 1 right now. I personally don't appreciate it when I see that the opposing team that we just lost to is a Platinum 4 partnered with a Gold 1. The end result is the Platinum 4 just got 21 of the 25 total kills. This again speaks to the high skill-gap in Halo, which I don't think is a bad thing, but because of the high skill-gap (even the large difference between a Platinum 1/Gold 6 to a possibly legitimate Platinum 4) there needs to be tighter parameters on who is allowed to party up with who when it comes to Ranked Playlists. I'm sure there are a lot of players that might not appreciate my assessment, but personally I would only allow players to party with other players that are +/- only 1 rank. (Gold 6 can only partner with Platinum 1 and Gold 5, so even in a team of 4 the players can only be 2 ranks from the minimum/maximum.)

Just my opinion, not saying it's right. this obviously doesn't do anything for possible "sweat fatigue". But that's completely variable.
Yeah I mean I think most people would prefer tight skill matching in Ranked play, even at the expense of slightly longer wait times (to a point...)

But people ADDITIONALLY often like "relaxed games" where they can mess around, and either get easy kills or else at least not constantly be dying. And many people can't really find that in H5 arena matchmaking. It's a bit easier to find in WZ and BTB. 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 gametypes that doesn't risk turning off or alienating lower skill players. It's a tough balance.
I honestly don't think it's that big of an issue. I know sooooo many ppl 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.
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
Jack 0O1 wrote:
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
NODASH wrote:
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.
Just my opinion, not saying it's right. this obviously doesn't do anything for possible "sweat fatigue". But that's completely variable.
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.
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.
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
Jack 0O1 wrote:
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
Jack 0O1 wrote:
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
NODASH wrote:
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.
Just my opinion, not saying it's right. this obviously doesn't do anything for possible "sweat fatigue". But that's completely variable.
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.
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.
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
The weapon tuning has dropped my play time significantly since it's came out.
Back back to MM issues. I'm typically a solo player. So when I read a few months ago they were making it to where I would almost NEVER play a team of 3 or 4, I was happy. It's been my experience though, that I'm still playing teams of 3 and sometimes 4. Sooo, idk wth happened with that adjustment cause it apparently didn't change much.
End of the day this is probably the most frustrating halo for me and I've been playing since the first month of Halo's franchise. You're right though, this test they have going literally screwed halo at the moment. Literally borderline boycott against the weapon tuning. Haha
So after I finished typing up my above response, I jumped on to YouTube for my daily Luke TheNotable video upload check. Interestingly enough, he just happened to have a video detailing another very real and probably more likely reason for why higher-skilled players would create a smurf account that we didn't cover in our above conversations, but I have seen explained in many other forum threads by those players that do use smurf accounts.

The video is called 'Halo 5 Matchmaking Search Time Analysis Real vs Smurf Accounts', and if you click the link here you can check out the actual data that Luke was able to collect by running two Xboxes simultaneously (one with a smurf account, and the other with his actual account). It's quite interesting. For example, he was able to estimate that for a 2-hour gaming session a smurf account only needs to wait a total of 4.8 minutes. Compare that to his estimate of his main high-rank account waiting a total of 25.2 minutes during a 2-hour gaming session and you can see where this becomes a serious problem. It's important to note that his tests were done in Social playlists only.

While our above issues are real and we have a problem with smurf accounts because we aren't as highly-skilled and we actually play the game properly without manipulating or taking advantage of the MM system, The high-ranking players have a real concern as well in how much time is wasted trying to even find matches at those high ranks. So they don't necessarily create smurfs to take advantage of lesser-skilled players, but because they're just trying to play the game regardless of who they might be playing.

Now at the end of the video, Luke states that he didn't want to infer his opinion on his viewers and instead wanted them to come to their own conclusion. My interpretation of this is that maybe Social playlists need to be less restrictive, even at the expense of lesser-skilled players playing more of the higher-skilled players in order to drastically reduce the wait times, while ranked playlists become more restrictive on who a player can party up with to ensure fair and even matches. This might combat the smurf accounts in Ranked playlists if they can find quick matches in Social as well as give a space to reduce the long wait times for higher-skilled players.

The obvious problem with my supposed solution is that if you're a much higher rank than the majority of the player population in ranked playlists then having tighter party-up restrictions is going to increase the wait times for those players further than they already are. Honestly, I don't think there is a way around this. Everyone wants to be the best, but being the best means that there are less players at that level and consequently longer wait times and less frequent games. This isn't 343's fault or their problem really. That's just what happens by definition in ranked playlist. For this reason I still stand by my suggestion of tightening up the party-up rank restrictions in Ranked playlists since that's how they are supposed to function. And I'm also in favor of loosening the Social playlist rank restrictions in the hopes of allowing high ranks to play with low ranks on the same team which should end up being fair. This again brings up another issue of high ranks partied up together in Social - which is the very reason that Warzone Warlords came to be. This would reason that yet another restriction would need to be imposed that high-ranked players partied up together could only match against other high-rank parties in Social and be excluded from searching solo queue players.

All I'm really finding out about all of this is that it is extremely complicated and we don't give 343 enough credit for what they do on a day-to-day basis. Everything is cause and effect. For every solution that I might come up with I also see a different exaggerated problem that goes the opposite direction. Ultimately, it's not about completely SOLVING any of the problems, but instead finding the LEAST offensive solution that inherently can't remove the problem but instead is reduced to an acceptable level - which, in my case has come to fruition with 343's current iteration of matchmaking. We try to help the best we can, but I'm sure they had a team meeting years ago that went over everything I just thought of in much less time than it took me to type this.

Props to 343's matchmaking team for accomplishing what they have.
I can't get my head around it.
Jack 0O1 wrote:
[search times are too long for high skill players, especially in social playlists, and that needs to be fixed]
IMO the system is working fairly well (maybe not even quite tight enough) for PARTY matching, but it's really working poorly for high-skill solo-queue players, especially in social playlists where IMO everyone should be able to find games if they're solo queue.

Josh has described in detail how the MM system finds players for a match using their MMRs. Basically players are first selected for the match, then teams are created after that. If players are together in a fireteam, it will only match them with players who will be able to compete with the fire team's average MMR. This means that big fireteams of high MMR players have trouble findings games unless other high MMR players are searching. I'm fine with this - it discourages large fireteams from grouping up and steamrolling noobs.

The idea is that the fireteam shrinks, the MM tolerance should get wider and you should find games faster. Except that part doesn't work very well... I still regularly search WZA solo queue at peak times and get frequent "unable to match" errors. Every player, even Snakebite himself, should be able to find a match searching solo in a social playlist. Put the high MMR player on a team with all the noobs and make him carry. Just let him play, for the love of god...

TL;DR - the MMR restrictions on finding a match are supposed to relax as your fireteam size shrinks. IMO, they need to relax at a faster rate in social playlists and WZ as the fireteam size shrinks. It's currently too hard to find matches searching solo, and a LITTLE too easy to find matches in a high-MMR To12 (still a lot of blowout matches). Also, you should update the "unable to match" warning to suggest reducing your fireteam size.
I'm not sure what system he's currently using, but that one might be correct. The last one I remember was the top 3% would only match each other which resulted in almost always having a sweaty match from my perspective, but now that doesn't seem to be happening anymore. I'm getting a lot of games playing solo with a variety of skill levels with matching parties every now and then, but the search times are around 2-3 minutes on average. It gets longer as the night goes on and I have to switch from Focused to Balanced in order to find a game.

Josh, is there any eta on when your newest matching system will come out that you've been talking about? Is it going to be sometime next year?
LUKEPOWA wrote:
I'm getting a lot of games playing solo with a variety of skill levels with matching parties every now and then, but the search times are around 2-3 minutes on average. It gets longer as the night goes on and I have to switch from Focused to Balanced in order to find a game.
I always search expanded, during prime time, east coast USA. I still get "unable to match" errors regularly in WZA searching solo. During off-peak hours, I have trouble in WZ as well. Focused or balanced, forget it... I'd be searching all night.
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
This means that big fireteams of high MMR players have trouble findings games unless other high MMR players are searching. I'm fine with this - it discourages large fireteams from grouping up and steamrolling noobs.
It also means that a high MMR player is basically guaranteed to get thrown up against full fireteams game after game after game every time there is one playing, which is pretty much 100% of the time that a high MMR player can actually find a game to begin with. And it's still a steamroll, because no matter how high my MMR is I can't do anything against 12 man REQ spam.

Having a handful of good players out of 24 in a low level game is not that big of a deal, it hardly affects the gameplay, especially when they're split across the two teams. Making it so those few good players are forced to be the punching bag for fireteams over and over and over is totally gamebreaking.

Basically they've completely sacrificed playability at the upper level in order to gain 1 or 2 percentage points in their metrics for the middle level. It's a really stupid approach.
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
LUKEPOWA wrote:
I'm getting a lot of games playing solo with a variety of skill levels with matching parties every now and then, but the search times are around 2-3 minutes on average. It gets longer as the night goes on and I have to switch from Focused to Balanced in order to find a game.
I always search expanded, during prime time, east coast USA. I still get "unable to match" errors regularly in WZA searching solo. During off-peak hours, I have trouble in WZ as well. Focused or balanced, forget it... I'd be searching all night.
This is me and every playlist, but for the sake of social discussion, BTB is horrible with this. I don't play as a full team because matches get boring as the other team frequently quits and you're scrounging for kills against like 1-3 people.

So with that, it's either solo-searching or as a fireteam of no more than 3 or 4 of us. We did it before just so the games were more fun but now you're practically restricted to this. And even then, I still get at least a couple "Unable to Match" errors between every match.

The restriction is too tight and it probably doesn't help that the system is poorly handling the pickup of a 16th player, which it doesn't a lot of times. I could find a match sometimes in like 30 seconds with 15 people and for 5 minutes it won't find that last one and just errors out for TimeOut.
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
Josh, do you have any idea whether the team factored in how the weapon tuning nerfs (especially BR, Carbine, DMR) would affect WZ and BTB? It seems like zero thought was given to how the WZ meta might be affected - and it was affected hugely for the worse with these changes. These maps and the WZ game-type just do not play well with these low-lethality loadouts. I gotta say I'm pretty disappointed, especially because it seemed like with the recent 12-man change and tightened MM parameters, WZ was getting pretty fun.
We're definitely talking about it. It's on the list of stuff to evaluate, but hasn't come front and center yet. But, yes, we are aware that it has impacted WZ and BTB and will be closely looking at where to go with that.
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
This means that big fireteams of high MMR players have trouble findings games unless other high MMR players are searching. I'm fine with this - it discourages large fireteams from grouping up and steamrolling noobs.
It also means that a high MMR player is basically guaranteed to get thrown up against full fireteams game after game after game every time there is one playing, which is pretty much 100% of the time that a high MMR player can actually find a game to begin with. And it's still a steamroll, because no matter how high my MMR is I can't do anything against 12 man REQ spam.

Having a handful of good players out of 24 in a low level game is not that big of a deal, it hardly affects the gameplay, especially when they're split across the two teams. Making it so those few good players are forced to be the punching bag for fireteams over and over and over is totally gamebreaking.

Basically they've completely sacrificed playability at the upper level in order to gain 1 or 2 percentage points in their metrics for the middle level. It's a really stupid approach.
I think we pretty much agree about this problem, and that we'd both like a better experience for solo-queue, high MMR players.

We may differ a bit on how we want to fix it. From talking to you in the past I think you'd prefer they hugely loosen or remove MMR restrictions. I'd prefer a solution more like the one I quote below, where they keep MMR restrictions tight for bigger parties, but loosen them a bunch for solo queue players (or maybe for small fireteams of 2-3 as well). Ideally the MM tightness would be some kind of steeply increasing function of fireteam size. That in theory would both shorten your wait times dramatically, AND make you less likely to match To12 god squads while solo queue, because you'd just have many more players available to match you. Yeah, you'd probably still match big groups occasionally, but that's tolerable.

RzR J3ST3R wrote:
Jack 0O1 wrote:
[search times are too long for high skill players, especially in social playlists, and that needs to be fixed]
TL;DR - the MMR restrictions on finding a match are supposed to relax as your fireteam size shrinks. IMO, they need to relax at a faster rate in social playlists and WZ as the fireteam size shrinks. It's currently too hard to find matches searching solo, and a LITTLE too easy to find matches in a high-MMR To12 (still a lot of blowout matches). Also, you should update the "unable to match" warning to suggest reducing your fireteam size.
But, I don't know if this solution is possible within the constraints of the XBL matchmaking service (totally independent from the H5 game, and not something Josh has direct control over)
Can you comment if the population has gotten lower or stayed the same since you implemented this current matching system? I keep reading around the forums that people can't find games. It makes me wonder if the top skill level of the population has dropped off while the lower ones have has remained the same.

Also, have you thought about removing the least populated playlists or making them rotational to help funnel the population to other playlists which would help the matching system?
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
I think we pretty much agree about this problem, and that we'd both like a better experience for solo-queue, high MMR players.

We may differ a bit on how we want to fix it. From talking to you in the past I think you'd prefer they hugely loosen or remove MMR restrictions. I'd prefer a solution more like the one I quote below, where they keep MMR restrictions tight for bigger parties, but loosen them a bunch for solo queue players (or maybe for small fireteams of 2-3 as well). Ideally the MM tightness would be some kind of steeply increasing function of fireteam size. That in theory would both shorten your wait times dramatically, AND make you less likely to match To12 god squads while solo queue, because you'd just have many more players available to match you. Yeah, you'd probably still match big groups occasionally, but that's tolerable.
Yea I think this is a great solution, individual solo players are not causing problems in a 24 person game even if they get easier matches, it's imbalanced fireteams that are game breaking. It's really important that solo players get matches more easily though, so they aren't sitting around waiting to get blasted by 12mans over and over.
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
This means that big fireteams of high MMR players have trouble findings games unless other high MMR players are searching. I'm fine with this - it discourages large fireteams from grouping up and steamrolling noobs.
It also means that a high MMR player is basically guaranteed to get thrown up against full fireteams game after game after game every time there is one playing, which is pretty much 100% of the time that a high MMR player can actually find a game to begin with. And it's still a steamroll, because no matter how high my MMR is I can't do anything against 12 man REQ spam.

Having a handful of good players out of 24 in a low level game is not that big of a deal, it hardly affects the gameplay, especially when they're split across the two teams. Making it so those few good players are forced to be the punching bag for fireteams over and over and over is totally gamebreaking.

Basically they've completely sacrificed playability at the upper level in order to gain 1 or 2 percentage points in their metrics for the middle level. It's a really stupid approach.
This.

i can’t get a game searching with a team of two past 4am EST but I know there are lower level games going on. Just put us in and stack the other team. Hell, make it 12 vs 10, I don’t care. I welcome a challenge. I just want to play
ZaedynFel wrote:
RzR J3ST3R wrote:
Josh, do you have any idea whether the team factored in how the weapon tuning nerfs (especially BR, Carbine, DMR) would affect WZ and BTB? It seems like zero thought was given to how the WZ meta might be affected - and it was affected hugely for the worse with these changes. These maps and the WZ game-type just do not play well with these low-lethality loadouts. I gotta say I'm pretty disappointed, especially because it seemed like with the recent 12-man change and tightened MM parameters, WZ was getting pretty fun.
We're definitely talking about it. It's on the list of stuff to evaluate, but hasn't come front and center yet. But, yes, we are aware that it has impacted WZ and BTB and will be closely looking at where to go with that.
It’s on the list to evaluate? Is that to say you didn’t consider this obvious issue prior to rolling the change out playlist wide? I can’t believe this br update hasn’t been rolled back. It’s clearly a failure. What’s sad is, rather than admit the failure, you will continue to try to tweak it in an effort to save face.

can someone from 343 explain to me how the latest release was allowed to be pushed out when fordge maps have framerate issues so bad that the maps are unplayable? Is there no QA team? Was the issue pointed out and ignored? It’s not a bug, it’s a showstopper. The maps are unplayable. If there are no plans to fix the issue, please pull out the effected maps.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3