Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

[Locked] MATCHMAKING FEEDBACK UPDATE – November 5

OP ZaedynFel

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 19
  4. 20
  5. 21
  6. 22
  7. 23
  8. ...
  9. 27
Hi Josh, I was wondering if the "Continuing to search..." text still works the way it used to?
Meaning, if I'm searching on balanced, it won't expand the parameters for server distance until it displays this text?

Because all of a sudden, since late Monday night, no matter how often I "back out" before it gets to this text (searching on balanced), I have consistently been getting South American and Chinese lobbies every single game for almost 20 straight matches.

I have heard some other people from the West Coast have also said that they suddenly cannot find a single non-laggy game.. did something change with the parameters, or is XBL having issues such as with location detection?
Played 4 games of slayer today, in 3 of them someone quit. In one game it went down to 1 on 4.....that means 3/4 games, despite my individual statistics before or after the people quit, I completely wasted me time.

Why am I the only one complaining about this....QUITTERS NOW RUIN THE GAME FOR EVERYONE PLEASE CHANGE THE AFFECT THE HAVE ON CSR, ITS NOT MY FAULT SOMEONE ON THE OTHER TEAM QUITS.

I understand protecting the losing team, but this doesn't have to be 0 sum. In 2/3 three non-4v4 games I was the top kills getter, lowest deaths, most assists....this is totally ridiculous I can't take it anymore
cicconmr00 wrote:
Played 4 games of slayer today, in 3 of them someone quit. In one game it went down to 1 on 4.....that means 3/4 games, despite my individual statistics before or after the people quit, I completely wasted me time.

Why am I the only one complaining about this....QUITTERS NOW RUIN THE GAME FOR EVERYONE PLEASE CHANGE THE AFFECT THE HAVE ON CSR, ITS NOT MY FAULT SOMEONE ON THE OTHER TEAM QUITS.

I understand protecting the losing team, but this doesn't have to be 0 sum. In 2/3 three non-4v4 games I was the top kills getter, lowest deaths, most assists....this is totally ridiculous I can't take it anymore
From what Josh has said in the past, the system pro-rates your individual performance moment-to-moment throughout a match. When someone quits and alters the expectations the system adjusts those things at that point in time so that they're different going forward while still maintaining the previous performance per expectation leading up to the point of the quit. In other words, a quitter doesn't scrap the performance vs expectations that was occurring prior. That information is still used towards your post-match MMR adjustment. With that said, quitting still sucks and I wouldn't mind seeing them (343i) bump up the penalty strictness toward the first quitter. Like MCC hit them sooner with a ban penalty to re-enforce that it's an undesired behavior which comes with consequences.
eLantern wrote:
cicconmr00 wrote:
Played 4 games of slayer today, in 3 of them someone quit. In one game it went down to 1 on 4.....that means 3/4 games, despite my individual statistics before or after the people quit, I completely wasted me time.

Why am I the only one complaining about this....QUITTERS NOW RUIN THE GAME FOR EVERYONE PLEASE CHANGE THE AFFECT THE HAVE ON CSR, ITS NOT MY FAULT SOMEONE ON THE OTHER TEAM QUITS.

I understand protecting the losing team, but this doesn't have to be 0 sum. In 2/3 three non-4v4 games I was the top kills getter, lowest deaths, most assists....this is totally ridiculous I can't take it anymore
From what Josh has said in the past, the system pro-rates your individual performance moment-to-moment throughout a match. When someone quits and alters the expectations the system adjusts those things at that point in time so that they're different going forward while still maintaining the previous performance per expectation leading up to the point of the quit. In other words, a quitter doesn't scrap the performance vs expectations that was occurring prior. That information is still used towards your post-match MMR adjustment. With that said, quitting still sucks and I wouldn't mind seeing them (343i) bump up the penalty strictness toward the first quitter. Like MCC hit them sooner with a ban penalty.
I really don't believe this proration works.

I mean we've all been a part of a winning team when someone quits, if my bar moves up let's say 35% when I win a game legit I've never seen my bar move more than 2-3% after winning a game against a team of four unless the person quit with-in the last 10 kills.

Someone has to back me up on this, it can't be just me. It would take me probably 30 wins against a team of 3 to move a rank in Gold...that would be my guess based on what I'm seeing
cicconmr00 wrote:
eLantern wrote:
I really don't believe this proration works.

I mean we've all been a part of a winning team when someone quits, if my bar moves up let's say 35% when I win a game legit I've never seen my bar move more than 2-3% after winning a game against a team of four unless the person quit with-in the last 10 kills.

Someone has to back me up on this, it can't be just me. It would take me probably 30 wins against a team of 3 to move a rank in Gold...that would be my guess based on what I'm seeing
I will back you partially, in that I have had exactly the same thing that you're describing a few times -- but only for a short period of time (3-10 days), so I think it's just a string of bad luck. In the long-run, if I consider hundreds of games instead of just 2-3 dozen, I think the quitters aren't as frequent as they seem during one of these bad-luck streaks. It sucks to happen, but eventually it passes and the rank evens out again. Good luck, keep grinding.
I looked at the last 21 games of Champ 1 in Team Arena. He has won them all. He played against these 6 champs 183 190 117 (?) 66 163 in 6 of those games

His overall opponents in those 21 games totaled

6 champs
9 onyx
42 diamonds
19 plats
2 golds
5 qualifiers
Hi Josh, I was wondering if the "Continuing to search..." text still works the way it used to?
Meaning, if I'm searching on balanced, it won't expand the parameters for server distance until it displays this text?

Because all of a sudden, since late Monday night, no matter how often I "back out" before it gets to this text (searching on balanced), I have consistently been getting South American and Chinese lobbies every single game for almost 20 straight matches.

I have heard some other people from the West Coast have also said that they suddenly cannot find a single non-laggy game.. did something change with the parameters, or is XBL having issues such as with location detection?
Playing in Europe this week and the lag is horrendous, hit reg is just a joke
This is in regards to the lack of a pre-game lobby in Halo 5: Guardians, and a plea for a content/UI update. If there's a better place to post this, please let me know. For the longest time, the pre-game lobby was one of the highlighted features in halo's multiplayer.

I am absolutely astounded that it was changed so drastically in Halo 4, and removed entirely in Halo 5. Please, please bring it back. The option to party up after a match is one of the features that Halo 3 pioneered across the FPS genre, and it saddens me and many others to see that these games seem to be taking backwards steps throughout the years in regard to how streamlined the community features are. It makes me understand why people stopped using microphones in-game - there's no real sense of in-game connection to the other players that you are with. The lobby is one of those features that brings everyone together

This in-game connection is something that has been getting progressively worse throughout the years. As a player of Halo 5, I feel isolated when I'm searching for a game. Seeing people's emblems does not do anything - they're just pictures on a screen with no connection to the person on the other side of them. In Halo 3 and Reach I would often browse through people's service tags and see their accomplishments, look at their file shares, or simply talk to them and know who I was talking to in return. The lack of this in Halo 5 created such a void of isolation that I play halo 5 with the volume muted with tv shows in the background. I never play ranked because what's the point if I can't show off my rank in a pre-game lobby?

Thank you for listening,
I never play ranked because what's the point if I can't show off my rank in a pre-game lobby?
What? You only want to play if people can see your stats pre-game?
I never play ranked because what's the point if I can't show off my rank in a pre-game lobby?
What? You only want to play if people can see your stats pre-game?
That's crazy. You can be sure that people see the leaderboard right after the match ended. The rank is displayed there.
I never play ranked because what's the point if I can't show off my rank in a pre-game lobby?
What? You only want to play if people can see your stats pre-game?
That's crazy. You can be sure that people see the leaderboard right after the match ended. The rank is displayed there.
That's true, but it's more so about seeing who I'm going up against and teaming up with so that we can strategize accordingly.

Also yes, the social aspect of showing off the hard stuff that you've earned. Reach had the most intuative design in that you could highlight another player's name and see everything about them - including their armour customization- pop up on the right without having to press a button.

At the very least this gave you something to do in the few minutes it takes to search for a match and for the game to start.

Post-game is similar and you can choose if you want to stick with the same people or back out to find a new group. Or party up with people that you enjoy playing with.

Simple social features like this, and file share, are what I miss. You don't even have to make it competative (Like not showing a rank), just show me SOMETHING to connect with people. Over half of my friend's list on Xbox Live are people whom I met by the party up feature in Halo 3 around 2007/8.
KotorBay85 wrote:
Hi Josh, I was wondering if the "Continuing to search..." text still works the way it used to?
Meaning, if I'm searching on balanced, it won't expand the parameters for server distance until it displays this text?

Because all of a sudden, since late Monday night, no matter how often I "back out" before it gets to this text (searching on balanced), I have consistently been getting South American and Chinese lobbies every single game for almost 20 straight matches.

I have heard some other people from the West Coast have also said that they suddenly cannot find a single non-laggy game.. did something change with the parameters, or is XBL having issues such as with location detection?
Playing in Europe this week and the lag is horrendous, hit reg is just a joke
We haven't changed anything there. But if people in those regions can't find matches in their regions, and search Expanded, and get at least 500 ms to your datacenter, then they will play there.

For South America and even Mexico, a lot of the best servers are ironically in the US, so you can see them in your matches.
I never play ranked because what's the point if I can't show off my rank in a pre-game lobby?
What? You only want to play if people can see your stats pre-game?
That's crazy. You can be sure that people see the leaderboard right after the match ended. The rank is displayed there.
That's true, but it's more so about seeing who I'm going up against and teaming up with so that we can strategize accordingly.

Also yes, the social aspect of showing off the hard stuff that you've earned. Reach had the most intuative design in that you could highlight another player's name and see everything about them - including their armour customization- pop up on the right without having to press a button.

At the very least this gave you something to do in the few minutes it takes to search for a match and for the game to start.

Post-game is similar and you can choose if you want to stick with the same people or back out to find a new group. Or party up with people that you enjoy playing with.

Simple social features like this, and file share, are what I miss. You don't even have to make it competative (Like not showing a rank), just show me SOMETHING to connect with people. Over half of my friend's list on Xbox Live are people whom I met by the party up feature in Halo 3 around 2007/8.
Ranks/gamertags are hidden in pre game lobby to help prevent dodging games because you don't want to play x rank/player. If you are playing ranked the "strategy" should be the same regardless of who you are playing. At least until you are in game and adapt to the players.

All ranks are easily viewable by pressing 2 buttons on a person's name. Yes highlighting would be easier but I don't think that is a huge deal. Maybe they'll go back to a reach like UI/UX for Infinite.

You can literally do the same thing for those few minutes. Nothing has changed there.

Party up was a great feature and it's unfortunate it doesn't exist anymore but people can always invite players after the game just by pressing 1 button.

There is a file share for H5. Also what's stopping you from inviting people after the game to make connections like you did previously? The real crime for pregame/post game is the lack of public chat in the lobby. That is one of the social aspects that H5 needed and just isn't there and has lead to the rapid increase in party chat.
Game

This game I went off on two champs and two higher ranked Onyx players. My team had one other Onyx and two diamonds who all went negative. We lost 50-45 and I lost 28 CSR. How could the system think that I was supposed to win that game when we were all ranked below the enemy team?

I have faith in the system, I just want to know its reasoning.
GameThis game I went off on two champs and two higher ranked Onyx players. My team had one other Onyx and two diamonds who all went negative. We lost 50-45 and I lost 28 CSR. How could the system think that I was supposed to win that game when we were all ranked below the enemy team?

I have faith in the system, I just want to know its reasoning.
Here's the breakdown.

You were a 1573 player and lost to a 1491 MMR team while being on a 1502 MMR team. The combination of losing to a team with a lower MMR both individually and as a team.
ZaedynFel wrote:
GameThis game I went off on two champs and two higher ranked Onyx players. My team had one other Onyx and two diamonds who all went negative. We lost 50-45 and I lost 28 CSR. How could the system think that I was supposed to win that game when we were all ranked below the enemy team?

I have faith in the system, I just want to know its reasoning.
Here's the breakdown.

You were a 1573 player and lost to a 1491 MMR team while being on a 1502 MMR team. The combination of losing to a team with a lower MMR both individually and as a team.
BTW, the Diamonds on your team are both Onyx players.
ZaedynFel wrote:
GameThis game I went off on two champs and two higher ranked Onyx players. My team had one other Onyx and two diamonds who all went negative. We lost 50-45 and I lost 28 CSR. How could the system think that I was supposed to win that game when we were all ranked below the enemy team?

I have faith in the system, I just want to know its reasoning.
Here's the breakdown.

You were a 1573 player and lost to a 1491 MMR team while being on a 1502 MMR team. The combination of losing to a team with a lower MMR both individually and as a team.
So people can be higher ranks but with a lower MMR, as in my lower ranked team had a higher MMR than the higher ranked team? Does that mean the game eventually thinks we would overtake their rank given enough time?

I just can't help but think CatticusFinch never had a chance in that game.
ZaedynFel wrote:
GameThis game I went off on two champs and two higher ranked Onyx players. My team had one other Onyx and two diamonds who all went negative. We lost 50-45 and I lost 28 CSR. How could the system think that I was supposed to win that game when we were all ranked below the enemy team?

I have faith in the system, I just want to know its reasoning.
Here's the breakdown.

You were a 1573 player and lost to a 1491 MMR team while being on a 1502 MMR team. The combination of losing to a team with a lower MMR both individually and as a team.
So people can be higher ranks but with a lower MMR, as in my lower ranked team had a higher MMR than the higher ranked team? Does that mean the game eventually thinks we would overtake their rank given enough time?

I just can't help but think CatticusFinch never had a chance in that game.
Yes, MMR and CSR do not run perfectly in sync. This is intentional since MMR doesn't move at all when players aren't actually improving in skill. CSR lets you bounce around your MMR and get lucky ups and unlucky downs.

Also, yes, eventually they would converge.

But in this case, Catticus underperformed and so their pre-match MMR which was Onyx dropped to mid-Diamond post-match. But CSR updates use pre-match values.

Your own MMR went from 1476 to 1569 despite the loss (it went up), so you will easily recover that lost CSR as long as you continue to play consistently.
ZaedynFel wrote:
ZaedynFel wrote:
GameThis game I went off on two champs and two higher ranked Onyx players. My team had one other Onyx and two diamonds who all went negative. We lost 50-45 and I lost 28 CSR. How could the system think that I was supposed to win that game when we were all ranked below the enemy team?

I have faith in the system, I just want to know its reasoning.
Here's the breakdown.

You were a 1573 player and lost to a 1491 MMR team while being on a 1502 MMR team. The combination of losing to a team with a lower MMR both individually and as a team.
So people can be higher ranks but with a lower MMR, as in my lower ranked team had a higher MMR than the higher ranked team? Does that mean the game eventually thinks we would overtake their rank given enough time?

I just can't help but think CatticusFinch never had a chance in that game.
Yes, MMR and CSR do not run perfectly in sync. This is intentional since MMR doesn't move at all when players aren't actually improving in skill. CSR lets you bounce around your MMR and get lucky ups and unlucky downs.

Also, yes, eventually they would converge.

But in this case, Catticus underperformed and so their pre-match MMR which was Onyx dropped to mid-Diamond post-match. But CSR updates use pre-match values.

Your own MMR went from 1476 to 1569 despite the loss (it went up), so you will easily recover that lost CSR as long as you continue to play consistently.
One more question, if my MMR went up that much and if the game uses MMR to determine CSR movement, does this not mean ranking up will be even more difficult despite the fact I am a lower CSR?
ZaedynFel wrote:
ZaedynFel wrote:
GameThis game I went off on two champs and two higher ranked Onyx players. My team had one other Onyx and two diamonds who all went negative. We lost 50-45 and I lost 28 CSR. How could the system think that I was supposed to win that game when we were all ranked below the enemy team?

I have faith in the system, I just want to know its reasoning.
Here's the breakdown.

You were a 1573 player and lost to a 1491 MMR team while being on a 1502 MMR team. The combination of losing to a team with a lower MMR both individually and as a team.
BTW, the Diamonds on your team are both Onyx players.
This is precisely why HERE and HERE I discussed things that I feel would help lessen this type of confusion. I assume it's more prevalent within the early goings of a new season, but it can occur at any time within a season if people start late or just don't play super often.
ZaedynFel wrote:
ZaedynFel wrote:
GameThis game I went off on two champs and two higher ranked Onyx players. My team had one other Onyx and two diamonds who all went negative. We lost 50-45 and I lost 28 CSR. How could the system think that I was supposed to win that game when we were all ranked below the enemy team?
I have faith in the system, I just want to know its reasoning.
Here's the breakdown.
You were a 1573 player and lost to a 1491 MMR team while being on a 1502 MMR team. The combination of losing to a team with a lower MMR both individually and as a team.
So people can be higher ranks but with a lower MMR, as in my lower ranked team had a higher MMR than the higher ranked team? Does that mean the game eventually thinks we would overtake their rank given enough time?
I just can't help but think CatticusFinch never had a chance in that game.
Yes, MMR and CSR do not run perfectly in sync. This is intentional since MMR doesn't move at all when players aren't actually improving in skill. CSR lets you bounce around your MMR and get lucky ups and unlucky downs.
Also, yes, eventually they would converge.
But in this case, Catticus underperformed and so their pre-match MMR which was Onyx dropped to mid-Diamond post-match. But CSR updates use pre-match values.
Your own MMR went from 1476 to 1569 despite the loss (it went up), so you will easily recover that lost CSR as long as you continue to play consistently.
One more question, if my MMR went up that much and if the game uses MMR to determine CSR movement, does this not mean ranking up will be even more difficult despite the fact I am a lower CSR?
I don't believe so. It should just mean that it's a bit more volatile than it was under the previous +/-15 & 1 method or the temporary one that existed for a short period of time after the 15 & 1 method. HERE is a general breakdown of the newest method being utilized. You should be able to see how CSR still works toward convergence to MMR over time.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 19
  4. 20
  5. 21
  6. 22
  7. 23
  8. ...
  9. 27