Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

[Locked] MATCHMAKING FEEDBACK UPDATE – November 5

OP ZaedynFel

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 20
  4. 21
  5. 22
  6. 23
  7. 24
  8. ...
  9. 27
eLantern wrote:
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.
If your MMR and CSR are near each other, and if we get you into relatively balanced games, you'll go around +/-15.

The slowdown only happens if they pull away from each other. So if your MMR is much higher than your CSR, then you won't lose as much for a loss. Though it will be intuitive because if your MMR is higher than your CSR, your opponents will also be better, so it will make sense they you lose less for losing, etc.

I think the current system works pretty well at that. It might be easier if we could show average team MMR per team so you could compare directly to that rather than seeing the individual player CSRs.

I'm actually pretty dubious now about the value of showing the CSR of individual players at all outside of you being able to see your own. You really only need to know the MMR of each team, and your own CSR imo.
ZaedynFel wrote:
I think the current system works pretty well at that. It might be easier if we could show average team MMR per team so you could compare directly to that rather than seeing the individual player CSRs.

I'm actually pretty dubious now about the value of showing the CSR of individual players at all outside of you being able to see your own. You really only need to know the MMR of each team, and your own CSR imo.
The current system does work pretty well. And I would absolutely agree with your desires, but you've got to figure there will be people who will nevertheless be upset when they cannot see the individual CSRs of those they played with and against in the PGCRs.

Within Infinite I imagine that you'd love to be able to show within the PGCR the Team MMRs, which automatically provides players with a sense of the expected match outcome, and a player's adjusted CSR with some sort of cross-reference to their personal performance expectations that's based on their MMR relative to the Team MMRs.

This would be an excellent means to communicate skill and skill adjustments, but I still cannot imagine that there won't be a heavy desire by people to know the CSRs of those they played with and against. Just to save 343i from some unnecessary public backlash I'd consider still showing those individual CSRs for everyone within the match via the PGCR too. Anyways, just a thought.

I also recall you saying that perhaps you could provide people with a few different visual means to gauge their playlist rank. Bronze - Onyx CSRs would represent the pure skill-based measurement. A modified 1-50 styled hybrid system similar to MCC could mix skill-based measurements with playlist-experience. And a pure playlist experience-based measurement similar to the Reach & Halo 3 military ranks. I think this would work great as long as the hybrid or experience based systems have no influence on the matchmaker within PvP matches. MMR needs to be the sole means for proper matchmaking within those types of matches and I have no doubt you fully agree.
ZaedynFel wrote:
eLantern wrote:
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.
...
Not sure I follow how your response clarifies the concerns I raised within my linked posts. Plus, within the second one, in which I was responding to QX, at the end I even managed to quote some of your past perspective on the general topic (given some edits to make it a bit more relate-able) which fits my belief too that allowing less confusion to take place outside of the Onyx ranks is better for the overall perceptions and comprehension of the matchmaking system. In other words, keep the true grind aspect within the Onyx tier and not within the Diamond ranks. In turn, this provides a sense of consistency throughout the Bronze-Diamond ranks.

This is just an area where I believe improvement can still be made to Halo 5.
Heaviies wrote:
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.
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.
Totally agree, man. I see now your point and you're right.
ZaedynFel has the BTB population been any better since the creation of this thread or is it still the same/worse?
ZaedynFel wrote:
eLantern wrote:
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.
If your MMR and CSR are near each other, and if we get you into relatively balanced games, you'll go around +/-15.

The slowdown only happens if they pull away from each other. So if your MMR is much higher than your CSR, then you won't lose as much for a loss. Though it will be intuitive because if your MMR is higher than your CSR, your opponents will also be better, so it will make sense they you lose less for losing, etc.

I think the current system works pretty well at that. It might be easier if we could show average team MMR per team so you could compare directly to that rather than seeing the individual player CSRs.

I'm actually pretty dubious now about the value of showing the CSR of individual players at all outside of you being able to see your own. You really only need to know the MMR of each team, and your own CSR imo.
I believe you need to show everything or to drop the CSR but a good first step could be show us the mmr of each team (from a feedback point of view)
LUKEPOWA wrote:
ZaedynFel has the BTB population been any better since the creation of this thread or is it still the same/worse?
Every playlist had an increase since this post because of the holiday season, which is normal this time of year. We go up over the holidays, and float slowly down afterwards.

Nothing special in the BTB list compared to the others though.
eLantern wrote:
ZaedynFel wrote:
I think the current system works pretty well at that. It might be easier if we could show average team MMR per team so you could compare directly to that rather than seeing the individual player CSRs.

I'm actually pretty dubious now about the value of showing the CSR of individual players at all outside of you being able to see your own. You really only need to know the MMR of each team, and your own CSR imo.
The current system does work pretty well. And I would absolutely agree with your desires, but you've got to figure there will be people who will nevertheless be upset when they cannot see the individual CSRs of those they played with and against in the PGCRs.

Within Infinite I imagine that you'd love to be able to show within the PGCR the Team MMRs, which automatically provides players with a sense of the expected match outcome, and a player's adjusted CSR with some sort of cross-reference to their personal performance expectations that's based on their MMR relative to the Team MMRs.

This would be an excellent means to communicate skill and skill adjustments, but I still cannot imagine that there won't be a heavy desire by people to know the CSRs of those they played with and against. Just to save 343i from some unnecessary public backlash I'd consider still showing those individual CSRs for everyone within the match via the PGCR too. Anyways, just a thought.

I also recall you saying that perhaps you could provide people with a few different visual means to gauge their playlist rank. Bronze - Onyx CSRs would represent the pure skill-based measurement. A modified 1-50 styled hybrid system similar to MCC could mix skill-based measurements with playlist-experience. And a pure playlist experience-based measurement similar to the Reach & Halo 3 military ranks. I think this would work great as long as the hybrid or experience based systems have no influence on the matchmaker within PvP matches. MMR needs to be the sole means for proper matchmaking within those types of matches and I have no doubt you fully agree.
ZaedynFel wrote:
eLantern wrote:
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.
...
Not sure I follow how your response clarifies the concerns I raised within my linked posts. Plus, within the second one, in which I was responding to QX, at the end I even managed to quote some of your past perspective on the general topic (given some edits to make it a bit more relate-able) which fits my belief too that allowing less confusion to take place outside of the Onyx ranks is better for the overall perceptions and comprehension of the matchmaking system. In other words, keep the true grind aspect within the Onyx tier and not within the Diamond ranks. In turn, this provides a sense of consistency throughout the Bronze-Diamond ranks.

This is just an area where I believe improvement can still be made to Halo 5.
The problem with that approach is that it's not evergreen enough as populations ebb and wane. We would have to keep re-tweaking the settings if the pop changes too much during times when we are all moving almost 100% onto Infinite (at least all the folks that can make those adjustments well). If we don't have time to make those adjustments, then the confusion that ensues will be worse than the current confusion, which is pretty minimal compared to previous settings.
ZaedynFel wrote:
eLantern wrote:
ZaedynFel wrote:
...
Not sure I follow how your response clarifies the concerns I raised within my linked posts. Plus, within the second one, in which I was responding to QX, at the end I even managed to quote some of your past perspective on the general topic (given some edits to make it a bit more relate-able) which fits my belief too that allowing less confusion to take place outside of the Onyx ranks is better for the overall perceptions and comprehension of the matchmaking system. In other words, keep the true grind aspect within the Onyx tier and not within the Diamond ranks. In turn, this provides a sense of consistency throughout the Bronze-Diamond ranks.

This is just an area where I believe improvement can still be made to Halo 5.
The problem with that approach is that it's not evergreen enough as populations ebb and wane. We would have to keep re-tweaking the settings if the pop changes too much during times when we are all moving almost 100% onto Infinite (at least all the folks that can make those adjustments well).
I appreciate the response. By the way, which approach in particular do you refer to? The one where I suggest moving the rank-in cap to Diamond 5 or Onyx 1500 w/ a champ barrier or both?

From my perspective, the only one that may require future adjustments is the rank-in cap being at Onyx 1500 w/ a separate champ barrier. The Diamond 5 rank-in cap wouldn't require any future adjustments -- at least that I'm aware of. If I'm missing something regarding adjustments please inform me.
Quote:
If we don't have time to make those adjustments, then the confusion that ensues will be worse than the current confusion, which is pretty minimal compared to previous settings.
I suppose I can understand why you might have some reservations from a long-term perspective regarding an Onyx 1500 rank-in cap; especially, if it were paired with a variable champ barrier that receives tweaks based on the playlist's population. However, it's honestly a bit difficult to imagine a pre-set 1550 champ barrier as being all that much more of a restriction compared to the naturally existing champ barrier that we have now at 1500. Nevertheless, if a champ barrier that's greater than 1500 is worrisome because it may restrict a playlist from gaining 200 champs (now or in the future) then I can respect that decision from a long-term perspective. But, what I don't fully comprehend is how you can say that the confusion that would ensue would be worse than the current confusion. How so?

And regardless to the potential issues (affecting the number of champs) that might occur with an Onyx 1500 rank-in cap and new champ barrier, the Diamond 5 rank-in cap suggestion, or even a potential Diamond 6 rank-in cap, are still a better alternative to the current Diamond 3 rank-in cap. There'd be zero champ barrier adjustments to concern yourself with from a long-term perspective and there'd be less potential for rank confusion within the Diamond tier in comparison to what we have now. It'd be a shame to leave Halo 5 in a state where its rank system is allowed to create or cause more confusion than necessary. That would also not be very evergreen.
ZaedynFel, i was wondering if you could take a look at my last 5 Slayer games and tell me what the predictions/outcomes were for those games.
ZaedynFel, how did Warzone Assault do as a weekend playlist? This is the first time it came back, correct? (First time I saw it at least.)

I had some good matches but I also had some un-fun matches against large teams. I understand maybe that's a pop thing but as mostly a solo player I hate those games. Even if it's not unfair it "feels" that way.

Also I've got like 200 WZ legendary XP boosts that I can't use because I don't play firefight or standard WZ - so any form of Assault (or maybe a new mode?) would be welcome from my POV. Would it be possible to try a 6v6 or 8v8 version of WZA?
ZaedynFel, how did Warzone Assault do as a weekend playlist? This is the first time it came back, correct? (First time I saw it at least.)

I had some good matches but I also had some un-fun matches against large teams. I understand maybe that's a pop thing but as mostly a solo player I hate those games. Even if it's not unfair it "feels" that way.

Also I've got like 200 WZ legendary XP boosts that I can't use because I don't play firefight or standard WZ - so any form of Assault (or maybe a new mode?) would be welcome from my POV. Would it be possible to try a 6v6 or 8v8 version of WZA?
It did so-so. Fine for a weekend run, but not a long term thing. Major WZA changes like sizes, etc., would require folks pretty busy on Infinite.
Game

I was partied up with the other Onyx player, then we got a Plat 6 and a Diamond.

Surely the other squad, comprised of three champs and an Onyx, had a higher MMR than us. I am also inclined to believe it was a squad of four because of how they spawn trapped us.

I go an even 7-7 and the rest of my team got destroyed. The Diamond player eventually gave up and went AFK.

I lose 30 CSR. This is the max, right? Why?

This is the kind of result that makes people stop playing ranked.
GameI was partied up with the other Onyx player, then we got a Plat 6 and a Diamond.

Surely the other squad, comprised of three champs and an Onyx, had a higher MMR than us. I am also inclined to believe it was a squad of four because of how they spawn trapped us.

I go an even 7-7 and the rest of my team got destroyed. The Diamond player eventually gave up and went AFK.

I lose 30 CSR. This is the max, right? Why?

This is the kind of result that makes people stop playing ranked.
Your team had a 1518 MMR, the other team 1516.

A 1660 losing to a 1516 will generally drop 30 like you did.

Your post-game MMR was 1410, so losing -30 is definitely the right step to get your CSR down to where it should be after that performance (you played like a 1389 or Diamond 4).
ZaedynFel wrote:
GameI was partied up with the other Onyx player, then we got a Plat 6 and a Diamond.

Surely the other squad, comprised of three champs and an Onyx, had a higher MMR than us. I am also inclined to believe it was a squad of four because of how they spawn trapped us.

I go an even 7-7 and the rest of my team got destroyed. The Diamond player eventually gave up and went AFK.

I lose 30 CSR. This is the max, right? Why?

This is the kind of result that makes people stop playing ranked.
Your team had a 1518 MMR, the other team 1516.

A 1660 losing to a 1516 will generally drop 30 like you did.

Your post-game MMR was 1410, so losing -30 is definitely the right step to get your CSR down to where it should be after that performance (you played like a 1389 or Diamond 4).
How could their team's average be 1516 when three of them were Champion which is 1800s for CSR? Maybe I am wrong about this and the Champion threshold is lower at the moment? Did the champions have a MUCH lower MMR than their CSR would otherwise indicate? They'd have to have Diamond MMR levels to get an average of 1516.

This sounds retaliatory, childish, and I'd be just plain venting...but I can't not say it: if the system put a Diamond 4 (apparently how I played) in that match instead of me they sure as heck wouldn't break even.
ZaedynFel wrote:
GameI was partied up with the other Onyx player, then we got a Plat 6 and a Diamond.

Surely the other squad, comprised of three champs and an Onyx, had a higher MMR than us. I am also inclined to believe it was a squad of four because of how they spawn trapped us.

I go an even 7-7 and the rest of my team got destroyed. The Diamond player eventually gave up and went AFK.

I lose 30 CSR. This is the max, right? Why?

This is the kind of result that makes people stop playing ranked.
Your team had a 1518 MMR, the other team 1516.

A 1660 losing to a 1516 will generally drop 30 like you did.

Your post-game MMR was 1410, so losing -30 is definitely the right step to get your CSR down to where it should be after that performance (you played like a 1389 or Diamond 4).
can you tell me my mmr(Swat) and TuonoPayneT31 mmr(Swat)?
ZaedynFel wrote:
GameI was partied up with the other Onyx player, then we got a Plat 6 and a Diamond.

Surely the other squad, comprised of three champs and an Onyx, had a higher MMR than us. I am also inclined to believe it was a squad of four because of how they spawn trapped us.

I go an even 7-7 and the rest of my team got destroyed. The Diamond player eventually gave up and went AFK.

I lose 30 CSR. This is the max, right? Why?

This is the kind of result that makes people stop playing ranked.
Your team had a 1518 MMR, the other team 1516.

A 1660 losing to a 1516 will generally drop 30 like you did.

Your post-game MMR was 1410, so losing -30 is definitely the right step to get your CSR down to where it should be after that performance (you played like a 1389 or Diamond 4).
How could their team's average be 1516 when three of them were Champion which is 1800s for CSR? Maybe I am wrong about this and the Champion threshold is lower at the moment? Did the champions have a MUCH lower MMR than their CSR would otherwise indicate? They'd have to have Diamond MMR levels to get an average of 1516.

This sounds retaliatory, childish, and I'd be just plain venting...but I can't not say it: if the system put a Diamond 4 (apparently how I played) in that match instead of me they sure as heck wouldn't break even.
Champs are just the top 200 Onyx players. So the top 200 players with CSR above 1500 will be Champs. They don't need CSR >1800 to be Champs. If that enemy team's average MMR was 1516, then they could have all just had MMRs around the Onyx threshold; none of them would have had to have Diamond MMR for that average to be possible. It is possible, though, that they had inflated CSRs.
ZaedynFel wrote:
GameI was partied up with the other Onyx player, then we got a Plat 6 and a Diamond.

Surely the other squad, comprised of three champs and an Onyx, had a higher MMR than us. I am also inclined to believe it was a squad of four because of how they spawn trapped us.

I go an even 7-7 and the rest of my team got destroyed. The Diamond player eventually gave up and went AFK.

I lose 30 CSR. This is the max, right? Why?

This is the kind of result that makes people stop playing ranked.
Your team had a 1518 MMR, the other team 1516.

A 1660 losing to a 1516 will generally drop 30 like you did.

Your post-game MMR was 1410, so losing -30 is definitely the right step to get your CSR down to where it should be after that performance (you played like a 1389 or Diamond 4).
can you tell me my mmr(Swat) and TuonoPayneT31 mmr(Swat)?
It's okay to ask for your own, it's inappropriate to ask for someone else's. That isn't going to be allowed here.
Chimera30 wrote:
ZaedynFel wrote:
GameI was partied up with the other Onyx player, then we got a Plat 6 and a Diamond.

Surely the other squad, comprised of three champs and an Onyx, had a higher MMR than us. I am also inclined to believe it was a squad of four because of how they spawn trapped us.

I go an even 7-7 and the rest of my team got destroyed. The Diamond player eventually gave up and went AFK.

I lose 30 CSR. This is the max, right? Why?

This is the kind of result that makes people stop playing ranked.
Your team had a 1518 MMR, the other team 1516.

A 1660 losing to a 1516 will generally drop 30 like you did.

Your post-game MMR was 1410, so losing -30 is definitely the right step to get your CSR down to where it should be after that performance (you played like a 1389 or Diamond 4).
How could their team's average be 1516 when three of them were Champion which is 1800s for CSR? Maybe I am wrong about this and the Champion threshold is lower at the moment? Did the champions have a MUCH lower MMR than their CSR would otherwise indicate? They'd have to have Diamond MMR levels to get an average of 1516.

This sounds retaliatory, childish, and I'd be just plain venting...but I can't not say it: if the system put a Diamond 4 (apparently how I played) in that match instead of me they sure as heck wouldn't break even.
Champs are just the top 200 Onyx players. So the top 200 players with CSR above 1500 will be Champs. They don't need CSR >1800 to be Champs. If that enemy team's average MMR was 1516, then they could have all just had MMRs around the Onyx threshold; none of them would have had to have Diamond MMR for that average to be possible. It is possible, though, that they had inflated CSRs.
I suppose the fact that my MMR dropped 250 points for one game and is now 210 points below my CSR happened to the other team their previous game? That is the only explanation because to have an average MMR of 1516 you must have players on the team below this value.

Currently Champ #140 has a CSR of 1880 so an estimate of the Champ CSR being 1800 is somewhat reasonable. There were three >1800 CSR players on the enemy team and their MMR somehow found its way down 300 points or more? Is MMR supposed to be this volatile?
ZaedynFel wrote:
GameI was partied up with the other Onyx player, then we got a Plat 6 and a Diamond.

Surely the other squad, comprised of three champs and an Onyx, had a higher MMR than us. I am also inclined to believe it was a squad of four because of how they spawn trapped us.

I go an even 7-7 and the rest of my team got destroyed. The Diamond player eventually gave up and went AFK.

I lose 30 CSR. This is the max, right? Why?

This is the kind of result that makes people stop playing ranked.
Your team had a 1518 MMR, the other team 1516.

A 1660 losing to a 1516 will generally drop 30 like you did.

Your post-game MMR was 1410, so losing -30 is definitely the right step to get your CSR down to where it should be after that performance (you played like a 1389 or Diamond 4).
can you tell me my mmr(Swat) and TuonoPayneT31 mmr(Swat)?
It's okay to ask for your own, it's inappropriate to ask for someone else's. That isn't going to be allowed here.
The reason your CSR is higher than MMR is the swings up are recent enough.

asfdasdfasdf
Chimera30 wrote:
ZaedynFel wrote:
GameI was partied up with the other Onyx player, then we got a Plat 6 and a Diamond.

Surely the other squad, comprised of three champs and an Onyx, had a higher MMR than us. I am also inclined to believe it was a squad of four because of how they spawn trapped us.

I go an even 7-7 and the rest of my team got destroyed. The Diamond player eventually gave up and went AFK.

I lose 30 CSR. This is the max, right? Why?

This is the kind of result that makes people stop playing ranked.
Your team had a 1518 MMR, the other team 1516.

A 1660 losing to a 1516 will generally drop 30 like you did.

Your post-game MMR was 1410, so losing -30 is definitely the right step to get your CSR down to where it should be after that performance (you played like a 1389 or Diamond 4).
How could their team's average be 1516 when three of them were Champion which is 1800s for CSR? Maybe I am wrong about this and the Champion threshold is lower at the moment? Did the champions have a MUCH lower MMR than their CSR would otherwise indicate? They'd have to have Diamond MMR levels to get an average of 1516.

This sounds retaliatory, childish, and I'd be just plain venting...but I can't not say it: if the system put a Diamond 4 (apparently how I played) in that match instead of me they sure as heck wouldn't break even.
Champs are just the top 200 Onyx players. So the top 200 players with CSR above 1500 will be Champs. They don't need CSR >1800 to be Champs. If that enemy team's average MMR was 1516, then they could have all just had MMRs around the Onyx threshold; none of them would have had to have Diamond MMR for that average to be possible. It is possible, though, that they had inflated CSRs.
I suppose the fact that my MMR dropped 250 points for one game and is now 210 points below my CSR happened to the other team their previous game? That is the only explanation because to have an average MMR of 1516 you must have players on the team below this value.

Currently Champ #140 has a CSR of 1880 so an estimate of the Champ CSR being 1800 is somewhat reasonable. There were three >1800 CSR players on the enemy team and their MMR somehow found its way down 300 points or more? Is MMR supposed to be this volatile?
Depending on the playlist and player, MMR can be quite volatile. SWAT tends to be one of those because of the large swings you can have game to game despite similar teams.

You were 1466 pre-game, so you were probably dropping recently and CSR is catching up.

Your opponents ranged 1455 -1619 in MMR, so are probably in similar situations.

The 1516 is also pre-game.

Since your opponents also had CSRs above their MMRs, most of them only got 1 CSR for the win. One did get 8.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 20
  4. 21
  5. 22
  6. 23
  7. 24
  8. ...
  9. 27