How are the matches *primarily* based on MMR if you're allowing player quit rate "scores" to have influence over the team picker/balancer verses what the ideal MMR breakdown would dictate? - Matches would continue to be based on MMR. Other scores would NOT have influence OVER the MMR balance. When possible and within acceptable MMR parameters, teams would be assigned to match quitters on the same team, or put quitters into matches against each other. This would satisfy MMR balance requirements. Matches would remain balanced.
When you say "When possible" what specifically are you saying?
So from my understanding, and Josh can correct me if I'm missing critical info regarding the systematic steps, the Matchmaker first checks your selected search preference when you begin a search.
Based on the Focused, Balanced, or Expanded options the Matchmaker will alter what data centers it'll use to locate players for constructing a match.
After that Ping and MMR take priority.
On the MMR side, if you're searching as a solo player it'll look to find players around your individual MMR and if you're searching with a group your fireteam's average MMR (+ adjusted boost) is used as the target.
If MMR is turned-off for the Matchmaker it means that the search process begins with the allowable odds restriction and player skill-gap at their max limits. Player skill-gap limits may differ per the environment (ranked, social, warzone) and even perhaps the individual playlists too. The max limits still prevent the matchmaker from grabbing players that the team picker/balancer can't optimally place onto teams. In other words, it'll ignore players who would cause the match odds to become 61:39 or greater even in the most fair circumstances skill-wise.
If MMR is active for the Matchmaker it means that the search process begins with the allowable odds restriction at around 50:50 before gradually expanding. Also, the skill-gap will begin much closer to your individual skill (as a solo searcher) or the skill-gap of your fireteam before gradually expanding. The initial restrictions may be different per the environment with the ranked environment often being more restrictive. Same for the skill-gap. Plus, the rate of expansion for the limits are often different too between the environments with social tending to expand quicker.
So how and when should a "trust metric" factor into this process?
Quote:
Again, how does MMR take *priority* over this new quit rate "score"? Please, explain more clearly how you perceive the system methodically working on a systematic level. - MMR remains the primary driver of matches and team balancing. When possible, quitters would be matched together in a lobby or on the same team. The system would scan the pool of searching players and establish matches with quitters playing quitters or quitters playing against "good standing" players. MMR will continue to take precedent and some matches may have to forgo the "quit score" factor to keep game within acceptable prediction percentages.
You say MMR should remain the *primary* driver. So, essentially what you're advocating for is exactly the process that takes place now, but in the instance (which I imagine is extremely rare) where a player, or players, may be interchange-able between two optimally balanced teams (per MMR) to let the "trust metric" pair them to the side that's more fitting to their personal trust metric.
In other words, you believe 343i should invest resources into developing and incorporating a "trust" metric formula [based on quit behavior] that would only rarely have any real influence; therefore, I think it's fair to question what actual amount of positive impact that investment would actually provide. I'd guess some, but overall it'd probably be fairly negligible.
Quote:
I understand that the system could potentially enact a quality threshold based on MMR just as it does now by preventing odds beyond 61:39. But, how else will MMR take priority over this new quit rate metric's influence with regards to the team picker/balancer system? - MMR is and will remain the primary driver of MM and balancing matches. Players who quit frequently would be put in a lobby or at least on the same team. However, matches would not be made unbalanced because of "quit score."
You see here you make it seem as if you'd rather see the trust factor metric take some precedence over MMR by the team picker/balancer as long as the max limits relating to match quality aren't infringed upon. And this is how I was perceiving your previous posts. It's just not very clear as to what you're asking for here without presenting thorough details.
Quote:
I understand how some things I suggested could be misconstrued as a "quit score" taking precedent over balanced matches which is not the goal or how the system would function in practice. Hopefully, those concerns and others have been addressed. The goal is a better MM experience for players who play games through to the end.
My suggested system is basically a version of the "Trust Factor" system Valve uses for cheaters in CS:GO. Low trust factor players match with other low trust factor players. The system has generally been considered a success.
I think we both have the same goals in mind and I appreciate what your suggestion was attempting to do, but I question whether it's worth the effort; however, I am interested in hearing all the particular details of CS:GO's systematic method of incorporating the "Trust Factor" into its matchmaking system. Perhaps there is something there worth incorporating into Halo. Maybe not in Halo 5 but perhaps Infinite as long as it doesn't undermine the role of MMR as the true *primary* factor.
