...I have explained this ad nauseam.
Yes, you've repeated your rough (general) idea to ad nauseam. Though, I have been trying to get you to think about it more thoroughly and critically instead of repeating it ad nauseam.
Quote:I have stated repeatedly that MMR would be the primary driver of MM.
Yes you have. But, you don't back your statement up with any form of support. In fact, when I've pressed you to explain further, and with more detail, you've simply given an example of the opposite.
Quote:"Quit score" would never lead to matches outside of acceptable MMR odds (I see the 60/40 figure frequently so maybe it's that, whatever it is, this system would remain in that parameter).
Understood, but that parameter is not the same thing as stating that MMR will remain the *primary* driving factor behind the team picker/balancer.
Quote:It may lead to a match being 53/47 instead of 51/49.
Exactly my point. MMR is no longer the *primary* driving factor. The "Quit Score" effectively takes a form of precedence over SBMM within the role of the team picker/balancer.
Quote:I'm laying the groundwork here, not writing a paper on how the system would work like the Microsoft research team did for TS2.
I understand you're trying the lay the groundwork, but I'm trying to help you think through the groundwork. Nobody's asking you to write the actual formula. And understanding the systematic process that the matchmaker and team picker/balancer goes through is not nearly as complex as trying to develop the formula for TrueSkill2.
Quote:It's a quality of life feature to reduce the negative impacts of quitters on good players.
Yes I get that and appreciate what you're trying to do. It's also why I gave an example of how I foresaw your idea potentially working while "actually" maintaining MMR as the *primary* driving factor. And I did that here:
I don't know if you understood what I was explaining or you just dismissed it because the trust factor metric wouldn't be as influential as you desired it to be.
Quote:I have not made conflicting comments.
Well, yes you did and I've point them out, but let's not focus on that too much. It's more or less besides the point now. The reason I continue to respond as I do is to help you better understand what you're actually requesting. The merit or value and consequences.
Quote:You are trying to twist my words for the sake of argument. See my previous posts as I have addressed all questions at least once.
I'm not twisting your words. I'm simply responding to them. I've done so in order to (1) seek further clarity from you regarding your idea's request, and (2) to help bring awareness to you regarding the potential unintended consequences as well as to highlight other such conflicts that perhaps you might not have been aware of. Your groundwork idea was quite general (as you reference) and sounds good on the surface, but when given more in-depth thought it becomes questionable.
Not only was I trying to get a better understanding of what you were seeking, but once I was able to better understand I could see the conflict it caused and faced. Then I was trying to help you think more deeply about it and how it would work within Halo 5's matchmaking system so you too could better see the issues it caused or faced. I did this by asking you to further explain it within the matchmaking process example that I broke down for you. And you never did that. I just got a lot of repeated statements regarding the general groundwork that included contradictions.