Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

[Locked] Matchmaking Feedback Update – October 2

OP ZaedynFel

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 5
  4. 6
  5. ...
  6. 7
ZaedynFel wrote:
Matchmaking Issues Last Week Several of you brought to our attention that we were having issues matchmaking players in Super Fiesta at first, and then Warzone and a few other playlists on Friday. Thanks for your feedback on that.
With that help, we found the problem and those issues have been eliminated. All lists are back to normal.
Will matchmaking eventually get too tight? It’s possible, but we’re not quite there yet. I’ve seen that happen in other games, and the solution was to make some games tight, and some games loose. That works well. But first, I think we need to get the ability to make things tight, and then loosen in a controlled way.
Can you tell me my Warzone MMR or percentile? Maybe. If I see your request during a time when I’m not too busy, you might get lucky. But I can’t guarantee to have time to look all these up.
You can ask, but don’t be surprised if you don’t get an answer.
I’m seeing more parties in Social now. As part of the fix to the matchmaking issues we had last week, we had to temporarily remove this from Social. It will work its way back in when we’re ready.
Any updates on the upcoming matchmaking changes? Still coming soon. We’re waiting on a partner to button up some known issues.
@ZaedynFel

I thought of something that could potentially balance out ranked, at least for HCS.

The main problem I see with the ranked HCS playlist, is we often force inconsistent games over a certain amount of time by opening skill and party searches after searching awhile. Now this is an okay solution for someone trying to get a good game in, since they can just back out after a bit. However, it's not a good one for the rank value itself since we're creating loop holes by letting teams match solo people and we start throwing in different ranks vs each other creating more "unfair game situations." The second we open these loop holes we immediately water down the the value of ranks by creating the superior strategy of "searching as a team of four will net you free wins vs other nonteams of four" which happens too often at high champ. Those who are a high champ rank probably manipulate the team of four strategy. So here is my idea on how to fix this, at least for HCS (the most competitive playlist in the game).

My solution is to go full on strict mode for the HCS playlist by forcing teams to match teams every time, and small parties vs small parties every time with a STRICT skill search as well. (This means no opening the skill search or party search after a certain period of time, we do not want loop holes to exist). Then create a social HCS playlist with an invisible mmr, this playlist can be the same playlist with the loop hole settings so people can still have the same experience, just without getting a "fake rank". We could just update social skirmish to HCS settings and put the HCS maps into it then remove the other maps people don't like, and boom, you now are satisfying those who want the best possible competitive experience with a strict ranked playlist and you satisfy those who just want a quick "probably" still competitive match by giving them the social playlist choice as well. It's a win-win. Please consider this. Main reason for this is we should want ranked to mean something and actually have value, unfortunately right now it does not with all the loop holes.
True Yomi wrote:
Spoiler:
Show
So, in other words, another scheme to de-incentivize playing in teams to make Solo players feel better when they lose?
True Yomi wrote:
Spoiler:
Show
So, in other words, another scheme to de-incentivize playing in teams to make Solo players feel better when they lose?
No, it's instead a scheme to make it fair for everyone, not just for teams of four. I just want the playlist to be a fun experience for everyone. Why must we give the teams of four easy games (not fun), and the solo people hard games?(not fun), both are not fun. I do both plenty and 4s is too easy and soloQ is too hard. Needs to be balanced out to be FUN.
True Yomi wrote:
Spoiler:
Show
So, in other words, another scheme to de-incentivize playing in teams to make Solo players feel better when they lose?
Also it's not about making people feel "better" when they lose. If you lose it should be because you got out played, not out "team searched". I want my excuses to come down to gameplay not outside factors.
SGO SMACK wrote:
I'm definitely unable to find games in WZA, often even DURING peak hours. But Josh says that playlist is the healthiest it's ever been population-wise. So that suggests that people like me (maybe with high MMRs) have just been excluded from WZA, even searching solo or in To2s. That's pretty lame...

I can understand limiting full teams of high MMR players so they can't stomp over everyone, but to prevent a solo-q player from matching because he's too good...?? In a SOCIAL playlist?? WTF. Just put me in a game and give me players I need to carry...
why not add more functionality to the search preferences?.....beyond focused-balanced-expanded that allows gamers to decline JIPs, search for same team composition, avoid smurffs, etc. then the gamers can decide what they're willing to accept in terms of wait time, uneven matches.

also, back on the 360 you could select a gamer preference type (underground, family, competitive, social) that would kinda push you towards similar gamers when matching up, maybe the search preference needs this added functionality too

another factor that i don't think anyone has brought up is the imbalance that results when one team has large fireteams connected to a partychat and the other team doesn't. very few people play in gamechat mode anymore when they're in fireteams cause you can't talk between matches and there seems to be a glitch that prevents you from getting back into the party if you switch into game mode and don't switch back to party chat before the game ends. the in game menu is really slow and clunky for sending chat invites to team players during the match start up, not that it really matters cause most people don't accept them anyways. i don't know if the matching engine currently considers party chats as it tries to weigh and balance matches, or even if that is possible, it's just a thought
True Yomi wrote:
My solution is to go full on strict mode for the HCS playlist by forcing teams to match teams every time, and small parties vs small parties every time with a STRICT skill search as well. (This means no opening the skill search or party search after a certain period of time, we do not want loop holes to exist). Then create a social HCS playlist with an invisible mmr, this playlist can be the same playlist with the loop hole settings so people can still have the same experience, just without getting a "fake rank". We could just update social skirmish to HCS settings and put the HCS maps into it then remove the other maps people don't like, and boom, you now are satisfying those who want the best possible competitive experience with a strict ranked playlist and you satisfy those who just want a quick "probably" still competitive match by giving them the social playlist choice as well. It's a win-win. Please consider this. Main reason for this is we should want ranked to mean something and actually have value, unfortunately right now it does not with all the loop holes.
This is something that I could really get behind, but only for the HCS playlist. Not the whole create another social playlist. We already have a population issue we don't need to spread it out further. This will never happen though. People want to play they don't want to have to wait to play, and this would cause a lot of waiting.
...that allows gamers to decline JIPs, ...
Providing a manual opt-out of JiP'ing would simply undermine the purpose of the social JiP system. JiP's purpose isn't meant to benefit the searcher, it's meant to benefit those already participating within the match in progress in order to help possibly salvage the potential for a competitive match.

Obviously there are frustrations with being JiP'd into a match, but a restrictive social JiP system should include plenty of checks and balances to limit those frustrations.

The window to be pulled into a match should only remain active until a benchmark is reached that turns it off. There can be several benchmarks that would turn it off such as (1) the score disparity, (2) the match's remaining time, and (3) the amount of people the system has brought into the match. The score disparity in relation to remaining time should work well for most modes, but for other types (Flag, Bomb, etc) having a turn-off point that's also based on limiting the amount of total people the system will allow to join a particular team in relation to remaining time should help prevent the system from getting abused by opponents looking to pad their stats (aka kill farming); though, a wide ranging point-based scoring system for social modes could also help alleviate some of this frustration too. The initial cut-off numbers for potential people to join should coincide somewhat with the initial team size. I don't know what kinds of improvement can be made regarding the responsiveness of the match tracker along with the matchmaker which pulls players in when spots open, but Josh has mentioned before that sometimes when the process begins and by the time a player is finally brought in it's unfortunately moments before a winning score.

I would also add that perhaps the search matchmaker could take into consideration if a player, or their fireteam, have been JiP'd into a couple matches in a row, so that they can receive a temporary reprieve from the frustration of being JiP'd into numerous matches consecutively. Not to mention, it'd be nice to see players who get JiP'd into a social match where the team they join is losing not have the potential loss indicated on their statistical record or affect their match-make rating (MMR) unless the team they joined managed to take the lead before going on to lose.
eLantern wrote:
JIP..
Those are good suggestions, but 343 is never going fix JIP in this game. Anytime it's brought up in these threads or around the forums, it's just ignored like they wanna sweep it under the rug. Frankly, if they aren't gonna fix it so it works properly, then we should get an option to turn it off.
eLantern wrote:
...that allows gamers to decline JIPs, ...
Providing a manual opt-out of JiP'ing would simply undermine the purpose of the social JiP system. JiP's purpose isn't meant to benefit the searcher, it's meant to benefit those already participating within the match in progress in order to help possibility salvage the potential for a competitive match.........it'd be nice to see players who get JiP'd into a social match where the team they join is losing not have the potential loss indicated on their statistical record or affect their match-make rating (MMR)....
Let's be realistic....the majority of JiPs go to losing teams after the rats have started to bail from the sinking ship.

There's no benefit to a losing team when they pick up players who aren't interested in stepping up for the fight. Often the losing team is better off being down a member than with one that's only going to be food for the other side. The whole intent of the JiP has been undermined by the tweak that removed penalization for anyone that quits a match after someone else does it first.

And exempting players from any losses when they are JiP to a losing team is likely just make the JiP problem worse.....parachuted into an uneven match on the losing side, rats are bailing, a win is less likely than a loss, but nothing to lose personally if the team loses?....yeah, that's gonna work out
LUKEPOWA wrote:
eLantern wrote:
JIP..
Those are good suggestions, but 343 is never going fix JIP in this game. Anytime it's brought up in these threads or around the forums, it's just ignored like they wanna sweep it under the rug. Frankly, if they aren't gonna fix it so it works properly, then we should get an option to turn it off.
no they aren't. none of these suggestions (my own included) are good.... it's one thing to spout our good idea fountains on these forums and paint a nice rosy picture of a perfect haloverse and the simple solutions they should have already figured out... it's a completely different beast to develop the logic model, reduce it into an executable, and integrate it within the larger beast without setting off too many unintended consequences.

nope....nobody's looking at these threads for simple fixes to complex problems...cause if they exist, they won't be found here.
They've had since 2011-12 and a few involving dedicated servers to figure out the unintended consequences. If they still can't figure it out by now, then let us turn it off.
eLantern wrote:
...that allows gamers to decline JIPs, ...
Providing a manual opt-out of JiP'ing would simply undermine the purpose of the social JiP system. JiP's purpose isn't meant to benefit the searcher, it's meant to benefit those already participating within the match in progress in order to help possibly salvage the potential for a competitive match.........it'd be nice to see players who get JiP'd into a social match where the team they join is losing not have the potential loss indicated on their statistical record or affect their match-make rating (MMR)....
Let's be realistic....the majority of JiPs go to losing teams after the rats have started to bail from the sinking ship.

There's no benefit to a losing team when they pick up players who aren't interested in stepping up for the fight. Often the losing team is better off being down a member than with one that's only going to be food for the other side. The whole intent of the JiP has been undermined by the tweak that removed penalization for anyone that quits a match after someone else does it first.

And exempting players from any losses when they are JiP to a losing team is likely just make the JiP problem worse.....parachuted into an uneven match on the losing side, rats are bailing, a win is less likely than a loss, but nothing to lose personally if the team loses?....yeah, that's gonna work out
Yes, realistically the majority of JiPs do go to losing teams, but if you're suggesting that there's "no benefit" to a losing team in picking up players when they are short your quite wrong. On the other hand, perhaps that is the case when the joining players are not interested in stepping up for the fight, but that can't be controlled by the players within the match, 343i, nor can it be accounted for by the matchmaker -- that sh*tty and unhelpful mindset would be on the players who are joining and nobody else.

The fact is that the losing team is rarely better off being down a member or more, but I suppose it might be if the added player(s) is/are of such a low skill (relatively speaking) that they're essentially "food" for the other side; however, I don't think that's the argument you're trying to make nor is that how the matchmaker typically operates. As in it doesn't typically grab bronze level players to fill in the missing spots of what may have been gold or platinum level players. I think you're arguing that because the player who's been added via JiP will have no interest in the match simply due to the fact that they were JiP'd into it they'll essentially end up being AFK-like players who then just present themselves as "food" for the other side... or am I misinterpreting your meaning by using the term "food"?

The tweak that removed receiving credit toward a ban penalization for anyone that quits a match after the first person does did not undermine the whole intent of the JiP system -- it's fairly foolish to suggest that it does. And my suggestion that exempting players from taking a loss on their statistical record or effecting their match-make rating (MMR) does make good sense in that it would not penalize players for being dropped onto a losing team mid-game, but players could still receive the penalty of losing if they choose to (1) quit the match after having joined it or (2) if the team they joined managed to take the lead before going on to lose. In either of those cases they at least earned their loss. It therefore behooves players to play the match out under the stipulation that there's little to lose in relation to what could be gained (ie. there's incentive to perform and to finish the match).
DaxSeven09 wrote:
True Yomi wrote:
My solution is to go full on strict mode for the HCS playlist by forcing teams to match teams every time, and small parties vs small parties every time with a STRICT skill search as well. (This means no opening the skill search or party search after a certain period of time, we do not want loop holes to exist). Then create a social HCS playlist with an invisible mmr, this playlist can be the same playlist with the loop hole settings so people can still have the same experience, just without getting a "fake rank". We could just update social skirmish to HCS settings and put the HCS maps into it then remove the other maps people don't like, and boom, you now are satisfying those who want the best possible competitive experience with a strict ranked playlist and you satisfy those who just want a quick "probably" still competitive match by giving them the social playlist choice as well. It's a win-win. Please consider this. Main reason for this is we should want ranked to mean something and actually have value, unfortunately right now it does not with all the loop holes.
This is something that I could really get behind, but only for the HCS playlist. Not the whole create another social playlist. We already have a population issue we don't need to spread it out further. This will never happen though. People want to play they don't want to have to wait to play, and this would cause a lot of waiting.
We've actually tried full on strict before, but it's inefficient and shards the player base too much. If you are in a party but a Gold and below player, you will almost never find a match because most of those folks aren't in parties.

If you are solo and above Gold, you wait a lot longer because above Gold most players are in parties.

Matching as a to4 does not give you a free win either, we find plenty of to4 losing to solo players around the same skill level.

What will fix this better is two things I've mentioned already:

  1. The ability of the matchmaker to control the skill gap between teams when parties are involved. We are just barely getting this ability, and it is already making a huge difference in full party matchups. to4 are losing way more often now (as is appropriate). This accounts for about half the problem. With this alone, full party matchmaking gets into the area of "not a blowout", but just difficult to win. Like, 3:1 odds instead of 99:1
  2. The other half is the ability of the skill system to recognize the advantage of being in a party. The new skill system overhaul allows us to know exactly how much advantage a to4 has, and will only let them match players who can still beat them. It can treat, e.g., a Gold player in a to4 as if they are a Platinum player, as appropriate.
With those two combined, there's no more reason to artificially separate out parties from non-parties, and matchmaking gets significantly faster and better than a restrictive approach. We have data on the less good approach and already know it's not great.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 5
  4. 6
  5. ...
  6. 7