Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

[Locked] Matchmaking Feedback Update – October 30

OP ZaedynFel

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
Team Balanced Matchmaking Rule Update

We have been running the updated team balance rule on all the playlists. We have it tuned to prevent matchups where the better team wins more than 70% of the time, though the change primarily affects matching with and against parties.

If you are in a party and not finding a match quickly, it means that the only possibilities the matchmaker found would have resulted in more than a 70% chance that you would win. We feel that this would not be fair to the potentially solo queuing players you would face.

We’re monitoring this carefully.

There have been some questions about how this relates to how often you can match a party. It doesn’t directly prevent solos vs. parties, but it does make them less likely, or makes it so when it does happen, the skill gap between the groups is exponentially smaller than it could be before.

In the past, party vs. solo matches could result in extreme blowouts (e.g. 50-11, etc., in Slayer). We will still see some Party advantages, but they should be closer to 50-35, etc. The chance of winning vs. a party should improve from close to 0% up to 25% on average, with many of those matches being near even.

As mentioned in the past, we have a change in the works that’s still a ways off that will narrow the rest of this gap, making solo vs. party matches be near 50/50.
I mean it would be nice if I could even find matches. Only find games of Warzone (Nothing else) and its mostly 12 man teams...
In the past hour searching with 6, 7, or 8 in BTB and I think we've had 7 or 8 full search timeouts, and 1 game played... I get how the system is supposed to work, but it only works if the population supports it.

Edit, we've actually gotten a few more games now. Population filling out?
Speaking from a purely solo average player I have been pretty happy with the match ups lately. The wait times are a little longer, but they do seem a little tighter on skill. The team match ups, when they have happened, aren't a guaranteed loss. It's appreciated on this end.
I've still experienced a few JIP blowout games against smaller parties, but the majority of games seem to have been against solo teams which has made it more enjoyable. I still haven't run into the dedicated 7-8 person parties that I normally match up against on a daily basis so that's a little different.
Don't know if this is the right place, I was wondering if it is possible to make the standard warthog chain gun NOT have a cool down and act more like previous warthogs? HAMMER DOWN!!! : )
JA50N 0 wrote:
Don't know if this is the right place, I was wondering if it is possible to make the standard warthog chain gun NOT have a cool down and act more like previous warthogs? HAMMER DOWN!!! : )
This is not the right place for that sort of feedback. Try the Halo 5 subforum.
@zeadynfel your team balancing is terrible for wz. I play with a full team and every game we match randoms and theres no challenge because we are coordinated. Make it so teams match teams as originally planned. The mathematics dont work in wz.
You can match 12 randoms with high "mmr" against a team. The randoms will never win because mmr is flawed to begin with, people I know who are gold skill in ranked arena have high MMR. So it's not even a true testament of skill.
You can match 12 randoms with high "mmr" against a team. The randoms will never win because mmr is flawed to begin with, people I know who are gold skill in ranked arena have high MMR. So it's not even a true testament of skill.
1. Next time, please edit your post instead of posting again so as to not spam.

2. How exactly do you know those people have a high MMR?
You can match 12 randoms with high "mmr" against a team. The randoms will never win because mmr is flawed to begin with, people I know who are gold skill in ranked arena have high MMR. So it's not even a true testament of skill.
Link me examples. We are seeing 12-player parties lose all the time.
ZaedynFel wrote:
You can match 12 randoms with high "mmr" against a team. The randoms will never win because mmr is flawed to begin with, people I know who are gold skill in ranked arena have high MMR. So it's not even a true testament of skill.
Link me examples. We are saying 12-player parties lose all the time.
MMR is designed for balanced/fair games right? Where one should win and lose 50% of their games. What is the average win/loss ratio then with 12 man teams vs solo searchers and or smaller parties? I'm sure the numbers are far from fair/balanced. Also people manipulate the mmr/balancing system with smurfs. All in all I think there should just be a 12v12 option or just warlords. That's my two cents if it means anything.
The system tries to match people in games where the chance of winning or losing is 50% (at least it's supposed to). That doesn't mean that after a set amount of games, your win/loss record is going to be 50%. The system can't make people/teams play better or play worse relative to the competition they face. I feel like that little point is being lost with all these percentages being tossed around.
ZaedynFel wrote:
You can match 12 randoms with high "mmr" against a team. The randoms will never win because mmr is flawed to begin with, people I know who are gold skill in ranked arena have high MMR. So it's not even a true testament of skill.
Link me examples. We are saying 12-player parties lose all the time.
MMR is designed for balanced/fair games right? Where one should win and lose 50% of their games. What is the average win/loss ratio then with 12 man teams vs solo searchers and or smaller parties? I'm sure the numbers are far from fair/balanced. Also people manipulate the mmr/balancing system with smurfs. All in all I think there should just be a 12v12 option or just warlords. That's my two cents if it means anything.
If you usually play with a party of 12, you will have a high MMR, and will be matched vs. other high MMRs. For many cases, it just works.

For the cases where it doesn't, we have a prototype that already accounts for that skill differential and predicts correctly. Since it predicts correctly, we know what the gap increase is from having a to12, so if we offset that with skilled players, the prototype shows solo players do indeed go 50/50 vs. to12 on average.
ZaedynFel wrote:
ZaedynFel wrote:
You can match 12 randoms with high "mmr" against a team. The randoms will never win because mmr is flawed to begin with, people I know who are gold skill in ranked arena have high MMR. So it's not even a true testament of skill.
Link me examples. We are saying 12-player parties lose all the time.
MMR is designed for balanced/fair games right? Where one should win and lose 50% of their games. What is the average win/loss ratio then with 12 man teams vs solo searchers and or smaller parties? I'm sure the numbers are far from fair/balanced. Also people manipulate the mmr/balancing system with smurfs. All in all I think there should just be a 12v12 option or just warlords. That's my two cents if it means anything.
If you usually play with a party of 12, you will have a high MMR, and will be matched vs. other high MMRs. For many cases, it just works.

For the cases where it doesn't, we have a prototype that already accounts for that skill differential and predicts correctly. Since it predicts correctly, we know what the gap increase is from having a to12, so if we offset that with skilled players, the prototype shows solo players do indeed go 50/50 vs. to12 on average.
So people get granted high MMR by usually playing with a party of 12? So how do solo searchers gain MMR? Just go look at the track record of 12 man teams vs solo searchers. I know I haven't lost or came close to losing to solo searchers. They should be going 50/50 with me though.
A few weeks ago there was a tweak in btb mm that put us up against a lot of good players and fireteams in btb. I think it isolated the top 3% of btb,but I'm uncertain

That method worked the best from the perspective of someone who plays on a team and likes good games against similar players. I'm not too sure why you guys got away from that. We only waited like 4-5 minutes at the most and got a lot of really good games in. Usually if one of the other teams were on that's who we would math against.

Last night was the first time in btb I saw the unable to match due to not enough players searching screen. And it has me concerned. I have never not been able to find a game in btb in any halo. Ever.

Large Team players have been handed the short straw the past year trying to balance out mm. We were removed from 2 warzone playlists. We moved over to btb so we could continue to play together in large fireteams and Im eally hoping we're not removed from that playlist as well.
LUKEPOWA wrote:
I've still experienced a few JIP blowout games against smaller parties, but the majority of games seem to have been against solo teams which has made it more enjoyable. I still haven't run into the dedicated 7-8 person parties that I normally match up against on a daily basis so that's a little different.
We miss you LUKE. To be honest we kind of miss everyone....our que times have been extreme. It seems worse and longer than when they 1st isolated the top 3% of all BTB like a month and a half ago. Friday Night I think we timed out 4 times. When we successfully qued it was between 5 to 7min. I think when they regulated it to top 3% our average wait was between 2 to 4 min.

Someone suggested to run with less of a fireteam...but those timed out too. We ran with 7 so I would guess it would be extremely difficult to find a solo quer with a 70%+ winning percentage? We ran with 6 and had similar issues and the additional issue with running the 6 test we would face a full 8 squad and get fairly owned because we weren't a full 8 and the rando's couldn't hang or simply weren't on the same page.

To be honest I would rather 343 just make a ranked BTB for a season and let the medals and dust settle to get faster que times.

Serious questions:
So if we have a full 8 people and our avg winning percentage is 84% does that mean the system only wants to match us up with the same or close winning percentage? Is their a hidden MMR rating too? Or if there is a team that is 72% as a team they could be an option since both teams are above 70%?
A few weeks ago there was a tweak in btb mm that put us up against a lot of good players and fireteams in btb. I think it isolated the top 3% of btb,but I'm uncertain

That method worked the best from the perspective of someone who plays on a team and likes good games against similar players. I'm not too sure why you guys got away from that. We only waited like 4-5 minutes at the most and got a lot of really good games in. Usually if one of the other teams were on that's who we would math against.

Last night was the first time in btb I saw the unable to match due to not enough players searching screen. And it has me concerned. I have never not been able to find a game in btb in any halo. Ever.

Large Team players have been handed the short straw the past year trying to balance out mm. We were removed from 2 warzone playlists. We moved over to btb so we could continue to play together in large fireteams and Im eally hoping we're not removed from that playlist as well.
We also had a much better que success rate when it was the top 3% as well vs. the current method. We didn't mind the extreme sweat. It was helping us improve as players and have some very memorable matches. I wanted to wait several days before chiming in on this newest change because I didn't want to cry wolf over an anomaly.
iSpiteful wrote:
I mean it would be nice if I could even find matches. Only find games of Warzone (Nothing else) and its mostly 12 man teams...
Don't worry you're guaranteed 11 competent random solo searchers with certified high "MMR". You have a 50% chance of winning. Matter of fact, 12 player parties lose all the time. Just go look at some elite teams win/loss record, oh wait.. 97% win percentage.
Thanks Dr. Menke. I must admit that the prospect of matching against teams has an impact on my WZ play time, so I am not happy about that, but I understand everything is a balance.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7