You can not determine who is going to win. It’s nearly improbable. Enhancers such as power ups and power weapons throws everything off. Am I skillful if I get camo/OS or Rockets/Snipers 70% of the time on maps and my KPM is high and my DPM is low? If those components weren’t in matches, then we can have an argument. Wins and losses should be the only factor in a game like this. Rarely have I heard people say that the system has paired them with people of their “skill” level.
If adding assists and all that other crap into the model makes it predict the winner less often, then it's less mathematically accurate. And that's exactly what happens. KPM predicts the winner of a match correctly like 69% of the time. KPM+assists predicts the winner correctly less often. Josh and the matchmaking team have the ability to actually test all the factors you think should go into the model and see how they work. And they did test them, and it turns out they don't work. Now, if you want to design a skill system that doesn't use winning as the predominant factor, then maybe you could find a way to incorporate all those other factors you feel are so important to determining skill.
I agree with this statement.
Personally, I think that judging a players skill based on KPM and DPM is not an accurate measure. A lot of flaws into that system resembles the flaws reach had in his first season. If a player hogs power weapons/power ups, does that determine whether he's good or not? Why isn't assist not taken into consideration when it comes to measurement of MMR?
The system looks at your entire play history, so it can calculate a mean value for your skill across time. Negative outliers from this mean would be what the system sees as having a very bad match. Let's say you have once bad match, and just do really poorly. Your MMR might take a big hit behind the scenes, but luckily CSR can't shift as much as MMR, so one bad game won't send you from Diamond to Silver. Assuming you play normally the next match, your MMR will update back to around your normal skill value, meaning any CSR lost from the bad match should be made back quickly. Even a few bad matches in a row wouldn't lead to a permanent dip in rank. It would only be permanent if you kept having "bad" matches, because after a certain point it would be indicative of a loss of skill rather than bad luck.
I've had bad games and games, so of course I know the feeling, but even CSR doesn't forgive or care. It's a machine/system, but even then, how would it know?
I'm not really seeing "boosting" here. People have bad games/days. It happens.
My Onyx teammate underperforming not once, but twice and not getting punished because he's in a to2 with a lower ranked player
I thought boosting was no longer a thingI see Onyx/Diamonds vs Onyx/Diamonds.
Can you clarify what the issue here is?
Bungie, realized that error and made their system strictly wins and losses. This is a TEAM game. A player that averages 6 kills, but 10+ assist a game deserves just as much credit as the player that gets 17 kills and 5 assists with 5-6 deaths. It's an insult to players that are more supportive.
I do not feel the current Halo 5 ranking system is very good or accurate.
All factors that contribute to a win by each individual player should count as positive “points” in the equation.
Contributory points should be: Total Kills, KPM, Assists, DPM, Protector, Bodyguard, Distraction, Winning. Of course the intangibles can’t be quantified unfortunately such as communication, positioning but using all variables would give a much more accurate rank for a skill based system.
Otherwise, the full picture of the positive impact is not truly being captured and therefore simply not mathematically accurate.
Thats like if in basketball, a money ball was thrown in a game every three minutes where every basket is 4
4 points. It throws the balance off. Enough with trying to explain to people the system because what you explain doesn’t equate to what’s happening in matchmaking.
And if wins are the main focus, why do teams for the most part, go up 1 CSR with the exception of maybe one of two players in the fireteam?
Incorrect, the system is extremely accurate at not only predicting who will win each match (despite camo/OS, Rockets/Snipers), it is precise at predicting how many times you will win against a specific skill level.
The model already accounts for variation introduced by variations in individual player performances and any other factors like camo/OS.
You are also wrong about what happens in matchmaking. Players are winning and losing as predicted, and in fact, the number of kills you are getting per game is consistently predicted correctly. So, no, it most definitely does equate to what's happening in matchmaking.
the main focus, but each win has a different worth depending on how good your opponents are relative to you. Accounting for wins means the model that best predicts who wins each match gives the best estimate of each player's skill. The current model is great at that, so we know the MMRs are right.
Players getting less CSR are already close enough to their correct skill (MMR) and should not go higher because they are already winning as expected by their current CSR.
Players getting more CSR have a CSR below their actual recent performances, so will go up more to match if they earn it.
If your CSR is below your MMR, you will play teams above your CSR and, if you win, your CSR goes up quickly because you are beating teams better than your CSR.
If your CSR is above your MMR, you will play teams worse than your CSR, and if you beat them, you won't get much because you are beating teams worse than you. If you lose to them, then of course you go down fast because you are losing to people worse than you.