Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

Simple question...

OP KHAOTIC INTENT

If you loose, especially to lower ranked teams or unranked teams the game punishes your rank. I've noticed that during EVERY losing game, people quit. Does quitting yield less of a loss of csr? I know if you quit a lot it should temporarily ban you. But if you had to win 8-9 games just to get through a single level ( plat 1 to plat 2 for example ) one bad loss ( especially to smurfs ) can take all of that away. Honestly, if quitting works, I would much rather take a small loss and make it up in just 1 or 2 games, then struggle for all those wins again just to get back to where I was. Can anyone answer this? Is DNR better?
Quitting out decreases CSR, regardless of circumstance. Just don't stress moving up in the ranks too much cause it doesn't matter all that much anymore.
Shnugly wrote:
Quitting out decreases CSR, regardless of circumstance. Just don't stress moving up in the ranks too much cause it doesn't matter all that much anymore.
But which is LESS CSR decrease? Being beat by smurf accounts, or quiting? When people smurf they cheat everybody. A gold 2 doesnt have perfect 4 shots, magic AR'S, go 27 and 1, know exactly where you will spawn, ect. It makes the game just not fun anymore.
honestly if you really want to move up in rank then you need to get a team together. trying to lone wolf it and praying your team will be good is a coinflip even for the best people
Shnugly wrote:
Quitting out decreases CSR, regardless of circumstance. Just don't stress moving up in the ranks too much cause it doesn't matter all that much anymore.
But which is LESS CSR decrease? Being beat by smurf accounts, or quiting? When people smurf they cheat everybody. A gold 2 doesnt have perfect 4 shots, magic AR'S, go 27 and 1, know exactly where you will spawn, ect. It makes the game just not fun anymore.
Less CSR decrease from what I've seen is staying in game and losing. There's always a higher penalty from quitting out and taking a loss vs just taking a loss.
You lose more CSR by quitting. Just stay in the game and take the loss. You can always come back.
Astro AMA wrote:
You lose more CSR by quitting. Just stay in the game and take the loss. You can always come back.
Agreed. The ranking system, rightly or wrongly, awards grinding. If you grind enough, you come out ahead at the end of the season.
If you are the first to leave, you take a full -30 CSR penalty as well as potentially get a ban. If you leave after someone else has already left (soft forfeit), then you'll only lose however much CSR you would have lost normally in that match (also no ban penalty).

In general, quitting to avoid larger losses in CSR doesn't work; that's not the kind of behavior 343 wants to foster. Sticking it out and finishing the match is the better option because at least you have a chance at winning if you keep playing, but even if you still lose, you'll less than or equal to the amount of CSR you would have lost if you quit.

Also, losing to unranked players doesn't punish you any more than normal. This is because CSR gains/loss are based on the MMR of your opponents vs your own MMR. MMR is a hidden value but it does not reset each season; it is a persistent value that is updated after each match. So if you lose to an unranked champ, it'll be the same as if they were a ranked champ.
Shnugly wrote:
Quitting out decreases CSR, regardless of circumstance. Just don't stress moving up in the ranks too much cause it doesn't matter all that much anymore.
But which is LESS CSR decrease? Being beat by smurf accounts, or quiting? When people smurf they cheat everybody. A gold 2 doesnt have perfect 4 shots, magic AR'S, go 27 and 1, know exactly where you will spawn, ect. It makes the game just not fun anymore.
Actually... its possible.
Chimera30 wrote:
If you are the first to leave, you take a full -30 CSR penalty as well as potentially get a ban. If you leave after someone else has already left (soft forfeit), then you'll only lose however much CSR you would have lost normally in that match (also no ban penalty).

In general, quitting to avoid larger losses in CSR doesn't work; that's not the kind of behavior 343 wants to foster. Sticking it out and finishing the match is the better option because at least you have a chance at winning if you keep playing, but even if you still lose, you'll less than or equal to the amount of CSR you would have lost if you quit.

Also, losing to unranked players doesn't punish you any more than normal. This is because CSR gains/loss are based on the MMR of your opponents vs your own MMR. MMR is a hidden value but it does not reset each season; it is a persistent value that is updated after each match. So if you lose to an unranked champ, it'll be the same as if they were a ranked champ.
I think the problem lies in that the 2nd quitter on a team and on has the mindset that they assume they'll lose anyways being out-manned, so if they will lose the same CSR by quitting as taking a loss, they'd rather save time by quitting and just starting another match. It makes sense in their eyes, and in a competitive environment, the hopes of winning out-manned are generally very low. Quitting happens midmatch usually due to getting destroyed, so the snowballing is worse after.....well, in my experience. Most people I play with rarely lag out so quits due to networking problems isn't a frequent factor for me.
Chimera30 wrote:
If you are the first to leave, you take a full -30 CSR penalty as well as potentially get a ban. If you leave after someone else has already left (soft forfeit), then you'll only lose however much CSR you would have lost normally in that match (also no ban penalty).
Without checking back through old MMing Feedback posts I can't quite 100% remember if this is accurate, but my recollection is that it's incorrect.

How sure are you that quitting after someone else has already left (soft forfeit) results in losing an amount of CSR that's equivalent to what you would have lost normally had you of played the match out?

From what I recall, quitting in the ranked environment always results in receiving the max -30 CSR hit, but as long as you weren't the first player to quit you wouldn't earn credit toward a ban penalty. Finishing out a losing match after someone quit often results in a CSR hit that's not going to be the max. The primary reason is because the expectations changed which means the CSR hit won't be much. Those on the side of the quitter are therefore encouraged to continue playing despite the imbalance. To note, the winners also won't receive as much credit for their win based on the match's changed circumstances.

The problem is that when players continue playing after the team balance is thrown out of wack sometimes they risk more damage occurring to their MMR even though the system is trying to properly account for new expectations given the imbalance. The more people that quit on one side the tougher it becomes for anyone to meet their diminishing KPM (Kills-per-Minute) expectations. This particular issue is one that Josh is still contending with as it has become more prevalent with lopsided BTB matches that feature plenty of quitters.
I think the problem lies in that the 2nd quitter on a team and on has the mindset that they assume they'll lose anyways being out-manned, so if they will lose the same CSR by quitting as taking a loss, they'd rather save time by quitting and just starting another match. It makes sense in their eyes, and in a competitive environment, the hopes of winning out-manned are generally very low.
Yes, which is why soft forfeit exists in the first place. I was just saying that sticking in the game at least provides a small chance at victory; quitting provides zero chance at that. But ultimately it's up to the player whether they want to take that chance or just accept the loss and quit.

eLantern wrote:
Without checking back through old MMing Feedback posts I can't quite 100% remember if this is accurate, but my recollection is that it's incorrect.

How sure are you that quitting after someone else has already left (soft forfeit) results in losing an amount of CSR that's equivalent to what you would have lost normally had you of played the match out?
Based on this reply from Josh, it sounds like leaving after someone else has already left will result in a CSR loss equivalent to whatever that loss would have been if you had stayed in the match and been beaten.
Chimera30 wrote:
eLantern wrote:
Without checking back through old MMing Feedback posts I can't quite 100% remember if this is accurate, but my recollection is that it's incorrect.

How sure are you that quitting after someone else has already left (soft forfeit) results in losing an amount of CSR that's equivalent to what you would have lost normally had you of played the match out?
Based on this reply from Josh, it sounds like leaving after someone else has already left will result in a CSR loss equivalent to whatever that loss would have been if you had stayed in the match and been beaten.
Thanks. And I found where Josh announced that particular aspect as being changed, but at the time the usual loss penalty was -15 in a rigid +/- 1 or +/- 15 CSR adjustment. I'm not sure what the "usual" loss penalty would be now that the system can freely range between -30 and -1, but I assume it probably takes whatever the match odds dictate when the player decides to leave. A question that perhaps I should ask of Josh. Hmmm...
Chimera30 wrote:
I think the problem lies in that the 2nd quitter on a team and on has the mindset that they assume they'll lose anyways being out-manned, so if they will lose the same CSR by quitting as taking a loss, they'd rather save time by quitting and just starting another match. It makes sense in their eyes, and in a competitive environment, the hopes of winning out-manned are generally very low.
Yes, which is why soft forfeit exists in the first place. I was just saying that sticking in the game at least provides a small chance at victory; quitting provides zero chance at that. But ultimately it's up to the player whether they want to take that chance or just accept the loss and quit.
The thing is though, if you happen to win in a 3v4 scenario, isn't the win and ultimately the CSR gains rated as such? Or is it prorated based on time as 3v4 so a quitter on the winning team at the end couldn't cause a massive drop for the losing team, and thus a huge gain for the winning team, correct?
Chimera30 wrote:
I think the problem lies in that the 2nd quitter on a team and on has the mindset that they assume they'll lose anyways being out-manned, so if they will lose the same CSR by quitting as taking a loss, they'd rather save time by quitting and just starting another match. It makes sense in their eyes, and in a competitive environment, the hopes of winning out-manned are generally very low.
Yes, which is why soft forfeit exists in the first place. I was just saying that sticking in the game at least provides a small chance at victory; quitting provides zero chance at that. But ultimately it's up to the player whether they want to take that chance or just accept the loss and quit.
The thing is though, if you happen to win in a 3v4 scenario, isn't the win and ultimately the CSR gains rated as such? Or is it prorated based on time as 3v4 so a quitter on the winning team at the end couldn't cause a massive drop for the losing team, and thus a huge gain for the winning team, correct?
I do know that MMR adjustments are pro-rated and in-turn I believe CSR adjustments are too.
Chimera30 wrote:
I think the problem lies in that the 2nd quitter on a team and on has the mindset that they assume they'll lose anyways being out-manned, so if they will lose the same CSR by quitting as taking a loss, they'd rather save time by quitting and just starting another match. It makes sense in their eyes, and in a competitive environment, the hopes of winning out-manned are generally very low.
Yes, which is why soft forfeit exists in the first place. I was just saying that sticking in the game at least provides a small chance at victory; quitting provides zero chance at that. But ultimately it's up to the player whether they want to take that chance or just accept the loss and quit.
The thing is though, if you happen to win in a 3v4 scenario, isn't the win and ultimately the CSR gains rated as such? Or is it prorated based on time as 3v4 so a quitter on the winning team at the end couldn't cause a massive drop for the losing team, and thus a huge gain for the winning team, correct?
It is prorated based on time, at least on the side with the advantage. i.e. if most of the match is 4v4 and at the very end someone leaves, the CSR changes should be very similar to if the whole match was 4v4. But if someone leaves towards the beginning, then the match odds change more drastically, and in that case if the disadvantaged team won, they'd probably get a bigger boost to their MMR and CSR for having won when not expected to. And--by extension--the advantaged team would take a harder CSR/MMR penalty for losing when expected to win.
More info on the prorating can be found here.
KayMrt wrote:
Astro AMA wrote:
You lose more CSR by quitting. Just stay in the game and take the loss. You can always come back.
Agreed. The ranking system, rightly or wrongly, awards grinding. If you grind enough, you come out ahead at the end of the season.
200%.