Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

The ranking system. Champs perspective.

OP Tetrafy

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3
I've been putting a bit of time in. I think the way the system is set up is completly faulty and punishes not only people who search in 1s but those who search in 4s. As we know 4s only ever get 1csr per game generally especially if champions arent on. Because the game priotizes, quick game almost every game turns into one champ three diamonds or three champs and a plat etc etc. So basically even if you win and are playing with onyx or champ youll be lucky to get 1 csr solo and if with a team 1 csr even if you do better than some of the champs. Today for example I was 1620 last few games top of the leaderboard loss by two lose 10 csr. All the games I win even if I smack champs 1 csr because the lolpopulation is low this game punishes you if youre mmr which is based on spm is lower. So bring back good csr games Id rather 30 up and down vs the way the system is now because the game refuses to give all onyx games ever. So going 19 and 6 isn't good enough to get me into champ but I can't search with teams? So I'm forced to play 2's because of a system that doesn't adapt to it's population. I know I've only put in 50 games I should't complain. 25 wins to get 20 csr lose it in two games because of population and lower skilled players in your game Halo 5 in a nutshell. Teams of 4 shouldn't get punished in a team game biggest mistake you've made in Halo. MCC isn't like this nor was Halo 3.
I agree. I believe for the most part, you should be ranked by personal stats on your team. I sucks when you have more kills then everyone on the enemy team and the least amount of deaths from everyone and still get de-ranked because your team lost in a match of slayer.
everyone should be ranked on the individual player. Not the result of the winning team.
and it should rank you differently based on the game type. Like, on objective games, players should be ranked on how many hills they capture and defend, or how many flags they capture or stop from being captured. Or if they protected the flag carrier. Etc. I think it would be more accurate.
xSERVANTx wrote:
I agree. I believe for the most part, you should be ranked by personal stats on your team. I sucks when you have more kills then everyone on the enemy team and the least amount of deaths from everyone and still get de-ranked because your team lost in a match of slayer.
everyone should be ranked on the individual player. Not the result of the winning team.
and it should rank you differently based on the game type. Like, on objective games, players should be ranked on how many hills they capture and defend, or how many flags they capture or stop from being captured. Or if they protected the flag carrier. Etc. I think it would be more accurate.
For sure it needs to go one way or the either. Restricting CSR when your game can't even give you teamates who can function is crazy? So you can't search 4s because its pointless 1 csr 10 min games and searching solo is a nightmare because you got two teammates dropping 6 and 15 every game. So either bring back increased csr and let it be a little more loose, bring back strictly w/l so teams dont get 1 csr. I cant believe they are punishing play as a team in a team oriented game. No other game has ever done this. Or like you said if you get more kills than the whole other team of champs multiple times the system shouldn't be ranking you down 10 because it gave you golds. They have a system that works when a population is healthy. Match onyxs do better than them get to top 100 champ no problem. This you have to roll the dice and hope you get one onyx and you still might lose. They should really have a system that works for the population they have. If nobody is matched full onyx games csr restrictions need to be looser the people in champ are literally there by luck not skill.
This right here. I run solos in Arena Slayer. Two years ago I could run solo and get to Onyx 1600 easy.

Now I consistently go from Diamond 1 to Diamond 6 on a weekly basis because I just simply go down from losing to Champs running 3’s with One Iron and meanwhile I’m the only Diamond 6 on my team and the rest are Plat/Gold.

What the -Yoink- happened to matchmaking in this game? Every -Yoinking!- game is a toss up.

I find myself just not even giving a -Yoink- sometimes because I’m so annoyed with the uneven matchup that I just play like I don’t give a -Yoink-. And what’s stupid is I have to stay in a game that is a given loss because if I quit and move on to the next—I lose even more points.

It’s crazy that H3 Team Slayer on MCC is a more even matchup that -Yoinking!- H5 Arena. What a time to be alive.
This right here. I run solos in Arena Slayer. Two years ago I could run solo and get to Onyx 1600 easy.

Now I consistently go from Diamond 1 to Diamond 6 on a weekly basis because I just simply go down from losing to Champs running 3’s with One Iron and meanwhile I’m the only Diamond 6 on my team and the rest are Plat/Gold.

What the -Yoink- happened to matchmaking in this game? Every -Yoinking!- game is a toss up.

I find myself just not even giving a -Yoink- sometimes because I’m so annoyed with the uneven matchup that I just play like I don’t give a -Yoink-. And what’s stupid is I have to stay in a game that is a given loss because if I quit and move on to the next—I lose even more points.

It’s crazy that H3 Team Slayer on MCC is a more even matchup that -Yoinking!- H5 Arena. What a time to be alive.
If two people quit you can quit no penalty. Make ot a bit less stressful.
This right here. I run solos in Arena Slayer. Two years ago I could run solo and get to Onyx 1600 easy.

Now I consistently go from Diamond 1 to Diamond 6 on a weekly basis because I just simply go down from losing to Champs running 3’s with One Iron and meanwhile I’m the only Diamond 6 on my team and the rest are Plat/Gold.

What the -Yoink- happened to matchmaking in this game? Every -Yoinking!- game is a toss up.

I find myself just not even giving a -Yoink- sometimes because I’m so annoyed with the uneven matchup that I just play like I don’t give a -Yoink-. And what’s stupid is I have to stay in a game that is a given loss because if I quit and move on to the next—I lose even more points.

It’s crazy that H3 Team Slayer on MCC is a more even matchup that -Yoinking!- H5 Arena. What a time to be alive.
Well nerfing teamplay forces you to play with a gold or diamond just so on your losses you dont lose csr. Because onyxs never play on their onyx so you match champs diamonds and plats. Ill give you an example I played with naptimes for like 16 games 1 csr per game eve if I got more kills than him regardless lf who we played Im like 2 csr Way from champ. Lose one game down with another low onyx against 2 chamos down 10 csr. Search with some diamonds or a plat 10 csr on my wins instead of 1. My two loses solo 10 csr loss going 26 and 5.
Tetrafy wrote:
This right here. I run solos in Arena Slayer. Two years ago I could run solo and get to Onyx 1600 easy.

Now I consistently go from Diamond 1 to Diamond 6 on a weekly basis because I just simply go down from losing to Champs running 3’s with One Iron and meanwhile I’m the only Diamond 6 on my team and the rest are Plat/Gold.

What the -Yoink- happened to matchmaking in this game? Every -Yoinking!- game is a toss up.

I find myself just not even giving a -Yoink- sometimes because I’m so annoyed with the uneven matchup that I just play like I don’t give a -Yoink-. And what’s stupid is I have to stay in a game that is a given loss because if I quit and move on to the next—I lose even more points.

It’s crazy that H3 Team Slayer on MCC is a more even matchup that -Yoinking!- H5 Arena. What a time to be alive.
If two people quit you can quit no penalty. Make ot a bit less stressful.
Here's a question...does quitting out after others quit register with the banhammer as well? I'd venture to guess it doesn't which getting banned for quitting out is why i end up sticking in games when others quit.

i've also voiced against the "team balancing" approach in favor of more of a similar KDA based searching. Most people associate 'rank' with 'skill' and the current ranking system isn't as fined tuned as it could be. especially when youre not being matched with people and/or against people of similar skill. granted population size takes this into account slightly as well.
Tetrafy wrote:
This right here. I run solos in Arena Slayer. Two years ago I could run solo and get to Onyx 1600 easy.

Now I consistently go from Diamond 1 to Diamond 6 on a weekly basis because I just simply go down from losing to Champs running 3’s with One Iron and meanwhile I’m the only Diamond 6 on my team and the rest are Plat/Gold.

What the -Yoink- happened to matchmaking in this game? Every -Yoinking!- game is a toss up.

I find myself just not even giving a -Yoink- sometimes because I’m so annoyed with the uneven matchup that I just play like I don’t give a -Yoink-. And what’s stupid is I have to stay in a game that is a given loss because if I quit and move on to the next—I lose even more points.

It’s crazy that H3 Team Slayer on MCC is a more even matchup that -Yoinking!- H5 Arena. What a time to be alive.
If two people quit you can quit no penalty. Make ot a bit less stressful.
Here's a question...does quitting out after others quit register with the banhammer as well? I'd venture to guess it doesn't which getting banned for quitting out is why i end up sticking in games when others quit.

i've also voiced against the "team balancing" approach in favor of more of a similar KDA based searching. Most people associate 'rank' with 'skill' and the current ranking system isn't as fined tuned as it could be. especially when youre not being matched with people and/or against people of similar skill. granted population size takes this into account slightly as well.
Only 1 person needs to quit on your team and you can leave without penalty. This counts for the ban hammer as well as CSR.
xSERVANTx wrote:
I agree. I believe for the most part, you should be ranked by personal stats on your team. I sucks when you have more kills then everyone on the enemy team and the least amount of deaths from everyone and still get de-ranked because your team lost in a match of slayer.
everyone should be ranked on the individual player. Not the result of the winning team.
and it should rank you differently based on the game type.....
Ranking FAQ
Your personal stats are the primary way you get ranked. For example you could lose all 10 placement matches and get placed diamond 3. Wins are needed to actually gain csr but you’ll gain way more than you lose on a loss if it’s always your teammates’ fault.

And to everyone else in this thread, read the FAQ if you haven’t already, there’s a lot of misconceptions in here.
IGRS wrote:
xSERVANTx wrote:
I agree. I believe for the most part, you should be ranked by personal stats on your team. I sucks when you have more kills then everyone on the enemy team and the least amount of deaths from everyone and still get de-ranked because your team lost in a match of slayer.
everyone should be ranked on the individual player. Not the result of the winning team.
and it should rank you differently based on the game type.....
Ranking FAQ
Your personal stats are the primary way you get ranked. For example you could lose all 10 placement matches and get placed diamond 3. Wins are needed to actually gain csr but you’ll gain way more than you lose on a loss if it’s always your teammates’ fault.

And to everyone else in this thread, read the FAQ if you haven’t already, there’s a lot of misconceptions in here.
that was brought up in another thread a while back...the main gripe here is after your initial rank, rank is increased by Wins/Losses. Furthermore placing teams with rank diamond and three silvers against two champs and diamonds. While its attempting to do a 'team balance', it is failing to place balance on KDA which is most closely ranked with skill. furthermore the system will punish players that receive a loss even if their play was excellent or even above their average. placement needs to be more fine tuned to each player and then implemented when choosing teams beyond the first ten games of placement.

if you don't believe me check the leaderboards and see the extreme differences in KDA of the Champions ranks. There's one person currently who barely has over a 1.0xx that is ranked Champion. The system bases your rank after the preliminary placement on Wins/Losses.

Most people want their skill to be reflected in their arena rank which is why 1-50 was so well liked. Not necessarily how many wins/losses you have which is clearly based on teammates play 3/4 (most of the time) as well as your own 1/4.
IGRS wrote:
xSERVANTx wrote:
I agree. I believe for the most part, you should be ranked by personal stats on your team. I sucks when you have more kills then everyone on the enemy team and the least amount of deaths from everyone and still get de-ranked because your team lost in a match of slayer.
everyone should be ranked on the individual player. Not the result of the winning team.
and it should rank you differently based on the game type.....
Ranking FAQ
Your personal stats are the primary way you get ranked. For example you could lose all 10 placement matches and get placed diamond 3. Wins are needed to actually gain csr but you’ll gain way more than you lose on a loss if it’s always your teammates’ fault.

And to everyone else in this thread, read the FAQ if you haven’t already, there’s a lot of misconceptions in here.
that was brought up in another thread a while back...the main gripe here is after your initial rank, rank is increased by Wins/Losses. Furthermore placing teams with rank diamond and three silvers against two champs and diamonds. While its attempting to do a 'team balance', it is failing to place balance on KDA which is most closely ranked with skill. furthermore the system will punish players that receive a loss even if their play was excellent or even above their average. placement needs to be more fine tuned to each player and then implemented when choosing teams beyond the first ten games of placement.

if you don't believe me check the leaderboards and see the extreme differences in KDA of the Champions ranks. There's one person currently who barely has over a 1.0xx that is ranked Champion. The system bases your rank after the preliminary placement on Wins/Losses.

Most people want their skill to be reflected in their arena rank which is why 1-50 was so well liked. Not necessarily how many wins/losses you have which is clearly based on teammates play 3/4 (most of the time) as well as your own 1/4.
That’s incorrect. The system always uses your performance even after placement. The variance in KD and KDA is due to strength of competition vs your teams’ strength. If I play against an average of 1600 MMR in my games and someone else plays an average of 1400, of course their KDA is going to be way higher even if our skill is identical.

This system is the exact same as the 1-50 with a different skin to allow ranks over 50.
IGRS wrote:
IGRS wrote:
xSERVANTx wrote:
I agree. I believe for the most part, you should be ranked by personal stats on your team. I sucks when you have more kills then everyone on the enemy team and the least amount of deaths from everyone and still get de-ranked because your team lost in a match of slayer.
everyone should be ranked on the individual player. Not the result of the winning team.
and it should rank you differently based on the game type.....
Ranking FAQ
Your personal stats are the primary way you get ranked. For example you could lose all 10 placement matches and get placed diamond 3. Wins are needed to actually gain csr but you’ll gain way more than you lose on a loss if it’s always your teammates’ fault.

And to everyone else in this thread, read the FAQ if you haven’t already, there’s a lot of misconceptions in here.
that was brought up in another thread a while back...the main gripe here is after your initial rank, rank is increased by Wins/Losses. Furthermore placing teams with rank diamond and three silvers against two champs and diamonds. While its attempting to do a 'team balance', it is failing to place balance on KDA which is most closely ranked with skill. furthermore the system will punish players that receive a loss even if their play was excellent or even above their average. placement needs to be more fine tuned to each player and then implemented when choosing teams beyond the first ten games of placement.

if you don't believe me check the leaderboards and see the extreme differences in KDA of the Champions ranks. There's one person currently who barely has over a 1.0xx that is ranked Champion. The system bases your rank after the preliminary placement on Wins/Losses.

Most people want their skill to be reflected in their arena rank which is why 1-50 was so well liked. Not necessarily how many wins/losses you have which is clearly based on teammates play 3/4 (most of the time) as well as your own 1/4.
That’s incorrect. The system always uses your performance even after placement. The variance in KD and KDA is due to strength of competition vs your team’s strength.

This system is the exact same as the 1-50 with a different skin to allow ranks over 50.
That was debunked in the other thread (1-50 scaling being the exact same method) as well and anyone that can see, can use their eye balls and see little green arrows or little red arrows after placement matches. It may take those into consideration but it is by no means the basis of consideration. It's literally in the first sentence or two in that 'FAQ' you linked.
IGRS wrote:
IGRS wrote:
xSERVANTx wrote:
I agree. I believe for the most part, you should be ranked by personal stats on your team. I sucks when you have more kills then everyone on the enemy team and the least amount of deaths from everyone and still get de-ranked because your team lost in a match of slayer.
everyone should be ranked on the individual player. Not the result of the winning team.
and it should rank you differently based on the game type.....
Ranking FAQ
Your personal stats are the primary way you get ranked. For example you could lose all 10 placement matches and get placed diamond 3. Wins are needed to actually gain csr but you’ll gain way more than you lose on a loss if it’s always your teammates’ fault.

And to everyone else in this thread, read the FAQ if you haven’t already, there’s a lot of misconceptions in here.
that was brought up in another thread a while back...the main gripe here is after your initial rank, rank is increased by Wins/Losses. Furthermore placing teams with rank diamond and three silvers against two champs and diamonds. While its attempting to do a 'team balance', it is failing to place balance on KDA which is most closely ranked with skill. furthermore the system will punish players that receive a loss even if their play was excellent or even above their average. placement needs to be more fine tuned to each player and then implemented when choosing teams beyond the first ten games of placement.

if you don't believe me check the leaderboards and see the extreme differences in KDA of the Champions ranks. There's one person currently who barely has over a 1.0xx that is ranked Champion. The system bases your rank after the preliminary placement on Wins/Losses.

Most people want their skill to be reflected in their arena rank which is why 1-50 was so well liked. Not necessarily how many wins/losses you have which is clearly based on teammates play 3/4 (most of the time) as well as your own 1/4.
That’s incorrect. The system always uses your performance even after placement. The variance in KD and KDA is due to strength of competition vs your team’s strength.

This system is the exact same as the 1-50 with a different skin to allow ranks over 50.
That was debunked in the other thread (1-50 scaling being the exact same method) as well and anyone that can see, can use their eye balls and see little green arrows or little red arrows after placement matches. It may take those into consideration but it is by no means the basis of consideration. It's literally in the first sentence or two in that 'FAQ' you linked.
What are you talking about? You need to win to go up, but your MMR is what reflects your actual skill, and therefore puts some boundaries on your rank. That’s why you can have a 30% win rate and be a champion.

Furthermore, csr update is delayed by a game meaning that whatever amount you go up or down is actually affected by the previous game.

You are wrong on 1-50 as well:
https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/58b8518e005f432381ab99fbcaf931e0/topics/matchmaking-feedback-update-–-march-27/7d7a1605-3aab-41ff-9950-95a9afbc29bc/posts?page=1#post2

in this thread Menke clearly states this is the exact same system that was in Halo 3.
IGRS wrote:
IGRS wrote:
IGRS wrote:
xSERVANTx wrote:
I agree. I believe for the most part, you should be ranked by personal stats on your team. I sucks when you have more kills then everyone on the enemy team and the least amount of deaths from everyone and still get de-ranked because your team lost in a match of slayer.
everyone should be ranked on the individual player. Not the result of the winning team.
and it should rank you differently based on the game type.....
Ranking FAQ
Your personal stats are the primary way you get ranked. For example you could lose all 10 placement matches and get placed diamond 3. Wins are needed to actually gain csr but you’ll gain way more than you lose on a loss if it’s always your teammates’ fault.

And to everyone else in this thread, read the FAQ if you haven’t already, there’s a lot of misconceptions in here.
that was brought up in another thread a while back...the main gripe here is after your initial rank, rank is increased by Wins/Losses. Furthermore placing teams with rank diamond and three silvers against two champs and diamonds. While its attempting to do a 'team balance', it is failing to place balance on KDA which is most closely ranked with skill. furthermore the system will punish players that receive a loss even if their play was excellent or even above their average. placement needs to be more fine tuned to each player and then implemented when choosing teams beyond the first ten games of placement.

if you don't believe me check the leaderboards and see the extreme differences in KDA of the Champions ranks. There's one person currently who barely has over a 1.0xx that is ranked Champion. The system bases your rank after the preliminary placement on Wins/Losses.

Most people want their skill to be reflected in their arena rank which is why 1-50 was so well liked. Not necessarily how many wins/losses you have which is clearly based on teammates play 3/4 (most of the time) as well as your own 1/4.
That’s incorrect. The system always uses your performance even after placement. The variance in KD and KDA is due to strength of competition vs your team’s strength.

This system is the exact same as the 1-50 with a different skin to allow ranks over 50.
That was debunked in the other thread (1-50 scaling being the exact same method) as well and anyone that can see, can use their eye balls and see little green arrows or little red arrows after placement matches. It may take those into consideration but it is by no means the basis of consideration. It's literally in the first sentence or two in that 'FAQ' you linked.
What are you talking about? You need to win to go up, but your MMR is what reflects your actual skill, and therefore puts some boundaries on your rank. That’s why you can have a 30% win rate and be a champion.Furthermore, csr update is delayed by a game meaning that whatever amount you go up or down is actually affected by the previous game.

You are wrong on 1-50 as well:
https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/58b8518e005f432381ab99fbcaf931e0/topics/matchmaking-feedback-update-–-march-27/7d7a1605-3aab-41ff-9950-95a9afbc29bc/posts?page=1#post2

in this thread Menke clearly states this is the exact same system that was in Halo 3.
there's currently 6 people under 50% win rate while the rest (for the most part are on a 2W-1L ratio) with the lowest win rate on 45% but is coupled with a 1.5 KDA. so what are you talking about some 30% win percentage being rank of champion?

fair enough on the 1-50...apparently false data was given in the other thread.
this is from the FAQ page in the first two paragraphs:

MMR or Matchmaking RatingThe most accurate prediction of a player’s ability to win matches. See TrueSkill2 for an in-depth explanation. MMR tells how well a player is expected to play their next match given their history, party size, the playlist, and a given game mode within the playlist. In the data, it is currently hyper-accurate at predicting who will win each match.
CSR or Competitive Skill RatingThe visible rank players see (e.g. Platinum, Onyx 1522, etc.). A visible indicator that combines how much a player has won with how difficult the wins have been for a given playlist. CSR will follow MMR around if players prove they deserve the expected MMR.

No one likes seeing their "rank" go down when they performed exceeding well and the reason for their loss (no matter how the outcome was predicted by a computer-which is kinda f'd to begin with) because they were matched with garbage teammates. Also with search criteria being set to the user's specific range a gold rank shouldn't be paired anywhere near an onyx/champ....being placed on a team with platnium/diamondx2 and silver versus an onyx and silverx3 shouldn't happen. people want to be matched with others of similar skill (gold with max of silver/platinum, platinum with max of gold/diamond, etc.)....That's my point and most peoples point.
IGRS wrote:
IGRS wrote:
IGRS wrote:
xSERVANTx wrote:
I agree. I believe for the most part, you should be ranked by personal stats on your team. I sucks when you have more kills then everyone on the enemy team and the least amount of deaths from everyone and still get de-ranked because your team lost in a match of slayer.
everyone should be ranked on the individual player. Not the result of the winning team.
and it should rank you differently based on the game type.....
Ranking FAQ
Your personal stats are the primary way you get ranked. For example you could lose all 10 placement matches and get placed diamond 3. Wins are needed to actually gain csr but you’ll gain way more than you lose on a loss if it’s always your teammates’ fault.

And to everyone else in this thread, read the FAQ if you haven’t already, there’s a lot of misconceptions in here.
that was brought up in another thread a while back...the main gripe here is after your initial rank, rank is increased by Wins/Losses. Furthermore placing teams with rank diamond and three silvers against two champs and diamonds. While its attempting to do a 'team balance', it is failing to place balance on KDA which is most closely ranked with skill. furthermore the system will punish players that receive a loss even if their play was excellent or even above their average. placement needs to be more fine tuned to each player and then implemented when choosing teams beyond the first ten games of placement.

if you don't believe me check the leaderboards and see the extreme differences in KDA of the Champions ranks. There's one person currently who barely has over a 1.0xx that is ranked Champion. The system bases your rank after the preliminary placement on Wins/Losses.

Most people want their skill to be reflected in their arena rank which is why 1-50 was so well liked. Not necessarily how many wins/losses you have which is clearly based on teammates play 3/4 (most of the time) as well as your own 1/4.
That’s incorrect. The system always uses your performance even after placement. The variance in KD and KDA is due to strength of competition vs your team’s strength.

This system is the exact same as the 1-50 with a different skin to allow ranks over 50.
That was debunked in the other thread (1-50 scaling being the exact same method) as well and anyone that can see, can use their eye balls and see little green arrows or little red arrows after placement matches. It may take those into consideration but it is by no means the basis of consideration. It's literally in the first sentence or two in that 'FAQ' you linked.
What are you talking about? You need to win to go up, but your MMR is what reflects your actual skill, and therefore puts some boundaries on your rank. That’s why you can have a 30% win rate and be a champion.Furthermore, csr update is delayed by a game meaning that whatever amount you go up or down is actually affected by the previous game.

You are wrong on 1-50 as well:
https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/58b8518e005f432381ab99fbcaf931e0/topics/matchmaking-feedback-update-–-march-27/7d7a1605-3aab-41ff-9950-95a9afbc29bc/posts?page=1#post2

in this thread Menke clearly states this is the exact same system that was in Halo 3.
there's currently 6 people under 50% win rate while the rest (for the most part are on a 2W-1L ratio) with the lowest win rate on 45% but is coupled with a 1.5 KDA. so what are you talking about some 30% win percentage being rank of champion?

fair enough on the 1-50...apparently false data was given in the other thread.
this is from the FAQ page in the first two paragraphs:

MMR or Matchmaking RatingThe most accurate prediction of a player’s ability to win matches. See TrueSkill2 for an in-depth explanation. MMR tells how well a player is expected to play their next match given their history, party size, the playlist, and a given game mode within the playlist. In the data, it is currently hyper-accurate at predicting who will win each match.
CSR or Competitive Skill RatingThe visible rank players see (e.g. Platinum, Onyx 1522, etc.). A visible indicator that combines how much a player has won with how difficult the wins have been for a given playlist. CSR will follow MMR around if players prove they deserve the expected MMR.

No one likes seeing their "rank" go down when they performed exceeding well and the reason for their loss (no matter how the outcome was predicted by a computer-which is kinda f'd to begin with) because they were matched with garbage teammates. Also with search criteria being set to the user's specific range a gold rank shouldn't be paired anywhere near an onyx/champ....being placed on a team with platnium/diamondx2 and silver versus an onyx and silverx3 shouldn't happen. people want to be matched with others of similar skill (gold with max of silver/platinum, platinum with max of gold/diamond, etc.)....That's my point and most peoples point.
I said it can happen, not that it’s common or tons currently have it — I’ve hit it with around 35-40%. I haven’t glanced at all the leader boards but the point was to show that win rate isn’t the most important thing. If your mmr is higher than your csr, you’ll eventually get them to converge unless you somehow lose 95%+ of your games.

The unbalanced teams suck but as has been said numerous times, the small population wrecks matchmaking. Your best bet is to mitigate it by playing at peak times.
Honestly, you should gain and lose a static amount of progress for every win and loss regardless of what tier you're in, or what tier the opponents are.

+1 if you win
-1 if you lose

With tier thresholds balanced around that system. Once you reach the point that your wins and losses are roughly 50/50, you'll be at the appropriate rank for your skill level, so you'll stick there until you improve.

And "seasonal" rank resets should be nowhere near as often as they are now. The only reason they exist now is to mask how the current system fails to apply your improvement effectively to your ranking when the board isn't wiped clean so you can climb again. The current system would "rank lock" you, much like Halo 3 did, which led to a lot of players eventually making new accounts once they were good enough to hit 50 because a new account could get there in a fraction of the time.
IGRS wrote:
IGRS wrote:
IGRS wrote:
xSERVANTx wrote:
I agree. I believe for the most part, you should be ranked by personal stats on your team. I sucks when you have more kills then everyone on the enemy team and the least amount of deaths from everyone and still get de-ranked because your team lost in a match of slayer.
everyone should be ranked on the individual player. Not the result of the winning team.
and it should rank you differently based on the game type.....
Ranking FAQ
Your personal stats are the primary way you get ranked. For example you could lose all 10 placement matches and get placed diamond 3. Wins are needed to actually gain csr but you’ll gain way more than you lose on a loss if it’s always your teammates’ fault.

And to everyone else in this thread, read the FAQ if you haven’t already, there’s a lot of misconceptions in here.
that was brought up in another thread a while back...the main gripe here is after your initial rank, rank is increased by Wins/Losses. Furthermore placing teams with rank diamond and three silvers against two champs and diamonds. While its attempting to do a 'team balance', it is failing to place balance on KDA which is most closely ranked with skill. furthermore the system will punish players that receive a loss even if their play was excellent or even above their average. placement needs to be more fine tuned to each player and then implemented when choosing teams beyond the first ten games of placement.

if you don't believe me check the leaderboards and see the extreme differences in KDA of the Champions ranks. There's one person currently who barely has over a 1.0xx that is ranked Champion. The system bases your rank after the preliminary placement on Wins/Losses.

Most people want their skill to be reflected in their arena rank which is why 1-50 was so well liked. Not necessarily how many wins/losses you have which is clearly based on teammates play 3/4 (most of the time) as well as your own 1/4.
That’s incorrect. The system always uses your performance even after placement. The variance in KD and KDA is due to strength of competition vs your team’s strength.

This system is the exact same as the 1-50 with a different skin to allow ranks over 50.
That was debunked in the other thread (1-50 scaling being the exact same method) as well and anyone that can see, can use their eye balls and see little green arrows or little red arrows after placement matches. It may take those into consideration but it is by no means the basis of consideration. It's literally in the first sentence or two in that 'FAQ' you linked.
What are you talking about? You need to win to go up, but your MMR is what reflects your actual skill, and therefore puts some boundaries on your rank. That’s why you can have a 30% win rate and be a champion.

Furthermore, csr update is delayed by a game meaning that whatever amount you go up or down is actually affected by the previous game.

You are wrong on 1-50 as well:
https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/58b8518e005f432381ab99fbcaf931e0/topics/matchmaking-feedback-update-–-march-27/7d7a1605-3aab-41ff-9950-95a9afbc29bc/posts?page=1#post2

in this thread Menke clearly states this is the exact same system that was in Halo 3.
Except csr gains are limited and also you didnt get penalized searching as a team in Halo 3. Not to mentiom they soft locked diamond. MMR is a joke and based on spm. So if I go 12 and 4 every game the guy who goes 18 and 14 is a better player which makes no sense. Why implement a system that caps csr to 10 when the population is so low that you only get 1 csr games. I also notice if you play with a champ and do just as well youll rank up quicker but if you win even a close lobby with diamond onyx Ive hardly moved. Just put it back to pre 2019 with csr limitations and idc. Like I used to get 30 for a win against champs now, Ill get 1 becaude the game will pruposfully make games that give lpw csr by adding golds and plats. If its a population issue fix the csr games. 30 games 1 csr each its a joke. Most people who are in the top 200 agree.
Tetrafy wrote:
IGRS wrote:
IGRS wrote:
IGRS wrote:
xSERVANTx wrote:
I agree. I believe for the most part, you should be ranked by personal stats on your team. I sucks when you have more kills then everyone on the enemy team and the least amount of deaths from everyone and still get de-ranked because your team lost in a match of slayer.
everyone should be ranked on the individual player. Not the result of the winning team.
and it should rank you differently based on the game type.....
Ranking FAQ
Your personal stats are the primary way you get ranked. For example you could lose all 10 placement matches and get placed diamond 3. Wins are needed to actually gain csr but you’ll gain way more than you lose on a loss if it’s always your teammates’ fault.

And to everyone else in this thread, read the FAQ if you haven’t already, there’s a lot of misconceptions in here.
that was brought up in another thread a while back...the main gripe here is after your initial rank, rank is increased by Wins/Losses. Furthermore placing teams with rank diamond and three silvers against two champs and diamonds. While its attempting to do a 'team balance', it is failing to place balance on KDA which is most closely ranked with skill. furthermore the system will punish players that receive a loss even if their play was excellent or even above their average. placement needs to be more fine tuned to each player and then implemented when choosing teams beyond the first ten games of placement.

if you don't believe me check the leaderboards and see the extreme differences in KDA of the Champions ranks. There's one person currently who barely has over a 1.0xx that is ranked Champion. The system bases your rank after the preliminary placement on Wins/Losses.

Most people want their skill to be reflected in their arena rank which is why 1-50 was so well liked. Not necessarily how many wins/losses you have which is clearly based on teammates play 3/4 (most of the time) as well as your own 1/4.
That’s incorrect. The system always uses your performance even after placement. The variance in KD and KDA is due to strength of competition vs your team’s strength.

This system is the exact same as the 1-50 with a different skin to allow ranks over 50.
That was debunked in the other thread (1-50 scaling being the exact same method) as well and anyone that can see, can use their eye balls and see little green arrows or little red arrows after placement matches. It may take those into consideration but it is by no means the basis of consideration. It's literally in the first sentence or two in that 'FAQ' you linked.
What are you talking about? You need to win to go up, but your MMR is what reflects your actual skill, and therefore puts some boundaries on your rank. That’s why you can have a 30% win rate and be a champion.

Furthermore, csr update is delayed by a game meaning that whatever amount you go up or down is actually affected by the previous game.

You are wrong on 1-50 as well:
https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/58b8518e005f432381ab99fbcaf931e0/topics/matchmaking-feedback-update-–-march-27/7d7a1605-3aab-41ff-9950-95a9afbc29bc/posts?page=1#post2

in this thread Menke clearly states this is the exact same system that was in Halo 3.
Except csr gains are limited and also you didnt get penalized searching as a team in Halo 3. Not to mentiom they soft locked diamond. MMR is a joke and based on spm. So if I go 12 and 4 every game the guy who goes 18 and 14 is a better player which makes no sense. Why implement a system that caps csr to 10 when the population is so low that you only get 1 csr games. I also notice if you play with a champ and do just as well youll rank up quicker but if you win even a close lobby with diamond onyx Ive hardly moved. Just put it back to pre 2019 with csr limitations and idc. Like I used to get 30 for a win against champs now, Ill get 1 becaude the game will pruposfully make games that give lpw csr by adding golds and plats. If its a population issue fix the csr games. 30 games 1 csr each its a joke. Most people who are in the top 200 agree.
The goal of the system is to accurately rank you. The data and plenty of anecdotal evidence shows it’s better at that than ever. Just because some people’s perception and their anecdotal evidence disagree doesn’t make them correct. If you have a better model I’m sure 343 would be all ears.
IGRS wrote:
Tetrafy wrote:
IGRS wrote:
IGRS wrote:
IGRS wrote:
xSERVANTx wrote:
I agree. I believe for the most part, you should be ranked by personal stats on your team. I sucks when you have more kills then everyone on the enemy team and the least amount of deaths from everyone and still get de-ranked because your team lost in a match of slayer.
everyone should be ranked on the individual player. Not the result of the winning team.
and it should rank you differently based on the game type.....
Ranking FAQ
Your personal stats are the primary way you get ranked. For example you could lose all 10 placement matches and get placed diamond 3. Wins are needed to actually gain csr but you’ll gain way more than you lose on a loss if it’s always your teammates’ fault.

And to everyone else in this thread, read the FAQ if you haven’t already, there’s a lot of misconceptions in here.
that was brought up in another thread a while back...the main gripe here is after your initial rank, rank is increased by Wins/Losses. Furthermore placing teams with rank diamond and three silvers against two champs and diamonds. While its attempting to do a 'team balance', it is failing to place balance on KDA which is most closely ranked with skill. furthermore the system will punish players that receive a loss even if their play was excellent or even above their average. placement needs to be more fine tuned to each player and then implemented when choosing teams beyond the first ten games of placement.

if you don't believe me check the leaderboards and see the extreme differences in KDA of the Champions ranks. There's one person currently who barely has over a 1.0xx that is ranked Champion. The system bases your rank after the preliminary placement on Wins/Losses.

Most people want their skill to be reflected in their arena rank which is why 1-50 was so well liked. Not necessarily how many wins/losses you have which is clearly based on teammates play 3/4 (most of the time) as well as your own 1/4.
That’s incorrect. The system always uses your performance even after placement. The variance in KD and KDA is due to strength of competition vs your team’s strength.

This system is the exact same as the 1-50 with a different skin to allow ranks over 50.
That was debunked in the other thread (1-50 scaling being the exact same method) as well and anyone that can see, can use their eye balls and see little green arrows or little red arrows after placement matches. It may take those into consideration but it is by no means the basis of consideration. It's literally in the first sentence or two in that 'FAQ' you linked.
What are you talking about? You need to win to go up, but your MMR is what reflects your actual skill, and therefore puts some boundaries on your rank. That’s why you can have a 30% win rate and be a champion.

Furthermore, csr update is delayed by a game meaning that whatever amount you go up or down is actually affected by the previous game.

You are wrong on 1-50 as well:
https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/58b8518e005f432381ab99fbcaf931e0/topics/matchmaking-feedback-update-–-march-27/7d7a1605-3aab-41ff-9950-95a9afbc29bc/posts?page=1#post2

in this thread Menke clearly states this is the exact same system that was in Halo 3.
Except csr gains are limited and also you didnt get penalized searching as a team in Halo 3. Not to mentiom they soft locked diamond. MMR is a joke and based on spm. So if I go 12 and 4 every game the guy who goes 18 and 14 is a better player which makes no sense. Why implement a system that caps csr to 10 when the population is so low that you only get 1 csr games. I also notice if you play with a champ and do just as well youll rank up quicker but if you win even a close lobby with diamond onyx Ive hardly moved. Just put it back to pre 2019 with csr limitations and idc. Like I used to get 30 for a win against champs now, Ill get 1 becaude the game will pruposfully make games that give lpw csr by adding golds and plats. If its a population issue fix the csr games. 30 games 1 csr each its a joke. Most people who are in the top 200 agree.
The goal of the system is to accurately rank you. The data and plenty of anecdotal evidence shows it’s better at that than ever. Just because some people’s perception and their anecdotal evidence disagree doesn’t make them correct. If you have a better model I’m sure 343 would be all ears.
Is it really accurate though if the game purposfully makes low csr games? In a game full of smurfs and low populations? I mean sure if we could get all onyx games but it never happens? They will throw a plat in every game and winner gets 1 csr and loser loses 10 how is that a fair accurate system? Not to mention why cap csr gains to 10 because now nobody gains csr on the games they should have gotten 30. So no it's not accurate. You shouldn't be penalized for seaeching in a full team. It's a team playlist where you match other teams it shouldn't be part of the formula at all. And even jf you beat a full team one plat instantly puts it to a under 3 csr game. All they have to do it change csr gains in onyx and not be so quick to throw a plat in the mix. So what happens is champs will search with diamonds on purpose to get gains because searching with good players doesnt get you anything but 1csr even though you could be in the top 20 in the world right with them as a team. Their system is flawed and all it does is go with the majority so if you get 13 kills and 4 deaths you rank lower than someone who gets 17 kills and 14 deaths. It's a terrible system that pushes out all outlier players. It should be based on w/l only and mmr should have nothing to do with it since its spm only really. MMR if it is diamond because your 12 and 2 doesnt matter than you also have to win 5 games to 1 against champs and if you lose you lose huge csr gains because mmr is a broken system that doesnt detect good players who are outliers. Nothing against Menke but I've never agreed with him. And I've explained why some earlier updates especially the csr adjustments were a bad idea on a low population game. The problem is when you make a ranking system strict it further makes players not want to play it either. They need to understand they need to balance accuracy with rank movement so people don't get fed up and quit which has happened btw.
Look, if you get 1 CSR per game it means either the odds of winning are heavily in your favor or you didn't do anything worthy of increasing your rank.

I hate to break it to you but the population cannot support making fair games against stacked teams. If you want a break from +1/-10 games then I suggest you solo queue.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3