why is it when you are playing people at your level you gain so little CSR when you win but if you lose, you lose 15+ CSR? It makes ranking not even worth time any more.
Maybe give us a little more context. What playlist are you talking about and what rank are you competing at? Maybe even some game links so we could investigate further.
The better your competition, the more CSR you gain for winning, the less you lose for losing (i.e. +20 for a win, -5 for a loss). If the competition is at your level, the gains and losses are more or less even (i.e. +10 for a win, -10 for a loss). If the competitions is below your level, you get less for a win, but you lose a lot more for a loss (i.e. +5 for a win, -20 for a loss). It all depends on your competition.
> 2533274950162674;2:
> Maybe give us a little more context. What playlist are you talking about and what rank are you competing at? Maybe even some game links so we could investigate further.
I get those links for you when I get home from work. We was playing swat. High onyx low champ.
It takes into consideration the average CSR of both teams as well as the number of players on each team if I’m not mistaken. So maybe the enemies are the same rank as you, but your teammates are a higher rank.
> 2533274950162674;2:
> Maybe give us a little more context. What playlist are you talking about and what rank are you competing at? Maybe even some game links so we could investigate further.
I found the game where I lost the CSR. Could it be because they had a unranked and diamond? We had 3 champs and an unranked.
> 2533274845049326;6:
> > 2533274950162674;2:
> > Maybe give us a little more context. What playlist are you talking about and what rank are you competing at? Maybe even some game links so we could investigate further.
>
> I found the game where I lost the CSR. Could it be because they had a unranked and diamond? We had 3 champs and an unranked.
Since your team was ranked higher that means you’ll gain less/lose more csr
> 2533274843634673;7:
> > 2533274845049326;6:
> > > 2533274950162674;2:
> > > Maybe give us a little more context. What playlist are you talking about and what rank are you competing at? Maybe even some game links so we could investigate further.
> >
> > I found the game where I lost the CSR. Could it be because they had a unranked and diamond? We had 3 champs and an unranked.
>
> Since your team was ranked higher that means you’ll gain less/lose more csr
Even if the other team had a champ in the top 10?
> 2533274845049326;8:
> > 2533274843634673;7:
> > > 2533274845049326;6:
> > > > 2533274950162674;2:
> > > > Maybe give us a little more context. What playlist are you talking about and what rank are you competing at? Maybe even some game links so we could investigate further.
> > >
> > > I found the game where I lost the CSR. Could it be because they had a unranked and diamond? We had 3 champs and an unranked.
> >
> > Since your team was ranked higher that means you’ll gain less/lose more csr
>
> Even if the other team had a champ in the top 10?
It averages the csr of both teams. So if their average csr was lower than your average csr, then yes.
I feel stupid now. Thanks for helping me understand.
> 2533274843634673;5:
> It takes into consideration the average CSR of both teams as well as the number of players on each team if I’m not mistaken. So maybe the enemies are the same rank as you, but your teammates are a higher rank.
which really sucks when people have low ranked smurfs on their fireteams and they match lower ranked players. If you lose to the low ranked smurf you lose a ton of CSR but if you win you get almost nothing.
> 2533274845049326;6:
> > 2533274950162674;2:
> > Maybe give us a little more context. What playlist are you talking about and what rank are you competing at? Maybe even some game links so we could investigate further.
>
> I found the game where I lost the CSR. Could it be because they had a unranked and diamond? We had 3 champs and an unranked.
You just answered your own question.
> 2533274848704527;12:
> > 2533274845049326;6:
> > > 2533274950162674;2:
> > > Maybe give us a little more context. What playlist are you talking about and what rank are you competing at? Maybe even some game links so we could investigate further.
> >
> > I found the game where I lost the CSR. Could it be because they had a unranked and diamond? We had 3 champs and an unranked.
>
> You just answered your own question.
Thanks for the insight and your contributions.
> 2533274845049326;13:
> > 2533274848704527;12:
> > > 2533274845049326;6:
> > > > 2533274950162674;2:
> > > > Maybe give us a little more context. What playlist are you talking about and what rank are you competing at? Maybe even some game links so we could investigate further.
> > >
> > > I found the game where I lost the CSR. Could it be because they had a unranked and diamond? We had 3 champs and an unranked.
> >
> > You just answered your own question.
>
> Thanks for the insight and your contributions.
Haha. Anytime!
I just played an FFA game and no one went up or down except for one person, which was 6th place! WTF… even then 6th only lost 4 points. This CSR system is -Yoink-.
> 2533274805919869;11:
> > 2533274843634673;5:
> > It takes into consideration the average CSR of both teams as well as the number of players on each team if I’m not mistaken. So maybe the enemies are the same rank as you, but your teammates are a higher rank.
>
> which really sucks when people have low ranked smurfs on their fireteams and they match lower ranked players. If you lose to the low ranked smurf you lose a ton of CSR but if you win you get almost nothing.
No, the system specifically has an exception for when a low rank is in their fireteam.
It bases the averages on the others in the fireteam and largely ignores the smurf.
Also, this is all based on invisible MMR ranks, not the visible CSR ranks.
Even if someone has a Diamond CSR, his hidden MMR could be as high as champ.
There’s no real way to know how well balanced the teams were or were expected to be from the visible ranks alone, that’s just a general indication.
> 2533274848704527;15:
> I just played an FFA game and no one went up or down except for one person, which was 6th place! WTF… even then 6th only lost 4 points. This CSR system is -Yoink-.
Yeah, FFA is extremely frustrating now. Gaining next to no CSR when you win and loseing a ton when you lose. And even losing CSR if you place top 3 while I’m still seeing players who finish 4th and 5th gain CSR pretty consistently. I get that it depends on the skill level of the players you beat or beat you, but when you take into consideration that you’ve still got people camping with an AR/SMG/Needler around every corner, it’s not like the highest ranked player in the lobby is guaranteed to win. Even when I am the highest ranked player in a game (going off CSR) it’s still pretty sweaty sometimes, especially when you throw in unranked players who may be leagues above or below you. Maybe if the playlist had some semblance of competitive settings, at least on the HCS maps, that’d be different.
I was all for lessening CSR inflation, but it feels like it’s gone too far in the other direction. I mean, when I stared playing last night, I was a Platinum 4 in FFA. After only finishing outside of the top 3 in 3 out of 15 games, I’m still Plat 4. I think I may have dropped back to Platinum 3 for a game since I was only just inside Platinum 4 when I started and finished 4th in my first game of the night, but now I’m only halfway through Plat 4. That just doesn’t seem fair considering that I feel like I’ve played fairly well since I’ve finished most of my games in the top 3.
In my opinion CSR gains/losses should go something like this:
1st-3rd should never lose CSR.
4th should sometimes gain CSR depending on the skill of the players they were able to beat.
5th-6th should never gain CSR.
I also think there should be a minimum amount of CSR gained for 1st-3rd and “bonus CSR” on top of that if you beat players who the system deems are better than you.
For example, say first place is guaranteed 15 CSR (completely arbitrary number) if they are the highest ranked player in that game, they would only gain that 15 CSR, but if they were the lowest ranked player, they’d earn more than that 15 because the system saw them as the underdog.
Maybe it’s just because I suck, but very rarely does winning a game of FFA come easy to me even when I am the highest ranked player, so only gaining a few CSR points for a win that I still had to fight for is frustrating. And feeling like in some games I’m doing good to hang in there and get top 3, only to lose CSR points is extremely frustrating.
> 2533274889429520;17:
> > 2533274848704527;15:
> > I just played an FFA game and no one went up or down except for one person, which was 6th place! WTF… even then 6th only lost 4 points. This CSR system is -Yoink-.
>
> Yeah, FFA is extremely frustrating now. Gaining next to no CSR when you win and loseing a ton when you lose. And even losing CSR if you place top 3 while I’m still seeing players who finish 4th and 5th gain CSR pretty consistently. I get that it depends on the skill level of the players you beat or beat you, but when you take into consideration that you’ve still got people camping with an AR/SMG/Needler around every corner, it’s not like the highest ranked player in the lobby is guaranteed to win. Even when I am the highest ranked player in a game (going off CSR) it’s still pretty sweaty sometimes, especially when you throw in unranked players who may be leagues above or below you. Maybe if the playlist had some semblance of competitive settings, at least on the HCS maps, that’d be different.
>
> I was all for lessening CSR inflation, but it feels like it’s gone too far in the other direction. I mean, when I stared playing last night, I was a Platinum 4 in FFA. After only finishing outside of the top 3 in 3 out of 15 games, I’m still Plat 4. I think I may have dropped back to Platinum 3 for a game since I was only just inside Platinum 4 when I started and finished 4th in my first game of the night, but now I’m only halfway through Plat 4. That just doesn’t seem fair considering that I feel like I’ve played fairly well since I’ve finished most of my games in the top 3.
>
> In my opinion CSR gains/losses should go something like this:
> 1st-3rd should never lose CSR.
> 4th should sometimes gain CSR depending on the skill of the players they were able to beat.
> 5th-6th should never gain CSR.
> I also think there should be a minimum amount of CSR gained for 1st-3rd and “bonus CSR” on top of that if you beat players who the system deems are better than you.
> For example, say first place is guaranteed 15 CSR (completely arbitrary number) if they are the highest ranked player in that game, they would only gain that 15 CSR, but if they were the lowest ranked player, they’d earn more than that 15 because the system saw them as the underdog.
>
> Maybe it’s just because I suck, but very rarely does winning a game of FFA come easy to me even when I am the highest ranked player, so only gaining a few CSR points for a win that I still had to fight for is frustrating. And feeling like in some games I’m doing good to hang in there and get top 3, only to lose CSR points is extremely frustrating.
Ummm, needler… that’s not really a problem. I also don’t think I have ever seen anyone camping with a needler.
I feel like 343i should have some sort of middle ground and have the CSR system recalibrated somewhere in between the new CSR system and the old.
In terms of CSR, I agree with, you, except for maybe 4th gaining any CSR.
<mark>This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not flame or attack other members or make non-constructive posts.</mark>
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Prefatory remarks: Every time I play slayer, no matter when, how long, my rank, 80% of my games I spend losing because 1 person quit. Then, after 10+ games of grueling loses, I begin quitting, however, I won’t be the first to. The second, third, and fourth quitters should never lose CSR. Moreover, if a 3-member team beats a 4-member team, the CSR award should be double for each member of the winning team.
The halo 5 multiplayer is in a state of decay.
I’ve been playing halo 5 since its release, focusing on multiplayer only since summer 2016, around the same time there was a personal tragedy. Halo 5 multiplayer slayer is, in my opinion, as well as most console gamers’ opinions, the most mechanically sound combat FPS ever. MECHANICALLY - as in, hit-boxes, player speed and motion, damage per hit per location, and aesthetics.
Now, the slayer matchmaking, however, is the most unfair, irascible, and unwilling to change feature of any game. Since I have time to kill, I decided to experiment, you know, science. I adjusted ALL the variables associated with a slayer game. Each round of experiments involved playing through or quitting early and team or solo. I logged in enough time to reach level 150. Most of the information gleaned will seem like complaints. They aren’t. They are gaping holes in the algorithm which I subsequently observed at least 200 times. I won’t share this information as it may hurt the fragile ego of the highly paid exec whose responsibility is to maintain an evolving system.
It is my conclusion that whatever metric is used for assigning members to a team of solos is not serviceable. I have a few working models that I created while not thinking. The principles that govern this selection are not developed by an engaged consumer, but by some autocratic body opposed to change, and like a third world apparatus it refuses to adapt, adopt, evolve.
My biggest problem: MOST players quit because other players quit, but the first player quits because they see how little parity there is. Banning doesn’t work. It never has. The current system selects a team of 2 “good” and 2 “less good” and away we go. This bad. It should be 4 “good” vs 4 that could be “good.” Focused, balanced, or expanded produce the same outcome win/loss. They are silly. Send them back to the son of the exec from whom all of these “ideas” come.
There is more. Much more. I’ll save it for when I switch to PS and post on their forums.
> 2533274848704527;18:
> > 2533274889429520;17:
> > > 2533274848704527;15:
> > > I just played an FFA game and no one went up or down except for one person, which was 6th place! WTF… even then 6th only lost 4 points. This CSR system is -Yoink-.
> >
> > Yeah, FFA is extremely frustrating now. Gaining next to no CSR when you win and loseing a ton when you lose. And even losing CSR if you place top 3 while I’m still seeing players who finish 4th and 5th gain CSR pretty consistently. I get that it depends on the skill level of the players you beat or beat you, but when you take into consideration that you’ve still got people camping with an AR/SMG/Needler around every corner, it’s not like the highest ranked player in the lobby is guaranteed to win. Even when I am the highest ranked player in a game (going off CSR) it’s still pretty sweaty sometimes, especially when you throw in unranked players who may be leagues above or below you. Maybe if the playlist had some semblance of competitive settings, at least on the HCS maps, that’d be different.
> >
> > I was all for lessening CSR inflation, but it feels like it’s gone too far in the other direction. I mean, when I stared playing last night, I was a Platinum 4 in FFA. After only finishing outside of the top 3 in 3 out of 15 games, I’m still Plat 4. I think I may have dropped back to Platinum 3 for a game since I was only just inside Platinum 4 when I started and finished 4th in my first game of the night, but now I’m only halfway through Plat 4. That just doesn’t seem fair considering that I feel like I’ve played fairly well since I’ve finished most of my games in the top 3.
> >
> > In my opinion CSR gains/losses should go something like this:
> > 1st-3rd should never lose CSR.
> > 4th should sometimes gain CSR depending on the skill of the players they were able to beat.
> > 5th-6th should never gain CSR.
> > I also think there should be a minimum amount of CSR gained for 1st-3rd and “bonus CSR” on top of that if you beat players who the system deems are better than you.
> > For example, say first place is guaranteed 15 CSR (completely arbitrary number) if they are the highest ranked player in that game, they would only gain that 15 CSR, but if they were the lowest ranked player, they’d earn more than that 15 because the system saw them as the underdog.
> >
> > Maybe it’s just because I suck, but very rarely does winning a game of FFA come easy to me even when I am the highest ranked player, so only gaining a few CSR points for a win that I still had to fight for is frustrating. And feeling like in some games I’m doing good to hang in there and get top 3, only to lose CSR points is extremely frustrating.
>
> Ummm, needler… that’s not really a problem. I also don’t think I have ever seen anyone camping with a needler.
>
> I feel like 343i should have some sort of middle ground and have the CSR system recalibrated somewhere in between the new CSR system and the old.
>
> In terms of CSR, I agree with, you, except for maybe 4th gaining any CSR.
Lucky, it happen to me all the time although not as often as AR and SMG. I mainly just wish we had competitive settings for FFA, at least on the HCS map variants.
I agree 100%. The old system was definitely messed up and made it far too easy to rank up and honestly made ranks completely pointless. While the new system is definitely better, I think there’s still room for improvement.
And yeah, I’d be totally fine with 4th not gaining CSR at all. Mainly just threw that in there because since matches can sometimes be pretty uneven, it might be nice to reward a player at least a little but if they beat a player much higher than them, even if they finished out of the top 3. And I mean a lot higher, not like a Plat 3 beating a Plat 5, I mean like a Plat 3 beating a low Onyx or Champ (because these matches do sometimes happen when wait times get high due to lower population). But to simplify things further, I’d definitely be good with 1st-3rd always gaining CSR and 4th-6th always losing CSR.