After the new update to remove geo-filtering and to fix desync I have suddenly been only gaining 1 or sometimes 0 CSR per win even if I do best on the team. This is happening on Solo/Duo KBM and was wondering if anyone else is having similar issues.
Don’t worry, it’s only half broken. You’ll still lose 15 points for a loss! Won 4 in a row, including one where we only had 3 players from the start of the game, gained 12 points. Lost game 5 48-50 against a higher rank average team and lost 15 points.
Work’s the same as it did before. Gain 1 CSR on a win and lose 50 CSR on a loss. Nothing’s changed other then desync got worse and now everyone is punished and forced to play at 100+ ping.
Replying here because I don’t want to open a new thread on the same topic.
I just played 55 games in Onyx open queue. In total, I won 44 games and lost 11. Most games were +1 CSR, a lot of games were +0, and losses were, at minimum, -10, usually -15. With a win-loss ratio of 44-11, I gained a grand total of +8 CSR. Out of these 11 losses, the majority were either 3v4s (fireteam member disconnect) or vs blatant cheaters. This is a massive issue. Hopefully this is addressed in upcoming patch. It’s incredibly demotivating to have played so much, with good performance, and an 80% win rate to gain +8 CSR overall.
- 30W-7L: https://i.imgur.com/YikhkIU.png
- Started at 1672: https://i.imgur.com/KhxYnPW.png
- Ended at 1680: https://i.imgur.com/sBcuoiS.png
(stat page started a new day as I played past midnight)
Side note - It would be great if it would allow fireteam members or even anybody in a ranked game who disconnects to re-join the match. Especially with how sporadic random game crashes are.
Thanks.
It doesn’t help without context.
But the system can’t (and shouldn’t) rank you up if those wins were vs sided rated below you. The tiny CSR gains suggest that these were pretty much games you were expected to win.
Your MMR probably didn’t go up - so now your CSR is higher - and they get brought back together when you eventually lose. Even if that’s in a 3v4 (which I agree, is a really sucky time to do it).
I guess the question is… apart from going on a bit of a winning streak… did you improve as a player? Is 1680 where you deserve to be? It’s a good ranking - congrats. Are you now playing better than a 1680?
You shouldn’t expect to rank up just because you won a few games.
This pattern of oscillating around your actual rank (slowly inching forwards before taking a step back) seems to be the way the system works. I agree it’s a frustrating way of presenting it - and that they would be better off removing the CSR number altogether.
But once you have reached your rank ceiling (and congrats again, 1680 is awesome) it should take weeks, if not months, of effort to improve. It’s probably unlikely you did ove the course of a single day.
1 Like
That’s generally what happens when you stack with a strong team. Can be difficult for the game to get you even matches so mostly you get a close match but one you’re still expected to win. Had a look and a lot of the games were 60%+ in your favour.
Ideally you’d always play 50/50 games or games you’re more likely to lose as they are low risk, high reward. Suppose that’s the trade off when you play as a stack. It is harder for the game to get you appropriate games.
I’ve seen a lot of people run into this issue. The only way you’d probably rank up faster is if you absolutely annihilate the players you’re put up against every game. Otherwise you need to be winning those key games against the better rated players as those games mean much more.
My progress has started to slow down a bunch in the 1650 mark. Based on how I get on Vs variety of opponents I’ve always felt my rank would be about 1650-1700 so it’s funny that I was spot on with my assumption, ranking has been easy when I was lower but it’s much slower now I’m where I belong, even though my opponents have not changed.
@Darwi all you points may be valid. But in the end, it only allows one conclusion: CSR as a number is BS and completely useless as how it is praised by 343. The system is one big design flaw hence no explanation, no obvious logic behind it and most of all: no use.
People play rank to gain something when they win. —> right now, CSR is that thing.
People play rank to play against similar opponents—> thats MMR, but noone sees it. So CSR is a washy representation of it as well.
Conclusion: The system can’t deliver what players want.
And 343 is too plain stupid to see or accept that.
I mean, how can you WASTE 6 years and not come up with an answer to the question: how can we provide a motivating, fair, reasonable and challenging ranking system.
That’s pure game design, no expertise in any other field necessary. And that’s the area were you see good companies shine amd well… others fail miserably. Just like 343.
It shows how mediocre or better said bad people they hired. Tats not a money or time question. It’s a question of quality.
I think this is where a lot of people hit the wall.
ELO systems work best with tournament type structures. Where the best players all play off against each other in order. The system gets lots of good data to feed the rankings.
But in Halo people can play streaks of games which produce fairly meaningless ranking data.
2 Likes
I agree whole heartedly.
Putting the number out there was a big mistake. It’s definitely “washy”. Much better just to have the division and tier and leave it at that. In the old days people were satisfied with a “50”. You didn’t see this toxic grind to get to 50.01
Rank is not something you can grind. You earn it by improving. And once you hit your skill ceiling it could take months, if at all.
343 definitely need to explain it better.
They need a better, smoother, CSR.
And they need an XP rank (weighted to wins and medals) for people to grind.
To be fair. They have a fair, reasonable, and challenging ranking system.
It’s just that a lot of people don’t seem to understand the role and function of a ranking system. People are losing their minds that they can’t win five games in a row and collect their Onxy medal.
And part of the blame does have to go to 343. One for not explaining it. And two for not providing an alternative.
2 Likes
I feel like Darwi and I explain it constantly aha. People don’t seem to like what that explanation is, but that doesn’t mean it’s an inherently bad system. I’d love to hear a better alternative. I’m not smart enough to come up with one. Here’s a scenario for you to think about. This is considering larger CSR gains for any wins
Player A is rated 1,500.
Player A plays 50 games against 1,450 rated opponents because that’s all that’s online to play them right now. Player A wins 48 of these games. If we give them a strong CSR gain for these wins let’s say 10 points, then they will gain 480 CSR and lose 20 CSR. Their final rank is now 1,960 despite the fact they have never played someone over 1,500 at this point.
Then player B comes online. Player B is rated 1,950 and has proven this by beating players rated 1,900 over and over again. Holding their own.
Player A begins to search the same time as Player B. They match together because their ranks are the same. Player A cannot kill Player B because Player A is nowhere near as good as Player B and has never proven that in matchmaking. They lose and lose 10 CSR. They search again. Hello Player B is back. They get pummelled again. And again. And again. And again.
1 Like
In the last 6 to 12 months I have put a lot of effort into being a better Halo player.
I want to be able to play with my sons without being embarrasing 
I’ve watches a lot of videos. Spent a lot of time on my aim and on map knowledge. Worked hard on my team-work.
And in that time I’ve gone from low Platinum (Halo 5) to mid-Diamond (Infinite) and part of that improvement is probably inflated (the reset comes on Tuesday!).
Actually ranking up is hard. Just like any life skill.
1 Like
Darwi already said it… you need something you can give and take away from the player completely unattached from the MMR. You need one system to control who you are playing against. And then you need one system to reward people with.
You could even show both systems: update the visible MMR once a day. start with 1000, play good and at the end of tge day be at 1010. No specific attachment to certain games, just and overall number based of sone variables.
Put it in a service record with all the statistics, see your kda climb, see your MMR climb and vice versa.
But don’t attache it to ONE match where you all if a sudden punish people because the system has to catch up.
For this you need a number people can grind, with no influence on your MMR. Military rank system worked just fine, if you are lazy make it a prestige model.
at the end of every match:
- 10 points for beating higher MMR players
- 0 for beating lower mmr players
- 3 points for medals
- -5 for a negative kda
- 2 for playing the objective
- -1 for a suicide
Hell you can go absolutely crazy with it, motivating people for playing well, reward the if they dosoand punish them for a bad game. And noone will complain. Because it’s reasonable, in the end rewarding and completely unattached from the MMR which determines which players you are facing.
And if you really wanna go fancy, think of something to reward the top 3%.
1 Like
That’s what the system already does.
Yeah, that’s why people are posting here. That’s why you go -10 when lagging out, playing 3v4 or lose 49:50. Thats why you go +1 when beating 3 onyx as a D5. That’s why go +1 with 2 minutes ball time and only +1 kda. And that’s why you turn of your console and think: „screw, i am done with this.“ How can this be the goal of a game which is supposed to be fun, encouraging and motiviert.
You didn’t get my point: you need a system not corresponding to the skilllevel which is used for MM.
I have absolutely no problem playing against D5 players for the next year. High D, low onyx is apparently my skilllevel. I won’t go up to onyx 1700… never. But I want/need a system where at theend of the session i can say: good games, made some progression due to my actions. This is not possible with the current system due to obvious reasons. And that’s where the whole system fails. It’s pure lack of good game design.
It’s because the rank gains and losses are also largely determined by you game history, not that one game. You won’t lose 15 CSR because of a single bad game you lose, especially if it was against higher rated opponents. It’s because of a lot of bad games.
You have to stop looking at your gains and losses as byproducts on a single game, because they’re not. It would be so random if that was the case.
Like Darwi said, it’s unlikely a player plays for a couple of hours and massively improves their skill level. It’s normal that most players would be at an extremely similar CSR after a day of playing. It’s not like you’ve suddenly gotten better at the game.
Oh, ive several games where this was the case.
and again, you didn’t get my freaking point.
Edit: im not saying Trueskill 2 is flawed (though it kinda is since you can obviously race to inyx pretty easy). Am saying the WHOLE design behind the ranked system and presentation is poor as F.
I’m sorry but I just don’t understand what you mean by this:
you need a system not corresponding to the skilllevel which is used for MM.
Hm, I thought I made it clear… maybe language is a barrier here.
I mean: have a system used for placing people against. Their skilllevel.
And then, have a system which rewards people for playing good. A number they can improve. A number the can grind. Not just simple XP, something that shows how good they perform but is not directly used to find opponents.
Think of it as an improved H3 military ranked system.
How can performance be measured if not as a direct result of the people they play? I understand English, I’m having great difficulty with the concept.
Going 15-0 against someone who has never played Halo is not a good measure of performance. Going 10-15 against a HCS pro is a bloody great performance.
If they aren’t matched on how well they perform, how should they be matched instead?
If you match solely on visible rank then smurfs will be a much bigger problem, boosters would be a much bigger problem and unbalanced games would be far more prevalent. Halo 3 matched on visible rank and it had all of these issues.
I think we’re talking about an XP type system that is weighted to the MMR of your opponents.
The better the team you play / beat the more XP you get.
Personally I would just weight it for wins, medals, and objective scores. But some reward for being a higher skill rank is not necessarily a bad idea.
1 Like