Ranked system is getting old, fast

[Farsight_360]

@Darwi

The MMR is “hidden” because it isn’t really a number. It’s a range of numbers across a normal curve.

What is the MMR number that occasionally appears at the post game TEAM LINEUP page after a match, if not the summation of individual MMR numbers? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying here or I had the wrong understanding of what that number is.

@Darwi

If you go on a winning streak of such games your CSR can drift away from your MMR… only to come crashing down when you lose a game and the system resets your CSR back to your MMR.

This may be well intended, but it isn’t very fun. As we’ve discussed elsewhere, a system that’s trying to keep a player stuck where they are at with a single punishing loss isn’t going to incentivize that player to keep playing if they feel like they had hours of progress wiped out.

@Darwi

But I think it’s exacerbated by higher level players squadding up with lower ranked players - either playing with mates, or as a strategy to manipulate the opposition’s rankings and help them rank up.

We’ve seen this isn’t always the case though. There are instances where the ranks of a player’s teammates are all over the place, and everyone solo queued.

[pervadiso]

The only real reason I questioned it - and this is kind of a lame reason - but because you get the weapon emblem with every colour rank already. Maybe they’ll come up with new ones for each season.

(I don’t care about the weapons emblems, don’t get me wrong.)

[Darwi]

@Farsight_360

What is the MMR number that occasionally appears at the post game TEAM LINEUP page after a match, if not the summation of individual MMR numbers? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying here or I had the wrong understanding of what that number is.

They do sometimes show a number. But they probably shouldn’t.

It’s the mean of the skill curve… and it has no context without knowing the width.

Player A has a MMR 800 to 1200. The mean is 1000 but the actual rank could still be anywhere between 800 and 1200.

Player B is 1000 to 1100. Their mean is 1050.

We would look at the MMR values and assume that Player B is the better player… but the system still isn’t sure.

But then again, I’m probably overthinking it.

@Farsight_360

@Darwi

If you go on a winning streak of such games your CSR can drift away from your MMR…

This may be well intended, but it isn’t very fun. As we’ve discussed elsewhere, a system that’s trying to keep a player stuck where they are at with a single punishing loss isn’t going to incentivize that player to keep playing if they feel like they had hours of progress wiped out.

I’m sure it’s not intended. It’s just how match making works in real life.

In reality your rank is just oscillating around it’s true value. But that doesn’t invalidate the frustration of five steps forward, one leap back.

They need to change the way CSR is shown to sell the journey better. And they need to change up matchmaking so that those players who feel they are ready to step up can prioritise games that let them do it (even if it means waiting).

@Farsight_360

We’ve seen this isn’t always the case though. There are instances where the ranks of a player’s teammates are all over the place, and everyone solo queued.

And sometimes it’s just because that is all match making could find in the time provided. We really need the options to prioritise connection vs balance, like in H5.

[Farsight_360]

@Darwi

Player A has a MMR 800 to 1200. The mean is 1000 but the actual rank could still be anywhere between 800 and 1200.

Player B is 1000 to 1100. Their mean is 1050.

This makes more sense. Is the TEAM LINEUP page MMR number displaying the summation of each players mean then? (1050 + 1000 in your example above)

@Darwi

But that doesn’t invalidate the frustration of five steps forward, one leap back.

They need to change the way CSR is shown to sell the journey better. And they need to change up matchmaking so that those players who feel they are ready to step up can prioritise games that let them do it (even if it means waiting).

THIS, I 100% agree upon.

@Darwi

And sometimes it’s just because that is all match making could find in the time provided. We really need the options to prioritise connection vs balance, like in H5.

I wouldn’t mind waiting longer at all for this. Hopefully they do give us these options!

[Darwi]

@Farsight_360

This makes more sense. Is the TEAM LINEUP page MMR number displaying the summation of each players mean then? (1050 + 1000 in your example above)

I imagine it is the average of all the CSR means.

But after you factor in that the CSR is the mean of a range, that it may be different from the MMR, and the weighting for squads and time away… it’s difficult to take it at face value.

[hogiyogi597]

I would not mind at all if I had to wait a few minutes to get matched in a game if it meant that there were more opportunities to prove to the system that I am worthy of a few gains

[illeston3]

The system is just bad, plain and simple and nobody will convince me otherwise.

I just got done with a match where the enemy team was favored to win 78% and I dropped 13 points.

The system is flawed the way it distributes CSR, and it’s flawed with the people it matches you with. If I’m 1600 CSR I should be queing within a similar range of players. Not getting diamond players who have no clue what they are doing. The que times are not even long, so I guarantee there’s something screwed up because this is happening way too frequently to be working as intended.

[Darwi]

@illeston3

The system is flawed the way it distributes CSR

It’s definitely flawed in the way it presents the CSR journey.

But on the same token, the way people are looking at the CSR is flawed. Losing 13 points is but 0.81% of your rank.

@illeston3

If I’m 1600 CSR I should be queing within a similar range of players. Not getting diamond players who have no clue what they are doing.

It works both ways. As a platinum player I get my fair share of Diamonds who also don’t know what they are doing. Maybe it’s a diamond thing.

But yes, you should definitely have the option of prioritising waiting for a more “balanced” rank distribution.

You are Onxy-3 with a W/L of 60%. That suggests that match-making is giving you too many games vs lower ranked teams (and also why you are slowly ranking up and then losing it all with the loss).

I wonder if part of it is having too many players drift to the right hand side of the population skill curve. A CSR of 1800 should be the ceiling… yet we are seeing players 2000+ with high W/L and KD (spoiler, we shouldn’t). The right hand side of the curve is effectively being stretched way too far.

If they regularly reset the MMR’s by normalising everyone back to a range of 0-1800 (ie. Bronze-1 to Onxy-6) - then match-making may have a chance to work more efficiently.

[illeston3]

@Darwi

It’s definitely flawed in the way it presents the CSR journey.

But on the same token, the way people are looking at the CSR is flawed. Losing 13 points is but 0.81% of your rank.

Problem is I lost 13 points when the other team was favored to win by 78%. If I have a high win rate I should be flying through rank until I start to decrease my win rate towards 50% I have never played a Ranked system that is so fundamentally flawed that it literally makes me stop playing for the night when stuff like this happens.

[hogiyogi597]

@Darwi

A CSR of 1800 should be the ceiling…

Why do you say that it should be capped like that? I don’t see any reason why it would be capped besides just making sure that their median rank is around Platinum 1. But if the same percentage of players are in Onyx and the median is still Platinum 1, I don’t see any issue with the ranking being unbounded.

Sure it isn’t my first choice, I’d rather there just be a max rank like 50 or whatever but since this is the system we just have to live with it.

[dymek27_pl]

Sorry guys if I am spamming this topic too much. I don’t want to appear as a whining baby, but I really hope this gets some attention from devs.

Yet another day of positive k/d 7 wins and 5 losses in crossplay. Me DIamond 4, my teammates: Diamond 5, and Onyx. And I am the one that get’s punished the most (the most points deduced from my CSR) at the end of day, while not playing worse then my teammates.

One game in particular bothered the hell out of me:
We played strongholds on recharge, halotracker says we had 46% change of winning. We lost 250:192

I had the best k/d, ratio the best damage dealt/received ration, the least deaths, the most captures, the most time spent in the zones, and was second best in zone secures. My overall stats 18 kills, 10 deaths, 9 assists, 14 captures, 4 defensive kills, 5 zone secures, over 2 minutes zone occupation time., best accurracy…

Our CSR after this:
Onyx -4
Onyx -4
Diamond 5 -14
Me: Damiand 4 -13

How is it, that the game expects more from Diamond 4 and Diamond 5 and deduces more points from them after a loss compared to Onyx players? I know for sure, that playing with my teammates will never allow me to get promoted. The game encourages me to play solo against Diamond 4 players (which I find to be relatively easy), get promoted to Diamond 5/6 in solo and only then go back to playing with my teammates, cause otherwise my CSR get’s lower and lower every day, regardless of my individual performance.

If any 343 developers see this and would like to get more info, I am more than happy to provide it or share my halotracker profile.

[Darwi]

@hogiyogi597

@Darwi

A CSR of 1800 should be the ceiling…

Why do you say that it should be capped like that?

It’s not “capping” as much as defining the x-axis of the normal distribution.

343 have set the definition of a mean of 900 and a left hand limit of 0. The curve should be symmetrical so the right limit should be 1800.

We are assuming the six deviations are each a standard deviation from the mean (that would make sense) and this seems to fit the % size of each group.

And this means 1800 would be the “ceiling”. Not many would get this far, and according to the standard deviations less than 0.15% of people should be above this.

@hogiyogi597

But if the same percentage of players are in Onyx and the median is still Platinum 1, I don’t see any issue with the ranking being unbounded.

My point was that the spread of MMR may be interfering with match-making (if it looks purely at a range of MMR).

The grind that is happening is distorting the curve.

Top players are going on huge winning streaks against lower ranked teams (this is all that the match-making can find on their local server) and grinding their MMR up and up a piece at a time.

From a rank distribution point of view it is a false economy. It’s no longer the good players playing each other to decide who is best - it’s a race to beat the most lower ranked teams.

The only way to fix it is to have a regular (eg. weekly) redistribution of MMR.

It would be easy for 343 to sort through the results retrospectively and use the games between closely ranked teams to create a guassian of skill. They can then reassign this curve 0-1800 or Bronze-Onyx or 1-50.

It doesn’t matter which, the important part is that everyone would be sorted into a meaningful order. The relative MMR between any two players would make sense. They could even allocate Champion status again (eg. to the top 0.1%).

@hogiyogi597

Sure it isn’t my first choice, I’d rather there just be a max rank like 50 or whatever but since this is the system we just have to live with it.

As I mentioned it doesn’t matter how you label the x-axis; 0 to 1800, Bronze1 to Onxy6, or 1 to 50. As long 99.8% of the population fit into the curve then it will make sense.

It is weird how people were quite happy with just being a 50 (even in Halo 3 where it was equivalent to an MMR of 1300). Nobody spent hours trying to manipulate the system and grind themselves up to 50.1

343 should have continued the tiers into Onxy; 1 to 6, and left it at that. People could have earnt themselves Onxy-6 and be happy. But now, with 0-1800+ they have lost control of the curve.

[Stoatbag]

Just out of interest, I’ve gone back to my last 5 ranked matches and collated the ranks (open or solo/duo) of the enemy teams from my halo tracker.

Out of interest, I am a Plat 5, just went up to plat 6 but was plat 5 for all these matches.

5x Onyx players
3x D6 players
2x D4
5x D3
2x D1
2x P3
1x Unrated

So of the 20 people listed, 3 are ‘lower’, 2 are within 2 ranks above me, and the remaining 15 are over 3 levels above me, with 8 of those more than 7 levels above me.

Whatever the logic is behind this system, it isn’t fun, or fair. I am progressing, and have yet to lose rank in any of my matches, so clearly the game is at least acknowledging that my opponents are difficult, but that is not a fun mode to play in, being the lowest ranked player in nearly every match.

My feedback would be that the system seems to be pulling teams together based on average rank of the team, regardless of whether one person gets massively outranked. Feels wrong. I am platinum, and barely anyone I play against is a platinum, go figure

[benjiFatStax]

I think the answer seems like no from the paper, but is there clarity on whether Trueskill2 considers score (or “extra score” to be technical) for objective modes?

[esnoox]

I know, i know… the system thinks i should stay at my rank, we shouldn’t gribd a rank abd so on…

but…

coming online, playing the first gane, going 19/5/6 while the whole team has about 2-3 kda and gaining 1 CSR ist just demolishing. xD

Yes, the other team was 1-4 tiers lower and yes, i should not rank up much. But KNOWING that every loss costs me a minimum of 10 regardless of the teams, this is just frustrating as hell.

Seriously, how can this system past testing? There probably was never any quality testing but still: even on paper, good designers would recognize the flaws. Playing these days without rewards and so much “punishment” WONT work.

Beside: it feels like H3 all over again. Gain your top rank as quickly as possible or stuck on lower tiers forever.

edit: right now: 2 wins, 1 loss… -8 CSR. It’s just hilarious

[illeston3]

If you put a cap there will be no point in grinding rank for leaderboards etc.

[B4D_S3CTOR]

@esnoox

Gain your top rank as quickly as possible or stuck on lower tiers forever.

Not gonna lie, as soon as i hit Onyx, got my keychain unlocked, ive never played ranked since. Climbing the last two tiers of diamond were an absolute chore. Constantly put against 3-4 Onyx teams with low diamonds on my team, it felt like sheer luck and not a matter of skill actually gaining Onyx (playing as a solo).

I actually got my last three wins via a LFG post on xbox. Its a shame as i love the BR starts but its just not worth playing ranked in infinite.

[esnoox]

I just got 1 or 2 csr for winning against 3 onyx and one bronze. with 1 plat and 2 low diamonds. xD

to be fair, i was placed 4th but still positive. but come one… this is so freaking ridiculous.

[B4D_S3CTOR]

@esnoox

3 onyx and one bronze.

I bet thats a pre made squad too.

Ive seen groups on xbox literally asking for low ranked players to carry to boost in ranked. That one bronze dude would have DRAMATICALLY dropped the squads average CSR and then placed them against a team with a similar CSR.

Ranked is like most other things in infinite… an absolute joke.

[Farsight_360]

@esnoox

I just got 1 or 2 csr for winning against 3 onyx and one bronze. with 1 plat and 2 low diamonds. xD

to be fair, i was placed 4th but still positive. but come one… this is so freaking ridiculous.

I’ve had this kind of match, where the effort that went into the playing against challenging opponents didn’t match the CSR reward at the end. Even if you’re 4th, that +1 CSR doesn’t feel very satisfying for the work that went into it.