If you’re talking about one man’s interpretation of cherry picked statistics designed to reinforce his position working for 343 at the time (cough, Menke, cough)…
I think the bias in what you call “rock hard evidence” should be obvious.
Not to mention… this “rock hard evidence” is several years old, references a different game, and a SBMM system that is being implemented differently in Halo Infinite even if they are still calling it the same thing.
It’s 12 metres of reinforced concrete compared to crack pot theories that the game is specifically matching to force one team to win and the other team to lose.
Overall, it’s the premise that’s flawed. The algorithm overcompensates to attempt to get its desired outcome. instead, creating cohorts and pairing up players as close as possible and increasing the scope of cohorts as needed. Instead it attempts to predict performance and weights players where the outcome is competitive despite the players being starkly from different skill levels.
I only recently read about H2 and H3’s matchmaking methodology behind the scenes when compared to Infinite’s system. I agree with what has been said about the strengths and weaknesses of H2 and H3 systems. I remember liking the pacing where social was loose and ranked more strict.
It feels like social in infinite that I’m often matched with those in a higher skill bracket.
Wasn’t there a setting for Halo:Reach that tuned social matchmaking between loose and competitive? Idr the exact wording but I’m thinking I remember it somewhere in a halo game.
It’s hard to have fun when, as a result of laying back, you lose the game. Losing the game isn’t fun. I should t have to carry a game in order to win, but that’s currently what my role is in SBMM.
Honestly, explains even if I wanted to play right now, the servers at 343 are insufficient with my type of internet. (StarLink). Other games don’t have as much of an issue, but now it’s impossible to win because the game still thinks I’m the best player in the lobby. Regardless of if I’m capable of performing that well anymore. I don’t want to lose 20 more games in a row before the game realizes I’m not doing well anymore.
That does sound like it would be the case… the issue there is “competitive”… not everyone wants EVERY game, back to back, to be a competitive sweat inducer, I’d reckon the majority of players are casual, that being amplified with this title being F2P…
Having games where they can go on a power trip allows them to have fun and go nuts, and use things they might not ordinarily have a chance to use, try things that are impractical, while on the other end of the spectrum, if they’re in a game that’s clearly beyond their skill level, they can just mess around and play half-heartedly with no issues, or even try to push themselves and see how the higher tier players work.
Now I’m not saying “throw the bronzies to the wolves”, there should be some limitations and/or systems in place, but the game doesn’t need to try so hard to make every match painfully fair, so much so that relaxing or playing with friends is essentially throwing a match, because that’s what ranked is for.
A competitive environment isn’t necessarily a fun environment, but I guess that’s what the forums are for… hopefully 343 is taking tallies and we’ll see what’s what.
People want a range of skills in the game. They don’t want everyone to be the same. They get upset that is like Ranked and is too sweaty.
And then you have people who want to play with their friends. They happily force even wider ranges of rank into the mix.
And I think you’ll find everyone is fine with that.
The population is literally a bell curve.
Low ranked players are more likely to be on the bottom of the food chain. Mid ranked players will be in the middle. High ranked players will be the cream.
And everyone will have their role. Low ranks to survive. Mid ranks to break even. High ranks to carry.
I don’t really remember back to Reach.
H5 had a setting where you could prioritise ping over looser matching. But I think that was the range around the player. Teams were still evenly matched.
And I think you’ll find that the majority of said casual players don’t find close games “sweat inducing”.
I mean, what is that exactly anyway?
I would rather lose five games in a row by a point then play a game where I’m on the receiving end of steaktacular.
It’s social. The actual final result doesn’t matter. Just as long as you had a chance.
This is just a mindset.
You can do all those things and still have a close game.
In ranked I would never use the Sniper rifle. There are always going to be better players in my team to use it. But in a Social playlist I am more than happy to grab it and have fun. And if it’s 49 all you can bet I’m going to try and snipe for the win.
Why do you have to be on the verge of a Killing Frenzy to loosen up and stop with the intensity or ranked play?
Which is the sticking point isn’t it.
Good players are happy for lower ranked players to do this all the time. That’s just the lot in life that they deserve.
In a random matchmade game an Onyx level player would in this situation in less than 1% of their games. That’s a tough life.
How does playing with friends change the system from being “painfully fair” to “throwing the match”.
I doubt they are taking much notice.
The evidence is pretty clear that SBMM improves player retention and increases the amount of time players stay logged on for.
And part of the problem is that anti-SBMM advocates seem very inconsistent in what they are actually asking for. They don’t want tight because it feels like ranked. They want it looser - but then get upset when they have to carry. They feel that people shouldn’t care about the result in Social - but only if they are winning.
I haven’t seen a proposal that works for everyone. There probably isn’t one. But I would assume that generally anti-SBMM are high diamond or Onyx level players (ie. the ones who are expected to carry). And not all of them of course. So you are looking at what? 1 to 2% of the population.
And I dare say, somewhat cynically, that most of the players we are talking about are “old school”. Often bragging about the good old days of H2 when they could dominate to their heart’s content. And I wager that most of these players aren’t the multitransactional types that 343 (or other developers) are gunning for.
It’s a bad practice to take quotes out of context. Definitely when you respond to the quote as if the surrounding text didn’t exist. Other people can read my original reply, you know that, right?
I’m honestly a bit lost to what people want from the match making system.
Let’s take the theoretical example that I am an Onyx player. CSR 1500 (yeah, I wish).
So what would be the spread of team-mates and opponents that I should expect in a typical Social match. 4v4. The type of scenario I should face in the majority (say, 4/5) of games.
Team 1; Onyx 1500 + ? + ? + ?
Team 2; ? + ? + ? + ?
You can’t misquote on this forum, so…um, not that.
You didn’t misread, it seemed more intentional to disregard the meaning of what I said, actually.
In response to your call for us to (paraphrasing) “just lay back and enjoy the game. Do what you want!”, I said that, as a result of ME laying back and relaxing, the whole team loses. That’s because I AM the one on the team that’s designated to carry. To spell it out, my teamates CANT win unless I try-hard. That’s the case for a majority of my games.
Because of the SBMM, my teammates, who either put zero effort into the game or just suck that bad, are forced into a 50% winrate and for them to ever win a game they suck at and/or refuse to put effort into, will require a player on their team who’s capable of getting 28 kills and 4 deaths to overcompensate. That’s ME more often than it ever should be. If I AM performing that well, my teammates shouldn’t be going negative.
If I refuse to try-hard, I get steaktacular-ed. That’s my point.
I get that you hyperfixated on the words, “losing isn’t fun” but that vastly misrepresents the actual reason I said that in the first place.
I’d LOVE to be the guy in the middle of the leaderboard getting 12 kills and 11 deaths in team slayer with my teamates doing better than me and securing the win, but that never happens. If I don’t perform at my peak, I ALWAYS LOSE.
You can’t sit here and actively argue against my thought process. The end goal in EVERY match of Halo is to win. Why even play the game if you’re not trying to win? The only alternative is to try to lose. It’s exceptionally simple to understand. If I didn’t care about winning, then I’d play a different game that isn’t built upon winning or losing. Even the challenges force winning.
This is why most people played custom games back in the hay day of Halo. Now everyone is gone because most people don’t like being competitive 100% of the time.
Please tell me the difference between ranked and social, right now. It has to be substantial, not just a label stuck on your profile.
This should be rhetorical mainly because you can’t answer this. We can only theorize, but many theorize that there is no difference. By the very nature that all modes contribute to you MMR or whatever. So rank doesn’t even matter in this game.
I play with a completely different mindset. Different intensity. DIfferent strategies. Different weighting on the result.
In one I sweat every move (albeit at not a very high rank). The other I charge head long into battle naked with a small knife for paring fruit.
My MMR is likely quite different in both game modes.
Hence I get closely contested matches in both modes. Just one is sweaty and mentally draining. The other is chill and relaxing. The key is to be 100% consistent in your approach.
The problem, I imagine, is that a small group of people have trouble separating the two.
I find easy matches boring. If my team is dominating (mis-match or 4v3) I zone out and start practicing skill jumps etc. Some people, however, define “fun” as double figure KD against players who don’t deserve it.
So you intentionally play certain modes in this game against the intended way it was developed to? Clearly that’s how it should be. It’s definitely not an issue that players have to go against the developers wishes in order to have fun.
Playing 5 games in a row where it’s literally a point difference is probably a pretty solid definition for “sweat inducing”… a game where you have to play at your usual efficiency at all times lest you risk losing…
Then it doesn’t matter if the criteria for an even team was loosened… you’ll still have a chance, it might be greater or less for each individual game, but you’ll still have a chance, so long as we don’t crank this to an extreme.
No, not really, if someone trying to have fun with the stalker rifle causes them to go 7 and 15, when a normal game they usually break even… it’s not a mental thing… it’s an “Oh, I’m trying something new, and I probably won’t be as good as it because I seldom use it and it could cost my team the match” sort of thing. So now, not only are you gonna spend more time looking at the the respawn screen which probably isn’t fun, you’re probably gonna have someone crying about you being on their team, costing them the game.
It’s more about letting players have a better chance to experience things in general, and the enjoyment and satisfaction that can come from a “good game”, a game in which an individual feels they preformed better than they usually do, rather than just having another “close game” where everyone preformed roughly the same as they always do.
Does MM not match for the highest ranked player in a party? Or have they changed that?
I don’t doubt that…
To a degree, yes, I’m not saying remove it, but if each match is a 50/50 match, where people are preforming about the same as they always do, because it’s so even, it’s hard to see improvement, it’s discouraged to try new (and therefore risky) things, it’s hard to feel special when the game is trying it’s best, to keep everything in line, and that’s not so good for player retention, especially for new crowds that are probably coming in from mostly battle royales, I’d reckon. High highs and low lows sound more engaging than the flat evens, but hey, that’s just my opinion.
Believe it or not, as it currently stands, we have the best (worst?) of both worlds! It’s “Tight” in the sense that it needs to have the MMR numbers for each team be as close as they can, but just loose enough that it doesn’t care who it grabs to accomplish this goal, such as in OP’s case.
This is bad for everyone because when it does work as intended, it has the competition of a ranked game, which is good every now and again, but not for every match, and when it does work, but differently, you have close games, but only if 1 or 2 players on a team insist on carrying, which can be made all the more infuriating if they put in all that effort just to lose. (I’m personally fond of carrying because I solely enjoy slaying, winning be -Yoink!-, but that’s off topic)
It doesn’t exist, we just have to find what “works best” (this being subjective) or is the least sucky for the majority, depending on how you look at it.
Assumptions are dangerous (you’re correct in my case, but still). Regardless of an individuals rank, that doesn’t have bearing on the weight of their arguments, it could very well indicate bias (sometimes arrogance), but it doesn’t make anything less true, especially regarding opinions, such as whether or not prioritizing competition and balance in an otherwise casual mode, is healthy.
I have been called out. I can’t help it, I enjoy seeing the tiny, worhtless digital medals and numbers pop up… that’s my serotonin.
High highs and low lows, burn out in the first 30 seconds, or winner winner, chicken dinner. If that truly is the target audience, having more diverse matches definitely seems like the way to go… but I could easily be overlooking something.
