You keep saying this like people agree with your assessment.
You’re very adamant about the dubious stats related to mmr being accurate, is the ironic thing
1 Like
They are, people hate this game because of it.
That’s literally what I’ve been saying this whole time.
I would expect most people to agree with this assessment.
The match making uses MMRs and weightings to match. And the accuracy of these matches are regularly reviewed and validated.
So it makes sense to use the the average team MMR to assess the match.
It’s the best information we have.
Of course we don’t know exactly what weighting etc were actually applied.
What doesn’t makes sense though is to use a slightly less accurate version of the MMR (your CSR) and just pretend that none of the weightings exist.
1 Like
All the evidence is that TrueSkill2 is one of, if not the, most accurate ranking systems available.
That’s about as ironic as rain on a wedding day.
1 Like
But that’s the main problem isn’t it. A ranking system being applied to unranked modes?
You’re once again the only person who stands by it, if that helps put it in perspective
Others see SBMM as the solution for unranked games.
Doesn’t change the validity of what I’ve said in any way.
The system uses average MMR x weighting to balance the game - so the average team MMRs is the best way to gauge what the system has tried to do.
How does simply averaging values that aren’t even used in matching going to be more accurate?
1 Like
Accurate to what? What are you trying to accurately do?
If it’s match people up into even teams for ranked then you’re failing miserably.
The only thing that seems to be failing miserably is the low population.
But players appear to be ranked correctly.
The matches appear to be evenly spaced on the basis of MMR’s plus weightings.
We would all love more players, less waiting time, tighter ranks in teams, and better server pings. But that doesn’t mean the ranking system isn’t working. Or that the match maker isn’t doing the best it can in the circumstances.
The wider ranks can create an uneven experience and if your team doesn’t gel you can be blown away. Especially in some of the objective games. It’s frustrating. But it’s a random thing that happens to everyone - so it doesn’t have too much of an effect on your final rank.
1 Like
Why do you keep saying it happens to everyone when it doesn’t
Because it pretty much happens the same way. To everyone.
People often complain they are getting the raw deal - and throw up a handful of cherry picked examples from recent games.
But when you look over their actual record you invariably find it all balances out. Good games. Bad games. Good team mates. Bad team mates. Good performances. Bad performances. Good luck. Bad luck.
And it all washes out into their rank.
And I’m yet to see anyone with a game history that suggests they should be ranked differently. At least not by any more than a tier. You can be hovering on the cusp of ranking up and just be a bit unlucky.
Except maybe a small group of players who had a complicated history of pretty much only playing in various combinations of squads. That was weird.
If SBMM is doing it’s job (with a healthy population to work with) they have a win rate of about 50% because they just played with and against a bunch of players with the same short attention spans.
Why?
The obstacle to ranking up is getting better and beating the teams ranked above you.
There may be some mismatches along the way - but the system looks out for players over and under-performing.
I can see how the current match making population could slow your ranking journey down a bit - but it’s not going to stop you from reaching your inevitable ranking end point.
1 Like
The current obstacle is being a team of random solo players against a 4 stack actually, so every single argument you’ve made thus far is moot
Also randoms don’t use mics, and the ones that do don’t speak English.
So we have this “perfect”, “flawless” system that you swear is fair for everyone, with variables that can’t be predicted by the vice-tight MMR matchmaking that make the game unplayably bad.
And its dying. The game is dead. The game is not going to recover thanks to this.
1 Like
Why is it moot?
The 4 stack has a weighting applied to attract harder opponents.
The solo players go in knowing they are at a disadvantage - given that they get random team mates. But they go in knowing that is the risk.
It’s a team game after all.
The risk you take.
Never said it was.
As fair as it can be.
Some of those variables are under your control.
So it’s up to you to deal with what you can.
The one’s you can’t control are likely the same for everyone. So the pain is shared.
Hopefully not.
But if it does it will be in spite of this. Not because of it.
I am happy to work through your game history if you have any that show evidence of this manipulation you are talking about. Or that you are under-ranked for your performance. I am always looking for potential outliers to get a better understanding of the system. When I looked a week or two ago though I didn’t see anything that jumped out and said that your rank was wrong.
1 Like
you have no idea what its like to be in the middle of winning a match against onyx players and then your teammate lags out when you have 43 kills and you just can’t win because its ODDBALL AGAIN
I’m just going to block you at this point, you literally live to troll people and its getting well past too old to put up with
Edit: IF I COULD FIGURE OUT HOW
there we go
1 Like
I do.
Maybe not the Onyx players per se. But against better teams.
I’m just not sure how this isn’t everyone’s problem. How it affects you and your rank but not anyone else’s?
How this relatively unpredictable behaviour is the fault of the ranking or match making system?
I’m sure if we looked hard enough we could find a similar match where you were losing and someone on the other side lags out for you to pinch a win.
Swings and roundabouts.
So I gather you aren’t going to provide me any games to look at?
1 Like
Which gets declined by the system quiete often. Plus the horrible server selection and desync.
A system which outputs two completely different INDIVIDUAL ranks whenever playing with a squad or solo is not a very representive system to evaluate your personal skill. IF you want a system which doesn’t piss off 95% of the players, either show the nothing of it or show them EXACTLY why they have the INDIVIDUAL rank they have. And use things like k/d, accuracy, kills with precision weapons, power up pick ups, objective related stuff.
But hey… the system is great, because it looks nice on paper… who cares if every second day a thread pops up how utterly crappy and frustrating it is to the real players. 
What do mean by “declined”?
Which are certainly issues. But not of the ranking system specifically.
What do you mean by two INDIVIDUAL ranks?
You have your rank. Your squad has it’s rank. And then there is a weighting to account for your team work.
The alternative is to just let the squads go au-naturale.
But that would have a couple of consequences;
-
Your opposition is going to struggle - which is not fun for either side.
-
You will rank up - and then suffer badly if and when you take this rank solo.
Agree 1000%.
We need better communication from 343.
And the tools to self evaluate.
There is no reason we shouldn’t be able to look up our MMR over time. I can see there is a danger in just having a single digit (eg. the mean) - but Josh Menke used to produce lovely and informative graphs of how a player’s MMR evolved over time (eg. 100 games).
And similarly - a plot of KPM vs opponent MMR would go a long way to educating and informing the player base.
Hell, if they gave me back end API access I would happily sit here all day and produce MMR and KPM stats for everybody.
For free.
Or maybe just a signed poster. 
They can’t for rank. They are not useful. And the danger of ranking people up specifically on those metrics is that they can’t compete at the higher level and nothing makes you (or your team mates) more miserable than a long losing streak and ranking back down.
Even more reason why we need 343 to be more open with communication.
But there will always be a vocal part of the community who wants something different. And that’s fine as long as their choices provide a suitable replacement - and not just something that is subservient to their individual needs.
I guess I get frustrated when people get enraged with the CSR system and suddenly want to burn the whole village to the ground. Surely the better discussion is how to work better with the tools we have. Not throwing out the baby with the bath water just because you don’t understand why a team mate lost slightly less CSR than you did on a close loss.
1 Like
I mean what happens regulary to everyone: having a winning streak, ranking up and boom, you get a game where you play as good as before, maybe carry the team but have one dude going -15 in slayer. Back to sqaure one and we have the foundation of this thread: a system that maintains the 50/50 win/lose rate.
No, but they occur and therefor distort the rank. The fact that everyone experience is not really comforting, especially as a non US player.
If I would play with my usual H3 or H5 squad, Onyx would be pretty easy. Not necessarily because of tactics and communication but because I would have a very low amount of losses because of ONE dude getting stomped for whatever reason. So my skills would be the same, but I would be ranked a a whole division differently. So whats my rank then? D2-3 (where I float usually till the point I simple stopped carying about the game) or Onyx 1550-1600?
I highly doubt that. How fast you can get kills isn’t the only way to determine your skill. Especially not in 4v4. Plus: getting 15 kills against higher ranked players and have +2 shouldn’t be more rewarded than getting 8 kills and going +5.
Really? I rather have 10 losses because I get outplayed by better players and receive a rank where I belong than winning game after game, grinding small numbers of CSR, losing one game for whatever reason and start at square one 1. Hell, I would even pay for such a system
Fun fact is: most of the games ARE close, but very often because one player is carrying the team. And looking at theire ranks and stats, I still believe that the game is much more influenced by ping, hit detection and FPS than 343 tells us. I even tend to claim, the aim assist is different in some games. May it because of technical unfluences like desync or on purpose. I can’t explain games where you are literally in god mode yourself or lose every gunfight to a certain player just to see he has a k/d of 1. But thats another topic, though it fits slifghtly in the “the games makes you win/lose matches on purpose” discussion.
To wrap it up:
I don’t care about ranked anymore because the system is frustrating, encouraging and demotivating.
I stoped using a mic, I don’t play seriously on 150 ping servers, I don’t care about the match when desync occurs. I only play ranked because of FF, BR Start and no radar. Would there a hardcore list with these settings and without a CSR but a simple “gain 2 points for a win, 1 point for a loss and 1 extra point for MVP to trade 500 points for something in the store”, hell, I would play with enthusiasm, joy and no need to quitting out of games because of the feeling I’m wasting my time.
And I still think: as long as the system gets praised by 343 (and as a matter of fact players like you) based on pure data and theoretical usage, the system will add to the decline of players. There has to be a design supervisor to evaluate data and feedback from the community. And the feedback is pretty clear, so a good lead would do something about it. But 343 backs the technical staff (their own and the guys responsible for TS2) to a 100%. And the outcome you can see here in this thread… plus the many other onse on the board.
MMR is the worst. There is no way to concede this.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had matches with no difference in MMR but a significant difference in CSR. And the results were mostly due to differences in CSR. It did not achieve any kind of 50% win rate.
CSR in matching should be as close as possible in combination with time. Otherwise, there would be fewer close matches and it would not be satisfying to lose.
2 Likes