Stop new players from being able to play ranked

Games Halo Infinite
1

I think it would be good if there were basic training challenges in place that all players must first achieve before being able to play ranked:

  1. Play 100 games of social MM.
  2. Win 50 games of social MM.
  3. Kill 1,000 enemy players in social MM.
  4. Play 10 hours of social MM.

There are two main reasons I would like these challenges in place, to help newer players find their feet and ability level in matchmaking before entering ranked and to deter smurfs.

New Players
If new players play ranked without playing many games of social, the experience will likely be bad for them. This may result in them not playing ranked more and discovering it can be a great experience for all skill levels to find close and exciting games. These challenges allow them to build some experience of the maps and the way the game is played.

More importantly, it allows them to determine their Trueskill2 hidden performance ranking (MMR). Over the course of all of your games the system works out exactly what kind of player you are and based on a number of factors will assign you a skill level called MMR. Without enough games prior to this the system may place you too high or too low, which means when you play ranked your initial games may be calibrated incorrectly. If you have no social experience the system will usually place you mid table (Gold) which could be unfair to the player and the team. If the player does particularly badly, they may be dissuaded from ranked playlists if they go 1-11 in their first game.

The idea is to improve ranked retention for newer players by ensuring they have relevant experience before entering ranked and they will have better balanced games to start off with. I would also love to see incentives for playing ranked to get more people in there.

EDIT: Ranked seasonal rewards have been confirmed by Inside Infinite, wonderful news!

Smurfs
I don’t know why people smurf, but some highly skilled players like to make new accounts and throw their placement games to get low ranks. They can then easily ruin the games for lower ranked players. Every game with a ranking system has them. Not only does this ruin the placement games for the people they play with, but it also ruins the experience for lower ranked players who should be able to enjoy competitive with balanced teams. They should not be punished for being on the lower end of the skill curve, we all start somewhere.

By making them play a minimum of 10 hours, they can’t just make a new account and dive straight into ranked. They would have to play for at least 10 hours, every single time they want to make a new smurf. By making them play 100 games and win 50, they will want to win at least half their games which means they won’t be negatively affecting their team by losing loads of games. Lastly, they will need to get at least get 10 kills per game if they want to get it done in 100, so they can’t just rubber band AFK to pass the time and games. In other games with an exp level requirement, it’s easy to do this while not helping the team or playing the game. You can leave your console on and get yourself to the required rank, ruining every single game you play as you go.

Questions
What do you think of this idea, do you have any other suggestions we could try instead to better the experience for newer players?

How else could we reduce smurfing?

Would you change any of the challenges, or would you add any?

2

Wouldn’t a ranking system solve this? Like you first start playing at rank 1. As you continue to win games your rank goes up, and vice versa. Somebody who’s played 1000 games could be worse than someone who’s played like 50.

3

> 2533274847704400;2:
> Wouldn’t a ranking system solve this? Like you first start playing at rank 1. As you continue to win games your rank goes up, and vice versa.

That’s actually one of the worst for smurfs to ruin as to get to the higher ranks the better players have to decimate everyone in their way, throw smurfs in there and legitimate level 1s don’t have a chance. It also makes it much harder for players at the top end to find games, because it takes so long to get there so in lower population playlists you get people trapped at level 30+ because it takes ages to find games.

With the newer placement system you will be playing near enough players at your own level from game 1 depending on your hidden MMR. So if my hidden Trueskill2 MMR says I’m a Diamond 5, no matter the playlist I should be in Diamond lobbies from the get go. Meaning from game 1 on any playlist I’m not ruining new player lobbies.

If they add a ranked playlist, we all go in together, some players get games with other inexperienced players, but then you will get loads of new players going up against Halo veterans that can beat them 50-5. They definitely will be put off. Halo 3 had some core playlists that stayed and worked over time, but especially with the added ranked playlists for double EXP the games at the higher end were much harder to find. So it just means that you can’t rotate in as many playlists and you have to limit the options.

4

> 2533274801036271;3:
> > 2533274847704400;2:
> > Wouldn’t a ranking system solve this? Like you first start playing at rank 1. As you continue to win games your rank goes up, and vice versa.
>
> That’s actually one of the worst for smurfs to ruin as to get to the higher ranks the better players have to decimate everyone in their way, throw smurfs in there and legitimate level 1s don’t have a chance. It also makes it much harder for players at the top end to find games, because it takes so long to get there so in lower population playlists you get people trapped at level 30+ because it takes ages to find games.
>
> With the newer placement system you will be playing near enough players at your own level from game 1 depending on your hidden MMR. So if my hidden Trueskill2 MMR says I’m a Diamond 5, no matter the playlist I should be in Diamond lobbies from the get go. Meaning from game 1 on any playlist I’m not running new player lobbies.
>
> If they add a ranked playlist, we all go in together, some players get games with other inexperienced players, but then you will get loads of new players going up against Halo veterans that can beat them 50-5. They definitely will be put off. Halo 3 had some core playlists that stayed and worked over time, but especially with the added ranked playlists for double EXP the games at the higher end were much harder to find. So it just means that you can’t rotate in as many playlists and you have to limit the options.

That is very true.

5

I see well that there is some kind of starting condition to be able to play the ranked games, maybe go up to a certain level, play X games, or something that is not too exaggerated to do. As long as it’s not tedious, or close the doors to such ranked matches. But the important thing will always be to have a good ranking system that brings together players with the same ability.

This has reminded me of that topic where I insist on the need for statistics not to exist outside of qualifying games. That playing social games does not have any kind of count of deaths, games won, etc., since in the end the only thing that matters is the ranked games.

6

I actually somewhat agree, but I think those benchmarks are too high. You’re trying to onboard new players into the experience, and if you factor in search times and the occasional break an average time per match is probably about 10 minutes. 100 games is 1000 minutes, rounded down that’s 15 hours. That’s assuming you win half those games, and it’s quite possible that a new player won’t.

Personally, I think a better system would be just a straight win counter. Once you’ve hit maybe 10 wins that’s enough to unlock Ranked. It won’t deter all the smurfs, but it’ll help, and I think the range of 10-20 matches is enough of a buffer to help new players learn and compete and start building their MMR

7

If it’s anything like MCC I don’t think it matters because of the reset.

8

> 2533274801036271;1:
> I think it would be good if there were basic training challenges in place that all players must first achieve before being able to play ranked:
>
> 1. Play 100 games of social MM.
> 2. Win 50 games of social MM.
> 3. Kill 1,000 enemy players in social MM.
> 4. Play 10 hours of social MM.
>
> There are two main reasons I would like these challenges in place, to help newer players find their feet and ability level in matchmaking before entering ranked and to deter smurfs.
>
> New PlayersIf new players play ranked without playing many games of social, the experience will likely be bad for them. This may result in them not playing ranked more and discovering it can be a great experience for all skill levels to find close and exciting games. These challenges allow them to build some experience of the maps and the way the game is played.
>
> More importantly, it allows them to determine their Trueskill2 hidden performance ranking (MMR). Over the course of all of your games the system works out exactly what kind of player you are and based on a number of factors will assign you a skill level called MMR. Without enough games prior to this the system may place you too high or too low, which means when you play ranked your initial games may be calibrated incorrectly. If you have no social experience the system will usually place you mid table (Gold) which could be unfair to the player and the team. If the player does particularly badly, they may be dissuaded from ranked playlists if they go 1-11 in their first game.
>
> The idea is to improve ranked retention for newer players by ensuring they have relevant experience before entering ranked and they will have better balanced games to start off with. I would also love to see incentives for playing ranked to get more people in there.
>
> SmurfsI don’t know why people smurf, but some highly skilled players like to make new accounts and throw their placement games to get low ranks. They can then easily ruin the games for lower ranked players. Every game with a ranking system has them. Not only does this ruin the placement games for the people they play with, but it also ruins the experience for lower ranked players who should be able to enjoy competitive with balanced teams. They should not be punished for being on the lower end of the skill curve, we all start somewhere.
>
> By making them play a minimum of 10 hours, they can’t just make a new account and dive straight into ranked. They would have to play for at least 10 hours, every single time they want to make a new smurf. By making them play 100 games and win 50, they will want to win at least half their games which means they won’t be negatively affecting their team by losing loads of games. Lastly, they will need to get at least get 10 kills per game if they want to get it done in 100, so they can’t just rubber band AFK to pass the time and games. In other games with an exp level requirement, it’s easy to do this while not helping the team or playing the game. You can leave your console on and get yourself to the required rank, ruining every single game you play as you go.
>
> QuestionsWhat do you think of this idea, do you have any other suggestions we could try instead to better the experience for newer players?
>
> How else could we reduce smurfing?
>
> Would you change any of the challenges, or would you add any?

i like that idea. Smurfs are a big Problem in Matchmaking and ranked games. I don’t know how to improve your system but i hope that 343i will implement a system like this.

9

> 2533274855648543;6:
> I actually somewhat agree, but I think those benchmarks are too high. You’re trying to onboard new players into the experience, and if you factor in search times and the occasional break an average time per match is probably about 10 minutes. 100 games is 1000 minutes, rounded down that’s 15 hours. That’s assuming you win half those games, and it’s quite possible that a new player won’t.
>
> Personally, I think a better system would be just a straight win counter. Once you’ve hit maybe 10 wins that’s enough to unlock Ranked. It won’t deter all the smurfs, but it’ll help, and I think the range of 10-20 matches is enough of a buffer to help new players learn and compete and start building their MMR

The accuracy of the MMR system has quite a large amount of variance in 10-20 games, it usually finds the sweet spot between around 40-60 and continues to grow in accuracy from there.

For reference, Overwatch requires you to get to level 25 which is about 10-20 hours for most players. It still doesn’t deter smurfs completely but at least it keeps them out of ranked for a large portion of time and making a new one is a hefty time investment.

10

How about the overwatch system. Players must reach XP level 20 before being allowed to play ranked.

11

> 2533274801036271;9:
> The accuracy of the MMR system has quite a large amount of variance in 10-20 games, it usually finds the sweet spot between around 40-60 and continues to grow in accuracy from there. For reference, Overwatch requires you to get to level 25 which is about 10-20 hours for most players. It still doesn’t deter smurfs completely but at least it keeps them out of ranked for a large portion of time and making a new one is a hefty time investment.

The articles for TrueSkill put it at 46 games for a player in 4 v 4 games.

I can’t find a hard number for TrueSkill2… just a lot of references to it being ‘better’.

But in real life - how long does a Smurf last for? They are definitely annoying (on the opposing side). TrueSkill should start to rank them up very quickly. I would have hoped that a couple of games +20 or so and the system starts to look for tougher matches. The system may need a lot of games to nail your exact MMR… but it only needs a few to decide that you are mid-Onyx. The volatile variance of 10-20 games you mentioned… wouldn’t last long with 3 or 4 good wins in row?

Certainly on the rare occasion that I have a couple of good games during the rank resets - it doesn’t take long before I’m matched with much better players and brought back to Earth with a thud.

Or am I missing something with how the system behaves with a genuinely new account.

And I’ve (only just) noticed that good players often quit the game a minute or so before the end despite being in the lead… I assume they are Smurfing a ‘L’ to their account.

12

This is beyond ridiculous there shouldn’t have to be a prerequisite for ranked matches. At the end of the day, every gamer has to start somewhere. There are other ways of dealing with smurf accounts.

13

I like this idea! I think we could tone down the requirements a tad bit though.

14

> 2533274933337405;7:
> If it’s anything like MCC I don’t think it matters because of the reset.

You’re right. Smurfs are always going to find a way to play and mess around. The truly skilled players will always rise to the top.

15

> 2585548714655118;11:
> > 2533274801036271;9:
> >
>
> The articles for TrueSkill put it at 46 games for a player in 4 v 4 games.
>
> I can’t find a hard number for TrueSkill2… just a lot of references to it being ‘better’.

Trueskill2 improves upon the original system in many ways, but it is still the same system working with similar principles. There is an interesting graph in the Trueskill2 study which shows the skill variations for 6 different players across their first 120 games or less. Some players can be accurately placed within 10 or so games but there are major variances in others, all of them however seem to find an appropriate deviation within the 40-60 game range. The lower games used the less accurate the system will consistently be due to the number of factors that can affect the outcome.

> 2585548714655118;11:
> > 2533274801036271;9:
> >
>
> But in real life - how long does a Smurf last for? They are definitely annoying (on the opposing side). TrueSkill should start to rank them up very quickly. I would have hoped that a couple of games +20 or so and the system starts to look for tougher matches. The system may need a lot of games to nail your exact MMR… but it only needs a few to decide that you are mid-Onyx. The volatile variance of 10-20 games you mentioned… wouldn’t last long with 3 or 4 good wins in row?

Typically a smurf will play their placement games and purposely do badly in all of them. If they then do 3/4 good games in a row, the system will still be judging them over the full 14 games and take into account how the previous 10 games have gone. It will still take it a bit of time to work out what’s going on and where this person should actually be. As they’ll be in Bronze/Silver - their skill is capped by the opponent’s they are beating too so the game won’t be able to work out it’s an Onyx player yet because they’re beating on some Bronze players 20-0. It’s true their MMR will increase quicker as they do well in an attempt to get them out of the rank. Then the system can start pairing them with better opposition, but depending on how many games this takes, you could have still ruined a huge number of games for newer or less skilled players.

Smarter smurfs will throw the first few games after placements too as there can be much larger variations in the first few games after placement. They will also throw games in between their domination to confuse the systems calculations and ensure their MMR isn’t inflated too much. Either way, ruining the game for 7 players rated from Gold to Bronze 10 times in a row still seems unacceptable to me before we even factor in how many games after placement it takes the system to determine they are higher skilled.

> 2585548714655118;11:
> > 2533274801036271;9:
> >
>
> Certainly on the rare occasion that I have a couple of good games during the rank resets - it doesn’t take long before I’m matched with much better players and brought back to Earth with a thud.
>
> Or am I missing something with how the system behaves with a genuinely new account.
>
> And I’ve (only just) noticed that good players often quit the game a minute or so before the end despite being in the lead… I assume they are Smurfing a ‘L’ to their account.

The hidden MMR is across all playlists so even after reset you should be starting against players of similar skill to your performance in other lists as your visual rank resets, but your hidden MMR does not. Your MMR is more difficult to wildly influx especially with a lot of games under your belt so mostly the system knows a rough range of where you should be.

Don’t know exactly how this bit works, but let’s say system knows you are roughly in Platinum 2-5 based on your MMR across everything and historical performance. The 10 placement games are almost a formality for a veteran account as it knows roughly where you stand already - it’s just determining whether to put you on the upper or lower end of that range. Without looking at a true example it may just be anecdotal and you could have been the top skill player used for balancing in Game 1, but the bottom skill player used for balancing in Game 2.

That’s exactly why they quit at the end of the game as quitting used to mean nothing in Trueskill1, you would win and your skill would increase if your team won. One of the changes of Trueskill2 is to give an automatic loss to any quitting players. Whether the game was won or lost is an important factor to determining a players skill.

16

> 2533274885506317;12:
> This is beyond ridiculous there shouldn’t have to be a prerequisite for ranked matches. At the end of the day, every gamer has to start somewhere. There are other ways of dealing with smurf accounts.

I’m proposing those gamers start in social ha. What do you think we could do to deal with the smurfs?

The more discussion and options we propose the better we may be able to come up with countermeasures.

17

> 2533274885506317;12:
> There are other ways of dealing with smurf accounts.

Such as?

Not a criticism. Genuinely curious…

18

I think the academy and bots will help new players get a feel for match making. As for smurfs ? It’s not an easily solved problem imo. I think placement matches are ok but smurfs will just play poorly if the want easier games. I don’t think it’s something that can be solved tbh, the same as quitters, nothing will stop it.

19

I commented earlier talking about using the overwatch system but I did not intend it to be used against smurfs. I like the overwatch system because people start ranked with the fundamentals of the game at hand. I think it makes for a smoother experience into ranked where everyone is knowledgeable about the game.

At the same time, building an MMR up to level 20 should have an influence on comp placement matches. People would have to work hard to make smurf accounts. Keep in mind, losing games or playing poorly can make getting to a certain XP level take longer.

Lastly, the actual best way to fight off smurfs is to report them. Infinite should have in game options to report. An automatic ban algorithm should be made of the reported players stats for the match. Things like k/d, power weapon pickups, and accuracy should be noted. It is then compared to the average of the rank the reported player is in. There should be a safe zone of +/- 5% for example. 3 strikes and an auto ban. I don’t know if this is possible but I still think reporting is the best way to go.

20

While I do kind of agree with this. I think they need to focus on keeping skill based matchmaking out of social games first. It kinda made Halo 5 start to become unplayable. Every match felt like ranked and you always had the worse team. We had it bad cuz one of our guys was Onyx and the rest of us was silver/gold. And we mostly got our -Yoinks!- handed to us almost every match. There needs to be options where you can choose your search parameters like in 2-reach.

Also they need to bring back the 1-50 for ranked or some form of that system. The seasonals are okay, but I feel like maybe we should have a seasonal ranked playlist and permanent ranked playlist. Both always being available.