@Fuelled_Oats Hm, no… I barely play social. Maybe 4 or 5 games in the last week.
But maybe that was enough to put my against Plat6 and D1 players…?
And that win may well have pushed your MMR up. This may help to pull your CSR up later. But it’s not necessarily a game by game phenomena.
The KD of 2 won’t help you. If it was a lot of kills against solid opposition it may give your MMR a nudge though (kills per minute). And again, this may help later to pull your CSR up a bit.
For that game you got 0 (or at least less than 0.5) CSR. This suggests that your CSR has already drifted above your MMR and it’s trying not to go higher. But as I said the win and the kpm may be pushing your MMR in the right direction so it should at least minimise the fall in CSR with losing.
The -15 suggests that the loss was either unexpected. Or your CSR is a chunk above your MMR.
I agree it’s a bit of a silly way to do it.
I don’t think the DNF really affects your MMR. The penalty is all in the CSR. It would be counter productive to the MM system to facilitate a smurfing effect for quitters.
The win rate isn’t helpful without context. How many of the wins were against better teams. Were any of the losses against lesser teams.
The K/D isn’t taken into account. But if you posted solid kpm vs players of your rank or above that can influence MMR. Only a weighting… but big kpm vs your rank could help. Or solid kpm vs the ranks “above you”. Menke used to talk about needing to be 1.5 to 1.7kpm vs Onyx if you wanted to be Onxy.
Great to hear. I think we all need a regular reminder of what the game could, and should, be more like.
Keep in mind you only see a small glimpse of their CSR. What is happening to their MMR could be a very different story.
I think you’re thinking too much into what the system is trying to achieve and not enough into what people actually want from ranked playlists.
People want the feeling of climbing through the ranks to reach their potential. They don’t care about dead evenly matched games with their skill levels being exactly the same on paper. People just want to be rewarded for winning their games by climbing through the ranks until they hit their highest rank potential. They DO care about playing people around their skill level, but not about the system tightly matching players with the same skill level on paper. They just want to compete against people who have managed to make it as far into the ranks as they have to determine who can continue ranking up.
Not sure of the specific details of the story but there was a developer on Halo 3 who purposely implemented a dumbed down version of SBMM to sometimes give tightly matched games and other times give loosely skill matched games. This is because he rightly noted that people want gameplay variety and not to be forced against the same level of sweat every game. And that story relates directly with the problems with this ranking system.
If the matchmaking was just based around simply matching people in the same rank division rather than as tightly matching peoples on paper skill level as possible (MMR) people would enjoy playing it a lot more.
If people want high level dead even competitive games they can scrim. This is just about having ranked playlists of various skill levels competing to reach the higher ranks.
I think a few things need to happen to make the ranked playlists more enjoyable:
- Placement cap needs to be way lower. The placement cap should be no higher than Gold as that would allow for more rank progression to take place and require more time commitment + winning more games to reach the higher ranks, eliminating a lot of players who realistically shouldnt be in those ranks.
- More ranked playlists are needed: 6 Player FFA Slayer, 2v2 Team Slayer, 4v4 Team Slayer, 4v4 Arena (Oddball, Strongholds, CtF, KotH), 4v4 Attrition, Monthly Featured Playlist (FFA Snipers, Team Snipers, 1v1 Slayer, SWAT, etc.). Adding more variety and options to ranked will allow people to enjoy it more.
- Matchmaking needs to be purely rank based. Matching anyone 1-2 sub ranks above or below is as varied as the ranks should be.
- CSR rewards for winning and punishments for losing need to be purely based on whether you won the game or not. A closer win could mean less points than a blowout and a big loss could be more punishing than a close loss, but winning the game should be the goal of every player in the game instead of padding a stat (K/D, KPM, whatever it is. It shouldnt matter).
Now maybe on paper these changes don’t make Ranked the most competitive or doesn’t lead to dead even skilled matches. BUT that is sort of the point, the system should be enjoyable first and foremost.
And as for XP account progression, that is very much needed but entirely separate to the ranked progression.
3 Likes
I’m not saying remove it completely. The complete opposite is probably worse, meaning ranking up purely through wins like Siege. That game is borderline impossible solo. At the least in Halo you can carry if you’re good because of sbmm. But the way you have to haul -Yoink!- and crawl through csr is ridiculous. Halo 5 wasn’t this bad at all. If I got bad teammates in all of my placements and got diamond 1, it didn’t really matter. I had no issue getting back to Onyx without a team. I ranked up after two or three wins.
Another suggestion is to just implement the 1-50 system. It worked.
2 Likes
I was referring to the recent matchmaking changes which subsequently impacted ranked outcomes. Many people in the community have been discussing being massively deranked following these changes. only getting 1-2 CSR for wins but losing 15CRS for a loss.
The problem with this is the physical rank we see actually means nothing and carries no weight. The entire matchmaking system is built on TrueSkill2.
Most definitely I have the same issue every event.
The ranking system? It needs to be as quick and as accurate as possible.
I would expect most people want it to be accurate as possible. You want to know where you stand.
That’s probably ok on day 1.
But we’re not a population who is Halo or FPS naïve.
Isn’t it best to just let people’s skill evolve naturally - and just tell them where they are. The speed of the journey is purely up to them.
And what do you next season? If I end this season D3, there is a pretty good chance I’m going to be D3 next season.
Modern systems are well aware of this.
They deliberately introduce a bit of variation to give people a chance to rank up and down. The trigger for this is probably based on form. Start winning more than 50:50 and you will be extended. And probably a bit of personal performance - get solid kpm vs your rank and you will likely be given a chance to flex vs higher ranks.
This is also the same guy that hid TrueSkill behind a long grind. Added in 20 hidden ranks so that everyone could be a 50. And created the infamous rank locking.
Only kidding. I love Max. And I hope his take on Infinite’s battle royale is successful.
You are the rank you are. Why hide it? The system knows your rank and is matching you against it. You can start off as Gold 1 if you like - but you’ll have a pretty good idea of your rank from your opponents (if you are playing a bunch of Onyx players there is a good chance your MMR is actually Onyx).
And I would have thought that your level of commitment is already baked into your performance.
Agree. Variety is good.
It is. And weren’t you arguing earlier for looser matching?
When you see wider ranks in the game it’s either because of squads or low server population.
Wins yes. But the relative ranking of the two teams is important. That’s literally how modern ranking systems work. It’s how they find your rank so quickly.
Hard to quantify.
And I recently had an awesome CTF game where we ended up losing like 3-0 - but each point was fiercely contested and decided by a bee’s -yoink-.
It’s KPM. And it’s only a weighting. And it’s very hard to fudge. The only way you are going to maintain a healthy kpm is by being at that level. To be Onyx you have to be able to go 1v1 against Onyx players and have the same kpm as them.
Other stats, such as K/D, you can artificially inflate.
That’s just the CSR. And yes… I agree that using a smaller scale would be great. It doesn’t have to be 1-50. I think 1-100 (or 117) would work well too. Just not the 1-1800+ we currently have.
If you’re specifically talking about Halo 3. Then, no thanks.
https://twitter.com/HaloSupport/status/1545472604168851459
https://twitter.com/Unyshek/status/1545246698783395840
Cheers fir the info, I just saw Mint Blitz video about it.
See @Darwi … that’s why I can’t rely purely on some data if the own experience is SO off.
Don’t get me wrong, Im usually all down to facts and proven things… But what happened 2 days ago was not normal and especially was not a good execution of a ranking system. And apparently I was right…
4 Likes
I agree.
Competitive games that don’t work well with ranks will go out of business.
It is often said that limiting parties by rank will make it impossible to form parties with friends and family, but I think that those who feel that way should be casual players.
I think that fairness should be emphasized when it comes to ranked matches, and it would be fine if parties could only be formed if rank points are within 300. Then, while balancing the matching time, we should try to match players in the same rank range as much as possible, instead of using MMR.
1 Like
Any ranking system where the best players in the game are hovering around 50% win percentage is a bad ranking system. Itz so Frosty, pro player for Sentinels, has a 49.5% win percentage in cross play. How does a guy in the top 0.1% of the entire player base have an average win percentage? I went and looked at his win percentage in Halo 5 and it was 76% win percentage, which makes more sense even his he solo q. He should be able to carry the entire team to victory most times, unless he’s going against a 4 stack of very good players who might nit be quite as good as him.
2 Likes
My favorite part is in unranked they take your ranked scores to then put you with the same calibre people so every game is a tense unforgiving no fun match. Just the worst ever.
2 Likes
Call me crazy, but it would make me feel a lot better I actually had the rank to go with the opponents I actually face instead of feeling stuck at the same rank with no virtual movement.
You keep making sports analogies with golf and tennis. I would like to bring one up that would make more sense. MLB. you have the pros(MLB) AAA, AA, and single A . You start in A playing against similar skill levels against your peers and and as you improve you climb the ranks. You don’t go from AA to lets face some MLB players. You face them when you actually get to the “Big’s”. Does it not make sense to prove yourself against your perceived peers and move up from there? If you are clearly doing well there you should have a higher rank. MMR does not seem to be pulling players up to the standard it is pitting them in matches against.
I get that people have plateaus and their peak but it Seems to be designed to keep you down or pigeon holed. We all can clearly go look at Halotracker and see what the odds of winning matches were. If you lose a match where you had a 25% chance of winning why be docked 12 points for it?
and have seen you write that you’re a big fan. Why? You own stock or work there?
And you keep saying things it’s only 15 points? That can take 3 matches of performing well to get! Get 2 or 3 from no fault of your own and all the grinding was for nothing.
I think we are on the same page here.
Call a spade a spade. So let’s call a Diamond 5 a Diamond 5.
Cricket is more my jam… but OK.
How many players go from College baseball to MLB?
How much time and effort does each player have to put in to rank up to the next league?
You should.
But I don’t think people have a perspective on the time it should take. Or at the very least they have warped perspective in that they want to rank up fast - but down slow.
A couple of good games shouldn’t get you a promotion. Just as a couple of bad games shouldn’t get you a demotion.
This is where 343 have borked the system. You aren’t losing 12 points for THAT loss. You are more likely losing points for a previous run of wins where you earned bits of CSR but not MMR. You are just paying back a small CSR debt.
No. Just always been fascinated by ranking system. Grew up with a friendly / competitive bunch of guys. Always looking how we could rank people. In Halo 2 we had a big table that kept track of your last five games vs everyone else. Your ladder position was the sum total of your points.
It was fun!
Yep. It’s only 15 points.
And it only exists because of the scale; 0-1800+.
If we had 1-50 you would have happily played those games, and heaps more, for no change. Even though your MMR was still going up and down a few points in the background.
Chances are you didn’t earn those points. Not from a ranking perspective. You won a few games that you were expected to win and the system gave you a few CSR points as a reward. But unless you can win vs a tougher team and pull your MMR up to match they are only “borrowed”.
Yes. You are essentially “grinding” for nothing. It sucks. But unless you actually improve your skill level (hard to do) you can’t realistically move your MMR up the table. You grind an XP rank. You earn a skill rank.