What would be interesting is a data dredge of players comparing their 4v4 rank with FFA rank.
I imagine most would be quite similar.
But there would be a subset who thrives in FFA but struggles in team games.
I know that I would be the other way around.
That was their findings with MMR across playlists wasnât it, so it makes sense. But of course some players will excel more at certain things than others so some may fair better at FFA than 4v4. I personally am better at 4v4 than FFA even as a solo player.
I lost 15 CSR earlier where one teammate went negative 11 and everyone else went positive. We lost by five points.
What if playing ffa was just for a challenge and they barely touched the controller except to not be idle?
Or what about if I know I am going to win the game halfway through then I go for my 360 medals which I have at least a bakers dozenâŚso my ranking is effected even though Iâm having fun in an obvious blowout
We need more context.
Had you just been on a run of easy wins and accumulated a bit of excess CSR (above your MMR) which was shed with the loss?
Where you beaten by a lower ranked team and everyone deserved to lose some MMR?
Did your team-mate perform appropriately to their rank (ie. were they ranked well below the rest of the team).
Was this a Slayer game? If so did they at least contribute some assists. Or if it was objective - did they contribute in that regard.
At any stage during the game did you identify that the player was struggling. Did you offer (helpful) advice. Did you or your other team-mates, in any way, change up the way you were playing to try and mitigate their game.
On a personal level was there anything you could have done better to carry the game. Especially if you were the top ranked player?
It is a team game after all.
Non.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOBmOkcVRUQ
https://twitter.com/CornbreadTTV/status/1484650419255234560
To be clear I donât think the system does a bad job I just think it needs to be âregulatedâ. The way it works right now is a bit annoying. I think the system should push you towards higher ranks because what I see happening is that you grind until the plateau then you inevitably lose because you start playing with more skilled players and get pushed back. It should give you more time to adjust to the new skillset you will certainly need because the way plats play is different than diamonds which is different from onyx players. Itâs a self fulfilling prophecy.
Data alone cannot account from the differences in mindset between those players.
Furthermore we need restrictions for parties. Any too broad of a difference between players and it fails to deliver an optimal experience for the less skilled ones. I think Overwatch does this.
Yes your MMR is influenced via social. But the way in which the YouTube person is explaining it is extremely incorrect.
The reason there is a link between social and ranked (and most playlists in general) is so players can be matched fairly quickly in each playlist. If I play social and am clearly a decent Onyx player, putting me in ranked against Gold players is terrible for the balancing.
With every system, a subsection of players will try to abuse it. Theyâre losers. But also, in the context given in this video itâs inaccurate. Having a low social MMR will make your climb more difficult and sporadic. The only thing it may do is allow you to win/stat pad a few games on the way to your true rank.
I wonder why anyone would do that to such a lovely, well liked individual like you 
This right here. Iâm stuck in D1/D2 hell right now, but know that it is pretty much where I belong in terms of skill. I get smashed by D5 and D6 when I play them, so I know I have work to do if I want to get to a higher rank. Is the system perfect? No. But Iâd say it does itâs job more often than not.
The biggest problem I have with the system is allowing players of HUGE skill gaps play together. I had a game last night where the opposing team was made up of a 1700 Onyx, a Bronze 5, a Gold 3, and a Diamond 5. Our team was 3 Plats and myself at D1. In terms of average MMR, Iâm sure this was the best the system could do with the options it was given, but obviously the 1700 Onyx ran a train on us en route to an easy victory. If they could just limit who can play together in ranked (say like +/- 400 CSR) Iâd be happy with the system.
Link to game in question: https://halotracker.com/halo-infinite/match/0288ffaf-618b-4ed9-aa9d-822aad1d8f9b
So in that case the system actually did a pretty good job matching your team while it miserably failed with the opposing team. Why would the system even consider putting Onyx 1700 and Bronze 5 together? I just doesnât make sense no matter they are on the same or opposing team.
And if the system thinks that Onyx 1700 player actually plays like a Bronze 5 why not simply give him that rank ???
I believe they were in a party together. I canât imagine the system set this one up. When I see matches that are set up this way, I always assume they are in a party intentionally to give the Onyx player easy matches. Iâve seen good players make LFG posts specifically looking for low rank players to do this. It abuses the system. Itâs really my only gripe with the ranking system in its current state.
That of course is possible.
However, isnât matchmaking supposed to then match that team with a team equal to the skill of the highest ranking team member? 3 platinums and 1 Diamond against 1 Onyx 1700 and 1 D5 doesnât make much sense even with that bronze guy on their team.
Who are you I dont believe we have met. Nice to meet you I think
You missed half the quote I think
I can laugh at this bs and I love myself. I donât need to be liked by some abstract person typing from their bathroom
Logically, you are correct.
According to the system, however, my team was actually the better team 
Enemy Team average CSR: (1704 + 1491 + 742 + 147) / 4 = 1021
My team average CSR: (1203 + 1041 + 1079 + 940) / 4 = 1065
This is the problem with using average CSR/MMR to create ranked matches, while also allowing a 1704 to play with a 147.
The bronze looks like a legitimate player. From what I can tell itâs a guy playing with their girlfriend or sister maybe based on the profile pic.
When you are in games with players with huge legitimate skill differences, the best way to play it is by trying to neuter the better player as a team because the worse player will struggle to effectively support them. The good player can only control so much, so you want to pressurise them as much as possible. Or just abuse the worst player. Some games a player will keep charging your side of the map and if your team understand that you can just continually wipe out the worst player from safer positions. Basically forces the better player to have to be super aggressive to compensate and can lead to mistakes.
But yeah of you do have a really good player theyâll cause all sorts of havoc so you either have to shut them down, and stop them controlling the whole game or abuse the worse players by avoiding the good player and taking down the teammates more than the good player can take down your team. Doesnât always work, sometimes a beastly player feels unstoppable and they counter whatever you try to do. Theyâre annoying but damn theyâre good.
Their win ratio together is 73% so it does make me think players are finding it particularly difficult to deal with a high level Onyx player. I imagine players at a lower level are finding it difficult to use teamwork to stop him. I think having a win ratio like that is evident the system is not fit for purpose of people search with such a wide skill difference. Realistically a bronze player should never be able to play with or against an Onyx player in ranked unless they are a smurf, but unfortunately there is no block in place for separating skill tiers. I think appropriately players shouldnât be able to matchmake with anyone more than two tiers below them, it dampens the integrity of ranked. Or at least make it so Onyx players must search with someone with 250 CSR of themselves or something. Just to stop people manipulating the system in any way they can.
Few hours ago. Ranked match oddball. This 2 teams.
Team 1:
3 platinum mid level
1 gold mid level
Team 2:
1 Onyx
1 platinum mid level
1 gold mid level
1 player Bronze 1
Know what you think. âA Bronze 1 player?â
Yes and a legit bronze 1. His match result 1 kill 16 death.
I feel really sorry for the Bronze 1 player. Even if it was a fireteam Onyx and the Bronze 1 player. The match system should not allow such combinations.