This topic was automatically opened after 3 days.
If you don’t think good connection is important enough in a FPS game you must me riddled with consolitis.
If I get put into a 160ping game then I’m quitting (I don’t even want to play any fps over 60 ping) & then the game becomes unbalanced which might cause others to quit for possibly more than 8hrs.
Also would like to add if I get more than one game in a row with high ping I’m out for more than 8hrs.
If 343i wanna nit pick about reasons for unbalanced games causing people to quit out then all reasons must be considered!
Also if 343i were so concerned why is there no re-join for ranked?
Why do they still force half teams (unbalanced games) To sit it out & get abused?
In all these years still no veto end/surrender a game when its clearly beyond winning & is a absolute gank fest.
Re-join & veto game two simple tools that could be added as QOL improvements within the game that could stop wasting players time & decrease negativity but yet we still don’t have?
Instead we have a sbmm that uses lower skill players to balance better players, look at the state of the game population, tell me how that’s creating better player retention?
New or less skill players being used as pawns to balance better players.
You think the new like getting wreckd & will stick around?
Do you think better players having half a team going super neg will enjoy & stick around?
Edit: Just to add, Bad connections create unbalance & there is no point playing laggy games simples.
6 Likes
He never said that is not important. He only said that an balanced match is more important. And ofcourse the connection is part of that balancing, since you will ofcourse play a bit worse with a bad connection.
1 Like
Connection in FPS should be priority, Connection is king.
If players are getting bad connection due to sbmm then it defeats its propose.
A good connection is a fair environment & its up to the players to get better in that environment.
Back to the unbalanced thing makes people quit.
Look at BTB on launch one base with BR’s, hydras shock rifle other base had commandos, ravager & stalker & it still happens in some games.
Then lets add in tanks falling from the sky where the dominant team with map control will get.
343i has a hard neck to talk about balance making people quit when they cant even balance the map assets accordingly.
Do you really think a company that cant even balance weapon placements in the game are competent to be messing around with a match making system, I dont!
4 Likes
It’s is important. But must be balanced with the fairness of the game.
150ms is usually playable (social > ranked). Would prefer 25-80ms. But things do get unstable from 180ms upwards.
Which is your priority / choice. Just as long as you are aware that you are in the relative minority.
I am definitely more likely to stop playing Social if I’m being fed to Onyx players so that they can “chill” than a couple of games at 150ms ping.
Agree whole heartedly.
I don’t think anyone is pushing for laggy games. Just being accepting of slightly higher pings to keep the game balanced.
And to be honest… I would much prefer 343 pushed better connections and balanced the game out in other ways (scoring and/or player traits).
That only works if everyone’s end point is the same. It’s not.
1 Like
Yes. After content.
Either play 4V4 or don’t play. We don’t want to play against quitters with poor connections. If you are playing 4V4 and are getting these results then vote with your feet because your area is obviously not populated enough to connect without potato connection.
You can’t magically increase the population of areas with spread apart users (eg Australia or the Antarctic) without increasing player base size- which can only be done with content.
So, with respect, leave. Either that or move to an area where people still play the game….good luck finding Eden
It definitely needs to be toned down. The current system is just bad. I’ll be top of the leaderboard for a coue games and the next four, I’ll get absolutely stomped. The SBMM is my biggest reasoning for not playing for more than a few games at a time.
1 Like
Then it is already very loose isn’t it? Otherwise there wouldn’t be those big skill gaps within matches.
2 Likes
yeah its absurd. it needs to go
1 Like
Nice example how there is almost no SBMM in social, match of my friend:
- silver-5
- unranked
- diamond-6
- onyx
vs - diamond-2
- diamond-6
- platinum-5
- silver-4
The last silver-4 was my friend. I checked the stats of the other silver-player, he never had another match with one of those players, so he clearly didn’t team up with them.
You realy want to tell me then during peak hours, in the most populated playlists (according to the mentioned needed to find a match) the game can’t get any player closer then a silver4 and 5 to match with a bunch of diamond and onyx players? Especially not in there own continent, because my friend was dragged into a high ping match too… There clearly is almost no SBMM available in social, otherwise this wouldn’t happen.
edit: my friend now doesn’t want to play this game anymore for today… Nicely done 343!
1 Like
Just play ranked. Social shouldn’t have strict SBMM. Newer players aren’t idiots. They should know that close matches = ranked.
1 Like
The word you’re looking for is vast, not fast. It’s the vast majority. Not the fast majority. You do this every time you intend to say the word vast.
Thanks for letting me know. English is not my native language (wich you probably already noticed), so i might make mistakes like that so now and then. 
I appreciate it that you let me know that the word i meant is writen on a different way 
I’d take that excuse, but why would it ever be “fast”. You know the meaning behind the words you say, of course. Therefore, saying fast majority makes no sense. I can get you may have assumed it was an idomatic phrase, but it isn’t.
1 Like
I don’t think anyone has every pushed 'strict" SBMM for Social. It should be a wider range of skills (within reason) and matched on the teams.
They aren’t.
What?
So they should just accept being thrashed in every game?
Why can’t fun / social games be close?
Who decided that the definition of “fun” was a bunch of bullies running around ridiculing lower ranked players.
I’ve always admired people who take on English as a second language.
It is a “pig’s breakfast” of a dialect.
We’ve had a few discussion on Waypoint together and I would never have known it wasn’t your native tongue! On forums you kind of let the odd wrong spelling or phrase go through to the keeper.
I’ve tried a couple of times to pick up a second language but I think I am just too old to get my head around it.
Social isn’t a place where people should go to be competive and win at all costs. Why would they care about losing in social?
Why should a good player be punished by being forced to carry matches and/or play high ping matches so that their win rate is fixed at 50%? If someone is abnormally good at the game, they should have a win rate to reflect that. Why even try at the game if eventually, regardless of how well you play, the game will force you to win or lose a match?
As I already said, if you want close, evenly matched games, play ranked. Social is meant to be casual. Close games are, by virtue of being close, are not casual. It should be laid back and relaxed, where connection is the number one priority. If someone is bad at the game, they can deal with it.
EDIT: Currently, social has all the features of ranked without any of the benefits.
No it’s not. It’s a place where you go to play and have fun.
They don’t. The evidence from Halo 5 (and ? GOW4) was pretty clear. Players want to feel that they at least had a chance.
People are much more likely to log off after an unbalanced loss than they are with a poor personal performances or run of close losses.
No one is forcing you to do anything. You get to play with the intensity you want.
This is more a population issue.
I acknowledge that SBMM leads to higher ping matches than you would get with random MM. But it’s a small price to pay for even matches.
But the lower population is certainly straining the pings. Fingers crossed 343 can rectify things with Forge and Season 3.
It’s social. I thought we didn’t care about winning at all costs.
If someone is abnormally good they should have a rank to reflect that.
Not a history of beating up lower ranked players.
And how is that even fun?
I’m only mid-Diamond - but occasionally I get to play in lower lobbies, or when a key opponent quits. It’s boring as bat -yoink-. I’d much rather spend the rest of the match running around practicing map movement then brushing my ego with a pointlessly high K/D.
If you feel you are being “forced” into winning or losing - maybe Social just isn’t for you.
Seriously?
I sweat as hard as I can in Ranked. And I play relaxed in Social. Two completely different mind sets.
Yet I really enjoy close matches in Social. Without generating a single droplet of sweat. So what gives?
The difference is not just how you play - but how you receive the result.
Yikes.
Words could have two completely different meanings. There is even a name for that: homonyms.
For example the work “right” both means a direction as it means ‘correct’. Or “left” can mean a direction, but also a form of the verb leaving.
So i don’t think my confusion about fast and vast is that weird
1 Like
SBMM is ruining modern online shooters.
Ranked should be very strict and reward WINS not KD.
Unranked should be very very loose just to avoid matching the very best with the very worst.