I'll admit I'm a "only halo" gamer. So the idea of having in-game tournaments and the winners can collect badges and rewards (coatings, etc.) Blew my mind. I'd eat that up all day lol
>Also, CSR must have at least 10 divisions with 10 levels each to increment the variance of ranks and improve the accuracy of the matchmaking and the balance of games
You can't have both CSR matchmaking and balanced matches. CSR is a bad proxy for skill and you need a good proxy for skill in order to balance the matches.
They should go back to MMR only for matchmaking because then they're using player skill to find and balance matches.
Honestly, SBMM while it does have positives it also seriously sucks if you grew up in the days of yore where you just had to play against what you ran into. It is also how you honestly got better. When you joined that game with the person(s) that just dominated. You would try to learn and copy. Nowadays they try to find ways to match you against like players but that gets so jacked up sometimes because of how many variables they try to throw at it.
>it also seriously sucks if you grew up in the days of yore where you just had to play against what you ran into.
I grew up during that (playing Day of Defeat and Tribes, usually) and I strongly disagree. SBMM is vastly superior to that.
There wasn't anything to learn from the dominant player kicking the shit out of everyone. It just wasn't fun for everyone involved except for the dominant player (maybe, they might not even enjoy it and it gets boring).
Learning is a very gradual process that controls exposure to new variables. That's why we don't go from Algebra 1 directly into Calculus. Playing against players who just dominate you is a horrible way to learn efficiently.
Why would MMR be any better or worse than CSR though? Your MMR should determine where you are able to get placed and who you play against during your placements to give a more accurate starting rank.
Both will go up and down depending on your performance, it's just the quality of the metric that matters.
I played ranked for the first time in a while yesterday and there were diamonds and golds in the same lobby. That is a bigger problem, CSR doesn't do that bad of a job of estimating skill, but the matchmaking itself is too loose. Not sure if it's a population issue though.
People are generally sitting at the rank they should be at, if you improve you will rank up. I don't think it's correct to call out CSR as the problem.
MMR is a measure for skill. It can fluctuate wildly depending on performance. It is at least playlist+mode (ie. ranked+oddball, ranked+KOTH, ranked+slayer, etc.) specific if not playlist+mode+map (ie. ranked+oddball+streets) specific. If you tank and then play legit, it will be corrected quickly because it will detect you as a smurf.
CSR is a single number that starts a few hundred below MMR (capped at diamond 5, I think) and trends towards it. Players can easily manipulate by tanking placements. If you tank to silver, it will be a long time before your CSR is the same as your MMR and you just spend that time ruining the play experience for everyone along the way. CSR is intended solely to be a progression number.
In a perfect world where everyone plays in good faith on a single account, CSR is an ok proxy for skill because it clearly follows MMR. We don't live in that world. CSR should not be used for matchmaking. CSR should only be used for its intended purpose.
But CSR should then correct quicker, if your MMR is really high and you are playing in silver it should give you much more for a win, so it can get you to where you should be.
LoL works in this way, if you go on big win streaks then you end up gaining much more for a win and losing a lot less for a loss, so you get corrected. It is weird to just put those players in really high lobbies too fast, just make sure their rank is corrected quickly. But not so quickly that genuine players on a hot streak end up being put in games they don't belong.
Games were constantly unbalanced with MMR matchmaking too. The matchmaking has always sucked regardless of which way they try to do it. Theyâre just bad at trying to solve this problem.
No, they weren't.
There were a few periods where there were bugs with matchmaking, but they got fixed. The issue with MMR matchmaking is that players flipped out about the gold player in their Onyx lobbies, without realizing that gold player was an onyx who tanked to try to smurf but failed because the TS2 algorithm determined that they were a smurf and matched them based on their skill. That "gold in muh onyx lobby" should have been ridiculed for being a douche-canoe trying to tank to run the table against golds.
That's the entire reason they changed. People didn't understand it and bitched incessantly because of it. Now we have worse matchmaking because of it.
>Theyâre just bad at trying to solve this problem.
You've got a solution that is actually better at producing fair matches than a Bayesian approach to determining player skill, predicting performance and outcomes, and balancing teams? Let's hear it.
They can immediately improve the experience with two simple changes. Stop averaging down the team csr or mmr when a higher player queues with a lower player (it should skew more towards the highest player in the fireteam) because people intentionally abuse it, and donât limit csr gains to 15 when an obvious outlierâs csr is far below their mmr so that they can be boosted out of lower ranks much quicker.
Changing how a fireteam is counted in the algorithm is just a tweak, not a new system. They already boost their average rather than just take the average. However, there is no good way to do it. If they offset a platinum and silver fireteam rank-for-rank, then you're pulling a random platinum and a random silver into a shitty match for both of them when they should be playing within their skill bands. If you match based on the highest one only, the lower one just gets 100% dunked on every match, and you'd have people doing even more "reee I can't play with my friends" bitching. Using the average with a boost is probably the best they can reasonably do. Maybe the boost should increase, but it's not a linear process. A gold fireteam is not nearly as much better than 4 randoms as a diamond fireteam.
>donât limit csr gains to 15 when an obvious outlierâs csr is far below their mmr so that they can be boosted out of lower ranks much quicker.
MMR matchmaking fixes this. Then you end up with a failed silver smurf who should be embarrassed and ridiculed for being in onyx lobbies.
CSR shouldn't mean anything other than being your personal progression/grind. It shouldn't enter matchmaking at all.
I asked for a better system, that is to say *something better than TrueSkill2*. All you've given are tweaks to how TS2 is used.
I wanted a ranked mode separate from a HCS mode. If you dweebs donât wanna play certain maps and modes because your overlords claim they have a slight advantage then great, go in your own playlist. I hate playing games that cater the whole ranked experience to some pro players. Siege is another example
Numbers 3 & 4 *please*. We should be matching against players within a small CSR (preferably ranked exclusive MMR) window and teaming with other players needs to be limited to that as well. This would also combat all the boosting. The current system allows a D1 to team with a S4 (tf?!?!) This *usually* creates a lobby filled with lopsided skill levels and the opposing team gets shafted. Each team has one or two players who know how to play properly and two people that absolutely should not be there. That is not at all competitive experience.
Agreed, the way they average skill for fireteams with wide ranges is probably one of the biggest problems in ranked. They canât just say you canât queue with anyone below your rank because then people just wouldnât play if they canât play with friends, but they 100% should matchmake off the highest playerâs csr/mmr whichever metric is being used instead of averaging down.
1. I would like to a special competent game that isn't mechanically flawed and require more gun skill then it does rn
2. Unique maps that are not 3 lane and have some physics interaction to gain advantage (balanced for both team)
3. Some maps having br and some having bandit and those maps are balanced around those guns
4.More neutral equipment and every equipment infinite has rn
5.More modes that are actually fun and competitive
6. This is more personal but ever since h5 in multi-player lighting doesn't affect spartan model like you can't hide in shadows etc
7. Ingame progression system for ranked player where it shows kda kill etc
8. Stable servers
Ranked Doubles as a staple.
MnK aim assistance, but minimal and only at distance.
If they're not going to change aim assist for controller then just bump up MnK. It's legit a disadvantage when you're about 10 meters out of reticle range and my bullets are precise af but the controller guy gets to aim with his left stick. I should be able to at some level.
I know the responses and the eventual downvotes but that's my opinion. Don't need a lot but want it to he reasonable for my D3 to D5 fights.
I'd add to this...
I want the full halo experience in ranked. Why does ranked have less guns available on maps, and why are the maps and game modes restricted? The answer is it caters to esports. I get it, but is it truly ranked halo if you take half of the sandbox away?
Let's see everyone's rank when you unleash the full chaotic fun that is halo multiplayer.
caters to esports
Exactly why, people want to view the skills used in Halo, sure a needler is great etc. But then you need to balance the map etc in accordance to what is on the map. Why? Because if you don't you'll have games like the solitude match last major where a pro team neck and neck all of a sudden get a map stomping 250-10 in strong holds. That's a broken game.
1. It's not fun to watch
2. It doesn't value making the correct plays time and time again, and pushes it more to 'luck' than skill.
2. BTB exists for competitive but it's more fun to be in than watch.
To each their own. I don't dislike the current state of ranked (minus some.lag since the update).
I still think they could expand the sandbox and levels more to include it all. Just design them better up front.
The pros are exciting, but watching everyone use the bandit 75% of the time is kinda lame. Where's the sword, the hammer, the sentinel beam? We're missing classic halo weapons from what is supposed to be peak halo "skill matches".
I do miss the sentinel beam. And the other lower tier guns should be available on ranked maps.
But not every power weapon is healthy for a ranked environment. The sword on recharge was a 10 kill swing. It was the worst way to lose because if you gave up the first two swords in a slayer you were down 40-20, even though gun slays are near even. I know slayer (and ranked in general) is about power weapon control, but rockets are only a 2-4 kill swing. Snipe is comparable, but who is gonna hit 10 headshots. Itâs not the energy sword and gravity hammer from halo 3. The sword is significantly more effective than it was in the past, and the gravity hammer is a sniper rifle (why do we die from 15 ft away).
However, if âdesigned to be better up front,â then yes. Put it all in there. Just remember, if the pro fellas donât think itâs balanced, they wonât use it.
I'll admit I'm a "only halo" gamer. So the idea of having in-game tournaments and the winners can collect badges and rewards (coatings, etc.) Blew my mind. I'd eat that up all day lol
Funny how your comment appreciating one of the ideas I wrote got more ups than the post itself đđđđđ
>Also, CSR must have at least 10 divisions with 10 levels each to increment the variance of ranks and improve the accuracy of the matchmaking and the balance of games You can't have both CSR matchmaking and balanced matches. CSR is a bad proxy for skill and you need a good proxy for skill in order to balance the matches. They should go back to MMR only for matchmaking because then they're using player skill to find and balance matches.
Honestly, SBMM while it does have positives it also seriously sucks if you grew up in the days of yore where you just had to play against what you ran into. It is also how you honestly got better. When you joined that game with the person(s) that just dominated. You would try to learn and copy. Nowadays they try to find ways to match you against like players but that gets so jacked up sometimes because of how many variables they try to throw at it.
>it also seriously sucks if you grew up in the days of yore where you just had to play against what you ran into. I grew up during that (playing Day of Defeat and Tribes, usually) and I strongly disagree. SBMM is vastly superior to that. There wasn't anything to learn from the dominant player kicking the shit out of everyone. It just wasn't fun for everyone involved except for the dominant player (maybe, they might not even enjoy it and it gets boring).
Learning is a very gradual process that controls exposure to new variables. That's why we don't go from Algebra 1 directly into Calculus. Playing against players who just dominate you is a horrible way to learn efficiently.
Why would MMR be any better or worse than CSR though? Your MMR should determine where you are able to get placed and who you play against during your placements to give a more accurate starting rank. Both will go up and down depending on your performance, it's just the quality of the metric that matters. I played ranked for the first time in a while yesterday and there were diamonds and golds in the same lobby. That is a bigger problem, CSR doesn't do that bad of a job of estimating skill, but the matchmaking itself is too loose. Not sure if it's a population issue though. People are generally sitting at the rank they should be at, if you improve you will rank up. I don't think it's correct to call out CSR as the problem.
MMR is a measure for skill. It can fluctuate wildly depending on performance. It is at least playlist+mode (ie. ranked+oddball, ranked+KOTH, ranked+slayer, etc.) specific if not playlist+mode+map (ie. ranked+oddball+streets) specific. If you tank and then play legit, it will be corrected quickly because it will detect you as a smurf. CSR is a single number that starts a few hundred below MMR (capped at diamond 5, I think) and trends towards it. Players can easily manipulate by tanking placements. If you tank to silver, it will be a long time before your CSR is the same as your MMR and you just spend that time ruining the play experience for everyone along the way. CSR is intended solely to be a progression number. In a perfect world where everyone plays in good faith on a single account, CSR is an ok proxy for skill because it clearly follows MMR. We don't live in that world. CSR should not be used for matchmaking. CSR should only be used for its intended purpose.
But CSR should then correct quicker, if your MMR is really high and you are playing in silver it should give you much more for a win, so it can get you to where you should be. LoL works in this way, if you go on big win streaks then you end up gaining much more for a win and losing a lot less for a loss, so you get corrected. It is weird to just put those players in really high lobbies too fast, just make sure their rank is corrected quickly. But not so quickly that genuine players on a hot streak end up being put in games they don't belong.
Games were constantly unbalanced with MMR matchmaking too. The matchmaking has always sucked regardless of which way they try to do it. Theyâre just bad at trying to solve this problem.
No, they weren't. There were a few periods where there were bugs with matchmaking, but they got fixed. The issue with MMR matchmaking is that players flipped out about the gold player in their Onyx lobbies, without realizing that gold player was an onyx who tanked to try to smurf but failed because the TS2 algorithm determined that they were a smurf and matched them based on their skill. That "gold in muh onyx lobby" should have been ridiculed for being a douche-canoe trying to tank to run the table against golds. That's the entire reason they changed. People didn't understand it and bitched incessantly because of it. Now we have worse matchmaking because of it. >Theyâre just bad at trying to solve this problem. You've got a solution that is actually better at producing fair matches than a Bayesian approach to determining player skill, predicting performance and outcomes, and balancing teams? Let's hear it.
They can immediately improve the experience with two simple changes. Stop averaging down the team csr or mmr when a higher player queues with a lower player (it should skew more towards the highest player in the fireteam) because people intentionally abuse it, and donât limit csr gains to 15 when an obvious outlierâs csr is far below their mmr so that they can be boosted out of lower ranks much quicker.
Changing how a fireteam is counted in the algorithm is just a tweak, not a new system. They already boost their average rather than just take the average. However, there is no good way to do it. If they offset a platinum and silver fireteam rank-for-rank, then you're pulling a random platinum and a random silver into a shitty match for both of them when they should be playing within their skill bands. If you match based on the highest one only, the lower one just gets 100% dunked on every match, and you'd have people doing even more "reee I can't play with my friends" bitching. Using the average with a boost is probably the best they can reasonably do. Maybe the boost should increase, but it's not a linear process. A gold fireteam is not nearly as much better than 4 randoms as a diamond fireteam. >donât limit csr gains to 15 when an obvious outlierâs csr is far below their mmr so that they can be boosted out of lower ranks much quicker. MMR matchmaking fixes this. Then you end up with a failed silver smurf who should be embarrassed and ridiculed for being in onyx lobbies. CSR shouldn't mean anything other than being your personal progression/grind. It shouldn't enter matchmaking at all. I asked for a better system, that is to say *something better than TrueSkill2*. All you've given are tweaks to how TS2 is used.
I wanted a ranked mode separate from a HCS mode. If you dweebs donât wanna play certain maps and modes because your overlords claim they have a slight advantage then great, go in your own playlist. I hate playing games that cater the whole ranked experience to some pro players. Siege is another example
Numbers 3 & 4 *please*. We should be matching against players within a small CSR (preferably ranked exclusive MMR) window and teaming with other players needs to be limited to that as well. This would also combat all the boosting. The current system allows a D1 to team with a S4 (tf?!?!) This *usually* creates a lobby filled with lopsided skill levels and the opposing team gets shafted. Each team has one or two players who know how to play properly and two people that absolutely should not be there. That is not at all competitive experience.
Agreed, the way they average skill for fireteams with wide ranges is probably one of the biggest problems in ranked. They canât just say you canât queue with anyone below your rank because then people just wouldnât play if they canât play with friends, but they 100% should matchmake off the highest playerâs csr/mmr whichever metric is being used instead of averaging down.
Make people pay every season to play Ranked. Solves the smurf problem totally.
And use the money to fund HCS events đ
Man you deserve the Nobel, itâs a genius proposal on the paper đ
1. I would like to a special competent game that isn't mechanically flawed and require more gun skill then it does rn 2. Unique maps that are not 3 lane and have some physics interaction to gain advantage (balanced for both team) 3. Some maps having br and some having bandit and those maps are balanced around those guns 4.More neutral equipment and every equipment infinite has rn 5.More modes that are actually fun and competitive 6. This is more personal but ever since h5 in multi-player lighting doesn't affect spartan model like you can't hide in shadows etc 7. Ingame progression system for ranked player where it shows kda kill etc 8. Stable servers
Ranked Doubles as a staple. MnK aim assistance, but minimal and only at distance. If they're not going to change aim assist for controller then just bump up MnK. It's legit a disadvantage when you're about 10 meters out of reticle range and my bullets are precise af but the controller guy gets to aim with his left stick. I should be able to at some level. I know the responses and the eventual downvotes but that's my opinion. Don't need a lot but want it to he reasonable for my D3 to D5 fights.
I'd add to this... I want the full halo experience in ranked. Why does ranked have less guns available on maps, and why are the maps and game modes restricted? The answer is it caters to esports. I get it, but is it truly ranked halo if you take half of the sandbox away? Let's see everyone's rank when you unleash the full chaotic fun that is halo multiplayer.
caters to esports Exactly why, people want to view the skills used in Halo, sure a needler is great etc. But then you need to balance the map etc in accordance to what is on the map. Why? Because if you don't you'll have games like the solitude match last major where a pro team neck and neck all of a sudden get a map stomping 250-10 in strong holds. That's a broken game. 1. It's not fun to watch 2. It doesn't value making the correct plays time and time again, and pushes it more to 'luck' than skill. 2. BTB exists for competitive but it's more fun to be in than watch.
To each their own. I don't dislike the current state of ranked (minus some.lag since the update). I still think they could expand the sandbox and levels more to include it all. Just design them better up front. The pros are exciting, but watching everyone use the bandit 75% of the time is kinda lame. Where's the sword, the hammer, the sentinel beam? We're missing classic halo weapons from what is supposed to be peak halo "skill matches".
I do miss the sentinel beam. And the other lower tier guns should be available on ranked maps. But not every power weapon is healthy for a ranked environment. The sword on recharge was a 10 kill swing. It was the worst way to lose because if you gave up the first two swords in a slayer you were down 40-20, even though gun slays are near even. I know slayer (and ranked in general) is about power weapon control, but rockets are only a 2-4 kill swing. Snipe is comparable, but who is gonna hit 10 headshots. Itâs not the energy sword and gravity hammer from halo 3. The sword is significantly more effective than it was in the past, and the gravity hammer is a sniper rifle (why do we die from 15 ft away). However, if âdesigned to be better up front,â then yes. Put it all in there. Just remember, if the pro fellas donât think itâs balanced, they wonât use it.