Help! I'm overrated!

Until today, I had only played teamgames and chickens and stuff since I started playing Zero-K again.
My casual rating were about 2200-2250 yesterday putting me in the top 10.

But today I decided to play some 1v1 in the matchmaking and this made my casual rating skyrocket to a whooping 2517(!!!) making me the highest rated player in Casual.

Just because I play a few 1v1, that doesn't make me the best team player in the game.
Sigero is currently a much better player in teamgames and I suffer from lag both due to network issues and hardware bottlenecks lategame in large team games.

How can my team game rating go so high when my 1v1 rating is even lower?

It is really backward that I should become the highest rated team player from playing a few 1v1 games when I'm not even the highest rated 1v1 player.

How will this be fixed?

Do I have to use 1 account for 1v1 and another account for team games?

IIRC matchmaker and 1v1 influence casual and teams because, perhaps unintuitively, that seemed to increase the rating system's predictive power.

"Losing isn´t fun..."

I honestly feel with you.

i jsut want to point out that there is no 1v1 Ranking.
There is only a Casual and a MM-Ranking, both have team and 1v1 games.

What i dont understand however is that those two Ratings are connected somehow.
The ratings seem to miss their real purpose in that way. I mean, when both nearly point out the same, whats the idea of having two then?

"Why do you think there should be a team game rating?"
Because that team games and 1v1 games requires different skills to some degree.
Optimal play in team games require coordination, team work and communication between players while 1v1 requires none of that. Some skills that are more important in 1v1 is raiding, expanding and trading your units off for momentum and map control, while unit preservation, ecoing, reclaiming and knowing lategame units is more important in team games.

"When it comes to accurately rating players, there's no point having more than a single, combined rating. Even including games on trollmaps improves the rating accuracy."
I don't see how troll maps could increase rating accuracy. If you take maps like Duke Nukem where you can easily lose because of RNG, how will that make rating more accurate? Imagine a map where the only that thing decides the victor is a literal throw of the dice, how can that make rating more accurate?
If you take maps like Speed Metal, Cow or other strange maps, they might still require skill to win but this skillset is different from 1v1.

Now, 1v1 is surely the fastest way to get accurate information about the general skill of the individual player.
After all, if it is a 10vs10 team game, on average, individual players only have about 10% impact on the outcome of the game. It takes many more games to average the skill of the player in those situations.
However, if I have played many teamgames and suddenly jumps far above everyone else just from playing a few 1v1. Then something is wrong.

lel. I predicted this exact scenario.

that was always the destiny of the stronger players

If competitive and casual WHR were separate, Godde could still use only one account, play somewhat bad in teamgames and the best he can in 1v1, and not have skyrocketing casual whr.

Yeah, just separating the matchmaker rating and the casual rating would make me happy.

Slaab imho in 1v1 micro is a skill that is mostly important during the raider phase of the game. After that it´s importance gradually declines while eco, expansion and macromanagment of multiple unit-groups become important.