Would it be possible to separate team and 1v1 ELO levels?
+0 / -0
|
Or PW vs. Regular Elo? My Elo has skyrocketed due to PW clanstacking. I fear that once PW ends, I'm going to be on the wrong side of badly balanced games until my Elo levels out again. Ideally, at the start of a PW game everyone's PW level would be equal to their normal Elo. Then, from that point, the two are tracked separately.
+0 / -0
|
Separating 1v1 elo and teamgame elo is a good idea. They are two completely different ways to play. Also, 1v1 has huge elo swings, which can either over-inflate or drain your elo, resulting in your subsequent teamgames being more imbalanced.
+0 / -0
|
Yeah my elo has gotten destroyed by planetwars went from 1540 to 1410 at the lowest due to the constant dynasty rape in my timezone
+0 / -0
|
actually 2 scales might be too little. While I have normal elo for teamgames I would have horrible elo in 1v1 and in PW elo... does it matter? it is unbalanced anyway.
+0 / -0
|
>in PW elo... does it matter? it is unbalanced anyway. Exactly my point! The imbalanced games have massively inflated my Elo. I expect to have over 2k Elo by the time PW ends (I'm normally around 1850ish). When everyone goes back to playing regular team games, they will be horribly imbalanced for a while.
+0 / -0
|
Imho each game mode should have its own ELO scale, its like judging a chess player by the way he plays poker. Godde may be number 1 in 1v1, but in a team game putting him along with a bunch of newbs never gives a fun game. Same shit is true for most of the top-10 players. In fact, for team games I'd count not ELO but a different rating. ELO was meant to be used in 1v1 matches, not team games. For team game you need to know how useful a given player is, for example metal spent/metal destroyed ratio. The engine is collecting those statistics anyway, so why not? Then it will be quite easy to balance the game - assuming each player gets same amount of metal you just balance the sum conversion rates, so that on the macro scale each team has pretty much the same metal to damage conversion ratio. A good example will be one of my recent games. Top player had 2100 ELO and did ~100K damage. I have about 1650 ELO and did about 70K damage. Worst player on the team had 1300 ELO and did about 10K damage, giving most of his metal to the enemy. Now average ELO of the whole team is 1683. But a 1683-ELO player should do on average 70K damage right? So a team with 3 16xx players would deal about 210K damage, raping the team with a newbie which did just some 180K damage. this example is crude, but i hope you see the picture. A team of 5 1600-elo players will most probably win a team with 1-2 top players and a bunch of newbies.
+0 / -0
|
Elo might be made for 1v1 games as a ranking, but it is much more usefull in teamgames to balance them. These are 2 different things, ranking and balancing. So 1v1 elo gain/loss does not help balance team games. I agree to seperate the 1v1 elo from the team elo. I think that elo is a pretty good balancer, not ideal as many expect it to be, but I see no real alternatives. The metal spend/metal destroyed might be a good one, but same as elo , it is not ideal. You can just relaim more metal, have more mexes and overdrive and have worse metal spend/metal destroyed but much better teamplayer than the one with higher ratio. But might be worth a try.
+0 / -0
|
What about an user rating for the "team" game balance? I think longer playing player (about 2 months or/and lvl 50 (only a suggestion)), should be able to vote the player strength on the users page ( a ranking from 1.0 to 10.0 (also only a suggestion)) (Abuser and Trolls can/should be exclude from this), I think it should be a addition to the current system. Both could be used for balancing?
+0 / -0
|
metal destroyed / metal spent ratio is totally useless. Things which matters what kind of targets you are destroying. This mostly applies to air since air players usually have no visible awards, but are main factor why team won or lost. CA awards can be easily earned at "cleanup stage"
+0 / -0
|
turn skill into a popularity contest? oO The elo system is very nice. On a big scale it seems to be working very well. Since most players only play big games anyway. But the multiplayer and 1v1 games are so different i think it justifies a separate elo. I wonder what would happen if we would hide the elo value of all players. Balance is primarily a matter of perception. I think a lot of the "imba game" complaints would disappear.
+0 / -0
|
I agree that we should have separate ELO rankings for team games and 1v1. There are many players who do well in teamgames but completely sux in 1v1. For example me. :) I feel completely overwhelmed when playing 1v1 in a map bigger than 8x8.
+0 / -0
|
that's the same for everyone Rafal. The beauty of 1v1s is that it grows bigger then what we can manage. Time management and speed of execution add new dimensions to the game. I like that.
+0 / -0
|
Guys, the whole point of ELO is to measure the probability of a win, given that player X is on team Y. So basically if a newb is on a winning team yet does nothing, he gets ELO increase. But did he earn it? no. However if, say, a top-10 player is teamed with a bunch of newbs and loses, he'd lose ELO. But maybe he actually played really well? How does that ELO loss reflects the fact that he was probably trying to save the day against impossible odds? Most of the time when i play with some other 16xx player against top-10 and some epic newb the only reason we win would be if we get 2x superior eco, just because pro player spends his resources much more efficiently.
+0 / -0
|
Well thats the whole point of ole right? If a team is winning with 1 player doing nothing, the players in the team are too powerfull for their elo and should gain elo. The player doing nothing should gain elo so he gets worser teammates and loose if he plays under his own elo-level. And for the 2nd example, the top 10-player loose elo so he gets a little better teammates and the odds are not impossible. If elo levels are right for players then odds should not be impossible.
+0 / -0
|
caring about your elo - trying to get the number high - is massively stupid behavior. Ignore it and it reaches where it should be.
+0 / -0
|
I thought about this a few days ago, but forgot to post since I was fixing my system :P We could have different elo scales for 1v1, small teams, medium teams and big teams... Since in big teams a single player doesnt matter much that elo scale could merged with medium, so we would have 1v1, small and medium/big Like HeadHunter says, we should have a different scale for each game mode (how about troll elo? games on silly maps arent regular games) It would be easy to implement imo
+0 / -0
|
On silly maps hosts ELO is not recorded AFAIK, just like in chicken games.
+0 / -0
|
|
|
quote:
caring about your elo - trying to get the number high - is massively stupid behavior. Ignore it and it reaches where it should be. |
+0 / -0
|
