ELO changes should not be entirely based on win/loss | Forums

[Celron_Miles]

Bollocks, compete and utter bollocks.

I've gone from Gold 3 to Copper IV, It accept some of it is down to my own miscalculation but a lot of those losses were due to, rage quitters, tk'ing, glitchers and hackers. and no matter how times I report them it doesn't make a damn difference because regardless of how well I play, I LOSE OUT!

I could carry my team with 1 or 2 kills but I still get punished massively if we lose by any margin -73 for a loss this afternoon then +23 for winning the next round. WHERE IS THE JUSTICE, WHERE IS THE BALANCE AND WHAT IS THE POINT!

How do you go down from gold to copper? Im in plat 3 and once it put me in a match with all silvers and one gold in the enemy team (the gold quickly left and was replaced by a silver 3). You know what happened? I got 13-2 in a 5 round match. Seriously I dont believe you can derank that much without trying to do so. Unless youre metting people that deranked from plat, then its not the system faults but theirs.

[Th3_Punisher__]

Exactly, it's only a great system for full teams. The solution is simple : make two ranked queues.

Current ranked queue will be used for premades & full teams. If somebody joins solo in ranked queue, it's his own responsability.

The other queue only allows solo players and takes into account individual performance as well as team performance.

[RunnerRunner22]

It's a team game - so winning with your team to get objectives has more value than racing your teammates to see how many solo-kills you can get.

I think this is generally the right approach. However, I dont think it is fair to treat a 0-4 the same as a 4-5. The reasoning behind the elo system is that if a team loses to a team with equal skill it is an indication that the second team is better. The evaluation is binary, win or lose, so it doesnt reflect how much better the second team is.

If a game is very close and ends 4-5 it is an indication that the actual skill levels of both teams are almost the same. This should be reflected in the elo distribution. A matchpoint 1vs1 can be quite random and it is not logical to have the same elo changes as when one team stomps the other.

[Celron_Miles]

I think this is generally the right approach. However, I dont think it is fair to treat a 0-4 the same as a 4-5. The reasoning behind the elo system is that if a team loses to a team with equal skill it is an indication that the second team is better. The evaluation is binary, win or lose, so it doesnt reflect how much better the second team is.

If a game is very close and ends 4-5 it is an indication that the actual skill levels of both teams are almost the same. This should be reflected in the elo distribution. A matchpoint 1vs1 can be quite random and it is not logical to have the same elo changes as when one team stomps the other.

^^^ This

This is a good example of a balanced idea. I really like that idea. I think if the match is already in a overtime it means a lot about the skill of both teams.

[BooN003]

I think this is generally the right approach. However, I dont think it is fair to treat a 0-4 the same as a 4-5. The reasoning behind the elo system is that if a team loses to a team with equal skill it is an indication that the second team is better. The evaluation is binary, win or lose, so it doesnt reflect how much better the second team is.

If a game is very close and ends 4-5 it is an indication that the actual skill levels of both teams are almost the same. This should be reflected in the elo distribution. A matchpoint 1vs1 can be quite random and it is not logical to have the same elo changes as when one team stomps the other.

I also do agree that
4-0 game should have bigger elo change for bot winners and loosers

4-5 then again should cause less of a change in elo

And avarage game of 2-4/3-5 should be normal elo change

[Morfanos]

I think this is generally the right approach. However, I dont think it is fair to treat a 0-4 the same as a 4-5. The reasoning behind the elo system is that if a team loses to a team with equal skill it is an indication that the second team is better. The evaluation is binary, win or lose, so it doesnt reflect how much better the second team is.

If a game is very close and ends 4-5 it is an indication that the actual skill levels of both teams are almost the same. This should be reflected in the elo distribution. A matchpoint 1vs1 can be quite random and it is not logical to have the same elo changes as when one team stomps the other.

This isn't a sport where you can simply count points. Every single round can be extremely close and lost or won by a few seconds or just one man standing. With even teams, you can still end up in a 0-4 end score because of that.

In this scenario, how can the system see the difference between a even 0-4 and a 0-4 where one team got steam rolled? Same score but two very different matches. There might be a way to work this into the system but it wouldn't be able to take into account individual players as so many are asking for.

@Punisher

I do somewhat like the idea of having two different queue for ranked but how would it work exactly?

What is solo and what is not?

I often play with squad of 3 or 4(myself included). Would this be a team or a solo queue?

And if it's a team queue, how in hell are we finding the 1 or 2 more players we need if they all queue in the solo queue. Like I said, I think the idea might be a good one BUT those details would need to be clear and fair.

One last thing: We keep seeing these posts on how the current system is bad and all and that all the solo players out there are losing their ranking because of that but there's one thing that most of you either omit on purpose or just don't see:

The 3-4 player team who are carrying so many players up the rank or who are losing so many match because of that solo player that is hellbent on doing his own thing and not playing with the rest of the team. You have no idea of how many matches we keep losing thanks to people like that.

Sure, it might suck to lose rank because of a bad team but you're playing solo... When I'm in a team of 4 and we're losing because of one guy, it's much worst.

PS:Maybe I never encountered any of you but from personal experience, the solo ranked player is rarely the guy carrying the team. If he doesn't communicate, most often than not, he's at the bottom and we're carrying him.

[Celron_Miles]

This isn't a sport where you can simply count points. Every single round can be extremely close and lost or won by a few seconds or just one man standing. With even teams, you can still end up in a 0-4 end score because of that.

In this scenario, how can the system see the difference between a even 0-4 and a 0-4 where one team got steam rolled? Same score but two very different matches. Their might be a way to work this into the system but it wouldn't be able to take into account individual players as so many are asking for.

Of course and we are not talking about people watching the match and deciding who gets how much. Thats too much work (but it could be done :P) but if they at least put in a system that give/takes Elo depending on the end state of the match it would be already a huge improvement.

[Morfanos]

Man Morfanos..I may play devils advocate and take the back door into my points( probably why nobody seems to understand me ), but you put this as clear as crystal and straight to it. Good work man.

I'm beginning to think that we see eye to eye on alotta stuff, so If I happen to drop out of the race early I'd like to see you carry my flag for me. Of course you'd have to be crazy to do it, im just sayin..

Yeah, well, depending on how they understand me, most people will either call me the most genuine person they've ever met... or as someone who's extremely blunt... Well, at least they all know I mean it when I say something.

For me, it's all about arguing, and I mean the good type, the one where people exchange ideas and not the less liked one where people think you're just looking to make them angry but not agreeing with them.

Please don't even think about leaving... I mean, I if I say yes, I'll carry the flag, you might go away and I enjoy reading your posts way too much to let that happens.

[Morfanos]

Of course and we are not talking about people watching the match and deciding who gets how much. Thats too much work (but it could be done :P) but if they at least put in a system that give/takes Elo depending on the end state of the match it would be already a huge improvement.

Well, that's what I meant when I said how do you do it?

Most people are very good at complaining about something they don't like or promoting something they like but very few actually stop to think about the details. That's what I want, details. How would this system work?

[Celron_Miles]

Just a system that takes into consideration when giving or taking away your elo, what was the end result of a match. A simple way to do that is just by comparing the rounds won and using the difference between them. For example you will lose more Elo if you lost your match 1/4 (it gives us a difference of 3 won rounds), than if you lost a 2/4 match. In case of overtime the difference would be bigger. If you were able to catch up to the enemy, or they caught up and now you lost your match 3/5. If you were able to play almost on par with them then the elo loss, which is technically representing your skill level, should be smaller.

Also just to straighten things up, Im not saying that its a bad system that needs to be replaced. I have nothing against it. But it doesnt mean we cant improve it. Also we all know that the chances of this being implemented are very low.