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

[Morfanos]

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.

OK, that part is simple to understand but it completely ignore the fact that two very even teams can still have matches that end in 0-4 because each of the rounds were extremely close yet still won by the same team. The final score isn't always a good representation of an even match. There's a big difference in a match between each rounds ending with 4 people alive on one team and none on the other and a match where there's only one person alive at the end of each round. Those are very opposite scenarios yet can both end in the in one team winning 4-0.

[Celron_Miles]

Of course it is unfair, but if we can at least implement that in the algorithm then it would be already a better way of rating the skill of players. The best system would be if it took into consideration, as you said above, the amount of man standing at the end of the round, and even further, it would have to observe the situation. If it only looks at the amount of people alive at the end of the round, then a guy that just clutched a 1v5 wont be appreciated for that. Im talking about making baby steps into enhancing the system.

[RunnerRunner22]

OK, that part is simple to understand but it completely ignore the fact that two very even teams can still have matches that end in 0-4 because each of the rounds were extremely close yet still won by the same team. The final score isn't always a good representation of an even match. There's a big difference in a match between each rounds ending with 4 people alive on one team and none on the other and a match where there's only one person alive at the end of each round. Those are very opposite scenarios yet can both end in the in one team winning 4-0.

Don't make it more complicated than it is. Yes, it would be nice if there was a better way to determine how close a match actually was. Until someone comes up with a convincing solution, we could simply use the final result of a match. In the vast majority of cases where a match ended 4:0, there actually was a large skill gap between the teams.

Taking the score into account would be super easy and would be a huge improvement compared to the current system. Other changes could still be looked into later.

[Celron_Miles]

Don't make it more complicated than it is. Yes, it would be nice if there was a better way to determine how close a match actually was. Until someone comes up with a convincing solution, we could simply use the final result of a match. In the vast majority of cases where a match ended 4:0, there actually was a large skill gap between the teams.

Taking the score into account would be super easy and would be a huge improvement compared to the current system. Other changes could still be looked into later.

Exactly.

[WBBCoop]

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.

Heh, that's ^^ why I said what I said. I'm busy, real busy, but I don't have any foreseeable future in going anywhere anytime soon..but its one of those life positions where I could take the next step up but it will cost my time dearly, and to such a degree where I don't know how often I would be thinking of Siege much less playing games with my 2 'growing up faster than speed lightning' sons. I'll do my best though ..and thank you.

Of course it is unfair, but if we can at least implement that in the algorithm then it would be already a better way of rating the skill of players. The best system would be if it took into consideration, as you said above, the amount of man standing at the end of the round, and even further, it would have to observe the situation. If it only looks at the amount of people alive at the end of the round, then a guy that just clutched a 1v5 wont be appreciated for that. Im talking about making baby steps into enhancing the system.

It's the fact that we have solo teams and stacked teams that both require a different rating to coincide with their ideals. The perfect system must include both groups equally and without bias and that's why we don't have it yet. In the end you must decide the system based on the ideals of the game, and to put it simply this is a team based game. You can not win unless you cooperate and play as a team. So by definition, they like the team ideals more than the soloists necessities and fully brunt the bear of their (your?) issue..with no choice.

Don't make it more complicated than it is. Yes, it would be nice if there was a better way to determine how close a match actually was. Until someone comes up with a convincing solution, we could simply use the final result of a match. In the vast majority of cases where a match ended 4:0, there actually was a large skill gap between the teams.

Taking the score into account would be super easy and would be a huge improvement compared to the current system. Other changes could still be looked into later.

And good luck with that convincing solution, because if nothing other, Ubi knows for a fact that it can not be done without me blasting holes in it. I basically told Ubi to do what they are doing anyways but wont openly admit it. My above comment and previous post in the matter already described the why you need 5 players to play, but some still want to fake it with the pubs and do their damnedest to try to get them to start point spreading.

I don't know how else to explain it other than it sounds like most of the complaints come from soloist and not the team. I have tried to read every thread and every post for two years and I have yet to see 5 forum members of the same team try to make a thread together..ever. Because they are set in terms of the games rules and while other teams and players may do their best to break apart and 'derank' a 'team', ultimately it will be impossible. As much as a hybrid solo/stack ranking, tk and all other crap, that is outside the realm of the games ideals, would be. Players leaving and team killing do not affect the team, its basically perfect already.

[DirtY_SeCreT]

The system as it is has a obvious problem, it doesn't really reflect your personal skill rather how good your team is doing.You can be a real good player but in bad teams you still lose. It is your rank, not your teams. I've seen so many silver/low-gold players beeing better than many platins...
Just an easy example, I had matches, and others maybe too, going 14-4 kills and I still lost due to unballanced teams. Yes I'm part of that team, but I think it's just unfair to handle everyone on the team the same. The same goes for winning. If you had nothing to do with your teams success or you even were a millstone around the neck, you should be punished accordingly with a loss of points. It shouldn't be to difficult, to take at least some aspects into consideration. I understand, there are some things which can't be awarded like breaching walls with thermite, tracking players with drones without scanning and much more, but some could be used for your elo.
To mention a few:
- award entry-frags, since those are really important
- winning last man standing situations like 1v1, 1v2, 1v3 and so on
- compare the stats of your team with yours, and the opponents (in the end, this game is very much about frags)
- early deaths, within several seconds, for spawnpeaks, greedy players etc. (esp. defenders)

Don't make it more complicated than it is. Yes, it would be nice if there was a better way to determine how close a match actually was. Until someone comes up with a convincing solution, we could simply use the final result of a match. In the vast majority of cases where a match ended 4:0, there actually was a large skill gap between the teams.

How about a round by round system? Instead of looking at the match as a whole, maybe just rate every round by itself. And at the end you will get a +/- bonus, maybe in form of a multiplicator or something, for winning or the losing the match. I don't know how difficult this would be, since I'm not a coder, but somethings needs to be done. At least you should be able to get postive points although you lose and vice versa.

[WBBCoop]

- award entry-frags, since those are really important
- winning last man standing situations like 1v1, 1v2, 1v3 and so on
- compare the stats of your team with yours, and the opponents (in the end, this game is very much about frags)
- early deaths, within several seconds, for spawnpeaks, greedy players etc. (esp. defenders)

- frags do not equal skill, or do you think that droning/callouts or bullying them with Monty do not equal your skill killz?
- Castle
- what stats? frags again?
- but spawnpeeks=frags and it was MY Castle panels that funneled that last 1v1 in through the only way possible tyvm

Frags frags and more frags, this is all about the kill for you and I'll bet a bakers dozen of doughnuts that you solo without mic?

[TROSSO]

I solo que primarily and agree that I wish something could be done to stop me and others from being taken down due to bad teammates trolls ECT. But have to agree that's there really no real way to change it without screwing someone else over too. You can't screw one or several other people with an idea just to benefit a small group of people.
That being said what if there was less of an elo gain/loss for people leaving cause 4 v 5 makes for a lopsided fight not saying it can't be won but makes it very difficult. Unless that's already implemented and that's very few matches the way it is.

There aren't any good systems that can't be abused by trolls kill stealing and a lack of recognition for strats that don't get other people points or kills.

[Immotay]

They should get rid of the 100+ point matches at the beggining of the season and make it a more standard value.

The actual way a ELO system should work is:

The game takes the average rank from both teams and compare, let's say team A average is 3000, and team B average is 3100. With that the system reaches the following conclusion:

Due to team B having a higher average, they are expected to win the match; and team A is expected to lose due to having a lower average rank.
Then, if team B wins, they do not get as much rank points, since they were already expected to win the matchup. On the other side, team A also loses a bit less rank than usual, because it was already expected for them to lose.

If team B loses, they lose a little more rank, because they weren't expected to win, meaning that team A is going to get a little more rank points because they did overcome the system prediction and won against a team that was higher ranked than them.

This doesn't make ranked more about yourself though, but it helps preventing you going downhill because you were matched against way more skilled players (and got rekt), and also prevents you from farming lots of points by facing weaker opponents.

[Celron_Miles]

You should never be treated as an individual. But yeah the more you think, or try to upgrade it the more complicated it becomes. Also its not like ranked system will ever leave beta XD