AFAIK this is already fixed, slingshot is no longer possible.the problem is it uses your ranking in other ladders for placement, but that's the only reason it matters so for anyone already ranked it isnt an issue
AFAIK this is already fixed, slingshot is no longer possible.the problem is it uses your ranking in other ladders for placement, but that's the only reason it matters so for anyone already ranked it isnt an issue
-1v1 skill =/= TG skill1k 1v1 players are roughly distributed between 1.4 to 2.1 k TG. 1.3k 1v1 player is distributed between 1.8 to 2.7 k TG. You are delusional if you think TG ratings are fair or ranked according to skill with little overlap. If I (1.4k 1v1) solo queue for TG I get matched with ~1.7k 1v1 player.
-Unlike elo, WR is just a number, WR doesnt affect matchmaking.Nope, they just stopped gaining more elo but their wr is not affected because the elo wasn't reset and the new formula causes new problems without going solving the existing ones.
-There have always been debates about how elo gains / losses should be shared among the team, and there was never a consensus.One great thing about old system was variable distribution of elo within a team. This feature should have been discarded. Total elo gain/loss should be same but distribute the elo bad on player rating.
-Their "pre-made" boost is already reflected on their elo. (Smurfing is another story)Add in virtual elo boost for pre-made teams and you get a solution for number of issues including smurfs.
-Its never meant to "reverse" the gain by interfering , you cant "reverse" / "deduct" the gain by tweaking the algorithm without manually tweaking it once again later or hard code something like min800 max 3000 or whatever.So, you are admitting that the new elo formula did nothing to reverse the elo gain.
-Thats not a "fix", people can still buy multiple copies, or even new PCs for new mac address.Disable family sharing for ranked, see above points.
-Seeing people keep saying stuff when they dont even know what they are saying is frustrating indeed.The most frustrating thing is all these explanations have been repeated multiple times but certain people just don't want to understand the problem.
This is no longer a problem.A) Players gain elo over time by just playing, as delta rely on opposing teams highest elo player. "Overrated" players were created, leading to unbalanced matchups.
This was fixed in 2020 April.B) Bugged TG match making, resulting a lot of weird matchups (eg. Three 1k + One 3k vs Four 2k) which lead to (A).
Overall elo stop rising, new players no longer need to climb indefinitely. (Though median will always be above 1000 as only active players are included on the ladder.C) Overall elo keep rising, new 1000 players have to climb harder than a "normal" ladder for balanced matchups. And it gets harder and harder over time.
(1400-1000)/16 = 25The problems with TG Elo is that you need to play about 200 games to be accurately rated if you are anywhere close to good at the game. A reset would be great for fixing this but would also force everyone to play 20+ games to be rated reasonably.
-So people who dont play 1v1s are screwed.I think just resetting to 1v1 rating and going from there is the best solution. (Or you could come up with a complicated mathematical formal that combines 1v1 and tg Elo and then divides them by x)
-This is already in the system, first ten games have a bigger k-factor.An alternative solution is to just give/lose 5 times more points for a win/loss up until you reach 50 games played or something like that.
- Yes I know and it's fine for 1v1 but not TG since the Elo are so inflated that you need more games.-This is already in the system, first ten games have a bigger k-factor.
-This lead to inflation due to smurfing. (Tho its effect is minimal in comparison)
-With 5 times + 50 games it will be a lot more serious.
No, its supposed to be 50 50, thats how elo system works.-Most people lose a lot more then they win at the start so it would do the opposite.
If some people are so desperate to smurf they are willing to buy multiple copies of the game that sounds like a revenue source that impoverished Microsoft should not be neglecting.Thats not a "fix", people can still buy multiple copies, or even new PCs for new mac address.
Only after you get to your level. Most 1000 elo players are better then first time online players so you lose some games at the start until you reach your true level and start winning 50% of your games.No, its supposed to be 50 50, thats how elo system works.
it's supposed to be 50 50, but with inflated elo there will be more winning than losing even without smurfsNo, its supposed to be 50 50, thats how elo system works.
Lets first assume this is actually the case.Only after you get to your level. Most 1000 elo players are better then first time online players so you lose some games at the start until you reach your true level and start winning 50% of your games.
The premise is already totally wrong LULelo is supposed to reflect skills
LULNice wikipedia, but learn to search better cause it says nothing relevant, also the tg elo has nothing to do with chess anymore, the guys since zone made the proper estimations to keep the rating distribution fair even when people was stacking to demotivate them since the gains would be lesser, the guys in charge of the elo distribution on DE made it worse pretending to be original, you are a guy from DE, but take a look at previous tg ladders on voobly, there is no such stupid elo discrepancy btw the ladders, next time for god sake use what we have used in the past as reference, don't you try to be original cause you ain't different to the DE guys in charge.
And Voobly TG is like 2k2 MAX while 1v1 being 2k7 MAX, are they broken again?
A: Just because it was done that way doesnt mean is the only way.
B: BuT ThATs WhAt We USeD to Do!!!!!!
So he doesn't have to bother rewriting what he wrote in the other thread. Is he wrong about that? A lot of people seem to complain about the experience of TG in DE, not just him.Imagine playing shitty games and having an inferior experience compared to previous game platforms and thinking this is fine and its part of the progress despite the heavy evidence of its fails and thousands of complains that never existed before.
Not because you like bad bunny, we have to listen the same music, progress is sometimes a step back in evolution.
1k 1v1 players are roughly distributed between 1.4 to 2.1 k TG. 1.3k 1v1 player is distributed between 1.8 to 2.7 k TG. You are delusional if you think TG ratings are fair or ranked according to skill with little overlap. If I (1.4k 1v1) solo queue for TG I get matched with ~1.7k 1v1 player.
Nope, they just stopped gaining more elo but their wr is not affected because the elo wasn't reset and the new formula causes new problems without going solving the existing ones.
One great thing about old system was variable distribution of elo within a team. This feature should have been discarded. Total elo gain/loss should be same but distribute the elo bad on player rating. Add in virtual elo boost for pre-made teams and you get a solution for number of issues including smurfs.
So, you are admitting that the new elo formula did nothing to reverse the elo gain.
Disable family sharing for ranked, see above points.
The most frustrating thing is all these explanations have been repeated multiple times but certain people just don't want to understand the problem.
Useless replying to HongeyKong as they are in an alternate dimension where there is nothing wrong with TG Elo.