Oh so it really would be that easy to fix?change one line of code
Oh so it really would be that easy to fix?change one line of code
today we’re making some changes to the way ranked ELO works in Team Games (TG) in Age II: DE. This change is specific to how ELO is awarded after team games, but we want to be clear: this is just the first of several changes we’re investigating to improve the competitive experience.
...
In our new system, ELO is awarded based on the average skill level of both teams, which produces much more appropriate adjustments.
...
Over an extended period of time, this will have the effect of normalizing ELO ratings naturally, though we’re still discussing solutions for inflated TG ELO and may take additional steps to resolve that in the future.
If i get it right how it works, this may be worse since the rword from always may inflate ELO by playing with 0 games partners.
too many people don't have an accurate 1v1 rating, or can intentionally keep it low to get easier matches in TGOnly solution is just not giving points and match ups decided by 1vs1 ratings.
Only 1,5 years after release and 2 years after initial beta!
If a few people want to "game" the system for a higher Elo, it probably won't have a huge negative effect on the overall ecosystem. A different problem is that now smurfs get ~100 games per account of smurfing, whereas before it was more like 20 games.Yeah, it encourages to play with lower rated players to gain a higher rating easier. At least the distribution is now even, which should help to prevent the inflation.
I just think at this point another system simply doesn't work without a hard reset of the ladder.
They are saying the 2k gets 1 point, and the 1k gets 100 points.Their example makes no sense? The way it's written, if a 2k and a 1k wins vs 2 1.5ks, they both get 16 points, but really, the 2k should get 0 and the 1k should get 32, while the other 2 lose 16.
That's their description for how it currently works. Which is actually fine for the unbalanced team; what's not fine (and how it currently works) is that the two 1500 players gain/lose Elo based on just the 2k player (ie would lose 1 point if they lost). The system would be fine if they both lost 50 points in this case.They are saying the 2k gets 1 point, and the 1k gets 100 points.
Yeah I mean I'm not sure how anyone could really disagree with the sentiment of these posts.
I don't get what you're complaining about? The algorithm now is much better, because the ELO gain/loss sums to zero (or at least will do most of the time if their example is to be believed). Before, it didn't sum to zero. This is the crucial thing, which is why we were having the spiralling ELO.That's their description for how it currently works. Which is actually fine for the unbalanced team; what's not fine (and how it currently works) is that the two 1500 players gain/lose Elo based on just the 2k player (ie would lose 1 point if they lost). The system would be fine if they both lost 50 points in this case.
Yeah, it encourages to play with lower rated players to gain a higher rating easier. At least the distribution is now even, which should help to prevent the inflation.
I just think at this point another system simply doesn't work without a hard reset of the ladder.
So basically stackers will get faster to 4k by playing unfair match ups, great change.
Their example makes no sense? The way it's written, if a 2k and a 1k wins vs 2 1.5ks, they both get 16 points, but really, the 2k should get 0 and the 1k should get 32, while the other 2 lose 16.
I wonder how long its going to take until one of these pitiful clowns, whose sole job it is to moderate the official forums, is removing that. I mean how sad can it be to moderate a bug report forum considering the fact that the content of whats being said is completely pointless because the transfer of information to the devs is non existent.Yeah I mean I'm not sure how anyone could really disagree with the sentiment of these posts.
7That's their description for how it currently works. Which is actually fine for the unbalanced team; what's not fine (and how it currently works) is that the two 1500 players gain/lose Elo based on just the 2k player (ie would lose 1 point if they lost). The system would be fine if they both lost 50 points in this case.
1 you're right, I think that is definitely the most common system in other games. Again though, it's important that convergence is gradual, and zero-sum. The 100 ELO for one player and 1 ELO for the other is completely the wrong way to do it. You've also got to question how often it is that a 1k player and 2k player will be queuing together, especially for multiple games. If its easier to just make this switch so any gap in ELO is preserved (which it seems it is), I'm glad the devs took the initative to just do it.Well I suppose both methods are valid. It just depends on whether your view is that, assuming the 2k and 1k always queue together, whether their Elos should gradually converge or whether they should always have a 1k gap between them. My understanding was that the former is more standard.
This seems like a bold assumption. However I agree with your larger point. I don't know how anyone could care at all about it considering the developers do not pay any meaningful attention to it. To answer the question, assuming it is true, I imagine a steady paycheck is a steady paycheck and it is very easy to fake like you are doing the job while putting in no real effort because of how low the standards for individual performance appear to be across the entire project.I wonder how long its going to take until one of these pitiful clowns, whose sole job it is to moderate the official forums, is removing that. I mean how sad can it be to moderate a bug report forum considering the fact that the content of whats being said is completely pointless because the transfer of information to the devs is non existent.
Do they stop caring at some point too? Or are they actually invested but the devs just ignore them all the time. Honestly. what a shitty job.
I think, you don't understand my point. The 2k player in your example will crush this TG, no matter what. The elo difference is quite massive and the 2k player should easily win on his own.@The_Philos @soulfire If a 2k player queues with three 1k players he will most likely face an enemy team with average of 1250 elo. That means the 2k player is 750 elo ahead and the 1k players are all 250 points behind. Guess what?! On average that is a fair game!