I think, you don't understand my point.
I think you dont understamd your point.
I think, you don't understand my point.
Ah, the "Whatever dude" argument. Thanks for the talk.I think you dont understamd your point.
If they always queue together the individual Elos don't matter anyway, since games will be balanced based on the combination of there ratings, and if they don't always queue together the rating changes across games paired with different players will make their Elos converge if they are similar in skillWell 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.
I mean you cant say exactly the same thing as in your old post and expect me to give you a different answerAh, the "Whatever dude" argument. Thanks for the talk.
If you don't see, that the new system is flawed aswell, then I can't help you. I really can't make it any clearer. It's just baffling to me, why they wait 1,5 years to try to fix an obviously broken system and then the first attempt isn't even well thought through. Not even speaking of why there is no reset to the ladder.I mean you cant say exactly the same thing as in your old post and expect me to give you a different answer
Well, it seems like it means it will be roughly +-16 each game, similar to in 1v1s where you often lose or gain something like 13-19 but rarely outside that range (unless you are an extreme player at like 2k or 300 Elo) since obviously it cant always find a perfect match for youTo clarify the confusion for everyone basically they changed the system so average ELO is used on both sides of the calculation rather than just changing so both wins and losses used average ELO against the player's individual score as I think many expected. Numerous people have said matchmaking uses average ELO to make matches so this seems like it just means every game for a player is either 16 up or 16 down, which maybe is most fair?
I guess that is better than nothing. I do think the other posters arguments about the flaws make sense because it is true that in a 2v2 a 2k should be able to crush two 1.5k even with a 1k as teammate and therefore they really shouldn't be getting very many ELO points from it.Well, it seems like it means it will be roughly +-16 each game, similar to in 1v1s where you often lose or gain something like 13-19 but rarely outside that range (unless you are an extreme player at like 2k or 300 Elo) since obviously it cant always find a perfect match for you
The real problems come when this is also true for those managers.was given a task by their managers that was so far above their competency
If a 2k player and a 1k player queue up against a team of players with same elo. Then what would be their elo to allow for a fair game? I am really curious about your answerIf you don't see, that the new system is flawed aswell, then I can't help you. I really can't make it any clearer. It's just baffling to me, why they wait 1,5 years to try to fix an obviously broken system and then the first attempt isn't even well thought through. Not even speaking of why there is no reset to the ladder.
It has been explained over and over again in this thread. The MM balancing by average team rating is fine, but the elo distribution afterwards shouldn't be everyone gets the same points because it has the flaws, which I and everyone else pointed out in this thread. It should be like it has been on voobly, which worked more or less. Higher rated players get fewer points, lower rated players get more points. The sum of elo gain and loss should always equal to 0.If a 2k player and a 1k player queue up against a team of players with same elo. Then what would be their elo to allow for a fair game? I am really curious about your answer
But why should the 1k player get more points than the 2k player? Presumably if they win, they've contributed equally (relative to their skill level). From a fairness point of view they should get the same number of points. Then if the 1k goes and plays with another 1k friend he's not suddenly way over rated.It has been explained over and over again in this thread. The MM balancing by average team rating is fine, but the elo distribution afterwards shouldn't be everyone gets the same points because it has the flaws, which I and everyone else pointed out in this thread. It should be like it has been on voobly, which worked more or less. Higher rated players gets less points, lower rated player gets more points. The sum of elo gain and loss should always equal to 0.
They even had that with the previous system, they should've just removed the nonsensical "everyone gains/looses elo dependent on the highest rated opponent" and change it to "everyone gains/looses elo dependent on average team rating" and make it a 0 sum for gain/loss.
Less room to abuse the system, more sensical distribution of points.
Apart from that idea of a TG rating that is ever estimated properly:But why should the 1k player get more points than the 2k player? Presumably if they win, they've contributed equally (relative to their skill level). From a fairness point of view they should get the same number of points. Then if the 1k goes and plays with another 1k friend he's not suddenly way over rated.
Apart from that idea of a TG rating that is ever estimated properly:
The combined skill of the 2k and 1k elo should be more or less 1,5k rating and if they play 100 games both of them should be at 1,5k rating because that is their combined true rating. This process is done quicker if you give less to the player with a high rating and more to the player with lower rating, so it equals out to 1,5k.
*If they finally capped TG rating similiar to 1v1 rating.
I remember I read somewhere that once you reach 2.2k (or around a high rating like that) the amount of points you gain per victory are declining, and the top 10 therefore only gets around 6 elo per game.I dont know what kind of elo cap you are talking about. There is no such thing. Implementing that would be a terrible idea.
You don't take away anything. The rating is only there to show the teams strength. If you play a lot of games with the same people, you probably are more interested in the strength of the team instead of the individual strengths of the players. If you want individual strength, just take the 1v1 rating.That means you take away 500 points from a player whos individual skill hasnt changed. So if he queues up with a player around his elo he will stomp everything.
Same thing for the 1k player. You give him 500 points for no reason and he will get rekt with other team mates of that level.
Don't know the exact amount, but could be accurate.I remember I read somewhere that once you reach 2.2k (or around a high rating like that) the amount of points you gain per victory are declining, and the top 10 therefore only gets around 6 elo per game.
I remember I read somewhere that once you reach 2.2k (or around a high rating like that) the amount of points you gain per victory are declining, and the top 10 therefore only gets around 6 elo per game.
I was thinking the same, because they did not explain it properly, but actually it takes the highest rank in your team and gives you the points that he would win, despite the lowest rank player in your team, so everyone in the party gets the same points, preventing lower rank players to win an insanely amount of points.In case it wasn't already obvious, the issue with the new elo calculation is that it will reward playing with a smurfing friend enormously: you can absolutely bet that there will be players who get a high-level friend to create a new account to play TGs with them so that they can get lower level opponents, but still make big elo gains. Race to 4k anybody?
Given smurfing is already rampant and frustrates a lot of players, having a system which actively rewards smurfing seems utterly backwards to me.