Yeah, but i feel like this will actually inflate elo when queuing with lower rated players and winning. Making ranked TGs zero sum elo games is a step in right direction, but continuing from the example in the post, ideally the 2k elo player should gain 0 points and 1k elo player gain 32 points imoWon't solve all of the issues with the ladders, but it's a good start to get rid of the insane inflation on the TG ladder
That brings in a new problem though, because if a 2k and 1k player match up vs 2 1.5k players it's basically 2v1 for the 2k player until the 1k player has had his 40 mins to boom untouched before he adds something to the playing field.Why did they made just half of the needed things.
Sum zero is needed: gained points equal to lost points.
Distribution within a team can (and should) be different.
1. You compare the averages, to calculate how many points every team wins/looses (ie. +-32)
2. You divide it accordingly, that is, equally for both 1500, and a +1 +31 for the unbalanced team (or -31 -1 if they loose)
The exploit has nothing to do with the existence of 3k players, as soon as the ladder places the low elo players (to farm) correctly and you have a couple of friends your own strength like willow stick, you can push your own elo to 4 times the real value.The current algorithm is fine, a clash btw 3k inflated teams turns out in a exchange of like 7-8 points, not +17 like before, that by itself would decrease the inflation, problem was to add it without a ladder reset, cause teaming a 1k elo with a 3k elo breaks the point distribution, giving more points, without existing 3k elo players, the current phenomena of using a low id to skyrocket the ranks wouldn't work close to the same now, making such ****** behavior less rewarding.
There will always be smurfs, question lies on whether the current elo algorithm encourages smurfing.
EDIT: Actually in some sense the current algorithm is better, as its harder to keep the " real account" / "carrying account"s elo low.
Ofcoz I did, and there will never be a "perfect" way for team balancing (eg. simply average elo or take elo difference into consideration? Variance?)Have you ever seen team like this?
View attachment 195621
In the 50% of team games you find a team with a fake low-elo player and your team lose because the matchmaking cannot work fine.
Before the elo tg acquisition update, you couldnt find situation like this and the top 100 tg ladder was populated by players who deserve it.
Your point is right, there will be always smurfs, but now when they win/lose the points are about +8/9 or -8/9 while in the past a 4k player winning a 2.6k elo team would have won only 0 point (if i remember well) and a lost would cost 30/40 points.
you would never be able to play with lower/higherrated friends anymore, way too harshI think a simple solution would be to just forbid unbalanced teams from playing together in ranked games. Make it so the entire team has to be within a ~500 ELO range (or whatever) between the highest and the lowest rated player, and people won't be able to abuse low ELO accounts to match up against lower rated players.
Ranked games are supposed to be competitive, and uneven teams aren't in the spirit of fair competition.
Yeah ELO doesn't matter in TG but you want the number of "ruined" games as close to zero as possible.Why does anyone care about 3-5 losers abusing a system to get there worthless number higher that no one else cares about? Let people show how sad and worthless they are by teaming up with smurfs accounts and exposing themself to the entire community. As long as it doesn't mess up the matchmaking for a significant number of players it doesn't matter.