2012-03-31, 04:29:20
(This post was last modified: 2012-03-31, 04:33:39 by UnifiedDoom.)
While the logic to balance the teams more effectively is a good idea, I think a change like this will actually counter-act what should. By taking the average elo of the last 20 games a player's "balancing elo" will lag far behind his "streak elo." Now I think this is what progg was actually going for because now players will be balanced based on their overall skill (in the past twenty games at least) rather than the skill represented by their current "streak." But by making the balancing elo lag behind the real elo we will give players on "win streaks" consistently better teams than they ought to get. Conversely players are "losing streaks will" be given worse teams than they should because their previous average elo was high. In a way a system like this will encourage having many wins or losses in a row by skewing the team balance to the past, not the present.
I think the main problem with the elo system as people mentioned before is that it isn't perfect and doesn't account for all the variables. It's very unlikely in fact almost impossible that two people with the same elo like 1550 have the exact same skill level, however the system can't tell. Randomness like having "alton better than bom" or "dami equal to red" is just part of league. If we gave those players their "real" elo's it's very likely bom and dami would be at a disadvantage because their current "losing streak" has lowered their morale. I like the current system because it rewards people who are having hard times with better teams but challenges people who are having good times with harder opponents.
My problem with the system is simple, giving all 0 ranked games players 1500 elo. While 1500 elo may seem average because that's basically wins=losses, I think someone who can consistently sustain 1500 is actually above average. Legitimately any "noob" who only has 25 games under their belt is NOT at this level of skill. Yet that same player will be ranked that way. look at this game: http://league.btanks.net/game.php?gameid=29105
both teams had a player with 1500 elo, yet one was very clearly better than the other. I'd say the real value of teal was around "1400" and his presense on the darkforce made it a really tough win for that team.
I've already proposed this, but I think I was ignored so I'll propose it again: Give new players fresh out of qualify the balancing elo "1450" for their first 5 games ONLY. Then take whatever they get in wins/losses in their first 5 games and add/subtract it to 1500 to get their elo for the 6th game. So for instance if the player turns out to be like teal above and most likely the cause of many loses for his team his elo will "normalize" at a low level without having to "ruin" his first 5 games. Conversely if the player is a pro in disguise after 5 games he will be given an elo fitting to someone on a win streak.
I also think that because league ranking is indeed given on an individual basis, more emphasis should be placed on individual "game performance." Right now the range is only 0 - .15 for losers and .85 - 1.00 for winners. Now ideally I would say that the ranges should be 0 - .50 for losers and .50 - 1.00 for winners so if you play well enough as an individual you can sustain a loss without losing positions in the individual ranking. Like in this game where I ended up losing with 49-14 stats: http://league.btanks.net/game.php?gameid=28670
However I think such a radical change would shift the league system too much. I would like to see it made incrementally perhaps starting at .0 - .30 for losers and .70 - 1.00 for winners?
I think the main problem with the elo system as people mentioned before is that it isn't perfect and doesn't account for all the variables. It's very unlikely in fact almost impossible that two people with the same elo like 1550 have the exact same skill level, however the system can't tell. Randomness like having "alton better than bom" or "dami equal to red" is just part of league. If we gave those players their "real" elo's it's very likely bom and dami would be at a disadvantage because their current "losing streak" has lowered their morale. I like the current system because it rewards people who are having hard times with better teams but challenges people who are having good times with harder opponents.
My problem with the system is simple, giving all 0 ranked games players 1500 elo. While 1500 elo may seem average because that's basically wins=losses, I think someone who can consistently sustain 1500 is actually above average. Legitimately any "noob" who only has 25 games under their belt is NOT at this level of skill. Yet that same player will be ranked that way. look at this game: http://league.btanks.net/game.php?gameid=29105
both teams had a player with 1500 elo, yet one was very clearly better than the other. I'd say the real value of teal was around "1400" and his presense on the darkforce made it a really tough win for that team.
I've already proposed this, but I think I was ignored so I'll propose it again: Give new players fresh out of qualify the balancing elo "1450" for their first 5 games ONLY. Then take whatever they get in wins/losses in their first 5 games and add/subtract it to 1500 to get their elo for the 6th game. So for instance if the player turns out to be like teal above and most likely the cause of many loses for his team his elo will "normalize" at a low level without having to "ruin" his first 5 games. Conversely if the player is a pro in disguise after 5 games he will be given an elo fitting to someone on a win streak.
I also think that because league ranking is indeed given on an individual basis, more emphasis should be placed on individual "game performance." Right now the range is only 0 - .15 for losers and .85 - 1.00 for winners. Now ideally I would say that the ranges should be 0 - .50 for losers and .50 - 1.00 for winners so if you play well enough as an individual you can sustain a loss without losing positions in the individual ranking. Like in this game where I ended up losing with 49-14 stats: http://league.btanks.net/game.php?gameid=28670
However I think such a radical change would shift the league system too much. I would like to see it made incrementally perhaps starting at .0 - .30 for losers and .70 - 1.00 for winners?