Well, i've thought about the league system. Actually there are two major problems, mass multi accounts and few player base since no one is willing to wait a couple of minutes -
One guy thinks: "ranked takes to long to start, so i join qualify" which causes ranked to start long since this player hasn't joined, so the next guy does the same - <irony>but hey, having leavers all the time must be fun</irony>
About ELO:
I dislike the fact i've created it with a base of 1500. It did not worked that well as i thought it should, most people just oscillate around 1500 with +-50 points, if the have a winning streak to will lose soon a couple of game and being back where they started.
And the fact of so many multi account (mostly of strong players, sometimes top20 were occupied by about 5 distinct people..) caused that the median has dropped below 1500 due multi account grabbing ELO of single accounts and changing because the probably can't bear fair teams.
Now i would make a start value of 0 but with the current way of calculation just a few dozen player would have more than an elo of 0 therefore it requires some way to account experience (read: number of games) and for this i haven't got a suitable (easy) solution without having some awkward ranking (e.g. new player with a couple of wins getting on top, which i would like to avoid).
some conditions a rating should have
But i kinda busy right now so that wont happen fast.
Besides ELO calculation which is meant to be less the higher someone rating is maybe balance might be overhauled again.
P.S.: i respect you for playing with such a high ELO and trying to lead a team by advising them
One guy thinks: "ranked takes to long to start, so i join qualify" which causes ranked to start long since this player hasn't joined, so the next guy does the same - <irony>but hey, having leavers all the time must be fun</irony>
About ELO:
I dislike the fact i've created it with a base of 1500. It did not worked that well as i thought it should, most people just oscillate around 1500 with +-50 points, if the have a winning streak to will lose soon a couple of game and being back where they started.
And the fact of so many multi account (mostly of strong players, sometimes top20 were occupied by about 5 distinct people..) caused that the median has dropped below 1500 due multi account grabbing ELO of single accounts and changing because the probably can't bear fair teams.
Now i would make a start value of 0 but with the current way of calculation just a few dozen player would have more than an elo of 0 therefore it requires some way to account experience (read: number of games) and for this i haven't got a suitable (easy) solution without having some awkward ranking (e.g. new player with a couple of wins getting on top, which i would like to avoid).
some conditions a rating should have
- player strength prevails "number of games"
- possible to catch up top player
- some kind of diminishing return for streaks
- nice distribution of ALL player between initial rating and top rating
- some points i might have missing
But i kinda busy right now so that wont happen fast.
Besides ELO calculation which is meant to be less the higher someone rating is maybe balance might be overhauled again.
- The current one: four worst rating are split between team and the other six distributed most equally possible
- We also had: four best ratings are split up
- and before that: two best and two worst are split up
P.S.: i respect you for playing with such a high ELO and trying to lead a team by advising them
Marvin Wrote:The first ten million years were the worst and the second ten million years, they were the worst too. The third ten million years I didn't enjoy at all. After that I went into a bit of a decline