(2013-05-18, 11:52:45)EarthR Wrote: (2013-05-18, 00:08:40)GEN_Schwarzkopf Wrote: I have considered this carefully, EarthR.
We both recognize the problem does occur either way. My point is about the stead-state: what happens after 20 games.
As I see it more new players ruin game balance than smurfs, plus the new players are resented for this, which is making battle tanks less attractive to new players.
1500 would be an average ELO if it was based only on winning and losing.
- Rob
actually i dont mind new players since they are new and its expected for them to play bad. What i dont like is seeing players with over 300-400(some even with more than 1-2k games play just terrible) games playing worse than new players. they are the ones that ruin balance not new players. you can play a game and deal with it if only 1 player plays bad. the problem is when 3-4 players play bad in a game.
Here is an example: You are in a team with a new player. First thing you gonna do is make sure he doesnt go lane. This is a critical point because all those over 300-400 games players all go to mid to avoid strong opponents. I have seen many games that the new player has to take 1 lane because nobody else is going there to face a strong opponent. As a result he feeds and then he is either kicked (most cases) or get flamed. Thats a point where you lost the game and its not because of the new players.
Second if the new player goes mid. Its expected because he is new to creep less than the other 2. Also because the other two play selfish(99% of the cases) as a result they only mass weapons take all the creeps then go stupid tanks like
airship or thunder and blame the new guy when because of the new guy they are fed like hell and dont use that advantage.
Because this is team game because 1 player plays bad doesnt make the team lose. There is (almost)always 1 bad player in enemy team also. In most cases 2-3 players play bad in each team. I dont think the elo solves anything.
I would suggest the people that continue to mass range in mid, stealing all the gold are the ones that end up causing the team to lose as well. Noobs mass range instead of buying tanks. The problem here is that mass farming helps their ELO but not the team in defending CPs, causing them to ruin other players farming ability to buy proper tanks that can defend CPs, as well as co-ordinate an effective attack, like AOE stuns.
So you are right on this.
Whether lowering the starting ELO helps this is another question.
I would say that the linkage between performance and farming needs to be much less, as greedy farming builds do not win games unless the player is going to carry the team to victory with an early infernal. Also some players can intentionally ignore defending and there is a new trend of tower whoring and base attacking, which is helpful if successful, but bad if they do it while the CPs are under attack and they ignore it.
Thus I would suggest more performance awards should be based on defending CPs, even when dying to do so. I also think the time for kill assists should be extended beyond what it is. I recall damaging and stunning an enemy hero, for them to finally be chased for the last hit by an allied air unit, for the kill. This kill would have not been possible without the stun, so I would suggest if a hero stuns an enemy and they die within 10 seconds, that contribution was an important assist.
I think that taking CPs should also be awarded to players to die taking the CP. For example I teleport in and use a beacon. I'm there first and die, allies come in after, beacon is destroyed. CP is taken, it would have been impossible without me, but I get no credit.
Just a few thoughts to improve the ELO performance based criteria as you suggest lowering the bar might not be effective.
- Rob
