100 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Ghogiel, on 25 October 2014 - 10:52 PM, said:

It's easier to tank from high Elo because the variance is at the top. And that's why when shoving a player 800 points higher than the 1600 rated player and averaging the variance and saying: guise 200 average varianc gg. Sounds good on paper but probably isn't really.

The variance goes both ways though. Plenty of your matches you're effectively on the losing end because the MM stacked way against you to try and get close to 'even'.

Seriously, tanking from 2k to 1600 would be like 50+matches lost without wins. You're generally only going to lose 20pts on half of them, the others would be a wash.

[Ghogiel]

Wintersdark, on 25 October 2014 - 10:41 PM, said:

But that's impossible to avoid. By their very nature, very high (and low) elo players are very rare. Everyone likes to think they are Super Special, but the vast majority of players are average. Those actually very high Elo players will only rarely ever get into matches where everyone is at their level because that would require millions playing at the same time. The MM can only draw from who's clicked Play in a comparatively short period of time. So, you get what you get. It's not a failing of the system, it's a failing of the inputs.

The MM doesn't dump you into lower Elo matches because (as my sig says) it's a spiteful ******* or incompetent, it does so to get you a match period.

I know. I'm not asking to 'fix' it.

[Ghogiel]

MischiefSC, on 25 October 2014 - 11:01 PM, said:

The variance goes both ways though. Plenty of your matches you're effectively on the losing end because the MM stacked way against you to try and get close to 'even'.

Seriously, tanking from 2k to 1600 would be like 50+matches lost without wins. You're generally only going to lose 20pts on half of them, the others would be a wash.

1 point between 1800 to 2000 is worth more than 1 point in a middle Elo rating.

You've just pointed out how easy it actually is as well. 400 points is actually more than I thought I could do in 50 losses.

[Egomane]

Quote

Why Is There Elo Separation For Leaderboard Tournaments?

Why shouldn't there be?
Just because you are good, doesn't meant that the rewards for such a contest should easily fall into your hands. Give everyone the same chance to win something. Everyone has to work as much the others to gain a top placement. No one is guaranteed a win, which makes for a much more enjoyble environment.

[Kjudoon]

Well, don't worry. CW will give the elo free playground/abattoir some have been craving.

[kuangmk11]

Egomane, on 25 October 2014 - 11:22 PM, said:

Why shouldn't there be?
Just because you are good, doesn't meant that the rewards for such a contest should easily fall into your hands. Give everyone the same chance to win something. Everyone has to work as much the others to gain a top placement. No one is guaranteed a win, which makes for a much more enjoyble environment.

Because people want to know who the actual best is, not the elo adjusted best. Its fine to separate by elo, just separate the leaderboard by elo as well

[Aresye]

kuangmk11, on 25 October 2014 - 11:28 PM, said:

Because people want to know who the actual best is, not the elo adjusted best. Its fine to separate by elo, just separate the leaderboard by elo as well

They could probably implement it in a way so players wouldn't be able to tell which bracket their in too.

Of course, this would require separate rewards for each bracket, so not sure how that would work out.

[Jeffrey Wilder]

The names will give ELO away. I usually can tell if MM is going to make me win or lose just from the names I see on both teams.

[Vyx]

The better question is why is a solo tournament built on a 12v12 game?

Or, to put it another way: How does a single player's performance supposed to be reflected in a team-oriented match?

Doesn't more than half the success of the match really depend on your teammates behaving competently? If a lance breaks off to "scout" and gets annihilated within the first 3 minutes, and you are then rolled by the numbers disadvantage this causes, wouldn't you say that really had nothing to do with your skill?

Solo tournaments are flawed using the current match paradigm. A real solo tournament would pit one player versus another, gladiator style (Solaris VII anyone?). I envision a "solo queue" where players face single opponents using mechs of the same weight-class. You would earn ranking based on a formula that used ELO. The chassis/pilot rankings would then truly reflect solo competency.

While a tournament is always fun, this one is flawed from many perspectives stated by others in this thread, as well as fundamentally for the reason I state above.

Edited by Vyx, 26 October 2014 - 02:23 AM.

[Ovion]

You could always do something like 'Score*ELO', then it'll account for that rating too?

[Kjudoon]

Ovion, on 26 October 2014 - 02:53 AM, said:

You could always do something like 'Score*ELO', then it'll account for that rating too?

Handicap it instead: Score/Elo

[Lily from animove]

Aresye, on 25 October 2014 - 04:51 PM, said:

Pretty much what the title says.

If we're doing a "Top X #" players for any kind of tournament, why is Elo active? Seems rather counter-intuitive. Not to mention it also inspires certain bad behaviors like people running alt accounts, suiciding multiple times in hopes of lowering Elo, etc, just to get on the leaderboard.

In a way I kind of feel that those in the higher Elo brackets actually end up getting the shorter end of the stick. Each game played is full of high Elo players, so in the end nobody ends up scoring well, whereas on the other side of the spectrum, the lower Elo brackets give players a wider window to excel.

So let's say Low Elo Guy found a better build and learned a few more tricks to piloting. He's able to smash the competition and consistently get high scores.

Meanwhile, High Elo Guy is struggling to get over 3 kills or 500 damage. He knows all the tricks, is running the most efficient builds, and using the most efficient tactics. Unfortunately, every player in the game is exactly at that same level, so nobody excels.

High Elo Guy could very likely beat Low Elo Guy repeatedly if matched together, but in terms of the tournament, Low Elo Guy will get on the leaderboard, while High Elo Guy doesn't.

The end result of this kind of system is it inspires High Elo Guy to take drastic measures if he wants on the leaderboard, whether it's creating an alt account, suiciding dozens - hundreds of times to lower his Elo, or playing in really odd off-peak hours.

If we're going to do a leaderboard based competition, there shouldn't be separate Elo brackets. After all, isn't the whole point of a leaderboard to basically show who the really good pilots are? Not, "Who the really good pilots are...in each Elo bracket."

Perhaps the answer to this should be implementing some form of tournament-only queue, or some way of the MM picking matches without Elo based on who's opted into the tournament.



Now, I'm sure this post will end up rustling some jimmies, because no matter how I word it, the overall message of this post basically says, "I don't think many people on the leaderboard deserve to be there." I can't sugar coat the underlying message, but while it may sound elitist, I'm not taking myself out of the equation (aka: this would affect me too).

A leaderboard based tournament should be based on who the best players are, and separate Elo brackets is counter-intuitive to that, by (ironically) making it harder on the better players while giving players in lower Elo brackets more room to work with.

If players want to compete to show they've got the talent to place in the top 15, they shouldn't be "protected" by Elo from facing the better players, and by opting in to the tournament, it should come with the full understanding that they will be facing players from any Elo, at any skill level.

I don't agree, I don't think high elo player get the short stick. If you are good, you will regulary put good matches, and top matches are very luck based, but the more often you are good, the easier it is to have that luck. ot the higher is the chance. A low elo palyer will mostlikely even if amongst his own low elo players NOT perform constantly good. Especially not when he wins, his elo rises, he has to play amongst bigger fishes he can't handle. Especially when he suddenly "figures out" superbuild. And how do you want to seperate in elos? Thsi cna be cheated as well. Make an alt accound get the "average elo" and the high elo with his alt account is in baws mode.
Yet people change their elo, do you wanna fix their elo during the tournament? because this woud egnerate the problem you described above even more. peoples elo changes in the tournament a lot. Sometimes I loose 5 in a row, sometimes we win.

Turning off elo, is an even more worse idea tbh, because then it is ourely luckbased if you are the single big fish in a pool of small fishes or get other big fshes with you. It would only increase the randomness factor.

[Willard Phule]

Aresye, on 25 October 2014 - 04:51 PM, said:

Pretty much what the title says.

If we're doing a "Top X #" players for any kind of tournament, why is Elo active? Seems rather counter-intuitive. Not to mention it also inspires certain bad behaviors like people running alt accounts, suiciding multiple times in hopes of lowering Elo, etc, just to get on the leaderboard.

In a way I kind of feel that those in the higher Elo brackets actually end up getting the shorter end of the stick. Each game played is full of high Elo players, so in the end nobody ends up scoring well, whereas on the other side of the spectrum, the lower Elo brackets give players a wider window to excel.

So let's say Low Elo Guy found a better build and learned a few more tricks to piloting. He's able to smash the competition and consistently get high scores.

Meanwhile, High Elo Guy is struggling to get over 3 kills or 500 damage. He knows all the tricks, is running the most efficient builds, and using the most efficient tactics. Unfortunately, every player in the game is exactly at that same level, so nobody excels.

High Elo Guy could very likely beat Low Elo Guy repeatedly if matched together, but in terms of the tournament, Low Elo Guy will get on the leaderboard, while High Elo Guy doesn't.

The end result of this kind of system is it inspires High Elo Guy to take drastic measures if he wants on the leaderboard, whether it's creating an alt account, suiciding dozens - hundreds of times to lower his Elo, or playing in really odd off-peak hours.

If we're going to do a leaderboard based competition, there shouldn't be separate Elo brackets. After all, isn't the whole point of a leaderboard to basically show who the really good pilots are? Not, "Who the really good pilots are...in each Elo bracket."

Perhaps the answer to this should be implementing some form of tournament-only queue, or some way of the MM picking matches without Elo based on who's opted into the tournament.



Now, I'm sure this post will end up rustling some jimmies, because no matter how I word it, the overall message of this post basically says, "I don't think many people on the leaderboard deserve to be there." I can't sugar coat the underlying message, but while it may sound elitist, I'm not taking myself out of the equation (aka: this would affect me too).

A leaderboard based tournament should be based on who the best players are, and separate Elo brackets is counter-intuitive to that, by (ironically) making it harder on the better players while giving players in lower Elo brackets more room to work with.

If players want to compete to show they've got the talent to place in the top 15, they shouldn't be "protected" by Elo from facing the better players, and by opting in to the tournament, it should come with the full understanding that they will be facing players from any Elo, at any skill level.

Because the tournament is being held in the Solo queue.

In the Solo queue, low Elos are used to fill in spots on team to make sure both teams have an equal "average" Elo score between them. So, basically, the better you are...the more you have to carry.

What's making me laugh so hard are all the Group players coming to the Solo queue expecting people to play halfway competent......you clowns.....the Solo queue is completely different than the Group queue. Deal with it or change it, but whining about it won't do crap. You group people are the ones that PGI listens to, tell them to fix the solo queue.

[Satan n stuff]

MrJeffers, on 25 October 2014 - 08:16 PM, said:

If elo is working, players are matched against players of the same skill level, it doesn't matter if its lower or higher. So the low or meduim elos are facing other low or meduim elos, just like the highs are facing highs. Removing elo only means that highs get to farm everyone else.

Ordinarily I'd agree with you but this is supposed to be a tournament of skill, isn't it? If you opt in to a tournament you should expect to have to face anyone who participates, no matter how much better or worse they may be than you.

Edit: Obviously anyone who doesn't opt in shouldn't be subjected to this, a separate tourney queue available only to those who opt in would be ideal. Also if a player doesn't feel like competing anymore for whatever reason, they should be able to go back to playing regular matches with elo matchmaking without getting any points for it.

Edited by Satan n stuff, 26 October 2014 - 04:07 AM.

[Galenit]

Aresye, on 25 October 2014 - 04:51 PM, said:

If players want to compete to show they've got the talent to place in the top 15, they shouldn't be "protected" by Elo from facing the better players, and by opting in to the tournament, it should come with the full understanding that they will be facing players from any Elo, at any skill level.

You miss a point:
If you are willing to spend 3 days on matches you will have a better chance to have the 10 perfect games then the one only spending 3 hours.
If there is no component, like 10 of 50 matches or score = all scores / number of matches, the one with the most time will likely win.

We can talk about you concerns, if we have a real tournament and not a who will spend the most hours in a game in 3 days thingy.

[Satan n stuff]

Galenit, on 26 October 2014 - 04:42 AM, said:

You miss a point:
If you are willing to spend 3 days on matches you will have a better chance to have the 10 perfect games then the one only spending 3 hours.
If there is no component, like 10 of 50 matches or score = all scores / number of matches, the one with the most time will likely win.

We can talk about you concerns, if we have a real tournament and not a who will spend the most hours in a game in 3 days thingy.

How about instead counting average score for all tourney matches? Add that to the optional but required for tourney matches no elo tourney queue I mentioned and you'd have a pretty fair way to measure skill, assuming the rewards are rebalanced appropriately.

[Lupin]

Add another question to this topic.
You do not think that so called Pro players do not use Alt accounts for Tournaments?

There are a number of ways reported from previous Tournaments boost scores and make sure you drop with better chance of winning.

Tournament like this should be bases on XP not brute force and ignorance.

[EgoSlayer]

Satan n stuff, on 26 October 2014 - 04:02 AM, said:

Ordinarily I'd agree with you but this is supposed to be a tournament of skill, isn't it? If you opt in to a tournament you should expect to have to face anyone who participates, no matter how much better or worse they may be than you.

Edit: Obviously anyone who doesn't opt in shouldn't be subjected to this, a separate tourney queue available only to those who opt in would be ideal. Also if a player doesn't feel like competing anymore for whatever reason, they should be able to go back to playing regular matches with elo matchmaking without getting any points for it.

Isn't the measure of skill beating opponents of your skill or better? If the "top" players can only get that way by farming the low end, it's not much of a contest is it? It's just a statistical lottery of which "high" elo players got their ten perfect matches against low elo players. Not much of a contest at all.

But then again, with the current format it's really just a statistical lottery of who can play the most matches to get their best 10. I see no reason to make it easier.

[Satan n stuff]

Lupin, on 26 October 2014 - 04:51 AM, said:

Add another question to this topic.
You do not think that so called Pro players do not use Alt accounts for Tournaments?

There are a number of ways reported from previous Tournaments boost scores and make sure you drop with better chance of winning.

Tournament like this should be bases on XP not brute force and ignorance.

Well I know for a fact that certain high elo players I won't name do sync drop, but it doesn't really work due to them often being on opposing teams, unless they arrange for one side to lose. I personally haven't seen that happen though I wouldn't be surprised if some of them do it.

Edit:

EgoSlayer, on 26 October 2014 - 04:55 AM, said:

Isn't the measure of skill beating opponents of your skill or better?
How exactly does that measure anything?
If the "top" players can only get that way by farming the low end, it's not much of a contest is it?
You seem to believe less skilled players deserve an equal chance at winning, that isn't true. Skill is what should win a tournament, and nothing else.
It's just a statistical lottery of which "high" elo players got their ten perfect matches against low elo players. Not much of a contest at all.
Except they would still be playing against each other, and if you look at the post I made right after that one you'll see I don't want it to be about "perfect matches". If you want a chance at winning a tournament, you should be prepared to take on all comers or go home.

But then again, with the current format it's really just a statistical lottery of who can play the most matches to get their best 10. I see no reason to make it easier.
Any half decent player can roll up a cheese build and given enough time get 10 great matches, consistent performance is a better measure of skill, which is why I advocate using average score instead of best 10.

Edited by Satan n stuff, 26 October 2014 - 05:04 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

And here I thought printing a screenshot of my 5th place in my forum signature would demonstrate the full girth of my e-peen to the masses.

It's a very silly tournament. It's basically as if all the teams from hundreds of different leagues across the worlds are competing to get the best result of a particular season. And in the end, the winning team of the Ukrainian junior national league end up being declared the best team in the world, because they won all their matches and scored the most goals. Real Madrid ends up being ranked as #216.

It's a good thing the prizes are basically peanuts anyway. People who spend a whole weekend grinding for a three dollar reward should not be envied.

Egomane, on 25 October 2014 - 11:22 PM, said:

Give everyone the same chance to win something.

Make it a lottery then.