Glythe, on 24 September 2014 - 07:54 PM, said:
Elo is flawed in a game like this because it is designed for one player against another.That's fine if 2 players go away from the entire rest of their team and duel with no assistance. But that never happens.
How can you possibly decide Elo with multiple players leading to your death?
Imagine a new player in a trial nova, who uses controlled firing bursts until he reaches heat threshold. Then he alphas and intentionally kills himself leaving you mortally wounded. A high ranked Elo players kills you. How is that one scored?
There are an endless series of questionable scenarios.
There is no benchmark challenge with zero variables. There isn't an obstacle course to destroy mechs, there isn't an obstacle course to avoid laser/ppc/lrm fire. Any assigned Elo rating is quite honestly arbitrary and worthless because you can't be sure who beat you.
Elo was one of the features that did not help this game. It was introduced right after the sting of ECM had lessened quite a bit.
Elo makes the game less fun for skilled players because as you get better you are more likely to get members on your team who might as well not be there.
Elo makes the game more fun for bad players because they never go against people who will decimate them.
Having Elo in the game is like playing any racing sim with rubber band AI. Run an enemy into the wall and he falls about half a lap behind your car. And then about 10 seconds later he's right behind you again. If you're driving the fastest car in the game (think something like F-zero where the cars have different stats) there's no way in hell that should be possible. But the AI cheats and does it anyway.
Elo achieves a "running in place" scenario where you never feel you get any better no matter how well you perform. That's a terrible mentality for a player if you want to keep people playing/paying. You're level 20 so the enemies on a good match are 19,20 and 21. But if you have to wait too long it will pull from 17-23 (take the idea as an example rather than concrete numbers).
In the end Elo gives less fair matches in terms of "randomness". Most people would be better off playing more games with a completely random match maker. Their math for Elo as far as I am concerned is basically voodoo. They don't tell you what your score is and they don't tell you what the score is for anyone else in the game (even after it is over). There's no way to know if your Elo went up or down. For all you know there's a computer program that randomly assigns you a score.
So, let me ask you this. Adiuvo who posted prior is really good. Do you think he wins more games than you? Regardless of pugging or group - is he more likely to win than you? on average. Yes or no.
If yes, then you understand how and why Elo works in this game without my having to catch you up on why math works the same with big numbers and small numbers.
If no... well, honestly? Not sure I believe you with a 'no'.
The better someone is the more they are likely to drive a win for their team. It's that simple.
Sandpit, on 24 September 2014 - 07:54 PM, said:
I agree for the most part. My only issue with Elo is the wsy it's implemented here. You can personally have a fantastic game but still drop in Elo because your team loses.
I think it's also notable that you see far less complaints about Elo from players who primarily drop in large (er) groups.
Solo players have to rely on 11 random people for their Elo ratings. They also tend to not realize that "average" Elo means just that. Average.
Elo isn't "forcing" anything in regards to w/l. It simply puts your team against another team with a similar team El9.
Most the time you scored high and your team did terrible you are almost certainly in a match you were expected to lose - thus you lost no Elo.
It's important to understand that Elo isn't always about YOU. The further off the mean your Elo score is the less you are 'the focus of the match' and the more you are 'a balancing factor for someone else'.
A good way to think of Elo is like a serious of challenge tournaments for ranking and promoting people. Sometimes you're part of the group with the advantage; you're there to be a 'very difficult challenge' for the other team. More to the point you're probably a 'very difficult challenge' for a few people on the other team; there will be a couple people on the other team who are so terrible that they're on that team to add to their teammates challenge. There will be other people on that team who are good enough that if they had a group of folks their own skill level they might beat you.
Which, in the end, is sorta the point of it - the guys who are 'average' for that matches Elo... they are the biggest factor in a lot of ways. Are they going to pull better than expected? Can they carry/motivate/overcome their lower Elo compatriots and help support their higher Elo teammate and win against the odds?
If yes... they get a promotion and you guys get a demotion because you were expected to win.
Conversely sometimes you're the 'big carry' for the team. Sometimes you're the dead weight, sometimes you're the mean. Think of Elo as being a constant test of the mean; the people on the target for the Elo average of the match. They are likely to have teammates who are above them that, if they're smart, they will work with and support. They will have people below them on the Elo scale that, if they're smart, they'll try to protect and herd. Doing that will get them a net win in situations where they would have lost.
So in any match there's a projected winner and a projected loser. Elo MUST be off between matches, otherwise your score can't change. At its core this is why Elo works. Nobody wants to admit how much their performance drives win/loss in a given match because it would be an acknowledgement that even in pugging...
This is a team game. If you're a good team player you will win more. As you said, people who play well in big teams don't tend to complain about Elo. They also tend to have a higher Elo score. Why? They know how to play with a team.
That drives wins. Your Elo score in a team game represent how well you play in a team game - not how well you play solo. If this were a series of 1 on 1 deathmatches then your individual performance would be relevant.
It's not.
Good players have a higher Elo than bad players. If the matches were inferior to 'random' then that wouldn't be the case. Good players have a higher Elo, which is absurdly simple to see proof that it works fine here.
Which, again, is part of the problem. It does work. It just doesn't tell people what they want to hear.
0
