43 replies to this topic

[LordKnightFandragon]

Bush Hopper, on 05 April 2015 - 08:45 AM, said:

Lol, your location should read

"Katrina Steiners bed", not Katharina...

[Roadkill]

LordKnightFandragon, on 05 April 2015 - 07:07 AM, said:

Your overall ELO should be used at all times. The MM should then seek to put an equal number of similar elo ratings on both sides, rather then stacking the deck, putting 9 150s, and 3 100s vs a team of sub 30 elo rating players.

Rather it should be

6 100-150 elo rating players on each side)
2 80-100 elo players on each side

and so on, so each side gets a near equal number and range of skill and elo......then games of 1-12 might diminish a little.

What you are proposing addresses a different issue that the layered Elo proposal.

Layered Elo addresses the fact that I'm a better pilot in a Timberwolf than I am in a Dragon. With layered Elo, I'd be grouped with different people in a Timberwolf than I would be in a Dragon. It makes Elo more effective by making it more precise.

What you're proposing is also a good suggestion, but address the problem that we have with Elo ratings not averaging well. 10 x 1500 Elo + 2 x 2100 Elo is not an equal fight against 12 x 1600 Elo even though Elo ratings suggest that it should be. Your suggestion would ensure that there are the same Elo ratings on both sides which is far more likely to be balanced.

We need both, not one or the other.

[Romeo Deluxe]

WTF is ELO POS 2M2H 4COL KISS AFFA BSF 411

Edited by Romeo Deluxe, 05 April 2015 - 09:14 PM.

[Bobzilla]

It'd be hard to create, but a fair system that spread the teams elo loss/gain based on match score would be nice.

Get a match score of 200+ while other players on the team get a 0 and you lose, your elo wouldn't change but the 0's would go down further then the teamates with 100 ish. Opposite for a win.

If you always have the top/bottom match score, you should be gaining/losing elo faster.