I’ll will try to answer your questions, with posts of other people, to show it is not only me. There are many threads about this issue. It is just that i use this thread frequently. Have a look at all the quotes below of other users. Please let me know if you still think it is only me after reading all the comments. I think all these quotes will give you the answers to your questions. There is also a recent thread at aoezone at this moment about this issue. I post the url below all quotes.
Yes this is a huge problem since the tg ladder is so inflated… occasionally I get a guy with like 1900 tg who because of this weird feature has the same 1v1 rating but plays like 1300… not fun for either player
Honestly it should just be removed, just start at 1000 on every ladder
hmmm … makes sense … but in my opinion its kind of problematic, if you think about it from TRM → RM perspective … since its inflated, more bad players are starting at top spots … I mean … it had a good intention … but I think it just makes the whole game messy (for now, you could atleast see what type of player you are playing with … (for example … if someone had elo of 1.2K, you knew that this player knows basic build orders and knows how to react in some situations … with this … you can see a player with 900 ELO beating 1.5K ELO player (which is … lets be hones … a bit stupid … )
The simplest thing for it to do, if it wants to make use of the existing information on a player’s level, is to start them at the same percentile. E.g. if they are 35% of the way down the TG leaderboard, then they play their first 1v1, start them at the ELO that is 35% of the way down the 1v1 leaderboard.
You’d still have the problem that TG ratings can be distorted if people often play with teammates who are a significantly different standard, but it would at least account for the large overall differences between the ratings scales.
Starting everyone at 1000 is an option, but it means that people lose ELO when they play against a better player who is working their way up. Transferring rating across is an attempt to solve this problem.
UprightAtol98:
Teamgame Elo has been inflated for a long time but I feel like it just keeps getting worse.
At some point I was TG Elo 1750 and Rank 5000.
That does not make any sense or at least that is not how an Elo system should be working.
I even saw a lot of people who had only a 1v1 elo of about 1000 but a TG Elo of 2000.
Right now it seems your Teamgame Elo depends more on the amount of games you play rather then your winrate…
Because the TG Elo is broken Teamgame Tournaments use the 1v1 Elo of participants to rate their skill group…
Will it ever be fixed?
Yeah it’s so busted right now and really needs to be looked into. It’s gotta be ruining the team game experience for pretty much the entire ladder.
I’ve noticed a ton of ppl with TG ELO’s 1000 points above their 1v1 ELO which is just impossible in terms of skill disparity. Matchmaking would be drastically improved if they just used your 1v1 ELO and completely ignore your TG ELO.
It needs to be fixed. And if that can’t be done then it needs to be acknowledged by the devs.
Also, team game elo’s are just plain not working right now. Ppl with <900 1v1 elo have 2k+ ratings in team games. So as much of a one-sided stomp as this should be for 2800 vs 2200’s, a 2200 vs 2000 could be an even worse and even more frequent stomp just because the team game ELO is not accurate.
Hi Devs,
I am a 1000 ELO player on 1v1 (17,000 ranking in the world) and when I play team games I play with my friend who is much better, 3000 ranking in the world (around 1400 ELO).
Our team game ranking is around 10,000 in the world which works mostly as he usually carries our team, even though our team game rankings and elo ratings are very similar. Because we are playing with people around the 10,000th best in the world he is better and I am worse so it balances.
But when I play on my own, my team and I usually get crushed, because DE thinks I am much better than I am because I normally play with my friend who is much better than me and so I have this “inflated” rating. Likewise, when he plays on his own he normally wins, and so it is not so fun. What’s worse is when I play with other friends who are very new to the game and don’t play so often and are much worse than me DE assumes I am very good because of my “inflated” 10,000 in the world ranking, and so we always get stomped on.
Also Team Game rankings seem very unreliable, my TG ELO is 800 higher than my 1v1, but sometimes I see people who are much better than me at 1v1 with TG ELOs the same as their 1v1 ELO.
So, I think it would make sense to factor in the 1v1 rating as well as the TG rating, because the 1v1 rating is so much more accurate to how good a player is. I hear chat on streams saying that they’re 1300 1v1 and 2200 TG and stopped because they play against people like Slam and it’s not balanced even though according to the TG ratings it is balanced.
Taking into account 1v1 as well as the team game rating would undoubtedly help, and maybe my friends who are much worse will come back to play with me. And maybe I would occasionally play team games on my own because I won’t always get stomped. For players who don’t have a 1v1 rating, then I understand just only using their TG rating in the matchmaking equation makes sense.
tl;dr - DE thinks I’m a top player because 80-90% of the time i play together with my high rated friend, so whenever I play on my own, or even with my newbie friends we always get stomped and so have stopped playing. TG rating is very inaccurate.
Hi,
Example of Players:
so this is even.
Case Team A loses
play 20 games like this (10 wins, 10 losses) and the 2200 player will gain 10x15=150 points and lose 10x2=20 points.
so he will be up 130 points after playing perfectly balanced games…
his elo now is 130 points off where it should be
Ya, but MM is supposed to be randomly creating these games, so highly unlikely that he will play 20 games in a row that are above his ELO. Random games means that he will sometimes be over and sometimes under the average ELO of the game.
Even if he gets 20 games in a row with a higher ELO (again unlikely) then winning 10 and losing 10 means he deserves his ELO to increase a lot more than decrease. He didn’t break even at his level, he broke even at games higher than his ELO by 300 on average. This is not the problem with current ELO.
Many of us have noticed that we gain more points upon winning on average, than we lost upon losing on average. There lies the problem.
Another issue I hope devs would resolve when they (eventually, if ever) work on fixing ELO, is to make the starting/average ELO the same for 1v1 and TG. I can’t count how many noob games I got kicked out of, because the hosts get scared of my 1500 TG ELO, though it is the same as ~ 1000 ELO in 1v1. This is annoying.
I play mostly team games and I’ve noticed that when your team wins the higher ranked teammates gain fewer points than the lower ones, and that when your team loses the lower ranked players lose fewer points. The gain/loss also depends on the other team of course, but the important point is that the algorithm compares your individual scores with the other team’s scores.
Here is the problem: Suppose you have one strong player teaming with one weak player. The algorithm is probably going to give them opponents with an average skill level somewhere in the middle. If the matchmaking is roughly fair*, they should win roughly half the time. But the strong player is going to be losing a lot more points each time (s)he loses than she gains when the pair wins, and the weak player is going to gain a lot more points with each victory than (s)he loses when they lose.
If they play multiple games their elo is going to converge, and the stronger player will effectively be giving away elo to the weaker player. This will of course cause mismatches in skill level if they ever decide to play with other teammates or enter the queue alone.
*You don’t actually have to assume fair matchmaking for this argument to work. Just note that the expected elo change is p(win) * gain - p(loss) * loss. Playing together means you have the same p(win) and p(loss), but the higher skill player will have a smaller gain and a larger loss, so there is no way both of these expectations can be zero.
Yeah, the points you gain or lose is based only on the strongest player on the other team (99.7% sure) and your ELO. This is a big reason why ELOs are “inflated”. Played a game where we faced a 2700 and some smurfs/low rates, all the players on my team lost 0 points (1900 to 1400) while I’m sure all the other players gained a ton (other than the 2700).
Every player should theoretically get the same number of points on a team, only problem is that it will take way too long for decent players to get up to 2k which is where most decent players are these days.
Team ELO is clearly not working and something needs to be done. What? I don’t know, but I know what it looks like: a more appropriate team ELO as a result of your contribution and performance in team games. Poor performance should result in a disproportionate penalty-- not to stick it to the guy who gets pwned every game but, when it happens and happens often, their ELO adjustment needs to find a more appropriate and competitive opponent for that person going forward.
Length of matchmaking is a total non-issue at the moment. If I were to guesstimate some numbers for my experience I’d say fully 85% of my team games require me to carry 1, 2, or 3 allies against premades composed of foes approximately at or beyond my level. I’d wait a half hour just to avoid beeing teamed with people with whom victory was never possible.
I presume resetting the ladder ratings is off the table? Given that it was messed up for so long by a calculation error of the teams elos, it doesn’t seem like the wrong thing to do, although I’m sure it’d probably annoy too many people.
If the devs had a match history list for every player in principle you’d think you could try and recalculate/readjust the ratings of players, although even in that case it could take far too long.
Maybe some kind of rescaling? Squash all the ranks toward the middle/average but try to keep the ordering?
As anyone can see the team games ladder has reached 2.8k players sooner than i predicted, 3 months early, so maybe 3k elo players would arise within september or october. I read few guys said"there are not enough players for that"well the evidence suggest the opposite ass there are 200 players above 2500 and 500 players above 2400 and they get higher everyday.
I think it has been enough of the high inaccurate elo team game players, it has been a stacking party, the top players are not even in the top, they are 200-300 points below, there are 1500 1x1 players in 2700, how is that accurate?
The ELO algorithm for team games should be different, players should not be winning 17 points for a 4x4, at best 8 points should be enough, giving half the points you are giving right now should stop the inflation or slow it down.
Stacking players to get higher ranks is a thing, not a conspiration against players with friends, i don’t know if it is possible but if the system detects the same players on a team or in the same party for 2 games in a row or more it should give them less points per winning match.
2600 has been the roof in aoe since its beginning, it was a number that reflexed skills and was a really hard to achieve only for top players, now it is just a clownish party, there can’t be a thousand points of difference btw a player on his 1x1 and Tg elo and right now that is real, just check the guys in top 50-200 90% of them they are 1k points above their 1x1 elo.
Please devs take some actions before reaching the 3k elo players.
Well, some time ago a guy was complaining in here that his elo was unbelieavebly high in TG - he was 2193, IIRC. Also, he was waaay below that in 1v1, not to mention he considered himself as an “above average” player at best. I won’t call names coz i don’t remember then lol. He mentioned “the game threw me vs the best player of the world” as he reffered to an 2.2k opponent.
As for the difference in 1v1 and tg elo “because he is best in tg”, i don’t believe in - in these proportions , at least. You can beat TheViper and MBL when with a friend, but loses to an moderate AI in 1v1? (poetic license for the metaphor pls).
I believe in op, TG elo inflantion is real. Some kind of pattern always existed, keeping numbers close - even Voobly and HD elo ratings, provided you played enough, weren’t different that much.
Also, i suspect that the disparity on the speed you achieve higher elo can affect matchmaking - for low elo startes, at least - but this is based only in my guts.
The problem has been dicussed before in other threads. Sum of points gained by the winning team is often larger than the sum of points lost by the losing team. Therefore new points are created out of thin air, which violates the rules of ELO-systems. The effect is that the average rises, so inflation of the worth of ELO points and the top will get higher and higher. This does not have to affect the MM-system negatively for active players, if it’s well designed. But if a player doesn’t play for a long time and comes back, then his ELO will be too low for his skill level due to the inflation.
I already got suspicious of this fault early on: on my first 1v1 game I started with 1000 ELO, but on my first team game I started with an ELO of 1318. So likely the average at that time was 1318 and the system gives a new player in the ladder the current average ELO, which is a correct mechanism, except that the average ELO should stay on 1000.
main problem I’m seeing witht this MM, is the lack of MMR for premades. Playing 1 time every 200 matches against a pro paired teamed with a noob doesn’t bothers me. on the other hand being mismatched constantly when I play 4v4 with randoms, because my mmr moves when I play with premades, is really annoying.
5 Likes