If nothing else, they should at least account for the difference in median rating when carrying ratings across between 1v1 and TG. I saw an account with nearly 2k 1v1 ELO where the person had only played 2 1v1 games with a 50% win rate. They had 2.2k TG rating, so I assume what happened is they played TG first, and it carried an approx 2k rating across for their first 1v1 game.
Why does it matter so much to you? This whole thread is basically a monologue from you.
The inflation affects everyone. The outliers are minimal. So what if thereās one guy with a very high 1v1 elo from a couple games? Itās not affecting 99% of the other players?
So what if TG elo is inflated? I would happily bet all those top elos are arranged teams so they can happily face each other while the other 90% of the community still faces moderately fair matches?
The single elo for 2v2,3v3,4v4,random teams and arranged teams all being bundled into a singular number is blatantly skew as it is. It doesnāt matter about inflation. Its a completely skew number anyway.
Do you lose elo if you drop from a match but your team still wins afterwards?
Iāll 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.
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.
A few month later I was also TG Elo 1750 but Rank 10.000.
That means, either the number of people playing ranked doubled (which is not the case) or: the Teamgame Elo of everyone is increasing!
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 winrateā¦
Because the TG Elo is broken Teamgame Tournaments use the 1v1 Elo of participants to rate their skill groupā¦
Will it ever be fixed?
Will the Devs at least sometime mention what is wrong with it?
Yeah itās so busted right now and really needs to be looked into. Itās gotta be ruining the team game experience for pretty much the entire ladder.
Iāve noticed a ton of ppl with TG ELOās 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 canāt be done then it needs to be acknowledged by the devs.
Hmm Im not sure if the disparity in numbers is really a problem. You have to remember team games are very different to 1v1sā¦ for example I am 2.4k TG and 1.4k in 1v1s, how does this make sense? TGs play differently, if you can play sct into knt properly from pkt that says nothing about your ability in a 1v1 and how well you adapt and deal with direct pressure.
An elo delta of 1000 means that for every equally matched 1v1 you do win, you would win 300 more equally matched team games. It means that your 1v1 skill is dogshit compared to your team game.
Sure you can prefer 1v1ās or team gameās, but that shouldnāt be more than a delta of 200-400 ELO.
The discrepancy of 1v1 and team ratingās is not new to this community, weāve got 20+ years experience in this game. Team games are a little different, but theyāre not that different.
In every system where ELO has worked properly, peopleās team game ratings are much closer to their 1v1 ratings. In particular, the highest team ELO is almost always lower than the highest 1v1 ELO because itās much harder to individually carry a team game, whereas you can always individually carry your own game. Thatās not the case with TG ELOās exceeding 3k.
We know there is a problem of the system creating extra ELO points as already pointed out. And as pointed out, we know how problematic this was already in AOE:DE, requiring a TG ladder reset.
So I suppose its just the numbers that bother you? I mean 1400 1v1 is top #2500 and 2400 TG is top #1000 roughly speaking, which says to meā¦ even though there is a big discrepancy between the numbers I would still be matching up with players of a similar skill level across both playlists, when considering actual ranking not elo. Am I off base here? I do agree that it would be nice if the numbers were more uniform but to me thatās secondary, I just want balanced games.
You forgot that 1v1 and TG (and RM and DM) ratings are connected. This means all ratings arent independent. So what can happen (and we have seen many reports of this):
A player gets carried by an ally to 2k in RM TG and havent play RM 1v1. Then he joined the 1v1 ladder. Because he is carried by an team mate, his starting rating for RM 1v1 will be 2k. This mean he we face up the top players. Maybe he is just 900 elo. Image how many games you would need to loose to lower your rating from 2k to 900. My guess would be around 50. Do you really wanna loose 50 games in a row before you can get a good 1v1 game?
What also could happen: Modri is the first player hitting 3k elo for team games. Image that he didnt play any 1v1 till this moment. If he now starts playing 1v1, his base elo for 1v1 will be 3k as well. Given he is also just a good 1v1 player, i think his elo after 10 games will be even higher. That means he would join the 1v1 ranking with 3k+ elo, while other players just have 2.4k elo. So he will have #1 place on the ranking with a gap of 800 points to the number #2. I see he didnt play DM. I really think if he would try to get 10 1v1 DM games, he will be 3k at that ladder as well within no time. That just show the issue with this ladder.
This is not just a theoretical issue. You can see many examples if you look at the top 100 1v1 RM. There are multiple accounts with less then 20 games and a winrate around / below 50% in the top 100. And this issue dont only happens at that level, but also at lower levels. These are just the easily spottable once.
And then i didnt talked about the issues about the inflated TG rating. A.k.a. that the average rating is increasing over time. This makes the TG a complete mess. I think i played 50 TG in total, but they are such unbalanced. Rating and skill just dont match for most of the players. I would even go as far as saying that TG ratings are meaningless.
No the problem is: if I queue up with randoms for a team game and I see they have like 300 teamgames already played (I only have like 50) and still they have the same TG elo than me they will be pretty bad. If my teammates have like ~100 games and are in same elo region like me, they play solid (from my nooby perspective). So the whole matchmaking just is dump. I, not even in top 30k in teamgames, destroyed a top 5k player, who had over 600 games already (we matched up in unranked, no chance for matching in ranked). So teamgames are really unbalanced at the moment, the ones with many games have higher elo, than the guys with just a few games (~50, its clear, that in the first 10 games there is no chance to be matched properly, but ~50 games are still ~50 hours of play timeā¦), no matter their skilllevels
Meh, i can understand why they are connected. Roughtly speaking, your rating on both will be about the same. It is not like you are a top 100 1v1 player, but you suck at TG. They are kind of connected in that way. This way it is easier for top and bottom players to get there true rating on those ladders. Pretty useful. But then those ladders needs to work flawless and this isnt the case and that leads to those issues.
Team games skills are moderately different than 1v1. In team games, you need to set up trade and you can have more gold-intensive units and civs. You need to balance not only your military needs, but the military needs of the weaker players (if you donāt help save them, youāll lose the game). In all fairness, a player could easily be hundreds of elos different in skills between 1v1 and team games.
That being said, I believe the original concern raised by the OP is that the center point of the distributions should be 1000, yet team game ratings seem to keep getting higher.
Yes, only in the first games tho. All ladders are connected. Maybe even the unranked ladder that isnt even visible in the game.
Normally you start with 1000 elo at a new ladder, but if you already have a rating, that rating is used to determine your starting rating at a new ladder. So if you have 2k TG rating, you will start at 2k when you start playing 1v1 for the first time.
I didnāt read every comment so somebody may have already mentioned this but from what I have seen a large part of the problem is that currently elo changes in team games seem to be calculated with your elo and the highest elo in the match not the average elo of the opposing team. I play almost exclusively team games with a couple of friends and we have noticed that when we match with a team who has one person with an elo 400 higher than us and the others with elos 200 lower than us, and we win, our elo goes up by 30 or more but if we lose our elo only goes down by 2-10.
I donāt know if this is how they are actually calculated for team games but if it is, one fix, along with resetting the ladder, would be to calculate elo changes based on the average elo of the enemy team compared to your own elo or even potentially the average of your teamās elo.
Lol, sorry devs but this topic really is an embarrassment. You know something is wrong when players gather data, make detailed topics, reverse engineer your game and discover a bug that would take 10 seconds to fix