Developers: Adjusting ranked/unranked matching system

Is there any way that matching could weigh the number of games a player has played as part of their ranked and unranked levels? And could players who create multiple accounts also be adjusted, too? Would be great to play people who have similar skill AND game experience.

Leagues like sc2 will solve almost all problems.
It can be invisible - done in the backend.
But with leagues u will never meet person from another league.
So Viper will never play vs 1600 noob.

Fun fact:
2k+players have “their” TG league in the discord (cause matchmaking is random for them).
Fun fact 2:
Mr. Sitaux have winrate 83% 1254W/253L
just joking: it’s not fun at all… it’s broken=\

Ranking should be based on skill. Having it based on number of games would be terrible. We already have seen this on the TG ladder with the old calculation. It was terrible.

Vague statement. No idea what adjustment you want.

These leagues are also based on Elo. So in the end there wont be a noticeable difference between the current system and your suggestion. A league is just a replacement of the Elo number for a league name.

Also calling 1600 elo players a noob is quite hilarious. Being top 4% of the world is still a noob? That looks like a big joke to me.

Nice fun facts, but nothing really special that really stands out.

So the idea would be for someone with 800, 1200, or 1600 ELO to have it lowered or raised based on the number of games they played, avoiding an 800 ELO player with 10 games being matched when possible with 800 ELO players with 300 games. This may be more beneficial for matchups between “low ELO legends” (and could just be adjusted for below 1,000 ELO players) but would help competition and the game…

With multiple accounts, developers have lots of options. One adjustment might be to ban accounts from the same IP or to weight your previous account’s ELO into your new one based on your IP address. There are lots of possibilities here.

Well, if you are 800 with 300 matches, you are equal in skill as someone who played 30 matches. That’s kinda how elo works. The player might have more experience, he clearly lacks in some other department because otherwise he wouldn’t be 800 elo.

Only if you have very few games played, it is never fair, because you are not at your true ELO level yet. By definition you will be mismatched the first few games, which is why you gain and lose more elo the first games. But after that, 30, 300, or 3000 games, doesn’t matter.

The current ELO system works, but we’re talking about adding a secondary weighting component.

I dont see the benefit of this extra constraint. It will only add more waiting time, while it have no benefit at all in my opinion.

The benefit is new players would have better (more balanced) matches, encouraging more players and fostering more growth. It doesn’t have to apply to over 1k

iMo a new account should change elo by 100 point against per game until they are in a spot where they belong (smurfs). However this also creates a problem of people preying on the very weak ELOs (which I don’t imagine could be very fun… but). Smurfing is a huge problem. Should be 1 account per game purchase. This is a win-win.

1 Like

Much better than now for sure.

I highly advocate for one elo to rule them all. Its much better like that.