Voobly had a link with an actual Voobly ratings calculator and you could input two ratings and see what the score of each player would be if they won or lost … and you could get an idea of how it worked.
Would be good to have something like that for this system. Or at least some epxlanation of how the ratings are calculated. It doesn’t seem like standard Elo.
Considering that starting score is just a variable, it doesn’t really matter what value it is set to. 1600 is a textbook example, but might as well be 1337, if devs were cheeky enough to do so.
I second the request for more details about the algorithm. I’d personally love to see a blog post or a vlog where developers walk us trough how exactly the DE’s ELO algorithm actually works.
Hopefully that would demystify the algorithm for many people and help community to find out if the ELO algoirthm is behaving exactly as intended and when it is reasonable to suspect that the ELO algorithm is actually bugged.
I am only speculating here as I don’t have the specific details.
It seems the game uses a higher K factor for your first ~10 games where it is possible to win up to 100 points for a single win at the edges in that timeframe. Examples taken from the beta where TaToH had +300 ELO from only 3 games played.
I presume this has been configured this way to allow newer players to quickly move their ELO so it is accurate after only a few games and not have to play 20+.
The top 50 pros could still reach ELOs of 2300-2700 here if the player base is large enough since scores tend to grow at the top end when more players join the ranking system. Though I admit its unlikely given the 600 point starting difference, my guess is it would top out at around 2k.
This makes a lot of sense. Many other games adjust MMR from a fresh ranking system in simmilar ways, with a big gain or loss in numbers for the start, then gradually adjusting to smaller and more precise gains/losses as the matches go.
Thanks guys. This is the kind of discussion I want … whether speculation or not.
But that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be very ha;ppy if a dev entered and explained the new ranking system! Because I sure would!
@roboboroAoC (1) If you’re right that more players equals higher ratings and (2) The devs indeeded expected a lot more players on one platform than AoE2 has had for a while (3) Is it possible that the devs lowered the starting Elo in order to try and compensate for that?
I mean, I know it’s just an arbitrary number but with the higher playerbase if everybody started at 1600 with this many players maybe all the ratings would LOOK inflated later which might look weird to people. Is it possible that the Devs lowered the rating to make the top pros end up with their usual rating, and an intermediate end up with its usual rating, etc, to compensate for the higher playerbase?
Again, I know it’s just an arbitrary number but I think it’s also the case that people who have -played AoE for years expect certain numbers to represent certain skill levels so, maybe, for that reason, the devs are doing some sort of compensating or something? To account for that?
Or am I overthinking it and the devs just thought that 1000 sounds like a nice round number?
Just looking at the rating difference between hd to voobly is ~3-400, so instead of having the issue where a 1800 on hd is a 1450 on voobly they may have tried to get the numbers to be equal to voobly, once the ladder spreads out.
But 1000 is also a nice number so maybe we’re just being too generous 11