There has been a lot of talk about the ELO rating that was introduced in the Beta but is absence from the current game.
the ELO rating in beta had multiple problems:
Only 1v1 games were ranked
There was no team game ranking system.
It was not toggleable
Not being able to play casually, testing new strategies or teaching new players without loosing ELO was a problem.
You could choose who you wanted to play against
Grinding ELO with few friends was easy and the players who played fairly would not feel rewarded due to how easy it was to cheat the system.
Every game style was counted in the same rating
Playing with revealed map at 1.0 speed doesn’t attract high skill players making it easy way to obtain high rank without needing to play against pro players.
Only 1v1 games were rankedBeing able to play with a team (clan vs clan) or random team games in a competitive style would be great, but the ranking system would need to be adjusted and different rank queues might need to be made (i'll write more on that at later post).
It was not toggleableWhereas the solution to this problem is fairly simple i wanted to remind everyone that this is part of the reason why there wasn't ELO ranking when this game shipped.
You could choose who you wanted to play againstCreating games with a specific rules (map size, game speed, map type, pick/random civ, revealed/unrevealed map, staring resource amount) is good for a lot of players.
But with all the choices it meant that matching two players with their game style choices would not be possible without either compromising on some of their choices, or by giving players the choice to pick the lobby and their opponent allowing the setting to match both players likings without unfair compromises.
Every game style was counted in the same ratingThe most competitive players whose are playing with 2.0 speed, non revealed map, standard start and standard resource amounts would be playing in the highest competitive environment, those players would have hard time on getting above the average ELO score whilst the players whose are playing with lower speed would have much higher ELO even though they are much worse players.
Having two different ranking ladders would be one way to solve this problem.
First ranked ladder would be with a specific settings; same or similar settings as the current Vietnam tournament (standard start, no reveal, standard resource, Large map size [for 1v1 games], 2.0 speed, random civ.)
The second ladder would give players more choices (game speed 1.0/1.5/2.0, map size Tiny - Gigantic, resource amount low - high). Having two different queues would allow the second one to have less demanding settings and ensure that everyone has a way to play this game competitively.
What do you think about the idea of having two (or more) ranked ladders for 1v1 games?
Should 1v1 have its own ladder or be same with team games (2v2, 3v3, 4v4)?
Should 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 have same ladder for all or have two or more ladders?
On to a what extent should players be able to choose the setting of the ranked games?
Should players be able to choose who they want to play against in ranked games?
Is there some other problems with AOE:DE ELO rating that are not addressed above?