Introduce an Elo ceiling and update the limit based on yearly review

Adding in a ceiling to how high elo can go will reduce the inflated elo problem on both team games and one vs one queues. (Where the higher end elo players will just keep rising in elo regardless of if their skill is that much beyond the next consistently player filled lower bracket they might be pitted against which may be hundreds of elo lower than them yet near enough in skill level that the elo difference really doesn’t match or even represent what the difference may actually be.)

Currently I’d place 1800 as the high end of the ceiling and go from there while either lowering it or heightening it depending on review.

I believe that this will help standardize elo ranking and help keep the queue consistent with who you might be pitched against.

Adding in a standard ceiling will naturally bring the higher end elo players to remain at or near the top end while the players below 1800 might be more accurately placed. The area between 1k average player ability and the 1.8k ceiling would appear to have enough room to find one’s true elo.

We also have plenty of low elo area room below 1k so we have plenty of downward mobility ability so that won’t be an issue.

I’m suggesting that the ceiling be set initially to 1800 on both team and 1vs1 ranked queues and for the ceiling to be heightened or lowered depending on yearly review.(more likely to be lowered until there is a healthy push back of players into perhaps 100 elo lower than where they are at currently to signify that the elos are more accurately gauging players within the ranked queues.)

A 1800 ceiling is absurd. The difference between 1800 and higher ratings is not because “players just keep rising in elo regardless of if their skill is that much higher”, it’s because those players are just much much better. Any 2k player wins 98/100 games against someone at 1800. Any top level plaxyer wins 98/100 games against someone at 2k rating. It would completely ruin matchmaking at higher levels, making it impossible to find balanced games.


You’d either be set back in elo or remain in at the higher end. This would allow more accurate queue times and what opponents the queue assigns to you. Once everyone is set back around 100 elo we will be at the point where we shall find accurate elo ratings while not continuously straining the matchmaker to find matches for those at the higher end of 2k by looking for the next lowest online player around 16/17k - it’s better to condense the high end so the lower end experiences push-back so good games can be easier to find and easier for the match maker to find them in the long run. It will also be easier for players to understand where they are on the ratings board and how far they’ll want/need to climb.

The current way elo is inflated the elo range will only just keep increasing without context/need.
This is apparent on 1 vs 1 games and very apparent on team games. The actual difference in skill for the higher end has no use for the constantly inflating elo problem placing them further from the next lowest bracket and spreading out the next lower bracket between 17-20+k - they deserve better than that. Condense it and we shall have accuracy as well as a more fitting rating system.

I don’t like the idea of communism applied to Elo, so -1 for me, but on the other hand, +1 because now I would finally be able to reach Viper, so +0

Elo isn’t really inflated in 1v1 though. We see that 2400-2500 range seems to be about the cap


Judging from the elo graph numbers just keep thinning out between 1600+ to well below 100 players per 9 elo and further still 32 by the time you hit 1800 to 17 players per 9 elo by the time you hit 2k and by 2200-2500 it’s 5 players or less. - hundreds of elo taken by so few players - that’s what I call inflated.

This is due to there being no real ceiling and it’s even more amplified in team games.

There is absolutely no inflaction on 1v1 by capping to 1800 or any number (and on insist on any number not just an another) you will just make the highest elo possible very very chaotic and unbalanced.
Why do you even need this ?
If only 7 players are in the range of 1980-1989 elo this is only because not so many players in these quite high elo exist compared to lower elo plus a lot of players don’t play that much in ranked and played the most in lobby so some are else unranked or at wrong elo and that make a true difference when the number of players is very low.
Comparing to a 2k or even higher which is about 150 elo than me i could win sometimes some games but not only i will loose the most but also there is a notable and visable skill gap so i don’t know how can you even say that there is inflaction and difference is almost non-existent between 1800-2500 to be able to even have a tiny chance to win against…
a 1800 is a 1800.
a 2k5 is a 2k5.
These 700 elo difference are very easy to see when you are matched vs these players or simply by watching them.

There is a noticeable skill gap between 1000 and 1100 or 900 and 1000 and further between 100 increments - yet players will still be able to be queued against those of higher skill/elo which pushes them to improve further. Those of 1800+ atm have much less ability to fight those under them often enough which reduces the amount of players that might be lower level yet would improve from the challenge. Removing that factor from the higher end elo ends up stagnating the high end playerbase as the inflation disallows players from challenging what would be the next 100 elo gap and instead would often be set against those of hundreds of inflated elo below them due to the dwindling numbers in the high end elo able to queue at one point in time. I only state 1800 because it would be a good starting point and to review if it needs to go higher or lower based on the stats over time.
Once the elo of the average player is reduced by 100 or so we’ll know we’ve hit a sweet spot in accurate elo calculation and we’ll have a better playerbase for it.

By placing a ceiling we ensure that whatever or wherever the cap is that the playerbase will keep fighting to remain at the top and gain accurate elo ratings and those who fall behind/pushed back into their place will be able to challenge themselves against those higher than them and further still challenge those below them to ever increase the overall skill level due to constant competitiveness.

adding a ceiling would cause elo to not be a zero-sum system, which would break it. This is already the problem in TGs, because for some reason TGs games were not being calculated as zero sum, which caused the inflation we currently see.

You want elo to be zero-sum, it’s ok for the interpretation of elo numbers to change over time (e.g. a player rated 1100 now can be better than a player that was rated 1100 a year ago), it’s supposed to fluctuate, the math will work out regardless.

People should stop putting so much emphasis on the actual number and recognize it as simply a tool to match you with equally skilled players, and not as some kind of social status symbol.


How about a secondary number begins counting once you reach 1800 yet doesn’t effect who you will be matched with - for instance - you reach 1800 and win a game you hit 1800 +14red, and keeping the red keeps you at 1800 while once you lose all your red you will start losing the main elo which the matchmaker will take into account. Those who reach the red may still be pushed down due to higher end players, yet will do better thanks to the challenge each time they come near or reach the tournament of power

Those with higher than 1800 elo as of current would gain red elo beyond the 1800 mark to start off, for instance.

Over a short amount of time the elos would adjust and more accurate elos would be assured / challenging fun for the whole playerbase and increasing the overall skill level of all over time.

That is correct but that is only correct in a certain measure(and that is not the goal of ranked however) to take your example a 1000 elo vs a 1700 elo will not learn anything and will result to being trolled if the 1700 wants to have fun as opposed to 1000 vs 1100 which even if there is a notable skill gap between that is a good elo differences to learn if you are the lowest one but that’s already the case right now a +/- 100 elo or even more can already appear so why do you want to increase the unbalance and provokes games or you are the lowest and will get easily defeated or you are the uppest and you will not learn anything at all and make an easy win which are a waste of time?
Also why a a current Insert_elo_limit_here + will continue to play in ranked ? there is no evolution at all in terms of elo and matches are very unbalanced ?
Finally how the seeding in tournament could be made for 1800 + ?
The goal of ranked is to match players with close skill players if the differences is too large the 2 players are wasting their time

In EW at release for me, a lot of 500 elo differences that make me so bored now it’s became to being much more interesting and i take pleasure in this mode by getting a lot of time confroncted to higher than me but not unplayable and many of about same elo.
(in another subject, the map pool in the EW is very good compared to RM what a pity that EW is so macro/micro oriented and skip one age which is very important which make RM much more interesting and diversified. )

I simply don’t understand what problem you are trying to solve.


The change is focused on increasing the amount of + -100 elo games. 200+ elo differences is not the goal. By condensing/limiting the mid and max elos to remove the inflation we put into place the next 100 elo difference to conquour. At most the average player will be pushed down 100-200 elo which is fine because it means that they would in short manner reach an accurate and fun/challenging elo for them while the top elo players would find new challengers who would in turn improve to become new top players by challenging said top players more often or be pushed down by another 100 to challenge those just under those top players. The goal is to challenge the higher end out of stagnation so that the playerbase as a whole will always have a wall to climb within their reach.

The tournament of power is a figure of speech, it just means the top players fighting top players within the red and those unworthy losing the red to be pushed back into less than 1800 territory. (Those of 1800+red would be able to be matched with those of 1700+ normally regardless of red status) player numbers active per elo range being the main factor there.

The goal of ranked is to provide a game with the closest elo possible to have the fairest matchs possible if you want to practice or simply testing yourself which i respect that’s not the correct place you need to make a lobby and practice against a friend which is higher but still comparable , i personally don’t have any problem with elo my matches are pretty closed and fair.

You could see that elo differences can be still present sometimes but in a very fine way and there is no lowest elo opponents matched preferences at least for me so i don’t get why you want to change that.

1 Like

If the players of 1900+ elo were the retire today, those of 1700-1800 elo would have lost the chance of challenging themselves against the next wall and the playerbase as a whole would have a harder time reaching the end-goal of total skill the current top players have without someone stronger to grind against. The higher elo players currently are thinned out between hundreds of elo differences that account for only so much skill between them that it may as well be a 100-200 difference maximum and shouldn’t have to take multiple elos to reach them just to challenge them a few times before being sent into the zone where few players are and being forced to queue against players of hundreds of elo lower because they aren’t high enough to challenge the top regularly and are too high themselves to get a decent challenge regularly and any players who are able to conquer the middle elos to gain passage into the realm of the higher end have to go through hundreds of inflated elo just to challenge what would be part 1 of 4 of the next 100 elo bracket which is strewn across 300-500+ elo

Many in the higher end are either just high enough to where they still fight similar level opponents and don’t get queued with higher opponents often enough due to the strewn out inflated elo needed to climb to reach them and gain lower elo opponents more often when the queue is slow for their elo. (Which isn’t exactly a bad thing for the lower elo player since it’s technically within the 100 elo skill gap, just strewn over 300-500 elo points which tends to make the lower elo player complain due to the misunderstanding. The higher end is becoming stagnant because regardless of their elo between 1800-2500 they’re mostly fighting similar level opponents or opponents weaker than themselves when the queue is slow - which is often due to the low numbers within the brackets. Honestly 1800-2500 can be placed within 200 elo points - high and low 100 elo, high and low 200 elo. Or 1600-1800+red in short with the average player going down 100-200 elo.

But now as a 1800 elo I can either get a good game or face ACCM much more frequently… which is unfun.

The skill gap between each 100 elo in 1800elo is still huge, not smaller than from 1000 to 1100, in fact I think its much larger.

1 Like

I dont understand how this will fix things. It will still group better players with less good players. It just takes away the bragging rights and would make it harder to know if you lost to some better or if you just suck.

Though I am the one who raised out the issue, however, adding a elo ceiling is not the way to resolve the unfair elo matching. The unfair elo game caused by the matching system just caring the queue time instead of the elo competitivity.

Someone already raised out, the 100 elo gap is different between 1200 to 1300, and 1700 to 1800.
When I was in 1200, I found there still some winning chance to beat a 1300 one.
However, when I climb higher now, it’s way way more difficult to beat a 100+ player.

As my post showing, out of my 100 games, there are at least 20 games that the elo matching gap is 80 up, and the downside player win rate is not even reach to 10%. That’s mean every 5 games there is around 1 game is riduclous unfair, we can call it waste time.
And we dont know even know how 50 elo difference affecting the win rate at all.

People talking about elo inflation, it’s kind of off topic, but I would really point out that the inflation in 1v1 or TG (much worse in TG) is mostly not due to other reasons (minor) but SMURFS.
Unless they stop the smurfs otherwise the inflation will go forever and worse.

My understanding of this was that TG elo was being inflated previously because the teams didn’t lose + gain the same amount.

They changed it in a patch so that now the losing team loses as much elo as the winning team gains.

As such it is no longer being inflated. However they didn’t reset the elos, so whatever what inflated is still inflated.

I think it’s worth pointing out that there is already a hard cap on the elo that any one player can get and that is the amount of elo they can take from everyone else. Since winners and losers gain/lose the same amount of elo and at a certain elo difference you gain/ lose “0” elo if you beat everyone literally 100% of the time your elo will climb to a point where you win “0” elo every game.

And if such a person existed they definitely have a much higher elo than everyone else.

1v1 elo works perfectly. Don’t fix what is not broken