i recently had a 2v2 ranked game, where the lowest player was on 300 elo, while all other players were at least 1000 higher. he was also similar in 1v1 elo and all others were also 1200+ 1v1 players.
games like that are rather pointless. It would be ok, if 2 low elos play with 2 higher ones (although that would also suck in my opinion), but having a single player be more than 1000 elo below the rest in 1v1 and in teamgames is absurd.
therefore i would suggest a maximum elo difference when linking teamgames together - something like 200.
An elo range could work for some issues, but there is a reason why such unfair matches happen, low player activity, smurfing cause of two reasons one is point trading and the other to avoid the punishment system that only benefits premade teams.
I understand your complain, in fact i have suggested something like that before but then i found out what was causing those unfair encounters, the main reason behind is the time preference to find a match and the second the lack of players at certain hours, analyzing those two factors then a range limiter is not going to fix the issue cause the system with limited players and the schedule to find a game in 8 mins will always generate those encounters.
You can’t have fair matches if you are not willing to give up on the MM time schedule, you can’t trust the elo system cause it is not reliable or accurate on the team games, you can’t keep an active player base if you are forcing them to play migration or any undesired map cause some guys believe that they should play like that and not how they want to, as you can see your bad experience is linked to several other big flaws on the current system, small patches around are not the answer(see the consequences of the alt f4 fix).
I don’t think we should punish players of different elos playing together. Many of them are just friends experiencing the same together.
Instead, make it so that if the elo is more than 100 different, that the higher rated player gets like 1 elo if they win, with all the elo going to the lowerrated player. This specifically targets smurfing because it takes away all incentive to smurf (which is elo boosting the top-rated player) and brings smurf accounts to a higher elo faster. Players playing together for fun aren’t going to care about this, so they wouldn’t be punished for playing together
An easy fix is to use the average Elo for random teams but the highest Elo for arranged teams. This is more fair than it seems at first, as the arranged team is more likely to have a plan and more likely to be talking to each other. Therefore, they are playing at a higher Elo.
I think it needs to go one step further and be split down into premade teams and random teams, to make it more fair. It could even try and match like this without actually telling anyone.
I like to play teamgames with friends. Should i avoid to play with them because we do not have the same level ???
The problem is especially when the low rating is INTENTIONAL …
Also, there already has been several suggestions made to improve rating change calculation, some of them preventing low elo teammate to have an impact on the matchmaking, but we did not get any attention …
Would each be a separate queue with its own Elo system? In the current system players tend to climb in rank easily when playing with a coordinated group of similar skill level, then they fall hard next time they play with randoms.
The opposite is also true, if someone has been playing with random teams their Elo is likely a couple hundred lower than true, so when they do team with friends it almost seems like smurfing.
i think the thread was a little bit missunderstood.
I had a random 2v2 game and got an ally that was over 1000 below me. the opponents were both roughly my elo.
the purpose of an elo system is matching players with roughly equal skill. the moment random team games mix in a single player with such a difference, elo itself is pointless.