This will lead to sandbagging, make it automatic based on the people already in the lobby, I don’t want to match into a lobby where the host specified that he doesn’t want anyone higher than his own ELO to join the game.
This is a bad idea for ELO systems because now it takes twice as many games for you to be at your true ELO, you would technically be smurfing until your ELO catches up to you.
Come up with as many ideas as you want for ranked lobbies, but don’t touch the ELO formula, these kinds of ideas completely miss the point of what ELO is for.
You will be matched with higher or lower in a certain range, which is probably how matchmaking works already. You wont be only matching with lower players.
If you are winning all your games on Arabia for example, your ELO would increase slowly against a player who is winning on all maps.
There are alot of exmples where players who are very good at one map [arena] for example can suck (relatively) at other open maps like arabia or water maps.
The end result would be very similar to the current matchmaking system.
If this were to exist then it should be automatic based on the people already in the lobby, not set by the host, as you seemed to imply.
If that’s not the case, then I misunderstood.
Exactly, so if your true rating is 1700 but it takes you twice as many games to get there because you’re playing through lobbies, that’s more time spent getting matched against lower level players before you reach you true rating, resulting in more unbalanced matches.
ELO is not a trophy, it is a matchmaking tool, and the longer it takes for it to accurately reflect your skill level, the worse quality of games you’ll get.
This. So many people on these forums don’t seem to understand this. It’s the main reason why any change to ranked play (be it maps, civ selection, points, bans, queue time, etc) needs to be thought carefully through. Anything that leads to a significant Elo growth or decline will result in less balanced matches and, in turn, fewer players playing.
Although alot of people regard ELO as trophy, the changes mentioned above is to balance things out for players who just play one map mostly (lobby players) and players who play all the maps (matchmaking)
Would a player who climbed to 18xx only playing arena have the same skill as a player who climbed to same ELO playing all maps ?
People need to distance themselves from the trophy mentality, adding systems like the one you suggest only encourage it, because people will begin grinding the maps they know in order to inflate their number.
I think the best suggestion is to just keep the ranked system as-in while displaying badges for your current rank when you wait during lobbies, but I think lobbies need to remain unranked if we want ELO to mean anything.
I also think showing “ranks” (bronze, silver, gold, platinum, etc.) that map to ELO ranges in lobbies is better than showing the actual number itself, I’ve been kicked from lobbies before for being something like 20 points higher than the host…
It would be easier too so you can make lobbies like “3v3 Arabia Silver Only” or “4v4 Nomad Gold+”
All that’s really needed for that is to display the Unranked Elo in lobby that exists but isn’t displayed for whatever reason as well as implementing a feature where when you hover over the players name, you can see all their other Elo ratings for ranked. Kind of like something that has been suggested since the beginning of the beta…
We don’t need complicated solutions to simple problems. When you do that, you end up with things like a ban system that makes queue times longer and is nonsensical if you queue for more than one match size at a time.
The ability to create ranked lobbies is essential for the long run. There might be some periods where player numbers get very low making the queuing system untolerable.
Atleast with lobbies people can see who is willing to play at a given time