Oh. That does sound more like forcing than encouraging to me.
It would be a bad system, players who only play 1 map will struggle to gain elo turning them into involuntary smurfs. In your example it would take 12 wins to equal 1 loss.
2 Likes
First, letâs be clear on what a smurf is. A smurf is someone with a high rating who would log onto a different account that is lower rated to purposely target a higher rated player to beat them for bragging rights without risking their own points on their higher name or even risk their reputation by revealing their true identity. Smurfing is generally impossible on Steam unless youâre buying multiple versions of the game. Itâs also impossible on MatchMaking.
Ignoring that, letâs discuss your issue of people who play a single map having ELOs below their true rating for those maps. Those players will be much more pleased that they donât have to play maps that they hate. However, the beauty in The Solution is that if they were really bothered about not getting better games, they are now incentivized to select more maps. It is their choice as opposed to being forced on them. Their opponents will be happy because they will be winning more points on a regular basis because they are selecting more maps. If it turns out that a bunch of players are only, for example, selecting BF such that players who select maps keep losing whenever they get BF, they could always not select BF and the BF players would then be incentivized to select more maps to find a game quicker or they will just play the other BF only players. The free market system will dĂctate perfectly!
This is exponentially better than the current system as Iâd much rather play people better than me on maps I like than be forced to play on maps I hate. Remember that this is a compromise and if this is the worst thing about The Solution, itâs way better than whatâs currently in place. Also, this problem will be temporary as these users who only play one map will eventually rise to an ELO around their skill level even though it will take them a bit of time. The same issue exists for any new player which is why you win and lose more ELO in your initial games to allow you to get to your normal ELO more quickly.
I looked up the definition and you are right, it apparently involves creating a new account. But in common terms a smurf can simply be someone way below their actual elo.
You are not incentivizing variety, you are forcing it. In your system a player needs to select at least half of the maps to have any chance at maintaining an accurate elo, selecting 1 map simply means a nose dive down.
Elo is there to create fair matches, and in your system the elo of players of equal skill that only play 1 map vs one that plays 12 maps is x12!!! 2 of such equally skilled players for arabia would be 100 elo and 1200 elo! The more maps added the worse the problem gets.
I agree that the current system is terrible, but your system would be totally broken and the created freedom is only an illusion.
I think we are quite close with our ideas, I wish we could come together without the elo multiplier.
Think about it, selecting more maps will create shorter waiting times. The fact that we can provide more maps through the checkbox system already makes them more easily accessable to the whole playerbase vs them having to host their own lobby. These should be enough of a small push in the direction of variety. We donât want to implement an invasive structure that actually benefits one kind of player over the other.
3 Likes
Sven, I went through 14 million alternate systems, and this is the only one where everyone wins.
The ELO multiplier is necessary. While you and I would be fine selecting the popular maps to play on, there appears to be a huge part of the community that wants more variety in ranked play. Without the ELO multiplier, most games would be Arabia which for some reason everyone doesnât like.
The problem you highlight would be temporary as people who only played one map would eventually get to within their rating level. They are incentivized to select more maps to find more competitive games. Realistically the only players who would only select one map would be people who play on highly specialized maps like Arena, BF, and maybe Islands. The other maps, while different, can be played well using the skillsets from Arabia play. If you get a bunch of Arena and BF specialists, then just donât select those two maps. As Viper says, Arena is a clown map.
Trust me, this is the only way. We have to be united in our demand to implement The Solution or it wonât happen and DE is doomed. This will be more depressing than the day MSN Gaming Zone was decommissioned.
I think there should be MM rating same as it is currently and then seperate clown (lobby) rating for those who play specific settings and want to play them ranked. and then in the unranked lobbys it should show your clown rating and MM rating sso people know what they are getting into before commiting to a game that can take a long time to play and doesnât really allwo for breaks while playing.
Are you an Arena player the bans Arabia in 1v1s?
If they donât fix MM with positive selection, I agree, they should add a rated lobby.