I thought it’s such a common sense that ranked game supposed should be an even players of both sides to value what the rating of a player is.
In a ranked game:
A group of solo players VS a duo team (especially in a RTS game?)
A group of solo players VS a much higher rating duo team player.
TBH, if they dont ever concern the competitive elements, no matter how you offer the discount in the steam, those new players will still eventually gone.
P.S. There must be some comments talking about the player base, yeah, I bet most of the people prefer to have a longer queue instead of waiting 30mins to play a 0 to 10% win rate unbalanced game. This should not be what ranked game should be.
And AOE2 sucks so bad on this, allowing duo team, smurf destroying the other player experience.
I just checked the opponent team, they won almost every games, either vs solo players or another duo teams.
The rating difference is super ridiclous on my game, they are 1500 to 1800 while we are 1000 to 1100
I really dont think there’s any reason to invest time to play such unbalanced RTS game at all.
1 Like
Just a few things here…
- At what hour did you play the TG rankeds? I noticed at certain hours, for the lack of people, it’s easier to get disbalanced teams.
- If I would you, I woudln’t try to play TG rankeds without friends, and even more a 4v4. It’s very hard to get a balanced 4v4 match even in quick match, so… I would just play 2v2, where if you play solo, you can still win matches if you are good and your team mate is not doing too much.
Moreover, I think balance 4v4 team games it’s very hard taking into account the actual player count.
1 Like
That might be a personal problem, I’ve got like 1000 multiplayer matches and never dropped or dc’d once.
I agree with OP tho, I’ve seen match histories that raise eyebrows when comparing the rank. 3-400 rank difference in the same game is… pretty wild. Maybe it’s trying to calculate a match for the duo players. Like if a high rank and low rank player queue up together, then instead of taking an average and populating the lobby with people near the average, it just randomly picks different ranks that have the same average. Like if a duo 1200 and 1500 queue together (1350 average) instead of finding 2-6 players in the 1300s it could be trying to match the 1350 average by teaming 900s with 1800s. Which is really bad since an 1800 player can probably 1v3 900s.
The numbers you’re looking at there are NOT the ratings of the players. I think the game could solve a lot of problems by making the rating the primary displayed number, and the rank just a secondary thing for season rewards. The rank is more about how many games you’ve played. To see the ratings in a game, you need to click on each player one by one and get their rating for that mode from the box where it says “ranked matchmaking elo”.
I’ve seen even content creators be confused by this, thinking they’re improving because their rank increases, but it’s just because they’re playing games, their ELO/rating hasn’t changed.
Having said that, the game does permit quite large rating differences after not much time seaching, so your point might well remain valid, even if you were looking at ratings rather than rank.
This is because the player skill is not lineal, right now I think the player’s elo is calculated using a simple mean, whereas as you said, a 1800 player can easily win a 1v3 against 900 elo player.
This tell us that player skill cannot be quantified using linear formulas.
