We could introduce a built-in APM limit mechanism. If someone plays unranked, there is no limit, but if he plays ranked, there is a APM limit per his highest elo. Like if he is 1000 APM cannot exceed 40. And if he is 1500, max 100. If he reaches 2000 there is no limit. And if he reach 2000 and drop to 1500 , still no limit.
On the other hand, if you don’t like this,we can quickly shift someone’s elo based on his EAPM
How does it prevent players from insta resigning and dropping elo intentionally?
Wrong, what about some hyperactive but clumsy player ? While some pro players who made the experiment of severely limiting their APM still had good results, not their peak level obviously but they could handily beat most players even by playing slow.
While there is a correlation between APM and ELO, high APM does not guarantee a player is skilled (nor does low APM guarantee a player is unskilled). And this would punish players for spam-clicking - something that raises APM, but often has little meaningful effect on gameplay.
One thing I recall from LimitedViper is that one of the biggest drains on his APM limit was building houses and farms. And quickly producing lots of farms is one of the few good reasons to spam-click, and is something that happens at 1000 APM.
Basically, I think this would be far more of a nuisance to players than it would be an anti-smurf action.
omg…
Did you really make a proposal to counter griefing with a griefing restriction?
Because that’s what this does, it would be seen as an arbitrary burden for low elos that restrict their ability to progress.
Just use stats to look for aspects of griefeing and let these players not lose elo on short games anymore. It’s that simple, if they can’t drop elo that way anymore they can’t stay in their preferred elo range to grief. Either they have to invest way more (criminal) energy to grief, leave ranked or maybe even start playing normal, learning to accept their losses.
With some of the discussions on so-called smurfs who intentionally lose games, I noticed a pattern in the played games of examples: they were always on a specific map (like Arena). And the games that were dropped were the games not on that map. I don’t think this is the case for every smurf, but I think a change to keep players from losing ELO on short games wouldn’t be much of a downside to Arena-only ranked players.
yeah i think we had the same conversation already in a different topic.
we need another system than forcing people to play maps they hate.
though ofc it would be a goal to make people like more maps, but all i can say about that is:
You can’t make people like stuff by force.
pay for it simple and sustainable