The ranked elo is doing just that, no? And you can view it already on the lobby, so what’s the issue?
By definition it’s meaningless to begin with.
Yeah, becasue one is unranked ELO and one is ranked
I feel like if you are used to Arabia, you can pretty much adapt to all maps in the map pool. Maybe it takes some time to adapt, but i dont think they will really struggle.
I really dont see any issue. If you are better on one map, you will like win more on that map against players of your own rating.
Also match makings tries to makes sure you play mostly against equally skilled players. So except for the top 5% and bottom 5%, everyone will have a win rate around 50%. So in the end you win about half your games and you loose about half your games. I dont know why this is discouraged for someone.
Not water maps…
Or maps with different starts. Lombardia or something like that for example.
Well, as I said, if you fall in a map that is not fully land, that will cause you some trouble.
The ranked elo is doing just that, no? And you can view it already on the lobby, so what’s the issue?
The ranked ELO generated by Matchmaking is obviously pointless in the lobbies, because the majority of the players in the lobbies never play Matchmaking and therefore have no ELO from matchmaking…
Yeah, becasue one is unranked ELO and one is ranked
Probably just a misunderstanding. If I refer to “ranked” in DE, I’m speaking about the ELO generated from Matchmaking (which obviously shouldn’t be mixed with any ELO generated from the lobbies).
If what you mean is to introduce an ELO to the lobbies that is different from the matchmaking ELO but only takes into account games that would also have generated ELO in HD, then it’s exactly the same thing I wish for too.
Pure arabia players in my experience have the most issue with maps that have any kind of water. 11 Which is already telling that the current system is indeed superior to before.
Then that’s their fault. They should be playing in the MM if they want to be competitive. Again, that is the point of MM. Why would they want people to more easily divert away from MM? Nonsense.
Because it’s a game? And in a game the players should be able to play the way they want, not the way they’re forced to because some Devs are afraid of having players switching from MM to the lobbies? Making the lobbies bad on purpose to “protect” MM is just nonsense.
I dont really understand the discussion about ranked ELO in lobby.
If this mean: You got ranked ELO for playing unranked games, for example if you play RM 1v1 in lobby, you get ELO for RM 1v1, i am against this idea. I already explained why in the following post in this thread:
If it means something else, i am kinda lost. If so, can someone enlight me?
Everyone need to adapt. I think Arabia players most likely have a good understanding of the game mechanics and can easily adapt. I see no real issue. Yes, they have to learn some BOs for water maps. That is all.
If there is just one map like Arabia, it is Lombardia to me. If i have to describe Lombardia it is just like Arabia, but allies spawn much closer. I will have some better examples for you:
- Hillfort: You spawn without berries. Your normal FC build wont work and you have to adapt.
- Serengeti: You dont have your second boar, but more deer.
- Nomad: Start is completely different
It is all about adapting.
@hardform: I think pure Arabia players can be much better adapt than for example pure Arena players or pure Black Forest players. Pure Arabia players will have a weakness for water maps, but i think the disadvantage for pure Arena players or pure BF players is much greater.
1 Like
That’s not what should happen.
You shouldn’t get “Matchmaking ELO” for playing in the lobbies. But you should get a separate kind of ELO (let’s call it “lobby ELO” to avoid confusion) if you play a 1v1 (or a 2v2, …) in the lobbies.
This ELO then would let you balance games in the lobbies.
I dont really understand what the difference is between the current (not visible) “Unranked Elo” and your suggested 'Lobby ELO". The difference isnt clear to me. Can you explain to me the difference between these?
This sentence is not an argument at all for the discussion.
All games, even board games, have rules and you don’t get to play them the way you want, unless you play with your own rules but then we could consider that “unranked” and meaningless and so is the case right now, unranked elo cannot be taken seriously and it wont be made such either.
On the contrary, actually quite sensible to force the MM to have as many players on the Q as possible to provide people in the Q with better balanced games and shorter waiting times. Can’t get more sensible than that.
2 Likes
That may be but nonetheless I’ve witnessed them have some good difficulty and some have even admitted on this very forum they don’t wish to play those maps cause they are so different and they can’t cope with the different gameplay.
It is always better to be good on a variety of maps than only one style.
Oh, yeah sorry.
My bad.
Lombarida wasn’t the one I intended to say.
There’s a map that you get 1 tower + 1 mill + 4 deer + a shitton of scattered geese.
That’s the map I meant and forgot the name.
Yeah, but if one only plays Arabia, that would not be the case for them
I dont really understand what the difference is between the current (not visible) “Unranked Elo” and your suggested 'Lobby ELO". The difference isnt clear to me. Can you explain to me the difference between these?
According to “Hardform” the difference is that the Non-Visible ELO also takes into account games like 6vs2, FFA, Diplo etc. while the ELO I suggest should only take into account games that would have taken into account in the HD ELO system. (Meaning: 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 and no mods / no user made maps). And: My “Lobby ELO” should be visible of course.
I actually don’t know if Hardform is right about how the current Non-Visible ELO is calculated but I think he very well could be because the calculations we see now are just nonsense.
[…] unless you play with your own rules but then we could consider that “unranked” and meaningless and so is the case right now, unranked elo cannot be taken seriously and it wont be made such either.
Basically you call everything that happened in HD (or even before) “meaningless”. So you’re deciding that the way this game has been played for 20 years is bullsh*t and now you get to say how it has to be played. And everybody who doesn’t agree with you should be denied the well-tried tools to balance his games… indeed a very sensible approach.
Well I am cause I’ve been looking at my unranked elo and I don’t play normal games outside of the MM at all so. And I mostly play FFA nowadays and I’ve gained and lost elo with it. So there’s no denying that it is indeed a fact that this is how it works.
You sure this wasn’t a megarandom game?
Well I am
As I said: I have little doubt that it is calculated the way you say it is (until recently I just couldn’t really believe that they’d introduce such a nonsense.)
And this makes it very obvious that this has to change because nobody needs an ELO system that produces a completely useless ranking.
[Suggestion] We need the people from unranked lobbies to come and play matchmake
7 Likes
Well personally I like it to see how good I am doing in my custom games however the fact that it can give a win even if I lose a game, is something to be fixed instead.