ENT Gaming

I've looked through love.with.me's gamelog, and one can't help but wonder.
Every single game that guy plays (and wins) is with 1000-1100 elo players on the team, and if you check those players, none of them have over 50 games.

I don't know if it's just me, but I think that something should be done about that.
It's obvious that that guy(or his friends) is making new accounts in order to boost the ELO he gains when he plays games.

Is it really impossible to do anything about that?

Some of us 'work' hard on getting the ELO we get, and then this guy just wins games with low ELO players(obviously controlled by players who should have high ELO), so that he can get lots of ELO-profit.

Doesn't seem fair to the rest of us, and yet nothing is being done about it…

regards,
Frustrated Legion Player

It is completely legal to make new accounts and to get ones ELO reset so the problem may not lie within this players use of the rules but the actual rules of ENT

Agreements wrote:None of you came up with a solution. Why comment and make a thread if you don't have a solution to the "so called problem".

Elo system should represent strongest players and it's close to true in 1v1 games, like chess, but in teamgames seems it becames not so obvious cos alot of smurfers.

Probably if make "qualify" bot for ltd, instead of current pub bot, with maximum elo 1500, after that make people auto-kicked and only allow to play 1200+ elo bot this could prevent to boost too much elo with smurfers.

that wont work, its hard to see all 1200+ join 1 game. then you can just reset stats and be an 1500 elo player behind a 1000 elo account. auto balance could work but would prevent a group of friends from trying to be on the same team playing together.

rEvErSeDaMaGe wrote:that wont work, its hard to see all 1200+ join 1 game. then you can just reset stats and be an 1500 elo player behind a 1000 elo account. auto balance could work but would prevent a group of friends from trying to be on the same team playing together.

Option (without autokick): all players with more then X elo (1500, or 1700, or 1800) do not get any elo in pub bot for win, can get only loss elo for lose. Want more elo? Go play with skilled players 1200+ So we will see who can do it in real competition.

It should work because most players care about elo, when they recognize that cant get it on pub bot, they forced to go in skilled bot and play there.

Also maybe current elo sustem done for not to show who's better but its trick for attracting more people to play more games for getting elo somehow at pub bot

would kill the community.

This thread seems to be in two different places.
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=38446
can someone combine them?

Krumme wrote:would kill the community.

Well i dont think that having elo cheaters at 1st place in top is a normal situation.

My suggestion is like that - "want more than 2k (or 1,9k, 1,8k) elo? do it in high skill bot or get nothing above certain elo level at pub bot" (option - x/10 elo in case of win and full elo lose in case of lose).

Also i see that 1100+ bot becomes more popular.

I wouldn't mind having people with more than 1800 elo have to play at 1100+ bot to gain further ELO as I'm sure they prefer actually gaining more than 0,5 elo per game but since it's a relative dead bot right now it would be easier for people to stack the opposite team too if they really want to gain elo
Now if we made it a 1150 or even 1200 bot as we considered in the first place it would be really hard for people to actually stack the opposite team or atleast make it very painful to do so

My 2 main concerns is easy stacking on 1100+ bot and splitting the community into 2 which could create some barriers but in general I actually think this could work (creating activity on both bots while not having to play vs 1900+ players on regular bot)

If his friends are losing on purpose against him and give him elo that way, then it's stats boosting and ban-able, plus a stats wipe.
You can report it - but only if it's really the case.

Maybe it would help to focus more on the idea behind Elo. It is intended to represent the relative chance of winning between 2 players.

First of all, this does not scale up for random team games, where the "team" is newly assembled for each game. So whatever formula is in use or proposed, it will not really be fair and will not reliably reach the goal of measuring a teams value.

Lets say (for sake of simplicity) we have a 2v2 game where team 1 is a 1400 Elo + 600 Elo player and team 2 is both players 1000 Elo.

At the moment, each player in the winning team gets 15 Elo boost and each player on the losing team loses 15 Elo.

In my opinion, the Elo boost should be distributed unevenly:
Team 1 win should lead to higher Elo boost for the 600 Elo player and less for the 1400 Elo player. So far so (un-)fair...
But what would happen if team 2 wins? In this case we need a model, how much Elo has to be "payed" by each losing player. This should be the opposite way: the 1400 Elo player loses a higher amount of Elo than the 600 Elo player.
Now that combined is hell of a drawback for the high Elo player encouraged, to play with comparable teammates instead of elo boosting by playing with low Elo allies.
Problem: In order to have fair teams, it is a good thing when high Elo players team up with low Elo players (the real ones, who actually play bad) in order to balance teams.

Depending on the parameters, this approach could be really unsatisfying for high Elo players, so maybe it should only be implemented partially. Still I wanted to give some input to this discussion

Suggestion: if the gap (for example) is 600 elo between highest and lowest elo, kick the one who joined later. So if u have high elo friend and want to play with him but are behind than 600 elo, only option would be 1100+ bot.

Well if the bot knows my IP address, and when i get booted with my main because my other account left early. Why can't that IP address start out at the highest rated players elo? I am not much of a computer person, but if this can be used to ban someone for a ban period why not use it the other way too!