New ranking system to stay or?

[SLSGuennter]

I see most games red and yellow higher elo, i think it's better than a full random, which can make a team with all bottom players = ppl give up already or issue with leads.
Imo the way that it force low skill players to improve is good, but should not be like all lihl players get same skill lvls or it will make inequality.

Totaly agree wih this, i like the random part of the system, but highest 2 players should be red/yellow imo, so each team gets at least 1 player who can make some decent calls

[AvadaKedavra]

you will not be "punished" because you have high elo, and you will not benefit by being low elo.

This is true. Good players did get "punished" in the old system. But their "punishment" was still just 50 %ish winrates and high spots on the leaderboard. I mean I know it sucks to be one of the better players and "only" win 50 % of ur games, but it's the same on ent18, 1200+, dota, you name it.

[AvadaKedavra]

I see most games red and yellow higher elo, i think it's better than a full random, which can make a team with all bottom players = ppl give up already or issue with leads.
Imo the way that it force low skill players to improve is good, but should not be like all lihl players get same skill lvls or it will make inequality.

Totaly agree wih this, i like the random part of the system, but highest 2 players should be red/yellow imo, so each team gets at least 1 player who can make some decent calls

This seems like a decent middle way between the old systen and the new. Still significantly worse imo, especially considering how the highest elo players could just be some1 who has played a lot of games with a slight edge on the average field of players

[AvadaKedavra]

Btw I understand why some players like to play with different people, and not just the same 3 every game. However IF teams are random which leads to very stacked games occasionally, the elo exchange should reflect this. In this new system elo's means little to nothing. I wouldn't mind playing a 8/22 game, if I actually got 22 for winning, instead of forced 15. All forced 15 does is count w/l, regardless of how stacked the game is.

I think randomized teams, but with some balance kicking in if a game gets too stacked, so games never go below 7/23 or something, would be way better than current system. Like if a 1/29 game was possible, the system should try to swap a few high/low players to get within the 7/23 treshold. And ofc you should get the actual elo, and not forced 15/15. This would reward lesser players for winning a tough game, and keep them withing a reasonable elo, instead of hitting 0, below 0, etc. etc. etc.

Anyways I'm just rambling now, but at this point anything is better than the current system

[Krayyzie]

For me it´d be a big no,no with having 2 top 2 players in each team then random on rest of teams, that would pretty much remove one of the most positive parts about this, the fact that players that are not used to lead/make calls, will get to do that more often with this system, by making calls and being more part of making calls in more games, players learn stuff and get better.

Random teams means in the long run that you will play just as many games with "good" allies as you play with "bad". So 15/15 is pretty much just as good as 23/7 games, with this system with random teams and elo based on team elos, it would just screw players with high elo even more than the old system did.
I think the best way to get rid of the problems you guys are mentioning is to make the rank based on % of wins rather than 15 elo per win/loss. That way people with high activity and bad stats wont be punished, and put to way worse rank than players with low activity and bad stats.

I would say the best 2 options are probably either go back to how it was, or random teams like now but change to ranking system to winrate (%).
Personally I´d put my vote on random teams and change to winrate, and put up some kind of rule that you need to play atleast X(100-200?) games during a season to participate in the end of season ranks.

[AvadaKedavra]

Random teams means in the long run that you will play just as many games with "good" allies as you play with "bad". So 15/15 is pretty much just as good as 23/7 games, with this system with random teams and elo based on team elos, it would just screw players with high elo even more than the old system did.

Uhm... if teams were random, but with balance kicking in to force a max 7/23 ish exhange, no players would go below 0, and no players would go above 2000. With the current system this will happen with almost 100 % certainty, unless players decide to stop playing before it happens to them. That's a pretty damn big difference.

Would it screw with higher players? Maybe a tiny bit, I honestly dont' know how big the effect would be. But they would still get to play with "different people" every game, so that would be achived whilst keeping the elo meaningful

[SLSGuennter]

Uhm... if teams were random, but with balance kicking in to force a max 7/23 ish exhange, no players would go below 0, and no players would go above 2000. With the current system this will happen with almost 100 % certainty, unless players decide to stop playing before it happens to them. That's a pretty damn big difference.

I dont understand the problem ... so ppl will get 2k and others will get 0, but does this rly matter?
After 3month elo gets reseted and you have a new chance and maybe improved enough to get a better result now ... what is this difference between 1,7k and 600 last season and 2k and 200elo this season? Does it affect the gameplay? No, its just a number

[AvadaKedavra]

Lots of people care about elo. Especially the ones who play a lot / are competitive. It's a way of keeping track of your performance in relation to the rest of the player pooll (or it used to be like this at least). You could argue that winning or losing is always the same, and elo is "just" a number, but the rankings are usually what matters for most peopple.

If person A loses 1 game, then wins another, but the first game only cost him -10 elo, and the next one awarded +20, person A is probably happy.
Vice versa if person B had the oposite results and and ending up losing -10 in total he is unhappy. Both players won 1 game and lost 1 game, but the results reflected by elo exchange have benefited player A.

And yes people care, get real Guennter :b

[SLSGuennter]

Yes yes, @AvadaKedavra i totaly understand that people care for Elo, thats not the point. My question was: what is the difference between people beeing at 200 and 2k or 600 and 1,7k?
We could also award 30 elo each game, then people would be at -600 and 3k, yet that wouldnt make a difference in the rankposition Elo is a relativ number.
Elo is designed for chess, and doesnt work properly for teamgames anyway (not a single teamgame which is played a lot and has a ranksystem is based on pure Elo like ours was ... Not LoL, not HotS, not SC2 in 2s+ ...). So you only THOUGHT the old system was reflecting your skilllevel in relation to all players, but thats not true. The new one works as fine as the old, if not better, because now, you dont get carried by some player with good calls who always is in your team. Doing calls is part of the game, and if you cant do any, your skillevel is (relativly) lower then the level of other players.

[AvadaKedavra]

Yes yes, @AvadaKedavra i totaly understand that people care for Elo, thats not the point. My question was: what is the difference between people beeing at 200 and 2k or 600 and 1,7k?
We could also award 30 elo each game, then people would be at -600 and 3k, yet that wouldnt make a difference in the rankposition Elo is a relativ number.
Elo is designed for chess, and doesnt work properly for teamgames anyway (not a single teamgame which is played a lot and has a ranksystem is based on pure Elo like ours was ... Not LoL, not HotS, not SC2 in 2s+ ...). So you only THOUGHT the old system was reflecting your skilllevel in relation to all players, but thats not true. The new one works as fine as the old, if not better, because now, you dont get carried by some player with good calls who always is in your team. Doing calls is part of the game, and if you cant do any, your skillevel is (relativly) lower then the level of other players.

Here is a player called "king24". Let's say he plays 1000 games with a 47 % winrate. He would win 470 games and lose 530 which equals to 60 more losses than wins. 60 times 15 subtracted from his initial 1000 elo = 100. I did this math quick but I think it's right.

Here is a player called Harry Potter. He has played 100 games with a winrate of 30 %. Thats 70 losses and 30 wins. This means he would have 40 more losses than wins, 40 times 15 subtracted from his initial 1000 = 400 elo.

Now looking at the elo Harry Potter has beaten king24 by 300 elo, and ended the season significantly higher than king24, even though he is losing 70 % of his games. King24 had a 47 % winrate but ended lower than Harry. The new elo system works fine or even better? Good luck convincing anyone about that.

There NEEDS to be a change, current system is broken as hell.

There are 3 options in my opinion:

Option A) Keep current system bur measure winrates over elo. In this format king24 would have beaten Harry Potter with his significantly higher winrate which is absolutely what the ranking system should reflect. He DID outperfrom Harry big time

Option B) Make elo exchange according to the balance instead of forced 15/15. This way people with small winrates / small lose rates would not get punished or rewarded for grinding many games, as king24 got heavily punished for his activity in the example above. Also teams would still be pretty random overall, so that aspect stays intact (like I mentioned earlier I think this system should have some balance to stay within a certain threshold. Something like 8/22 exchanges, so u can max win 22 and max lose 22, since too unbalanced games aka. 1/29 would be shit for the team risking a lot to win nothing)

Option C) Go back to the old system which worked absolutely fine. My personal favorite, works very well with a only a few disadvantages.

Option D) Do nothing and keep a broken system that punishes/rewards activity more than winrate and skill. This option will probably leave some players very sore behind, when they end at the absolute bottom with decent winrates, just like in the example above.

I probably won't post much more after this long post, since i'm really losing passion quickly to try and make a change. I tried to be as clear as possible, and I can't do much more I feel. Choose an option and fix this shit quick -.-

[Nore]

The easy solution imo to appease everyone; keep this current system but make the elo more even. Example being one team has a balance of 22 elo gained and the other 8.. so set a cap of maximum 20/10 exchange so the team that is unfavored has more to win. Anything more than 20/10 is kind of unfair in a "pro league", but this would be acceptable if you ask me. 20/10 cap and keep the current system. Then both sides of the argument can be accounted for.

[SLSGuennter]

Here is a player called "king24". Let's say he plays 1000 games with a 47 % winrate. He would win 470 games and lose 530 which equals to 60 more losses than wins. 60 times 15 subtracted from his initial 1000 elo = 100. I did this math quick but I think it's right.

Here is a player called Harry Potter. He has played 100 games with a winrate of 30 %. Thats 70 losses and 30 wins. This means he would have 40 more losses than wins, 40 times 15 subtracted from his initial 1000 = 400 elo.

Now looking at the elo Harry Potter has beaten king24 by 300 elo, and ended the season significantly higher than king24, even though he is losing 70 % of his games. King24 had a 47 % winrate but ended lower than Harry. The new elo system works fine or even better? Good luck convincing anyone about that.

It was just the same with old system ... if you play A LOT of games in old system and get 45% wins u would still be lower then somebody with less amount of games and winrate of 30%.

Last season Lord-Miles was last, with a winrate of 46%, while 14 players where above him with a worse percentage ... thats not a thing which only occurs in new system, it was just the same in old.
A league of legends diamond-player can have around 50% or even less wins, while an other player is at 60% and still gold.
The biggest difference in new system is, that the winpercentage will get a lot lower then around 45% like last seasons (and a lot higher for the top-players).

Also this unbalances of the system kick in after A LOT of games (e.g. 1k compared to 100), yet the most played in one season ever was 735 by Donki and smth close to that by Achill, most other got less games by far.

[KinG23]

Option C all the way! Thanks for taking the time to write all this Avada. Possibly try making a poll?

[Jules]

Here is a player called "king24". Let's say he plays 1000 games with a 47 % winrate. He would win 470 games and lose 530 which equals to 60 more losses than wins. 60 times 15 subtracted from his initial 1000 elo = 100. I did this math quick but I think it's right.

Here is a player called Harry Potter. He has played 100 games with a winrate of 30 %. Thats 70 losses and 30 wins. This means he would have 40 more losses than wins, 40 times 15 subtracted from his initial 1000 = 400 elo.

Now looking at the elo Harry Potter has beaten king24 by 300 elo, and ended the season significantly higher than king24, even though he is losing 70 % of his games. King24 had a 47 % winrate but ended lower than Harry. The new elo system works fine or even better? Good luck convincing anyone about that.

It was just the same with old system ... if you play A LOT of games in old system and get 45% wins u would still be lower then somebody with less amount of games and winrate of 30%.

Last season Lord-Miles was last, with a winrate of 46%, while 14 players where above him with a worse percentage ... thats not a thing which only occurs in new system, it was just the same in old.
A league of legends diamond-player can have around 50% or even less wins, while an other player is at 60% and still gold.
The biggest difference in new system is, that the winpercentage will get a lot lower then around 45% like last seasons (and a lot higher for the top-players).

Also this unbalances of the system kick in after A LOT of games (e.g. 1k compared to 100), yet the most played in one season ever was 735 by Donki and smth close to that by Achill, most other got less games by far.

I'm not familiar with the new ranking system, but this is absolutely true. When someone climbs to Diamond in League, they can have a 70% win rate, but if they stay around Diamond and play a million games, their win rate would converge to 50%. That doesn't mean they're a worse player. Elo matters, not win rate.

[Dong]

@Jules no offense mate, but this is kinda the In-House league section. So this system only exist withing the closed In-House League games.