Bigger elo difference between 2's 3's and 4's

[Iznogood]

Just gonna throw this ball up for discussion..

Some people says that there already are more elo to get in 4's.. but from replays it's not hard to see that you often gain more elo from 2v2 or 3v3.
My thought is that 2v2 games are much quicker than 4v4 which mostly goes to 31+. Therefore I also think that 4v4 should give some more elo.
All games are around 15 elo average at the moment. I'm thinking that 3v3 should be +5 and 4v4 +10

[supersexyy]

Why should 4v4s be worth more elo o.O

The higher elo you are the more you gain from 4v4
The lower elo you are the more you gain from 2v2

Simple maths...

[Feor]

He purely means that elo gains should be balanced no matter what is your elo, since it would drive away the top elo players away from 2v2 (at least that's what I understood from izno )
And also since 2v2 takes less time should reward less elo than a longer 4v4 game.


I think 3v3 is still balanced but the 2v2 elo differences have a huge gap

[supersexyy]

So losers get penalised more?

But also for higher elo players they have more influence over a 2v2 game, thus they should get less ELO.

[dweiler]

Why more ELO for 4v4? ELO is a measure to determine skill, not the amount of time invested in it. You need more skill to win a 2v2 than a 4v4 (you can get carried more in a 4v4), so if anything, 2v2 should reward more ELO than 4v4.

[Iznogood]

Why should 4v4s be worth more elo o.O

The higher elo you are the more you gain from 4v4
The lower elo you are the more you gain from 2v2

Simple maths...

well take a look at ba's last 7 games and tell me if gets more elo from 2v2 or 4v4

https://entgaming.net/openstats/dota/?u=ba_fail

Just seems to be pretty much the same..

So losers get penalised more?

But also for higher elo players they have more influence over a 2v2 game, thus they should get less ELO.

I think it's more fair to gain/lose more elo for 4v4 as you spend twice the time as you do in a standard 2v2.
So yea.. raising the elo stackes a little would probably be the best -2/+2 for 3v3 compared with 2v2
and maybe -3/+3 or even -4/+4 for 4v4

[Iznogood]

Why more ELO for 4v4? ELO is a measure to determine skill, not the amount of time invested in it. You need more skill to win a 2v2 than a 4v4 (you can get carried more in a 4v4), so if anything, 2v2 should reward more ELO than 4v4.

well IMO 2v2 are much more about roll luck and they're much faster.
I think that the time has something to say - would maybe also solve the issue were some players prefers 2 x 2v2 instead of 4v4.

Will you deny it's faster to gain elo by playing 2's instead of 4's - assuming that you're winning

[dweiler]

Well if 2v2's are more about roll luck as you claim, then you would not gain ELO faster, because you are more likely to lose even if you have a higher skill than the enemy (because you will have worse rolls than your enemies about 50% of the time).

But I agree that legion TD is originally intended for 4v4 and making 4v4 more attractive to play may help to make it attractive when it can. Often, people rather play 2x 2v2 than 1x 4v4 when there are enough players.

I am not sure yet whether it is a bad thing that people rather choose for 2v2 than 4v4, though.

[Iznogood]

But I agree that legion TD is originally intended for 4v4 and making 4v4 more attractive to play may help to make it attractive when it can. Often, people rather play 2x 2v2 than 1x 4v4 when there are enough players.

I think that gambling with more elo would make 4v4 more attractive - and also more fair time/elo-wise

[Diablo_]

I don' think that there is any reason to make 4vs4 more attractive (tho, I don't think higher ELO on stake in 4vs4 would change anything on this matter). If some people prefer 2vs2 or 3vs3 so be it. They are simply faster, more dynamic and have more action (playing to level 31 in 80% of the games in 4vs4 is getting a bit boring over time, especially if you play a lot of games per day)

[Iznogood]

I agree.. but more elo would make it slightly more attractive to play 4v4

[HealByColor]

Why would you want to change something when there is nothing wrong? you might as well throw elo out the window with what you want +15 -15 every time? That would make it a lot easier for people to gain elo to be honest not totally fair. Takes about twice as much skill to win a 2v2 over 4v4 both involve luck.

[Iznogood]

Why would you want to change something when there is nothing wrong? you might as well throw elo out the window with what you want +15 -15 every time? That would make it a lot easier for people to gain elo to be honest not totally fair. Takes about twice as much skill to win a 2v2 over 4v4 both involve luck.

Noone actually suggested to remove elo and use +15 as standard as you talk about.
Or is it your suggestion?

[HealByColor]

My suggestion is to leave it the way it is. The only thing I would change is the draw rule.

[Iznogood]

The only thing I would change is the draw rule.

Please stick to the subject.

Anyways can see you anything negative with raising the average elo in 4's to make it more attractive? It's no secret that you're fan of 2v2 - but I still want to know what you have to say