Replace ELO with score

[uakf.b]

ELO is meant as a measure of skill, not as a way to score people and something to win / lose. But most people treat it as such now, and we encourage treating it like that by having our list of top scored players.

This suggestion is to partially replace ELO with a score system, like you get 5 points for wins and 3 points for losses, with maybe higher win points if the game is either autobalanced or otherwise not stacked. That way, people who play more frequently can get a higher score as a reward.

ELO will still be displayed, and autobalanced games will still balance by ELO and not by score. But, this way it would make more sense for the players who currently treat ELO as something to be gained rather than just a measure of their skill.

Score would not start counting until after the first fifteen or so games. This way, players who create new accounts will first get an accurate ELO rating before score starts counting, since score would depend somewhat on how balanced the game is.

And also score would be reset each month or something.

Edit: maybe higher ELO also increases amount you get by winning somehow.

[supersexyy]

I'd rather a system to discourage/remove akaing somehow. That way elo would actually be of significance.

[uakf.b]

ELO would still only be a skill level measure, not a score. For example, I just checked some things and Battle.net and LoL both use a system where ELO is used for matchmaking while there's an additional points that's a bit separate from it.

It doesn't make sense to reset ELO every now and then, but it does make sense to reset scores. And with the score there's an incentive to play more games instead of worry about losing ELO and stuff.

[supersexyy]

Like an mmr type rating system? That makes more sense if you want to implement seasons, but it will also make elo boosting even more of a problem as new accounts start at the very bottom

[uakf.b]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine ??

New accounts can get 10-15 games without score, and then once they played that many they'd be assigned score based on ELO or something. From then on score would update independently.

[supersexyy]

I'm in favour of an MMR system where it takes at least 15 games to get rated.
Solves the problem of ELO boosting and also encourages more games.

[turtleshell]

I dont fully understand but do u mean that:
-U want to have a score system on monthly basis as a rank system, while Elo will remain as a player match system.
-not sure wat the formula will b, but difference of avg elo, k/d, w/l stats will b considered for the +/- score points u will recieve.

I do think score system can be good. But, i think having it as a separate rank system would be good. Score system changing every month depending on player's performance/activity/games etcetc.

Supposing we do have a score system solely as the rank system(and as u uakf.b stated elo remains) will elo not go down, but continue to increase depending on ur number of games since it will no longer measure performance? Wat will elo measure vs score measure?

[supersexyy]

To Summarise the MMR 'Score' System:

-You will have a visible 'Score' element which will determine rankings which favours a higher number of games and a non-ranked 'MMR' (similar to ELO) which will be used to balance games and calculate how much 'Score' you get per game.

- Your first ~15 games will determine your MMR - it will generally use an average kind of system. Eg if beat a team with 1000 ELO then lose vs 1600 ELO it will roughyl determine your elo to be 1300, it will do this across a number of games. This means that new accounts more quickly attain their correct ELO (as opposed to the current ELO system where it will take about 50 or so games).

TLDR The system encourages more games to be played and also discourages new accounts to be made. It also allows stats to be reset and to have gaming 'seasons'.

[turtleshell]

http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/B ... et_Leagues. ????

[bit]

anything that will stimulate ppl to play on main accs, elo boosting by few elo fappers gangs ruins normal ppl's experience and is just unbearable last times. they dont play HR, just elo boost each other all day. first page of this https://clanent.net/customstats/?statsmode=legionmega is now a board of shame, instead of board of honor

[Raizen]

elo or score don't measure skill
most of the times measure game activity and the luck

i don't like the idea to delete/reset stuffs
but could be a top score for the month separately

[BA_Fail]

anything that will stimulate ppl to play on main accs, elo boosting by few elo fappers gangs ruins normal ppl's experience and is just unbearable last times. they dont play HR, just elo boost each other all day. first page of this https://clanent.net/customstats/?statsmode=legionmega is now a board of shame, instead of board of honor

I think elo is fine as it is, it helps me determine who I want to go up against. It is actually very good at determining which team is stacked, usually a smurf and a main account to gain elo.

I agree with your second statement though, I remember when ig0d and skiller were at the top at about 1700 elo. That was a crazy amount back then. Now people got like 2.4k usually from mercing or stacking teams. The only player I have respect for is skillerinstinct, because he usually soloed and play fairly.

[uakf.b]

Well, might work this out in the future, but at the moment it doesn't seem like we need this.