Starting ELO for new players poll

[eldryan]

Well, that's why I wanted to let you make the poll as it's your idea/suggestion and only you know how exactly you want it to look like. But as you wanted me to make it you'll have to live with it now

just an outline of the idea works. anything without bias, such as u explaining why you think it's bad... which obviously isn't part of the suggestion?

[Krayyzie]

Simple no from me, not even worth bothering, for example the names pew posted, there are several lihl players with about the same win/loss ratio, besides, the 5 of those players who played 15+ games, only 1 of them is below 900 elo...

[eldryan]

@braveheart_wins their combined w/l % is 36. lol.

[ILOCOS_NORTE]

Voted "NO" of course.
Everyone benefits from new players with fresh elo.

If they dont deserve 1k elo they drop very quickly and give there elo points to all other players over the time. So all good players will end up with higher elo.

And if someone says he would have the new players always on his team, I can just shake my head and empathize with him so that his confusion will be healed

ps. I didnt bother to read all the previos comments.

[eldryan]

Voted "NO" of course.
Everyone benefits from new players with fresh elo.

If they dont deserve 1k elo they drop very quickly and give there elo points to all other players over the time. So all good players will end up with higher elo.

And if someone says he would have the new players always on his team, I can just shake my head and empathize with him so that his confusion will be healed

ps. I didnt bother to read all the previos comments.

when playing 2v2, vs any two players in 1100s, i will always have new vouches on my team. and i will lose 90 elo for nothing. "there elo to all others" is assuming continuously changing teams from new players with perfect distribution at each elo (obviously impossible). new player will be same team for most part until he is low enough ELO to have mostly best players on his teams (after 5-6 losses), by which time he will be on proper skilled teams but it will be at the expense of his old team's elo. he will, however, boost the opposing team if you want to remain optimistic about ur elo impact...

edit: misread something in your post, edited my message.

Also, let me put it another way: I don't like playing unbalanced teams as much. Prefer not to be on noob teams vs pros, or vice versa.

[ILOCOS_NORTE]

when playing 2v2, vs any two players in 1100s, i will always have new vouches on my team. and i will lose 90 elo for nothing. "there elo to all others" is assuming continuously changing teams from new players with perfect distribution at each elo (obviously impossible). new player will be same team for most part until he is low enough ELO to have mostly best players on his teams (after 5-6 losses), by which time he will be on proper skilled teams but it will be at the expense of his old team's elo. he will, however, boost the opposing team if you want to remain optimistic about ur elo impact...

First of all, you contradict yourself in your post. You say you always have newly vouched players on your team and you say it will take 5-6 losses until they end up with the best possible teammates. So, you dont consider yourself as the best possible teammate?!? And you rather want an 1100 guy on your team when you are 1300, 2x1100 and 1x1000? I'm confused

2.) Assuming that you play several games in a row, it can happen that you end up with the same team. But in >90% of all cases, the 3. game in a row with the same players will have a different setup (3s and 4s).

3.) Imagine elo as a large pool. You can only gain what others lose. If a new player starts with 1000 and drops to 900 there 100 elo is given to other players. If you say you are always with the new guy on a team and lose also 100 elo, the gainers would have a new elo score above there skill lvl and it should be no problem to take the elo back.

4.) You are only with the new guy on the team if theres no one with <1000 in the game (2s). Dont tell me you ALWAYS play 2s with new guys where old players have an elo score between yours and the new guys.
My personal tip, dogde if thats such a big deal.



Summing up: In 2s its bad for you cause you always have the new guy (because the other two players are always >1000k) and in 3s and 4s you dont have the new guy, because it will take 5-6 games until they end up with the highest elo teammates. If you still beleive you always play with the new guys, I dont know how to help you man.

[pewpew lasergun]

in 2s new vouch hurts.
consider
brave ilocos eld new vouch in 2s
u think it is fair to eld to be with new vouch vs ilocos and brave
assuming same ppl r online for 2 hours, the probability of him losing all games is very high.

it doesnt hurt to start new vouch at 900, why against it.
anyway poll decides and dont see why all the fuss bout something so insignificant.

[eldryan]

2.) Assuming that you play several games in a row, it can happen that you end up with the same team. But in >90% of all cases, the 3. game in a row with the same players will have a different setup (3s and 4s).

4.) You are only with the new guy on the team if theres no one with <1000 in the game (2s). Dont tell me you ALWAYS play 2s with new guys where old players have an elo score between yours and the new guys.

let me phrase this for you better. in 3v3 and 4v4 games, as soon as they are over, they remake them. the first two games will start too quickly for ELO to set, and the teams will be the same... thus creating a sequence of games with the same players vs 1000 ELO new vouch. then ppl will log off.... and there will be another few games with that new vouch and the same teams. because at 1000 the new vouch will in all likelihood not be the lowest on his team (he is the average) at the start, he will stay on the same team as the majority of members while the lowest member gets put onto the winning team. until he is about 910.

if a player is 1000, he will be on my team as the "avg player" and others will be 900 elo. vs all 1100s. if he is 900, I will get 1 "avg" player at least and 1 lower. the only time I will have ALL low ELO is if im vs low ELOs, and then it's not concern really as they will get the 1000 - which is bad for them, as he should be on my team. if he is 900, it will be him, me, and an 1000 as opposed to me him and a 900 if he is 1000- and normally the best possible teammateS are above 900.

In late night 2v2 (when I play), everyone is high ELO. it's something like me, gog, beep, trance, braveheart, and pewpew (who just recently lost a significant amount). throw in a noob and it's always on highest ELO players team. in fact I do always lpay 2s with new guys with high ELO older players....lol.

tbh, I have taken revenge as much as I have lost from new vouches - but it doesn't feel "even" as it was still twisted.

[ILOCOS_NORTE]

I watched through your last 50 games (more or less) and I couldnt find such a pattern you discribe where you lose a couple of games in a row because you end up with the same team consisting of new players (3s/4s) or lost more then one game with a new guy vs to old players in 2s. The situation you discribe may happens in 0-3% of all your games. Its no big deal.
All in all you win more games where u have new players on your team then u lose.

If we reduce the elo of new guys you would have them more often on your team because you have rather high elo currently.

Or is this all about 17:13 instead or 19:11 in a 2s ?!? because of this 2 elo points w/l disballance???

[eldryan]

I watched through your last 50 games (more or less) and I couldnt find such a pattern you discribe where you lose a couple of games in a row because you end up with the same team consisting of new players (3s/4s) or lost more then one game with a new guy vs to old players in 2s. The situation you discribe may happens in 0-3% of all your games. Its no big deal.
All in all you win more games where u have new players on your team then u lose.

If we reduce the elo of new guys you would have them more often on your team because you have rather high elo currently.

Or is this all about 17:13 instead or 19:11 in a 2s ?!? because of this 2 elo points w/l disballance???

most of those games are obs where i am afk mb, lol. do a !compare wolfwarrior eldryanthewise , and you will notice a 0/5. or last season, when pew joined, you would've seen a 0/4. or this season with ship_, 1/3. or me hutzu, 0/1. and against them a combined 9/3 (you and beep and fiji and wolfwarrior were good together, for two of those losses).

they would indeed be on my team more often, but more simply balanced.

[ILOCOS_NORTE]

in fact I do always lpay 2s with new guys with high ELO older players....lol.

Awwww ok. I understand. It IS about the 1-2 elo points w/l disballance. I hope youre aware that you would still end up with the new guy if we reduce his elo. You would just lose 14 elo instead of 16 elo per game (or 18 elo instead of 20 elo, for example).
I think you take the whole elo thing to serios, because you pointed out here that your main problem is not to have the new guy on your team. Its the higher elo loss.

And dont tell me you dont want the new guy on your team in 2s vs 2 older players. If you have highest elo you will ALWAYS have him on your team. Doesnt matter if with 1000, 900 or 800 elo.

tbh, I have taken revenge as much as I have lost from new vouches - but it doesn't feel "even" as it was still twisted.

Thats what im talking about. Elo fluctuates. What goes around comes around. From the mathematical point of view: If a new players has 1000k elo but should have 800 skillwise, his 200 elo will be thrown in the system due to him losing and everyone >800 will share a piece of that cake.

[eldryan]

my main issue is 4v4. obviously nothing can be done in 2v2s for if I play with new guy lol. @ilocos_norte

[Diablo_]

11 against, 7 in favor -> Nothing will be changed.

Thanks for the suggestion, archiving.