Get rid of ELO?

[dweiler]

The other day I was talking with Fiji about the ELO-system and it got me thinking. I found it weird that this league tries to put the good players down, and drag the bad players up (since they are always teamed). Now I am wondering about a different way of organizing the league, so I am just going to suggest it.

How about this:

Get rid of ELO, and every game teams are randomized. Every win gives you a point, every loss takes one (In other words, score = wins - losses). The one with the most points at the end of the season wins.

[Hutzu]

What about disc-penalty?
2vs2 -> 3x +1 & 1x -3?
3vs3 -> 5x +1 & 1x -5?
4vs4 -> 7x +1 & 1x -7?

Right now you can equalize your dc-penalty with 1.5 wins (18-24 ELO). In that system you would be screwed. You could try to punish dc with temp unvouches but that is no good option imo. Or you give/take more than 1 point for win/lose and try to get a better balance between normally earned points and dc-points.

That's just for stats. The bigger issue imo is a certain quality of the league. We have few "lead-players", who usually make the first suggestion.
Like:
Fiji, god.lik3, fanatismo, patarinsky, braveheart_wins, gog-magog, occupyw.street, ilocos and goats (eldryan too, but isn't playing anymore).

Since I admittingly got lucky this season and managed to get higher than before with my ELO, I was 'often' put as #1 of my team, which always resulted in a loss. I usually take care of my own towers and contribute (not lead!) to the discussion when to send and who goes anti what level and etc. And I have gotten the impression that most players are like that, too. And above I listed 9 players out of a pool of 66 players. The chances are that maybe 2-3 are online at the same time AND willing to play. Now imagine all of them to get into the same team. Sure win, because the other team isn't as organized. There will of course be exceptions. Like one time Fiji and god.lik3 played mkaay and me in a 2vs2, and my team won. But this wont be the normal case imo.

I like the auto-balance as it is, because it puts those players into opposing teams. At least mostly. Exception for that yesterday:
https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=4417884
gog-magog and fanatismo being put into same team, because clearfluids and marlboro have really low ELO and the 4 of my team all between 1k and 1.1k. I think we need those balances and 6 out of 9 mentioned players actually form the top 1-6
https://entgaming.net/customstats/lihl/top/

[ZTX)Fiji]

We discussed alot of things in detail ye XD.

One of the exambles we discussed was, if the seasons were just 1 month with a limited 100 games per player each month - if you dc. - You lose the right for a game (99 games) while the game that had a dc didn't count for the rest of the players - best of 100 each month with win / Lose ratio. However the limited amount of games could be raised or lowered according to the level of activity - and once your games has been played you are auto unvouched untill the end of the season.

[Krumme]

Having restrictions on how many games one can play in LIHL is not a good idea - the activity is low enough already. (could argue that a very high amount of games is max per season but then it would only hit a few players and not really do any good).

As Hutzu stated there are players who lead and there are players who play - not having a leader to do the calls often ends in a loss.

Okay lets imagine we play this idea out. Every game is complete randomized - worst case scenario to have 4 top 10 players vs 4 top 10 bottom players - the game would in no way be balanced and 19/20 times the 4 top players would end up winning (if not more). I think this would kill the mood to play. Assuming you see the teams and you just know you are fucked would make me consider going public games instead which is not what we aim to do here.
Sure there are good things about this idea too such as having players that rarely play together to play together more frequently and not being able to calculate the teams beforehand etc. but I don't think this makes up for the unfair games that will come to happen.
So my personal opinion is that this is not a good idea.

[Diablo_]

I agree with Krumme. LIHL is/should be about balanced games and fun in general and your suggestion doesn't increase either one imo
Limiting games amount would decrease fun for some players and with random teams games would be less balanced which would again result in less fun for some players.

[bit]

what if there will be PickUpGroups system? captains will pick up players one by one. for example: 8 players sign, 2 highest elo's typing !pick <name>. game is created only after arranging teams

[GoatsBeGone]

I think the idear in itself is great, but there are alot of things that needs to be worked out for a system like this to work
but i like the idear though. I just think biggest issue will be dcs, idk how you could make that work in anyways

[Diablo_]

what if there will be PickUpGroups system? captains will pick up players one by one. for example: 8 players sign, 2 highest elo's typing !pick <name>. game is created only after arranging teams

That's already possible but is hardly used.

[bit]

inb4 PUG test week

[dweiler]

Thanks for your opinions! I don't agree with some of the stuff you are saying.

The chances are that maybe 2-3 are online at the same time AND willing to play. Now imagine all of them to get into the same team. Sure win, because the other team isn't as organized.

Yes, that is why I suggest this. Calling is part of the game, and if you can't call you should have worse stats instead of relying on the high elo player who does the calling for you. Example: 2 good callers and 2 bad callers doing 4 games. With ELO-balance (considering the good callers are highest) u will prob have 2 wins for all, because in every game both teams have 1 good and 1 bad caller. In randomized you will have 1 or 2 games with the good callers together, so they are more likely to win 1 or 2 games more. Which is like it should be, because good callers should win more than bad callers (considering everything else is equal). Hope this example makes sense..

worst case scenario to have 4 top 10 players vs 4 top 10 bottom players - the game would in no way be balanced and 19/20 times the 4 top players would end up winning (if not more).

I see the point. However, I can't see the reason why everything would have to be equal. In fact, the very basis of a league is unfairness. Just like it is unfair to play vs Iniesta and Messi in one team, so you might face some top players. Yes, Barcelona wins 90% of its games in the Primera Division, and if we have players who are like Barcelona in our league they should win 90% too. With the ELO balance we are artificially keeping all players within 10% (more or less) of each other, and the difference should be way bigger to be realistic.

I think this would kill the mood to play.

Always being teamed up with the worst player can be considered a moodkiller as well. Anyway, it is just an assumption. I don't think it would kill the mood, rather on the contrary: I think people would wanna play more because you can't pick teams anymore and everyone has a chance to have a really good team every game (the gambling effect, your next try might be the lucky one).

LIHL is/should be about balanced games and fun in general and your suggestion doesn't increase either one imo

Is it about balance and fun? Did I get into a communist youth camp by accident? LIHL is a league, and the aim of a league is to have a list at the end that shows how good everyone is. I think always pairing up the good players with the worst and vice versa does not generate a fair image of how good players are. Randomizing teams and see who wins most is way more fair. Why? Because everyone plays with everyone and so who wins the most won most in the same circumstances instead of picking teams/balancing teams.

About "fun".. Well I don't know what to say. Maybe balance pushes your buttons and others will like randomized teams more. Some people like football, others don't. I don't think there is objectively more fun in balanced teams than randomized teams.

I just think biggest issue will be dcs, idk how you could make that work in anyways

A DC-penalty is the ELO of a loss right? We could just add a loss-point for DCs?

[supersexyy]

There's two parts to this
1. Removing elo scaling with team elo discrepancies. Ie the fact you're using 1, -1.
2. Removing auto balance.

Removing elo scaling is one step towards what you're proposing.

Dc penalties aren't an issue, I can think of a few ways the same effects can be felt using other methods.

[yolostyle]

Hi all,

i like the idea of putting teams together on a random basis.

From my point of view the current system is not a "true" elo system anyway, due to the limitation of +- 30 point per match and more importantly the ability to decide which matches to play when to dodge. (resulting in the possibility to "farm" people or dodge respectively)
Also in differenent Elo System players who are new, should have huge swings in their score as elo systems try to adjust new players to their actual skill level asap. (Our elo system could be seen as "softcore" elo. )

Furthermore the score system Mick suggested, should result in higher activity.
Let me point out that there are some similarities to online poker, where there is always the question why do the loosing people keep playing?
Because on short term even the worse player can win.

The short term random factor that will come with this system should be motivating for the beginners, while the good players should still get their good results based on the total length of the season.

[godlik3]

Man i totaly suport this...
I think games should be:

-Always 15/15 elo ( dont need to +1 or -1 point each game ) just 15/15 doesnt matter the ballance
-Always the 2 high elo players r captains and they choose players for his team 1 by one ( we can do that on game loby doesnt need to change anything )
- DC penaltys should always take 15 elo only from the player and give 5 elo for each another player that was on game ( i know elo will born from nowhere but its ok ), so elo always will be a multpily of 5

[eldryan]

It's a pretty terrible idea. Tossing out all ELO for a much simpler/more flaw system because of some exploitable factors is increasing the problem, not addressing it. The only thing this would resolve is differentials between 4v4 and 2v2 in high elo games.

I like the captain system - I always do it. This would eventually lead to a better elo system, but also creates popularity contests and a different sort of disruption.

I think some simple adjustments to the ELO system to balance it are better - start out noobs at 900 ELO, lessen dc pen to same as 1 game loss, don't dc pen players on winning team (clearly winning, or even close winning), etc. Don't show players on team - this allows for dodging. Just show "x players have signed" if you really want to eliminate dodging... (although imo dodging shouldn't be illegal in the first place).

[dweiler]

It's a pretty terrible idea. Tossing out all ELO for a much simpler/more flaw system because of some exploitable factors is increasing the problem, not addressing it. The only thing this would resolve is differentials between 4v4 and 2v2 in high elo games.

Care to elaborate on why it is terrible, more flawed and increasing problems?

I think you misunderstood my reason for suggesting this system. Not being able to dodge is merely a side-effect. The main reason to want the new system (that is randomized, thx supersexyy for clearing it up that my suggestion has just as much to do with randomizing as ELO) is to get "real" stats instead of a system that manipulates the stats to be as close to 50% as possible by dragging good players down and boosting bad players.

Balancing the game is this (or at least tries to do this): Okay, there is difference in skill, let's eliminate that and then start playing. The game is then based on rolls and luck. What I am suggesting is to make skill and players more important, instead of balancing out the difference in skill between players resulting in games which rely more heavily than necessary on rolls and luck.