Rankings based on w/l rate and # of games

[nabo.]

Based on Mick's suggestion: https://entgaming.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=70625

Ranking based on players' w/l rate and number of games played. W/L elo gain/loss will be 15/15. Instead of autobal, teams will be randomized (shuffled before game start after countdown or something).

Cast your vote.

[pewpew lasergun]

current system is fine, elo reflects a player skill with enough games.
ranking based on #games played as a criteria is at odds with skill.

if you want to reward players who are very active, maybe give a forum badge/insignia or spoof/color in game for 500 lihl games for example in 1 season.

[KinG23]

I like the current system as well. Too many games can result in imbalanced teams this suggested way.

[dweiler]

I like the current system as well. Too many games can result in imbalanced teams this suggested way.

That's the point of randomizing. With autobalance people's skill do not 'matter' when they have their true Elo because if you are good you will always be paired with someone bad to balance it. What I want to achieve now is that we do not 'balance' all games but let the imbalance exist so that games are decided by skill instead of that skill is balanced and that the rolls decide.

Also @pewpew lasergun, playing an entire season at autobalance is at odds with skill because of what I mentioned above. And the way number of games matter in my suggestion is that a consistency in skill is rewarded. In our current system you can get 1200 Elo after 10 games, and if you still have it after 400 games there is no 'plus', even though obviously having 1200 Elo after 400 games is a bigger achievement than having it after 10 games. The player with 400 games will be rewarded for showing consistency. There is no such thing as 'number of games' being rewarded in itself.

[dweiler]

This new system is illogical in so many ways; despite this being a "pro" league, there will always be stronger and weaker players, and the ELO is the closest indicator we have. That means usually the same few will be high ELO, and vice versa for the low one's. To make it completely random or whatever the suggestion is, would be more unbalanced than the current system, which in my opinion is not a healthy step forward at all. Better players getting paired with other really good players will almost undoubtedly ensure defeat for the lesser skilled team; outroll and immola can only get you so far. Skill trumps all in these games, except for the very small % of totally unwinnable games that happen. Majority of games will be negatively influenced by this, and I believe if this change is implemented, we will start seeing people go to 500-600 ELO while others reach 1800+(won't name any particular players). Just my two cents.

I can't see at all why you call this 'illogical'. All the arguments I see from you is that you think it's not a good step to have more imbalance in players in game, which has nothing to do with being 'logical' but your preference. I think balancing is a really weird concept in a league. We are all vouched and expected to have a certain skill amount. In other words, everybody should be able to play in this league. So then we see who is the best, and what is a fairer way to test who is the best than by giving everyone the same chances to have the same allies? So if you win 3 games with allies XYZ and I win 2 games then you are the better player. It's more fair than letting me play with a stronger ally vs you EVERY game and you with a weaker ally. I don't think 'balance' should be a goal in this way, to prevent people from winning/losing more than they would if they had equal circumstances as the other players. It can be used as a goal to prevent stacking in public games. To have it in an in-house league is illogical. (Btw it won't be with Elo anymore, just w/l rate, i.e. if you have 60 wins 40 losses you have 20 score)

[Miyagi]

Nothing wrong with trying it out, it's easy enough to revert back if it doesn't work out.

[pistov]

sure when it can be aways revered back we can give it a shot.

[Krayyzie]

I like the concept of it, random teams would be very interesting, same goes for win/loss score system, but i´ll still vote for keeping the old system.

Mainly because
1: This system will benefit extremely active players(with decent win/loss ratio)
2: Im not sure how this system would work with 15/15 elo , is it possible to allow negative elo as im quite sure there will be players going from 1000 to negative before a season ends?
3: Got a feeling the flaming will increase quite alot towards people who who are unwanted by certain other players, once they go way to low on elo...

Suggestion to improve the idea?
% Win/loss ratio with a minimum ammount of games to, for example 150-200 games minimum to be allowed to count for top placements at end of season?

Some positives with the idea
1: Worse players will get more chance of leading games, and hopefully improve because they wont have 1-2 high elo players with them every game
2: 2s and 3s will hopefully get less dodges, as there wont be any 18/12 games
3: There will be more "we´re underdogs and we´ll beat the hell out of the better team situations"


Will think bout it more might change my vote...

[Don_Killuminati]

Can be tested as well, why not make next season mby more shorter 1-2mounth to test it, and decide if we keep it or not.

[SLSGuennter]

Suggestion to improve the idea?
% Win/loss ratio with a minimum ammount of games to, for example 150-200 games minimum to be allowed to count for top placements at end of season?

This seems very good.
Im realy not a supporter of the idea, that a player with 55%wins and 700games is higher ranked then a player with 58%wins and 400games ... the 58%wins guy simply is better
So "no-reallife-players" would benefit to much from this imo.

[supersexyy]

What's the point of a minimum amount of games when more active players are rewarded anyway??

Edit I see this is based on win/loss %. The whole point of Mickie's idea is to reward activity so doesn't this defeat the purpose of it? Seems like a terrible version of the current system.

[elektro]

i agree with supersexy, seems like the ones who have more spare time wins every season and those who are better players but they don´t play much cant win.

[Krayyzie]

Would still be random teams and the minimum ammount of games would be to make sure people cant go 17-3 win/loss and stop playing...
It wouldnt reward activity at all , once you reached the minimum ammount of games, the % of wins will decide, that means people playing 300 games/season and people playing 1000 games/season plays on the same conditions...

[godlik3]

Best thing would be all games 15/15 and after all players signs and join the lobby, the 2 highest elo players start a captain mode, and make swaps on lobby!!
This way players will play more games with their friends, avoind drama, raging etc!

[Dong]

Best thing would be all games 15/15 and after all players signs and join the lobby, the 2 highest elo players start a captain mode, and make swaps on lobby!!
This way players will play more games with their friends, avoind drama, raging etc!

i kinda support this suggestion tbh, i mean, for what i have seen, most of the times people disagree with any swaps, is because the balance is not good enough, but i mainly support the all games 15/15 elo thing, don't really care about captains