Suggestion for ELO for better competitiveness

[AvadaKedavra]

This is probably a bit late, and some of it has been suggested before, but I think we could improve the current ranking system with 2 changes:

1) 2s and 4s elo seperated... 2s and 4s sharing elo is not ideal, and especially considering that (almost?) all 2s are !challenge, it gives a totally skewered picture

2) !challenge in 4s should only be used for real challenges. So when people have a beef or wanna challenge for a "real" reason it's fine, but not just for "easy" 15/15 game, vs a weak player, or when your elo is high and normal 4s would mean you and 3 tards vs 4 decent players etc. I have no idea how this should be ruled/implemented, but hopefully stating it as a rule should be enough to stop potential abuse?

[nicolai123]

I agree 100% with this, can we get follow up please?

[Dong]

just remove elo from 2s, is my counter suggestion. Many of the players that play 2s play because they want to just play, and don't want to wait for a 4s, i am allmost 100% like maximum sure, that no lihl player could be playing 2s with the sole intention of getting easy elo, and win season, and i am allmost 100% sure that, that is not what has happened 16 out of 20 seasons

Donged-

[FadingSuns]

Just remove 2s is my counter counter suggestion. If they dont wanna wait, they can always go pub 2s, makes no sense to have 2s on lihl with no elo, direcly makes no sense to have 2s on lihl.

ACED

[Anda]

I disagree with your suggestion Ace.
The number of people participating in a game shouldnt have an influence if it counts for elo or not (would need to remove 3s then aswell, somehow nobody is botheres with 3s btw kinda remarkable),and by removing elo we will kill those games cause as weve seen when we had problems with elo recording, people are in generell not willing to play without elo involved.

Will discuss it in Staff though if there is a huge majority supporting your idea.

[Diablo_]

2s is as much a part of LIHL as any other mode

[SLSGuennter]

I disagree with your suggestion Ace.
The number of people participating in a game shouldnt have an influence if it counts for elo or not (would need to remove 3s then aswell, somehow nobody is botheres with 3s btw kinda remarkable)

Then pls make 1v1 possible aswell, cuz number of players participating should have no influence.

[Anda]

I disagree with your suggestion Ace.
The number of people participating in a game shouldnt have an influence if it counts for elo or not (would need to remove 3s then aswell, somehow nobody is botheres with 3s btw kinda remarkable)

Then pls make 1v1 possible aswell, cuz number of players participating should have no influence.

Never thought about it, is there any demand for it ?
+Ive always considered this a team league, and 1 isnt a team.

[AvadaKedavra]

Gonna bump this thread.. I think it would be a great improvement to have 4s/3s elo seperated from 2s, in terms of competitiveness so every1 is on an even playingfield.. If it's not too much of a hazzle to implement I think we should go for it asap!

To clarify, I don't think its a major issue currently. But in principle 2s always being !challenge, can mess up the elo's from "normal" games, and be a way for high elo players to dodge normally !signed games that would otherwise be increasingly hard, as u have 3 low elo players on your team, and maybe even playing 14/16 13/17 etc...

[iamyoursenpai]

outdated and archived.