ELO & Duels system

I like the new ELO system, there is one problem with it: ELO has a huge flaw in that if it doesn't have decay you can just slowly grow it by beating weaker players and once you reach a high number you can just sit on it

Possible solution: Make it only possible to duel a opponent that is within a X- range of your ELO (lets say max 100 below or above your ELO).

Wr1tt3n by Hugosch, 12.12.2012 at 17:30

I like the new ELO system, there is one problem with it: ELO has a huge flaw in that if it doesn't have decay you can just slowly grow it by beating weaker players and once you reach a high number you can just sit on it

Possible solution: Make it only possible to duel a opponent that is within a X- range of your ELO (lets say max 100 below or above your ELO).

i agree with what you're thinking. However, it shouldn't be made to only duel players with 100 range from your elo. It should be by rank. (-3 and +3)

meaning a rank 9 can only play players from 6-12

Support

Support.

Support for elo range, not rank. It has nothing to do with rank

Rank makes it still possible to play weak enemies, and avoid strong enemies. Therefor it schould be based on ELO (its also about the ELO rating, not about rank). Not to be rude, but if you check TopHats duels and Cow's duels (top2), you know exactly what i mean:

Tophats:
ghettosuperstar (975) +1.9
Dralin (1000) +2.2
FoxxyR (1000) +2.2
CHA0S47 (965) +1.9
DanteMX (988) +2.1
sandtime (988) +2.2
benzfirst (1000) +2.3
nameforthepeople (987) +2.2
Westbrook (956) +1.9
BLUE N YELLOW (999) +2.4

FEELIN CUTE
xn0ize (966) +2.2
CHA0S47 (963) +2.2
Klaus77 (1002) +2.7
ELITE (997) +2.7
Kubalionzzale (1000) +2.8
ELITE (1000) +2.8
rwarmander (1024) +3.2
arqueiroelfico (987) +2.7
WinningBanana (975) +2.6
Karsan (954) +2.3

They both only play against weaker players with a ELO of 1000 or lower. TopHats will probably not play someone of the current top5 (Caulerpa, Cow, avatar, Oslo), because he risks too much with that. This makes it unfair and not balanced.

The current system is about who is farming most (which Tophats seems to win), it has nothing to do with who is the better player. And i thought the ELO was implemented just to see that.
That is the reason why this suggestion should be ELO based, not rank based. Rank is not representing skill...

You started very nice Cow, and the more i read in your story, the more agressive your story is, and it ends with absolute raging. Why so mad, why not just normal arguing? If it was that idiot as you suggest it would be, then i'm suprised so many ppl support this idea.

First of all this:

Wr1tt3n by Guest, 13.12.2012 at 06:27

The idea of restricting it by rank is so unbelievably idiotic that I hardly can force myself to even comment on it.

Fine, then start reading my idea again, because i never proposed this.

Wr1tt3n by Guest, 13.12.2012 at 06:27

There is a reason they use the system in chess and they dont need restrictions like only play people with equal Elo.

In Chess competitions, you also play in leagues where players have about a equal ELO. So its not much different then what i'm suggesting. Playing with a 1500 ELO against 750 doesn't make any sence.

Wr1tt3n by Guest, 13.12.2012 at 06:27

Gaining 0,001 points per game and holding #1 wont even work for TopHats

The moment that TopHats will reach 0,001 points per game, will take a very long time. Meanwhile, its possible to farm ELO by winning 50matches in a row. After that, you can stop playing, because its hard enough to reach that ELO for other players. Other players (that play fair against players with equal ELO) can not reach this high amount without farming.

I thought you wanted to encourage competition and wanted less farming? My idea is doing exactly that.

ELO system itself is fine as it is right now. To all the impatient: 1400 ELO is NOTHING. We will hit 2k and more sooner than you think and farming will become even less of an issue
in the near future.

Wr1tt3n by Goblin, 13.12.2012 at 09:09

Before we all go "smart by reading wikipedia" there is another HUGE POSSIBILITY TO ABUSE Elo and that is in the form of ALTS.

Let me explain ... IMAGINE what possible abuse you can do in Elo system. In real life chess for this you would obv. have to go plastic surgery ,change you identity BUT in afterwind all you have to do is create an ALTERNATIVE ACCOUNT, like i believe most high ranking players already have, with that account challenge a high rated ELO player, with a plan to screw up his Elo - no risk for your true account ,you could lower someones Elo rating by doin this. And someone along the way will figure this out (obv. if they read wikipedia cuz wikipedia is Godmade ...or if they read ...my post :/ ) xD

Every system has his flaws and can be exploited ...you just don't see this and you are obv. mad at me cuz you think i am judging you for milking low ranks, and im not (i see you duel your own ranks too ...but the amount is far less lower).

And i don't whant to fight all the time over this. The thing is i believe that the way the old system could be abused is with less damage, than elo can doo.
I understand ELO ,but you need to understand there is no perfect system.

btw. when we played 1vs1 i don't remember you sending me a duel request, neither did i sent one 2 you (but i don't duel so often) ...why is that?

Anyway don't get insulted by this please im just saying what i think ...and if you do for god sake i will start to think your name is Arpad Elo

Why would you accept a duel to an alt? You don't get so much ELO and like you said you would lose a good ELO amount.

Wr1tt3n by Guest, 13.12.2012 at 10:07

Why would you accept a duel to an alt?

You can't always know if the player you are duelling is actually a alt.

High ELO rating only make you look good? or is there rewards for getting high ELO rating?
I don't know much about duels lol, in fact I never actually duel anyone or accept any in atWar before.

Wr1tt3n by Hugosch, 13.12.2012 at 10:19

Wr1tt3n by Guest, 13.12.2012 at 10:07

Why would you accept a duel to an alt?

You can't always know if the player you are duelling is actually a alt.

It's obvious. Low ranks don't even want to duel high ranks, and you can see the gameplay.

Qu0t3:

Qu0t3:

Alright, where do I get started here.

Wr1tt3n by Goblin, 13.12.2012 at 10:11

Why would you accept a duel to an alt? You don't get so much ELO and like you said you would lose a good ELO amount.

Alt can be a rank 5 or 6 also Alex ...hell i have a previous account rank 5 with not so bad elo rating ...and who will even know it was me?

First of all, it doesn't matter what rank the alt is. It could be rank 10 or it could be a rank 1, but if it has never dueled before it will have an ELO of 1000 which brings us back to the question of why they would risk their ELO for such little gain (unless, of course, if they are trying to farm in which case they deserve it for risking so much). The alt having a decent ELO rating renders your entire point useless since a decent ELO rating won't cause as much of a loss as a low ELO rating, and it can only be done once unless the person doing it is really fucking dedicated.

Wr1tt3n by Hugosch, 13.12.2012 at 10:19

Wr1tt3n by Guest, 13.12.2012 at 10:07

Why would you accept a duel to an alt?

You can't always know if the player you are duelling is actually a alt.

Alt or not, why would you accept a duel with little gain and a huge loss? In fact alts are probably the best solution to farming I have heard yet.

Wr1tt3n by Mrs Tickle, 13.12.2012 at 10:29

High ELO rating only make you look good? or is there rewards for getting high ELO rating?
I don't know much about duels lol, in fact I never actually duel anyone or accept any in atWar before.

It shows that you are better than someone else, kind of like how rank shows that you are more experienced then someone else.


Also, as Cow has said, it has been like 2 weeks since we got ELO, of course people who are both active and skilled are going to shoot up in the rankings by playing lots of duels. This is not farming, this is them reaching their actual ELO rating faster than everybody else. The only problem I see with ELO is having to wait three damn turns to duel someone. Like I beat tophats the other day but he didn't accept the duel so I am stuck with my sub 1000 ELO from a duel with one of his alts half a year ago.

I agree with Cow. Just give ELO some time.

Currently, the only real problem with ELO is that you have to wait until turn 2 to offer a duel. You should be able to START a game as an ELO rated game.

Cow is right.

Atm, ELO isn't very active among players so you will see a huge gap between the top ELOs and the lower ones.

Restricting by ELO is useless because there are still low ranks with decent ELOs who would end up in the same league as some very high ranked players who are much better than them. (ex: VRIL's ELO is 996 but he's one of the best) Also, like cow mentioned, we risk losing over 20 points but only winning 2 or 3. So the idea of taking the risk makes the system that much more exact. And tbh, it's more profitable for me to duel low ranks and gain 2-3 points than to duel rank 9s and 10s to also gain only 2-3 points. This is why we need a rank restriction. Not to benefit the ELO, but to make it fair for everyone.

Restricting by rank which is what I'm suggesting would help the "noob farming" that me and cow are doing. Like I said it should be -3 and +3. meaning i can only play ranks 9-15.

Also btw cow, when i say restrict by rank, i mean restrict high ranks like us to play very low ranks. I mean restricting a rank 10 lets say to play a rtank 2. That IMO should be not allowed. so for example you're a rank 9 (-3 and +3) meaning you can only play 6-12, restricting you from playing lower than 6.

Also some of my recent duels have been against relatively low ranks, but it doesn't mean I don't play against strong players. I beat nate, stomach, acqui, sir ahmad, eagles all recently. (wont go into detail of all my other duels) For the most part my duels were against rank 7 and up. Only about 15 were against 6 and lower.

Well if there are restrictions the number of possible games is reduced due to that fact thats its quiet hard to find matching players willing to duel each other.
Especially for high ranks. I would rather not have any restrictions only because of some 'easy' points.

Wr1tt3n by tophat, 13.12.2012 at 15:06

Cow is right.

Why isn't this a suprise awnser. While cow is stating your suggestion is even more horrible (or idiotic, like he calls it).
The difference between you and me: I'm just searching for the best benefit of ELO-system and the best competition possible. I think TopHats is searching for a 'moderate' version, so you will not lose #1 position, while Cow is raging anyway and make any changes 'non-discussible'.

Wr1tt3n by tophat, 13.12.2012 at 15:06

Atm, ELO isn't very active among players so you will see a huge gap between the top ELOs and the lower ones.

The gap is there, because you can easely win 50games in a row against noobs.

Wr1tt3n by tophat, 13.12.2012 at 15:06

Restricting by ELO is useless because there are still low ranks with decent ELOs who would end up in the same league as some very high ranked players who are much better than them. (ex: VRIL's ELO is 996 but he's one of the best) Also, like cow mentioned, we risk losing over 20 points but only winning 2 or 3. So the idea of taking the risk makes the system that much more exact. And tbh, it's more profitable for me to duel low ranks and gain 2-3 points than to duel rank 9s and 10s to also gain only 2-3 points. This is why we need a rank restriction. Not to benefit the ELO, but to make it fair for everyone.

Restricting by rank which is what I'm suggesting would help the "noob farming" that me and cow are doing. Like I said it should be -3 and +3. meaning i can only play ranks 9-15.

Also btw cow, when i say restrict by rank, i mean restrict high ranks like us to play very low ranks. I mean restricting a rank 10 lets say to play a rtank 2. That IMO should be not allowed. so for example you're a rank 9 (-3 and +3) meaning you can only play 6-12, restricting you from playing lower than 6.

The idea of ELO is that you can see skill. Rank doesn't say anything about skill. So you shouldn't connect ELO and rank with each other. Because if you do, you are still able to play against weaker opponents.
With a ELO- range, you can only play against stronger opponents (or at least as strong as yourself) that has the same ELO. If i take you for example, you can only play the current top 5 or so, which seems very fair to me. Zizou for example, has very high SP, but has a very low ELO. I think the ELO is representing for his skill, not the amount of SP, which is exactly my point.

I would like everyone to read the original idea, and stop suggestions with the connection between SP and ELO. I rather have no range, then based on SP.

Wr1tt3n by Guest, 13.12.2012 at 15:56

Why can't you just give it a bit time and wait how it will evolve? We don't even have Elo for three weeks yet and you want to change the whole system.

I'm ok with waiting, it don't have to change at this time. Lets say i'll check again in February.
But mark my words: Either you or TopHats will be #1 at that time.

Wr1tt3n by Guest, 13.12.2012 at 16:05

Wr1tt3n by Hugosch, 13.12.2012 at 16:03

I'm ok with waiting, it don't have to change at this time. Lets say i'll check again in February.
But mark my words: Either you, TopHats will be #1 at that time.

Which may as well be because we are among the best 1v1 players in this game and restricting our choice of opponents wouldn't change this fact. Ever thought of that?
I say make Elo mandatory for 1v1 and you will see only the best in the top 10, not the people who are most active in 1v1 as it is at the moment.

You are right, i didn´t say it correctly: Either you or TopHats will be #1 at that time, without playing any worthy opponent.
And if that is your idea of a balanced system, congrats on getting it. Lets see in February

Wr1tt3n by Hugosch, 13.12.2012 at 15:45

Wr1tt3n by tophat, 13.12.2012 at 15:06

Cow is right.

Why isn't this a suprise awnser. While cow is stating your suggestion is even more horrible (or idiotic, like he calls it).
The difference between you and me: I'm just searching for the best benefit of ELO-system and the best competition possible. I think TopHats is searching for a 'moderate' version, so you will not lose #1 position, while Cow is raging anyway and make any changes 'non-discussible'.

Wr1tt3n by tophat, 13.12.2012 at 15:06

Atm, ELO isn't very active among players so you will see a huge gap between the top ELOs and the lower ones.

The gap is there, because you can easely win 50games in a row against noobs.

Wr1tt3n by tophat, 13.12.2012 at 15:06

Restricting by ELO is useless because there are still low ranks with decent ELOs who would end up in the same league as some very high ranked players who are much better than them. (ex: VRIL's ELO is 996 but he's one of the best) Also, like cow mentioned, we risk losing over 20 points but only winning 2 or 3. So the idea of taking the risk makes the system that much more exact. And tbh, it's more profitable for me to duel low ranks and gain 2-3 points than to duel rank 9s and 10s to also gain only 2-3 points. This is why we need a rank restriction. Not to benefit the ELO, but to make it fair for everyone.

Restricting by rank which is what I'm suggesting would help the "noob farming" that me and cow are doing. Like I said it should be -3 and +3. meaning i can only play ranks 9-15.

Also btw cow, when i say restrict by rank, i mean restrict high ranks like us to play very low ranks. I mean restricting a rank 10 lets say to play a rtank 2. That IMO should be not allowed. so for example you're a rank 9 (-3 and +3) meaning you can only play 6-12, restricting you from playing lower than 6.

The idea of ELO is that you can see skill. Rank doesn't say anything about skill. So you shouldn't connect ELO and rank with each other. Because if you do, you are still able to play against weaker opponents.
With a ELO- range, you can only play against stronger opponents (or at least as strong as yourself) that has the same ELO. If i take you for example, you can only play the current top 5 or so, which seems very fair to me. Zizou for example, has very high SP, but has a very low ELO. I think the ELO is representing for his skill, not the amount of SP, which is exactly my point.

i guess ill have to agree. it doesnt matter it all balance once people are active in elo.

also im tired of people using zizou as an example he's actually good.

Lol all jelly of tophats

i guess i can agree with a bit of both you. but i think we should just waited out. and maybe hugo it will indeed be me or cow. nothing is stopping you from dueling yourself.

also, why does everyone use zizou as an example of a bad high ranker, he's actually an impressive player and his elo 1024 so dont diss.

I already said tophats, its nothing personal against you. You are using the system as it is, and i' m not complaining about your playstyle. I´m just questioning if this is the balancement that we should get with ELO. And i think its still about farming. But lets see in February, and i either be wrong and you (and cow) actually played worthy opponents and won them all. If so, i will delete this topic for sure. Or i will be right and you only kept farming and are still #1 with that.

And i won't diss zizou again

You are talking about ELO like its rocket-science and you are one of the few that knows about it. Its not that hard Cow, don't overestimated it, and don't underestimate other players thoughts. And i can repeat my arguments again why i think this is still ' farmable' , while you will give the same arguments to me why its not. We will not come any futher with this.

Anyway: I agreed on your compromise to wait and see, so now just sit back, calm down, take a beer and watch how this will develop. I will close this thread, and it will stay closed at least until February.