Jump to content
  • 9
Sign in to follow this  
OrangeManiac

Ability to reset your ELO (above 500 ELO)

Question

Players who are playing to win games to get that seasonal vanity item can be punished for raising their ELO too much. This can result in a high ELO rated player having to wait sometimes unreasonably long for another game and when they do find a game it's always against another very high rated player and thus will get the seasonal items much slower than average players. Now, I do think there should be ways to reward winning higher in the ladder with more points towards the seasonal rewards but the suggestion of this thread remains regardless that would be implemented or not. If a player decides they prefer farming PvP wins over being high rated in the ladder, I think they should be allowed to do so with a simple click of a mouse. Currently some players are purposely losing in high ladder which is not only a time consuming way to fix the issue but it also shifts the problem to other high rated players in the ladder, resulting in a non-ending loop. This is why I think it would be fair that a player rated above the starting point ELO (500,00) would be allowed to reset their ELO so they can more easily find ranked games again, so they wouldn't be forced to purposely lose games which is a nightmare for an environment that should be about competition.

Share this post


Link to post

14 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Reset once per season sounds good. Any more then high ranked matches could be affected. 

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

I am speaking from my personal opinion and not one of the dev team.

Can't this lead to some major abuses to freely allow one's ELO to be reset? The point of a ranking system in any video game anywhere is to put your rank in equilibrium around what your skill actually should be. If your ELO should be 600, you might go anywhere between 570-620 throughout a day, and hypothetically get an equal amount of wins and losses associated with it. I understand the critique that at higher ELO's you will be playing against more experienced players who might be able to use stuff like stall better than a lower ranked player, but you hypothetically should be getting the same win/lost ratio of somehow who plateaued at 620 vs someone who plateaued at 520. Another unintended consequence of letting someone reset their ELO at will also can prevent some breakout performances of someone who is trying to get out of the low 500 range, but is fighting a would-be 600 player that reset simply for easy wins.

I think maybe a better criticism you could make is the amount of Matchmaking Reward Points that are handed out at higher ELO's, or even for streaks. I don't think making a change that impacts the integrity of the rating system as a whole will be healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
13 minutes ago, Raichuforyou said:

I am speaking from my personal opinion and not one of the dev team.

Can't this lead to some major abuses to freely allow one's ELO to be reset? The point of a ranking system in any video game anywhere is to put your rank in equilibrium around what your skill actually should be. If your ELO should be 600, you might go anywhere between 570-620 throughout a day, and hypothetically get an equal amount of wins and losses associated with it. I understand the critique that at higher ELO's you will be playing against more experienced players who might be able to use stuff like stall better than a lower ranked player, but you hypothetically should be getting the same win/lost ratio of somehow who plateaued at 620 vs someone who plateaued at 520. Another unintended consequence of letting someone reset their ELO at will also can prevent some breakout performances of someone who is trying to get out of the low 500 range, but is fighting a would-be 600 player that reset simply for easy wins.

I think maybe a better criticism you could make is the amount of Matchmaking Reward Points that are handed out at higher ELO's, or even for streaks. I don't think making a change that impacts the integrity of the rating system as a whole will be healthy.

 

Playing against experienced players as high ELO wasn't a critique at the ELO system at all, that's how ELO system obviously should be. It was more of a side note to the issue that players at high ELO are getting the rewards much slower than the people at average rank which is incredibly unfair. The problem with being at very high ELO is that you can find an opponent at top 2% of the players while a player in the average ELO can play basically against anyone between 25th and 75th percentile of all players. This means that high ELO players barely ever get matches while at average ELO you get a ranked game every round. I definitely agree that a system that rewards significantly more winning at higher rankings would be better for the game, I'm just expecting that this wouldn't happen because of "the snowball effect" which PokeMMO seems to be relatively afraid of. That's why I came up with this solution, that for me has relatively little downsides compared to the alternatives - only main concern is that average players would have to play "smurfing" experienced players which obviously is annoying but they're gonna do it regardless if experienced players cannot find games at higher ratings and thus can't get rewards.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
3 minutes ago, OrangeManiac said:

 

It was more of a side note to the issue that players at high ELO are getting the rewards much slower than the people at average rank which is incredibly unfair.

I actually did not know that you guys cannot find a match asap and this factors much more into your argument here.

That being said, I still think the 'smurf effect' is something that any competitive matchmaking systems really want to avoid or minimize, even it it really only impacts lower ranked players to a small degree. I think allowing a top ten player the ability to climb throughout the ranks again is a bandaid solution at best to the whole issue of their ability to gain matchmaking reward points in a timely matter. I'd be much more in support of higher matchmaking reward points at higher ELO's.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
3 minutes ago, Raichuforyou said:

I actually did not know that you guys cannot find a match asap and this factors much more into your argument here.

That being said, I still think the 'smurf effect' is something that any competitive matchmaking systems really want to avoid or minimize, even it it really only impacts lower ranked players to a small degree. I think allowing a top ten player the ability to climb throughout the ranks again is a bandaid solution at best to the whole issue of their ability to gain matchmaking reward points in a timely matter. I'd be much more in support of higher matchmaking reward points at higher ELO's.

We don't want a second Overwatch :sweat: 

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

The current system in no way discourages the 'smurf effect'. Due to requiring low elo to find matches faster & rewarding win streaks so heavily the current most effective way to farm out the rewards would be to Win streak for as long as possible, only stopping when you either lose or start to find matches slower and then proceeding to forfeit every battle you enter until your elo goes back down to 500 or lower and repeat the process.

 

The only real incentive for being high elo is priority seating in tournaments but it is very easy for high elo players to grind back to a decent standing in a day or 2 to get their priority seating back. And if the player doesn't care about non tradable vanities and only cares about something that is useful and has monetary value, there is nothing stopping people from mindlessly win streaking and then dodging games in low elo to farm BP faster, while leaving their alt inactive in high ranks thus making the issue even worse for the remaining high elo players.

 

Providing you go undefeated or close to undefeated which should be very feasible for a lot of high elo players, you start seeing an increase of queue times after just a couple of hours of gameplay.

 

There should be far more incentives for people to want to have a high elo and actively play high elo games, the end of season tournament and priority seating only apply for a couple of days a month and encourage people to either farm on alts and leave their mains inactive or play in low elo on their main and only push rating a day or 2 before a tournament they want to play in occurs.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
11 minutes ago, redbluegreen said:

The current system in no way discourages the 'smurf effect'.

I think it has less to do with how the current system works, and moreso how this suggestion essentially streamlines the 'smurf effect' and enables it further.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
16 minutes ago, Raichuforyou said:

I think it has less to do with how the current system works, and moreso how this suggestion essentially streamlines the 'smurf effect' and enables it further.

I for the most part agree with the sentiment that allowing an elo reset is not the most healthy gameplay and that we should instead find a way to encourage people to play more high elo games and maybe make the queues a bit more lenient at the higher end.

 

My main point is that the current system still encourages the smurf effect but in my mind it does it in an even more unhealthy way. I would much rather see the few good players be able to play the game even vs much lower elo opponents and get rewarded for being good (since right now it's the exact opposite) than the current system encouraging the top players to deliberately lose games & wintrade in order to keep finding matches & get easier win streaks. But I am maybe a bit biased here.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
1 minute ago, redbluegreen said:

I for the most part agree with the sentiment that allowing an elo reset is not the most healthy gameplay and that we should instead find a way to encourage people to play more high elo games and maybe make the queues a bit more lenient at the higher end.

I generally think that even more rewards in the form of higher matchmaking reward points for higher ELO games is a fair compromise to make up for the longer wait times, and if done in a fair way it won't have the snowball effect. Again, this is just my own opinion, and is not reflective of the rest of staff/the dev team.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

In the 760s I was lucky to get a match within an hour as it was way too reliant on the people closest to me being online AND in queue. I'd rather play when I want to instead of accommodating to other people's schedules, so I saw purposely dropping as a viable solution, which it really shouldn't be 

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
Posted (edited)

So the update kinda invalidates everything I did (went from halfway to the vanity to not even close now), but at least it's a better system now?

 

edit: im getting 1-2 point for each low elo I play so consistent +1-2 but with the reward scale the way it is I'd have to play 500-1000 more people in 3 months for a vanity; isn't that a bit much?

 

edit2: I played the #3 person on the board with a 6 game win streak and got 2 points. 

Edited by calidubstep

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0

Ayyy, shoutout to the devs for increasing payout in high ELO and also expanding the ELO difference of players you can match up with if you go multiple cycles without a game. I hope this fixes the issue for now.

Share this post


Link to post
  • 0
1 minute ago, OrangeManiac said:

Ayyy, shoutout to the devs for increasing payout in high ELO and also expanding the ELO difference of players you can match up with if you go multiple cycles without a game. I hope this fixes the issue for now.

lol no

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.