I’m tired of playing with noobs and having the game decided by players’ lack of knowledge about the game. I really want a ranked mode and even if it makes wait times twice as long it would be worth it to me …
I would be very happy with vet lobby but ELO would be even better. I know a lot of people complain this would punish good players who get converted to the losing team, but I don’t see the problem really. If these players are good, shouldn’t they be able to exploit their reputation to rescue their new team?
2 Likes
Ranked needs to be a thing, sooner or later.
I’d say the best way to go about it is to wait for the game to reach a point where major updates aren’t happening twice a month or whatever so people can get used to a stable rule set. I think we will get to that point soon.
https://forum.imperium42.com/t/please-do-not-add-a-ranked-mode/33151/2
Hopefully never.
Especially with Casual already on the horizon.
2 Likes
Still feel the exact same way as when I made that thread weeks ago.
There’s a good chance I’d stop playing the game if a Ranked mode was implemented.
1 Like
Ranked is good, but ELO sucks for this kind of game, since your victory can be out of your control in some cases. A better method would be to rank by win percentage, since you have more control over that than an individual game.
1 Like
There are unwinnable games in League of Legends too but nobody uses that as an argument to get rid of ranked.
For me at least I’d much rather a vet’s lobby, because I do think elo leads to more toxicity, and that there is little chance that anyone would be able to design an elo system that doesn’t run into the usual problems (the totality of a team has more impact than any individual player, the worse teams you get early on, the worse team you get early on, the worse teams you will be on in the future, creating a cycle where having bad games early on permanantly sets you on a path of being paired with bad players indefinately).
Why I oppose it rather than just not wanting to do it, is I do want a vets loby. I do agree there is a huge difference between your average player in his first 100 games, and your average player above 100 games or so, and I know the dev’s are very unlikely to impliment more than 1 split. Meaning it’s an either or situation.
1 Like
This thread below covers pretty much all my concerns. TLDR: I think the community right now is outstanding and am 100% convinced that adding a Ranked mode will fundamentally damage the community.
Also, this is a horrible genre for Ranked. You influence your team’s result, but too much of it is out of your hands for a fair ranking system (unlike Chess, where it’s one-on-one and you are completely responsible for the outcome).
While it’s true that I’m not forced to play Ranked, the reality is that the better and more “serious” players will flock to Ranked, meaning that as an experienced player I will be playing almost exclusively with low-experience/low-skill players rather than the healthy (imo) mix that we have now. So the argument that one can just choose not to play Ranked and keep the feeling of current gameplay doesn’t hold water to me.
But mostly, I care about the state of the community. Having consequences for gameplay (Internet Points) increases toxicity. Can’t we just enjoy the game?
https://forum.imperium42.com/t/please-do-not-add-a-ranked-mode/33151
1 Like
ELO is most definitely a terrible system for the game. But you can influence your win percentage. I do not see how Ranked could damage the community. It’s just more competitive, which can let you have games with less trolls and such.
1 Like
The problem isn’t that skill has no influence on your winrate… the problem is that your winrate effects what players you will be paired with… and what players you are paired with has a stronger impact on your winrate, than your skill.
If you show me the winrate from 2 players with 500 games each as a sample size… yes I would fully expect the better player to have a 15% or so higher winrate than the worse player.
If you look at the winrate from 20 games for 2 players… I’d say you can’t possibly judge which one is better.
So where elo becomes a problem… is you take 2 players at 10 games, one has a 6/4 record one has a 4/6 record. All well within statistical expectency for 2 players that in this example are flat out clones of eachother.
when you divide them up… the 4 win 6 losses guy, and the 6 wins 4 losses guy, are now off in division… as the 6 losses guy has worse teams, he’s inevitably going to have a hugely worse winrate than his clone that happened to win a bit more in the placement matches. By 50 games you can expect the 4/10 guy, to have a record of 20/50, and the guy who got placed a bit better to be 35/50, as he’s going to win far more games as BD than his opponent, that has to deal with many more bad players…
I’ve been through that more or less in town of salem. I have 2 accounts, one at 800 elo (starting is 1200), one at 1400. I had to make a second account, because I cannot get the 800 one out of elo hell. Once I started a new account and got lucky in the prelims… getting from 1200 to 1400 was very easy… compared to all the efforts to get my 800 account up to 850… only to slide back down again after a few bad teams in a row…
2 Likes
Just require a lot of games. It is a lot, but if you do it, it can pair you up with players of similar skill.
what is your definition of a lot… Because quite simply, the amount of luck/team-mate factors in the game are huge… I’d have to put 100 games at the low end of giving a semi-accurate picture. (keep in mind that is 100 games before the first shift to a different tier of players). 100 games at entry level is both… most likely not quite enough to get an accurate assesment of someone. 2. 4x more than the threshold where people will complain nonstop about the fact that in spite of their good winrate, they are still constantly paired with bad players. 3. also enough games that the persons skill level may have drastic changes by the end of it.
100 games will at least not be a coin flip. Even after that starting entry point, you would continue adjusting. Preferably the win rate would also be compared to your rank, because otherwise everyone will reach the same level overall. I don’t know how to deal with 3. Even so, there is no harm to the game if you don’t want to play it.
We’ve already pointed it out, the dev’s are only going to do one split of new players versus experienced players… I am in favor of veterans mode (a 100-200 games played required mode that is otherwise the same). Ranked being implimented means veterans mode will not exist.
vet lobby, 250+ games played or was in Alpha/Beta. That would be my requirements for a vet lobby