Everytime sfire comes onto teams there is a noticable feeling of imbalance introduced to all matches. His elo is often at around 1800 when he comes on which clearly isn't an accurate reflection of his elo. Presumably he is throwing matches or otherwise exploiting the elo system. While one can only speculate why a good player has such a pathetic personality to require a feeling of either winning or not trying.... it is not fun for other players and it would be good if something could be done about the problem in general.
+2 / -0
|
Wind blows, rain falls, sfireman is being an ass.
+11 / -0
|
Find matches he clearly and intentionally throws, report him, he'll get banned. He has been known to do this but he is also the kind of player who has been known to do stupid rushes and lose because of it.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
His elo is often at around 1800 when he comes on which clearly isn't an accurate reflection of his elo. Presumably he is throwing matches or otherwise exploiting the elo system. |
Do you even know how it feels to be the highest elo player in a team of noobs, with a big elo gap? quote:
He has been known to do this but he is also the kind of player who has been known to do stupid rushes and lose because of it. |
This isn't bannable AFAIK
+0 / -0
|
its not that he throws matches, its that you arent heling him win ie you fail at teamwork hard :P
+1 / -1
|
   ElTorero the part about honestly being stupid is an extenuating circumstance. It's okay to be dumb. It's not ok to throw hames, that's griefing. You get permawhacked for that in quite a few other communities.
+0 / -0
|
Sfire is not unique in this. good players who get sick of carrying teams usually go on troll sprees where they morph com and play badly every game in the name of fun and lowering elo. or they smurf. Sfire just does it very blatantly
+1 / -0
|
I blame elo. Becasue all u need to drop ur elo, is to lose on purpose. And u can lose on purpose by, for example, spamming eco. Eco spam is good, isnt it? But it can lead to loss. Thats why some ppl do it to drop their elo. Elo should consider: dmg made, dmg recieved, eco made, metal recycled, units which made cost, and win or loss. Not only latter. If this is made, to drop ur elo on purpose u would have to actually do nothing. And that is bannable.
+1 / -2
|
I blame people who try to find good games in an "all welcome" 10v10 room even after being repeatedly smacked into the ground. It's like pressing the button that shocks your rear-end seven times in a row, and then thinking that maybe it won't shock you on eight. And when you get electrocuted the eight time, you start raging at how button is unfair. And press it a ninth time, with a fist, only to be shocked again. :P
+6 / -0
|
I blame the lack of nazisplit
+0 / -1
|
I dont blame elo, I blame the balance algorithim. High player should be paired with a low player. High player should not mathemtically averaged and grouped with lots of low players. Elo is abstract, so a mathematical system like ours is completely retarded and really does not work well imo. We should just be pairing highest with lowest, next highest with next lowest, next highest with next lowest. Construct some examples and compare the two splits -- you'll find it works so much better in any game size!
+0 / -4
|
quote:
Elo should consider: dmg made, dmg recieved, eco made, metal recycled, units which made cost, and win or loss. Not only latter. |
You do understand any such system can be exploited to all hell, right? And what would it change anyway? Intentionally playing sub-optimal is not bannable. Using trollcoms is not bannable. Doing rushing singu+nuke is not bannable. It will not help good players improve their elo either. Good players improve elo by having a better chance to win. Farming some stats will help people who understand how the stats work and are not ashamed of exploiting the system. quote:
We should just be pairing highest with lowest, next highest with next lowest, next highest with next lowest. |
How does that solve anything at all? It makes for even shittier balance than righ tnow. Imagine a 6-player set up: 2400, 2000, 1500, 1500, 1200, 1200. Your balance: 2400+1500+1200 (1700 avg) vs 2000+1500+1200 (1566 avg) Current balance: 2400+1200+1200 (1600 avg) vs 2000 + 1500+ 1500 (1666 avg). In first, you can be pretty sure first team wins. The lineups are equal, except the 2000 elo player is against 2400 player. In the second, the fact 2400 player has such an advantage is offset by the fact both his teammates are weaker.
+3 / -0
|
quote:
You do understand any such system can be exploited to all hell, right? |
It wouldn't be expoiled easier than current one. Becasue rushng singu would be considered as makign eco giving additional elo to player who did it, even if he lost. And rushing nuke withough singu on low metal maps is leading team to lose in purpose bannable. Problem solved. quote:
We should just be pairing highest with lowest, next highest with next lowest, next highest with next lowest. |
Not exactly. We should put 2 top and lowest players in different teams. Rest should be balanced way it is now. I ofter see 6vs6s where its 6 av players vs 3 top and 3 lowest. in 90% of such a games latter team wins. Becasue its pro who carry on the team, not the noob. 1 pro can own 2 av players in most of the times. When he's assited by newb its even easier.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
Elo should consider: dmg made, dmg recieved, eco made, metal recycled, units which made cost, and win or loss. Not only latter. |
Wow i missed that. You do realize that if you produce a heuristic that can reasonably judge a player's performance regardless of what his opposition is or what it does, you've essentially solved ZK as a game and written an AI that will have no qualms in beating Godde AND Randy at the same time, playing 2v1? :P
+3 / -0
|
quote:
How does that solve anything at all? It makes for even shittier balance than righ tnow.
Imagine a 6-player set up:
2400, 2000, 1500, 1500, 1200, 1200.
Your balance: 2400+1500+1200 (1700 avg) vs 2000+1500+1200 (1566 avg)
Current balance: 2400+1200+1200 (1600 avg) vs 2000 + 1500+ 1500 (1666 avg).
In first, you can be pretty sure first team wins. The lineups are equal, except the 2000 elo player is against 2400 player.
In the second, the fact 2400 player has such an advantage is offset by the fact both his teammates are weaker. |
I think my balance in that example is really alot better than the current balance in that example, and you will never have an example where there are multiple pairs with the same elo, so the 2400 would probably have a 1100 (or the 2000 a 1300) in that example. A pro with two nabs will invaiably lose to three average players. Its a very unfun matchup for the pro. I'm not providing explicit evidence here except for my experience, but based on seven years of Spring I don't think for one second that I am wrong.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
You do realize that if you produce a heuristic that can reasonably judge a player's performance regardless of what his opposition is or what it does, you've essentially solved ZK as a game and written an AI that will have no qualms in beating Godde AND Randy at the same time, playing 2v1? :P |
Well, it doesn't have to judge players perfectly :p Just everything is better than current elo, srsly. Its just a win/lose ratio.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
I ofter see 6vs6s where its 6 av players vs 3 top and 3 lowest. in 90% of such a games latter team wins. Becasue its pro who carry on the team, not the noob. 1 pro can own 2 av players in most of the times. When he's assited by newb its even easier. |
quote:
A pro with two nabs will invaiably lose to three average players. Its a very unfun matchup for the pro. |
Wow, can you make up your minds? So are teams with higher elo variance good or bad, after all? quote:
Its just a win/lose ratio. |
Wow, do you even know how elo works? Given enough fair games (!predict gives 50%) everyone's win/loss will be very, very close to 50%. That's the whole point of balance. If someone has 60% wins in team games, it means his elo is too low, and it gets adjusted higher, as result he gets matched with noobs, and loses a bit more, eventually resulting in 50% winrate.
+1 / -0
|
quote:
Its just a win/lose ratio. |
Somebody missed their math class >.> Long story short, you cannot measure performance (because that would be writing that game-solving AI). But you can measure success. People who win more often are given higher rankings, and their rankings are also taken into the equation when those players win or lose. Elo is closer to a percentile than to a "win/loss" ratio. You won't get very much elo for beating a 1100 newb, but you will get a ton for beating a 2300 godde.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
So are teams with higher elo variance good or bad, after all? |
They are not, but u cant do anything abotu it with current players base. ATM all we can do is to adjust balance to work properly with players we have.
+0 / -0
|
|
|
