| 1 |
>Balance doens't take rank into account. Newbies start with 1500 elo.
|
1 |
>Balance doens't take rank into account. Newbies start with 1500 elo.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
Don't new players start with 1250? And my understanding is that somewhere around 1500 is where you go if you play big team games and win 50/50; thats a reasonable assumption for most players that dont drastically alter the balance of power in 10v10 games. tldr; ELO means little and less in big team games than in small games, and less there than in 1v1.
|
3 |
Don't new players start with 1250? And my understanding is that somewhere around 1500 is where you go if you play big team games and win 50/50; thats a reasonable assumption for most players that dont drastically alter the balance of power in 10v10 games. tldr; ELO means little and less in big team games than in small games, and less there than in 1v1.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
>A newbie gets alot of elo from winning a game. This futher unbalances the teams
|
5 |
>A newbie gets alot of elo from winning a game. This futher unbalances the teams
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
Yes,
but
they
wont
stay
at
the
artificially
high
ranking
that
they
have
obtained
by
luck
for
long
if
they
are
actually
that
bad,
minimizing
the
overall
effect.
On
the
other
hand,
including
low
confidence
in
the
calculation
of
ELO
for
new
players
helps
to
minimize
the
balance-shattering
effect
of
surfs.
|
7 |
Yes,
but
they
wont
stay
at
the
artificially
high
ranking
that
they
have
obtained
by
luck
for
long
if
they
are
actually
that
bad,
minimizing
the
overall
effect.
On
the
other
hand,
including
low
confidence
in
the
calculation
of
ELO
for
new
players
helps
to
minimize
the
balance-shattering
effect
of
smurfs.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
>I think balance should be frozen above 1900.
|
9 |
>I think balance should be frozen above 1900.
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
Would you rather have sfireman or Godde on your team?
|
11 |
Would you rather have sfireman or Godde on your team?
|
Massive issue with balance