New man too high and oh I cant play. And twin coms.

Hii, its me, here again for whining, whinging, complaining and to lay blame on others. But what else can be expected from passive-aggressive shitty human being anyway?

First raging whine: do new players start with too high elo score? I feel like yes. Looking at "show rating statistics", they (not all) go down first. Spying on some gives roughly 1405->1370, 1345->1295, 1505->1460, 1515->1490, 1360->1160, 1240->1160, you get the point. Would it be bad if they start lower right away? Would that matter? For a just tiny bit better balance? Maybe it would give more wins too for positive feelings to start zero-k with? Because, just a purple blue gut feeling and with some random battles results observations: team with newest guy/most new guys loses easily(yes, exceptions do exist). Its for mostly small battles, where new guys have the biggest impact, dont go crazy on me all right? Small battles anyway have balance problems easily. Which leads me to another midless complaining of;

!predict. Hide that? Show it after battle? Again purple blue gut churning, but really, even 40% vs 60% is big, and its just not fair. Because its not fair. And I believe the !predict works pretty good(insert here too high elo new guy to mess it up, because rated too high and doesnt know the game, double bad for balance and team effort. Especially if other team has no new guy), and again looking at some random small battle results, its (always) the team with lower chance to win to lose. Yes after battle % is different, but something that goes below 40%/60% after battle was not !predicted to even balance. Example: 41,9% !predict -> after battle 26,4%. A good balanced 50% !predict does not change much after battle. Maybe its just me, but I dont like bad balance. Whats the point of pew pew boom when your !predicted chance of shit % is in actuality less than that, because, yes, theres probably the new guy bonus on your team too. And maybe, for battle room, double ask if people really want to start that bad !predict game? Its not good to be good, having small battle win % against you, like yesterday for me, in three small games out of four my team had the 30% chance. So, I cant play small games because I cant carry and play for extra +20% or so, ok learned that. Great, its the pot for me because I mostly unbalance the balance for my team.
And yes yes game is chaotic, you can win small uneven battles by some stupid mistakes or newbie kicks or whatever, dont tear me a new one. Maybe nicer to play if you dont know you are going to lose? I dont know... maybe?

Also, spying on peoples battles where I wasnt involved, I took a quick extra survey of uneven battles results:
Team with 2 coms for 1 player lost 26 and won 14 battles from total of 40. So, as is known, two coms balance is bad too. Anyone with harder data on this? And more importantly should this be fixed somehow already?

Kindly, the obnoxious, toxic and always miserable to play with Kapy. (Oh, I just had to)

It's sad when the best thing new players can do to help their team is to immediately resign and give their com to the highest elo player on the team.

[Spoiler]

Yes it was changed to whole history rating.

The balancer equalizes the average ratings of the teams, even if the teams are uneven. For example the below would be perfectly balanced according to the algorithm:

2000+1500 vs 1750+1750+1750

Then it gives an extra commander to the smaller team's highest rated player.

Metal income is divided equally between the players of the smaller team, and this includes all income from commanders. In the above example, the 2000 and 1500 player would both get 6 metal/s from the income provided by commanders.

Double com is shit. I always telling that and have been telling that since i had to play with them. Game in any case is not balanced when there is two coms. However devs decided not to change it. Two coms is gauntlet challange.

I don't think anybody, dev or not, thinks double-com is all that great. The difficulty is working out a reasonable solution.

Uneven start vote could require a higher threshold for success.

E.g. Start 5v5 - 5 votes needed to success (50% rounded up)
Start 5v4 - "Do you want to start this UNEVEN game? y/n" - 7 votes needed for success (75%, rounded up)

Yes, people appear and disappear just before game starts, maybe the whatever-it-is-that-calculates-balance just before game starts could stop the game from starting if unbalanced, then start another vote that needs more votes to pass. And of course inform people that uneven teams happened and we need to vote again.