Ranks, Small teams etc.

Ranks, Small teams etc.

I wanted to make a series of observations:

1) Small team room
It is ZK's best advertisement.
Yesterday I played many games in the small team 8vs8. And I enjoyed it very much! some lost some won. But all fun. No tower defense etc. In this mode you see the true essence of ZK.

2) Random ranks
Why not add more difficult ranks for the player to reach, if not at higher levels, with other colors, and remove the demotion to an earlier rank instead. What does it mean?
Elo certainly represents the strength of the player in 1v1. But this is not the case in casual, especially 16v16.
Does the balance hold some of the historical rank as well as the elo score?

The big question is what it would take to make a consistent 8v8 room without making too many people sad. Would an 8v8 limit spill over players to two rooms properly?

quote: No tower defense etc.

Tower defense has nothing to do with numbers. It has everything to do with the type of players in the game. If I placed two trolls on your team, I bet your opinion will change immediately. In other words, just because you played a few enjoyable game does not mean your enjoyable game is due to the numbers and not because of the players involved.

Lu5ck, I do not think.
It also annoys me in my team when building defenses shields, berthas and other things that are not units.
But in team wellcome there are often unplayable matches, stuck in fixed positions, zero strategy.
Few players, large maps

malric
I understood how the player rating takes place.
Instead, what is not clear to me is whether the algorithm has been given the opportunity to give a historical evaluation of the player.
For example, a good casual player, not 1v1, plays in a wellcome team, and as often happens, through no fault of his own, (newbies who build detriments after 1 min, etc.) lose more than they win, even losing 10 games in a row . The elo which initially varies slightly, as I have seen from personal experience suddenly collapses with the succession of defeats.
Drops in rank. He is no longer purple. The rating has dropped.
But does it really prove its strength?
In my opinion not. And this affects the balance of the teams. So if his Elo dropped from 2700 to 2000, in a team he is considered as a 2000 player, but his effective strength is definitely higher.
And I think it affects the balance.
That's why I say that rank should be considered as an additional variable.
If you're a chess GM, they don't take your title away if you lose 20 games. You are always a strong player. This can't be measured with a number, but with rank it is. If you have reached that rank, it means that you are skilled enough.
So in summary, in the division into teams, the balance should take into account when dividing the two teams:
1. first taking into account the ranks of the players,
2. then calculating the rating in the next phase for the remaining players where the ranks are not evenly divisible between the two teams.