Even 1250 elo is too much for complete newbies

I keep mentioning this from time to time, but I've decided to just make a thread of it, see how it goes, and then I can shut up about it forevar.

As some of us may know, newbies get an elo malus of 250 in ZK, which makes them start at 1250 elo instead of 1500. This elo malus gets smaller after each game they play (as they attain an attribute called weight/reliability), and after around 20 games, they no longer have the elo malus.

This is very cool and all, but imo the elo malus is not big enough, and 1250 expects too much from new players, making their first games often quick, steamrolley losses.

I think it'd be much better for the newbies themselves, if the game considered them to be mostly clueless about everything (because that's what they often are when they join the teamgame host) - and newbies that have taken the time to learn things before joining teamgames deserve to be rewarded with some wins anyway.

So what would be a fitting elo for a "clueless" player? I'll trow the number 1100 out there. I think this would reflect the skill level of our average newbie better, and would mean that the team should get a 1900 elo player to balance out the newb, who would be able to carry the team somewhat.

Finally, I think the elo malus should take more games to go away; around 1,5 times the current would be good. This would give newbs a little longer to be newbs. :)

Smurfs are a tiny minority of the new accounts that are created, and smurfing is bannable now.

In this case, I think we shouldn't let the small number of people abusing the system deter improvements.

quote: Skasi Gather stats on how much skill first-time players have. To do this, keep track of all wins and losses of first timers in relation to their win chance and calculate their expected skill level.

While a very cool idea, that requires some actual effort on the part of the implementer. Merely increasing the elo malus doesn't.

[quote]<1,000 - New player[/quote]
Interesting! Maybe even 1100 elo is too high to reflect a new player's skill.

1000 elo or less

quote: these < 1300 elo creatures

some new players play actually above 1250 elo skill level. So that averages out nicely.

Do missions give XP? If so, then missions give levels and levels decrease the -250 elo we have. That said, we could increase the 250 elo "penalty" to 500 and give bonus XP for completing tutorials and other SP missions for the first time. Then new players who completed tutorials will start close to the 1250 elo we currently use, while others will start at 1000.

Short explanation: 1500 is the "0 line". Newbs get a malus of 250 which puts them in 1250. If 1500 is considered 0, one could say newbs start at -250.

quote: sprang As some of us may know, newbies get an elo malus of 250 in ZK, which makes them start at 1250 elo instead of 1500. This elo malus gets smaller after each game they play (as they attain an attribute called weight/reliability), and after around 20 games, they no longer have the elo malus.

the elo malus is not a real value

if 1500 elo player loses to 1500(-250) player
the 1500(-250) player gets 50 elo making them a 1550(-200) player

the reverse:
if 1500 elo player beats 1500(-250) player
the 1500 player gets 5 elo making them a 1505 player

assuming there is at least 1 "LEET UBER SKILLZ NUB" in eatch batch of 10 "nabatron 9000's" there is a net gain of 0 elo in the system

ie. there is no elo inflation, and if you asume taht there are more then 1 skillz nubs for evry 10 no skillz nubs this is actualy causing elo deflation

tl:dr due to the elo malus avarage elo is (most likley) dropping towards 1250, not increasing

Kyubey: the 1250 elo newbie would still get an elo increase in the reverse scenario (the malus decreases even if you don't win)