Jump to content


ELO based ladder

Ladder Rank ELO League Esport Competitive Competition Even Matches Rating

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
23 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you want to see this suggestion implemented? (27 members have cast votes)

Do you want to see ranked ladders?

  1. Yes! This is a wholly beneficial addition to WoT! (10 votes [37.04%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 37.04%

  2. Sort-of! I like the concepts suggested, but feel that some specifics need adjustment. (explain below) (5 votes [18.52%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 18.52%

  3. I am indifferent to this suggestion. (4 votes [14.81%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 14.81%

  4. Not really! Concept might work but needs an entirely new implemention. (explain below) (1 vote [3.70%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.70%

  5. No! There is nothing reassuring about this suggestion in the least. (3 votes [11.11%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 11.11%

  6. This would be a waste of resources. There are more urgent updates I'd much rather see. (4 votes [14.81%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 14.81%

Should Ranked battles replace random battles entirely? (read OP first please)

  1. Yes! (4 votes [14.81%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 14.81%

  2. No! (17 votes [62.96%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 62.96%

  3. I don't know! (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. Wait and see how it works with both first (6 votes [22.22%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

How long are you willing to wait for queue times -- even if they're long because you're the best player in the world?

  1. <10 seconds; no longer than what our current queue times are! (9 votes [33.33%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

  2. 15 seconds (2 votes [7.41%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 7.41%

  3. 30 seconds (4 votes [14.81%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 14.81%

  4. 1 minute (3 votes [11.11%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 11.11%

  5. 2 minutes (4 votes [14.81%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 14.81%

  6. 5 minutes (1 vote [3.70%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.70%

  7. 8 minutes (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  8. 10 minutes (1 vote [3.70%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.70%

  9. 15 minutes (1 vote [3.70%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.70%

  10. >15 minutes (2 votes [7.41%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 7.41%

Vote Hide poll

Rdee #1 Posted Oct 02 2012 - 04:21

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 5489 battles
  • 434
  • [SABER] SABER
  • Member since:
    06-26-2012
Note: The numbers and illustrations in this suggestion do not represent what the final implementation may be. They're provided for clarity in the form of examples.


Posted Image


Tired of being judged on arbitrary statistics not intended to represent skill? Looking for a new competitive outlet? Do you simply want legitimate justification to act as the reincarnation of awesome that you were destined to be? It's time World of Tanks reaches full maturity with the ultimate conclusion of competitive gaming: ranked ladders. No longer are you at the mercy of random match-making to provide you with evenly matched games -- no more lop-sided steam rolls.

1. What is ELO rating?

ELO is a rating system that attempts to evaluate the relative skill level between two players. It will not be based on your efficiency or your experience, win/loss ratio or any of that -- just who you win against. Every time you win a ranked match, you gain points. Every time you lose a ranked match, you lose points. As you accumulate more points, you'll fight increasingly stronger opponents. ELO is a common form of ranking ladders, such as Professional Chess, League of Legends, and other pseudo-variants in games like World of Warcraft and Starcraft 2.

2. How can it work in World of tanks?
Spoiler                     

3. Why win/loss and efficiency are not appropriate measures of skill
Spoiler                     

4. Did you say this could help balance the game?
Spoiler                     

FAQ
Spoiler                     

Open debates
Spoiler                     

More specifics and pictures to come when I wake up.

Edited by Rdee, Oct 02 2012 - 13:56.


Panzer_Kunst #2 Posted Oct 02 2012 - 04:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 13990 battles
  • 3,524
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    07-20-2011
Main problem is the fact you have 15 vs 15 matches in this game, unlike in LoL or Chess where you only depend on yourself or a few others, you have to depend on 14 others in this game.

Unless you were to introduce a 3v3 or 5v5 sort of game mode, (highly unlikely), I can't see this working.

Rdee #3 Posted Oct 02 2012 - 04:35

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 5489 battles
  • 434
  • [SABER] SABER
  • Member since:
    06-26-2012

View PostKewei, on Oct 02 2012 - 04:27, said:

Main problem is the fact you have 15 vs 15 matches in this game, unlike in LoL or Chess where you only depend on yourself or a few others, you have to depend on 14 others in this game.

Unless you were to introduce a 3v3 or 5v5 sort of game mode, (highly unlikely), I can't see this working.

It still works exactly the same. The only issue is that the lower ratings will probably be slightly more chaotic due to the sheer number of players/new players and how such big games can flip games upside down though. If a better player can win more through his own sheer skill, then every player should be correctly rated to his/her own skill. It must work if the aforementioned is true. Also just means the grinds to the higher ratings are longer as the law of averages won't work in your favor so quickly with so many variables working against your personal contributions.

Edited by Rdee, Oct 02 2012 - 04:37.


RandomDying #4 Posted Oct 02 2012 - 04:55

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 34197 battles
  • 836
  • [OTTER] OTTER
  • Member since:
    08-24-2012
I like the idea since I used to play Warcraft 3 Ladder a lot.  At one point 2 yrs ago I was ranked 3rd in Random team battles.... sometimes it would take 2 hrs to get a match since it wasn't a very active game.... so that is the only down side of a elo based match maker is that if players are too good they will have to wait a very long time for someone to come along and challenge.  Also the elo may balance teams by putting very skilled players with very bad players against average players, the average team has the advantage since they would at least know the basics/teamwork necessary.  Also there is an exploit in Elo systems where some people would purposely lose their first 50-100 battles or so (their rating would remove 0 or neutral) then start playing serious and it would give them more favorable match ups (basically smurfing).

Edited by RandomDying, Oct 02 2012 - 04:56.


Panzer_Kunst #5 Posted Oct 02 2012 - 05:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 13990 battles
  • 3,524
  • [VILIN] VILIN
  • Member since:
    07-20-2011

View PostRdee, on Oct 02 2012 - 04:35, said:

Also just means the grinds to the higher ratings are longer as the law of averages won't work in your favor so quickly with so many variables working against your personal contributions.

This being the exact reason why Elo just won't work well in this game. But let's say a good player escapes elo hell and finds himself with the unicum equivalent of Elo, what does this mean for him? Half an hour, perhaps more in the queue only for a 15 minute match and another half hour or more, which goes against what WoT stands for, a fast paced competitive game.

The MMORPG (stock grind, module research, etc.) and P2GA (Pay to Gain Advantage, premium, gold rounds, gold consumables) elements unless standardized will screw up the system as well. If Wargaming were to make them forbidden in Ranked matches, then they would stand to lose a massive amount of profit, as in such a system, using gold in "pub" matches is pointless since you aren't advancing yourself in the ranks, you're winning, but if Elo is standardized, then your win loss ratio or other individual statistics will be pointless.

I will say this, Elo works for Chess very well since it is a one vs one game, somewhat well for League of Legends, but has shortcomings due to the 3v3 nature of LoL games making Elo advancement very tough and rankings rather unreliable due to team-carry or team-drag, but in World of Tanks... 15v15? I don't see it, Elo advancement would take far too long, only the most hardcore of players would bother.

EDIT:

I'm going to say this straight (yes, this is an attack), you have many well-thought and worded out suggestions that might (superficially) improve the game, but they're not necessarily practical or even good ones if you take into account all the ingame factors possible. Here's a summation.


The fix platoon matchmaking suggestion - too easy to gimmick, place a tier 4 tank with two OP tier 6 tank like a VK3601H with gold rounds loaded and using Konisch, sure, the tier 4 is losing out big time, but he could easily be an alt account created for the sole purpose of rigging the system.

The simplistic visually appealing UI - doesn't actually tell the player what they need to know, which is very important in a game like WoT


Elo - you're attempting to change the very nature of the game, fast paced competitive action gaming, by introducing a system that makes ladder climbing excruciatingly slow (15v15 doesn't cut it out with elo) that will likely cut off Wargaming's main revenue for gold (PM me if you want me to rant about it)

You have to first, actually play more of the game to understand it, then make such suggestions.

Edited by Kewei, Oct 02 2012 - 05:18.


Rdee #6 Posted Oct 02 2012 - 05:23

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 5489 battles
  • 434
  • [SABER] SABER
  • Member since:
    06-26-2012

View PostKewei, on Oct 02 2012 - 05:02, said:

This being the exact reason why Elo just won't work well in this game. But let's say a good player escapes elo hell and finds himself with the unicum equivalent of Elo, what does this mean for him? Half an hour, perhaps more in the queue only for a 15 minute match and another half hour or more, which goes against what WoT stands for, a fast paced competitive game.

The MMORPG (stock grind, module research, etc.) and P2GA (Pay to Gain Advantage, premium, gold rounds, gold consumables) elements unless standardized will screw up the system as well. If Wargaming were to make them forbidden in Ranked matches, then they would stand to lose a massive amount of profit, as in such a system, using gold in "pub" matches is pointless since you aren't advancing yourself in the ranks, you're winning, but if Elo is standardized, then your win loss ratio or other individual statistics will be pointless.

I will say this, Elo works for Chess very well since it is a one vs one game, somewhat well for League of Legends, but has shortcomings due to the 3v3 nature of LoL games making Elo advancement very tough and rankings rather unreliable due to team-carry or team-drag, but in World of Tanks... 15v15? I don't see it, Elo advancement would take far too long, only the most hardcore of players would bother.

The queue times of higher level players is really all in the match-making. It firstly depends on just how varied the skill is in World of Tanks, and whether or not the skill cap allows players to transcend above everyone else in such significant leaps of rating. You can also adjust the range at which MM will pair up with ELO -- which I highly suspect WG would do should a ladder be implemented given their priority to fast queue times. What could be a range of 1800-2100 could be 1700-2200. What's important is that each side is balanced, and they will be, given time. Worst case scenario, you can literally be 2-3x better than the average player, and match-making for these players must be adjusted to the point that the majority of their games will be 0 point wins -- majority of the time. All of this starkly contradicts the aforementioned discussion of how difficult it is in a 15v15 game to distinguish oneself over an average of games, and is unlikely until late into ladder seasons.

I also don't see an issue with premium items. Ranked battles should not give you anymore of an advantage than random battle -- exclusively for the fact that you're now fighting opponents of your own skill. If someone inflates their rating a LITTLE because they want to use gold rounds, then so be it. It won't flip the ladder upside down, as the driver is still the single determining factor of a tank's effectiveness. The players who do use gold rounds/items might enjoy a slight inflation of their rating for as long as they're willing to spend the money. The reason I want to replace random battle entirely though is so that ranked battles become standard -- even for players grinding their way from tier 1. The ONLY issue is that I have no idea what the queue times will be like overall. Keeping random battles MAY alleviate them for some players -- but at a certain point it may conversely increase the queue times of ranked drastically. It's an extremely fine line that we'll never know without it reaching release. At any rate, I suspect premium items will only be used profusely by the top rated players jockeying for their spots. Those rankings give no advantage to any player more so than their shiny W/L ratings did. It's just a depiction of skill.

edit:

In regards to platoon match-making, it's a choice of two evils. Should players be allowed to both troll games AND unintentionally create an unwinnable game because their perfectly fine platoon got put into it's highest tier bracket, or should one player be able to platoon and receive the best end of his match-making while another player in return must receive the WORST end of his match-making. Lesser of two evils is the latter, imo

As for the tank UI, theres so much I left out for how I visualized it -- mainly because im lazy with photoshopping all of it. The entire UI needs to be overhauled. Cool adjusting bars were just part of the idea of being visually simplistic. You would still very obviously be able to see their specific stats. It'd just be much easier to compare general tank styles. When I was new and figuring out what tank I wanted to play, it took quite a while to dig through the tech trees and compare stats.

Edited by Rdee, Oct 02 2012 - 05:42.


KiwiMark67 #7 Posted Oct 02 2012 - 06:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 38341 battles
  • 4,567
  • [ANVIL] ANVIL
  • Member since:
    08-24-2011
Wow, this sounds like such a horrible and ridiculous idea.
I can't imagine the amount of effort required to implement this or how complicated it would be.  Basing the rankings per tank is probably the only option, but I have over 60 tanks in my garage and am buying more as I earn the credits, I find it hard to believe that ranking all 60 of my tanks can be done quickly or easily.
I don't even know if the RNG would allow accurate ranking of players, or the use of gold rounds on occasion either.  I think that there are too many variables that would make it nearly impossible to rank players against each other.  The fact that we don't play 1-on-1 would also greatly hinder accurate ranking.
Honestly I can't think of why WG would bother with this or what real benefit there would be for players.

RuGaard_The_Crippled #8 Posted Oct 02 2012 - 06:42

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6709 battles
  • 1,216
  • Member since:
    08-13-2011
Elo doesn't work in World of Tanks:
1. Team-based: Elo is not intended for team-based games. It's rather intended for 1v1 games such as chess.
2. Pay2Win: WoT contains various game elements that make you better the more €/$ you spend.
3. Equipment diversity: Stock tanks will lower your Elo despite equal skill.
4. Imbalance in tank strength: Elo requires equality among all players and their assets. This is not given in WoT (Bias towards russian tanks).

Edited by Ettanin, Oct 02 2012 - 08:50.


Rdee #9 Posted Oct 02 2012 - 13:10

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 5489 battles
  • 434
  • [SABER] SABER
  • Member since:
    06-26-2012

View PostKiwiMark67, on Oct 02 2012 - 06:08, said:

Wow, this sounds like such a horrible and ridiculous idea.
I can't imagine the amount of effort required to implement this or how complicated it would be.  Basing the rankings per tank is probably the only option, but I have over 60 tanks in my garage and am buying more as I earn the credits, I find it hard to believe that ranking all 60 of my tanks can be done quickly or easily.
I don't even know if the RNG would allow accurate ranking of players, or the use of gold rounds on occasion either.  I think that there are too many variables that would make it nearly impossible to rank players against each other.  The fact that we don't play 1-on-1 would also greatly hinder accurate ranking.
Honestly I can't think of why WG would bother with this or what real benefit there would be for players.

Ranking of one tank or sixty tanks will be as fast as the statistics are currently logged for their win/loss. They're just numbers added up or subtracted. This simply adds one more statistic to log, and the implementation of a visible ladder UI that organizes and displays this new statistic.The only complexity is the match-making and ELO formula, which has to be tuned to meet WoT's needs. You also misunderstand: this removes RNG by observing trends in whom players win against. If players truly are able to consistently win more often than others, then it should work. The benefits far out-number the downsides.

View PostEttanin, on Oct 02 2012 - 06:42, said:

Elo doesn't work in World of Tanks:
1. Team-based: Elo is not intended for team-based games. It's rather intended for 1v1 games such as chess.
2. Pay2Win: WoT contains various game elements that make you better the more €/$ you spend.
3. Equipment diversity: Stock tanks will lower your Elo despite equal skill.
4. Imbalance in tank strength: Elo requires equality among all players and their assets. This is not given in WoT (Bias towards russian tanks).

1. ELO has many variants adjusted for games of all sizes. It will work in any team game where a player can influence his winrate through consistency.
2. Ranked battles are nothing more than random battles with a new statistic and a different MM. It really doesn't matter how you pay to win it. Players can inflate their rating and the ladder will adjust for it. It's miniscule.
3. The initial rating you start at will also very likely contain many stock tanks. You will never be placed at your appropriate ELO right away -- it's simply not possible in a team game which requires more matches for the law of averages to swing your way.
4. Same thing as the pay to win: If you drive an OP tank, then you'll enjoy an inflated rating, and still remain in even matches fighting slightly better opponents to off-set your tank. The system still works. Great thing is that because of these statistics, WG will have objective data to further help them balance tanks. If Russian tanks are truly overpowered, they will appear at the top of the ladder consistently.

Edited by Rdee, Oct 02 2012 - 13:11.


RuGaard_The_Crippled #10 Posted Oct 02 2012 - 13:21

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6709 battles
  • 1,216
  • Member since:
    08-13-2011

View PostRdee, on Oct 02 2012 - 13:10, said:

1. ELO has many variants adjusted for games of all sizes. It will work in any team game where a player can influence his winrate through consistency.
It works with fixed and static teams, but not with randoms.

Quote

2. Ranked battles are nothing more than random battles with a new statistic and a different MM. It really doesn't matter how you pay to win it. Players can inflate their rating and the ladder will adjust for it. It's miniscule.
It matters much, as P2W will falsify your true strength. You are stronger than a freebie player and thus paid for a better rating, this removes neutrality and thus makes such a rating meaningless because it rates your wallet, not you.

Quote

3. The initial rating you start at will also very likely contain many stock tanks. You will never be placed at your appropriate ELO right away -- it's simply not possible in a team game which requires more matches for the law of averages to swing your way.
If you start a new tank, your bad performance, because you are learning it, will tank your overall rating. That's not good.

Quote

4. Same thing as the pay to win: If you drive an OP tank, then you'll enjoy an inflated rating, and still remain in even matches fighting slightly better opponents to off-set your tank. The system still works. Great thing is that because of these statistics, WG will have objective data to further help them balance tanks. If Russian tanks are truly overpowered, they will appear at the top of the ladder consistently.
Which also does not rate your skill, but rather the power of your tank and equipment.

Elo is intended to rate your skill, not your wallet or exploiting (abusing imbalances is exploiting imho) power. This does not make matches "competitive".

Edited by Ettanin, Oct 02 2012 - 13:25.


Rdee #11 Posted Oct 02 2012 - 13:32

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 5489 battles
  • 434
  • [SABER] SABER
  • Member since:
    06-26-2012

View PostEttanin, on Oct 02 2012 - 13:21, said:

It works with fixed and static teams, but not with randoms.

It matters much, as P2W will falsify your true strength. You are stronger than a freebie player and thus paid for a better rating, this removes neutrality and thus makes such a rating meaningless because it rates your wallet, not you.

If you start a new tank, your bad performance, because you are learning it, will tank your overall rating. That's not good.

Which also does not rate your skill, but rather the power of your tank.

Elo is intended to rate your skill, not your wallet or exploiting (abusing imbalances is exploiting imho) power. This does not make matches "competitive".

1. You're not understanding. This removes randoms. You aren't fighting random players, you're fighting random players of relatively even skill. If you're a better player than them than you will consistently win more, and advance much quicker than your W/L would currently show right now in entirely random battles. To deny this would basically invoke W/L to be entirely unindicative of skill.

2. That's fine. Players will enjoy a slightly higher rating -- they aren't going to fly to the top. You grossly under-estimate how much intelligence is required to play this game competently. It's a miniscule factor compared to the necessity of an excellent player behind the tank. If you don't want to take ratings seriously, then you don't have to.

3. Everyone starts somewhere. When they get better at their tank, their rating will reflect their improvement as they slowly rise. The best thing is, they don't have a life-time W/L to drag down their average. ELO will represent their current skill.

4. ELO does not objectively rate your skill. It attempts to assign you a rating relative to who you win and lose against. It's a measurement of your ability to win, with the assumption that skill is a large factor of it. The matches will still be even and competitive, regardless of your disagreements.

Edited by Rdee, Oct 02 2012 - 13:42.


Skygunner #12 Posted Oct 02 2012 - 13:35

    Captain

  • Wiki Staff
  • 22095 battles
  • 1,413
  • Member since:
    11-08-2010
I will give you one thing....you thought this out.



That being said,  no.  I don't ever want to see something like this put in game.  Usually this is where I just go "use the search function"  This isn't the first time we've seen this type of suggestion,  wont be the last.   However, rather than leaving it at that i'll try to explain my stance.

Wargaming itself has said it likes the noobs playing with the elites.   All a ladder system will do is essentially give people a number in which to say "I am better than you".   That's about it.  More than that,   no matter how that ladder is put in,  be it full 15 vs 15 matches or 1 vs 1,  players will insist the number provided means little and just depends what take you play.   Wargaming already offers plenty of fully integrated tournaments in which players who what to prove that they are good can go head to head.



http://forum.worldof...78#entry2744578


There is the most recent one, grab your buddies and try some matches out,   they are quite fun.

KiwiMark67 #13 Posted Oct 02 2012 - 13:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 38341 battles
  • 4,567
  • [ANVIL] ANVIL
  • Member since:
    08-24-2011
Well, I'm not convinced.

I think that this is a silly idea.
I think that this is a bad idea.
I think that this will not work.
I think that WG would not even consider trying this.

Rdee #14 Posted Oct 02 2012 - 14:25

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 5489 battles
  • 434
  • [SABER] SABER
  • Member since:
    06-26-2012

View PostSkygunner, on Oct 02 2012 - 13:35, said:

I will give you one thing....you thought this out.



That being said,  no.  I don't ever want to see something like this put in game.  Usually this is where I just go "use the search function"  This isn't the first time we've seen this type of suggestion,  wont be the last.   However, rather than leaving it at that i'll try to explain my stance.

Wargaming itself has said it likes the noobs playing with the elites.   All a ladder system will do is essentially give people a number in which to say "I am better than you".   That's about it.  More than that,   no matter how that ladder is put in,  be it full 15 vs 15 matches or 1 vs 1,  players will insist the number provided means little and just depends what take you play.   Wargaming already offers plenty of fully integrated tournaments in which players who what to prove that they are good can go head to head.



http://forum.worldof...78#entry2744578


There is the most recent one, grab your buddies and try some matches out,   they are quite fun.

I used the search function. No idea was specific to what I suggested. They were just vague "we should have a ladder" with no provocative discussion on it's merits. Even if there was, I'd still have posted my own thread. I think I'd be more effective with my arguments anyways. Once I have more time I'm going to go much more into detail, just to prove it's viability.

There are multiple outlets for 'noobs' to play with 'elites.' This does not impede their desires. Yes, this will give players a number to say I'm better than you. But this will be an accurate number that attempts to quantify your ability to support a team -- not your win/loss vs entirely random pubs, or a skewed efficiency that favors med/heavy tanks. Players will always come into disputes with each other and attempt to compare their skill within a team game using a number. Nothing changes other than the number they argue over. With or without a ladder the same kind insecure player will always cling to a number they can rationalize to justify why they're better than someone else. The ladder provides so much more though: Even-rated matches and every benefit that comes with it.

Integrated tournaments require a team, and are not objectively balanced. It's a different form of competition. Nothing says that both competitive ladders and tournaments cannot co-exist.

Edited by Rdee, Oct 02 2012 - 14:26.


RuGaard_The_Crippled #15 Posted Oct 02 2012 - 14:28

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6709 battles
  • 1,216
  • Member since:
    08-13-2011

View PostRdee, on Oct 02 2012 - 13:32, said:

1. You're not understanding. This removes randoms. You aren't fighting random players, you're fighting random players of relatively even skill. If you're a better player than them than you will consistently win more, and advance much quicker than your W/L would currently show right now in entirely random battles. To deny this would basically invoke W/L to be entirely unindicative of skill.
I've bolded your contradictions. You are still fighting with and against randoms. Elo is not intended for randomly assembled teams.

Quote

2. That's fine. Players will enjoy a slightly higher rating -- they aren't going to fly to the top. You grossly under-estimate how much intelligence is required to play this game competently. It's a miniscule factor compared to the necessity of an excellent player behind the tank. If you don't want to take ratings seriously, then you don't have to.
It still relativates intelligence because players are able to substitute the lack of intelligence by buying power (gold ammo is the best example looking at the pen values), thus making the rating irrelevant and thus making the rated mode useless.

Quote

3. Everyone starts somewhere. When they get better at their tank, their rating will reflect their improvement as they slowly rise. The best thing is, they don't have a life-time W/L to drag down their average. ELO will represent their current skill.
And still it conflicts with the requirements and assumptions of Elo: Equal assets.

Quote

4. ELO does not objectively rate your skill. It attempts to assign you a rating relative to who you win and lose against. It's a measurement of your ability to win, with the assumption that skill is a large factor of it. The matches will still be even and competitive, regardless of your disagreements.
The rating is biased towards those with the biggest wallets due to the ability of using gold ammo and those using OP tanks, thus, as said in sentence 2, making this rating irrelevant and meaningless in regards to how to estimate a player.

Rdee #16 Posted Oct 02 2012 - 14:32

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 5489 battles
  • 434
  • [SABER] SABER
  • Member since:
    06-26-2012

View PostEttanin, on Oct 02 2012 - 14:28, said:

I've bolded your contradictions. You are still fighting with and against randoms. Elo is not intended for randomly assembled teams.

It still relativates intelligence because players are able to substitute the lack of intelligence by buying power (gold ammo is the best example looking at the pen values), thus making the rating irrelevant and thus making the rated mode useless.

And still it conflicts with the requirements and assumptions of Elo: Equal assets.

The rating is biased towards those with the biggest wallets due to the ability of using gold ammo and those using OP tanks, thus, as said in sentence 2, making this rating irrelevant and meaningless in regards to how to estimate a player.

I think your issue is with premium items and not my suggestion. Premium items do not change, another outlet is merely added for players. You're repeating your same arguments. Just don't confuse the fact that ELO has many variants adjusted for different forms of competition. ELO does not require established teams, nor does it require 1v1. I can make arbitrary statements too: You are entirely incorrect in this regard.

Edited by Rdee, Oct 02 2012 - 14:34.


RuGaard_The_Crippled #17 Posted Oct 02 2012 - 14:35

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6709 battles
  • 1,216
  • Member since:
    08-13-2011
You are incorrect. Elo assumes and requires equal assets among the opponents. This is not given in WoT, thus Elo cannot function fair.

Edited by Ettanin, Oct 02 2012 - 14:37.


Rdee #18 Posted Oct 02 2012 - 14:45

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 5489 battles
  • 434
  • [SABER] SABER
  • Member since:
    06-26-2012

View PostEttanin, on Oct 02 2012 - 14:35, said:

You are incorrect. Elo assumes and requires equal assets among the opponents. This is not given in WoT, thus Elo cannot function fair.

ELO adjusts assets for multiple opponents by offsetting differences through it's adjusted ratings. I've explained this to you three times now. If you have premium items, you will be rated slightly higher so that you are playing with higher rated players to create an even match. Neither team has any advantage over the other. Each have a 50% chance to win vs the other. This is proven and factual in many other games that are not perfectly balanced. The ladder will always adjust itself to account for this by artificial inflation of rating. Therefore, ELO functions fairly. Your issue isn't with ELO, it's with premium items. I'm sorry you don't understand that WG is a business that must function through income, but it has nothing to do with my suggestion; only your grievances to a f2p game.

Edited by Rdee, Oct 02 2012 - 14:46.


Kaputt #19 Posted Oct 02 2012 - 18:00

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 9584 battles
  • 97
  • [S-B] S-B
  • Member since:
    07-01-2011
I'm confused: ELO is a rating of individual player skill only or can it apply to teams?  How does the equipment the player uses factor into this?  Is that why it is necessary for a player to be rated per tank used?  Further, I understand you are arguing in favor of individual player ELO ratings, but how is that individual rating applied to an opposing team of randomly assembled, individually rated players? Do these randomly assembled teams have a collective ELO rating?  How does the player's individual ELO rating relate to a team of opponents?  Does the player's rating relate to each player he engages or to a collective team rating?

I understand why ELO works well in chess since one player's rating relates to one opponent, both of which have exactly the same equipment (although it's not exactly the same setup).  The confusion (for me at least) is: how does an individual player's ELO rating relate to multiple opponents in the same match; and how does the individual ELO rating of each player on one's team relate to your rating and to each of the opponent's?

AMartin223 #20 Posted Oct 02 2012 - 18:01

    Major

  • WGLNA Gold League Player
  • 12239 battles
  • 2,084
  • [T1C] T1C
  • Member since:
    01-18-2012
I can't see an ELO system functioning in 15v15 pub setup, especially with our limited population on the NA server.  In fact I don't know if even the EU server could handle it.  RU probably (especially with 500k peak users, but that's just one server). What could work would be a way to register TC teams and so whenever 2 registered TC teams meet, their ELO would change to reflect the results.  (The TC would probably be registered off of the commander).  This has pros and cons, since it would prbly make it harder to get TCs going, since no one will want to join a TC with a commander with a low ELO (since even win rate deniers won't deny ELO, which is weird, but tangential to the point).  

Another option would be to finally introduce 1v1, or 3v3 (platooned only in my opinion) as Kewei said, with no capping, and on half size maps.  But then it would mean nothing except that you're good at this new game mode.  

In short, I really don't see how you could implement this and have it mean something.