Stop queuing us with player more than 1k elo less than us

[SwampRabbit]

Add option so that a player can select to be re-queued in ranked rather than queued with players below a set elo level.

For example, I would prefer to be re-queued rather than stuck with people who have more than 1000 elo less than I do. (actually I would probably say players less than 2700 to 2800) but I might would extend that to players more than 1000 elo lower.

I do not think any of the top ranked players will disagree with this because most of us have talked about it. We would much prefer to get re-queued than for BMG to stick us in game with players who have no idea what they are doing.

Yesterday, for example, JahMakin and I (ranked 3 and 4/ 3288 and 3284 elo respectively) were stuck in a queue with a jailor with elo of 1604 who of course threw the game--not to trial level throw, but he was so low level skill that he executed an obvious town player on n2 costing town the game.

It happens every time without fail.

This season has gone on for so long that every nearly every player has reached master level, and being queued with someone 2200 and lower is a fucking nightmare because they are clueless how to play ranked games.

[lepelke4]

I care more about win rate than elo. It is more fun to play with someone with 2000 elo and a win rate of 50+% than with someone with 2700 elo and 43% wr.

[ColbyBryant]

Fixing the elo system is a better idea, also you are matched with people 1k less than you because they are in the top 15 elos queueing at the moment. If elo worked properly nobody would have over 2200~ elo since gaining elo would be immensely difficult and require and unattainable winrate without cheating. 2200 elo because each rank is 200 elo in range, nobody should be more than a rank above the maximum. Deranking is common in every other game with an elo system.

[lepelke4]

I was just matched with someone with 226 elo...

In that same game I had the pleasure of playing with a mayor who abstained when it was 5v4 and he didn't vote up the player who was on the stand. That mayor had 2350 elo but should be set back to silver.

[Yemac]

I don't care about ELO, but I do care about good games. I'd rather wait 10 minutes on a good game, than 5 seconds for a game where no one reads wills, jailors execute confirmed lookouts, Mayors revealing and hanging you because 'omg you're a bg claim you're evil!!!' even though you are confirmed, mafia buddies who do not claim in jail because they don't knowhow to play mafia. It just gets annoying.

So yes, I /support this fully!

[SwampRabbit]

Yemac, I agree that good players matter more than elo. Currently though, elo is the measure we have of how someone plays.

And I actually agree with Colby that elo is completely fucked up, especially with this never ending season allowing anyone who plays (no matter how badly) to reach master level.

And that is my point Colby. I know WHY we get queued with people so low, I would just prefer to get re-queued until enough players of similar elo are online. So if BMG made it an option, I would select to be re-queued. Shit game are far worse than not playing at all. I played last night and we were fortunately in a great queue for several games with no idiots or throwers. It was Rawg, Beckett, Piper, Taz (tazar not the other one), and Juju. I cannot recall the others, but they were all players with high elo (like 3k+) and I recognized all the in game names. All the evils played well. All the town people played well. And it was as the game should be. It reminded me why I love this game. However, that is the first time in months that I was in a queue like that.

I cannot even count the number of times Curry leaves tos to play other games because the elos are too low. He bases it off of how much a town win gets. If a town win is +1, then curry won't queue until more people from his friend list (like you church boys) are online. And I get it. I understand why he feels that way. Even though he won, it means the average elo in the queue was so insanely low that it was just freak chance that game throwing did not happen. (and I use game throwing here, not in the bannable sense, but in the "too stupid to be playing this game" sense.)

Whether it is changing how elo is calculated and awarded or making it where we can selet an option to not be queued with any player less than xxx elo beneath us, something needs to change because not many of the top players keep playing because of how bad it has gotten.

[mrsoulshifter]

They need to reset this season. It def has gone on way too long and it seems more and more people who (dont gamethrow) but dont understand how to play are above base level mmr.

[James2]

Add option so that a player can select to be re-queued in ranked rather than queued with players below a set elo level.

For example, I would prefer to be re-queued rather than stuck with people who have more than 1000 elo less than I do. (actually I would probably say players less than 2700 to 2800) but I might would extend that to players more than 1000 elo lower.

I do not think any of the top ranked players will disagree with this because most of us have talked about it. We would much prefer to get re-queued than for BMG to stick us in game with players who have no idea what they are doing.

Yesterday, for example, JahMakin and I (ranked 3 and 4/ 3288 and 3284 elo respectively) were stuck in a queue with a jailor with elo of 1604 who of course threw the game--not to trial level throw, but he was so low level skill that he executed an obvious town player on n2 costing town the game.

It happens every time without fail.

This season has gone on for so long that every nearly every player has reached master level, and being queued with someone 2200 and lower is a fucking nightmare because they are clueless how to play ranked games.

The solution is to fix the Elo system so that each game has a net neutral effect on the amount of elo out there.

[MysticMismagius]

Making ELO zero-sum would lead to some unfair situations. A few examples:

-Killing Witch (your potential ally) as Mafia or NK would be encouraged so that you don't have to share ELO with them. Intentionally getting the Witch killed as evil is generally a bad idea, so this would encourage bad play.

-If you win as Exe/Jester, but then everyone dies, you get nothing for your efforts. This is because it would be a draw game in which Town, Mafia, and NK neither gain or lose ELO. If ELO is zero-sum, then there's no one to take the ELO you gained for winning from, so you'd get nothing even though you won. The alternative, taking a single ELO from each player to give the Exe/Jester 14 ELO, defeats the point of a "draw" for the main factions.

[Brilliand]

-Killing Witch (your potential ally) as Mafia or NK would be encouraged so that you don't have to share ELO with them. Intentionally getting the Witch killed as evil is generally a bad idea, so this would encourage bad play.

Unless the witch's ELO comes out of the Town's ELO (making the town lose more ELO) instead of out of the Mafia's ELO share.

Most proposals, though, seem to suggest that the NE's ELO simply be exempt from the zero-sum ELO system (since their goal is orthogonal to everyone else's, particularly in the Jester/Exe case).

-If you win as Exe/Jester, but then everyone dies, you get nothing for your efforts. This is because it would be a draw game in which Town, Mafia, and NK neither gain or lose ELO. If ELO is zero-sum, then there's no one to take the ELO you gained for winning from, so you'd get nothing even though you won. The alternative, taking a single ELO from each player to give the Exe/Jester 14 ELO, defeats the point of a "draw" for the main factions.

A Jester-only win doesn't have to be calculated as a draw. I'd be perfectly happy calling that a "super Jester win" in which the Jester gets to take some ELO from everyone else.

That situation usually arises from the Jester deliberately causing it, after all.

[Jackparrot]

The solution is to fix the Elo system so that each game has a net neutral effect on the amount of elo out there.

What does “net neutral effect” mean?

[MysticMismagius]

The solution is to fix the Elo system so that each game has a net neutral effect on the amount of elo out there.

What does “net neutral effect” mean?

Essentially turns the ELO system into a zero-sum game. The total amount of ELO the winners gain - the total amount of ELO everyone else loses = 0.

[Yemac]

I think it would help a LOT if there was a new season, but I also think Masters shouldn't be the end. Maybe one more rank at 2400/2500. Depends also on how long the seasons last.

[James2]

Making ELO zero-sum would lead to some unfair situations. A few examples:

ELO is a ranking system. In the final analysis, it's always going to be zero-sum. The current inflationary system simply gives an advantage to people who play more games.

-Killing Witch (your potential ally) as Mafia or NK would be encouraged so that you don't have to share ELO with them. Intentionally getting the Witch killed as evil is generally a bad idea, so this would encourage bad play.

Killing witch at end game is a good idea for mafia, if it can be safely done. Otherwise it is not a good idea, and it almost never is a good idea for NK.

If some people want to kill witch under circumstances where it's imprudent, they'll descend into the depths.

-If you win as Exe/Jester, but then everyone dies, you get nothing for your efforts. This is because it would be a draw game in which Town, Mafia, and NK neither gain or lose ELO. If ELO is zero-sum, then there's no one to take the ELO you gained for winning from, so you'd get nothing even though you won. The alternative, taking a single ELO from each player to give the Exe/Jester 14 ELO, defeats the point of a "draw" for the main factions.

The best solution would be to count stalemates as losses for the main factions, and only acknowledge true draws when no one achieves their wincon.

-Killing Witch (your potential ally) as Mafia or NK would be encouraged so that you don't have to share ELO with them. Intentionally getting the Witch killed as evil is generally a bad idea, so this would encourage bad play.

Unless the witch's ELO comes out of the Town's ELO (making the town lose more ELO) instead of out of the Mafia's ELO share.

Most proposals, though, seem to suggest that the NE's ELO simply be exempt from the zero-sum ELO system (since their goal is orthogonal to everyone else's, particularly in the Jester/Exe case).

-If you win as Exe/Jester, but then everyone dies, you get nothing for your efforts. This is because it would be a draw game in which Town, Mafia, and NK neither gain or lose ELO. If ELO is zero-sum, then there's no one to take the ELO you gained for winning from, so you'd get nothing even though you won. The alternative, taking a single ELO from each player to give the Exe/Jester 14 ELO, defeats the point of a "draw" for the main factions.

A Jester-only win doesn't have to be calculated as a draw. I'd be perfectly happy calling that a "super Jester win" in which the Jester gets to take some ELO from everyone else.

That situation usually arises from the Jester deliberately causing it, after all.

The most elegant system would be to have each winner collect ELO from each loser directly, based only on the existing ELO difference between the two. Complicating the calculation by including all players in one transaction and taking roles into account, would likely lead to unintended consequences or perverse incentives.

[Brilliand]

The most elegant system would be to have each winner collect ELO from each loser directly, based only on the existing ELO difference between the two. Complicating the calculation by including all players in one transaction and taking roles into account, would likely lead to unintended consequences or perverse incentives.

The point of the current averaging system is to account for how poor teammates can drag a good player down. If you're 2000 ELO and your teammates are all 800 ELO, you personally aren't going to achieve a 2000 ELO result. You'll be able to carry them to some degree, of course, but having to wrangle a pack of idiots is going to cost you.

[James2]

The most elegant system would be to have each winner collect ELO from each loser directly, based only on the existing ELO difference between the two. Complicating the calculation by including all players in one transaction and taking roles into account, would likely lead to unintended consequences or perverse incentives.

The point of the current averaging system is to account for how poor teammates can drag a good player down. If you're 2000 ELO and your teammates are all 800 ELO, you personally aren't going to achieve a 2000 ELO result. You'll be able to carry them to some degree, of course, but having to wrangle a pack of idiots is going to cost you.

People are always going to have bad games for whatever reason. The point of ELO is to rank people based on their average results, so that people tend towards the elo rank that reflects their skill.

Now that I think about it, the system probably should take less account of a person's ELO distance (for expected value calculations) the further they are from the average of the players in that game.

[SwampRabbit]

having to wrangle a pack of idiots is going to cost you.

I think I am in love with you! This is the exact problem we encounter when queued with people often times 2000 elo less than us. It is impossible to wrangle a pack of idiots, especially since the random role assignment program in TOS seems to award key roles like jailor and mayor (or GF if you are mafia) to the biggest idiot in queue.

I don't know how to fix the elo, tbh. That is a problem far more complex than I have considered. But allowing me to click a button saying re-queue me if at least 14 other people not within xxxx (for me I would put 500) elo points of me are in queue would be simple to program.