Flake wrote:Players that have a far below average win rate (~35%) can be placed in tiers far above average tiers (Platinum). That in and of itself means that amount of games played has FAR too much of an effect on Elo, and therefore this point alone is plenty of evidence to back up the hypothesis "the more you play, the higher rank you are".

There is no one with a less than 40% win rate, currently in platinum.

I also fail to see how you can reliably draw ANY conclusion from the statistics you posted... I certainly can't. You can't simply say "oh, 2/15 people in Masters have above below 500 games played? Yeah that definitely means amount of games played doesn't support the idea of the more you play, the higher rank you are". No. Neither you nor I could ever draw a suitably objective conclusion from any of the statistics you posted, as it is entirely subjective because there is no baseline or "significance" test we can use to measure either of our hypotheses. The point I have stated above, however, IS objectively correct and DOES support my hypothesis.

What I posted was just examples of the data.

Your hypothesis: Ranked is grindy. AKA The more you play the higher you get in ranked.

We can test this by getting a sample of the people who have played the most, say the top 100 this season. Sort them by games played, and evaluate their current rating. If your theory were to hold, we should see a pattern of descending ratings that match game plays. Looking at the data, this is not the case. One guy near the top is in Gold.. there's even a Bronze player on this list, with a win rate of 35%, who's in the top 100 games played. If it were as simple as the more you play the higher you get, this guy shouldn't even be able to exist.

Elo should rise only with a higher amount of games played IF AND ONLY IF the player's win rate is also above average, and at the moment this is not always the case when it obviously should be.

This would be true, if we didn't factor in faction win rates to ELO calculation. All things being equal winning, playing against the same calibur players, 1 win + 1 loss should mean you have a net change of nearly 0. The rating calculation isn't that simple. If you win one game as an SK and then lose a game as town, against equally skilled opponents, you will rise in rating.

In a game like League of Legends, there would be uproar if said weaknesses were to occur, but in this game a far from good Elo system (albeit not awful) is "let off" simply because the game is more casual in general and has a smaller player base. Obviously, this should not be the case, and I'm sure you agree (I would hope).

Whether "ToS" is a causal game compared to LoL, I assure you, is not a factor at all into how we design our rating system. ToS has many intracies with roles, opponents, win rates that make it nearly impossible to impose a perfect rating system.

I'm not saying that REALISTICALLY many people would be able to get into Master tier (given the amount of time in each Season), nor did I say 60 people is high (I agree it is probably around the right amount or too low). What I am saying is that, if you WERE to leave the current system as it is running for say, 2 years, the weaknesses of the current system (both grinding and bad k-factor ratios) would become far more obvious than they already are, which is slightly scary given the fact that the effects of said weaknesses are already pretty prevalent.

This boils down to a philisophical question.

If you have played 200 games and won 60%, and I've played 400 games and won 60%, should we be the same rating?

If you answer is yes, then I ask,

If I go on a hot streak and play 200 games and win 75% is it the best experience for the Season and the other playing competative for me to quit the season there and not risk dropping my win rate? Is that fair to the others? What about the guy who played 500 games at 70%, going on that system alone he shouldn't be ranked higher... and then the more you play the harder it is to raise your win rate, by pure math. So in this case whoever gets on the best streak to start is the highest rated player?

Food for thought.

As always, even though we may not agree on points, all the feedback is welcome and shared (even if refuted!)