Minimum ELO for a game [even as a paid feature]



  • I would like to re-request the feature to specify the minimum ELO to enter a game. I imagine that people would be willing to pay a small amount for this feature as an add-on.

    It's not that I mind playing newer players just for fun, but it really is frustrating to lose a game where an inexperienced player will make significant mistakes costing the game (robbing weaker players, making bad trades constantly slanting the balance of the game, trading the lead player at the end of the game giving them the win, or getting out played and frustrated). And then to top it off, lose large amounts of ELO for that (which is easy to lose, and hard to get back)

    By allowing players to specify "skill level" as indicated by ELO, it would mean good players could have more competitive and meaningful games, and newer players could play other players more on their level (more players in the same game making bad trades or bad position choices that are less likely to be exploited by better players).



  • Or remove ELO completely?

    How ELO is supposed to work is to show that a player with much less ELO than you should be less likely to win a game with you. But if that actually happens more often than the ELO indicates... Well then the ELO system is not suitable for this game.

    But no... Let's use a pointless metric to draw people in to play the game. Just another addiction system to keep you playing.



  • @Stroom said:

    Or remove ELO completely?

    How ELO is supposed to work is to show that a player with much less ELO than you should be less likely to win a game with you. But if that actually happens more often than the ELO indicates... Well then the ELO system is not suitable for this game.

    But no... Let's use a pointless metric to draw people in to play the game. Just another addiction system to keep you playing.

    I think where ELO is applied to something like chess (isn't that where it originated?), where it's one on one play and elements of luck aren't at play, it's pretty solid... but when it's a group of people, there's luck and timing, and bad choices can greatly tilt the game regardless of any one persons skill, it does become somewhat meaningless, especially since it doesn't seem to be used for anything else like getting you better matched players (or there aren't enough players at any one time for it to be useful)

    But sure, I suppose it is also part of the addiction/engagement equation too :-)

    But if it's meant to indicate skill level - then let us use it to play players of (supposedly) comparable. Or figure out a metric to allow this.



  • I think there are not enough players online at any given time to allow the matchmaker to perform well. Maybe 40 people waiting for a game at any time. The majority of players are probably around 1000 ELO. Anyone who has 1100 or 1200 will probably be the only one in the queue.
    But since the matchmaker is obviously focused on creating games as soon as possible, it will not even try to wait for people in your range before "lowering its standards" and assigning 1000 ELO guys to your game.
    Really, lobby would allow people to have more control over the game. And that would make them happier. But that is not going to happen.


Log in to reply