this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
163 points (92.7% liked)
Greentext
4393 readers
1219 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Personally, I don't like the fact that every team-based video game uses ELO, a system designed for a 1 on 1 game, to determine an individual's skill.
While Elo (and side note: it's a person's name, not an acronym) isn't perfect and systems like Glicko-2 are better even for 1v1s, is there a better system than Elo that could be used to rate players in team games? Especially if there's a mix of pre-made teams and random teams thrown together by matchmaking?
Edit: extra bonus if it can be applicable in games that have both 1v1 and team game components where there might be a desire for some form of bleed between the two. (e.g. AoE2 where your starting Elo in one of them is based on your Elo in the other, if you've played a lot of one type of game before trying the other.)
I suspect games tinker with the formula behind the scenes, to accurately place people faster if nothing else. The more players the longer it could take for the skill of any one to show up in the numbers, so I bet they factor in other game specific metrics at least at first. There would be some risk of this being abused, but that's less if they keep it a secret and maybe the progress numbers shown to players aren't quite the same as the real numbers used to decide who to match them against.