3 ms·

I would say ELO doesn’t let you walk out of a team based game with anything other than a win or loss. So, in sports, even if your team losses there will be pla

I would say ELO doesn’t let you walk out of a team based game with anything other than a win or loss. So, in sports, even if your team losses there will be players who will leave the season as All stars, or even MVPs (or vice versa, you are on a championship team but not critical at all to the team). Team esports truly is live or die by the win, and somewhat destroys the expression of players who may be league-wide top defenders/attackers/support. It’s not tracked or acknowledged. It’s very brutal. We need to track and factor in “advanced stats” like many sports do to some degree. You are not your ELO, but really your assists-per-game, rebounds-per-game, PPG, RBI, YPG, etc. Match making would sort of fall into place more organically in that case possibly, since you can easily look at a team and see it needs more scoring, or more defense, versus … needs more winners or losers.

wbl 2y ago
CSGO at the pro level has ADR and k/d, but the stats for an igl are going to look a little different from the awper.
TheAceOfHearts 2y ago
Ultimately the only thing that matters is whether your team wins or loses. This should align every player to do their best in order to win at any cost. In the last few weeks the League of Legends Worlds Finals took place. One of the teams who made it to Round of 4 was GenG. Their midlaner is widely considered to be among the best in the world, and their team has dominated their region. Despite that, he hasn't won a single worlds. The team that won has the most legendary league player because when he shows up to worlds, he locks in and wins by any means necessary. T1 was the fourth seed in their region, and they were one game away from not even qualifying to worlds. But once they made it to worlds they locked in and won the whole thing. I think one of the key issues with matchmaking in team based games is that they encourage solo queue instead of forming groups of reliable regulars. Having a regular group of people to play with also reduces toxicity and it lets you have clearer expectations of your allies. The power of friendship is undefeated in team based games.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  I stopped playing LoL and most individualist PVP games in general when I came to the realization they ultimately peddled entertainment at the expense of someone's misery. Like you say: All that ultimately matters is whether you win, the game actually means jack fucking squat. Once I wisened up and lost the illusion of "fun", I just haven't found any appeal in such games anymore. What kind of a human being am I if my entertainment of all things is drawn from misery? Fuck that, there's enough misery in life without fucking games making it worse. Team and group PVP games are great because winning (or losing) is just a matter-of-fact consequence, we're there for the experience of playing together as a team and it's hell of a lot of fun for both winners and losers.
  - mjr00 2y ago
    I think this is overly reductionist. Winning is fun, of course; nobody goes into a game with the intention of losing. But equating losing with human misery is a stretch. Most people playing games aren't miserable after a loss, at worst they're tilted after a tough loss or a losing streak. If losing were inherently the cause of human misery, we wouldn't be sending our kids to play organized youth sports for multiple generations. Or played chess for thousands of years. I've been playing fighting games a lot recently, which is a pure skill-based 1v1 genre, and going up against people better than me who beat me is fun, not miserable. Obviously the ideal outcome is to win, but getting stomped by 6-time Marvel vs Capcom 2 world champion Justin Wong doesn't make me miserable, it makes me want to improve. I'm not saying it's for everyone, I have friends who tilt off easily at every loss and yeah they shouldn't play ranked at least, but as long as your attitude is "you win or you learn" you won't be miserable.
    - hipnoizz 2y ago
      Similarly, when I played UT'99 (by the definition it was ages ago ;-)), I loved playing against stronger players. Yeah, losing a lot, but also getting better, decreasing the gap, learning new things, and at some point being able to win against some of them (or keep the match close). Lots of them was so good - I played solely Instagib, and a lot of 1-1s - that I was happy with just making some kills. But it was a lot of fun nonetheless. But I've also seen a lot of players that could not cope with losing - maybe overly competitive, maybe a bit immature etc. etc.
KK7NIL 2y ago
> We need to track and factor in “advanced stats” like many sports do to some degree. You are not your ELO, but really your assists-per-game, rebounds-per-game, PPG, RBI, YPG, etc. WAR in baseball (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wins_Above_Replacement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wins_Above_Replacement) has been a pretty successful attempt at this. But it's besides the point, because the goal of a matchmaking ranking system (like Elo) is not to measure a player's skill but to pair player in such a way that there's a roughly even chance of either team winning.
- PeterStuer 2y ago
  You would assume that, but in many commercial digital multiplayer games matchmaking serves the purpode of maximizing agregate revenue. You can start from a neutral outcome objective, but then skew it in favor of likelihood of continuing to play after win/loss and increased chance of spending currency in the cash shop. This is nudged so as to not be in your face obvious, but the skew is definetly applied.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - KK7NIL 2y ago
    I haven't heard of this in any major PC title, but still, it fits the general idea that Elo-like systems are there to measure relative chances of winning, not skill.
Bombthecat 2y ago
Heroes of newerth did something like this. They tracked gold earned, wards placed, kills, damage dealers etc etc etc. At the beginning it was terrible. But after a year or two, it was pretty good fine tuned!

wbl 2y ago

CSGO at the pro level has ADR and k/d, but the stats for an igl are going to look a little different from the awper.

TheAceOfHearts 2y ago

Ultimately the only thing that matters is whether your team wins or loses. This should align every player to do their best in order to win at any cost. In the last few weeks the League of Legends Worlds Finals took place. One of the teams who made it to Round of 4 was GenG. Their midlaner is widely considered to be among the best in the world, and their team has dominated their region. Despite that, he hasn't won a single worlds. The team that won has the most legendary league player because when he shows up to worlds, he locks in and wins by any means necessary. T1 was the fourth seed in their region, and they were one game away from not even qualifying to worlds. But once they made it to worlds they locked in and won the whole thing. I think one of the key issues with matchmaking in team based games is that they encourage solo queue instead of forming groups of reliable regulars. Having a regular group of people to play with also reduces toxicity and it lets you have clearer expectations of your allies. The power of friendship is undefeated in team based games.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Dalewyn 2y ago
I stopped playing LoL and most individualist PVP games in general when I came to the realization they ultimately peddled entertainment at the expense of someone's misery. Like you say: All that ultimately matters is whether you win, the game actually means jack fucking squat. Once I wisened up and lost the illusion of "fun", I just haven't found any appeal in such games anymore. What kind of a human being am I if my entertainment of all things is drawn from misery? Fuck that, there's enough misery in life without fucking games making it worse. Team and group PVP games are great because winning (or losing) is just a matter-of-fact consequence, we're there for the experience of playing together as a team and it's hell of a lot of fun for both winners and losers.
- mjr00 2y ago
  I think this is overly reductionist. Winning is fun, of course; nobody goes into a game with the intention of losing. But equating losing with human misery is a stretch. Most people playing games aren't miserable after a loss, at worst they're tilted after a tough loss or a losing streak. If losing were inherently the cause of human misery, we wouldn't be sending our kids to play organized youth sports for multiple generations. Or played chess for thousands of years. I've been playing fighting games a lot recently, which is a pure skill-based 1v1 genre, and going up against people better than me who beat me is fun, not miserable. Obviously the ideal outcome is to win, but getting stomped by 6-time Marvel vs Capcom 2 world champion Justin Wong doesn't make me miserable, it makes me want to improve. I'm not saying it's for everyone, I have friends who tilt off easily at every loss and yeah they shouldn't play ranked at least, but as long as your attitude is "you win or you learn" you won't be miserable.
  - hipnoizz 2y ago
    Similarly, when I played UT'99 (by the definition it was ages ago ;-)), I loved playing against stronger players. Yeah, losing a lot, but also getting better, decreasing the gap, learning new things, and at some point being able to win against some of them (or keep the match close). Lots of them was so good - I played solely Instagib, and a lot of 1-1s - that I was happy with just making some kills. But it was a lot of fun nonetheless. But I've also seen a lot of players that could not cope with losing - maybe overly competitive, maybe a bit immature etc. etc.

KK7NIL 2y ago

> We need to track and factor in “advanced stats” like many sports do to some degree. You are not your ELO, but really your assists-per-game, rebounds-per-game, PPG, RBI, YPG, etc. WAR in baseball (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wins_Above_Replacement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wins_Above_Replacement) has been a pretty successful attempt at this. But it's besides the point, because the goal of a matchmaking ranking system (like Elo) is not to measure a player's skill but to pair player in such a way that there's a roughly even chance of either team winning.

PeterStuer 2y ago
You would assume that, but in many commercial digital multiplayer games matchmaking serves the purpode of maximizing agregate revenue. You can start from a neutral outcome objective, but then skew it in favor of likelihood of continuing to play after win/loss and increased chance of spending currency in the cash shop. This is nudged so as to not be in your face obvious, but the skew is definetly applied.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- KK7NIL 2y ago
  I haven't heard of this in any major PC title, but still, it fits the general idea that Elo-like systems are there to measure relative chances of winning, not skill.

Bombthecat 2y ago

Heroes of newerth did something like this. They tracked gold earned, wards placed, kills, damage dealers etc etc etc. At the beginning it was terrible. But after a year or two, it was pretty good fine tuned!