.

Good solid improvement. Still 80% off the optimum.

Yup old system was better. Encouraging those who only care about doing damage was a wrong path to take. Modes where you are on a team there is supposed to be some semblance of teamwork and that isn't necessarily possible when players are baiting to deal the most damage.

That is what the new system avoids...

When I say old system I mean when it was based on victory entirely.

He means QLranks from before steam.

The idea previously was it would be better for the community overall if people didn't care if they won or lost and would freely change teams mid game if the game was unbalanced.

Unfortunately it was just abused too much by people hiding in attempts to get more damage alone, selling their team up the river and dragging the games on pointlessly as they're hunted down, typically not actually getting them any more damage in the end as they're wiped out by multiple players.

You'll still get some heroes thinking that they'll win by hiding and clearing up what's left, but hopefully that will be less often soon after they realise how unlikely that is to happen, and how much better the win gain is too.

Basically, sensitive shits ruined even clan arena who moan and bitch about uneven teams. That whole idea defeats the purpose of having any sort of rating system to rely upon, maybe we could just play without any rating and we could expect players to make the intelligent choices of balancing them out? Who the fuck had this idea? And this 20% increase? Who is this sensitive shit who can't stomach that clan arena has been as worse as it can get, because of this "winning doesn't matter, let's all play together for fun and good things in the world", maybe let's fucking sing a kumbaya song while at it?

Individual performance should be a minor increase at most.

Clan arena has been so fucking shit since the old system went downhill.

I'm confused.

Do you want
(1) no stats;
(2) stats dependent on which team wins only;
(3) stats dependent on individual performance regardless of which team wins;
(4) some mix of (2) and (3)?

I vote for a mix of 1-3 :D

Sorry, you caused my brain to crash. :D

I was just ranting, not necessarily providing any tangible solutions, but since you asked.

There are only two ways on how make it work.

Option (2) by making stats dependent by only winning.

Or the best option would be a mix of having stat distribution dependent 80-90% on winning and the rest 10-20% at most by individual performance.

Individual performance cannot outweigh or even be comparable to the bonus of winning, otherwise it will heavily promote playing by using your team as a meat-shield for victory. Performance rating should just be a softening factor of stats for being on the losing team by doing well and just a bonus, nothing more, of doing well and being on the winning team.

The whole idea of balancing players mid games defeats the purpose of having any sort of system to rely upon, because it manipulates of how the ratings should evolve. Rating is not an absolute, but a relative representation of the players skill, we can't expect balanced games just because some number is equal, but we can expect for the rating to categorize the players between the most balanced, expected teams over time by letting it rate the players which takes a certain amount of unaltered games for the rating to represent the most accurate level of skill.

Players have been playing like total idiots because of the current system, the team success is what matters the most, now it's just however you can get more damage done is what matters most and as long as performance will have such priority, nothing will change.

I tend to agree. Though no doubt I'm overlooking some way some dumbass can abuse it.

The only way how to abuse this is tied to the very game type the rating is designed to rate, clan arena lacks objective.

Even this way playing by using your team as a meat-shield is the most effective way on how to gain rating, but in comparison to the existing system the player risks pulling his team down and being penalized for the loss. Not worth the risk, but if someone can perform and pull out a victory, its a justifiable gain.

Depends whether they are trying to raise or lower their elo.

No system can solve deliberate manipulation of rating and since we are talking about a team game, even more impossible to make the influence of your team not relevant to your rating.

It's a problem the community itself needs to deal with, the individuals responsible for such "violation", let's call it that, should be recognized by the community and dealt with in one way or another.

100% bonus doesnt mean that winning is the only thing that matter tho

I disagree. Winning and losing is pretty black and white there is no grey area.

It's twice in a row that u completely miss the point

So other things matter too like Keel is gender queer, fat positive and pressing F3 is NOT consent?

A 20% bonus means you still have a performance on which you get that bonus. Not that, of your elo, 20% comes from the win and 80% from damage and kills. I see why trump won tho, u fooled yourself and got angry.

I'm fine with performance having some significance but maybe at most 50%. Doing damage should not necessarily override playing intelligently. Anyway truth be told applying some kind of individual ELO rating on a team mode, especially one that is generally played with randoms, is probably not very accurate anyway.

My experience (both theoretical and direct) is that it takes a while to get in line with your skill bexause it's hard to differenciate between your performance and the one of your teammates, and if u only play with the same teammates you will never be judged properly... but once it gets to guess your skill properly, the games become awesome

Losing to a team with average 400 elos more is pretty grey, no? You shouldn't lose even more elo to that. (Or win more elo as a high elo team for that matter).

i still don't understand over reactions of some people. I think the guys in charge of qlstats did a great job. It's much better than games with no rating in terms of balance.

Any systems has pros and cons i think.

System where only win/loss would mater would mean someone could on purpose get a lower rating just by losing and still doing x2 the damage of any other players in the teams.

Rating on team games is something hard to do.

There are s