ELO chess ranking system applied incorrectly in video games

fluidistic

Quote by Jack21222

You're talking about a different game than the OP is, so I have no comment on that.

In League of Legends, there are team queues and solo queues. The teams generally have lower ELOs than individuals, so I don't know how meaningful it is to compare the ELO of a team vs the ELO of an individual, as you seem to be doing. However, the point stands that you're talking about a completely different game.

My fault, in post #15 I thought you were answering to any team game rather than League of Legends in particular.

DragonPetter

Glad people started using game names, I didn't want to appear as a nerd too badly. The game I'm referring to is HoN.

I'm also glad to see people agreeing with me. But does anyone know how to do a mathematical analysis to prove its invalid?

DragonPetter

Quote by Jack21222

Ah, League of Legends. My little brother just got me into that game.

I guess the main counterargument to the OP is that the high ELO players are legitimately the best players, and the low ELO players are generally crap. I disagree that your performance in the game will get drowned out by the others in the long run. We've all had games where one guy on either team basically solos the entire game, and we've all had games where some horrible player on one of the team just feeds the opposing carries.

But, my main point is that players with high ELOs exist, and that is the biggest counterexample to your argument.

Thanks for the counterexample, and this brings up some subtle points I forgot to make originally.

First, most of the high rank players also tend to play with other high rank players, and play in organized teams rather than randomized teams. If not organized teams, they usually at least have a buddy they play with consistently. From my first post, I mention that the ranking system becomes more accurate as the makeup of the team remains unchanged rather than randomized. I highly doubt the "strongest" players can do much
when they are thrown back down to below the average rank and have their hands tied by 4 beginners.

Secondly, as the "randomness" tilts you in one direction or another, you start to notice a landslide effect. If I go on a bad streak, my rank takes a dive. If I get on a winning streak, I tend to stay up at that position until I get bad luck (horrible teammates) again.

Its because if you start to win a couple, the system starts to pair you with other people who have won recently, and then these winners help to pull you further away from the average. It has very little to do with your own actual skill ranking.

Jack21222

Quote by DragonPetter

Thanks for the counterexample, and this brings up some subtle points I forgot to make originally.

First, most of the high rank players also tend to play with other high rank players, and play in organized teams rather than randomized teams. If not organized teams, they usually at least have a buddy they play with consistently. From my first post, I mention that the ranking system becomes more accurate as the makeup of the team remains unchanged rather than randomized. I highly doubt the "strongest" players can do much
when they are thrown back down to below the average rank and have their hands tied by 4 beginners.

Secondly, as the "randomness" tilts you in one direction or another, you start to notice a landslide effect. If I go on a bad streak, my rank takes a dive. If I get on a winning streak, I tend to stay up at that position until I get bad luck (horrible teammates) again.

Its because if you start to win a couple, the system starts to pair you with other people who have won recently, and then these winners help to pull you further away from the average. It has very little to do with your own actual skill ranking.

First: In league of legends, organized teams are ranked separately from individuals in random teams, so this issue does not happen. It may be different in your game.

Second, the "landslide effect," happens in chess too. The higher ranked players you beat, the more points you get. The more points you get, the higher ranked players you play.

Third, one higher level can carry an entire game even with 4 weak teammates. Sometimes, higher level players will create new "summoner" profiles and play in the lower level games. When this happens, they usually dominate the game. It's abundantly clear who has level 30 alts and who is a legitimate level 10. In the low level queues, if you get a high level on your team, you're virtually guaranteed a win.

I don't know if you play league of legends, but watch some of the "top plays of the week" videos on youtube. As a fairly new player, I can look at those plays and tell that those players are very good. It is no accident that they have high ELOs.

DragonPetter

Quote by Jack21222

First: In league of legends, organized teams are ranked separately from individuals in random teams, so this issue does not happen. It may be different in your game.

Second, the "landslide effect," happens in chess too. The higher ranked players you beat, the more points you get. The more points you get, the higher ranked players you play.

Third, one higher level can carry an entire game even with 4 weak teammates. Sometimes, higher level players will create new "summoner" profiles and play in the lower level games. When this happens, they usually dominate the game. It's abundantly clear who has level 30 alts and who is a legitimate level 10. In the low level queues, if you get a high level on your team, you're virtually guaranteed a win.

I don't know if you play league of legends, but watch some of the "top plays of the week" videos on youtube. As a fairly new player, I can look at those plays and tell that those players are very good. It is no accident that they have high ELOs.

I must just say the common phrase "correlation does not imply causation". Just because good players also have high ELOs does not mean being a good player gives high ELO.

Jack21222

Quote by DragonPetter

I must just say the common phrase "correlation does not imply causation". Just because good players also have high ELOs does not mean being a good player gives high ELO.

It does when there's a specific mechanism that mathematically gives good players a high ELO.

DragonPetter

Quote by Jack21222

It does when there's a specific mechanism that mathematically gives good players a high ELO.

That is a possibility . . or you could be doing the mathematical equivalent of running in circles.

A good first step was if we had the formula they use before us. Then we could evaluate how closely tied the two are mathematically.

Jack21222

Quote by DragonPetter

That is a possibility . . or you could be doing the mathematical equivalent of running in circles.

A good first step was if we had the formula they use before us. Then we could evaluate how closely tied the two are mathematically.

They don't give the exact formula, but it's a modified version of the chess one.

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/learn/...ay/matchmaking gives some details.

If you want the math of the chess formula, which they modified, you can find that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rat...atical_details

JaWiB

Quote by fluidistic

In the game where I was teamed up with my clan mates rather than randomly, my elo was in the 1400-1500's. When the "season" was over, the team would be randomly created. My elo suddenly went up to high 1700's, my skills however remained the same. I'm not the only one to whom this happened, many people criticized the elo ranking system for that particular game due to this and totally unbalanced games where one could guess the outcome of the game from start even regardless of what the elo had to say. The same would apply even when the teams would be randomly balanced. In that particular game economy (think of a starcraft-like one's) is shared. If you have a noob in your team and he's wasting all the economy on useless stuff, even the best player can't do much to win the game.

I disagree with this. I would say your elo deserved to be in the 1400s-1500s because your team was presumably not as good as the teams you were randomly matched with.

Starcraft does this correctly IMO because you have a ranking for every team you play with, as well as a "Random Team" ranking. Sure, if you play by yourself you'll get crappy players but your ranking is accurate on average.

Halo Reach broke off from this type of ranking system from the previous games in the series, and it was part of the reason that I stopped playing. They had some sort of voodoo to figure out how well you as an individual did in a team game. Winning was no longer the objective in team games, because it was no guarantee that your rank would increase. To rank up, you basically needed a lot of kills, which took a lot of the strategy out of the game since everyone went into run and gun mode most of the time.

fluidistic

Quote by JaWiB

I disagree with this. I would say your elo deserved to be in the 1400s-1500s because your team was presumably not as good as the teams you were randomly matched with.

Point taken. I honestly do not know what would have been my approximate elo. But there's a reason: for that particular game, the elo system was so bad that intuition would work much better. I used to bet on the outcome from start, I once predicted the right outcome 11 games in a row, while the !predict command based on elo failed totally. That command's output was something like "team 1 has 65% chance to win vs team 2". While intuition could be "team 1 has 0% chance to win vs team 2".
I knew many players because I'd spectate games (you can put all your attention into a particular player and therefore learn from him). I knew for instance a guy rated 1500 that could kill about 4 people before dying but his clan/team was so bad that he'd still lose elo points compared to an "average player" in an opposite team despite being a really strong player. I could not beat that particular guy in 1 vs 1 even though my elo was in the 1700's, even if I had played 10 games in a row. I know this for sure. In 1 vs 1 we usually choose small maps and in that game this means that the commander (special unit which is customizable) has a very important role. That guy's commander was a beast and he knew very well how to manage it.

Another example that elo wasn't well applied for that game is that one would win/lose more elo points when there was less players per team. I've seen a 1300 elo teamed up with the strongest player -elo 2200- vs an average player of 1500. 2 vs 1. The noob (1300 elo) would give his commander to the pro player who would win at any time he wanted. The noob who almost didn't play got a boost in elo, the pro player too while the average guy that could be a good player all in all, gets a huge drop his elo points. After a few games like this you end up with a good player rated 1300, a bad player rated 1400 and a pro player rated 2300. That's just terrible.

Fredrik

[nitpick]
It's actually Elo, not ELO. It's a person's last name. The guy who invented the system was named Arpad Elo.
[/nitpick]

DragonPetter

Quote by Fredrik

[nitpick]
It's actually Elo, not ELO. It's a person's last name. The guy who invented the system was named Arpad Elo.
[/nitpick]

Oh sorry. I'm always thinking of the band when I read it.

Similar Threads for: ELO chess ranking system applied incorrectly in video games
Thread	Forum	Replies
Interactive Video Games?	General Discussion	6
Video Games?	General Discussion	26
Video Games	General Discussion	28
Why do we want to win video games?	General Discussion	12
pros of video games?	Social Sciences	21

DragonPetter	Glad people started using game names, I didn't want to appear as a nerd too badly. The game I'm referring to is HoN. I'm also glad to see people agreeing with me. But does anyone know how to do a mathematical analysis to prove its invalid?

Fredrik Mentor	[nitpick] It's actually Elo, not ELO. It's a person's last name. The guy who invented the system was named Arpad Elo. [/nitpick]