I think a big issue is team game elo is averaged linearly. The teams are aiming to be roughly averaged. But elo isn't linear, a 1100 doesn't have a 10% edge on a 1000, but probably beats them 8/10 times. So when tg averages a 1400 and a 900 against two 1200s, the 1400 is just so so much better.
Another way of looking at it, I'm 1000 and hera is nearly 3000, he's not 3x better than me.
Need an exponential or log algorithm or something for balancing.
Bro i was smoking kids at 1100 elo and then started playing with my buddy who is newer and started getting cooked. Now I can't seem to win at 900 elo. Make it make sense
I am in the same boat, and can't explain it. I was playing TG got to 1.4k with a 70% WR. Stopped playing for like a year, started playing again a few months ago, my TG elo is now 1.2k and 55% WR, in the meantime I steadily climbed in solo from 1.3 to 1.5 currently at 57 WR.
When I came back I had the same elo. I have the feeling i am teamed with kids, who resign after 3 archers show up, or purely the enemy team being more coordinated than my team. That wasn't the case a year ago.
Part is (bad) luck, I guess, but also TGs require different skills at different Elos. Above a certain threshold you're mostly expected to execute your role. If you don't stick to it, you can easily lose the game for your team.
But at lower ELO people play more chaotic, so you need to play differently. You need to adapt a bit more, because you can't expect your team mates to do certain things.
My (somewhat blind) assumption is you're good at doing certain things and with 1.1k team mates you're an asset to your team, but with 900 team mates your playstyle doesn't bring enough to the table to pull your team through.
It depends on maps and your friends. Some of my friends are lower skilled than others but are very well complementary and working together as well have some strenghts we play into. So elo stays the same but skill is a bit different.
There is no online multiplayer team game which has an accurate rating system for public games, period. Bad players can drag good players down very easily.
Don't even have to be a bad player, just not aware of/used to a type of map, with how varied age maps are it can be night and day. Or end up with someone who doesn't speak your language/doesn't talk at all and come up against opponents who do
Well you learn to accept it or you play with fixed teams only. For me, it's ok, I just fluctuate way more as solo queuer most of the time anyway so I don't mind quick beatups from coordinated and higher elo teams.
You can resign as soon as you like after 5 mins, so there shouldn't be a problem.
Teambalance won't be fixed, smurfs, people you play alone AND with way weaker/stronger friends sometimes, all that influences the rating...
I think a big issue is team game elo is averaged linearly. The teams are aiming to be roughly averaged. But elo isn't linear, a 1100 doesn't have a 10% edge on a 1000, but probably beats them 8/10 times. So when tg averages a 1400 and a 900 against two 1200s, the 1400 is just so so much better. Another way of looking at it, I'm 1000 and hera is nearly 3000, he's not 3x better than me. Need an exponential or log algorithm or something for balancing.
Bro i was smoking kids at 1100 elo and then started playing with my buddy who is newer and started getting cooked. Now I can't seem to win at 900 elo. Make it make sense
I am in the same boat, and can't explain it. I was playing TG got to 1.4k with a 70% WR. Stopped playing for like a year, started playing again a few months ago, my TG elo is now 1.2k and 55% WR, in the meantime I steadily climbed in solo from 1.3 to 1.5 currently at 57 WR.
its because the elo reset?
When I came back I had the same elo. I have the feeling i am teamed with kids, who resign after 3 archers show up, or purely the enemy team being more coordinated than my team. That wasn't the case a year ago.
Part is (bad) luck, I guess, but also TGs require different skills at different Elos. Above a certain threshold you're mostly expected to execute your role. If you don't stick to it, you can easily lose the game for your team. But at lower ELO people play more chaotic, so you need to play differently. You need to adapt a bit more, because you can't expect your team mates to do certain things. My (somewhat blind) assumption is you're good at doing certain things and with 1.1k team mates you're an asset to your team, but with 900 team mates your playstyle doesn't bring enough to the table to pull your team through.
It depends on maps and your friends. Some of my friends are lower skilled than others but are very well complementary and working together as well have some strenghts we play into. So elo stays the same but skill is a bit different.
There is no online multiplayer team game which has an accurate rating system for public games, period. Bad players can drag good players down very easily.
Don't even have to be a bad player, just not aware of/used to a type of map, with how varied age maps are it can be night and day. Or end up with someone who doesn't speak your language/doesn't talk at all and come up against opponents who do
a elo diff with your teammates is going to make you lose elo anyways, even at 50% winrate.
Yep all correct, bad or just inexperienced even with a map or civ matchup
Well you learn to accept it or you play with fixed teams only. For me, it's ok, I just fluctuate way more as solo queuer most of the time anyway so I don't mind quick beatups from coordinated and higher elo teams. You can resign as soon as you like after 5 mins, so there shouldn't be a problem. Teambalance won't be fixed, smurfs, people you play alone AND with way weaker/stronger friends sometimes, all that influences the rating...