and let’s say the current world champion has a 2800 rating, but the champion from ten years ago has a 2900 rating. If they guy from ten years ago faced off against the reigning champ, he’d surely loose. Eventhough he has a higher rating.
it’s fine if the calculations are still done with these static scores (i guess) but the real question is why is the guy from 10 years ago not still listed at the top?
ladders make it easy to find out who is the most likely to win, but when you add time to the equation… I don’t understand how that works.
Thanks.
Here’s something I found on the wiki
In some cases the rating system can discourage game activity for players who wish to protect their rating.[[24]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#cite_note-25) In order to discourage players from sitting on a high rating, a 2012 proposal by British Grandmaster [John Nunn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nunn) for choosing qualifiers to the chess world championship included an activity bonus, to be combined with the rating.[[25]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#cite_note-26)
Beyond the chess world, concerns over players avoiding competitive play to protect their ratings caused [Wizards of the Coast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizards_of_the_Coast) to abandon the Elo system for [Magic: the Gathering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_the_Gathering) tournaments in favour of a system of their own devising called “Planeswalker Points”
I think the first step to understanding an elo system for team games is to start off by learning elo systems for non-team games. I think your observation holds little weight.
No, the first step to understanding the Elo system is to understand that the Elo system (and the Glicko system derived from it) are designed for 1v1 games like chess, and they don’t work for team-based multiplayer games like Overwatch, even less so for asymmetric team-based games (again, like Overwatch). This is why systems such as Microsoft’s Trueskill system (whitepaper here: _https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/uploads/prod/2018/03/trueskill2.pdf) were developed; to handle the inherent complexities of asymmetric, team-based, multiplayer games.
If you can’t even respect your audience enough to get the basics straight before you start a conversation on it, why would anyone expect to be able to hold an intelligent conversation with you on the topic?
You seem very interested in matchmaking systems - if you truly want to become more knowledgeable on the subject, then you need to study the field of game theory. When you understand that, then you are ready to start making suggestions about existing matchmaking systems, holding intelligent conversation about them, and even making your own.
Until then, I suggest that you’ll have more luck climbing if you focus on improving yourself. It’s tried and true.
well I’m certainly not going to go to college to get this question answered. I’d prefer it to be unanswered than go to college just for that reason.
I mean, it’s important enough for me to make a forum post, but not important enough for me to go to college. I think that checks out and is a rational statement.