Hi my name is Prometheus and I have a suggestion.

"Having a high elo is almost meaningless because it is simply to general" -Prometheus 2016, and others probably.

Regarding competitive play, and duels in particular, I think the elo rating is a good but imperfect way of rating players ability. A simple addition would in my opinion, go a long way in improving it and making for a more fun, and diverse competitive scene that more accurately reflects a players ability.

The addition would be this. Simply, add elo ratings based on the type of game played. So instead of having a general elo score under your username (this can be kept and will just be your average elo score of all types of games) have an elo score for each type of game played. For example, you will have a different elo score for 10k EU+ than you would for 3k EU+.

This will mean that every player who chooses to duel will have an accurate elo rating for the games they play. Because right now lets be honest, elo is just far, far to general. A player can in theory "duel" another player anywhere from a 50k world FFA game, to a 1v1 on Dreamworld, and everything in-between. This will also make many more trophies available as there could be a trophy for "best ancient player of season" "best NA 10k player" etc. Leaderboards would be fun to check, and you would encourage people to play all kinds of maps to find and compete in their "niche" while accurately reflecting where they play. Also players would be more willing to duel on maps they are not as familiar with as it would not hurt their elo rating on their other maps.

Of course this will take some work to implement, and decide what the different categories should be. Such as I think 3k and 5k games should be lumped together, different maps, and even different time stamps could form categories. However, with a little input from the community I think we could come up with some really cool categories for duels with individual elo ratings for each.

I think the work required by the Devs to implement this would be relatively small compared to how much a further break down of elo would add to the game.

If anyone here plays on any chess web sites, such as "Chess.com". This is exactly the kind of system they have in place, you have a different elo rating for different kinds of games because they understand skills in a 1 minute chess match do not equate to skills in a 10 minute chess match. The same is true for Atwar and I would love to see this idea gain traction to hopefully be changed for something as early as next season.

Please let me know what you think, and if you like this idea lets try and get it noticed so that Ivan and Amok will consider it.

I believe the admins are currently working on a new and improved elo/clan war system. I am not 100%, but there does definitely need to be changes to the system.

Nice idea but not practical to implement and most good ideas get ignored anyway

Why?

I mean, this game has still so many bugs, stupid failures that should be fixed, units not taking cities while 3/4 units are left outside the 0 city, units not attacking walls, walls not properly walling etc. etc.

This game has so many things that has to be fixed yet or atleast get better, yet things like this or boosting strategies that didnt need boost at all but because they were played ''less'' they need to be boosted/nerfed and become freaking overpowered to yet see 3 or 4 months later the same persons with the same threads saying the strategy is way to overpowered and the other strategies should be boosted to get on the level of that strategy etc etc.

What I wonder is, how a game like this went from when it started in 2010 where everything was new and probably sucked, a game that had less complains and changes, while it just started, to a game like this where people feel the need to have to change fking everything every week in this game acting like it helps the community. Which it doesn't.

Написано Waffel, 29.01.2016 at 16:12

Why?

I mean, this game has still so many bugs, stupid failures that should be fixed, units not taking cities while 3/4 units are left outside the 0 city, units not attacking walls, walls not properly walling etc. etc.

This game has so many things that has to be fixed yet or atleast get better, yet things like this or boosting strategies that didnt need boost at all but because they were played ''less'' they need to be boosted/nerfed and become freaking overpowered to yet see 3 or 4 months later the same persons with the same threads saying the strategy is way to overpowered and the other strategies should be boosted to get on the level of that strategy etc etc.

What I wonder is, how a game like this went from when it started in 2010 where everything was new and probably sucked, a game that had less complains and changes, while it just started, to a game like this where people feel the need to have to change fking everything every week in this game acting like it helps the community. Which it doesn't.

ikr its like theres all these bugs and nobody cares and if you complain its like "stop cry" but then most people dont realise the difference between a bug and a game mechanic and its like wtf whats wrong with them and i said it to khal and he was like oh my gawd and i was like OH MY GAWD and they just dont know anything about anything and another thing like the strats wtf why they changing them EVERYBODY knows they were perfect back in 2010 omg the game shouldve just stayed that way forever we were all like best friends and koombya overcampfires and it was like so cool and perfect and i had like the best time and the gameplay was perfect and tbs and it was so totes amazing.





Seriously though, yea this is a nice suggestion but id have the same concerns as the person who made the point about the practicality of it all. Such leaderboards would result in too many trophies being handed out. Also players would have to decide if a setting on a certain map is competitive or not. For now i'm just curious to see what amok//ivan come up with in regards a tournament system.

Good suggestion but with the current list of things that needs to be done it seems like a longshot. However, there's a simpler derivative of your idea:
There are map categories such as ancient, fantasy, etc. Add default/competitive to that category, and then have player elo for each. If someone duels on ancient it doesn't get added to their default elo score. Maybe add Destoria and Dreamworld etc to default/competitive, but differentiate the maps enough so you don't have someone on the top 10 elo list who hasn't ever dueled the other 9 on that list. Ofc there wouldn't be elo ratings for all of the categories, maybe just default/competitive, ancient, medieval, naval (dunno if that's a category but it should be), etc.

Написано Permamuted, 30.01.2016 at 23:32

Написано Waffel, 29.01.2016 at 16:12

ikr its like theres all these bugs and nobody cares and if you complain its like "stop cry" but then most people dont realise the difference between a bug and a game mechanic and its like wtf whats wrong with them and i said it to khal and he was like oh my gawd and i was like OH MY GAWD and they just dont know anything about anything and another thing like the strats wtf why they changing them EVERYBODY knows they were perfect back in 2010 omg the game shouldve just stayed that way forever we were all like best friends and koombya overcampfires and it was like so cool and perfect and i had like the best time and the gameplay was perfect and tbs and it was so totes amazing.

best lao comment 2014

I like the idea different settings different skills... However my main concern is about how many games need to be played for the elo system to work k correctly. Typically u can very easily reach 1200 elo seasonal fighting only 1000 elo people, so imo elo starts to make sense when all good players reach a point where fighting a 1000 elo guy isn't worth it anymore (typically @1250 I would venture) that is where having multiple elos seasonal is a problem, only extremely active players will have meaningfully elo figures in more than one setting. Today I see only a handful (5-6)of people active enough for this ... So if we had 300 people in lobby at peak hour yeah great idea, today it just won't work imo