Let's talk about Tier ! Shall we ;)

[eduguy]

I think you just need to check the player's stats. Time played,frags/death, accuracy are in my opinion quite important.

[vurun]

IDK why you start with 1200 ELO. IMHO, it's much better to start with 0.

[Cat]

IDK why you start with 1200 ELO. IMHO, it's much better to start with 0.

From what I know, when a person beats another person he takes points from that person and adds them to his own point pool. If you started at 0 nobody would get anything for beating you.

[vurun]

Well, by my previous post I meant another counting system as well. IDK how to make it, however. But ELO in it's current state is not fully representative for sure.

[Dr_Mr_Ed]

I have never seen an 1100 player that "tends to play 1400+ players and lose a lot and yet destroys all "actual 1100 dueler". Their results against the 1400 players will be a fine indicator of their results against 1100 players.

I can supply a couple examples if necessary, but don't think it's right to call people out on the forums.

Viewing their QLRanks profile is very revealing... 1150 Elo with the list of top players beaten in the 1500-1600+ range, and 25% overall win rate. Any "actual" 1150 player might beat a 1500 rarely, but not 5 of them in the last 2 weeks. While they've stacked up losses against even 1800 players, dropping a couple points at a time.

I'm not saying this is a big huge problem or screwing the system, but there are corner cases like this around.

[Lorfa]

From what I know, when a person beats another person he takes points from that person and adds them to his own point pool. If you started at 0 nobody would get anything for beating you.

Yep.

The reason you start players at a value like 1200 (1500 is a common number) is that it offers a better granularity of ratings without having to use fractions of an elo.

If the elo had a lower bound of 1, and players started there you'd have a bunch of even very good players stuck down at <50 and you'd really have no idea how strong they were. A lot of games would award very small values like 1,2, or 0.

[quakestreme]

I can supply a couple examples if necessary, but don't think it's right to call people out on the forums.

Viewing their QLRanks profile is very revealing... 1150 Elo with the list of top players beaten in the 1500-1600+ range, and 25% overall win rate. Any "actual" 1150 player might beat a 1500 rarely, but not 5 of them in the last 2 weeks. While they've stacked up losses against even 1800 players, dropping a couple points at a time.

I'm not saying this is a big huge problem or screwing the system, but there are corner cases like this around.

If they're playing against someone 350-400 points ahead of them they will gain about 29 points when they win and lose 3 points when they lose so no they won't remain around 1150 for long if they have a 25% win rate against those players. Against 1800 players they will lose ZERO points from losing and gain 32 when they win.

[*Shahi]

Can I just ask, do the developers even take these threads/ideas, just curious It'd be nice to know if our (some very good) thoughts are being taken into account