Kirjutas Yacer, 15.11.2022 at 05:36
Include multiple factors to calculate the duel seasonal ELO. 4 factors:
1. Seasonal ELO
2. Total ELO
3. Rank
4. SP collected at that ELO
In this case, Yacer proposed 4 factors, and then suggested weighting them as follows:
Duel Seasonal ELO 60%
Total ELO 20%
Rank 10%
SP Collected 10%
Rank and SP are fairly low percentages, so from my perspective, Yacer sees that these shouldn't be weighted much. I do agree with Lev though.. Rank doesn't seem like a factor that would balance things overall.
I read Yacer's example, but it's based on the notion that a higher rank is more skilled than a lower rank. This simply isn't my experience. Rank does not equate with skill. There 'might' be a slight advantage if an unskilled low rank lacks upgrades to compete, but i can't imagine there are more than a handful of these players dueling. In the big picture, i think factoring rank into the calculation would simply give an unwarranted advantage based on rank. You'd balance the specific example given (yes in a world of clones, higher ranks would be expected to be more difficult, so then it would make more sense) but i think it would create a greater imbalance overall, by giving an advantage based solely on rank.
If i'm missing something Yacer, you're going to have to give me more detail or another example as to why it's a necessary factor.
The SP collected example shows a more interesting dynamic. Clearly more skill is involved in longer games in which both players have an opportunity to apply some actual strategy. One of the things i definitely dislike since the competitive community steamrolled over the +1 inf city bonus is that rushing a cap leads to a play style that doesn't involve a ton of skill, and makes for exceptionally quick games that involve no thought or complex strategy.
However i think Lev pointed out the problem with using SP. It would lead to players only using high income maps, with high starting funds, further reducing the diversity of strategy and play styles.
But i can see the point... perhaps factoring in things like {total cities captured} x {number of turns} would solve the problem. (So a longer, balanced game, in which players captured, lost and recaptured cities would be weighted more than a simple cap rush that ends after 4 turns.) This wouldn't give low income maps a disadvantage.