ELO Differences in Ranked

[NikemanBOOM]

Yeah, you know. I'd rather not get paired with people who have over 300 ELO difference between my ELO and their's. Seems sort of unfair for the lower tier person. Of course, ELO does not necessarily display skill level, but people in diamond got there for a reason, and I'm not at that level yet. Don't get me wrong I enjoy a challenge and fighting those better than me is always a helpful experience, but 5 continuous losses to 2050+ people? Yeah...no. What is your guys' opinions on this?

[GregHouse!]

Originally posted by None Can Escape My Fury:

Yeah, you know. I'd rather not get paired with people who have over 300 ELO difference between my ELO and their's. Seems sort of unfair for the lower tier person.

I don't think is unfair for me considering that I only lose 3-4 elo and win close to 30 if I beat them. It usually ends up being a lot closer than it should and I like "catching those whales". Not only that, but they will lose nearly 30 elo too, a devastating blow

Then again I'm completely different than everyone here in my opinions most of the time, and I definitely never played 5 guys with 300 elo difference in a row. That would be frustrating even for me that I'm always looking and good side of everything. For me it's more like one every now and then. You must play on the australian server at 4 am or something...

[RocketMan]

Originally posted by GregHouse007:

Originally posted by None Can Escape My Fury:

Yeah, you know. I'd rather not get paired with people who have over 300 ELO difference between my ELO and their's. Seems sort of unfair for the lower tier person.

I don't think is unfair for me considering that I only lose 3-4 elo and win close to 30 if I beat them. It usually ends up being a lot closer than it should and I like "catching those whales". Not only that, but they will lose nearly 30 elo too, a devastating blow

Then again I'm completely different than everyone here in my opinions most of the time, and I definitely never played 5 guys with 300 elo difference in a row. That would be frustrating even for me that I'm always looking and good side of everything. For me it's more like one every now and then. You must play on the australian server at 4 am or something...

Part of the reason it's unfair is that they can gain elo from beating you. Even if it's a small amount.

Another reason it's unfair is that they can lose a lot of elo from losing to you. A bad connection, or something similiar. You stand to gain a ton of elo without really earning that much.

[GregHouse!]

Originally posted by Mail me to the moon:

Originally posted by GregHouse007:

I don't think is unfair for me considering that I only lose 3-4 elo and win close to 30 if I beat them. It usually ends up being a lot closer than it should and I like "catching those whales". Not only that, but they will lose nearly 30 elo too, a devastating blow

Then again I'm completely different than everyone here in my opinions most of the time, and I definitely never played 5 guys with 300 elo difference in a row. That would be frustrating even for me that I'm always looking and good side of everything. For me it's more like one every now and then. You must play on the australian server at 4 am or something...

Part of the reason it's unfair is that they can gain elo from beating you. Even if it's a small amount.

Another reason it's unfair is that they can lose a lot of elo from losing to you. A bad connection, or something similiar. You stand to gain a ton of elo without really earning that much.

That was make it fair, dude. They win little because they are the favourites to win, is like betting odds. Like I said, the matches are close sometimes and others I win, they shouldn't be getting "no elo" with those possibilities on those matches. THAT would be unfair. And they lose a lot for the same reason. Same thing with the underdog.

The whole winning and losing because of a connection can happen to any match, it's unfair but not really the point of the thread.

[RocketMan]

Originally posted by GregHouse007:

Originally posted by Mail me to the moon:

Part of the reason it's unfair is that they can gain elo from beating you. Even if it's a small amount.

Another reason it's unfair is that they can lose a lot of elo from losing to you. A bad connection, or something similiar. You stand to gain a ton of elo without really earning that much.

That was make it fair, dude. They win little because they are the favourites to win, is like betting odds. Like I said, the matches are close sometimes and others I win, they shouldn't be getting "no elo" with those possibilities on those matches. THAT would be unfair. And they lose a lot for the same reason. Same thing with the underdog.

The whole winning and losing because of a connection can happen to any match, it's unfair but not really the point of the thread.

A diamond facing someone in silver, should be receiving 0 elo for winning that match period.
Someone in silver, beating someone in diamond, should receive 0 elo for that match as well.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Not the lost elo, but simply because it throws people into a ranking they don't deserve.

They shouldn't even be facing people outside of their rank in the first place. It bloats the system.

[GregHouse!]

Originally posted by Mail me to the moon:

Originally posted by GregHouse007:

That was make it fair, dude. They win little because they are the favourites to win, is like betting odds. Like I said, the matches are close sometimes and others I win, they shouldn't be getting "no elo" with those possibilities on those matches. THAT would be unfair. And they lose a lot for the same reason. Same thing with the underdog.

The whole winning and losing because of a connection can happen to any match, it's unfair but not really the point of the thread.

A diamond facing someone in silver, should be receiving 0 elo for winning that match period.
Someone in silver, beating someone in diamond, should receive 0 elo for that match as well.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Not the lost elo, but simply because it throws people into a ranking they don't deserve.

They shouldn't even be facing people outside of their rank in the first place. It bloats the system.

Don't worry, nobody in this game with +2000 has ever faced someone below 1380 on ranked. We were talking about 300 elo, not 700. That's not only is unfair but is unheard of. Even the people that complains about matchmaking never say that.

With 300 elo, there is a difference in skill, but not too high. It is possible to outplay the better player and win. And people should be rewarded for that and also, if they are beating that guy, then maybe they deserve to be higher on ranked so there goes that "throwing people into a ranking they don't deserve" that you also said.

[RocketMan]

Originally posted by GregHouse007:

Originally posted by Mail me to the moon:

A diamond facing someone in silver, should be receiving 0 elo for winning that match period.
Someone in silver, beating someone in diamond, should receive 0 elo for that match as well.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Not the lost elo, but simply because it throws people into a ranking they don't deserve.

They shouldn't even be facing people outside of their rank in the first place. It bloats the system.

Don't worry, nobody in this game with +2000 has ever faced someone below 1380 on ranked. We were talking about 300 elo, not 700. That's not only is unfair but is unheard of. Even the people that complains about matchmaking never say that.

With 300 elo, there is a difference in skill, but not too high. It is possible to outplay the better player and win. And people should be rewarded for that and also, if they are beating that guy, then maybe they deserve to be higher on ranked so there goes that "throwing people into a ranking they don't deserve" that you also said.

I kinda used that as an extreme example, Personally I faced someone 400 elo above me before.

That's enough to get someone to diamond, purely off facing plat spammers.