ELO should be used solely to facilitate matchmaking within the tournament and not as means of ranking players participating in it. Allow me to demonstrate as to why...
![]()
Both 2-win streaks started at 0/1 ELO and yet the one who has a far worse W/L ratio is ahead? (I know that the rankings are tiered and that both players are gonna wind up in the same tier, this is just here to illustrate my point with regard to the fallibility of ELO in this context)
Another example...
- Player A who has 15 wins and 15 losses (assuming no streaks) is treated the same as Player B who has 0 wins and 30 losses.
- Player C gets the same amount of points whether he defeats Player A or Player B (because they're both ranked the same), even though player B is evidently a worse player :nonchalance:
... yet another example...
- Player A wins 10 matches in a row and then loses 10 in a row - ends up where he started (i.e. 0/1 rating)
- Player B loses 10 matches in a row and then wins 10 in a row - ends up at ~300 rating
Both players have the same W/L ratio and both win streaks started at 0/1 rating, yet player B is deemed "better". :nonchalance:
Keep the ELO as a way to ensure a passable matchmaking endeavor during the tournament and implement a different scoring system to rank the players. The current system kills the competitive drive as it encourages the players to stop participating once they nail a short win-streak. Award the players for wins (the higher the ELO rating of the opposing player, the more points are awarded), and use the losses as a means of tie-breaking (again, weighing the losses inversely to the opposing player's (whom one loses to) ELO rating (the higher the ELO, the less of an impact such a loss has)).
I ain't raging, I'm merely observing and making a suggestion. Is the ranking system being silly or am I the silly one? Thoughts?
Both 2-win streaks started at 0/1 ELO and yet the one who has a far worse W/L ratio is ahead? (I know that the rankings are tiered and that both players are gonna wind up in the same tier, this is just here to illustrate my point with regard to the fallibility of ELO in this context)
Another example...
- Player A who has 15 wins and 15 losses (assuming no streaks) is treated the same as Player B who has 0 wins and 30 losses.
- Player C gets the same amount of points whether he defeats Player A or Player B (because they're both ranked the same), even though player B is evidently a worse player :nonchalance:
... yet another example...
- Player A wins 10 matches in a row and then loses 10 in a row - ends up where he started (i.e. 0/1 rating)
- Player B loses 10 matches in a row and then wins 10 in a row - ends up at ~300 rating
Both players have the same W/L ratio and both win streaks started at 0/1 rating, yet player B is deemed "better". :nonchalance:
Keep the ELO as a way to ensure a passable matchmaking endeavor during the tournament and implement a different scoring system to rank the players. The current system kills the competitive drive as it encourages the players to stop participating once they nail a short win-streak. Award the players for wins (the higher the ELO rating of the opposing player, the more points are awarded), and use the losses as a means of tie-breaking (again, weighing the losses inversely to the opposing player's (whom one loses to) ELO rating (the higher the ELO, the less of an impact such a loss has)).
I ain't raging, I'm merely observing and making a suggestion. Is the ranking system being silly or am I the silly one? Thoughts?