Base PvP points off of an ELO ranking of characters

judge judy

So many issues with the current PvP point system, including, but not limited to...

Massive usability/popularity difference among characters Late starters get more points per match than early starters MMR is odd, limiting the teams you see

My suggestion would be to have an ELO ranking of characters/teams, so that people win/lose points based on the winning percentage (basically) of the teams used. For example, OML will win fewer points in a win than Star-Lord. Similarly, OML will lose more points on a loss than Star-Lord.

Advantages:

Encourages a wide variety of teams Removes the need for MMR Characters should self-balance on meta-game, removing need to nerf

Disadvantage:

Play more, score more.

May have to have some % of points based on current score/ranking - otherwise somebody running champed 5* could go all day. However, points won (and lost by opponents) would be minimal.

Quebbster

What would you base the Elo ranking on? How often the characters are used? I could easily see a constantly fluctuating system like that get confusing for new and old players alike.
(By the way, that's the proper way to write it - Elo was the last name of the inventor, it's not an acronym).

simonsez

judge judy wrote:

My suggestion would be to have an ELO ranking of characters/teams, so that people win/lose points based on the winning percentage (basically) of the teams used.

Is there really that much separation? I'd be willing to bet everything from IM35 to OML has a win% of over 90%.

mpqr7

Sorry, what's Elo mean exactly? I looked up MMR successfully but couldn't find Elo with a google search.

It would be more fun to have variety with users, but I'd like to be sure that using a fun team won't get me completely demolished in pvp.

Quebbster

mpqr7 wrote:

Sorry, what's Elo mean exactly? I looked up MMR successfully but couldn't find Elo with a google search.

It would be more fun to have variety with users, but I'd like to be sure that using a fun team won't get me completely demolished in pvp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
The current scoring system is Elo-based, but it is based on the players while the OP wants to change it to the teams used.

FaustianDeal

Trying to Elo-rate the characters in the game is an interesting notion, but it seems too hard to create an appropriate valuation. There is an intent to make all the characters semi-balanced (within a tolerance) and to allow characters to have opportunities to shine during buff weeks. I don't know that this is something that could be effectively maintained.

I don't know that its strictly fairto say you want to rate players based solely on the characters they use anyway. Why does someone running a 3/2/2 OML leveled to 350 deserve a penalty in this system? Or someone running a 1/2/0 OML leveled to 300? Hardly seems deserving of a penalty. It seems more likely that your intent is to say someone running a 5/5/3 OML leveled to 510 doesn't deserve to win 50 points if they beat you.

But here's the sad truth -- if you had 200 points more than the person who beat you (in terms of event score) then they get 50 points. That is actually how Elo-rating is meant to work. Because you had 200 points more you are rated higher.

This also attaches a potential penalty to a player's scoring potential applied due to reasons beyond their control. I don't run OML because he is the strongest character in the game; he isn't. I run OML because RNG has seen fit to drop 20 OML covers in my lap; almost double the number of covers for my next best 5* - which is still not champed. RNGesus decided to push OML onto me, and MMR is set up in such a way that I now have no choice but to use him. So because of this random outcome I now deserve to be *awarded fewer points for victory* and also *lose more points in defeat*?!?! Pass.

Seems like there is a different issue you have and you are trying to obfuscate your real goal with this suggestion.