Thoughts on an ELO system for AC:R

[crazygambit]

I just posted this in the update thread, but I feel it's better for discussion if it has its own thread.

I don't think adding ELO to a CCG should be that simple.

I've mentioned this before in the SE forums, but I think it bears repeating:

ELO works in chess because the game is always the same. You always start with the same pieces, placed in the same starting positions. Therefore the only variable is your playing strenght at the game. However note that in most chess servers you have different ELOs for different game speeds (lightning, blitz and standard), because the skills required for those time controls are different.

I feel having one ELO in a CCG is a mistake because, unlike chess, your playing strenght greatly depends on the deck you're using. So your ELO could be 2000 with a Lanz deck, but only 1800 with a regular site deck and then only 1500 with the starter deck.

That has to be taken seriously. If you have a high ELO rating and want to experiment with a new deck, you're pretty much screwed. While it's being tweaked (even if the concept is strong), your ELO will be lower than it previously was. You'll lose a lot against other strong players with their already optimized decks. When you finally get you deck ready, you'll have a lot of ground to make up, even though your playing strenght hasn't decreased (which would be the only reason your ELO significantly drops in chess).

While I fully agree a match making system is sorely needed, I don't know that ELO is the best choice for this type of game. Also I have no better alternative to propose, I'm just saying it requires a little more thought than to just tack an ELO rating to each account. Hopefully Ubi will take the time to do it right.

[Ringel]

I agree. The system for Shadow Era causes no end of headaches. As it stands I am happy facing even the toughest decks with my carpool.

I think there should be an area for beginning players, though. A kiddie pool where new players won't get smooshed and discouraged right out of the gate.

I also would like to see alternative deck type challenge rooms too. Templar only, common only, Assassin only, "highlander", 200 card minimum, etc.

[Tuism]

I think a room approach where high level players can't enter the noob pool would be great. Othwise there's a free roam area where anyone of any level/rank can compete, then there's a ladder-esque room where games count for a ranking score. Not the elo- that's determined by your regular play pattern, but a proper rank system.

So there's space safe for beginners, space for ppl who're hardcoring, and space for experimentation and screwing about.

Setting an appropriate threshold for beginners will prove to be a challenge. However yes there should also be an area for hardcore non-paying players... Maybe the Templar only room will do that. But I almost don't want to have that at the risk of losing players for the "real game"... Which is the entire spectrum of cards, because they'll stay in Templar only forever.

[crazygambit]

Jan 25, 2012 14:07:19 GMT -5 xatria said:

That should be easy to solve then.. you can specify ranked and non-ranked games. You play non-ranked games when you're just testing and refining new decks. Once it's good enough, you play it in ranked games which effect your ELO ratings. Simple.

Not really. You'd expect to find the more serious players (and decks) in ranked play. Non ranked by default is more casual and thus not as good for testing and tweaking decks.

However that still doesn't address the issue of different ELOs with different decks (even if they are all somewhat competitive). Plus unlike chess here you can meet a weaker player with a deck that has an advantage against what you're playing. In which case that would be a better predictor of the outcome that each player's ELO rating (which is actually the point of ELO in the first place).

[Ringel]

Jan 25, 2012 12:11:42 GMT -5 Tuism said:

Setting an appropriate threshold for beginners will prove to be a challenge. However yes there should also be an area for hardcore non-paying players... Maybe the Templar only room will do that. But I almost don't want to have that at the risk of losing players for the "real game"... Which is the entire spectrum of cards, because they'll stay in Templar only forever.

As a hard core nonpaying player, I have absolutely no problem playing paying players. I love the challenge.

Having many different rooms does require a solid player base, though. Except the noob room, which I hope they put into place as soon as possible.

I'd make the beginner room accessible by player level. You can only play there if you are less than 10th level (but you can play anywhere if you are less than 10th level, if you want to give it a try.)

-- 10th level being arbitrary for this example. Whatever level the devs. think is right.

[Raphael Majere]

Good points all around. My take is that it would be almost impossible to have a system that everyone will think is fair. Someone's bound to be unhappy as 1 aspect or 2. That said, i like the room ideas a lot. Esp for the noobs. I sometimes feel sorry for those players i win easily who's playing First Sequence.