Sign up
Store
Players Online: 57.1k Support Forums Client
Subscribe
MMR vs ELO - Whats better?

KEERQQ wrote

Bluiishh wrote...




Did u wrote a MMR vs ELO, Elo is rn on badlion, and I see u want MMR back, so I TYPED -1 U STUPID?



Write*


I asked to vote. I didnt ask for your opninion about MMR being back or something. I LITTERALY SAID IT IN THE TREAD. There is no need to -1 my every post
 0
PM Link

Bluiishh wrote

KEERQQ wrote...




Write*


I asked to vote. I didnt ask for your opninion about MMR being back or something. I LITTERALY SAID IT IN THE TREAD. There is no need to -1 my every post



Ali druze kako ne kontas da me boli kurac ko je napisao nego kako je napisao.
 0
PM Link

KEERQQ wrote

Bluiishh wrote...




Ali druze kako ne kontas da me boli kurac ko je napisao nego kako je napisao.


Pito sam sa vote-ate za MMR i Elo a ti vidio ja napiso pa ajde auto -1
 0
PM Link

Bluiishh wrote

KEERQQ wrote...



Pito sam sa vote-ate za MMR i Elo a ti vidio ja napiso pa ajde auto -1


Ne bgm ti si glup nmg se raspravljat vise
 0
PM Link

KEERQQ wrote

Bluiishh wrote...



Ne bgm ti si glup nmg se raspravljat vise


Cuti kero psujes mrtve zbog mca i jos mislis da si u pravu A OCITO nisi lmfao
 0
PM Link
MMR was the superior system its just the community wanted elo. Funny thing is that most likely 20% of the people who voted for elo in s14 now dont even play minecraft. I myself want MMR and know a lot of people who do to.
 0
PM Link
Okay, this is like my third time writing out something along these lines but fuck it.

MMR versus Elo - From a technical standpoint
Doesn't. Fucking. Matter.
They worked to the same effect. The MMR system that was implemented was made so it was as similar as possible to elo. Real MMR was S13. We all know how that went. Downhill. Fast. People don't want MMR. They want the elo esque version of MMR.

So what?

Let me explain the theory of elo; elo is built on the foundation of consistency. MMR is built on the foundation that if you're better than someone, you should pretty much always win. One of the big reasons Badlion ever switched to MMR was because of the issue with consistency. When it's built around consistency, it means that someone like Danteh who was arguably the best player on the server would still lose every now and then. Uh, okay, but what does this have to do with anything? It means that for Danteh to gain elo, he had to win 31 out of 32 times because otherwise he'd lose 31 from a single loss. Oh, the horrors. But not. This is fair. For Danteh, the top player, to continue to climb, he should not be allowed to lose. Period. The idea is is that if you're 640-720 elo above someone, you should beat them 31 out of 32 times. If you win more than that, you will gain elo. If you win less than that, you will lose elo. The main issue with elo is the fact that for it to be accurate, it requires infinite matches to be played between all players in the pool for it to be truly accurate. This means that it's very difficult for it to be correct when you have to play 31 or 32 times consecutively just to avoid netting a loss.

So why is MMR any different? Isn't it meant to be as close to elo as possible in the way Badlion implemented it? Yes and no. MMR doesn't work on the same idea. The thing about MMR and what makes it so damn good for so many other competitive games is a large player base. It means that for it to be effective, it needs to have a huge amount of players so that matches are fair, almost 50/50. If someone plays against someone 20 times and wins 11 or 12 times, then that person will gain a little bit of MMR and the other person will lose a little MMR. That's because that win loss ratio means that either the person who won 12 times is above that rank or that the one who lost 12 times is below that rank. So okay, that seems entirely tangential. So what? MMR isn't designed for large discrepancies in rank. This can be seen when you see masters or high diamond players matching up against silvers and naturally beating their asses and still getting 14 MMR. Sure, it's not much, but when you're playing someone who you should never lose to in a thousand years, 14 MMR is way more than is merited. For MMR to be properly implemented, you need to have even, fair matches. And as Badlion doesn't have an enormous playerbase, this can really never be achieved unless Badlion has massive growth.

So if you read all that, you might be thinking; Metarus, what in the actual fuck are you saying? I'm saying that Elo is superior for Badlion's uses. The fact that it was possible for top players to grind against silvers and golds in order to continue climbing was utter bullshit and is not how MMR should ever be calibrated, and since MMR is literally called Match Making Ranking, it needs good match making and good match making needs a larger playerbase. So yes, I think elo is better.

Now to my final point; it still doesn't fucking matter. They work the same way. On a margin, I'd argue elo is more effective, but the only thing that constantly changing back and forth will do is further divide the community and that's the last thing Badlion needs right now. Every time we switch from MMR to Elo, someone will start saying that it was the wrong decision, and those who want change are more vocal about it. I am willing to bet money that if we made the switch back to MMR, there would be a huge influx of complaints saying that they wanted Elo back.
 1
PM Link

ApplePanda642 wrote

MMR was the superior system its just the community wanted elo. Funny thing is that most likely 20% of the people who voted for elo in s14 now dont even play minecraft. I myself want MMR and know a lot of people who do to.


Yeah youre right
 0
PM Link
I voted for MMR although I like ELO just because I wasn't around whem MMR was still a thing and I would like to try it!

Anyway, I want the old global system back so bad!

 0
PM Link

Baelish wrote

I voted for MMR although I like ELO just because I wasn't around whem MMR was still a thing and I would like to try it!

Anyway, I want the old global system back so bad!



Same
 0
PM Link

Metarus wrote

Okay, this is like my third time writing out something along these lines but fuck it.

MMR versus Elo - From a technical standpoint
Doesn't. Fucking. Matter.
They worked to the same effect. The MMR system that was implemented was made so it was as similar as possible to elo. Real MMR was S13. We all know how that went. Downhill. Fast. People don't want MMR. They want the elo esque version of MMR.

So what?

Let me explain the theory of elo; elo is built on the foundation of consistency. MMR is built on the foundation that if you're better than someone, you should pretty much always win. One of the big reasons Badlion ever switched to MMR was because of the issue with consistency. When it's built around consistency, it means that someone like Danteh who was arguably the best player on the server would still lose every now and then. Uh, okay, but what does this have to do with anything? It means that for Danteh to gain elo, he had to win 31 out of 32 times because otherwise he'd lose 31 from a single loss. Oh, the horrors. But not. This is fair. For Danteh, the top player, to continue to climb, he should not be allowed to lose. Period. The idea is is that if you're 640-720 elo above someone, you should beat them 31 out of 32 times. If you win more than that, you will gain elo. If you win less than that, you will lose elo. The main issue with elo is the fact that for it to be accurate, it requires infinite matches to be played between all players in the pool for it to be truly accurate. This means that it's very difficult for it to be correct when you have to play 31 or 32 times consecutively just to avoid netting a loss.

So why is MMR any different? Isn't it meant to be as close to elo as possible in the way Badlion implemented it? Yes and no. MMR doesn't work on the same idea. The thing about MMR and what makes it so damn good for so many other competitive games is a large player base. It means that for it to be effective, it needs to have a huge amount of players so that matches are fair, almost 50/50. If someone plays against someone 20 times and wins 11 or 12 times, then that person will gain a little bit of MMR and the other person will lose a little MMR. That's because that win loss ratio means that either the person who won 12 times is above that rank or that the one who lost 12 times is below that rank. So okay, that seems entirely tangential. So what? MMR isn't designed for large discrepancies in rank. This can be seen when you see masters or high diamond players matching up against silvers and naturally beating their asses and still getting 14 MMR. Sure, it's not much, but when you're playing someone who you should never lose to in a thousand years, 14 MMR is way more than is merited. For MMR to be properly implemented, you need to have even, fair matches. And as Badlion doesn't have an enormous playerbase, this can really never be achieved unless Badlion has massive growth.

So if you read all that, you might be thinking; Metarus, what in the actual fuck are you saying? I'm saying that Elo is superior for Badlion's uses. The fact that it was possible for top players to grind against silvers and golds in order to continue climbing was utter bullshit and is not how MMR should ever be calibrated, and since MMR is literally called Match Making Ranking, it needs good match making and good match making needs a larger playerbase. So yes, I think elo is better.

Now to my final point; it still doesn't fucking matter. They work the same way. On a margin, I'd argue elo is more effective, but the only thing that constantly changing back and forth will do is further divide the community and that's the last thing Badlion needs right now. Every time we switch from MMR to Elo, someone will start saying that it was the wrong decision, and those who want change are more vocal about it. I am willing to bet money that if we made the switch back to MMR, there would be a huge influx of complaints saying that they wanted Elo back.
^

i wish i could type fast and use capitals xd
 0
PM Link

Metarus wrote

Okay, this is like my third time writing out something along these lines but fuck it.

MMR versus Elo - From a technical standpoint
Doesn't. Fucking. Matter.
They worked to the same effect. The MMR system that was implemented was made so it was as similar as possible to elo. Real MMR was S13. We all know how that went. Downhill. Fast. People don't want MMR. They want the elo esque version of MMR.

So what?

Let me explain the theory of elo; elo is built on the foundation of consistency. MMR is built on the foundation that if you're better than someone, you should pretty much always win. One of the big reasons Badlion ever switched to MMR was because of the issue with consistency. When it's built around consistency, it means that someone like Danteh who was arguably the best player on the server would still lose every now and then. Uh, okay, but what does this have to do with anything? It means that for Danteh to gain elo, he had to win 31 out of 32 times because otherwise he'd lose 31 from a single loss. Oh, the horrors. But not. This is fair. For Danteh, the top player, to continue to climb, he should not be allowed to lose. Period. The idea is is that if you're 640-720 elo above someone, you should beat them 31 out of 32 times. If you win more than that, you will gain elo. If you win less than that, you will lose elo. The main issue with elo is the fact that for it to be accurate, it requires infinite matches to be played between all players in the pool for it to be truly accurate. This means that it's very difficult for it to be correct when you have to play 31 or 32 times consecutively just to avoid netting a loss.

So why is MMR any different? Isn't it meant to be as close to elo as possible in the way Badlion implemented it? Yes and no. MMR doesn't work on the same idea. The thing about MMR and what makes it so damn good for so many other competitive games is a large player base. It means that for it to be effective, it needs to have a huge amount of players so that matches are fair, almost 50/50. If someone plays against someone 20 times and wins 11 or 12 times, then that person will gain a little bit of MMR and the other person will lose a little MMR. That's because that win loss ratio means that either the person who won 12 times is above that rank or that the one who lost 12 times is below that rank. So okay, that seems entirely tangential. So what? MMR isn't designed for large discrepancies in rank. This can be seen when you see masters or high diamond players matching up against silvers and naturally beating their asses and still getting 14 MMR. Sure, it's not much, but when you're playing someone who you should never lose to in a thousand years, 14 MMR is way more than is merited. For MMR to be properly implemented, you need to have even, fair matches. And as Badlion doesn't have an enormous playerbase, this can really never be achieved unless Badlion has massive growth.

So if you read all that, you might be thinking; Metarus, what in the actual fuck are you saying? I'm saying that Elo is superior for Badlion's uses. The fact that it was possible for top players to grind against silvers and golds in order to continue climbing was utter bullshit and is not how MMR should ever be calibrated, and since MMR is literally called Match Making Ranking, it needs good match making and good match making needs a larger playerbase. So yes, I think elo is better.

Now to my final point; it still doesn't fucking matter. They work the same way. On a margin, I'd argue elo is more effective, but the only thing that constantly changing back and forth will do is further divide the community and that's the last thing Badlion needs right now. Every time we switch from MMR to Elo, someone will start saying that it was the wrong decision, and those who want change are more vocal about it. I am willing to bet money that if we made the switch back to MMR, there would be a huge influx of complaints saying that they wanted Elo back.


Yeah ik most things you just said. The thing is i just asked you to vote i wanna see how much ppl like mmr and elo. But still…i hope mmr gets back..
 0
PM Link

jarecl wrote

Metarus wrote...

^

i wish i could type fast and use capitals xd


Metarus is a g0d
 0
PM Link
i'm gonna be honest i like s12 more then any season besides season 9, so i would have to just say elo because that was what was in s12 and s9
 1
PM Link

Dinozaw wrote

i'm gonna be honest i like s12 more then any season besides season 9, so i would have to just say elo because that was what was in s12 and s9


s7-12 were my favourite seasons, tbh s15 and s16 are hardly anything close to them. Elo feels so much different, I dont see any need at all for the combination of ELO and MMR (talking about masters etc.). I think it makes it too complicated and not as clean, same thing can be said for the huge lobbies (which are laggy as) the holographs and imo ladder navigation. I also miss the old purple chat that it had when the game ended and the ability to toggle that on and off globally. Also don't really see a need for the 'pro' things either.

Really, arena imo would be so much user friendly and cleaner if all the unnecessary things were removed and it was brought back to the way it was in s12/the older seasons
 1
PM Link
holy shit i havent played the game or been on the fourms for atleast 6 months and this conversation is still going on
 0
PM Link
elo is better lol in the season with mmr everyone (twisz) just boosted and shit lmao
 0
PM Link
i like both
 0
PM Link
people like elo more because it is nostalgic and simple however mmr is a better representation of your skill
 0
PM Link

signss wrote

people like elo more because it is nostalgic and simple however mmr is a better representation of your skill

Yeah, MMR is so much better imo
 0
PM Link