Additional stimuli to increase one's Elo

I still notice an increasing number of duels played, something I look at with great joy.
In this thread I will come up with some ideas of how to motivate players to be even more active in competitive 1v1s and responding to the concerns some players had with Elo in the near past.

I still believe in ranked 1v1s and 3v3s as a great way of attracting a certain sort of players who are highly interested in competitive gameplay, and adding the Elo-rating into atWar is a huge step in the right direction.
However, I became aware of two main issues players point out when it comes to the rating system:

1. Skilled players can take advantage of low-ranks (or as I would rather call it: low-skilled players) to farm Elo-rating in a slow, but effective manner, while avoiding to play equally skilled players.
This is a problem which lies in the Elo-system and mainly affects the <2000 ratings. It has been discussed earlier and I still think it will balance out with time and increasing duel-activity, but there are some other ways of getting rid of this too which I will point out soon.
2. Apart from the higher Elo-number there is yet no reward for winning a lot of rated games.
While most competitive player find that a higher Elo number is enough for them to stay motivated, less experienced players might seem no reason to actually play 1v1s, because they see no way of competing among the high-ranked players, and therefore never start playing rated games.

I suggest a new form of rewarding players with high duel-activity. I thought out many ways of how to implement this, but to keep it simple I will stick to one of the less complex ways:
A classification of players by Elo-number with titles and small aesthetic changes.
I think of a plain system similar to what we know from chess and SP-ranks, but with a slight modification. These are the ranks and their requirements:

Beginner: Get an Elo rating of >1000 and win 1 game against an opponent with an Elo rating of 1000 or higher.
Novice: Get an Elo rating of >1199 and win 10 games against opponents with an Elo rating of 1200 or higher.
Duelist: Get an Elo rating of >1399 and win 20 games against opponents with an Elo rating of 1400 or higher.
Strategist: Get an Elo rating of >1599 and win 30 games against opponents with an Elo rating of 1600 or higher.
Conqueror: Get an Elo rating of >1799 and win 40 games against opponents with an Elo rating of 1800 or higher.
Expert: Get an Elo rating of >1999 and win 50 games against opponents with an Elo rating of 2000 or higher.
Master: Get an Elo rating of >2199 and win 100 games against opponents with an Elo rating of 2200 or higher.
Grandmaster: Get an Elo rating of >2399 and win 200 games against opponents with an Elo rating of 2400 or higher.
Champion: Be ranked on top of the Elo-raiting-list for at least three days in a row.

Notice: All titles but the Champion-title are permanent (only one person can be champion at a time) and would ideally be awarded with a medal or badge on the profile as well as with an in-game-title showed before the username, as we know from other games and maybe even a 'rank-symbol' next to the Elo-number on the user list. If in-game-titles are implemented, Champion would replace the tier-title once achieved.

I think of this as a great way to encourage players to be more active in duels and always look for higher-rated players to duel.

Yes this is an interesting suggestion. I can imagine this would motivate users to play more duels.

Good idea.

(you wrote beginner twice, just pointing it out there)

The thing is that it'll take a while before we reach conqueror and up. The handing-out of titles should be proportional to the ELO activity, at least for now.
But maybe I'm wrong. It's kind of difficult to determine this sort of thing at this point. However, I do support.

Also, adding elo to team games is a great idea also. It should definitely be implemented. It'll add diversity to the game and would more identify the best players in atWar.

Written by tophat, 13.01.2013 at 16:39

(you wrote beginner twice, just pointing it out there)

Ty Tops, fixed it.
Concerning the activity: These things should be long-term motivations for playing duels. So I think its fine the way I suggested. It should take quite a few months to reach the higher titles, while getting the lower ones could be done in a shorter amount of time. Owning an expert title shall bring much prestige.

Goblin: You l know I never supported those limitations and I don't want to end this thread like the last one. For now I would just appreciate seeing those titles implemented. We can discuss the tier-brackets again in a few months when we see how it is developing. But let's not discuss this is this thread please.

Written by Guest, 13.01.2013 at 17:25

Written by tophat, 13.01.2013 at 16:39

(you wrote beginner twice, just pointing it out there)

Ty Tops, fixed it.
Concerning the activity: These things should be long-term motivations for playing duels. So I think its fine the way I suggested. It should take quite a few months to reach the higher titles, while getting the lower ones could be done in a shorter amount of time. Owning an expert title shall bring much prestige.

kk cool. btw come back to AW my love

Lets begin positive: I like the idea of giving rewards to the best ELO-player(s), and i even say that i like the idea of a rank for ELO. Great idea's, hope they will be implemented.

But you are declaring another problem with the current ELO right here:

Written by Guest, 13.01.2013 at 13:27

1. Skilled players can take advantage of low-ranks (or as I would rather call it: low-skilled players) to farm Elo-rating in a slow, but effective manner, while avoiding to play equally skilled players.

This is pretty weird. Not the problem is weird, because i fully understand this problem and it needs to be solved. The thing what is annoying to me, is that i pointed out this same problem on the forum a month ago. I quote:

Written by Hugosch, 12.12.2012 at 17:30

I like the new ELO system, there is one problem with it: ELO has a huge flaw in that if it doesn't have decay you can just slowly grow it by beating weaker players

And the weird thing is this: you already responded when i pointed to this problem. Let me quote your (FURIOUS!) comment again

Written by Guest, 13.12.2012 at 06:27

[...]Im tired of explaining it over and over again, please just stop complaining about things you didnt fully understand and take some time to inform yourself. Gaining 0,001 points per game and holding #1 wont even work for TopHats, the person with the probably highest activity in 1v1 at all, just do the maths.[...]

PS: Because of the overwhelming lack of knowledge about Elo i will explain it once more, you're welcome:
Elo sorts by RELATIVE PLAYER'S STRENGTH. The better you are compared to another player the BIGGER WILL THE DIFFERENCE IN YOUR ELO-NUMBERS BE.
Of course people like TopHats, Caulerpa and me have an Elo-number of 1350+, because COMPARED TO PLAYERS WITH AN ELO-NUMBER OF 1000 who are mostly people who DOESNT PLAY 1V1 we are RELATIVELY STRONG. But so would be everybody else, like HUGOSCH, ACQUIESCE, VRIL, BARRYMORE etc., if they would only DUEL MORE.
If you look at other games most average-skilled-players have an Elo-difference of 500 AND MORE compared to new or low-skilled players, which finally FORCES them to play each other because if they wouldn't they would sink in the ranking and lose their rank to players with high Elo who ACTUALLY PLAY EACH OTHER.[...]

Although you might not agree with my solution back then, you didn't come up with a solution yourself. And its even far more worse then that, because you did not only disagreed with my solution, but you stated the problem that i described did not exist AT ALL and others where too stupid to understand it. As you said it will work his way out in time, others don't understand ELO and where idiotic. I'm glad you do see this problem now, and even describe it yourself (miraculous and iconic). And i would like to point that this is not the first time happening. A while ago you agreed with me in the solution for OP Ukraine, but once new system was implemented (with stronger Central and weaker Ukraine) you started to blame me for putting up such a horrible idea (or idiotic, like you call it). So i would like to ask you not to RAGE directly when someone is giving a new suggestion or idea about the ELO system (or whatever system on this game), although you think its completely yours and you are the only one that understands it. Just arguing, explaining and discussing a better system will get us somewhere ....

And last but not least: I don't read a solution for this problem in your current idea. This problem will not be fixed with rewards or ranks. Its still possible to play weaker players and farm there. But yet again, i like the rest of the idea.

Thanks for your reply Hugosch, I'm glad you like my idea.
If you read the text again you will notice that I wrote that those are issues other players pointed out, I didn't write that I agree with that being an actual problem and I still think it isn't one. I also wrote that I still believe everything will be fixed by higher activity and time.
Adding those rewards will push people to play equally and higher rated players, because a high Elo rating without having earned the tier-specific title will be a less impressive achievement. It is not a must to play those, but it will gain you respect among other 1v1-players who know you did not just pick weaker enemies.
PS: Don't be mad please. Your textwall is really inappropriate.

Lol sorry cow you got owned and you know it.

I don't see how I got owned, I just try to find ways to make everybody feel comfortable about Elo.
If I would have changed my mind I would support restrictions by either rank or Elo range yet, which I don't. I propose stimuli, not limitations.
Also this topic is about the implementations I suggested so stay on topic please.

Bumping for Elo-ranks.

Casual: Get an Elo rating of >1000 and win 1 game against an opponent with an Elo rating of 1000 or higher.
Person to request 1v1s from: Get an Elo rating of >1199 and win 10 games against opponents with an Elo rating of 1200 or higher.
Farmer: Get an Elo rating of >1399 and win 20 games against opponents with an Elo rating of 1400 or higher.
Mild Autism: Get an Elo rating of >1599 and win 30 games against opponents with an Elo rating of 1600 or higher.
Autist: Get an Elo rating of >1799 and win 40 games against opponents with an Elo rating of 1800 or higher.
Expert Farmer: Get an Elo rating of >1999 and win 50 games against opponents with an Elo rating of 2000 or higher.
Master Farmer: Get an Elo rating of >2199 and win 100 games against opponents with an Elo rating of 2200 or higher.
Grand Autist: Get an Elo rating of >2399 and win 200 games against opponents with an Elo rating of 2400 or higher.
Full Retard: Be ranked on top of the Elo-raiting-list for at least three days in a row.


fixed your titles

Written by Stomach Ulcers, 24.01.2013 at 09:20

Bad idea for bad people.

I love your explanation : )

Lots of trolling here.

I support this, titles are simple to implement and a great motivator for players and will increase ELO activity.

Written by Goblin, 30.01.2013 at 12:23

I was thinkin perhapse all duels should be rewarded ...not just wins.

To a guy who lost 50 of 50 duels i would still give some kind of trophy for courage.

Number of people who want to duel is still low ...i sent dozens of pm-s today, and only one accepted ...dude who duels regulary -.-

God no, this sounds horrible.