Why is it that if a 1600 beats a 2000 player, the 2000 player loses THIRTY rating? Yet, if a 2000 player beats a 1600, the 2000 wins like, 3 rating?

I understand why a 2000 wins only 3 rating; after all, we all knew the 2000 player was going to win. :P

But can they keep this up?

Because so few players in the 2000+ range actually seem to play regularly (or get matched up to each other), high rank players often, almost always will get matched to lower ranks, typically 200 to 350+ elo difference. That's a big number.

You can't honestly expect a player to meet that many players and have a perfect streak against them, no matter how skilled they are. Everyone slips up. However, when a high elo player finally loses to a lower rank, they will lose upwards of 20 rating, sometimes even /30/.

And when pros only get 3 rating per win, it takes TEN TIMES as many games to regain that rating, assuming they can keep up a streak for ten games.

What else does this point gap mean?

It also means alts absolutely reap rating from players that shouldn't be losing that much rating. Think about it this way: If WyzDM decides--- heck, if any top 100 player decides to make an alt and go all the way up into the top 100, every time the alt faces ANYONE, but more specifically favored opponents, that player will lose more rating than they should. This is especially of high concern in the top 100, when rating is sparse and hard to come by. Alts at 1800 can easily take away 30 rating from 2000s players.

But really what the heck is there to do about it?

I have a suggestion that the game creators will probably never see, which is that when two players of 200+ elo difference are ranked together, an option appears to the higher ranking player (because they are the ones who definitely will not benefit from the match) that says:

Greetings!

This player is of much lower rating to you. So much lower, in fact, that if you lose, you will lose 30 rating. If you win, you will gain 3 rating. Because of this disparity, the game offers you a chance to go queue again and hopefully meet a player more suited to your skill level!

Or heck, we could just eliminate high difference games altogether. Why not?

However, because the creators will never see this post (probably), it is safest for you, as a high ranking player who constantly gets matched to lower players and is in danger of losing great amounts of rating in short amounts of time, to simply stop queuing every 40 to 50 seconds and just restart your queuing.

How to restart queuing, for the queuingly impaired

Whenever you no longer want to queue for a match, press the X under the timer. To queue again, press the PLAY MATCH box.

There you go. Your timer has been reset and will search again for players nearer to your rating.

Elo? Sounds like a British greeting :/. I still call it rating. I think the rating gain/loss should change when even rating against an opponent. Like 15 rating gain/loss.

That seems quite nice actually.

Not that I am a high-ranked player myself, but I usually lose self-confidence when I lose against a high-ranked player. I don't mind if I lose a couple of rating points, but that self-confidence is what makes me keep playing.

I agree the system mess up big time. I was 2k and met a 1k1 dude. After the victory screen popped up, I was like...WTF ??? What if I messed up somehow and lose....WHAT ???? 80 rating I think ???
And one time I made new alt around 1k4 and faced 2k player. I prayed for him :"sry mate, u're out of luck"
They should limit around 100~200 rating

I can agree to what lequan1910 said. They should limit it.

Asdfstick, elo is the name of the chess rating system that SE uses. It was named after the Hungarian American that made it up. :P

lol the system is perfect obviously if ur rating is higher that means ur probably better so if the weaker opponent wins its only fair is he wins his share of points sense the higher player lost he has to defend his title. TBH its his fault he lost i dont see why to make a thread about this. if ur good u should win if ur bad u should lose thats all theres to it

Quote from captaincorps

lol the system is perfect obviously if ur rating is higher that means ur probably better so if the weaker opponent wins its only fair is he wins his share of points sense the higher player lost he has to defend his title. TBH its his fault he lost i dont see why to make a thread about this. if ur good u should win if ur bad u should lose thats all theres to it

Glad to see you still can't spell. Nor can you read the entire original post.

The Elo/rating system is separate from the match making system, but they are connected. The longer you wait, the farther away of your Elo/rating the match making system will search. It will still match you against a close-rating opponent if one starts searching for a match (I'm pretty sure). I'm not entirely sure about this < But I'll ask Brock when I speak to him next.

The message is a little redundant but something like it could work.

glad to see ur still making fun of people :p

Here is another issue I have with the elo system:

If I am facing a 2000s player and I am rating 2000, but have to go and therefore must surrender, I lose 20 points. However, if I am facing a 1600s player and I am rating 2000 under the same scenario, I lose 30 points. These matches just aren't fair.

Besides, if a 1600s player DOES beat a 2000s player fair and square, shouldn't they receive LESS rating than a 2000s player beating a 2000s player? After all, if there is that much disparity, obviously the win was either by alt, or by luck. So aren't lower players even LESS deserving of the rating? Just my opinion.