I have suggestion for settings. Is it possible that we have another option? Now we have randomly in 2 teams. It would be nice if software do it according to win rate so teams are more balanced. Best player in team A, 2. and 3. in team B, 4. and 5. in team A and 6. in team B.

Something like this.....

Define "best player" please.
Most games played? Highest total win rate? Highest win rate on this game type only?

I have wrote...win rate. To be more detailed .....in that type of game. I am sure that programmer will make good solution....if he decide that idea in general is good.

But what if none of the players have ever played that game type? There are dozens of different ways to spread a maximum of 24 players into different teams.

I'll count them:
You can't play with 1 player.

There is one possible solution for two players, that's 1v1

There is one possible solution for three players, if you want equal teams, that's 1v1v1

There are two possible solutions for four players, those are 1v1v1v1 and 2v2

There is one possible solution for five players, that's 1v1v1v1v1

There are three possible solutions for 6 players, those are 1v1v1v1v1v1, 2v2v2 and 3v3

There is one possible solution for 7 players, that's 1v1v1v1v1v1v1

There are three possible solutions for 8 players, those are 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1, 2v2v2v2 and 4v4

There are two possible solutions for 9 players, those are 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1 and 3v3v3

There are three possible solutions for 10 players, those are 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1, 2v2v2v2v2 and 5v5

There is one possible solution for 11 players, that's 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1

There are five different solutions for 12 players, those are 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1, 2v2v2v2v2v2, 3v3v3v3, 4v4v4 and 6v6

There is one possible solution for 13 players, that's 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1

There are three possible solutions for 14 players, those are 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1, 2v2v2v2v2v2v2 and 7v7

There are three possible solutions for 15 players, those are 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1, 3v3v3v3v3 and 5v5v5

There are four possible solutions for 16 players, those are 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1, 2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2, 4v4v4v4 and 8v8

There is one possible solution for 17 players, that's 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1

There are five different solutions for 18 players, those are 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1, 2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2, 3v3v3v3v3v3, 6v6v6 and 9v9

There is one possible solution for 19 players, that's 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1

There are five possible solutions for 20 players, those are 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1, 2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2, 4v4v4v4v4, 5v5v5v5 and 10v10

There are three possible solutions for 21 players, those are 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1, 3v3v3v3v3v3v3 and 7v7v7

There are three possible solutions for 22 players, those are 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1, 2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2 and 11v11

There is one possible solution for 23 players, that's 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1

There are six possible solutions for 24 players, those are 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1, 2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2v2, 3v3v3v3v3v3v3v3, 4v4v4v4v4v4, 8v8v8 and 12v12

0+1+1+2+1+3+1+3+2+3+1+5+1+3+3+4+15+1+5+3+3+1+6=68

And that's only the ones with equal teams!

You have spare time :-))))

It would be nice to make it possible for most popular 3v3.....for start.

Also, win rates have very little relation to a player's ability. E.g. my win percentage in 1v1s is 59%.

I know it is not ideal....but is much better than situation that we have now. Random teams....and than one team is much much better than other.....not interesting.

I agree with high

the problem with this, is that it would create reasons to exploit your w/r. If I wanted a game that was quite a bit easier for me, then I would create an amount of fictitious games to lose to deflate my W/r so that I would be paired with better players..
It would encourage players to lose, even after having dominated the other player/team(s), and would give advantage to the people that do that

that is general the idea of a real elo rating
I personally wanted that a lot and Gui asked for it in a thread somewhere

Perrin, what you're saying contradicts itself... the people who would want easier games would want them to inflate their stats. So you're saying they would deflate their stats to then inflate their stats...

i side with high on this one. moros says you cant say what the 'best' player is. you could simply have an option: 'rank by games of this type'; 'rank by 1v1 win rate'; 'rank by overall win rate' (ranked games obviously). ace windu is right, but this would make teams significantly more even in most cases.

i think the main point of randomising teams is to make them more balanced. implementing this would do a lot more to achieve that.

Thanks for support. During time this would also help that win rate become more real..... you will not lose games just because you have played with bad teammates and you will not win games just because you have played with good teammates.

So, what can be done? Who this work here? Somebody needs to be good with owner of site? :-))))

Bishes, rating whores would want high stats for having high stats.. people that want to win would want lower stats to get better teammates...

if you got 6 people that should have stats roughly 30-40-50-60-70-80, but the 80% doesn't care about his shown stats, and just wants to own in every game he plays, he could play games and surrender, giving him an actual rating of 20%, putting him and the next best player on a team...

ratings whores, and people that want easy games are not always the same people..
and the problem with ELO settings is the massive variation allowed from game to game

But Perrin, then they'd win lots of games and their percentage would go up.

This is a really good idea.

About abuse: You can, if you want, easiy abuse the settings as they are now to get good team-mates or weak opponents. The game maker can shove whoever they want, wherever they want. If somebody has to go through all the extra added effort of losing so many games to get good players on their team, then why not? Cheaters should have to work more. Plus they'd be shunted out of all the games that have win-ratio requirements to play.

This would be good as a non-default option.

Ace Windu..
if you pwn someone.. you get the *grr.. I won* mentality.. then you click surrender, and your stats go down.. then you pwn someone and get the *grr.. I won* mentality, and surrender to get your stats to go down..

Note: I'm not saying it's a bad idea, in fact, I am not inclined to show an opinion on this at the moment.. I prefer to point out possibilities for abuse, as many people will be inclined to point out the better reasons, so the game designer can see and weight whether he thinks it would be most beneficial to implement.

Perrin, I doubt I am alone in thinking there is something absurd with the notion of losing on purpose to lower your stats just so you can attract better partners to win games at a later date. Surely the whole aim is to try and win ALL games???? That is the aim of a game isn't it? To win?

Perrin, yeah now I get what you mean. I can't see it being much of a problem but there **is** probably someone out there who'd do it.

You're always great at finding these weird ways of abusing the system. Ever go trolling? :P