Autohost [[ENT] Legion TD Mega 1v1 pro]

[matdas]

@diablo_

Follow the discussion. In house was brought up. So I commented on this. Please read before posting.

As for your comment about elo. He said tired of games of terrible elo. To eliminate the elo aspect of gaining/losing makes it so you don't have a those types of reaponses. Not only that. There would be a requirement to join lime the example that was given. I suggest you start reading everything before you post.

I've seen plenty of your so called pros make new accounts just to pub smash. So your poi t is null...

[supersexyy]

Well is there a reason to not give this bot a try? Say a 1200 elo requirement for 1v1 statistics, alternatively a 1500 elo requirement from 4v4 statistics (or either).

[matdas]

There's no reason not to. Worse comes to worse it just becomes a dead bot like some of the dota ones. Ask for uafk.b to see if he can do it.

Edit: would the stats be recorded separately from the other types?

[oxoDus]

since 12:00 till 18:00 was using your solution and waiting for better players to come. Matches played:4, highest elo found 1.2k. 1 fail and 1dc happened, nearly -50elo puched my face. No comments. Again 10-20 games needed to win to compensate 2 games. This looks normal to you?

[supersexyy]

Edit: would the stats be recorded separately from the other types?

Of course not lol.

[Diablo_]

Ok, let's start again from scratch, cause I don't quite understand what your goal is matdas.

We want:
A 1vs1 bot with ELO, which requires a certain amount of 1vs1 ELO to be able to join

The advantages would be:
Fair and challenging games without joining 20 different 1vs1 games until you find a worthy opponent.
Incentive for higher players to play on that bot instead of smashing newbies and thus increasing the competitive aspect.

So why are you against it? Are there any negative points about this? State some arguments instead of making (worse and unreasonable) suggestions like allowing 1vs1 in LIHL or disabling ELO on this bot.

EDIT: this was posted before the latest 4 posts.
Ok, seems like I got my answer

There's no reason not to

[matdas]

Edit: would the stats be recorded separately from the other types?

Of course not lol.

I just had this strange feeling that it would. Not sure why i believed this either

[eldryan]

If 1k ELO players never get matches against the 1300s, the 1300 elo bracket will effectively be "wall"ed against the 1k elo bracket. Meaning a 1200 could be better then anyone above 1300 and just not have the oppurtunity to play there because the 1k elo bracket would be better. This will obviously inflate the ELO of 1300+ relative to the norm (1k) and suppress 1k ELO players "good matches" while they will still have to go against 800 elo players for "+2 -28" games. @supersexyy this obviously is unbalancing the bot and giving those 1300+ more room to elo boost then those below it (or wherever you draw the line). If ELO is to be balanced, it has to be not predetermined to better boost players elo - aka no dodging -25 matches.

@matdas I would hope it would be recorded separately, and would support if that were the case (except that there will only be like 4 active players). However, making this bot will create a separate ELO meaning for those above 1300 who have easy access to +15 -15 games, which are far easier to boost off of.

[oxoDus]

I dont realy understand your whole "inflation" thing. If someone wins, samone has to lose, its not like the more games u'll play the more bonus elo will appear. Only the few best will cling to the tops. If, from your logical point of view, current 1.3k-1.5k elo "inflates", doesnt that make sense that 1k-1.3k elo games can "inflate" the same way and there wont be any "Wall" between those rooms. P.S. 1.3k elo entering was just a suggestion, 1250 may be viable too. It's just you wont need to waste tons of time to go for a fast "same" elo game.

[eldryan]

this bot would basically never be used - if anything it'd take longer to find someone, because they'd get bored and go join a typical 1v1.

however, in this bot those in the 1300s could go against 1300 players that have dodged and boosted their way to that ranking, instead of "actual" 1300 players. long story short, making an ELO-based standard for games within the same ELO ranking system is going to create mismatches in placement that will disadvantage lower ELO players who won't have the same opportunity to play high-gain low-loss games.

[Diablo_]

Whether the bot will be actively used or not can only be found out by trying it.

And again, unbalanced games (+5/-25) are no necessary part for the ELO system, actually games as close to +-15 as possible are optimal, thus matchmaking/autobalance is a commonly used tool in most ELO-based games.

however, in this bot those in the 1300s could go against 1300 players that have dodged and boosted their way to that ranking, instead of "actual" 1300 players.

There would be no difference to how it is now. Players can always "dodge" and "boost" (not sure how you can boost yourself to a rating tho).

[oxoDus]

Bad rolls (distracted)day happened to me, lost -120 elo in barely 5 games. Now beating same 5 games would give back something like 25 elo. I think that's quite good. Now think again, is it?

[Wake_N_Bake]

Lots of interesting points being made.
1. Elo requirement of 1300 is too much. Maybe 1200-1250 range would be better.
2. Having a bot with no elo changing wouldnt work. Its the main factor people play on ent.
3. People will always make new accts to "pub stomp" even i do it at times.
4. Incorporating 1v1 into 4v4 lihl is a bad idea. Im not nor prob ever will be lihl but mixing is bad for business imo.
5. I have started to prefer 1v1 games as it is more a true representation of skill.

I know i missed a lot of points being made, but in the end if there is a demand for it hen why nit try it out? I support this idea and hope to see a 1v1 hr bot of some sort get up and running.

[aRt)Y]

Perhaps we should add a public pool to see how many want it/do not want it (?).

[supersexyy]

Every who has posted (except eldryan who has disagreeable points) agrees its worth trying. No need for a poll.