ELO ranking

[exciting_bentleytimb]

I personally believe that watching your ELO drop on a bad day is very very frustrating i was at 289 ELO at the start of the day and lost regrettably a lot so what I'm saying is I believe that once you reach above 200 ELO it should not go below 200 just as it is with the 100.


anybody else or is that just me?

[Jellby]

Elo is a skill evaluation, not an achievement number to make you feel good. The bottom cap at 100 is already bad enough. If watching your elo go down bothers you, don't watch your elo.

[Ceaseless]

They should remove it for 100 too. It just means 100 is the new 0 as it is now. Any rating you can't drop under is just another way of saying you are at the bottom, regardless of the digits they attach to it.

[Jellby]

... but if they remove the 100, they shouldn't place it at 0, or 0 would be the new 100

I mean, proper elo should have no maximum or minimum cap, and yes, ratings could be negative.

[ufm]

BGA intentionally set a limit years ago because players who lost too much eventually stopped playing the game.

[exciting_bentleytimb]

Elo is a skill evaluation, not an achievement number to make you feel good. The bottom cap at 100 is already bad enough. If watching your elo go down bothers you, don't watch your elo.

dude I literally see you everywhere how can you read and reply to like literally every comment? (catan forums about dice generators).

[Jellby]

Well... everywhere you see me... you're there too

[exciting_bentleytimb]

Well... everywhere you see me... you're there too

[stoic-pelican724]

Guys no flirting in the comments

[Crazyandrew627]

The present elo system works, especially in team games. An experienced, solid player that loses games due to a weaker partner should not drop below 100 elo. They could be the world champion and have a beginner as a partner, and you'll find that they will lose to 100-150 elo opponents so long as their opponents know how to play the game.