CSGO Silver Feedback

Thread started by Asterix on Tuesday, 2:54pm June 12th with 62 replies. Views: 5,199

Asterix
Posts: 5,311
Level: PLATINUM
Reputation:
Hello CSGO players, i'd like to get some quick feedback on the new ladder system. Particularly from teams who have played in the previous challenge ladders.

Previously you would challenge a single opponent of your choice and offer 6~ times over 2 separate days. As the receiving team your only option is to accept one of these 6 times or basically forfeit the match.

With the new system you are given 3 matches per 12 day window. Every 2-3 days you are prompted to update your match times (if not set) on this page.

The main differences that teams should hopefully be noticing:
- You should be receiving matches that are more convenient for you, given you dont ever have to accept times offered to you.
- It should be much easier to manage your team and just set your available times rather than checking the ladder page for possible challenges etc. (I realize many teams will have enjoyed this aspect though).
- You are occasionally scheduled into two matches at once, especially if you set times quite far into the future. Essentially you should just be getting a continuous flow of matches at convenient times.
- Your opponents should have a very similar ELO to you, the current maximum allowed range is 45 (at the time of match creation, essentially a difference of 1.5 wins), this will be monitored and likely need to be increased for very small ladders.
- Towards the end of the season there wont be any shenanigans with getting that one last sneaky challenge off to make into finals etc.

Finally, teams that specifically want matches very early or very late (ie teams with players in Perth or New Zealand etc) can you let me know if you've noticed a significant improvement, this should be one of the most profound differences if it's been working correctly.

I have also adjusted it to only require a 4 times for large ladders like CSGO, this should allow you to still receive enough matches and give you much more freedom to just offer times that are 100% convenient.

If there's anything has seemed odd or you've had any bad experiences can you please provide details so I can investigate. The system is quite complex and there's a lot of edge cases to manage.

Cheers
Posted 2:54pm Jun 12th 18
Razzamuffin
Posts: 870
Level: BRONZE
Reputation:
Only question I have is that it appears teams cannot drop below 1400 elo this time around, and this will cause early games to have very little impact as the catch-up game to top 16 is smaller than previous seasons?
Posted 2:58pm Jun 12th 18
pheN
Posts: 133
Level: BRONZE
Reputation:
I think the system overall should work well, just need to stay on top of your available times.

Only thing I dont like is its currently very hard to see how many wins / loss' a team has.

Is it possible to add a W/L tally onto the main ladder page along with maybe the results of the last 5 games?

2/3 - WLWLL for example.
Posted 3:08pm Jun 12th 18
Asterix
Posts: 5,311
Level: PLATINUM
Reputation:
in reply to Razzamuffin's post .


Only question I have is that it appears teams cannot drop below 1400 elo this time around, and this will cause early games to have very little impact as the catch-up game to top 16 is smaller than previous seasons?

Quote from Razzamuffin on the 12th of June 2018
Yeah that is a design choice for simplicity really, and is how lots of other games/competitions function. But mainly I cannot easily prevent teams from leaving the ladder and making a new team on your first loss anyway. I think the season is long enough that it shouldn't have a huge effect.

Having more teams on a similar ELO is beneficial, but not the reason for doing it. The biggest negative is that bad teams will potentially get a harder 2nd/3rd match than they otherwise would and good teams can get an easier 1400 opponent than they should. I think it sorts itself out fast enough.

Will definitely reconsider it at the end of the season.
Posted 3:10pm Jun 12th 18
Asterix
Posts: 5,311
Level: PLATINUM
Reputation:
in reply to pheN's post .


I think the system overall should work well, just need to stay on top of your available times.

Only thing I dont like is its currently very hard to see how many wins / loss' a team has.

Is it possible to add a W/L tally onto the main ladder page along with maybe the results of the last 5 games?

2/3 - WLWLL for example.

Quote from pheN on the 12th of June 2018
Added W/L, had been meaning to get to that. Will add F/A to your team profile I think.

The problem with the match times for the moment is you might set times like this:


And I can assign you a match on Saturday + Sunday in the one go. Currently I only assign a single match at a time and then I wait 36h-48hours before assigning another one, giving you enough time to adjust your match times if you want.

I've done it this way at least for now because I think some teams will assume it's like the previous system where they set their times knowing only one of them will get chosen. In the mean-time I think i'll need to add a little checkbox to basically disable this functionality for teams that want to be assigned two matches in rapid succession, currently it does this only if the team is falling behind.
Posted 3:12pm Jun 12th 18
Yeni
Posts: 143
Level: SILVER
Reputation:
As Razza said, the early games have felt worthless, with challenges being drawn at random, which is understandable with the elo not able to drop under 1400 which I didn't even realise.

Only query and I guess it's more related to the general website design, but can we have Match History back on team pages, and also Win and Loss on the side of the ladder like in previous systems?
Posted 3:42pm Jun 12th 18
Benjas
Posts: 629
Level: SILVER
Reputation:
I liked before the update how if I went to a teams profile, I could see who they had played, on which map, and what the result was, the whole process seems a bit tedious now.
Posted 3:48pm Jun 12th 18
Razzamuffin
Posts: 870
Level: BRONZE
Reputation:
https://imgur.com/f4yXrBK

Nothing against these blokes but there is a few teams who have played less games total and won more total but find themselves below others like this. It is interesting to say the least.

It is a symptom of the elo minimum being the default
Posted 4:00pm Jun 12th 18
Asterix
Posts: 5,311
Level: PLATINUM
Reputation:
in reply to Razzamuffin's post .


https://imgur.com/f4yXrBK

Nothing against these blokes but there is a few teams who have played less games total and won more total but find themselves below others like this. It is interesting to say the least.

It is a symptom of the elo minimum being the default

Quote from Razzamuffin on the 12th of June 2018
yeah that's odd, wouldn't have thought you could get that far off with so few matches, regardless of the order, will have a look.
Posted 5:33pm Jun 12th 18
dreams
Posts: 120
Level: PLATINUM
Reputation:
in reply to Asterix's post .
Doubt this matters too much in the long-run, in previous season's teams have had to go approx. +5 wins (~1530 elo) to make top 16 finals, soon as you win one losing now matters to your elo. Generally speaking, teams that go into the negative elo at beginnings of seasons don't make finals, disband, or go undetected in breaking the rules just reforming as another team.
I think this format is a really good change to try and support team's staying together, the only impact may be a higher elo finals line. i.e, ending 16th place with 1560 elo instead of 1530 elo, not sure what impact this may have on the league though.
Posted 5:54pm Jun 12th 18
Mastcks <3
Posts: 522
Level: BRONZE
Reputation:
in reply to Asterix's post .



Only question I have is that it appears teams cannot drop below 1400 elo this time around, and this will cause early games to have very little impact as the catch-up game to top 16 is smaller than previous seasons?

Quote from Asterix on the 12th of June 2018
Yeah that is a design choice for simplicity really, and is how lots of other games/competitions function. But mainly I cannot easily prevent teams from leaving the ladder and making a new team on your first loss anyway. I think the season is long enough that it shouldn't have a huge effect.

Having more teams on a similar ELO is beneficial, but not the reason for doing it. The biggest negative is that bad teams will potentially get a harder 2nd/3rd match than they otherwise would and good teams can get an easier 1400 opponent than they should. I think it sorts itself out fast enough.

Will definitely reconsider it at the end of the season.

Quote from Razzamuffin on the 12th of June 2018
I Think its good like this as it gives lower tier teams a chance and teams wont just disband after losing a couple off games.
Posted 6:05pm Jun 12th 18
Joshaaye
Posts: 47
Level: BRONZE
Reputation:
I'm loving the new format. As a team manager it's so simple for me to keep the schedule up to date. I feel like the system matches you fairly (after the first few matches and the teams start to sort themself out obviously). I heard reports in previous seasons, teams only challenging "trash" teams to help keep them up near the top of the ladder. This ended up basically giving them a free pass into finals. This format should help ensure that at the end of the season, only the best teams make it to finals and ultimately the best team wins. The only thing I could see potentially happening (which so far doesn't look like it) the top 2 teams could end up having to verse each other 3 or 4 times at the top of the table which could get annoying.
Posted 9:18pm Jun 14th 18
Fyre
Posts: 135
Level: SILVER
Reputation:
I really like the new system, especially the automatic scheduling and the 1400 elo minimum, because teams don't disband and rejoin the ladder and it means every team plays the same number of games so it's harder to get cucked at the end of the season, but I still feel like it's a little unfair to the teams that win early on and then lose.
eg.
- Team A go W-W-L-L
- Team B go L-L-W-W
Both teams are 2-2 in W/L, but team B would be at ~1460 elo, while Team A would be at 1400
What if the elo system was scratched entirely and the ladder rankings were determined by W/L difference and then by round difference similar to the way CGA groups used to be done, but for the entire ladder?
I feel like this would be more fair, but I'm sure there are probably issues with it so ¯\_(?)_/¯
Posted 10:35pm Jun 14th 18 and edited 11:19pm Jun 14th 18
Arc
Posts: 55
Level: BRONZE
Reputation:
in reply to Fyre's post .


I really like the new system, especially the automatic scheduling and the 1400 elo minimum, because teams don't disband and rejoin the ladder and it means every team plays the same number of games so it's harder to get cucked at the end of the season, but I still feel like it's a little unfair to the teams that win early on and then lose.
eg.
- Team A go W-W-L-L
- Team B go L-L-W-W
Both teams are 2-2 in W/L, but team B would be at ~1460 elo, while Team A would be at 1400
What if the elo system was scratched entirely and the ladder rankings were determined by W/L difference and then by round difference similar to the way CGA groups used to be done, but for the entire ladder?
I feel like this would be more fair, but I'm sure there are probably issues with it so ¯\_(?)_/¯

Quote from Fyrefly on the 14th of June 2018
I definitely think that would work out better - at the moment with the minimum being 1400, teams that you'd consider high silver will lose one game and then suddenly have the possibility of being placed against a team that is 0-5 which doesn't really give the 0-5 team much of an opportunity. I paid attention to how the ladder worked last season just to understand it and I noticed that by the half way point you'd have a low, mid and high 'groups' after 4/5 matches had been played but that can't really form this time around.

I think the changes definitely benefit the better teams in High Silver more so than it does the low/mid teams. Which to be fair, isn't a bad thing seeing as the 16 teams that make finals will be there for a reason (or were lucky with who they were auto-scheduled against). But I think despite that, having low/mid teams be able to compete against similar teams and then get beat down by a higher team when they get too close to the finals would be better than potentially coping 'high' teams every week, gifting them a win because you're stuck at 1400 ELO
Posted 9:04am Jun 15th 18
Asterix
Posts: 5,311
Level: PLATINUM
Reputation:
in reply to Fyre's post .


I really like the new system, especially the automatic scheduling and the 1400 elo minimum, because teams don't disband and rejoin the ladder and it means every team plays the same number of games so it's harder to get cucked at the end of the season, but I still feel like it's a little unfair to the teams that win early on and then lose.
eg.
- Team A go W-W-L-L
- Team B go L-L-W-W
Both teams are 2-2 in W/L, but team B would be at ~1460 elo, while Team A would be at 1400
What if the elo system was scratched entirely and the ladder rankings were determined by W/L difference and then by round difference similar to the way CGA groups used to be done, but for the entire ladder?
I feel like this would be more fair, but I'm sure there are probably issues with it so ¯\_(?)_/¯

Quote from Fyrefly on the 14th of June 2018
ELO is by far the easiest way to measure teams. You're trying to turn the ladder into a league or swiss system. But if you make any change like that you add the incentive to disband and re-form a new team, so it's really not worth the risk.

I think the only change that is needed is to ensure 1400 teams can only match up against other 1400 teams rather than allowing 1400 to match 1432. The website is basically just handling the disband and re-create your team for you :)

That said, I didn't think adding a 1400 floor would have such a big effect, but it has annoyed me for years.

I'm mostly concerned about whether the auto-scheduling has been working as intended and isn't creating any strange matches with weird ELO matchups or not enough notice etc.
Posted 12:24am Jun 16th 18