Elo?
G’day
I’m dying.
Hi dying, I’m dad.
Sorry for your loss.
| | | | | | _
This interaction may have made my night
It’s not often I actually laugh when reading a comment. This was one of those times
Personally, I don’t like the fact that every team-based video game uses ELO, a system designed for a 1 on 1 game, to determine an individual’s skill.
While Elo (and side note: it’s a person’s name, not an acronym) isn’t perfect and systems like Glicko-2 are better even for 1v1s, is there a better system than Elo that could be used to rate players in team games? Especially if there’s a mix of pre-made teams and random teams thrown together by matchmaking?
Edit: extra bonus if it can be applicable in games that have both 1v1 and team game components where there might be a desire for some form of bleed between the two. (e.g. AoE2 where your starting Elo in one of them is based on your Elo in the other, if you’ve played a lot of one type of game before trying the other.)
I suspect games tinker with the formula behind the scenes, to accurately place people faster if nothing else. The more players the longer it could take for the skill of any one to show up in the numbers, so I bet they factor in other game specific metrics at least at first. There would be some risk of this being abused, but that’s less if they keep it a secret and maybe the progress numbers shown to players aren’t quite the same as the real numbers used to decide who to match them against.
Plenty of developers of competitive games with SBMM have said they actually make it more about keeping the player playing than actually giving a shit about their skill. They don’t use straight up elo, but everything they do does derive from it. They also don’t really disclose how they come to the numbers it assigns you; probably because they don’t want to expose exactly how their skinner box works.
Street Fighter 6 uses two systems. League Points are a “keep them playing” type, and Master Rate is pretty much pure Elo.
Everyone starts with LP only and initial placement matches put you into a league with progressively fewer guard rails as you live higher. Rookie league can’t lose LP at all, there’s a win streak bonus up to gold, and you can’t demote to a lower league until platinum. Throughout it all there’s very slight upward pressure on LP, you get slightly more more a win then you lose for a loss.
Finally you reach the topmost league, Master, the final guard rails fall away and you’re given 1500MR to join in the net zero Elo ranking pool. You basically need to demonstrate that you have a willingness to keep playing before they will use that style of matchmaking. “Real” skill based ranking effectively begins there, with the lower ranks being made more to show dedication rather than just ability.
That sounds kinda similar to how AoE4 does it, albeit with fewer of the more complex guard rails.
The game only displays your “rating”, which resets each season and is used to place you into a certain league. You have two ratings: 1v1 and Team Game. There’s slight upward pressure so if you keep playing you should on average climb. At the end of the season you get some basic cosmetic rewards (profile pictures etc.) based on the highest Ranking achieved throughout the season.
The game also keeps a hidden MMR/Elo. That does not reset each season and is the tool actually used by the matchmaking system to decide who you will be playing against. It’s a true Elo system, or possibly an Elo-like system such as Glicko. The game keeps track of separate MMR for 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4.
Tinder has that?
It’s a secret
Like when they discriminated against users because of their age…
Gaetz: flips table
A quick Google shows that they charged over thirties in the UK double for a premium account.
Devils advocate says that is because older people are more like to have money (people are probably getting a bit more desperate at that age too).
It looks like the policy is revoked tho.
We should charge people based on their ability to pay for food too!
They still do that, and it’s no secret.
I thought it was common knowledge that the pickier you are on Tinder, the better your matches will be. Swipe right on everyone and you won’t have much luck on that app.
It’s no longer determined by your swiping behavior, but rather who swipes left or right on your profile, and their elo.
If you only get swiped right by people with a low elo, then your elo will drop and your profile will only be shown to people with a low elo.
Vice versa, if a lot of people with high elo swipe right on your profile you will receive a higher elo and be show to profiles with a high elo
If it was determined by who you swipe right on it would be too easy to game the system
What a great rabbit hole, thanks!
Mr. Blue Sky?
'ello mate!
Holy hell!
What’s a foid?
It stands for female humanoid and is exactly as dehumanizing as it sounds
It was femoid originally but anon got even lazier.
I think that the part being dehumanized is the one that uses that word.
How is that “dehumanizing” when human is literally in the explanation. Had it been “female apeoid” I’d have agreed, but humanoid… So “moid” for male humanoid is “dehumanizing” too?
How is that “dehumanizing” when human is literally in the explanation. Had it been “female apeoid” I’d have agreed, but humanoid… So “moid” for male humanoid is “dehumanizing” too?
“A humanoid is a non-human entity with human form or characteristics.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanoid
A humanoid is by definition not human, hence calling a human a humanoid is dehumanizing.
I stand corrected. Thank you for the explanation. 👍
graceful. props to you.
more people should be like this.
-oid is like -esque, in that it describes something that resembles the root word, without actually being it.
And the n-word literally means “black”. But from the context we know that it is being used as a derogatory word just like in this case.
I think it’s supposed to be some kind of derogatory label for women, but is really just an identifier that the person using it is a worthless being whose opinion is as relevant as a gnats thoughts on the economy.
Remind me again which generation helped elected the current president? Skibidi Ohio?
All of them :/
😂 ok ok but which one was surprising to people.
how is this at all related to the comment you replied to?
hOw iS yOu sO cLuELeSs?
yup, just like i thought
I don’t have to explain things for you I’m not the fuck face whisper.
what’s a fuck face whisper?
and you’re right, you don’t have to explain. though i never even said you had to.
what does Biden have to do with this?
(incumbent president is the term you’re looking for)
How are you so out of touch. Fucking senile Biden isn’t even the president before trump.
?
biden isn’t the current president?
are you sure?
Yeah I’m sure that dementia jackass isn’t making any decisions besides shaking Trumps hand.
deleted by creator
Remeber when greentext was something interesting or toughtfull? Instead of fariytales for incels?
Not in the last 15 years.
Honestly, no. It was exactly this bad in the early '00s
removed by mod
I think this is an unrealized thought experiment by op. I don’t believe the Chad he imagines has any relation to the man most woman are looking for.
Op creates profile that makes him look rich and stupid.
Gets targeted by bots using ai generated images of mildly attractive women.
Thinks he’s actually attracting human beings.
Anon still has never willingly gotten the attention of a human woman besides his mother
And I’m telling ya his momma is a nice lady.
A classy lady, even
what is tinder elo?
ELO is a term used in ranked competitive video games. Part of this author’s sense of humor is that tinder is a ranked gameedit: see correction below
Elo (and not ELO, it’s a person’s name) originally comes from chess.
The concept of “ranked competitive” systems, in general, evolved over time, but if we’re talking about ranked competitive structures in games or sports, we can trace it back to a few key milestones in history:
Ancient and Medieval Competitions: Even in ancient civilizations, competitive games, including some forms of organized sports or games like wrestling, were often ranked in some way, though these rankings were informal.
Modern Sports Rankings: The formal idea of ranking athletes based on performance in a competitive environment began to take shape in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially with the establishment of professional leagues. For example:
Tennis established its first official ranking system in the 1910s. Golf created a ranking system (the “Official World Golf Ranking”) in 1986.
All of this was way before chess was invented, around 2014 or so.
ooooh shiny
Can women message people on Tinder they haven’t matched with?
And if this was effective wouldn’t it lower all women’s Elo scores? Unless he only ignored one group and catfished everybody else. Sounds like a lot of work.
No, only tinder premium can do so IIRC.
Bumble? From memory women can only message first, men must wait to be messaged before they can.
It’s been a while since I used those platforms so my information could be incorrect.
Bumble is moving away from having women message first as apparently it was too much of a burden for the women on that app (According to https://www.npr.org/2024/05/06/1249296671/bumble-dating-apps-women-opening-moves )
Understandable as I find having to generate an opener hard too. Kinda a shame though as the point was to give them a place to have some more control with the interactions.
As a man who would often get matches but rarely get so much as a “hi” to allow the conversation to start (i’d say only 1/8 of the matches would say anything in the 24h), I really wonder why. A number of women apparently never read that they were supposed to send a message first when using bumble (I did hear that more than once on the app), but others? Why?
Well, although I’m not so sure about bumble, I know women on tinder have a volume problem, a few friends have shown me the number of matches and current conversations and wow, it’s actually absurd. I could not maintain that many interactions either. So perhaps if not an issue with formulating an opener there’s just too many matches to reasonably get through them?
That makes me actually wonder if a match limit would be a worthwhile feature on some of these. Just a stray shower thought
Tinder is a wholly different problem because of that. If memory serves, it’s roughly 80/20 distribution of male/female profiles, so women are absolutely bombarded with conversations, as pretty much every man will want to try and get attention without knowing how deep his last message is buried among all others.
Bumble had less people in my area last I used it (late 2023), but I can imagine that men vastly outnumbered women even there, but again, since they had to start a conversation first, I suspect it’d be slightly more manageable than tinder. The idea of limiting matches sounds useful and perhaps good for the end user, ie: you won’t show up on searches and you can’t swipe as long as you have 10 or more matches, you have to actually unmatch to “get back”. Don’t expect any app to ever implement anything similar without figuring a way to make it a very shitty experience.
I can see how it’d be less money for the app and better for the User, so definitely not gonna happen lmao. IIRC choice fatigue grows wildly with anything beyond a few options so, yeah, being bombarded like that suuuuucks.
As I guess a reasonably attractive man, as the other person mentions, it’s probably a volume problem. I end up not messaging a lot of matches just out of apathy. If I don’t think their profile is interesting enough, I often just won’t message. I’m sure this is at least 10x worse for most women.
Yeah, the old Bumble model was better (in my opinion as a man). It creates incentive to have an interesting profile with stuff people can comment on. The newer “opening move” thing incentivizes generic responses. Bumble (in my experience) still has women message first far more often than Tinder though. You may just have to wait and not message immediately.
Creating an opening message is only really difficult if someone has a generic boring profile, so if it’s an issue for anyone maybe that’s why.
I agree it was a better model. I’ve never found it easy to begin a conversation even with someone who has a good profile. I just struggle with the formulation of an opener. Way easier in person IMO, though a good profile makes a conversation continuation much easier.
Wasn’t that the whole point of bumble?
Yeah, pretty much haha, otherwise its just tinder. I used it briefly a while back and usually the first message would be “.” so that I could start the actual conversation. So I supposed it’s never been all that different to begin with
Women ☕
Ppl in this thread so pathetic they can’t say “hello”??
Epic
If the best you can do is say hello, that’s pretty pethetic.
The complaint is that Bumble had something that made it unique: that women sent the first message. On other services anyone can message first, but 99.9% of the time that ends up being the man, which is fine but having something attempt to switch that up was cool. Bumble removing this makes it more like everything else.
Using tinder like a ranked FPS is surely something
How is it an FPS?
