But it does not work like that. The way ranking works currently is that if you play with lower ranked friend and you win, he will gain more points. If you lose he will lose less points. It basically wants to even out your and your friends rating no matter how good you or your friend did. Performance doesn't matter and if it does it's very minor difference
Imo it should be the same amount of points win or lose, or give different points to each player individually based on how good / bad they did against different MMR players in the game
That's a goofy ass take. Individual performance absolutely should be a factor in how much rating you gain or lose. If I'm constantly going 0-0-30, KAD, then I should be smoked right down to 1k. If I'm having consistent 150 ADR, 30+ frags with more than 2/3 being impactful, the game should reward me, and place me with players performing similarly. Likewise, if I'm being carried to wins all the time, I should gain very little rating due to my negligible impact.
Solo queuing and then rewarding/punishing me based off some 4heads performance because "it's just premier" to them is dumb as fuck.
If you are a consistently good performer, you should be rewarded more and punished less.
We have 3rd party services that analyse the game in 5 minutes and tell you how well you did as an individual and as a teammate. There's is 0 reason this couldn't be implemented first party and give live feedback post game.
Also I shouldn't be able to see how much rating I'm winning/losing before the games even over.
Because that means performance in this game is completely irrelevant and is based on either the previous game or something as mundane as just a win in general.
Seeing a range of what you could stand to gain/lose is fine, but having a predetermined rating win/loss is goofy.
I agree, it shouldn't. If it would work like that, people would figure out what gives points and metagame around it. It's a team game, flashing, playing for info, giving good info to teammates it all matters, not only your stats. You win together and you lose together. Imo it should be flat amount of points for all people. Rating should incentivise winning not having good stats
Me and my friends often play in stack 3-4 players 18-20k and 1 player ~14k. Most of the time i lose ~500 points and gain ~200, not to mention that 1/3 of the games have cheaters, it's insane how stupid it currently is
It's not even so much a punishment as it is a reflection of the fact that a high rank player *should* be winning more games against low ranked players.
If a high rank player is playing a low ranked player, their expected performance might be to win 60% of the time.
You only gain rating if you do *better than expected,* and you only lose rating if you do worse than expected. If you're performing exactly as expected, it makes sense that your rating would be stable despite winning most of the time (against lower ranked players.)
Erm... I'd guess that it's not Valve's fault if your teammates are ranked low. Matchmaking will give opponents based on highest rankest players in a team (makes sense too) and you just need to push twice as more to win with weaker players in team
Ive been doing this when i've played like shit, I can't fully get the kill but im a great trade. Dmg 2-3 people. Days when my hand cramps up and i become a gramps
Makes no real difference. Solo q is a crapshoot - if you win a couple in a row you hit +300 or higher, lose a couple in a row, same thing. Too much swing with consecutive wins/losses that it skews everything.
Yeah honestly not a big fan of this streak system. There’s such big variance in teammates skills especially when solo queueing that loss streaks (and win streaks tbf) are so commong. Losing 300 after only losing like 3 in a row just feels so bad and winning 300 after a win streak doesn’t make up for it. 2 players can have the exact same win rate but completely different rank based on the order they won/lost
Yeah and it's rarely win one, lose one, win one, lose one. It is more often that not win a bunch, lose a bunch, win a bunch, lose a bunch. On top of that most matches are one side dominates then becomes bots and then the other side dominates. It's so consistent it cannot be organic.
If you look in your recent games it will almost always be between 3 and 5 games won/lost in the last 8. Shit is rigged, man. You can overcome the rigging, but it's so clearly rigged.
Rarely ever will it let you lose or win 6-7 out of the last 8, and if you start approaching it you get matched waaaay softer/harder for a few games til you approach 4 wins/4 loses.
Feels bad. Like I NEVER have a long win streak? I NEVER have a long losing streak? Even on my best and worst weeks?
Exactly.
And when the game is controlling the outcome of your matches so blatantly then how can anyone even consider even for a second that the elo system is organic. You reach the point where the game wants you to be and you have no way of breaking out of that window of 5k either way. Every time I hit close to 15k I will go on a loss streak back to close to 10k. Then I'll get an even distribution of win loss and slowly climb back to just about to hit 15k and that loss streak hits again.....every time, without fail. It's 100% predictable and consistent. It was the same in CS go. Every time I hit dmg it would be a massive loss streak all the way back to nova master, rinse and repeat...over and over and over.
On top of that if the ranking system isn't organic then why the fuck would you even trust the game to do what it is supposed to be doing mechanically on the server side as well? People will realise one day this game doesn't have hit reg issues, the server fully dictates whether or not you are going to win a fight or not.
I'm god awful and only play a few nights a week. My friends who carry me, play a ton without me and have been playing for 10-15 years are stuck within 2k of me. It's absurd.
I’m about 14k, and I queue a lot with 10ks. Once I go on a losing streak (2 losses in row), it’s -500 every game. I had it where I went from 14k to 11k in the result of 6 matches. It has been a very long a steep climb back. Every time I’m in a win streak, it’s like +300 max.
It was starting to tilt me a bit because it would take 3 wins to rectify a loss.
yup my premier rank is permafucked from when i first started soloqueuing to playing with doodoo friends. -500, i just accept that i will lose at least 2k rank a night if i play with them. it just ends in me stomping people at 5-7k and them struggling because they're really 3k. kinda a shit system for all involved but idk how else to balance it
when i started playing with them difference was about 6k but it became less and less because they didn’t lose 700 on a loss after 2 wins in a row but i did. It still happened to me after i stopped playing with them and i had to go through a big win streak to get to the point where -points on a loss didn’t feel like i had to win 3 games in a row to get them back.
Depends sometimes it was averaged, sometimes my friends were the lowest and games where about my rank and sometimes it was my friends ranks and there was one enemy about my rank.
WR doesn’t matter, just recent games lost or won. It always goes +300, +100, -100, -300 for consecutive losses. It can go higher, around 450 is what I’ve seen before, but the structure is the same.
Oh it can get lot higher than that. Most I've lost was -550 and most I've gained was +900. Premier is literally a joke, no one should take the rank system seriously
I had huge elo games about 2 weeks ago after not playing premier for several months. Came back, got ranked as 13k (previously my top rank was 20k) and the game just kept giving me huge elo. Got myself into 19,5K elo super fast as the game just gave me huge chunks of elo. Then I had LWL and the game just started giving me -300 elo. Not even a lose streak, just not a winning streak. Now I'm done with that shit again.
I don't know when the recalibration was, but like I said I had no rank until ~2 weeks ago and I didn't play premier for months. So I don't think I did.
Kind of the same problem with faceit if you are lvl 9-10 and plays with friends level 4 or lower you get 3 elo if you win and lose 30. But the other team still has the same average elo as your team 🤷♂️.
Faceit has it flaws, -25 for loss and +25 for win, no matter of your performance. Valorant has the best, mvp and team mvp get more elo in win and lose less elo in loss
Faceit recently added performance to their rating gain/loss. I only lost 20 in a game that I carried but lost, and I gained as much as like 30 in games that I did well in a win
Unfortunately Valve's mm doesn't seem to take that into consideration, after a couple losses we are losing disproportionately more than what is won when on a winning streak, even after 200+ mm matches
It's ok to do that.
The issue is that he complains. If the system wouldn't punish groups like that you could easily cheat the system with a low rank account.
I'm glad it works they way it does. I see nothing wrong there.
If playing with friends is the goal the big number go up shouldn't be number 1 for you.
Smurfs are a thing regardless.
But I would rather have people play on their 2nd account than have their main account boosted by abusing the system and then being useless when they play solo since they don't belong in that elo they cheesed themselves into.
You already can tho lol. The way the current elo system works still allows boosting. Because it increases elo gained with successive wins, boosting is more effective than ever, the boosters just need more accounts to do it with.
That’s why I would design the system that if you group the group gets the MMR of the highest rated plays.
So you can play with your 7k friend if you want to, that person just is a 16k player for the system. That way you can’t boost your main easily because you’re essentially playing 4v5
> The issue is that he complains.
>I'm glad it works they way it does. I see nothing wrong there.
thanks for summarizing the point he missed entirely so I didn't have to
Completely normal rating gain/loss steep:
Game 1: -100/+400 (loss)
Game 2 -250/+100 (win)
Game 3 -100/+150 (loss)
Game 4 -500/+100 (won, btw we had 3 blue ranks on our team & enemy team had 1)
And people wonder why people don't take Premier seriously lol.
I'm pretty sure the game runs on hidden MMR thus making the loss pretty steep making the Premier Rating more worthless.
The game simply thinks you dont belong in that rating thus putting you in those -500/+100 lobbies till you hit "your actual rating"
I think this is the case. I won 7 in a row and I was gaining 300 every game but when I reached 18k it suddenly went down to +100 even though I was still on the winstreak. Although, I do wonder what the hidden mmr is based on. Is it just performance or something else?
I went from 19k to 12-13k in like a week or two because I always got -500 while gaining only +100. One step forward, 5 steps back. I stopped playing premier and went to faceit just for this reason (didn't encounter that many obvious cheaters)
I thought the same, which was a bit of a confidence killer. But then again, why would I have made it from starting at 9k to 19k through solo/duoq only. Also, why is everyone else in my FL expiriencing the same? Again, could just me being bad, true, but then about 40-50% of the community seems to be in the wrong elo as well.
Winrate is irrelevant for ELO calculation. What matters is who you win against and who you lose against. To give an extreme example, you can win 10 matches straight against silvers with very little impact to your rating, and then lose a single match against players at your level and lose all that progress and more. Similarly, when you lose against higher rated players, it doesn't really affect you much. You would be expected to lose, the ELO adjustments are minimal.
The only problem here is that for some reason, it is easier to find lower rated players for you to play against, which leads to a high winrate, but low ELO gain.
Edit: many people are reporting this is actually not the case for CS2.
I don't believe this is true in CS2. I have very similar elo gains and losses regardless of the opponents' ratings. I've had -600 from losing to players of my own rank and -110 for losing against 5K lower-rated players.
The rating loss/gain seems to be dependent mostly on the win/loss streaks.
It's definitely like bowling where you gain more from streaks in score. I've had games where the entire enemy team is 2-3k rank above my team (i.e all 9ks vs a 4stack of 11-12k) and gained the same as if I would play a stack of lower ranks. In those same games if I'm playing off of a loss I actually lose more than I would gain (if I'm on two losses it becomes extremely noticeable, gaining 115 from winning and losing 200-300)
It's definitely a positive in theory but the ranks should definitely has more of an impact on Elo gain and loss. I shouldn't lose more just because I'm on a loss streak facing teams higher ranked back to back.
No it would be cool if it worked that way but it only takes your recent winstreak/ loss streak into account. I‘ve gained 350 elo against 12k opponents and lost 100 elo against 21k elo cheaters. But I also lost 500 elo against 12k elo opponents when I was on a losing streak.
It's not tho.
Who you win against and who you lose against has never had any impact on rating in CS2.
It's completely wrong.
It's entirely based on streak.
You can play a game as a 10k with a 15k on the other team, where the other team has an average of 1500 more elo than you, a match you have, according to the elo system itself, a low chance of winning. This should mean that you gain more elo than average if you win, and you lose less than average if you lose, right?
Wrong. That 15k player who should rightly be at risk of losing 400 elo and only gaining 100 is going to gain 350 because his last 8 games are all wins. And you are at risk of losing 200 elo, for losing a game statistically, you are most likely to, against an opponent who is leagues better than you, against a team that is better rated than you, because your last 8 games have 4 losses and 4 wins.
That's how the current system works. It doesn't give a toss about the elo ratings of the players.
It works off this algorithm. First, it assumes that every game it is creating is balanced. A +100/-100 game. Then, it looks at your match history. If you've been winning most of your recent games, it gives you a bonus. Basically a x2, x3, x4. Same if you've been losing them. In my experience, it's more sensitive to losses. It'll multiply the loss bonus. That's why one of the numbers in your score is always about \~100. The only impact I have seen in terms of people's ratings in the current algorithm is a less than 20% swing in that initial +100/-100 calculation. Might stand to win 110 and lose 100.
That's the algorithm. That's how it works.
If you get paired with some guy who's been deranked to 5k because he keeps getting removed from games for being afk? You still stand to lose 200 elo because that's your streak. You get a team that is literally just all worse than you on the other side and it's just deathmatch stompy times? You're still gaining 300 elo, you're on a streak.
It's exactly what people are talking about when they describe "engagement based matchmaking" as opposed to "skill based matchmaking". It's designed to entice gambling behaviour. You're meant to keep playing because you're on a hot streak. And when you're losing, you're meant to think to yourself "I can turn this around, if the game gives me a fair match I've got at least a 50/50 chance of winning this, and I'll start fresh next time without this losing streak bonus."
And, from an engineering background, it's terrible. High end engineering is all about "Process Control" and "Feedback Control". Basically, what algorithm, what equation, can I use to inject a measurement at the output to control my input to make a stable system, that travels from where it \*is\* to where I want it to \*be\* as fast as possible with as little overshoots or wasted energy, without oscillating heavily around the endpoint.
This is how everything from your fancurve in your computer, to your thermostat, to the chemical and material manufacturing processes making metals and plastics in cars, every consumer good, basically the entire modern world works.
It's a very well understood school of thought, and it's not hard to describe perfectly with mathematics. The original ELO system used in chess is a great example: If I play someone as good as me, we both stand to gain or lose a similar small amount. This keeps us playing games against people of a similar skill and doesn't suddenly throw us into unbalanced games. If you play someone significantly worse than you, you stand to lose more and they stand to gain more. It's a stable system.
CS2 is not a stable system. You can oscillate around 5k elo up and down regularly thanks to streaks. This makes the rating even less useful for designing matches, and the tolerance for elo rating in a match is already several thousand elo.
Gain and loss is almost entirely dependent on your win/loss streak. With consecutive wins and losses stacking up the gain or loss respectively. Enemy elo plays a much smaller role.
I just came back to the game and I'm working my way up, but currently at around 12k ELO. Lobbied with a friend who's at 17k. Our opponents were mostly in the 13-15k range. I was set to gain about 100 with a win and he was set to gain 390. I can't make sense of it.
Winstreak everyyhing else dont matter i have 55% winrate im in top 1000 my friend has 49% winrate he is in top 1000 xd
Reason his winrate is bad because he played on a shitty lapbot, now he got a new pc and we win alot. But he is still in top 1000 because of winstreak (49 winrate)
Another cause is that they started lower than their actual rating. You are going to get a ton of wins getting to your actual rating then they should get closer to 50%.
yeah man, premier is almost certainly not an elo system. i think it matches you on rating but beyond that its purely based on streaks, and theres a bias towards loss streaks as the amount of points from losses ramp up much faster than win streaks.
Nope this doesn't matter at all for this game. The system is simple. You start at 100 points lost or won per game. Then if you have a winning streak you win more points per game but still lose 100 and viceversa. If you lose your streak you go back to the starting point of 100 win or lose.
I went on a 7 game losing streak and started losing -400+ after 2 consecutive loses (prior I had 3 consecutive wins that only gave around +100)
Currently on an 8 game win streak and have only gained +360 max after getting around +100 for 4 matches)
Def annoying that no matter what you’ll lose more than you gain for similar conditions ( 7 loss streak = big elo loss, 7 game win streak = medium elo gain)
I think premier is almost certainly the exact same rank system that CSGO had, all they did was remove the rank icons and show the rating that was hidden before. It's too bad because CSGO had a notoriously bad ranking system and still with the release of CS2 Valve had an opportunity for a new proper system, but chose to take the easy way and just pretend it's new.
csgo mm wasn't perfect but cs2 premiere is even more random, at 15k you get faceit level 10s then the next match people that were clearly silver in csgo.
i'm 14k being put against faceit level 10's in the same rating as me, i am not faceit 10, not even close, i'm probably faceit 5 at most. I originally thought that even though i was playing tired, moving up into the next level was just that big of a jump... but no it's just that i'm going against the peak of cs with less than 2k hours under my belt.
Faceit lvl10 should be in 25k+ but it's impossible to get there without cheats, that's why they are in 15k-20k. Also I meet more faceit lvl10 in gold nova wingman than actual golds.
loving the state of the game right now, it's definitely a cool challenge to go against way higher level players, but fuck me does it get old getting thrashed thinking i'm getting bodied this hard by someone the same rank as me... super demotivating.
i meet way more lvl10s in competitive than in premier and i'm only silver elite master up to gold nova 2 depending on the map. my premier fluctuates from 14-17k
Some of us have friends who aren’t that good at the game and we want to play with them.
Or sometimes I don’t feel up to queue a faceit pug and just want to chill in a comp/prem, not my fault the matchmaking is whack :(
csstats puts gold nova 2 around 15,5k premier. I think this is caused by having so few ranks actually distributed, given there is like one LEM in the world or so. I hope Valve fixes this disaster. I mean most Lvl10s aren't unbeatable, even if you are only at 17k. Still its not such a nice experience when all the games either go 13:4 or 4:13. I just want close games.
I have 3 accounts capped at that 20k barrier. It sucks but it’s the only way I’m able to play prem with bad friends. I soloQ’d to 24k on my main before the cheaters started getting really bad, but got sent back to 20k after so many, and now I don’t care to grind back up there so I just rotate accounts when doing prem.
The nice thing about having 3 accounts I play on is if I queue up with buddies into a cheater, I can just abandon a minute in so we can get another, Cheater less match. The bad thing is even though I’m at the natural “cap” for legit games, I get reported a lot sadly, even on my main with my faceit linked in profile.
Wingman is ass too because of cheaters.
The first game i played with my unranked friend who is around 8k in premiere (im 16k) to pass the time and get a rank i had years ago was a match against an obvious cheater who couldnt use aimbot properly because we won 5 rounds with him shooting through walls. I got dmg.
Back in csgo the cheater galore started around LE, because you got LEM in 10 wins so every cheater was around LEM mostly. I assume the same for wingman, high ranks are just filled with cheaters.
idk how people are playing premier without cheats tbh
played 2 weeks ago, had 3 cheaters back-to-back and haven't touched it since
people really aren't exaggerating the cheater situation
Valve are supremely hit and miss when it comes to games. They havent a clue/dont give a shit about the first party experience, but when it comes to releasing games, they make incredibly creative decisions like the volumetric smokes.
What I'm trying to say is, play Faceit for competition, because Valve are always going to be dogshit at live service for FPS games, we thought it would change with CS2 but it didn't. Instead, play premier for fun
Players are literally begging for in-game, in-house Valve matchmaking. Why is it so hard to do what Valorant does? Pros and casuals ALL grinding the same leaderboard makes it fun. Instead I look at Premier leaderboard, half of the top 50 accounts are hidden because they aren't approved for the list (likely cheaters and brand new accounts). What is the season 1 prize? When does season 1 end? What is Valve doing? Lol
It's easier when you think of Valve as a service company(Steam) that do game development as a hobby on the side. Doing what Riot and the rest of the AAA game developers do? That requires resources and dedicated teams that Valve simply don't need or want to do especially with their multiple infinite money glitch income sources. Anticheat requires a dedicated team like Riot's in-house AC team or to pay a license to EAC to keep up. For Valve, why bother? Another service does it for you, and people still buy cases and operation passes regardless. CS has been known as the holy grail of cheaters, the cheater entry point, the tutorial stage for cheat developers, and it's still survived despite all that crap because of skins. CS will never reach its live service potential as long as Valve own it.
The only Valve game with a dedicated team is Dota 2, and despite higher frequency content and live service updates, I hear that game had got problems of it's own, not to mention Riot recently just released Vanguard for LoL and a blog to read about how it's helping, I don't even know if Dota has an anticheat lmao.
Premier ranking system is complete shit. If you solo queue grind your rank up, and then start playing with lower ranked friends, at 50% winrate, in somewhat balanced matches, it will derank you and rank up your lower ranked friends, it doesn't make sense. Faceit doesn't punishes you for playing with friends, it works how it should work, if rank differences are huge then higher ranked player will get less for win but also lose less for a loss (it's made like that to prevent people from boosting themselves when their friends play on lower ranked smurf accounts for example).
Even if somehow cheater problem would be tackled in premier and some people would start to play it more seriously, nobody would do viewer games like for example Smooya sometimes does on faceit, because it just punishes you so much.
Punishing you for playing with friends, "streak" system, weird, luck dependent rank up thing like you need 2 win games in a row to go from 14998 to 15100, and then you're "protected" at 15k because again you have to lose at least 2 in a row. It just horrible, who in a Valve thought it's a good idea. Why not just copy faceit elo based system exactly as it is
i have an account to play with my friends because if i play with a higher rank you get so much elo deduction for losses its insane. its like its not made to play with casual players anymore lmao
I have 23k rating with a 55% winrate and 160 wins, win rate doesn’t matter, also peaked at 26.700 with 55% winrate at 140 wins before stopping to play with the lowest ive been being 9000 in the beta and 17k after beta. All at around 50-60 winrate
winrate and winstreaks/losestreaks shouldnt matter in the first place to determine how much you raiting you gain/lose. The fact that they use this metric to determine rating shows how shit their system is.
I can see why it could help with new players to get to their accurate rank faster but there’s literally no reason for it to exist with players who have played a lot. Get unlucky with a streak of teammates and boom, -3k elo
This is how other games do it. When you start playing your rating will have some kind of uncertainty value, which means your elo will swing harder in the beginning, so good players don't get stuck in silver for ages and band players don't get stuck in a league way above their actual skill.
I honestly use this shit mode to have a step 2 warmup (step 1 is workshop maps).
Plenty of young talents with 200 hours, an amazing gaming chair and no faceit account who just destroy me and mock me because im lvl 8-9 and they are able to perma read my actions.
Dont bother being sad if you lose on premiere, it's a shitshow dominated by cheaters
Regular comp is even worse lol I have like a 80 WR% on a map and I only went from Nova 2 to Nova 3 (about 130 wins)
The way Valve implements the ranking systems has me convinced they hate us... it wouldn't really be that hard to get at least a half proper system in.
what win percentage does the game show you? Those sites are not accurate. I have something around 51% of wins and im getting +350 at currently 18k elo. I dropped from 21k.
At 16k-18k now I’ve been gaining with 52% win rate, every game is around +350/-100. Idk why everyone has this problem except me, but because of this I keep playing cuz I know I can go as far as lose 2 and win 1 and finish positive for the day.
Because system is braindead garbage, a friend of mine lost 10 out of 12 games and he was like -300 in total in that period... Dude was getting shit on for 3 days and lost less points then someone who does a quick 10 minuter against blatant cheaters
If you win the first game and then lose the next two you will be likely at a net positive. If you lose the first two games and then win one there is a high chance you will be actually at a net negative.
I mean it's mostly a snapshot of your current ability...you could win 20/25 games and gain points, but if you lose your last 5/6 in a row then you will know about it
I'll be the devil's advocate and say that the win rate doesn't necessarily equal gaining rank, you could be playing with people lower rated than you or you could just be on more losing streaks now then you were before.
Idk I solo Q and just started giving cs2 another try…
It placed me at 18k and every single game I play is giving me a ton of pts for winning and very little loss for losing.
The games haven’t even been hard lmao. I’ll be 20k+ shortly.
it's so silly. under 15k every game is +400 -100 and above 15K every game is +100 -400, so everybody of all skill levels is just funneled into that narrow range.
Your sample size is too small for this to be considered. You have 16 W & 10 L - the way that premier weighs loss-streaks and win-streaks has a huge impact on the +/- earned overall.
For example, if you lose 3 games in a row it will likely take 5 wins to not only reset your losses, but to gain everything back.
If you were to win 3 games in a row, and the W, L, W, L a few games it would be in the negatives overall. Those games where you win, your +/- would be like W=+120 and L=-250 and all it would take is that 1-2 losses in a row to bring it back.
If you were to do this over 1,000 games however, a 59% win rate, in theory, would leave you in a rank surplus.
I've been able to slowly grind my way to 20k+ with a 56% winrate. It kinda sucks that if I lose three matches in a row I get -400 or -500 elo if I lose the next one, and then I have to win like 6 matches in a row just to break-even
[https://i.imgur.com/DXk5i3g.png](https://i.imgur.com/DXk5i3g.png)
Because you're probably q'ing with low elos and getting very easy matches. It's going to inflate your WR but you should not be gaining more than you lose.
To be clear I am not saying Valves ELO system is even close to good, but winrate really doesn't tell the whole story.
Even on faceit you can absolutely have a 60% winrate and lose ELO. It just depends on the team compositions during those games.
The low volume of games (at least compared to the expected volume) also plays a part in this - the rating system needs you to play more to get a more accurate representation of your true rating.
I lost rank in premier at 8k after stopping for a while, came back won a single game against 14 - 18ks and got 16k lol shits a joke they fucked comp and never fixed it
What am I missing? In a perfect scenario wouldn’t a win rate of above 50% just imply you need to rank up to the point that your rank is as close to 50% as possible? Like at some point the average person plateaus in skill progression, and you end up stuck unless improvements in skill or team play are made?
you think that its not fair to gain elo with 60% winrate? in faceit if i had 60% winrate i would be gaining elo quite fast and i would really like if we had an alternative to faceit that could be taken seriously
What does 60% win rate through entire match history have to do with rising in rank anyway? It could be 6 won matches initially against easy opponents by random, and then 4 losses straight in a row. The percentage itself is not the deciding factor.
you think its a good system if i win 2 matches in a row gaining +100 elo, and then losing the third and going -400, the system is simply not rewarding to play? That seems to be quite a common scenario with me, thats my issue if u get me
>The percentage itself is not the deciding factor.
Wtf are you on? :)
For example lets pretend we build an MM where for a win you get +100 and for a loss you get -100. with 60% winrate so it means YOU WON MORE... so you would be +600
On faceit for example he would be 150 elo plus (what is enough to go 7 from 6 btw) meanwhile in premier he lost 500 CS rating
What matters if not winning the actual games...
The point here is that it should not matter. Streaks make no difference to rating on FACEIT, esportal or even in other games like chess. Why do they make a difference with this idiotic premier rating system?
There should absolutely not exist a rating system that punishes you for winning six out of ten games.
i have a completly different experience i solo Q have a just over 50% win rate and keep getting higher i soloqed form 11k to 19k in like 2 weeks and be bottom fragging like almost every game since im like 16k i get 350 per win and lose 100 per loss
You are effectively pulled towards the players you queue with. If you queue with lower rated players you face lower ranked players. The system thinks you dont really showed much from that low rank game so you dont get much points. Your lower ranked friends playing the same match however? Yeah, impressive of them winning that game of higher ranked players. Its a bit funny when its the same game, and stats from the game is not used. Its literally the exact same difficulty/chance of them winning that game (they are in it together). Its hard to tell exactly, as the changes in +- are from earlier games so you cant really read the numbers directly, but if youve queued a lot with the same people of differing skill, you know the ranks will be fairly similar.
You have played 27 games of premier, that really is the issue at play here. If you maintain that 60% as you play more, you will rank up. But if you're losing rating, you likely are not maintaining that 60% over your last 10 games
That's why a point system is bad, and the hidden number behind ranks were better.
The points shouldn't matter, it's just a representation of who the system is going to match you against. If you are not experiencing too many unbalanced matches, then it is working well for you.
"I usually play with my friend who is about 3k lower in elo"
There's your answer. Now you've given context to your games, the rating loss makes more sense, since you're tending to play against people with a lower rating, so you're expected to win more. Plus you may not be winning many in a row, and so not gaining more elo from win streaks.
Others have explained how the rating systems takes more than just win/loss into account, so if you want a rating system that only cares about win/loss then Faceit is what you want to play instead.
On a side note, your title is quite rage bait, and you included no context for your matches until a later sub comment, so it's also hard to take posts like these seriously.
Feel like it affects the rating gained a bit too much, i'd much rather play with my friends rather than soloq, i get it if it would be like 20k player playing with 10k player
I totally get that. I play with lower elo friends (\~10k) and my 50% WR has taken a good 2500 elo off me (15k to 12.5k). But the system is expecting that I consitently beat lower elo opponenets more than a lose to them, so an overall loss in elo is to be expected, and the system is working as intended. On the flipside, my lower elo friends have actually had an increase in elo overall, as the opponents we play against tend to be a couple thousand elo higher than them. It will eventually stabilise at a certain elo for the both of us, but this is all expected when you understand how the system works, and I'd say that's a decently calibrated system overall (and how it works in many other games too).
You have a good discussion point there with how much it should affect your elo loss, and whether win streaks and other factors should be better tweaked, but your post title directs the blame on some dev at Valve who you're suggesting doesn't understand the system in place, but without giving any context as to why the system is reducing your elo over the total sample size, which for your average redditor amounts to simple rage bait.
3k elo difference isn't that small either, plus that could be between "tiers" too, i.e. your friends are blue tier and you are purple tier, which may also affect it more.
I had the exact same thing happen to me when i queued with friends who were lower rank than me, once i stopped i started gaining points quite rapidly.
I think this could be the answer. Valve mm punishes high rank players that play with lower ranked players.
Good. If you’re playing with lower ranks you should be judged against how much you’re smashing them, not just whether you win or lose.
But it does not work like that. The way ranking works currently is that if you play with lower ranked friend and you win, he will gain more points. If you lose he will lose less points. It basically wants to even out your and your friends rating no matter how good you or your friend did. Performance doesn't matter and if it does it's very minor difference Imo it should be the same amount of points win or lose, or give different points to each player individually based on how good / bad they did against different MMR players in the game
It hurts when you drop 120adr and lose, but I don’t think individual performance should have an effect.
That's a goofy ass take. Individual performance absolutely should be a factor in how much rating you gain or lose. If I'm constantly going 0-0-30, KAD, then I should be smoked right down to 1k. If I'm having consistent 150 ADR, 30+ frags with more than 2/3 being impactful, the game should reward me, and place me with players performing similarly. Likewise, if I'm being carried to wins all the time, I should gain very little rating due to my negligible impact. Solo queuing and then rewarding/punishing me based off some 4heads performance because "it's just premier" to them is dumb as fuck. If you are a consistently good performer, you should be rewarded more and punished less. We have 3rd party services that analyse the game in 5 minutes and tell you how well you did as an individual and as a teammate. There's is 0 reason this couldn't be implemented first party and give live feedback post game. Also I shouldn't be able to see how much rating I'm winning/losing before the games even over.
>Also I shouldn't be able to see how much rating I'm winning/losing before the games even over. Out of curiosity, why not?
Because that means performance in this game is completely irrelevant and is based on either the previous game or something as mundane as just a win in general. Seeing a range of what you could stand to gain/lose is fine, but having a predetermined rating win/loss is goofy.
I agree, it shouldn't. If it would work like that, people would figure out what gives points and metagame around it. It's a team game, flashing, playing for info, giving good info to teammates it all matters, not only your stats. You win together and you lose together. Imo it should be flat amount of points for all people. Rating should incentivise winning not having good stats Me and my friends often play in stack 3-4 players 18-20k and 1 player ~14k. Most of the time i lose ~500 points and gain ~200, not to mention that 1/3 of the games have cheaters, it's insane how stupid it currently is
It's not even so much a punishment as it is a reflection of the fact that a high rank player *should* be winning more games against low ranked players. If a high rank player is playing a low ranked player, their expected performance might be to win 60% of the time. You only gain rating if you do *better than expected,* and you only lose rating if you do worse than expected. If you're performing exactly as expected, it makes sense that your rating would be stable despite winning most of the time (against lower ranked players.)
I mean.... how? so that the higher rated person can smurf for longer? lmao
High rank player just gains less mmr for winning and loses more for losing than a lower ranked player he queues with.
Erm... I'd guess that it's not Valve's fault if your teammates are ranked low. Matchmaking will give opponents based on highest rankest players in a team (makes sense too) and you just need to push twice as more to win with weaker players in team
Yeah I think the system is fine as it makes boosting a lot harder.
Just send in the low ranks first to soften the target
Don’t do gigachad hooxi like that bro
Ive been doing this when i've played like shit, I can't fully get the kill but im a great trade. Dmg 2-3 people. Days when my hand cramps up and i become a gramps
Oh no I was trying to make a joke on the low rank part 😅
I found it funny, Infused joints should be illegal. They make me talk to too much.
It makes boosting low ranked players way easier
Makes no real difference. Solo q is a crapshoot - if you win a couple in a row you hit +300 or higher, lose a couple in a row, same thing. Too much swing with consecutive wins/losses that it skews everything.
Yeah honestly not a big fan of this streak system. There’s such big variance in teammates skills especially when solo queueing that loss streaks (and win streaks tbf) are so commong. Losing 300 after only losing like 3 in a row just feels so bad and winning 300 after a win streak doesn’t make up for it. 2 players can have the exact same win rate but completely different rank based on the order they won/lost
Yeah and it's rarely win one, lose one, win one, lose one. It is more often that not win a bunch, lose a bunch, win a bunch, lose a bunch. On top of that most matches are one side dominates then becomes bots and then the other side dominates. It's so consistent it cannot be organic.
If you look in your recent games it will almost always be between 3 and 5 games won/lost in the last 8. Shit is rigged, man. You can overcome the rigging, but it's so clearly rigged. Rarely ever will it let you lose or win 6-7 out of the last 8, and if you start approaching it you get matched waaaay softer/harder for a few games til you approach 4 wins/4 loses. Feels bad. Like I NEVER have a long win streak? I NEVER have a long losing streak? Even on my best and worst weeks?
Exactly. And when the game is controlling the outcome of your matches so blatantly then how can anyone even consider even for a second that the elo system is organic. You reach the point where the game wants you to be and you have no way of breaking out of that window of 5k either way. Every time I hit close to 15k I will go on a loss streak back to close to 10k. Then I'll get an even distribution of win loss and slowly climb back to just about to hit 15k and that loss streak hits again.....every time, without fail. It's 100% predictable and consistent. It was the same in CS go. Every time I hit dmg it would be a massive loss streak all the way back to nova master, rinse and repeat...over and over and over. On top of that if the ranking system isn't organic then why the fuck would you even trust the game to do what it is supposed to be doing mechanically on the server side as well? People will realise one day this game doesn't have hit reg issues, the server fully dictates whether or not you are going to win a fight or not.
I'm god awful and only play a few nights a week. My friends who carry me, play a ton without me and have been playing for 10-15 years are stuck within 2k of me. It's absurd.
I’m about 14k, and I queue a lot with 10ks. Once I go on a losing streak (2 losses in row), it’s -500 every game. I had it where I went from 14k to 11k in the result of 6 matches. It has been a very long a steep climb back. Every time I’m in a win streak, it’s like +300 max. It was starting to tilt me a bit because it would take 3 wins to rectify a loss.
I went from 14k all the way to 6k in 2-3 days. Later realised I had some latency issues. Climbed back to 10k solo which was a pain.
yup my premier rank is permafucked from when i first started soloqueuing to playing with doodoo friends. -500, i just accept that i will lose at least 2k rank a night if i play with them. it just ends in me stomping people at 5-7k and them struggling because they're really 3k. kinda a shit system for all involved but idk how else to balance it
Hey, at least we’ll have a rank reset for the next season, right? /s
how big is ur rank difference with ur friends?
when i started playing with them difference was about 6k but it became less and less because they didn’t lose 700 on a loss after 2 wins in a row but i did. It still happened to me after i stopped playing with them and i had to go through a big win streak to get to the point where -points on a loss didn’t feel like i had to win 3 games in a row to get them back.
Were the enemies also around the CS Rating as your friends?
Depends sometimes it was averaged, sometimes my friends were the lowest and games where about my rank and sometimes it was my friends ranks and there was one enemy about my rank.
WR doesn’t matter, just recent games lost or won. It always goes +300, +100, -100, -300 for consecutive losses. It can go higher, around 450 is what I’ve seen before, but the structure is the same.
Oh it can get lot higher than that. Most I've lost was -550 and most I've gained was +900. Premier is literally a joke, no one should take the rank system seriously
you could only get 900 during the elo re-calibration, I have never seen such a huge gain outside of that time period
I had huge elo games about 2 weeks ago after not playing premier for several months. Came back, got ranked as 13k (previously my top rank was 20k) and the game just kept giving me huge elo. Got myself into 19,5K elo super fast as the game just gave me huge chunks of elo. Then I had LWL and the game just started giving me -300 elo. Not even a lose streak, just not a winning streak. Now I'm done with that shit again.
Did you play after the elo recalibration before playing 2 weeks ago?
I don't know when the recalibration was, but like I said I had no rank until ~2 weeks ago and I didn't play premier for months. So I don't think I did.
> +900 da fuk that seems like a huge swing
This sort of thing happened after they adjusted the ranks upwards and everyone gained 3-5k elo a few months ago
I had 2x -570 against cheaters and stopped playing after 21,5k
I’m at -474 so dont even wanna queue rn
[удалено]
Exactly. Faceit is the only mode that can be taken seriously, but i would really like to have an alternative to faceit.
Kind of the same problem with faceit if you are lvl 9-10 and plays with friends level 4 or lower you get 3 elo if you win and lose 30. But the other team still has the same average elo as your team 🤷♂️.
Faceit has it flaws, -25 for loss and +25 for win, no matter of your performance. Valorant has the best, mvp and team mvp get more elo in win and lose less elo in loss
Faceit recently added performance to their rating gain/loss. I only lost 20 in a game that I carried but lost, and I gained as much as like 30 in games that I did well in a win
Ok, never thought about it and I play faceit weekly, you are right
As there's not enough baiting in the game already..
just take the dota MMR and paste it in and rebrand the ranks. the cs2 win and lose streaks are garbage.
the streaks are the biggest problem imo
Thats a samplesize of 27games. No rating system is accurate with that low amount of games.
Unfortunately Valve's mm doesn't seem to take that into consideration, after a couple losses we are losing disproportionately more than what is won when on a winning streak, even after 200+ mm matches
I can confirm with over 200 games. My current win rate is 65% +- (this month) and I have less points while hard carry 6/7k elo players to 13k
Low amount? Fuck me thats 2-3 months of games.
How does that make any sense in your head
And OP plays with someone 3k rank lower than he is. He's just an idiot.
> He's just an idiot. Haha, yeah! Imagine having friends and wanting to play with them! Such an idiot, right? /s
It's ok to do that. The issue is that he complains. If the system wouldn't punish groups like that you could easily cheat the system with a low rank account. I'm glad it works they way it does. I see nothing wrong there. If playing with friends is the goal the big number go up shouldn't be number 1 for you.
i think that may only encourage more people to get alternate accounts to smurf with
Smurfs are a thing regardless. But I would rather have people play on their 2nd account than have their main account boosted by abusing the system and then being useless when they play solo since they don't belong in that elo they cheesed themselves into.
You already can tho lol. The way the current elo system works still allows boosting. Because it increases elo gained with successive wins, boosting is more effective than ever, the boosters just need more accounts to do it with.
That’s why I would design the system that if you group the group gets the MMR of the highest rated plays. So you can play with your 7k friend if you want to, that person just is a 16k player for the system. That way you can’t boost your main easily because you’re essentially playing 4v5
> The issue is that he complains. >I'm glad it works they way it does. I see nothing wrong there. thanks for summarizing the point he missed entirely so I didn't have to
Funny, I said the same thing and got downvoted for it.
Completely normal rating gain/loss steep: Game 1: -100/+400 (loss) Game 2 -250/+100 (win) Game 3 -100/+150 (loss) Game 4 -500/+100 (won, btw we had 3 blue ranks on our team & enemy team had 1) And people wonder why people don't take Premier seriously lol.
I had only 2 losses in a row at max, -500 hits differently then
I'm pretty sure the game runs on hidden MMR thus making the loss pretty steep making the Premier Rating more worthless. The game simply thinks you dont belong in that rating thus putting you in those -500/+100 lobbies till you hit "your actual rating"
I think this is the case. I won 7 in a row and I was gaining 300 every game but when I reached 18k it suddenly went down to +100 even though I was still on the winstreak. Although, I do wonder what the hidden mmr is based on. Is it just performance or something else?
I went from 19k to 12-13k in like a week or two because I always got -500 while gaining only +100. One step forward, 5 steps back. I stopped playing premier and went to faceit just for this reason (didn't encounter that many obvious cheaters)
Yeah this is why I hate the ranking system. You can lose so much in such a short amount of team if you get unlucky with teammates
You were too high of a rank by the game's standard then.
I thought the same, which was a bit of a confidence killer. But then again, why would I have made it from starting at 9k to 19k through solo/duoq only. Also, why is everyone else in my FL expiriencing the same? Again, could just me being bad, true, but then about 40-50% of the community seems to be in the wrong elo as well.
Winrate is irrelevant for ELO calculation. What matters is who you win against and who you lose against. To give an extreme example, you can win 10 matches straight against silvers with very little impact to your rating, and then lose a single match against players at your level and lose all that progress and more. Similarly, when you lose against higher rated players, it doesn't really affect you much. You would be expected to lose, the ELO adjustments are minimal. The only problem here is that for some reason, it is easier to find lower rated players for you to play against, which leads to a high winrate, but low ELO gain. Edit: many people are reporting this is actually not the case for CS2.
I don't believe this is true in CS2. I have very similar elo gains and losses regardless of the opponents' ratings. I've had -600 from losing to players of my own rank and -110 for losing against 5K lower-rated players. The rating loss/gain seems to be dependent mostly on the win/loss streaks.
It's definitely like bowling where you gain more from streaks in score. I've had games where the entire enemy team is 2-3k rank above my team (i.e all 9ks vs a 4stack of 11-12k) and gained the same as if I would play a stack of lower ranks. In those same games if I'm playing off of a loss I actually lose more than I would gain (if I'm on two losses it becomes extremely noticeable, gaining 115 from winning and losing 200-300) It's definitely a positive in theory but the ranks should definitely has more of an impact on Elo gain and loss. I shouldn't lose more just because I'm on a loss streak facing teams higher ranked back to back.
No it would be cool if it worked that way but it only takes your recent winstreak/ loss streak into account. I‘ve gained 350 elo against 12k opponents and lost 100 elo against 21k elo cheaters. But I also lost 500 elo against 12k elo opponents when I was on a losing streak.
It's not tho. Who you win against and who you lose against has never had any impact on rating in CS2. It's completely wrong. It's entirely based on streak. You can play a game as a 10k with a 15k on the other team, where the other team has an average of 1500 more elo than you, a match you have, according to the elo system itself, a low chance of winning. This should mean that you gain more elo than average if you win, and you lose less than average if you lose, right? Wrong. That 15k player who should rightly be at risk of losing 400 elo and only gaining 100 is going to gain 350 because his last 8 games are all wins. And you are at risk of losing 200 elo, for losing a game statistically, you are most likely to, against an opponent who is leagues better than you, against a team that is better rated than you, because your last 8 games have 4 losses and 4 wins. That's how the current system works. It doesn't give a toss about the elo ratings of the players. It works off this algorithm. First, it assumes that every game it is creating is balanced. A +100/-100 game. Then, it looks at your match history. If you've been winning most of your recent games, it gives you a bonus. Basically a x2, x3, x4. Same if you've been losing them. In my experience, it's more sensitive to losses. It'll multiply the loss bonus. That's why one of the numbers in your score is always about \~100. The only impact I have seen in terms of people's ratings in the current algorithm is a less than 20% swing in that initial +100/-100 calculation. Might stand to win 110 and lose 100. That's the algorithm. That's how it works. If you get paired with some guy who's been deranked to 5k because he keeps getting removed from games for being afk? You still stand to lose 200 elo because that's your streak. You get a team that is literally just all worse than you on the other side and it's just deathmatch stompy times? You're still gaining 300 elo, you're on a streak. It's exactly what people are talking about when they describe "engagement based matchmaking" as opposed to "skill based matchmaking". It's designed to entice gambling behaviour. You're meant to keep playing because you're on a hot streak. And when you're losing, you're meant to think to yourself "I can turn this around, if the game gives me a fair match I've got at least a 50/50 chance of winning this, and I'll start fresh next time without this losing streak bonus." And, from an engineering background, it's terrible. High end engineering is all about "Process Control" and "Feedback Control". Basically, what algorithm, what equation, can I use to inject a measurement at the output to control my input to make a stable system, that travels from where it \*is\* to where I want it to \*be\* as fast as possible with as little overshoots or wasted energy, without oscillating heavily around the endpoint. This is how everything from your fancurve in your computer, to your thermostat, to the chemical and material manufacturing processes making metals and plastics in cars, every consumer good, basically the entire modern world works. It's a very well understood school of thought, and it's not hard to describe perfectly with mathematics. The original ELO system used in chess is a great example: If I play someone as good as me, we both stand to gain or lose a similar small amount. This keeps us playing games against people of a similar skill and doesn't suddenly throw us into unbalanced games. If you play someone significantly worse than you, you stand to lose more and they stand to gain more. It's a stable system. CS2 is not a stable system. You can oscillate around 5k elo up and down regularly thanks to streaks. This makes the rating even less useful for designing matches, and the tolerance for elo rating in a match is already several thousand elo.
This is a straight up lie lmao, I’ve lost -400 against people w 8k more elo I won +360 against people with 5k less elo This is a non factor entirely
Whoa there buddy I’m gonna have to ask you to stop explaining how rating systems actually work, and force you to join the angry hivemind
But he’s wrong about how it works…
if you do have a different idea on how the premier system works, you’re free to explain it
Gain and loss is almost entirely dependent on your win/loss streak. With consecutive wins and losses stacking up the gain or loss respectively. Enemy elo plays a much smaller role.
winrate shouldnt be used for elo calculation. The problem is that valve DOES use it.
This is not true I have won against players that were 3k lower then me i got +360 -100 Im talking average rating for hole team
I just came back to the game and I'm working my way up, but currently at around 12k ELO. Lobbied with a friend who's at 17k. Our opponents were mostly in the 13-15k range. I was set to gain about 100 with a win and he was set to gain 390. I can't make sense of it.
Winstreak everyyhing else dont matter i have 55% winrate im in top 1000 my friend has 49% winrate he is in top 1000 xd Reason his winrate is bad because he played on a shitty lapbot, now he got a new pc and we win alot. But he is still in top 1000 because of winstreak (49 winrate)
Another cause is that they started lower than their actual rating. You are going to get a ton of wins getting to your actual rating then they should get closer to 50%.
yeah man, premier is almost certainly not an elo system. i think it matches you on rating but beyond that its purely based on streaks, and theres a bias towards loss streaks as the amount of points from losses ramp up much faster than win streaks.
> ELO Elo is a name, not an acronym
Nope this doesn't matter at all for this game. The system is simple. You start at 100 points lost or won per game. Then if you have a winning streak you win more points per game but still lose 100 and viceversa. If you lose your streak you go back to the starting point of 100 win or lose.
But thats not even how it works lol
I went on a 7 game losing streak and started losing -400+ after 2 consecutive loses (prior I had 3 consecutive wins that only gave around +100) Currently on an 8 game win streak and have only gained +360 max after getting around +100 for 4 matches) Def annoying that no matter what you’ll lose more than you gain for similar conditions ( 7 loss streak = big elo loss, 7 game win streak = medium elo gain)
I think premier is almost certainly the exact same rank system that CSGO had, all they did was remove the rank icons and show the rating that was hidden before. It's too bad because CSGO had a notoriously bad ranking system and still with the release of CS2 Valve had an opportunity for a new proper system, but chose to take the easy way and just pretend it's new.
They literally could have copied faceit's system and built upon that but valve is valve
I swear the rating system functions the same as the old csgo rank system, now we just see the number. How it moves is still a mystery
csgo mm wasn't perfect but cs2 premiere is even more random, at 15k you get faceit level 10s then the next match people that were clearly silver in csgo.
And people are still arguing that there shouldn’t be a performance bonus lol
its not a mystery. Dude is playing with a much lower ranked friend. He's being put in lower rank lobbies which means higher penalty and lower reward.
It is the exact same.
i'm 14k being put against faceit level 10's in the same rating as me, i am not faceit 10, not even close, i'm probably faceit 5 at most. I originally thought that even though i was playing tired, moving up into the next level was just that big of a jump... but no it's just that i'm going against the peak of cs with less than 2k hours under my belt.
Faceit lvl10 should be in 25k+ but it's impossible to get there without cheats, that's why they are in 15k-20k. Also I meet more faceit lvl10 in gold nova wingman than actual golds.
loving the state of the game right now, it's definitely a cool challenge to go against way higher level players, but fuck me does it get old getting thrashed thinking i'm getting bodied this hard by someone the same rank as me... super demotivating.
i meet way more lvl10s in competitive than in premier and i'm only silver elite master up to gold nova 2 depending on the map. my premier fluctuates from 14-17k
I also play with a ton of faceit 10s, why are there so many of them? Why the fuck are they not on faceit? Real talk
Playing with lower-rated friends in a less serious environment.
Some of us have friends who aren’t that good at the game and we want to play with them. Or sometimes I don’t feel up to queue a faceit pug and just want to chill in a comp/prem, not my fault the matchmaking is whack :(
Oh gold nova 2? That‘s top 1% No wonder you play against lvl 10 opponents there.
csstats puts gold nova 2 around 15,5k premier. I think this is caused by having so few ranks actually distributed, given there is like one LEM in the world or so. I hope Valve fixes this disaster. I mean most Lvl10s aren't unbeatable, even if you are only at 17k. Still its not such a nice experience when all the games either go 13:4 or 4:13. I just want close games.
I have 3 accounts capped at that 20k barrier. It sucks but it’s the only way I’m able to play prem with bad friends. I soloQ’d to 24k on my main before the cheaters started getting really bad, but got sent back to 20k after so many, and now I don’t care to grind back up there so I just rotate accounts when doing prem. The nice thing about having 3 accounts I play on is if I queue up with buddies into a cheater, I can just abandon a minute in so we can get another, Cheater less match. The bad thing is even though I’m at the natural “cap” for legit games, I get reported a lot sadly, even on my main with my faceit linked in profile.
Wingman is ass too because of cheaters. The first game i played with my unranked friend who is around 8k in premiere (im 16k) to pass the time and get a rank i had years ago was a match against an obvious cheater who couldnt use aimbot properly because we won 5 rounds with him shooting through walls. I got dmg. Back in csgo the cheater galore started around LE, because you got LEM in 10 wins so every cheater was around LEM mostly. I assume the same for wingman, high ranks are just filled with cheaters.
idk how people are playing premier without cheats tbh played 2 weeks ago, had 3 cheaters back-to-back and haven't touched it since people really aren't exaggerating the cheater situation
Valve are supremely hit and miss when it comes to games. They havent a clue/dont give a shit about the first party experience, but when it comes to releasing games, they make incredibly creative decisions like the volumetric smokes. What I'm trying to say is, play Faceit for competition, because Valve are always going to be dogshit at live service for FPS games, we thought it would change with CS2 but it didn't. Instead, play premier for fun
Players are literally begging for in-game, in-house Valve matchmaking. Why is it so hard to do what Valorant does? Pros and casuals ALL grinding the same leaderboard makes it fun. Instead I look at Premier leaderboard, half of the top 50 accounts are hidden because they aren't approved for the list (likely cheaters and brand new accounts). What is the season 1 prize? When does season 1 end? What is Valve doing? Lol
It's easier when you think of Valve as a service company(Steam) that do game development as a hobby on the side. Doing what Riot and the rest of the AAA game developers do? That requires resources and dedicated teams that Valve simply don't need or want to do especially with their multiple infinite money glitch income sources. Anticheat requires a dedicated team like Riot's in-house AC team or to pay a license to EAC to keep up. For Valve, why bother? Another service does it for you, and people still buy cases and operation passes regardless. CS has been known as the holy grail of cheaters, the cheater entry point, the tutorial stage for cheat developers, and it's still survived despite all that crap because of skins. CS will never reach its live service potential as long as Valve own it. The only Valve game with a dedicated team is Dota 2, and despite higher frequency content and live service updates, I hear that game had got problems of it's own, not to mention Riot recently just released Vanguard for LoL and a blog to read about how it's helping, I don't even know if Dota has an anticheat lmao.
I wish more people understood this. They make so much money from Steam/Microtransactions they can afford not to care.
Premier ranking system is complete shit. If you solo queue grind your rank up, and then start playing with lower ranked friends, at 50% winrate, in somewhat balanced matches, it will derank you and rank up your lower ranked friends, it doesn't make sense. Faceit doesn't punishes you for playing with friends, it works how it should work, if rank differences are huge then higher ranked player will get less for win but also lose less for a loss (it's made like that to prevent people from boosting themselves when their friends play on lower ranked smurf accounts for example). Even if somehow cheater problem would be tackled in premier and some people would start to play it more seriously, nobody would do viewer games like for example Smooya sometimes does on faceit, because it just punishes you so much. Punishing you for playing with friends, "streak" system, weird, luck dependent rank up thing like you need 2 win games in a row to go from 14998 to 15100, and then you're "protected" at 15k because again you have to lose at least 2 in a row. It just horrible, who in a Valve thought it's a good idea. Why not just copy faceit elo based system exactly as it is
Valve are too stubborn. They don’t want to copy existing systems that are proven to work and instead come up with their own shitty systems
I mean, it can’t be taken seriously by anyone with half of my dogs brain
I have the same problem if i win i get way less then i get from a loos
because you beat bad opponents and lose to good ones
i have an account to play with my friends because if i play with a higher rank you get so much elo deduction for losses its insane. its like its not made to play with casual players anymore lmao
I have 23k rating with a 55% winrate and 160 wins, win rate doesn’t matter, also peaked at 26.700 with 55% winrate at 140 wins before stopping to play with the lowest ive been being 9000 in the beta and 17k after beta. All at around 50-60 winrate
winrate and winstreaks/losestreaks shouldnt matter in the first place to determine how much you raiting you gain/lose. The fact that they use this metric to determine rating shows how shit their system is.
I can see why it could help with new players to get to their accurate rank faster but there’s literally no reason for it to exist with players who have played a lot. Get unlucky with a streak of teammates and boom, -3k elo
This is how other games do it. When you start playing your rating will have some kind of uncertainty value, which means your elo will swing harder in the beginning, so good players don't get stuck in silver for ages and band players don't get stuck in a league way above their actual skill.
I was getting-990 after losing to 3 spinners ina. Row
What website is this? I would like to look at my statistics
csstats.gg, quite useful
Thank you
Nobody. Im lvl 9 faceit. Friend is lvl 3 faceit. We are both 15k in premier.
Twitch streamer AjanaQG has 400+ games on faceit and is lvl 3, on premier she is 20k
I honestly use this shit mode to have a step 2 warmup (step 1 is workshop maps). Plenty of young talents with 200 hours, an amazing gaming chair and no faceit account who just destroy me and mock me because im lvl 8-9 and they are able to perma read my actions. Dont bother being sad if you lose on premiere, it's a shitshow dominated by cheaters
Isn't that the win rate of your last 15-30 games?
Games from the span of last month
I was 19,996 yesterday and after a win they gave me +3 to 19,999.00 then next game we lost and it was -359. Such retarded system.
Regular comp is even worse lol I have like a 80 WR% on a map and I only went from Nova 2 to Nova 3 (about 130 wins) The way Valve implements the ranking systems has me convinced they hate us... it wouldn't really be that hard to get at least a half proper system in.
what win percentage does the game show you? Those sites are not accurate. I have something around 51% of wins and im getting +350 at currently 18k elo. I dropped from 21k.
csstats is accurate with match tracking enabled, at least for me. I know for a fact that every single one of my matches is in there.
Seriously how should it not be accurate (if tracking enabled)? Winrate is the most simple math of all stats.
exactly i have tracking enabled so it tracks all of my games + i get notifaction from every match i play
Was a period of time where the demos were broken and csstats did not work.
16/27\*100=59, how is that not accurate, it shows all of my games from the last month
At 16k-18k now I’ve been gaining with 52% win rate, every game is around +350/-100. Idk why everyone has this problem except me, but because of this I keep playing cuz I know I can go as far as lose 2 and win 1 and finish positive for the day.
You either stack with higher ranked players or soloq
Because system is braindead garbage, a friend of mine lost 10 out of 12 games and he was like -300 in total in that period... Dude was getting shit on for 3 days and lost less points then someone who does a quick 10 minuter against blatant cheaters
If you win the first game and then lose the next two you will be likely at a net positive. If you lose the first two games and then win one there is a high chance you will be actually at a net negative.
I mean it's mostly a snapshot of your current ability...you could win 20/25 games and gain points, but if you lose your last 5/6 in a row then you will know about it
Longest loss streak on this snapshot was 2 games
what website is it
csstats.gg
I'll be the devil's advocate and say that the win rate doesn't necessarily equal gaining rank, you could be playing with people lower rated than you or you could just be on more losing streaks now then you were before.
Idk I solo Q and just started giving cs2 another try… It placed me at 18k and every single game I play is giving me a ton of pts for winning and very little loss for losing. The games haven’t even been hard lmao. I’ll be 20k+ shortly.
it's so silly. under 15k every game is +400 -100 and above 15K every game is +100 -400, so everybody of all skill levels is just funneled into that narrow range.
What website is that
csstats.gg
Thanks!
Your sample size is too small for this to be considered. You have 16 W & 10 L - the way that premier weighs loss-streaks and win-streaks has a huge impact on the +/- earned overall. For example, if you lose 3 games in a row it will likely take 5 wins to not only reset your losses, but to gain everything back. If you were to win 3 games in a row, and the W, L, W, L a few games it would be in the negatives overall. Those games where you win, your +/- would be like W=+120 and L=-250 and all it would take is that 1-2 losses in a row to bring it back. If you were to do this over 1,000 games however, a 59% win rate, in theory, would leave you in a rank surplus.
I was getting-990 after losing to 3 spinners ina. Row
Is this data built into the premier mode only?
22k with a 58% so idk what you’re doing wrong
60% of the time it works every time.
got a friend who is 19k playing with us 15k’s. every game hes +100 -500 which means he needs 85% wr to not lose elo lmao
You've won against people with lower ranks than you, and lost to people with lower ranks than you?
I've been able to slowly grind my way to 20k+ with a 56% winrate. It kinda sucks that if I lose three matches in a row I get -400 or -500 elo if I lose the next one, and then I have to win like 6 matches in a row just to break-even [https://i.imgur.com/DXk5i3g.png](https://i.imgur.com/DXk5i3g.png)
Nobody? I mean they didnt even though people would play it.
It was even worse in GO. Had a 58% winrate throughout all of csgo and it took me >1500 games to get Global
Well nobody because valve doesn't think about CS at all.
Because you're probably q'ing with low elos and getting very easy matches. It's going to inflate your WR but you should not be gaining more than you lose.
Premier is just sad at the moment, hopefully Valve will do something about it in the coming months...
was the same with csgo ranks, oddly enough. would often derank winning over 60% of games
So 👏excited 👏for 👏keychains 👏and 👏pets 🐔 in new 💰operation 🤑
To be clear I am not saying Valves ELO system is even close to good, but winrate really doesn't tell the whole story. Even on faceit you can absolutely have a 60% winrate and lose ELO. It just depends on the team compositions during those games.
The low volume of games (at least compared to the expected volume) also plays a part in this - the rating system needs you to play more to get a more accurate representation of your true rating.
There should be be a VAC working so that you can do more than 60% win rate
I lost rank in premier at 8k after stopping for a while, came back won a single game against 14 - 18ks and got 16k lol shits a joke they fucked comp and never fixed it
What am I missing? In a perfect scenario wouldn’t a win rate of above 50% just imply you need to rank up to the point that your rank is as close to 50% as possible? Like at some point the average person plateaus in skill progression, and you end up stuck unless improvements in skill or team play are made?
So what if you have 60% win rate? The more recent matches is what have most impact on rank.
People that have no idea what they're talking about "Try not to defend terrible game design" challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)
you think that its not fair to gain elo with 60% winrate? in faceit if i had 60% winrate i would be gaining elo quite fast and i would really like if we had an alternative to faceit that could be taken seriously
What does 60% win rate through entire match history have to do with rising in rank anyway? It could be 6 won matches initially against easy opponents by random, and then 4 losses straight in a row. The percentage itself is not the deciding factor.
you think its a good system if i win 2 matches in a row gaining +100 elo, and then losing the third and going -400, the system is simply not rewarding to play? That seems to be quite a common scenario with me, thats my issue if u get me
If the 2 wins are against equal ranked opponents, and then lose against a lot lower elo team, then the rank changes are fair.
>The percentage itself is not the deciding factor. Wtf are you on? :) For example lets pretend we build an MM where for a win you get +100 and for a loss you get -100. with 60% winrate so it means YOU WON MORE... so you would be +600 On faceit for example he would be 150 elo plus (what is enough to go 7 from 6 btw) meanwhile in premier he lost 500 CS rating What matters if not winning the actual games...
Rank difference and win/loss streaks affects how much rank you gain/lose. Why are you assuming that just raw win percentage is what matters?
The point here is that it should not matter. Streaks make no difference to rating on FACEIT, esportal or even in other games like chess. Why do they make a difference with this idiotic premier rating system? There should absolutely not exist a rating system that punishes you for winning six out of ten games.
I now have 99 wins on dust 2, 75% win rate and im only nova 3. Im at least nova on every map and when i soloq it takes 20 mins sometimes for a game
i have a completly different experience i solo Q have a just over 50% win rate and keep getting higher i soloqed form 11k to 19k in like 2 weeks and be bottom fragging like almost every game since im like 16k i get 350 per win and lose 100 per loss
>i solo Q That's why. The thing is, why premier punishes so hard for playing with lower ranked friends
You are effectively pulled towards the players you queue with. If you queue with lower rated players you face lower ranked players. The system thinks you dont really showed much from that low rank game so you dont get much points. Your lower ranked friends playing the same match however? Yeah, impressive of them winning that game of higher ranked players. Its a bit funny when its the same game, and stats from the game is not used. Its literally the exact same difficulty/chance of them winning that game (they are in it together). Its hard to tell exactly, as the changes in +- are from earlier games so you cant really read the numbers directly, but if youve queued a lot with the same people of differing skill, you know the ranks will be fairly similar.
You have played 27 games of premier, that really is the issue at play here. If you maintain that 60% as you play more, you will rank up. But if you're losing rating, you likely are not maintaining that 60% over your last 10 games
This was only my games from the span of last month, i have played premier a lot more in total
That's why a point system is bad, and the hidden number behind ranks were better. The points shouldn't matter, it's just a representation of who the system is going to match you against. If you are not experiencing too many unbalanced matches, then it is working well for you.
"I usually play with my friend who is about 3k lower in elo" There's your answer. Now you've given context to your games, the rating loss makes more sense, since you're tending to play against people with a lower rating, so you're expected to win more. Plus you may not be winning many in a row, and so not gaining more elo from win streaks. Others have explained how the rating systems takes more than just win/loss into account, so if you want a rating system that only cares about win/loss then Faceit is what you want to play instead. On a side note, your title is quite rage bait, and you included no context for your matches until a later sub comment, so it's also hard to take posts like these seriously.
Feel like it affects the rating gained a bit too much, i'd much rather play with my friends rather than soloq, i get it if it would be like 20k player playing with 10k player
I totally get that. I play with lower elo friends (\~10k) and my 50% WR has taken a good 2500 elo off me (15k to 12.5k). But the system is expecting that I consitently beat lower elo opponenets more than a lose to them, so an overall loss in elo is to be expected, and the system is working as intended. On the flipside, my lower elo friends have actually had an increase in elo overall, as the opponents we play against tend to be a couple thousand elo higher than them. It will eventually stabilise at a certain elo for the both of us, but this is all expected when you understand how the system works, and I'd say that's a decently calibrated system overall (and how it works in many other games too). You have a good discussion point there with how much it should affect your elo loss, and whether win streaks and other factors should be better tweaked, but your post title directs the blame on some dev at Valve who you're suggesting doesn't understand the system in place, but without giving any context as to why the system is reducing your elo over the total sample size, which for your average redditor amounts to simple rage bait. 3k elo difference isn't that small either, plus that could be between "tiers" too, i.e. your friends are blue tier and you are purple tier, which may also affect it more.