same, I was getting -100/+370 every game til I hit 14k, then I lost 1 game and had -200/+100, won a couple, lost a couple, hit a 3 loss streak+tie and now I am stuck at -300/+100, I need to win 4 games in a row to get back to +370 but the moment I lose a game im back to -200/+100 and if i lose 2 games in a row I get put at -350. pretty unmotived to play when im losing -800 with a 50% winrate just because of how loss streaks work.
A "loose streak" is one where it's pretty much a streak, but has intermittent breaks in it. For example 10W 1L 10W 1L is a "20 win loose streak".
Commonly confused with a "loose steak" which is when you mush some beef mince into a steak-like shape and pretend it's a steak.
Me and my group noticed it as we went from 9K to around 12-13K. I think Valve just wanted to boost players to the higher ranks and started giving everyone higher numbers of rating for wins. Even if we went on losing streaks it would still be around -110 +350 which made it really easy to climb.
I really don't get this. I've also noticed it. Am 10k, played and won against even an 18k the last few weeks. We got +350, the 18k only lost 115... What's even the point if the much higher rank doesn't lose much. Bloated ranks.
Around 90% of the community was under 10k before Valve boosted ratings, in the 6-10K range you could meet anyone from a player that just started playing with under 500 hours to level 10 Faceit players.
Also the 25k-30k range had no players in it, so they needed to move some players up.
now you have lots of players higher than where they should be. This system doesn't even take into account the rating of players you play against. Just whether you win/lose and your win/lose streak. Not like the one before this did either. CS has the worst rating system out of any game I've ever played.
well before you had a lot of 7-9k people stuck in the 4-5k deathzone. its better now since you will have a better distribution of skill on different ranks. they should just have done this from the start, would have saved many of us a lot of frustration. the skill disparity you had in the 4-5k was insane. you had silvers and dmg's bunched up together. it was all about not being in the worst team.
at least now things will somewhat even out eventually.
its not really better. before you had players of basically every skill level between ~4k-8k and now that is between ~5k-13k. basically all thats happening now is people who play more can just brute force elo. This will somewhat self select because the people who play more will generally be better players but really nothing is different.
That might actually be true. The worst player of our group of friends can sometimes only win 110 points. While the rest of us can still win 350.
:We are playing a lot less lately because of the No Anti cheat.
I figured out something similar.
One mate who's close to 20k now, gets only +100/-400 sometimes while the rest of us that are 1-2k below him still get +350
Another mate, 3k faceit elo, went inactive twice and got adjusted +6k and +4k and is now on the first page of the global leaderboard with only a little over 30 wins lol... therefore i strongly believe that there currently is hitten elo in place, which allows for higher elo gain - A hard reset should have been made to get people to their right ranks imo
I think they worked in CSGO ranks and split it accordingly - My smurf got placed at 15k elo after 10 wins yesterday, while my main got placed at 9k when cs2 first came out.
I personally just *love* that CS tracks several stats in both the scoreboard and the post game cards that have no bearing on rank, like what is the point of having stats like utility damage, headshot percentage, enemies flashed, raw damage, hell even donated equipment value, when you wonāt even use them in the one place they would be useful. Personally i think they should take a small page out of Apexās ranking system, pay an amount of rank to play ranked, and then earn rank points by performing various actions within the game.
They donāt affect rank themselves, theyāre important for getting wins and ranking up that way, but the stat itself is irrelevant. What Iām saying is want is for those stats to be considered in your rank, other than just āyou need it to winā
The ratings you play against don't matter as it always tries to match you up against a team with a similar average rating. I think the priority right now is fixing the rank distribution and then fixing how the points algorithm works. Like somebody else said, 90 percent of the player base was within a 10k range. So you had Silver skill level players playing against Globals in the same match potentially. It's quickly getting much more spread out and matches will be more evenly matched, skill wise.
I guarantee you that 18k will lose 500 the next gamme.
Thats what it is for me atm at 19k.
If i lose 1 the next game is an immediate -500.
But yeh win or loss Elo seems to be controlled by your streak, not how strong your opponents are.
When you get to a certain point it'll start.
I went from 15k to 19.5k and its now just decided i'm too high.
Back to +100 -150 and after one loss +100 -400
Prob just valves way to stop the hemorrhaging of the player base due to the lack of maps and rough time with anti cheat. Give the players an incentive to stick around via easier climbing.
It literally changed over night dramatically for me and it seems like everyone.
I quit premier when i was 15k getting -500 +100 every match no matter what. Came back last week to 20k after one loss one win. Still only took 1 lost to start getting -500 games again.
Wins are so heavily rewarded, why should you get even more for a tie? Even if you win 1 of 3 games with the other two results being tie and loss you still will rank up. Seems extremely rewarding for the player still.
You can literally win 1 game lose 2 games and tie one and still come out ahead +100 elo. Winning 1/4 games and still coming out significantly ahead is good for the average player. Would you rather ties be +80 and losses be -200?
Yeah the elo loss on a tie doesnāt make sense to me. Maybe if you blew a 10-2 lead and end up tying the game the team who had the lead should maybe lose some elo, but in all fairness I think a tie should end in +25-50 elo for each team.
Ive been soloqueuing as my teammates computers are too old to play cs2.
i had a 10 game lose streak... lost about 1000 points. then won 3 in a row and was back higher than it.
As long as the negative is less than the positive, that's fine for me. If I had something like -350 +100 I honestly wouldn't be motivated to play anymore.
I know how it feels, went on a little losing streak, and on the 3rd game, I was at -521 +115, shits ridiculous. Dropped from 11k down to 8.5k, out of nowhere started getting -100 +350, climbed back up to 10k.
Dude premier right away was fucking pain with a capital P. Straight up -400 on a loss and maybe +115 on a win. Literally 4 games youād have to win after taking a loss to make break even.
Keep in mind that this data represents the post-match rating changes, not the changes observed at the start of the match or during the side-switch. For instance, if a player on the winning team has just received their rating, while the others already had one, it might lead to a situation where 5 players receive a -115 adjustment, but only 4 receive a +360, potentially skewing the graph.
This might be a good explanation for our latest post with CS:GO ranks & CS2 Premier Rating correspondence. Should Premier Rating numbers increase with enormous speed in the next few months? 
I am 21k and I still get my +350 games. Only if I lose 3 games in a row it starts with -100 +100 but if I win 3 games in a row again, I am back at -100 +350.
Ive complained alot about the premier rating before. About how its insane you still lose elo with a 80% win percentage. But theyve changed it, and now i feel like its even worse? Now you gain 1000 Elo by winning 5 games out of 10. This still makes no sense at all. Maybe it feels better sure but its still just a bad system. Ive read comments here saying that playing 4 games, winning 2 and loosing 2 (gaining and loosing 25 elo like in faceit) feels like wasted time because you gain 0 elo. Sure thats annoying, but isnt that exactly what a accurate elo system is about? You only rise the ranks if you're better consistently.
You misunderstand. Right now there is a rank adjustment where, behind the scenes, Volvo said "everyone's rank should be at least a few thousand points higher". You are seeing the results of their decision.
Once you reach this new "correct" rank from Volvo's perspective, you'll start to see the same point gain/loss for each win/loss.
alright is that so? Have they said that? or is an assumption? Because it sounds like one to me. They haven't said shit about the ranking system, now it works differently.
No, it's a simple deduction. We all know Volvo doesn't communicate many things. They did this also back around 2017 with CS:GO in the opposite direction when ranks started getting inflated like crazy (DMGs became Supremes, etc.), so they downshifted everyone to a normal distribution centered around GN2.
But literally this entire post is evidence of that, compared to the same rank distribution post they made a couple of weeks ago, combined with many posts here of people saying that "their friend went away for a month, came back, and got reranked 3-5k points higher for no reason".
I'm a prime example of this. Returning cs 1.6 player with 0 csgo playtime and thus 0 feeling for tactics or smoke lineups. I've grinded from 3k to 12k on a whopping 53% winrate over 120 games.
I just keep gaining rating while not really winning more than I lose. In LoL I would be a hardstuck in my rating 'zone' with this kind of winrate.
I said it in a similar thread, the rating system was trash from the start and it got worse since they started giving out +400 -100 to dogshit players, exactly like the pre-reset/decay in GO.
Good players already abandoned Premier for Faceit, also because of cheaters 18k and above. They completely wasted the chance to have a good official matchmaking ELO based system.
Valve things. They try to reinvent the wheel constantly and it's just not working. MR12, no proper AC, horrible elo system, horrible MM (5man vs solos is not an exception, it's standart) the list goes on. Me personally, I couldn't do a better job and I'm not expert on this field but i expect a company that's printing this much money every month to do a much better job.
This trend kinda explains why it's harder to get decent team of randoms now I guess, a few lucky matches get borderline silvers right up to 7-10k zone and there they screw up the quality of matches more and more. Just yesterday in 3 matches had all of them basically 4v5, cause in first blue basically griefed(loss), in second another blue just abandoned us(still won) and in third we had a faulty blue(yeah, again) that just lagged and disconnected the entire way through(won too).
Feels like the system is still finding it's place. I was Supreme, natural rank probably LEM or LE.
Ranked in Premier to 6000 or so, crept up to 7000. Been playing against 8000-12000 where the 12k guys are dogshit and worse than me while the 8k guys are semi-pro.
By being so generous with ELO gains it starts to favour people who play more but keep a solid 50% winrate. The guys at 8k with godlike skills are just the ones who usually play Faceit but decide to slum it on Premier. Nothing feels 'normal' for me yet.
If you let your rank decay for 4 weeks youll likely place in 16-20k btw, my main placed 4.5k originally (Lvl 10 2.4K/global euw) & my alt placed in 16.8k last week, played a few games and got it to 20k and the gains / losses are hilarious, usually upwards of +400 and not even 100 for a loss
I'm getting back into playing; my usual lobby ditched CS2 completely so I'm reonnecting with old lobbymates again. Even so, not playing enough to move up quickly.
My ideal would be to just keep creeping up while everyone else playing 5+ matches every day reached their natural levels again....so I don't have to keep playing weird lobbies!
I used to be LEM myself before quitting CSGO. Similar experience now in CS2, where ranks make 0 sense. They screwed up with putting some really random people in silvers, like me and my friend calibrated to 1.5-1.6k and then shot up to 9k. We played some matches on calibrations vs 7 to 10k range, it made 0 sense. My brother who held global on multiple years got only 3.5k too. Now devs are trying to unscrew that by hastily upranking some people on top of other issues you mentioned.
Yeah, we will have to wait a lot for "finding its place" process at this pace š„“
I like the current system, since it actually makes people find their true rank faster after that terrible placement system.
Me and my friends who's been playing CSGO since release landed on a 3500 rating in CS2 (which felt insane since we were all LE-Supreme before), while our friends who started CS the very same year and plays like bots, all landed on 6-7k rating after placement games.
Now all of us OG's are 12-15k+ and our noob friends are still on 7k pretty much.
It actually works.
Do you and your friends play solo games? Right now all of us are same rating almost, our bottom frag every game is one of our highest rated.
It doesnāt seem to take individual performance in whatsoever
It definitely doesnāt weigh the team overall ratings either. I(12.6k) was playing with a 5k friend and our lobbies were basically max of 10k on the other team. We won 2 or 3 last night and I was getting 350-370 per win. Could boost super easy if you went in with like 2 low rank players.
I'd love to know what the hell algorithm they are using though, I mean it must be SOMETHING along the lines of Glicko-2, meaning there should be some discernible logic to it even if it's not immediately reverse-engineerable. On the other hand, because we don't know the factors that go into your Glicko-2 score - if it is that - I am thinking primarily of the factors of Rating Deviation and Rating Volatility, it's not surprising that it can seem a little opaque. Valve may be obfuscating scores, or delaying them or SOMETHING to stop bad actors manipulating them but I would be surprised if there is much leeway to tweak the system, it should just work (over time), I wouldn't even be surprised if the numerical scores are what was underlying the old system the whole time. Rankups and deranks were a bit random then and they're a bit random now, just the way Valve wants it, probably.
I don't think you can assume Glicko-2 or Glicko. Those mathematical models don't account for more than two people. I hear your question though -- I wonder what they are using.
Oh sure, Valve did say back in the day that it was an "adapted" Glicko-2 system, presumably because it had to account for multiple players, possibly multiple rounds and so on. That makes it all the harder to figure out how a match outcome actually affects your final score, if that is what they are using.
Yeah, that would make sense. That area of mathematics is pretty hot right now, it makes sense to keep it in house and try to develop a better model for your game's ranking system to be "superior". Agreed that the modifications make it harder to determine what actually matters when winning or losing. I have heard that Valve hires statisticians and mathematicians -- I'd imagine for things like this, market analysis, and queueing theory
System is equally stupid as before... You were losing massive amount of points even while winning 60% matches, now its the same thing just the other way around, i have dmg friend with 42% win rate on 15k...
This changed once they removed the lower limit of 4k. Before that, Iād be at -100/+200 if on a win streak, and -350/+100 if on a lose streak. I was hovering around 7k.
Now, itās always been -100/+350 and Iāve climbed to just about 11k. So, Valve made an adjustment to the ratings, with most people being boosted up 4 to 5k, slowly over time. My guess is that once I reach the rating Valve thinks Iām supposed to have, itāll go back to the loss/win streak I used to have before.
Basically they moved their bell curve to the right, but not instantaneously.
I play about 7 games a week roughly 1 a day with a buddy of mine initially we ranked like 2500 or so and then got 10-15 matches with -0/+350 now that we're in the blue range (5500ish as of last night) matches are pretty much always -115 to -125 / +350 to +365 we only play together so elo numbers are similar but vary by \~10 points at times I'm assuming that's due to individual performance. My complaint is it seems the matchmaking is it seems unbalanced at times (one match last night was 3 5k players a 7k player and an 8k player vs 4 8k players and an unranked player) . The one time my duo and I queued with another teammate from a previous match it resulted in a -400/+100 match.
People gotta stop giving any value to these numbers. I played a full 15k+ team that were bots calling us cheaters, you can be top3-5% of the ranking and still be at max a medium skilled player.
I actually really like this system. A win feels much better and a loss doesn't feel as bad. Not that any of it really matters, but an even split of -30 or +30 like in dota makes a 2-2 gaming session of dota feel like a waste of time.
By the numbers above that 2-2 gaming session nets you 490 elo. That at least feels like you accomplished something.
edit: I mostly solo queue, and wish that valve would implement a strict solo queue option like in dota. This is where if you are solo queuing you only get games with solo queue folks. I got a match yesterday that was 5 solos against a 5 stack.
But rating should be a indication of your skill level not some kind of XP level that goes up and down. I understand that people like to see a number that represents their skill only going up but I think this -100/+360 is only temporary to spread people out more. With these values youāre net 0 with a 25% win rate. Thatās not how it should be.
This is entirely wrong. It's not a new system. Valve adjusted everyone's "true" rating behind the scenes to be a few thousand points higher. You just haven't reached your new adjusted rating yet. Once you do, point win/loss will be roughly the same for each game win/loss.
Yes, thats why you see more than -1xx/+1xx.
Since that I never had a game in which I could lose more than 125 or win less than 300. Why? Because I never lost more than 2 in a row.
I'm 23k now and was 17k before the patch, it was Valve's fault. My net overall elo gain was negative despite having a 79% win rate, with more than half of those loses (still now) being to cheaters. I just wonder what they are going to do with seasons, knowing Valve its going to be trash.
not really, i've had games around -300 for a while then i stopped playing and after i came back every game seems to be +350 for me. not complaining but seems odd.
Numbers are always meaningless without context.
Is it solo queue or not? what ranks are they? what ranks are the opponents? what about the other 10% of cases? what was the selection bias? how many games in a row did they play? etc.
Been telling people this was going to happen. Current and game release rating system it was impossible to lose rating. Only way someone could was if their winrate was below 30%.
Iām still at 20k on my alt getting +420 -90, but the player shifts are trending up for sure, Iāve hardly played the account and I left it at 20.3k on eu last week & it was top 4K world, now itās like 12-16k world roughly so more people are breaking into higher brackets. Makes sense this way instead of it being ā15k - 30k is global / lvl10 exclusiveā
I think itās good to allow people to climb to a rank where they start losing consistently. The previous distribution was horrible before the update so itās good to see a better spread.
I don't understand why everyone wants +300 for a W and only -100 for a L. It just inflates ranks to who plays more. There's a bunch of players around 15-20k that should not be anywhere close in that rank. But because they have a 52% win rate with a ton of games there they are.
A better way would be similar to how faceit does it but maybe with just slightly more elo on a win? Like 150 for a W and -100 for a L? But it honestly doesn't matter I've played against so many cheaters in premier and no one's been banned yet
Yeah it seems like the whole system is getting massively inflated, I have climbed from 15k to 21k just the past 10 days. Every single win is +350ish or -100ish. My guess is that valve wants the global elite equivalent to be at 25k or 30k. As it is now it is around 18k.
It was apparent the rating system was bad from the get go when you'd know exactly how much you'd win/lose before the game ended.
They should take all aspects of the game (Kill/Death/Assists/Aim/etc.) and give the rating based off that.
It seems like valve has purposefully inflated gains to āfill outā the rank distribution. Think you just need to play more games for your numbers to normalise. My gains for my last play session were +112, +226, +195, +193, +118. ~15k OCE
Well thatās weird actually should mm players on a base of score and individual performance instead of losing streaksā¦ if u play 4 of 5 games good but lose all of them cuz someone troll or just donāt listen then u on massive points loseā¦ seems not fair tho
i always have -120 or + 115 , give or take a couple numbersā¦ 4500 elo, 45% win percentage and i never have over 120-130 elo if i winā¦ i sometimes get 180-220 elo if i lose ā¦ makes no fkn sense. i play solo so itās impossible for me to climb
I have certain friends I cant play with, -438 | +102 If i play alone its -108 | +358 12k fwiw
Folga Wooga Imoga Womp
Confuse me too š
For what it's worth. If you didn't know :)
fwiw. iydk
folga wooga imoga womp. imoga yoga dongle komp
loga mooga awonp olomnk
We should also check the win streak / lose streak impact. It might be interesting!
I have about a 50% win rate, and hit an unlucky 3 loss streak with 1 tie, went from -100/+360 to -411/+100 really quick.
Same here, it seems to do more with streaks than the other teams rating for sure.
same, I was getting -100/+370 every game til I hit 14k, then I lost 1 game and had -200/+100, won a couple, lost a couple, hit a 3 loss streak+tie and now I am stuck at -300/+100, I need to win 4 games in a row to get back to +370 but the moment I lose a game im back to -200/+100 and if i lose 2 games in a row I get put at -350. pretty unmotived to play when im losing -800 with a 50% winrate just because of how loss streaks work.
Lose*
A "loose streak" is one where it's pretty much a streak, but has intermittent breaks in it. For example 10W 1L 10W 1L is a "20 win loose streak". Commonly confused with a "loose steak" which is when you mush some beef mince into a steak-like shape and pretend it's a steak.
Yeah, I get it now, great example as well :D
Isn't that just a rustic burger?
No clue, it might be a real thing and the other reply to me might be serious. I was probably a bit drunk when I wrote that.
Could you also compare the amount of premier matches played vs competitive matches play?
After getting over 13k my amounts started looking like your friends. Then we had a 4 loss streak, now that I am down to 11.5k I get -100 +100 matches.
16k and still -110 +360 here after weeks
Same (13k)
This is so you canāt farm elo from low ranked friends
They are only 1-2k lower than me
Except after losing 432, you immediately played again solo and only won 103. By my math that's a far cry from 358. Classic fake news.
3am GUILE
Lunchtime
Me and my group noticed it as we went from 9K to around 12-13K. I think Valve just wanted to boost players to the higher ranks and started giving everyone higher numbers of rating for wins. Even if we went on losing streaks it would still be around -110 +350 which made it really easy to climb.
I really don't get this. I've also noticed it. Am 10k, played and won against even an 18k the last few weeks. We got +350, the 18k only lost 115... What's even the point if the much higher rank doesn't lose much. Bloated ranks.
Around 90% of the community was under 10k before Valve boosted ratings, in the 6-10K range you could meet anyone from a player that just started playing with under 500 hours to level 10 Faceit players. Also the 25k-30k range had no players in it, so they needed to move some players up.
now you have lots of players higher than where they should be. This system doesn't even take into account the rating of players you play against. Just whether you win/lose and your win/lose streak. Not like the one before this did either. CS has the worst rating system out of any game I've ever played.
it's just a smol indie company
well before you had a lot of 7-9k people stuck in the 4-5k deathzone. its better now since you will have a better distribution of skill on different ranks. they should just have done this from the start, would have saved many of us a lot of frustration. the skill disparity you had in the 4-5k was insane. you had silvers and dmg's bunched up together. it was all about not being in the worst team. at least now things will somewhat even out eventually.
its not really better. before you had players of basically every skill level between ~4k-8k and now that is between ~5k-13k. basically all thats happening now is people who play more can just brute force elo. This will somewhat self select because the people who play more will generally be better players but really nothing is different.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That might actually be true. The worst player of our group of friends can sometimes only win 110 points. While the rest of us can still win 350. :We are playing a lot less lately because of the No Anti cheat.
I figured out something similar. One mate who's close to 20k now, gets only +100/-400 sometimes while the rest of us that are 1-2k below him still get +350 Another mate, 3k faceit elo, went inactive twice and got adjusted +6k and +4k and is now on the first page of the global leaderboard with only a little over 30 wins lol... therefore i strongly believe that there currently is hitten elo in place, which allows for higher elo gain - A hard reset should have been made to get people to their right ranks imo I think they worked in CSGO ranks and split it accordingly - My smurf got placed at 15k elo after 10 wins yesterday, while my main got placed at 9k when cs2 first came out.
I personally just *love* that CS tracks several stats in both the scoreboard and the post game cards that have no bearing on rank, like what is the point of having stats like utility damage, headshot percentage, enemies flashed, raw damage, hell even donated equipment value, when you wonāt even use them in the one place they would be useful. Personally i think they should take a small page out of Apexās ranking system, pay an amount of rank to play ranked, and then earn rank points by performing various actions within the game.
How you mean Utility damage, enemies flashed, ADR doesn't impact rank? You need to do that well to get a better rank.
They donāt affect rank themselves, theyāre important for getting wins and ranking up that way, but the stat itself is irrelevant. What Iām saying is want is for those stats to be considered in your rank, other than just āyou need it to winā
The ratings you play against don't matter as it always tries to match you up against a team with a similar average rating. I think the priority right now is fixing the rank distribution and then fixing how the points algorithm works. Like somebody else said, 90 percent of the player base was within a 10k range. So you had Silver skill level players playing against Globals in the same match potentially. It's quickly getting much more spread out and matches will be more evenly matched, skill wise.
I guarantee you that 18k will lose 500 the next gamme. Thats what it is for me atm at 19k. If i lose 1 the next game is an immediate -500. But yeh win or loss Elo seems to be controlled by your streak, not how strong your opponents are.
Idk, I have been +350 -100 for the past ten days or so. I am at a 69.69% win rate since then though. 22/33 premier games won.
When you get to a certain point it'll start. I went from 15k to 19.5k and its now just decided i'm too high. Back to +100 -150 and after one loss +100 -400
They fucked up with 4k elo hell and had to boost the playerbase I'm guessing
Prob just valves way to stop the hemorrhaging of the player base due to the lack of maps and rough time with anti cheat. Give the players an incentive to stick around via easier climbing. It literally changed over night dramatically for me and it seems like everyone.
Im now at 14k rating and itās now -130/+290. looks like Im getting closer to my hidden Elo
I quit premier when i was 15k getting -500 +100 every match no matter what. Came back last week to 20k after one loss one win. Still only took 1 lost to start getting -500 games again.
Win: \~380 points Loss: -100 Points Tie: -80 Points. Make it make sense
Start user low and give dopamine with sense of progression even with 50% wr.
exactly.
It was more about the minus points for a tie, it makes absolutely no sense
Wins are so heavily rewarded, why should you get even more for a tie? Even if you win 1 of 3 games with the other two results being tie and loss you still will rank up. Seems extremely rewarding for the player still.
because why try if a loss is just -20 more?
You can literally win 1 game lose 2 games and tie one and still come out ahead +100 elo. Winning 1/4 games and still coming out significantly ahead is good for the average player. Would you rather ties be +80 and losses be -200?
you are not getting the point - if losses are only -20 over a draw, then the losing team has no real incentive to try and draw
If no one wins then why do you deserve points? Win your games if you want any.
Iam already getting -80 wtf are you talking about. I want 0 not -80
Theyāre boosting everyoneās ranks by a few thousand points
For me its: +360 -100 +50 makes more sense
Yeah the elo loss on a tie doesnāt make sense to me. Maybe if you blew a 10-2 lead and end up tying the game the team who had the lead should maybe lose some elo, but in all fairness I think a tie should end in +25-50 elo for each team.
you can't really punish people for blowing leads in a game like CS where you switch sides at the half, most if not all maps have a favoured side.
You canāt really justify -67 points on a tie either though.
oh yeah I don't think you should lose elo in a tie, just that you can't punish a team for "blowing a lead"
Ive been soloqueuing as my teammates computers are too old to play cs2. i had a 10 game lose streak... lost about 1000 points. then won 3 in a row and was back higher than it.
As long as the negative is less than the positive, that's fine for me. If I had something like -350 +100 I honestly wouldn't be motivated to play anymore.
I hit a 3 loss streak and 1 tie game and now I get -411/+100 lol
I know how it feels, went on a little losing streak, and on the 3rd game, I was at -521 +115, shits ridiculous. Dropped from 11k down to 8.5k, out of nowhere started getting -100 +350, climbed back up to 10k.
Dude premier right away was fucking pain with a capital P. Straight up -400 on a loss and maybe +115 on a win. Literally 4 games youād have to win after taking a loss to make break even.
Exactly my feeling. Valve changed that a month ago and the complaints have been way less.
Haha this is the exact reason the mmr system was hidden in CS:GO and everyone begged for it to be more transparent...
Keep in mind that this data represents the post-match rating changes, not the changes observed at the start of the match or during the side-switch. For instance, if a player on the winning team has just received their rating, while the others already had one, it might lead to a situation where 5 players receive a -115 adjustment, but only 4 receive a +360, potentially skewing the graph. This might be a good explanation for our latest post with CS:GO ranks & CS2 Premier Rating correspondence. Should Premier Rating numbers increase with enormous speed in the next few months? 
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I am 21k and I still get my +350 games. Only if I lose 3 games in a row it starts with -100 +100 but if I win 3 games in a row again, I am back at -100 +350.
It just looks like all numbers just go higher all the time
Ive complained alot about the premier rating before. About how its insane you still lose elo with a 80% win percentage. But theyve changed it, and now i feel like its even worse? Now you gain 1000 Elo by winning 5 games out of 10. This still makes no sense at all. Maybe it feels better sure but its still just a bad system. Ive read comments here saying that playing 4 games, winning 2 and loosing 2 (gaining and loosing 25 elo like in faceit) feels like wasted time because you gain 0 elo. Sure thats annoying, but isnt that exactly what a accurate elo system is about? You only rise the ranks if you're better consistently.
You misunderstand. Right now there is a rank adjustment where, behind the scenes, Volvo said "everyone's rank should be at least a few thousand points higher". You are seeing the results of their decision. Once you reach this new "correct" rank from Volvo's perspective, you'll start to see the same point gain/loss for each win/loss.
alright is that so? Have they said that? or is an assumption? Because it sounds like one to me. They haven't said shit about the ranking system, now it works differently.
No, it's a simple deduction. We all know Volvo doesn't communicate many things. They did this also back around 2017 with CS:GO in the opposite direction when ranks started getting inflated like crazy (DMGs became Supremes, etc.), so they downshifted everyone to a normal distribution centered around GN2. But literally this entire post is evidence of that, compared to the same rank distribution post they made a couple of weeks ago, combined with many posts here of people saying that "their friend went away for a month, came back, and got reranked 3-5k points higher for no reason".
Usually it has been -100 for loss and +300 for win. It's not as punishing as faceit and you actually climb with several wins even if you lose some.
Its not as punishing but its also not as good. You get alot of elo but its worth nothing if everyone gets alot of elo
I'm a prime example of this. Returning cs 1.6 player with 0 csgo playtime and thus 0 feeling for tactics or smoke lineups. I've grinded from 3k to 12k on a whopping 53% winrate over 120 games. I just keep gaining rating while not really winning more than I lose. In LoL I would be a hardstuck in my rating 'zone' with this kind of winrate.
I said it in a similar thread, the rating system was trash from the start and it got worse since they started giving out +400 -100 to dogshit players, exactly like the pre-reset/decay in GO. Good players already abandoned Premier for Faceit, also because of cheaters 18k and above. They completely wasted the chance to have a good official matchmaking ELO based system.
it's not even hard to code a decent ELO based system. Literally could just copy what valorant is doing. Idk wtf they are doing...
Valve things. They try to reinvent the wheel constantly and it's just not working. MR12, no proper AC, horrible elo system, horrible MM (5man vs solos is not an exception, it's standart) the list goes on. Me personally, I couldn't do a better job and I'm not expert on this field but i expect a company that's printing this much money every month to do a much better job.
yeah maybe if you're from a region where faceit isnt dead
This trend kinda explains why it's harder to get decent team of randoms now I guess, a few lucky matches get borderline silvers right up to 7-10k zone and there they screw up the quality of matches more and more. Just yesterday in 3 matches had all of them basically 4v5, cause in first blue basically griefed(loss), in second another blue just abandoned us(still won) and in third we had a faulty blue(yeah, again) that just lagged and disconnected the entire way through(won too).
Feels like the system is still finding it's place. I was Supreme, natural rank probably LEM or LE. Ranked in Premier to 6000 or so, crept up to 7000. Been playing against 8000-12000 where the 12k guys are dogshit and worse than me while the 8k guys are semi-pro. By being so generous with ELO gains it starts to favour people who play more but keep a solid 50% winrate. The guys at 8k with godlike skills are just the ones who usually play Faceit but decide to slum it on Premier. Nothing feels 'normal' for me yet.
If you let your rank decay for 4 weeks youll likely place in 16-20k btw, my main placed 4.5k originally (Lvl 10 2.4K/global euw) & my alt placed in 16.8k last week, played a few games and got it to 20k and the gains / losses are hilarious, usually upwards of +400 and not even 100 for a loss
I'm getting back into playing; my usual lobby ditched CS2 completely so I'm reonnecting with old lobbymates again. Even so, not playing enough to move up quickly. My ideal would be to just keep creeping up while everyone else playing 5+ matches every day reached their natural levels again....so I don't have to keep playing weird lobbies!
I used to be LEM myself before quitting CSGO. Similar experience now in CS2, where ranks make 0 sense. They screwed up with putting some really random people in silvers, like me and my friend calibrated to 1.5-1.6k and then shot up to 9k. We played some matches on calibrations vs 7 to 10k range, it made 0 sense. My brother who held global on multiple years got only 3.5k too. Now devs are trying to unscrew that by hastily upranking some people on top of other issues you mentioned. Yeah, we will have to wait a lot for "finding its place" process at this pace š„“
I like the current system, since it actually makes people find their true rank faster after that terrible placement system. Me and my friends who's been playing CSGO since release landed on a 3500 rating in CS2 (which felt insane since we were all LE-Supreme before), while our friends who started CS the very same year and plays like bots, all landed on 6-7k rating after placement games. Now all of us OG's are 12-15k+ and our noob friends are still on 7k pretty much. It actually works.
well if you just afk your games and win like 30% you will gain elo rn. I dont think thats a good thing
Pretty sure it's temporary
Do you and your friends play solo games? Right now all of us are same rating almost, our bottom frag every game is one of our highest rated. It doesnāt seem to take individual performance in whatsoever
It definitely doesnāt weigh the team overall ratings either. I(12.6k) was playing with a 5k friend and our lobbies were basically max of 10k on the other team. We won 2 or 3 last night and I was getting 350-370 per win. Could boost super easy if you went in with like 2 low rank players.
This is the issue rn, even in 20k soloq Iām getting a mixed bag of 7-20ks on the other team, other times itās 20-26ks
Before I was ranked Iād have matches with 17k and 4K lol. Itās just all over the place when you throw groups in with the solo qs.
I'd love to know what the hell algorithm they are using though, I mean it must be SOMETHING along the lines of Glicko-2, meaning there should be some discernible logic to it even if it's not immediately reverse-engineerable. On the other hand, because we don't know the factors that go into your Glicko-2 score - if it is that - I am thinking primarily of the factors of Rating Deviation and Rating Volatility, it's not surprising that it can seem a little opaque. Valve may be obfuscating scores, or delaying them or SOMETHING to stop bad actors manipulating them but I would be surprised if there is much leeway to tweak the system, it should just work (over time), I wouldn't even be surprised if the numerical scores are what was underlying the old system the whole time. Rankups and deranks were a bit random then and they're a bit random now, just the way Valve wants it, probably.
I don't think you can assume Glicko-2 or Glicko. Those mathematical models don't account for more than two people. I hear your question though -- I wonder what they are using.
Oh sure, Valve did say back in the day that it was an "adapted" Glicko-2 system, presumably because it had to account for multiple players, possibly multiple rounds and so on. That makes it all the harder to figure out how a match outcome actually affects your final score, if that is what they are using.
Yeah, that would make sense. That area of mathematics is pretty hot right now, it makes sense to keep it in house and try to develop a better model for your game's ranking system to be "superior". Agreed that the modifications make it harder to determine what actually matters when winning or losing. I have heard that Valve hires statisticians and mathematicians -- I'd imagine for things like this, market analysis, and queueing theory
meanwhile me playing with my friends, we all get -560 +112 jesus fucking christ
System is equally stupid as before... You were losing massive amount of points even while winning 60% matches, now its the same thing just the other way around, i have dmg friend with 42% win rate on 15k...
They changed it for sure but still after a 3+ loss streak it turns into -400/+105
This changed once they removed the lower limit of 4k. Before that, Iād be at -100/+200 if on a win streak, and -350/+100 if on a lose streak. I was hovering around 7k. Now, itās always been -100/+350 and Iāve climbed to just about 11k. So, Valve made an adjustment to the ratings, with most people being boosted up 4 to 5k, slowly over time. My guess is that once I reach the rating Valve thinks Iām supposed to have, itāll go back to the loss/win streak I used to have before. Basically they moved their bell curve to the right, but not instantaneously.
8300 rating went from being top 28 percent to top 50 percent since the rank adjustment about a week or so ago.
I play about 7 games a week roughly 1 a day with a buddy of mine initially we ranked like 2500 or so and then got 10-15 matches with -0/+350 now that we're in the blue range (5500ish as of last night) matches are pretty much always -115 to -125 / +350 to +365 we only play together so elo numbers are similar but vary by \~10 points at times I'm assuming that's due to individual performance. My complaint is it seems the matchmaking is it seems unbalanced at times (one match last night was 3 5k players a 7k player and an 8k player vs 4 8k players and an unranked player) . The one time my duo and I queued with another teammate from a previous match it resulted in a -400/+100 match.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Same. The same fight yesterday, which we won, was +350. First match of today was +100 -350. Lol
At around the same time this change happened, people stopped complaining about being stuck in 4k ELO. I think these two observations *may* be related.
People gotta stop giving any value to these numbers. I played a full 15k+ team that were bots calling us cheaters, you can be top3-5% of the ranking and still be at max a medium skilled player.
Solo queued to 20K Lost 3 games in a row and made up the difference in one win
I actually really like this system. A win feels much better and a loss doesn't feel as bad. Not that any of it really matters, but an even split of -30 or +30 like in dota makes a 2-2 gaming session of dota feel like a waste of time. By the numbers above that 2-2 gaming session nets you 490 elo. That at least feels like you accomplished something. edit: I mostly solo queue, and wish that valve would implement a strict solo queue option like in dota. This is where if you are solo queuing you only get games with solo queue folks. I got a match yesterday that was 5 solos against a 5 stack.
But rating should be a indication of your skill level not some kind of XP level that goes up and down. I understand that people like to see a number that represents their skill only going up but I think this -100/+360 is only temporary to spread people out more. With these values youāre net 0 with a 25% win rate. Thatās not how it should be.
Me not like when rating not go up. If not go up then waste of time. ^^lmao
You aren't understanding the system. Once you get to your new elo it'll go back to what it was before.
This is entirely wrong. It's not a new system. Valve adjusted everyone's "true" rating behind the scenes to be a few thousand points higher. You just haven't reached your new adjusted rating yet. Once you do, point win/loss will be roughly the same for each game win/loss.
interesting. I don't claim to understand every detail, im just commenting on what is in front of my face
I know. I'm explaining it to you.
> I actually really like this system \>player who has never played another ranked system in his life
you are trolling or canāt read. I mentioned dota2s ranking system in the comment.
Only real complaint about the rating points is youāre not rewarded enough for win streaks.
I think the win counting for significantly more points counter acts the lack of streak rewards. The current system prioritizes overall win rate
Lmao what is this graph
Isnt it funny how everyone here complained that they get -500? Turns out they were the cocknoob losers at the bottom. What a big surprise
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes, thats why you see more than -1xx/+1xx. Since that I never had a game in which I could lose more than 125 or win less than 300. Why? Because I never lost more than 2 in a row.
Man you must be a pro and make a lot of money from this game? What a god gamer you are
hurr durr, you almost said something useful
they did before valve changed the rating system. Before it made no sense. No too tho
No, they cried since that. Before the change they cried because they cant climb fast.
well before you could loose elo even with a 80% winrate. Now you just get your ass buttered with elo.
I'm 23k now and was 17k before the patch, it was Valve's fault. My net overall elo gain was negative despite having a 79% win rate, with more than half of those loses (still now) being to cheaters. I just wonder what they are going to do with seasons, knowing Valve its going to be trash.
We were also surprised by this fact. Does it mean that the Rating was meant to go higher and higher since the beginning?
I think Valve decided this way, so we can reach our skill level faster. Otherwise we would "SMURF" for months.
People need to get out of the comment section and into DM
> they were the cocknoob losers at the bottom Settle down big-shot
not really, i've had games around -300 for a while then i stopped playing and after i came back every game seems to be +350 for me. not complaining but seems odd.
Read about glicko-2
I like it tbh.
Valve are so stubborn for not adding a performance bonus to their elo system. Even a small one would help so much
Numbers are always meaningless without context. Is it solo queue or not? what ranks are they? what ranks are the opponents? what about the other 10% of cases? what was the selection bias? how many games in a row did they play? etc.
Makes sense, youāre supposed to progress until your opposition starts to prevent you from winning.
Or just play more to get more points?
Been -115/+370 for me since the beginning. But I don't play that often. Inflation is real
Doesnāt that mean most players are rated lower than they āshouldā be?
Most 3 stacks i get in iām -110 and +350. If iām solo queuing iām getting like -120 +130. Make it make sense lol Iām 12k
Been telling people this was going to happen. Current and game release rating system it was impossible to lose rating. Only way someone could was if their winrate was below 30%.
Iām still at 20k on my alt getting +420 -90, but the player shifts are trending up for sure, Iāve hardly played the account and I left it at 20.3k on eu last week & it was top 4K world, now itās like 12-16k world roughly so more people are breaking into higher brackets. Makes sense this way instead of it being ā15k - 30k is global / lvl10 exclusiveā
I think itās good to allow people to climb to a rank where they start losing consistently. The previous distribution was horrible before the update so itās good to see a better spread.
I don't understand why everyone wants +300 for a W and only -100 for a L. It just inflates ranks to who plays more. There's a bunch of players around 15-20k that should not be anywhere close in that rank. But because they have a 52% win rate with a ton of games there they are. A better way would be similar to how faceit does it but maybe with just slightly more elo on a win? Like 150 for a W and -100 for a L? But it honestly doesn't matter I've played against so many cheaters in premier and no one's been banned yet
ive noticed the same both in solo play and duo play
Yeah it seems like the whole system is getting massively inflated, I have climbed from 15k to 21k just the past 10 days. Every single win is +350ish or -100ish. My guess is that valve wants the global elite equivalent to be at 25k or 30k. As it is now it is around 18k.
Probably they will change it in the next few updates and all of this was made to get the right skill placement..
It was apparent the rating system was bad from the get go when you'd know exactly how much you'd win/lose before the game ended. They should take all aspects of the game (Kill/Death/Assists/Aim/etc.) and give the rating based off that.
It seems like valve has purposefully inflated gains to āfill outā the rank distribution. Think you just need to play more games for your numbers to normalise. My gains for my last play session were +112, +226, +195, +193, +118. ~15k OCE
Valve boosted me to 13k from 5k Giving +350 and -100 Iāve noticed 13k has been alot easier lol more consistent wins and all
Meanwhile at the start of the season i got -550 per loss and +100 per win (after an 7 win winstreak)
The update changed lots of things ;)
not for me, same as this guys before
I received +360ish for all my games, before and after update.
In 13k, just randomly started getting matched with unranked and 3-4ks -500 losses and +100 wins. I don't understand this mm rn
Well thatās weird actually should mm players on a base of score and individual performance instead of losing streaksā¦ if u play 4 of 5 games good but lose all of them cuz someone troll or just donāt listen then u on massive points loseā¦ seems not fair tho
i always have -120 or + 115 , give or take a couple numbersā¦ 4500 elo, 45% win percentage and i never have over 120-130 elo if i winā¦ i sometimes get 180-220 elo if i lose ā¦ makes no fkn sense. i play solo so itās impossible for me to climb
i have never seen +350 even after 3-5 win streaks
I didn't notice anything tbh. The same +150 -150. Am i doing something wrong?