Rejected - Inactive Present Battles by Highest Elo

[The Official Glyx]

Normally, when looking for battles to watch going on, they'll be sorted by elo, like so:

The problem I have with this is that they are all displayed by the lower player's elo, meaning some of these matches in the example picture could very well involve 1400 or 1500 players and I would be none the wiser. I don't know if I can speak for everyone on this matter but I would say that, most of the time, the more interesting matches typically involve higher elo players. This can be very frustrating at times, since people particularly high on the ladder will often get opponents ~100-200 elo below them, resulting in the match looking like any other match, despite the fact that someone particularly high is involved.

This is why I'm suggesting that battles be displayed by highest elo, instead. This would make it much clearer whenever someone notably high is laddering and would be particularly helpful for someone like me, who isn't exactly well-versed with the big names of most ladders besides 1v1 and a handful of oms.

 

[Expulso]

What about average ELO of the two battlers? In a situation like 1620 vs 1300 and 1550 v 1520, I feel like I'd rather see a close match between two of the top players than the top player playing someone that's pretty average.

I think either of these would be an improvement over the current system, and I fully support your suggestion! Just saw this thread and figured I would share another idea that has merit.

 

[DrPumpkinz]

What about average ELO of the two battlers? In a situation like 1620 vs 1300 and 1550 v 1520, I feel like I'd rather see a close match between two of the top players than the top player playing someone that's pretty average.

I think either of these would be an improvement over the current system, and I fully support your suggestion! Just saw this thread and figured I would share another idea that has merit.

Average wouldn't really identify skill gaps all that well. A 1700/1300 match would show the same number as a 1500/1500 match, for example.

Honestly, I think the simplest thing to do is just display the ELO of both players. There's plenty of room to fit both numbers in the box.

 

[Expulso]

Average wouldn't really identify skill gaps all that well. A 1700/1300 match would show the same number as a 1500/1500 match, for example.

Honestly, I think the simplest thing to do is just display the ELO of both players. There's plenty of room to fit both numbers in the box.

That's a good point. Are you suggesting they put both numbers in the box and then sort by the highest person's ELO (per Rosa's suggestion?)

 

[doipy hooves]

What about average ELO of the two battlers? In a situation like 1620 vs 1300 and 1550 v 1520, I feel like I'd rather see a close match between two of the top players than the top player playing someone that's pretty average.

I think either of these would be an improvement over the current system, and I fully support your suggestion! Just saw this thread and figured I would share another idea that has merit.

I would say the current system works well for showing that scenario. The games would be shown as 1300 and 1520, knowing for sure that the 1520 game would have two strong players. I personally like having the lower Elo shown as I feel like I'm seeing a game's overall quality. It's also sorted that way in the replay searcher.

In this screenshot, Battle 2's high rating means both players are guaranteed to know what they're doing, with "high" stakes involved. The other players could be evenly matched newbies or in an one-sided affair, but their resulting battle is clearly on a lower level to me. I guess I prefer intense as well as equal battles, though it's easier to tell between skill level in Metronomes.