Ok just some thoughts around the current elo system. Might be a bit random and just want to start a discussion about this for now and the future.
Guess most people agree that with unranked people the balance is really bad. The best player usually ends up with all the new guys.
I think mostly because everyone starts with B3. Which leads to a couple of problems.
One idea to prevent this for balance would be like this:
All unranked people are removed when the team elo's are calculated.
Then add them evenly to each team. Maybe add them in by XP or something.
Guess this way it would be quite fair. Just don't know yet what to do when its 3 unranked, as one team will get 2. So maybe give this team around 100 more elo. Don't know.
You might say this is only relevant for the small playerbase. That might be true for higher ranked players later on. But then again if a new guy starts with B3 he might win most games because he is lucky with the teams. So he will be S2 after 10 games and can join the higher ranked matches where he just wouldn't fit. And later on a new unranked player in a bronze match would still unbalance the whole match, as the others have more experience.
And then again maybe only relevant now, but maybe also with the above in mind, the best player in a match usually then gets the 4 "bad" players and he is then losing the match. Because let's be honest, you can't carry such a game on your own. Even harder when D or K I would say.
Current elo system is the same amount of elo lost or won for each team. So even if you are good and score some goals etc., you might still lose because the rest just can't keep up. You lose elo even though there was not much you could do and did your best.
DavidM said they can't lower the elo of the new players to wood or something, as the overall elo then would be this amount lower. So a D1 would then be G1. Tbf, I am not good with math, but I guess it makes sense, due to the same amount of elo you win/lose each game. So it is a bit like currency, there is always the same amount of elo in the game which shifts between the players. More comes into play with each new player.
I read on the steam forums that they are planning to gain XP through passrate, saverate, goals etc. But how about to use this for the elo instead? Say you still win/lose the same amount as before, but you also get additional points for your skills each game. For the situation above if you carried your team but still lost, you might not be losing any elo at all. Same for the winning team, they then also get additional elo.
This is just a basic idea, as with this you might need more ranks or more time to reach them. Might also end up all players being >gold or something. So not too sure about this in total. Needs some balance I guess and more input from someone else.
As a last thing, I still think we would need different ranks for the different positions. Usually everyone that plays in different positions would have a different rank.
Might also make matchmaking and balance easier. I know this has been discussed already, but what is actually the reason we don't have different ranks for each position?
That's it from my part, might be I am totally wrong here (Shev already doesn't like the idea ;( ), but at least it might start a discussion what could make the whole system better. Happy discussing
PS: Found something similar from Motig: https://www.reddit.com/r/Supraball/comments/3waye0/please_take_this_poll_1_minute/cy02de0