|
ok
my team feeds to the point of being uncarryable 12 games in a row so I'm a 1500 player. You're absolutely right. It's my fault entirely, what was I thinking by playing better, winning my lane, coddling them along to kill dragon, push towers, and press our advantage when we have it. When we're clearly outmatched, I'm the only one who says to back up, and my team flies in 1 by 1 and dies anyways, it's entirely my fault despite all my efforts to get them to do the opposite. Half my teammates being unable or unwilling to speak english is a complete illusion, the guys who pick Tryndamere after we already have Jax and Tristana are entirely in my own head.
Thanks for clearing that up. It all makes sense now.
|
Being 1500 doesn't make you bad, it just means that you haven't succeeded in ranked. I know lots of players ranked at 1300 who are very good at this game but can't succeed in ranked.
|
On December 15 2010 01:49 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Being 1500 doesn't make you bad, it just means that you haven't succeeded in ranked. I know lots of players ranked at 1300 who are very good at this game but can't succeed in ranked.
That's like saying there are great poker players who can't win money. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to communicate.
Annoyance aside, I am trying my absolute best to learn this game inside and out, learn the nuances of the hero interactions, how to read the minimap, how to efficiently jungle and gank - all of it. I want to play at the highest level possible. The reason I'm so pissed off at my current rating is that every game is a 1v5, so it is next impossible for me to actually learn anything new. I just have to focus on carrying harder within the boundaries of what I already know about carrying idiots against idiots. I want to lane against people who completely smash me, and to get counterjungled until it makes me cry, and have teammates that know exactly how to help out. I want to learn to play competitively, but I don't understand how I am supposed to learn when I am fighting just to break away from the morass of dribbling idiots.
Do I make mistakes? Absolutely! Have lost games been my fault? Of course- I own up to my mistakes typically as soon as I make them. I'm just in the middle of the equivalent of getting 82os 2000 hands in a row, and everybody is trying to tell me that there is no such thing as luck. It's my fault I'm getting a shitty hand.
It will equalize eventually, of course, so all this bitching is technically unnecessary. I'm just venting frustration at the awful run of cars I'm getting, as well as those who are telling me that I'm somehow choosing them.
Note that I don't claim I am anywhere close to where I want to be in skill. At best, I probably play at around a 1650-1700 level right now. I just want to play against 1650-1700 players so I can actually learn to get better instead of having to carry every game.
Anyways, I'm sorry about all the QQing. I'll just sit tight and wait it out. ^^
|
Marshall Islands3404 Posts
elo hell should be renamed elo heaven btw.
I sure as hell would like to go play DPS veigar and soraka and roll kids, that would be funny as hell.
(reference to what cleveradvisor was doing to show there is no elo hell)
|
On December 15 2010 01:47 Odds wrote:
ok
my team feeds to the point of being uncarryable 12 games in a row so I'm a 1500 player. You're absolutely right. It's my fault entirely, what was I thinking by playing better, winning my lane, coddling them along to kill dragon, push towers, and press our advantage when we have it. When we're clearly outmatched, I'm the only one who says to back up, and my team flies in 1 by 1 and dies anyways, it's entirely my fault despite all my efforts to get them to do the opposite. Half my teammates being unable or unwilling to speak english is a complete illusion, the guys who pick Tryndamere after we already have Jax and Tristana are entirely in my own head.
Thanks for clearing that up. It all makes sense now.
It just means you need to play more games because you got unlucky.
|
On December 14 2010 11:04 Brees wrote:
i honestly cant believe in it since ive gotten 2 accounts to 1600+ elo really easily (aka even with trolling a lot of games)
after a good amount of games ( just like normal game elo!) your true elo will be determined. it could be 50 games, it could be 500 depending on your luck.
heres the problem with your thoughts. 500 games... depending on LUCK... well, ima go ahead and say since i can only play a couple of games a day, and ive been playing for 4 months or so, and have 230 wins 215 losses or so, that spending about FIVE MONTHS to get to my actual skill level, is the definition of hell
|
I'm not saying this because I'm higher ranked than most of TL, but either you can prove you belong at the Elo you think you belong at or stfu. The point of ranked wasn't to have a bracket where you could define how skilled a certain number was, it was to show everyone exactly where they belonged if ranked against everyone else. Either play more games and get over the variance or stfu because we've all been there. Every single one of us in high Elo had to get through the same bs you did. Pretty much everyone I talk to that's high ranked has dropped over 150 points in a week. It's not a big deal. Carry yourself back up or you didn't belong there in the first place.
Now, everyone man up and accept it. Don't play ranked if you believe in Elo Hell. It's a myth perpetuated by bad players who aren't good enough to be recognized by name.
|
On December 14 2010 22:00 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
So... what you're saying is... Elo hell doesn't exist...
No, what he's saying is that the Elo system will force certain people to play much harder if the rest of their team end up playing really shitty, but as you approach high numbers of games it'll even out. Ie, if you're in the bottom 5% luckwise, you might end up playing 50 additional shitty games before climbing out of retard town. Those games aren't fun or enjoyable when your team refuses to jungle, then your 2v1 lane top tower dives 6 times in a row and dies. If you're in the top 5% luckwise, you might just coast on through and hit a string of good games, then reach a level where your team will be consistently less retarded. This also means that based on pure luck, some people will be thrown into better games with better opponents and be able to learn more in a given amount of time.
That's life.
That doesn't mean that you'll play 50 games and be close to where you should be. The claim that people need to bang out 100 ranked games to get marginally close to where they should be is equally ludicrous. Sorry, but if 99 of your games are playing with people attempting to carry janna and go AP mundo, shit gets really annoying really fast. You aren't going to get 'better' playing in an environment where your best skill is simply taking advantage of incredibly shit players on the other team and hoping your team isn't retarded.
You can compare this to HoN's mm system, in which people who don't deserve to be where they are will get rapidly ejected out of the place they were carried to, and where even support heros who can't carry might need a 15 game or so pad before they play with teams that maximize their potential. Even that's not perfect, but cruising at 1800+ always resulted in pretty decent games. Inhouse groups were normally balanced using the in-game rating system as well, which worked out pretty well.
In LoL, the majority of low ranked games are decided by how bad other 9 players in the game are because of how compressed the map is and how slow the heros snowball in general; If you go 10-0-10 in HoN, you can do shit like 1v5 their entire team in 4 different places around the map with sandwraith. Worried they can chain disable your massive dps? BKB.
The fact that people comment on the existence of this without comparing it to other similar games is a joke. The SC2 comment on the first page is hilarious; SC2's rating system blows donkey nuts for anything above 2v2s.
|
Oh shit biscuits... my post just got wiped...
TLDR: play enough games and the variance inherent in matchmaking will even out. Yes those games will suck, but that's just how variance works.
As for falling so far that your teammates are so bad that you can't get out... I believe 5hit summed it up well with either you can carry 4 idiot vs 5 idiots, or you belong there.
This conversation is pretty much just statistics... it's not useful to say "But I had a 7 game losing streak all because of my team". You know what? Shit happens, if you care about getting to the level you think you deserve, then take the knocks like a man and keep playing. If you don't care... well then there's no point complaining in the first place.
|
No one cares if variance will even shit out after 100 extra games.
Its the nearly 3 weeks worth of shovelling shit that people don't like, and understandably so. Other games don't have the same system and involve far less of a timesink. LoL's garbage design is so egregious to certain players because the proper 'placement period' matches happen in the normal/ranked system which can't be undone due to summoner levels, which leaves nearly everyone who hits ranked games improperly placed. Compare that with the placement match system in SC2. So basically you're saying "if you want to play this game competitively, either get carried by a team up, or play 150~ normal games to get possibly competitive, then play one hero because you can't afford multiple rune sets and multiple heros by that time, then grind another 100 ranked games. At 250 games with an average time of 30 minutes per (and that's being generous), someone is forced to play over 5 days worth of games to hit a point where the game is playable for what its supposed to be.
"Pretty much just statistics" means you've never seen how other statistical models for teambased games work. The one Riot uses is a piece of junk. There's no ELO tapering, or variable k values depending on your position in the ladder. The K value is absurdly low, which means people move slowly and the game promotes player segregation with its user interface which creates a massive distortion in game population. Riot's also admitted that they, from an ELO perspective, overvalue higher ELOs in team games, which means that teams are often lopsided in skill at lower levels as a 1400 level player playing with a group of 1150s is going to be valued far higher than a team of straight 1200s. To add to that further, there's also scaling applied to which side you start on to the tune of 4% or so. If you add the fact that people starting off on ranked often quit out (check the ladders's sub 1200 size for more detail) because losing at base ELO and putting you under essentially tells you that you'd have been better off not playing at all, you get a huge chunk of the player base that's told to stop playing. That's a reward and a half. The result of this is a system that also inflates itself rapidly, with points being siphoned off people who quit ranked shortly thereafter, those who remain's rankings drift upwards with time even if you aren't playing any better.
"Shit happens" isn't an excuse for creating a shitty system. Its a call to make a better system. A better system means more players enter and stay competitive, and play against players that they're most likely to learn and improve from. Its not a mistake that this game has such a small pool of decent players.
|
Trust me, none of the players that belong at the top quit after losing their first couple ranked games.
|
On December 15 2010 13:17 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Trust me, none of the players that belong at the top quit after losing their first couple ranked games.
Well, we'll never know now that they're gone, will we? This is the same type of shit that happens in many ELO ladder systems, and the amount of people that drop out early is tremendous. I suppose that's a good thing if you want to be king duck of a small pond, but if you're looking for this game to have a robust sized community so that you don't get stuck in hour-long ques in fives when you reach the top, you look to how new players enter the game then decide to make it competitive.
Not like this game has enough top-tier teams to make the tournaments even remotely interesting as it stands, so it should be a priority. Like, priority number 2 right after unfucking their servers. Even if they bothered adding replays and observers, the competitive playerbase is tiny enough that it doesn't matter. We have no DXD, no IHLC, no TGL sponsored leagues. IDL alone has nearly 1200 teams registered for their next tournament. That's 6000 players. With a massive competitive playerbase comes cash prizes beyond the developer paying off WCG, sponsored tournaments, larger prize pools, and with that come the serial gamers who are looking to cash in on the popularity, further swelling the ranks of the game.
I've seen plenty of games flounder and do it wrong, and plenty of games do it right. Playing 250 games before getting to a level where the majority of your games are satisfying is not 'doing it right'.
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 15 2010 16:20 L wrote:
Well, we'll never know now that they're gone, will we? This is the same type of shit that happens in many ELO ladder systems, and the amount of people that drop out early is tremendous. I suppose that's a good thing if you want to be king duck of a small pond, but if you're looking for this game to have a robust sized community so that you don't get stuck in hour-long ques in fives when you reach the top, you look to how new players enter the game then decide to make it competitive.
Don't people make similar arguments about getting stomped at BW by smurf on ICCup?
|
On December 15 2010 16:35 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 16:20 L wrote:
Well, we'll never know now that they're gone, will we? This is the same type of shit that happens in many ELO ladder systems, and the amount of people that drop out early is tremendous. I suppose that's a good thing if you want to be king duck of a small pond, but if you're looking for this game to have a robust sized community so that you don't get stuck in hour-long ques in fives when you reach the top, you look to how new players enter the game then decide to make it competitive.
Don't people make similar arguments about getting stomped at BW by smurf on ICCup?
I dunno, but ICCup isn't how most people were introduced to BW so the point's pretty moot. If you want to use ICCup as an example, they replicate most of my points. ICCup doesn't go below D-, for instance, and even the people who drop to there often restart their accounts (again, go browse the ICCUP ladder and check the average games played for higher ranked players versus people sitting in D-. Success begets continued play). Additionally, ICCup runs for a 1v1 game with no team variance, so that helps.
ICCup also has proper ELO constants; The majority of people in the top 50 have stellar records and are running under 80 games total. In LoL, most people at the top approach a 66-70% winrate with 600+ games played. The number difference is staggering.
|
No, straight up, if you are good at this game in normal queue you will queue vs the people who are high in solo ranked as well. There's hardly anyone in unranked that queues high that doesn't think to themselves "I'm gonna see how high i can go, i play vs bigfatjiji/chauster etc in normal" and can't carry themselves to the top anyway.
|
On December 15 2010 09:53 L wrote:
No one cares if variance will even shit out after 100 extra games.
Its the nearly 3 weeks worth of shovelling shit that people don't like, and understandably so. Other games don't have the same system and involve far less of a timesink. LoL's garbage design is so egregious to certain players because the proper 'placement period' matches happen in the normal/ranked system which can't be undone due to summoner levels, which leaves nearly everyone who hits ranked games improperly placed. Compare that with the placement match system in SC2. So basically you're saying "if you want to play this game competitively, either get carried by a team up, or play 150~ normal games to get possibly competitive, then play one hero because you can't afford multiple rune sets and multiple heros by that time, then grind another 100 ranked games. At 250 games with an average time of 30 minutes per (and that's being generous), someone is forced to play over 5 days worth of games to hit a point where the game is playable for what its supposed to be.
"Pretty much just statistics" means you've never seen how other statistical models for teambased games work. The one Riot uses is a piece of junk. There's no ELO tapering, or variable k values depending on your position in the ladder. The K value is absurdly low, which means people move slowly and the game promotes player segregation with its user interface which creates a massive distortion in game population. Riot's also admitted that they, from an ELO perspective, overvalue higher ELOs in team games, which means that teams are often lopsided in skill at lower levels as a 1400 level player playing with a group of 1150s is going to be valued far higher than a team of straight 1200s. To add to that further, there's also scaling applied to which side you start on to the tune of 4% or so. If you add the fact that people starting off on ranked often quit out (check the ladders's sub 1200 size for more detail) because losing at base ELO and putting you under essentially tells you that you'd have been better off not playing at all, you get a huge chunk of the player base that's told to stop playing. That's a reward and a half. The result of this is a system that also inflates itself rapidly, with points being siphoned off people who quit ranked shortly thereafter, those who remain's rankings drift upwards with time even if you aren't playing any better.
"Shit happens" isn't an excuse for creating a shitty system. Its a call to make a better system. A better system means more players enter and stay competitive, and play against players that they're most likely to learn and improve from. Its not a mistake that this game has such a small pool of decent players.
I feel like you're arguing about something else entirely, I'm not defending their system in the slightest, I don't know where you got that idea from.
My stance is that there is no such thing as 'elo hell' given enough games - that is what the "It's pretty much just statistics" pertains to. Personally I think the system is shit, but that's neither here nor there and I don't know why you brought it up.
If you have a viable suggestion as to how we can influence Riot to change their system then I'd support you... but that's something quite aside from whether or not elo hell exists.
|
And my stance is that it isn't just statistics, because playing 'enough games' involves a bunch of players getting fed up with garbage quality games in which ashes decide to tower dive at level 3 against a full hp taric while they play sona.
Again, go look at the ICCup records compared to ours. 80-90% winrates vs ours which hover far closer to 60%.
As for advice; its pretty much all up there; Start your ELO system at 0. Hide the negative scores to keep players feeling accomplished when they win. Give them a ranking system other than IP: games played, games won, whatever That little 'minions killed' shield and sword in your summoner page, for instance, is supposed to account for this, but its never really an exciting thing; You aren't told you just leveled up your shield. No one really sees it either. There's no points for it. You don't unlock sweet avatars or achievements by chuggin' along (they do in WC3/SC2, by contrast). Something for captain bads to enjoy before they playhard gopro. Increase the K value substantially, and have it taper as people move up certain distances into the ladder. Top 25%-> Kvalue*.8 Top 10%->Kvalue.75 Top5%->Kvalue.70 Top2.5%->Kvalue.66. Make ranked stats hide-able for those that are ashamed of their record when they play friends.
Something along those lines, but the numbers can be changed based on the amount of people in the ladders and the desired top end.
Most of these changes have been introduced in many forms in competitive games around the world. Tapering K is used in chess (although a bit extremely, might I add. Final K is like Initial K*.4).
Because of these changes, you might have a bad string of games, sure, but the string of games you need to super-carry to get to a point where you're with your peers drops dramatically. Adding performance ratings would also help people boost out of shitty games. People are supposed to boost with higher than 50% scores out of the gates if they're good, which means someone running at 10-1 would have a higher effective ELO than someone who ran 20-11, yet had the exact same poitn shift. 20-11 is supposed to be 'closer' to where he's supposed to be playing, but in a game like this that could also be an effect of the multi-party variance, so the boost would likely have to vastly overestimate people early on to get them to a place they should be at.
No, straight up, if you are good at this game in normal queue you will queue vs the people who are high in solo ranked as well. There's hardly anyone in unranked that queues high that doesn't think to themselves "I'm gonna see how high i can go, i play vs bigfatjiji/chauster etc in normal" and can't carry themselves to the top anyway.
If ancedotal telepathic information is your best evidence, I'll have to say that plenty of people in unranked that que and want to get good, but then play a few shit ranked games and don't want to complete their 'placement' because of the social stigma of being shitty. In fact, those people account for the vast majority of people I've played with on LP as well as from real life, so I know how they feel because I've actually talked to them about it.
The best part is that you think this phenomenon is new to this game. Its not. Pretty much every point I've raised has been the topic of developer conferences or game expositions and studies surrounding what players find fun. Even Zilean himself brings up pretty much all of these points himself in his own post on design patterns.
|
But how many people do you see playing on solomid stream in normal games that don't have a ranked Elo?
Nobody who is legitimately "good" at this game is not ranked above 1500.
|
What I'm saying is that if you are crying about Elo hell you probably belong somewhere between 800 and 1500. And sure, that's Elo hell, if by Elo hell you mean "i'm not good enough to be 1500+".
|
Server's screwed, unintentional post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
