|
On December 15 2010 17:37 L wrote:
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.
This makes no sense to me... I feel like you don't address the issue at all.
Given enough games 'getting feeders on my team', and 'playing against noobs' WILL even each other out... that's what I mean by 'pretty much just statistics' because it is in fact... pretty much just statistics (gotta love dat central limit theorem).
Sure you may not like playing lots of games... but that's not what the topic was about, it's about whether or not ELO hell exists... and as long as the conditions for CLT are met, it doesn't.
|
just read this thread and..
duuuude where is jazriel when you need him
|
On December 15 2010 18:11 Dgiese wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 17:37 L wrote:
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. This makes no sense to me... I feel like you don't address the issue at all. Given enough games 'getting feeders on my team', and 'playing against noobs' WILL even each other out... that's what I mean by 'pretty much just statistics' because it is in fact... pretty much just statistics (gotta love dat central limit theorem). Sure you may not like playing lots of games... but that's not what the topic was about, it's about whether or not ELO hell exists... and as long as the conditions for CLT are met, it doesn't.
If you define ELO hell as an inescapable pit, sure. If you describe it as an area which is incredibly unappealing to play through because the games are shit and largely determined by how much heros on the respective teams are willing to listen to orders and not feed horrendously, no.
I do not call it the first because that simply isn't what it is. It does, however, stink very much of the second, which is very bad ladder design.
|
I define ELO hell as a region of ELO that you cannot escape from through your own merits... and as such conclude that ELO hell doesn't exist.
Shitty teammates and being unable to raise your elo to it's 'actual' level are two very different things.
|
On December 15 2010 19:02 L wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 18:11 Dgiese wrote:On December 15 2010 17:37 L wrote:
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. This makes no sense to me... I feel like you don't address the issue at all. Given enough games 'getting feeders on my team', and 'playing against noobs' WILL even each other out... that's what I mean by 'pretty much just statistics' because it is in fact... pretty much just statistics (gotta love dat central limit theorem). Sure you may not like playing lots of games... but that's not what the topic was about, it's about whether or not ELO hell exists... and as long as the conditions for CLT are met, it doesn't. If you define ELO hell as an inescapable pit, sure. If you describe it as an area which is incredibly unappealing to play through because the games are shit and largely determined by how much heros on the respective teams are willing to listen to orders and not feed horrendously, no. I do not call it the first because that simply isn't what it is. It does, however, stink very much of the second, which is very bad ladder design.
Sums it up perfectly. Unfortunately, nobody's paying attention. All they see is QQ I SUCK AT THIS GAME BUT IM BLAMING TEAMMM
|
On December 15 2010 19:46 Dgiese wrote:
I define ELO hell as a region of ELO that you cannot escape from through your own merits... and as such conclude that ELO hell doesn't exist.
Shitty teammates and being unable to raise your elo to it's 'actual' level are two very different things.
Oh, good, so you're arguing against a strawman that no one's supporting. Case closed.
|
I just played a game as ww. Top akali failed and fed 0-3. Mid ez did some retarded chalice, sheen, hybrid AP/AD build and was outfarmed by a teemo. Bot lane gave first blood to a twitch/garen lane and was failing. Soooo, I ganked the fuck out of everything. Carried those baddies so hard it wasn't even funny. After i 1v3ed their garen + twitch + cass, garen ragequit and they decided to surrender. ELO hell my ass. Just carry harder. ;o
This is a baddie himself speaking so no excuses.
|
I haven't played ranked for ages, think I won't play it again until I get my mres/lvl seals and glyphs finished for my DPS Evelynn.
|
On December 15 2010 20:29 L wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 19:46 Dgiese wrote:
I define ELO hell as a region of ELO that you cannot escape from through your own merits... and as such conclude that ELO hell doesn't exist.
Shitty teammates and being unable to raise your elo to it's 'actual' level are two very different things. Oh, good, so you're arguing against a strawman that no one's supporting. Case closed.
Actually a decent amount people in this thread were referring to ELO hell as a region of ELO that you can't pull yourself out of due to the ineptitude of your teammates. Not a region of ELO that you just don't like playing with your teammates.
Sure the former implies the later, but if you're just saying you don't like your teamates, then go cry elsewhere.
|
On December 15 2010 21:10 Dgiese wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 20:29 L wrote:On December 15 2010 19:46 Dgiese wrote:
I define ELO hell as a region of ELO that you cannot escape from through your own merits... and as such conclude that ELO hell doesn't exist.
Shitty teammates and being unable to raise your elo to it's 'actual' level are two very different things. Oh, good, so you're arguing against a strawman that no one's supporting. Case closed. Actually a decent amount people in this thread were referring to ELO hell as a region of ELO that you can't pull yourself out of due to the ineptitude of your teammates. Not a region of ELO that you just don't like playing with your teammates. Sure the former implies the later, but if you're just saying you don't like your teamates, then go cry elsewhere.
It's not a region that you can't pull yourself out of due to the ineptitude of your teammates.
It's a region where, if you happen to be unlucky, you can't pull yourself out of in less than weeks of effort due to the ineptitude of your teammates.
|
stop your goddamn stressing odds, just remember that your enemy probably is more scared of you than you are of him, and if he isn't - he is an idiot
|
On December 15 2010 21:19 ghen wrote:
stop your goddamn stressing odds, just remember that your enemy probably is more scared of you than you are of him, and if he isn't - he is an idiot
I'm not stressed anymore tbh. I'm sorry I overreacted, I was having a really bad night. =/
And yes, TBO <3
|
On December 15 2010 21:10 Dgiese wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 20:29 L wrote:On December 15 2010 19:46 Dgiese wrote:
I define ELO hell as a region of ELO that you cannot escape from through your own merits... and as such conclude that ELO hell doesn't exist.
Shitty teammates and being unable to raise your elo to it's 'actual' level are two very different things. Oh, good, so you're arguing against a strawman that no one's supporting. Case closed. Actually a decent amount people in this thread were referring to ELO hell as a region of ELO that you can't pull yourself out of due to the ineptitude of your teammates. Not a region of ELO that you just don't like playing with your teammates. Sure the former implies the later, but if you're just saying you don't like your teamates, then go cry elsewhere.
Sorry, pretty sure the OP, in a thread that tried to define the problem, didn't attempt to create an impossibility to the feat, just show the predisposition to it.
I'm saying the system itself is poorly designed relative to other systems using the same rating methodology and that's bad because better ground up rating methodologies have already been developed for many online platforms because of how poorly ELO tracks skill in team games. Truskill/Trueskill is one of them.
Within the confines of the current ladder system, I've already given pretty concrete and easy to change variables which would lead to far quicker separation of players towards their ELL. Its literally a fix that could be applied by someone within less than an hour, and its a fix that we've implemented in other games before to the delight of many people.
The system is shit. No one wants to play weeks of ranked matches with hyper-garbage players. The ladder statistics show that to be the case as well.
|
On December 15 2010 21:17 Odds wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 21:10 Dgiese wrote:On December 15 2010 20:29 L wrote:On December 15 2010 19:46 Dgiese wrote:
I define ELO hell as a region of ELO that you cannot escape from through your own merits... and as such conclude that ELO hell doesn't exist.
Shitty teammates and being unable to raise your elo to it's 'actual' level are two very different things. Oh, good, so you're arguing against a strawman that no one's supporting. Case closed. Actually a decent amount people in this thread were referring to ELO hell as a region of ELO that you can't pull yourself out of due to the ineptitude of your teammates. Not a region of ELO that you just don't like playing with your teammates. Sure the former implies the later, but if you're just saying you don't like your teamates, then go cry elsewhere. It's not a region that you can't pull yourself out of due to the ineptitude of your teammates. It's a region where, if you happen to be unlucky, you can't pull yourself out of in less than weeks of effort due to the ineptitude of your teammates.
Dunno, 2 days from 1200 to 1400 with a record of 27-17 like mine really shouldn't be impossible for anyone. I'm not even a good player by any means and nearly every game featured some sort of idiots in my team.
I really think that people stuck at like 1100-1300 or so most likely belong there, or they play supports... which is very silly to do in those elos.
|
I keep telling you, the only reason you're having this problem is because you're not carrying hard enough. Seriously. Put almost any one of the better TL players into a game against 1400s with a champ that can A) farm and B) kill and they just win it.
|
On December 15 2010 21:41 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
I keep telling you, the only reason you're having this problem is because you're not carrying hard enough. Seriously. Put almost any one of the better TL players into a game against 1400s with a champ that can A) farm and B) kill and they just win it.
It's not a problem at 1400s. 1550+ is a bit harder to carry when you have an afk and a rager
|
I love the "not carrying hard enough" because its the brood war mentality.
Back when I played WoW I always blame myself in everything becaues theres always something you could do better (at least as tank/healer, less so dps unless you died somewhat early), and that's how everyone should do things. Blaming other people is a waste of time and distracts your focus.
I really don't notice when my teammates are terrible except maybe because that's beause im too bad or something. Sure you have the odd trundle farming lanes during teamfights then getting ganked non stop but from a jax perspective you waste time with the team if you're not in a direct fight, duking back and forth favours the team with greater ranged power, jax needs to jump in and blow both summonors and ultimate, to get out ot just have a full fight. It's not easy to figure out when a team fights going to happen for sure.
Also you when you're taking feeds from bad guys on the other team you never complain, but people always notice the bad guy on the other team.
|
On December 14 2010 07:25 Glacierz wrote:You mean this?: http://www.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=292682On a more serious note, statistically speaking, the more games you play, the less variance you have around your true ELO. This concept is pretty common in finance, a truly skilled manager can pick winning stocks 55 out of 100 times, this is not that high but if he consistently do this over 1 million times you will be correct 55% of the time, thus making money. If you are stuck in a low ELO all you do is play and play some more. There is no such thing as bad luck: if you are able to play hundreds of games you will be placed where you belong. Just look at the SC2 ladder, your initial placement matches puts you in a random league from bronze - platinum, if you get unlucky and cheesed during placements you will end up misplaced, but you will get to where you belong in ~ 30-50 games, and after a few hundred your rating barely moves aside from the bonus pool inflation and yourself getting better. I don't believe you belong to a higher ELO if you are unable to carry yourself out of low ELOs. If you are rated 1300 and you dropped to 1200, the average ELO on your side of the team will always be higher than the other side, so the probability of you winning the game should be statistically higher than 50%. With enough games played, you will definitely move out of it. It just takes a lot of time.
Now see you are forgetting an important factor, teammates. As number of teammates increase, the lower the impact of one good player. The reason ELO hell exists is because a player gets consistently unlucky and is matched up with a least 1 terrible teammate (usually 2+ below average). It only takes one feeder to royally screw over a match. Now you may be thinking but wait one good player doesn't save the team so why should one bad player ruin it, correct but note I said one terrible player. Let's quantify these things so it makes a little more sense. A good player is someone who does better than break even in K:D ratio, or compensates with a ton of assists. A terrible player is someone who goes 0/5/0 or something to that effect. So let's say there are 3 average players one terrible player and one good player on one team and 5 average players on the other team. (Average is K=D or they are close to it) I'm going to ignore assists for the time being to make things easier.
5/5+5/5+5/5+0/5+7/5= 22/25
5/5+5/5+5/5+5/5+5/5= 25/25 which means 3 kill advantage to this team and better items.
And the other important factors are team composition and variance.
Certain heroes are meant to counter others and therefore players of lesser skill can still beat those with slightly more skill.
The most important factor to consider is variance. I will use myself for an example. I have roughly a lifetime average of 5/3/10 with my main hero. However, the variance is quite striking for some of these categories. My kills vary from 0-19, deaths from 0-10, and assists from 0-27. The vast majority of my kills are single digit, the vast majority of my deaths vary from 0 to 6, and there is little consistency for my assists. I have had games where I go 0/0/6, 1/2/5, 2/1/24, 15/2/27, etc.
Combine these factors and you can be stuck with a sinking ELO for weeks.
By the way, going back to the SC2 example. I am a top 15% platinum player, yet a middle of the road gold league 2v2, below mid 3v3 gold, and my 4v4 is stuck in MMR hell in bronze. Why? Cause I get killed off first in 4v4s (while my team watches) because I usually play Zerg. Also, worth noting is that I had a losing record in 2v2 for almost 1 month due to consistently bad teammates who didn't know how to cheese (and yet tried) or counter cheese.
|
Marshall Islands3404 Posts
On December 15 2010 16:20 L wrote:Show nested quote +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'.
actually its easy to know. all the people that were top elo before season 1, are still at the top in ranked. Doubt its coincidence
edit: fun fact: i took my account "inept" from 1300 elo to 1600 elo in 3-4 days (a weekend) because my other account got banned. Its pretty easy to carry yourself up if you actually try.
|
On December 16 2010 03:22 NEOtheONE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 07:25 Glacierz wrote:You mean this?: http://www.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=292682On a more serious note, statistically speaking, the more games you play, the less variance you have around your true ELO. This concept is pretty common in finance, a truly skilled manager can pick winning stocks 55 out of 100 times, this is not that high but if he consistently do this over 1 million times you will be correct 55% of the time, thus making money. If you are stuck in a low ELO all you do is play and play some more. There is no such thing as bad luck: if you are able to play hundreds of games you will be placed where you belong. Just look at the SC2 ladder, your initial placement matches puts you in a random league from bronze - platinum, if you get unlucky and cheesed during placements you will end up misplaced, but you will get to where you belong in ~ 30-50 games, and after a few hundred your rating barely moves aside from the bonus pool inflation and yourself getting better. I don't believe you belong to a higher ELO if you are unable to carry yourself out of low ELOs. If you are rated 1300 and you dropped to 1200, the average ELO on your side of the team will always be higher than the other side, so the probability of you winning the game should be statistically higher than 50%. With enough games played, you will definitely move out of it. It just takes a lot of time. Now see you are forgetting an important factor, teammates. As number of teammates increase, the lower the impact of one good player. The reason ELO hell exists is because a player gets consistently unlucky and is matched up with a least 1 terrible teammate (usually 2+ below average). It only takes one feeder to royally screw over a match. Now you may be thinking but wait one good player doesn't save the team so why should one bad player ruin it, correct but note I said one terrible player. Let's quantify these things so it makes a little more sense. A good player is someone who does better than break even in K:D ratio, or compensates with a ton of assists. A terrible player is someone who goes 0/5/0 or something to that effect. So let's say there are 3 average players one terrible player and one good player on one team and 5 average players on the other team. (Average is K=D or they are close to it) I'm going to ignore assists for the time being to make things easier. 5/5+5/5+5/5+0/5+7/5= 22/25 5/5+5/5+5/5+5/5+5/5= 25/25 which means 3 kill advantage to this team and better items.
Another important fact to keep in mind is that not all kills are created equally. One early death while laning 1v1 is hard to recover from. Dying three times early will cripple any matchup and empower the opponent dangerously. Most of my games lost to feeders have a snowballing effect where the fed champion targets the next weakest link in the team and cripples them, then targets the next weakest link and so on until only the best player on the team is left, at which point their whole team is now advantaged due to all the assist gold and free farming they got to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
