|
On December 16 2010 03:50 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 03:22 NEOtheONE wrote: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.
I agree with this fact. Though an early death in lane is not impossible to recover from. The first time I went up against a jax in mid, I gave up a first blood, yet I went on to have a strong match with a better than break even kill to death ratio. We went on to win that match. However, if certain players get fed, namely the hard carries, it's usually game over.
|
I remember back in Augustish, before I took a break from LoL, when everybody on TL was saying Dyrus was prolly the best player in the game, he ended up in a ranked game with me. At about 1300 ELO. He said he'd been stuck with terrible teams and lost hundreds of points.
ELO hell definitely exists, but it's true that a lot of people complaining about it are bad. Since I've started duo queuing with players that are actually decent, I've had like a 85% win rate. Last time I played, I went 8-0 in ranked and gained 100 ELO.
|
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/wVAHG.jpg)
Look, stop crying about it, if you're good you'll end up on the top end, if not you probably belong where you are.
|
I mean basically it's all of the people on the top end who are like "ya we've been there it was just us not being as good as we are now" versus all the people stuck in the middle who are like MY TEAMMATES ARE SO BAD WTF.
|
On December 16 2010 04:15 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Look, stop crying about it, if you're good you'll end up on the top end, if not you probably belong where you are.
uhhh no shit Dyrus is up there now. Point was, it doesn't matter how good you are, ELO hell can still fuck you over and keep you fucked over for a good while. Point was, you were wrong when you said there are no good players below 1500, because Dyrus was ELO hell'd all the way down to 1300.
|
United States37500 Posts
On December 16 2010 04:10 APurpleCow wrote:
I remember back in Augustish, before I took a break from LoL, when everybody on TL was saying Dyrus was prolly the best player in the game, he ended up in a ranked game with me. At about 1300 ELO. He said he'd been stuck with terrible teams and lost hundreds of points.
ELO hell definitely exists, but it's true that a lot of people complaining about it are bad. Since I've started duo queuing with players that are actually decent, I've had like a 85% win rate. Last time I played, I went 8-0 in ranked and gained 100 ELO.
That Dyrus example is pretty horrible. Yes, players can get streaks of bad games but it ultimately balances out. Dyrus, due to his playstyle, snowballs a lot more than other players. He's rather aggressive. Couple weeks ago, I saw him drop down to high 1600s. Today, he's back up to 1800+ (though he and I both agree he should be 1900+ but he hasn't had much luck either).
Another example is our very own Yiruru. Last month, he tumbled all the way down to 1500. After a few snarky comments about elo on TL, he managed to climb out of his hole and up to 2K+.
If you're talking about players like Dyrus and Yiruru, they're examples against Elo Hell. They are guys who fell several hundreds of Elo below their usual range but still managed to get back up to where they belong.
Learn to play your best champions (that still helps team's composition. Don't just pick Ashe as soon as queue pops and lock in. It's best if you are more versatile. Learn 1 carry, 1 jungle, 1 support. You don't necessarily need to know every class but know more than 1 or 2).
Feeders on your team? Just carry harder.
|
Again, no shit it balances out.
Anyone who's not an idiot has been saying ELO hell sucks because it can take way too long to balance out and there's nothing you can do about it while you get stuck playing shitty games with shitty teammates who say you're a stupid noob for getting ghostblade on Pantheon or for getting more than one Doran's Blade.
Point is, since Yiruru and Dyrus, two top players, have streaks of games where they can't carry, saying, "just carry harder" doesn't help. If they kept getting bad players on their team, they'd still be down at 1300-1500.
That Dyrus example is pretty horrible. Yes, players can get streaks of bad games but it ultimately balances out. Dyrus, due to his playstyle, snowballs a lot more than other players. He's rather aggressive. Couple weeks ago, I saw him drop down to high 1600s. Today, he's back up to 1800+ (though he and I both agree he should be 1900+ but he hasn't had much luck either).
So you're saying he's a bad example because none of the people complaining about elo hell are aggressive players?
okay.
|
United States37500 Posts
Elo Hell is just an excuse from players who think they belong higher than they actually are. There is a difference between "losing a string of games and climbing back up" and "not being able to reach 1600 elo".
Ruru and Dyrus managed to fall but they got them back up to where they belong a few weeks after. That is entirely different from the guys who are stuck at 1200 elo yet claim that they are 1600. They've never even reached 1600 before yet they believe that's where they should be. That's the ridiculousness of the "elo hell" concept.
I used overaggression as a possible reasoning for why Dyrus lost so much elo. I've played plenty of games with him before so I know why he loses games. Other players who lost a bunch of games (like Yiruru) could have had simple bad luck.
The main point that I'm trying to drive home, players who end up -300 one week will end up +300 another week. It balances out. You don't call losing 10 games in a row, elo hell. You call that laddering.
|
yo Neo, we both know I'm 2400 material but I can't crack 1700 again due to no one being as good as me. maybe if you weren't such a baddie, you'd understand.
|
United States37500 Posts
Yo Gizmo, you're never going to get to play Panth again.
fgt
|
it's ok, at least I'll always have Badger Teemo.
which of course means that 1-2 months from now Teemo'll be buffed into OPNess and I'll be sad again.
|
On December 16 2010 06:19 Mogwai wrote:
it's ok, at least I'll always have Badger Teemo.
which of course means that 1-2 months from now Teemo'll be buffed into OPNess and I'll be sad again.
In a way, the nerf to wards was an indirect buff for Teemo so you're on your way there already! :D
|
United States8298 Posts
I think the OP has a really solid point, in that People don't consistently play at the same skill level especially people who are less good - personally I definitely have games where I'm playing pretty solidly, and other games where I'm feeding hard - not necessarily cause my opponents are any better, but because I just don't always play well. I think 100 Elo StDev is actually a pretty low estimate for the lower skill levels. This also implies that if you, a 1300 player with a 1300 team, against another 1300 team, might have someone on your team playing at a 1000 level (lets pretend he's been 1300 for a nice long while - he's not REALLY deserving of a 1000 rating) and just being awfullll all game and losing the game for you, and it's exceptionally difficult for you to play at a 1600 level to make up for that. (kinda making up numbers here btw) but when SpudBoy does it, well... he's fine. He plays at that 1600+ level and carries the shit out of the game.
|
On December 16 2010 03:41 Brees wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 16:20 L wrote: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.
Yeah, that's actually a problem. The same people shouldn't be at the top if the game is growing and more players hit top status. You've confirmed what I just told you.
Fun fact: Fantastic! Just as many people are going to get variance working in their favor as to speed them along to their ELL as people who are going to have variance working against them to fuck them over! Well done.
|
Marshall Islands3404 Posts
what is the variance? your playing ability? lol
the system works against people that suck, what a concept
|
Okay, stop bitching about Elo hell. It doesn't exist. Yesterday, on stream, I (1700) was matched with three 1400s and a 1500 vs a team of 16-1700s. Did that make sense? No. Did we lose? Yes. Was it something I came and made a thread about? No.
Stfu and prove you belong at the rank you think you belong at or stop thinking you belong there.
|
Or beat Ezpz 1v1 mid in a realistic matchup. Then I'll acknowledge you belong in 1800.
|
On December 16 2010 16:35 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Or beat Ezpz 1v1 mid in a realistic matchup. Then I'll acknowledge you belong in 1800.
lol, can Yiruru even do that?
|
he managed to climb out of his hole and up to 2K
The Jougonaut effect is too strong. Which actually brings me to something I want to think about - duo queues. Do you guys think they're an effective way to climb up the ladder? (Milkfat certainly seems to think so; after all duo queueing with 1300 players means free rating for him.) And do you guys think that they actually help you end up at the rating you deserve?
|
On December 16 2010 22:13 dnastyx wrote:The Jougonaut effect is too strong. Which actually brings me to something I want to think about - duo queues. Do you guys think they're an effective way to climb up the ladder? (Milkfat certainly seems to think so; after all duo queueing with 1300 players means free rating for him.) And do you guys think that they actually help you end up at the rating you deserve?
This thread has (unfortunately) become nigh-worthless as is (thanks, 5HIT!) -- if you're not discussing either the definition or effects of "ELO Hell", you're off-topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
