|
There's a lot of debate on whether "ELO Hell" exists and, if so, what it is. It's typically used by mediocre players to justify their mediocrity, as in "I would be higher rated, but I'm stuck in ELO Hell". This is my attempt to offer a definition that is reasonable and useful. The goal is to create interesting discussion and prevent this term from losing all meaning as everyone redefines it at whim.
ELO ratings are bad. We know this. The math is old, brittle, and discards vast quantities of useful and interesting data. That said, the closest thing ELO can be said to model is "average performance." In other words, an ELO rating is not a judgement of "how good you are", it's an estimate of how well you will perform on any given trial.
If ELO is "average performance", that suggests there should be a deviation of performance as well. The core postulate my definition of ELO Hell rests on is that deviation of play is inversely proportional to average. Put more simply, the better you are, the more consistent you are likely to be. This means that, the lower the ELO of a game, the more likely you are to have wildly varying scores.
Let's make up some number to demonstrate the point. Assume that a 1200 ELO player has a 100 point standard deviation (approximately 2/3 of their games, they will play at a 1100-1300 level), but a 1500 ELO player has a 50 point standard deviation. On a team of all 1200s, then, there's a 50/50 shot someone on the team will play at a 1313 level. If you can play at a 1314 level, you're likely to be better than anyone on the opposing team. Do the math for a team of 1500s, and you have to play at a 1557 level to achieve the same effect.
Compare these numbers: to be underrated enough that you have a 50%+ shot of being better than anyone on the opposing team, you have to be almost twice as underrated at 1200 as you do at 1500! These numbers, as I said, are made up, but the more important conclusion is the effect: if strong players are indeed more consistent, then you don't have to be as underrated to carry a higher level game.
I know this is a bit mathy, so here's another phrasing in terms that may be more familiar. If you go 10/0/10 in a game, you are substantially more likely to win at the 1500 level than at the 1200 level.
All of this is of little help to those who claim to be trapped, of course -- it simply means that if you're 1200 and should be 1250, it'll take you longer to get there than a 1500 who should be 1550. It doesn't mean you won't get there, and it certainly doesn't mean that, should you be given a 1400 account, you'd be able to maintain the rating. Still, I think this is a reasonable mathematical effect that can help explain the (sometimes) seemingly "random" or "uncarriable" nature of lower-ELO games.
|
the only elo hell is the 1150-1300 range
any new account can get carried to 1300 pretty easily through sheer luck of getting 5 good teammates in 5 games in a row, it's tough to keep the luck going past 5 or 6 games though
1150-1300 definitely has the broadest skill range in the game. all the kids at 800 elo are 800-level players but a 1200 player has the potential to be an 1800 player or a 800 player
that's the only elo hell.
|
Most people would say the real Elo hell is from 1600 to at least 1800.
|
elo hell is simply any elo below where you think you should be, you do not have the ability to carry yourself single handedly to a higher elo. It is possible for people of all elos to go on massive losing streaks and have a drop in elo just large enough that they cannot climb back up by themselves. duo queuing is the quickest way to inflate your elo to where you think it belongs
|
You mean this?:
http://www.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=292682
On 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.
|
The common problem I tend to have is I get frustrated and keep play poorly during a losing streak, resulting in more losses. You might be capable of playing at higher ELO, but you are not because of your mental state.
|
Electric Light Orchestra Hell? Or are you referring to the Elo rating system, invented by and named after Arpad Elo?
Personally, I don't think it exists. People who believe in it are the kind of people who think they're better than they really are. They're the type of people that watch livestreams of top players and think they're educating themselves, when they're really just entertaining themselves.
|
People think they are in ELO hell because they are "capable" of playing at higher ELO, but that's not the ELO they play on average.
|
On December 14 2010 07:19 Frolossus wrote:
elo hell is simply any elo below where you think you should be, you do not have the ability to carry yourself single handedly to a higher elo. It is possible for people of all elos to go on massive losing streaks and have a drop in elo just large enough that they cannot climb back up by themselves. duo queuing is the quickest way to inflate your elo to where you think it belongs
This isn't helpful. By this definition, ELO Hell could be anywhere from 800 to 2000 ELO, and I'm pretty sure this is not what 90% of people understand by / mean with the term. I pretty much agree with the OP- there is, in my experience, less consistency in terms of level of play at some ranges of ELO than others. If you combine wildly varying level of play with simple bad luck (it can't happen to everyone, but statistically it has to happen to some, sometimes) then that can be a tough situation to get out of.
|
On December 14 2010 07:37 Glacierz wrote:
People think they are in ELO hell because they are "capable" of playing at higher ELO, but that's not the ELO they play on average.
I agree with you sir
|
Imo elo is pretty accurate once you have played like 50 games. It's just that it doesn't only reflect your mechanical and decision making skills, but also your ability to lead and communicate with teams.
LoL becomes hell at points where people gather who think they are good (and occasionally actually are good) but also have a terrible attitude. Thus turning your games into a flame fest.
I have had that mostly when I dipped below 1600 after I got there for the first time. Sent me down to like 1400. Unlucky streak of games where all my attempts at holding the team together were in vain.
And I had it today, at 1660. Stupid Poppy kept flaming and went 0/3/2. We won regardless. Obviously without her help pretty much, or how would she have only 2 assists...
|
On December 14 2010 07:42 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 07:19 Frolossus wrote:
elo hell is simply any elo below where you think you should be, you do not have the ability to carry yourself single handedly to a higher elo. It is possible for people of all elos to go on massive losing streaks and have a drop in elo just large enough that they cannot climb back up by themselves. duo queuing is the quickest way to inflate your elo to where you think it belongs This isn't helpful. By this definition, ELO Hell could be anywhere from 800 to 2000 ELO, and I'm pretty sure this is not what 90% of people understand by / mean with the term. I pretty much agree with the OP- there is, in my experience, less consistency in terms of level of play at some ranges of ELO than others. If you combine wildly varying level of play with simple bad luck (it can't happen to everyone, but statistically it has to happen to some, sometimes) then that can be a tough situation to get out of.
if elo hell is the state of being at a lower elo then you think you belong
there are two ways to look at it, one is that you could have been at a higher elo then gone on a loss streak and struggle to climb back up by your self. this applies to almost any actual elo
then there is the same effect created by the flood of new level 30's that are still somewhat inexperienced at the game who join ranked matches starting at 1200 elo. what this does is it causes people who have more experience at the game to constantly be paired with people who just hit level 30, if you get stuck with a bunch of these players on your team then your elo could also decrease or level off to a point where it becomes difficult to carry your self out.
|
On December 14 2010 07:42 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 07:19 Frolossus wrote:
elo hell is simply any elo below where you think you should be, you do not have the ability to carry yourself single handedly to a higher elo. It is possible for people of all elos to go on massive losing streaks and have a drop in elo just large enough that they cannot climb back up by themselves. duo queuing is the quickest way to inflate your elo to where you think it belongs This isn't helpful. By this definition, ELO Hell could be anywhere from 800 to 2000 ELO, and I'm pretty sure this is not what 90% of people understand by / mean with the term. I pretty much agree with the OP- there is, in my experience, less consistency in terms of level of play at some ranges of ELO than others. If you combine wildly varying level of play with simple bad luck (it can't happen to everyone, but statistically it has to happen to some, sometimes) then that can be a tough situation to get out of.
There is no meaningful definition of Elo Hell that can be used to find a definitive range in which it exists.
If you look at it statistically it's obvious from oberon's overview that the only difference in Elos as you go from low to high the severity of a phenomena that exists throughout. Until variance in play is zero, players will still underperform or overperform slightly and/or have bad luck, resulting in variation between their hypothetical "true Elo" and their measured Elo.
As such, trying to define "Elo Hell" as a specific range of Elo is subjective as the phenomena occurs to some degree at all levels. Any defined range is ultimately attempting to make a value judgment on how severe the phenomena needs to be to qualify as "hell".
|
the hell people speak of exists for just about everyone in solo queue. lol's equivalent of random teaming is inherently frustrating and should not be taken seriously. but, it is taken seriously and the ELO system is blamed for problems that "come with the territory" when one enters a solo queue w/ faceless strangers for a game that heavily punishes poor coordination and cooperation.
|
People need to stop spreading their e-peens and just play the game. It's a team game and you'll almost always get at least 1 idiot per team in whatever ELO you have. Just got to try your best and use your knowledge of the game to your advantage.
|
4 games in a row now i have someone who does nothing but feed, shittalk, and afk, I was 1600 this morning and now 1540 after dominating my lane, dragon, and fights EVERY SINGLE GAME
ELO hell fucking exists, and there *are* people who get extremely goddamn unlucky with team selection. Anyone who says otherwise is nothing but a fucking asshole/troll.
|
|
|
didn't know there was a term for it lol, but yeah, i believe in it, and it is a frightening thing... i wake up in cold sweat night after night, reliving the only game Morde wasn't banned, and as i jumped to get it, someone before me picked it, promising he was 1337, then proceeded to spam buy BF Swords whole game.
Carrying games is hard, carrying games when the people you play with were deprived of Oxygen as a new born, then immediately thrown down stairs only to land in a bucket of led paint then some how magically revived and told them their only job in life is to play Solo Queue 5v5 is just impossible.
I personally havnt played that much, and am probably not even in complete Elo Hell, but within my limited games ive had like 8 of the worse players ive ever fucking met on my team. The one time my team did well and they had a feeder, i felt so enthusiastic i immediately queue'd again only to get that feeder on my team...
honestly, ima just wait for my semi-competent friends to hit 30 and just enjoy dicking around >.>
|
"40% of your games you will win because the other team is better, 40% of your games you will win because your team is better, and 20% of your games will be decided by how good you are." Quote by Treeeskimo
|
On December 14 2010 10:33 Odds wrote:
4 games in a row now i have someone who does nothing but feed, shittalk, and afk, I was 1600 this morning and now 1540 after dominating my lane, dragon, and fights EVERY SINGLE GAME
ELO hell fucking exists, and there *are* people who get extremely goddamn unlucky with team selection. Anyone who says otherwise is nothing but a fucking asshole/troll.
No.
You had a bad streak of games.
If you yourself are not a feeder/leaver *EVER* than the other team is statisticly more likely to have a feeder/leaver than your team.
There are 9 other people in the game. If feeders/leavers are 10% of the population, your own team is 40% likely to have at least 1 feeder/leaver. The other team is 50% likely to have at least 1.
Therefore if you are below your true Elo you will always rise. If you are above your true Elo you will fall (due to yourself being the feeder more often than carry)
Blaming your drop from 1600->1540 on Elo hell is just not looking at the plain and simple facts. If you don't get back to 1600 after having a bad streak of games then maybe 1600 was the fluke instead of 1540?
|
Marshall Islands3404 Posts
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.
|
On December 14 2010 10:33 Odds wrote:
4 games in a row now i have someone who does nothing but feed, shittalk, and afk, I was 1600 this morning and now 1540 after dominating my lane, dragon, and fights EVERY SINGLE GAME
ELO hell fucking exists, and there *are* people who get extremely goddamn unlucky with team selection. Anyone who says otherwise is nothing but a fucking asshole/troll.
Maybe don't troll teemo in 4 straight games? I dunno what you are expecting.... but yea.
|
On December 14 2010 11:02 ghen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 10:33 Odds wrote:
4 games in a row now i have someone who does nothing but feed, shittalk, and afk, I was 1600 this morning and now 1540 after dominating my lane, dragon, and fights EVERY SINGLE GAME
ELO hell fucking exists, and there *are* people who get extremely goddamn unlucky with team selection. Anyone who says otherwise is nothing but a fucking asshole/troll. No. You had a bad streak of games. If you yourself are not a feeder/leaver *EVER* than the other team is statisticly more likely to have a feeder/leaver than your team. There are 9 other people in the game. If feeders/leavers are 10% of the population, your own team is 40% likely to have at least 1 feeder/leaver. The other team is 50% likely to have at least 1. Therefore if you are below your true Elo you will always rise. If you are above your true Elo you will fall (due to yourself being the feeder more often than carry) Blaming your drop from 1600->1540 on Elo hell is just not looking at the plain and simple facts. If you don't get back to 1600 after having a bad streak of games then maybe 1600 was the fluke instead of 1540?
I know it will equalize eventually. The simple matter is that it takes forever to get up to your proper elo if you have bad luck in teams. I have awful luck in teams. I'll eventually get back to 1600, and probably 1650, and, as I get better and deserve to be a higher elo, higher than that.
The journey is just extremely frustrating. Do I get a bit overly worked up when I vent? Possibly. However, telling me that I deserve to be at 1530 or that I simply need to carry harder is simply ludicrous when my team is always something stupid like 0-15 by 30 minutes in the game. I get really pissed at the implication that it's my fault I get shitty luck. Could I do better? Absolutely. Should I have to do better to win the games I'm losing at garbage elo? No.
|
On December 14 2010 12:17 BloodNinja wrote:
Maybe don't troll teemo in 4 straight games? I dunno what you are expecting.... but yea.
Maybe you haven't read the Teemo topic, but I'm not trolling. He gives your team great map control in addition to being a solid carry, anticarry, and pusher. The problem is, he requires that at least 2 people on your team don't have Down's and can actually utilize said map control.
|
On December 14 2010 12:34 Odds wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 12:17 BloodNinja wrote:
Maybe don't troll teemo in 4 straight games? I dunno what you are expecting.... but yea. Maybe you haven't read the Teemo topic, but I'm not trolling. He gives your team great map control in addition to being a solid carry, anticarry, and pusher. The problem is, he requires that at least 2 people on your team don't have Down's and can actually utilize said map control.
He is a niche pick and I HIGHLY doubt you needed that niche 4 straight games. Quit trolling ranked with your Teemo and you win more games. Or just quit shitting up this thread with needless rage posts.
|
Elo hell to me is 1300-1600, where everyone thinks they're good at the game when in reality they really suck and can't come to terms with it because every time they get stomped by a good player they blame it on their feeder teammates or bad luck.
Either you can carry four idiots versus five idiots or you belong in low Elo.
|
On December 14 2010 13:34 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Either you can carry four idiots versus five idiots or you belong in low Elo.
I like this. Might be the best one line answer for the entire thread.
|
Leading your team is how you win the game. Making the right decisions does a whole lot more than individual skill. Unless you snowball super hard you aren't going to win a 1v5, but you can rally the troops and win that 5v5. Best done in the jungling position unless you're somebody who can initiate or the carry if you're really trusting. I'm playing Rammus or Udyr if banned or the other team gets him personally and that allows me to control the game pretty well I think.
Won a couple games today and I led my team to victory both times. We didn't have the best players (ie our Kogmaw ended game with 50 cs), but I made all the right decisions and snowballed from early dragons and hardcore pushing of the outer towers through map control with wards. My week off playing WoW is just what I needed to drop some rage I think ^_^ Getting worked up over solo Q is probably the absolute worst thing you can do if you're trying to get out of the "ELO Hell"
|
On December 14 2010 13:20 BloodNinja wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 12:34 Odds wrote:On December 14 2010 12:17 BloodNinja wrote:
Maybe don't troll teemo in 4 straight games? I dunno what you are expecting.... but yea. Maybe you haven't read the Teemo topic, but I'm not trolling. He gives your team great map control in addition to being a solid carry, anticarry, and pusher. The problem is, he requires that at least 2 people on your team don't have Down's and can actually utilize said map control. He is a niche pick and I HIGHLY doubt you needed that niche 4 straight games. Quit trolling ranked with your Teemo and you win more games. Or just quit shitting up this thread with needless rage posts.
Niche pick? You mean, for his blind to be useful, the enemy team requires an AD champion? In order for map control to be useful, Baron and Dragon need to spawn, and fights need to occur?
Yeah, that never happens. Regardless, Teemo is hardly the only thing I play in ranked. It doesn't matter what I pick. My team feeds.
You are clearly of the position that 'elo hell' does not exist in any form, whatsoever- and if you lose a game, it is your fault, period. Why, then, am I 'shitting up the thread with needless rage posts' simply by virtue of disagreeing with you?
I'm also curious how you suggest improvement with a hero, without playing it.
|
I heard someone on a high elo stream explain it this way
games are 80% luck whether you win or lose in solo q, you just have to play enough for that 20% to come into play
I think you need at least 100+ ranked games played before your elo means anything relative to your actual skill level
also, yes, 5hitcombo is right. imo a lot of people who claim to be in "elo hell" are just as bad as the players they rage about
|
omg me and this other TLer (we're both about 1500) were duo queing today and we ran into a blatant troll alistar
like he went against zilean with the other TLer at bot lane and got bombed, and so he flashed onto shen (the other TLer) and kept hugging him whenever after he got bombed
and then he started running into towers and feeding
i actually used his body charge into gragas mid to kill gragas =3 but it was literally impossible to win that game lololol
i'm not sure how relevant to the topic this is, it was just so hilarious lol
|
On December 14 2010 14:54 G0dly wrote:
I heard someone on a high elo stream explain it this way
games are 80% luck whether you win or lose in solo q, you just have to play enough for that 20% to come into play
I think you need at least 100+ ranked games played before your elo means anything relative to your actual skill level
also, yes, 5hitcombo is right. imo a lot of people who claim to be in "elo hell" are just as bad as the players they rage about
TreeEskimo said that, I was watching at the time. All I'm saying is that if you are unlucky, that 20% can actually translate to 0% for an extremely (frustrating) long period of time.
|
If I play 6 games in a row, where my team has either 1 or 2 disconnects or ragequits, and therefore my elo drops to a level below my ability, and EVERY game is decided by a ragequit or a disconnect, then I believe that I am in ELO hell...
|
On December 14 2010 15:24 aznhockeyboy16 wrote:
If I play 6 games in a row, where my team has either 1 or 2 disconnects or ragequits, and therefore my elo drops to a level below my ability, and EVERY game is decided by a ragequit or a disconnect, then I believe that I am in ELO hell...
That's only today. It's been a pretty consistent pattern over the last couple weeks.
|
Law of statistics say that "elo hell" exists: You can get unlucky relative to rest of population and get more feeders/leavers.
Law of statistics also say that with enough games, you will eventually be at your true elo.
|
So... what you're saying is... Elo hell doesn't exist...
|
When posting in this thread, please try to have a specific definition of "ELO hell" in mind. About half of the posts here use the term with a definition which is clearly not the one I put forward in the first post, but don't bother to provide that definition, which makes the content 100% meaningless.
|
No, straight-up, either you can get to and maintain an Elo that you think you belong at or you're where you should be. I was listening to some guy in LiquidParty today say something like "I'm a 1600 warwick" when his rating was like 1250 and I started rolling. What the fuck does "1600 warwick" even mean? Your rating reflects your ability to succeed in solo queue, nothing more, nothing less. Higher skilled players have an easier time succeeding. Lower skilled players complain that they should be higher, saying things like "we've beaten 1600s, that's how I know".
Yeah, well, I've beaten everyone in the top 10. So what?
|
United States37500 Posts
Too many people think they're better than they really are.
End of story.
|
I've redefined Elo hell.
Elo hell exists in the mind of an individual that thinks they are better than they actually are. They use this term to describe where they currently reside on the Elo scale. There is no getting better or getting worse for this person. There is only "lucking my way out of Elo hell to the Elo where I am supposed to be". Note that this person will then usually become "unlucky" and fall back into Elo hell almost immediately because of how they self define the phrase and their blind faith in a random number they think they should achieve.
Damnit and Neo beat me to it by 3 minutes.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
The definition and effects of "Elo Hell" (Elo is the guy's name, it's not an acronym) are that it doesn't exist and quit bitching about it.
|
Are there any games where people are 100% (hell even 90%) happy with the matchmaking system?
it just seems like the very notion of having your 'skill level' (in a very general sense) being known to you in a very objective format would inevitably make people unhappy unless they are at the very top.
|
On December 16 2010 23:25 barbsq wrote:
Are there any games where people are 100% (hell even 90%) happy with the matchmaking system?
it just seems like the very notion of having your 'skill level' (in a very general sense) being known to you in a very objective format would inevitably make people unhappy unless they are at the very top.
No, because you can always blame your team mates.
|
On December 16 2010 23:25 barbsq wrote:
Are there any games where people are 100% (hell even 90%) happy with the matchmaking system?
it just seems like the very notion of having your 'skill level' (in a very general sense) being known to you in a very objective format would inevitably make people unhappy unless they are at the very top.
I've had some great games in norma where I felt the teams were well matched... haven't played enough games in ranked yet to say the same thing.
|
what i meant was games in a more general sense (like sc2 or w/e) not individual LoL games
|
On December 17 2010 00:33 barbsq wrote:
what i meant was games in a more general sense (like sc2 or w/e) not individual LoL games
The only gripe I hear from people on SC2's matchmaking is that it tries to place you too aggressively in the beginning. So someone in gold can win two matches in a row and then have to get destroyed by diamond players for a while until they get about 100 games under their belt. Chess is a good system though :D
|
The only ELO hell is when you finally reach 1900 and drop the 1800 and reach 1900 again and then drop to 1800 again.
|
ELO hell is pretty much LoL's terrible matchmaking. 80% luck 20% skill.
80% is a terrible way to decide most games. Yes, you will eventually end up where you belong, but who the hell wants to grind out a couple hundred games to get to thier proper skill level.
|
On December 16 2010 23:22 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
The definition and effects of "Elo Hell" (Elo is the guy's name, it's not an acronym) are that it doesn't exist and quit bitching about it.
I'm well aware it was a person's name. It is, however, usually capitalized these days.
While your opinion is neither provably wrong nor particularly unusual, posting it (repeatedly) doesn't add anything to the discussion -- you come off either as raging or a troll. Not that you're particularly unique in that -- a lot of people have posted worthless crap in this thread. But you have come back, again (and again!) to do so.
|
I'm back up at 1598, had a couple good games with L
EDIT: 1628 now. I've been doing a lot better, picking based off team comp, etc. and not raging nearly so hard. As a result I've carried nearly every game (not one in match history have i gone negative kdr, only 2 losses). Hell, had one game where I carried Elementz's Cho'gath with Nasus.
I still get a lot of really awful teams, but some of them aren't uncarryable ^_^
Hopefully 1700 within 2 weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
