|
Public Service AnnouncementUse the Champion threads whenever appropriate. Don't use General Discussion simply out of ease. ===== If you want to whine about server lag, use the QQ thread. We all suffer alike when Riot servers kaput. No need to make a post about it in GD. |
People have such narrow views of elo
Under 1700 BAD
Above 1900 PRO
under 1200 SUPERBAD
there's lots more variation than that
As twodown said, even 1200 players are good in the scheme of things
I would say the following, having played consistently with people at all elos from 700 to 2200
Under 700 - probably just playing to enjoy the game. Might not fully understand why some items are bad on some champs
700-1000 - lacking some fundamentals like map awareness or last hitting. May excel at other things though (I've seen 800 elo players that were dominant laners who just couldn't make good decisions or account for anything outside of their lanes)
1000-1200 - either players that are well rounded and just good, or players that are better than good but only at select matchups which they abuse
Bronze - likely very good at 1 position and average at best at others. Usually very good at 1 of the following: farming, laning, last-hitting, filling roles, teamfighting, map control
Silver - dominant players who know correct builds, timings, but lack knowledge of matchups and counters. Probably not good at ending a game. Inconsistent.
Gold - very good players who don't know what they can improve to become even better, or lack consistency to rise in the ladder. These players usually have extremely detailed knowledge about all matchups for a couple champs it even a couple riles. This elo is also where the worst attitudes start appearing
1700-plat: more consistent gold players. Won't derp away a lane or a big lead very often.
Plat: usually masters of a couple champs or at the least, very above average in all roles. Know when they can win an engage, and don't engage when they can't win. If you put 5 1900 players together and let them practice together for a month, they will beat 5 random top 50 players every time - the actual skill difference is not that great past this point, it's more of a lack of refinement and split-second decision making and comfort.
2100+: ragers.
2300+: doublelift alts
All elos think that (a) everyone below them, even people 10 elo belowthem, are HORRIBLE at the game, and (b) think that everyone above them, even 500 elo above them, is a worse player that got lucky. The higher you rise in elo the more conceited the players get, starting at 1400s who think "I could be plat if it weren't for feeders" all the way 1800s "I am gods gift to lol and the rain man is TERRIBLE at this game TSM SIGN ME"
|
Vancouver14381 Posts
On January 26 2012 12:55 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 12:49 BlackMagister wrote:
Well there actual reasoning is nobody knows how to play Sejuani. None of the pros want to waste their time playing her to learn her when they could just wait for someone else to learn her and then copy them. Sounds somewhat suspiciously like Viktor...
And jungle Maokai before TOO copy someone else's guide.
|
LOL hotshotgg playing with girlfriend and getting ghosted. so cute xD.
|
United States13132 Posts
CLGEu announces casters for their scrims in the near future to develop casters for the scene and improve the experience -Wickd
|
On January 26 2012 13:08 gtrsrs wrote:
People have such narrow views of elo
Under 1700 BAD
Above 1900 PRO
under 1200 SUPERBAD
there's lots more variation than that
As twodown said, even 1200 players are good in the scheme of things
I would say the following, having played consistently with people at all elos from 700 to 2200
Under 700 - probably just playing to enjoy the game. Might not fully understand why some items are bad on some champs
700-1000 - lacking some fundamentals like map awareness or last hitting. May excel at other things though (I've seen 800 elo players that were dominant laners who just couldn't make good decisions or account for anything outside of their lanes)
1000-1200 - either players that are well rounded and just good, or players that are better than good but only at select matchups which they abuse
Bronze - likely very good at 1 position and average at best at others. Usually very good at 1 of the following: farming, laning, last-hitting, filling roles, teamfighting, map control
Silver - dominant players who know correct builds, timings, but lack knowledge of matchups and counters. Probably not good at ending a game. Inconsistent.
Gold - very good players who don't know what they can improve to become even better, or lack consistency to rise in the ladder. These players usually have extremely detailed knowledge about all matchups for a couple champs it even a couple riles. This elo is also where the worst attitudes start appearing
1700-plat: more consistent gold players. Won't derp away a lane or a big lead very often.
Plat: usually masters of a couple champs or at the least, very above average in all roles. Know when they can win an engage, and don't engage when they can't win. If you put 5 1900 players together and let them practice together for a month, they will beat 5 random top 50 players every time - the actual skill difference is not that great past this point, it's more of a lack of refinement and split-second decision making and comfort.
2100+: ragers.
2300+: doublelift alts
All elos think that (a) everyone below them, even people 10 elo belowthem, are HORRIBLE at the game, and (b) think that everyone above them, even 500 elo above them, is a worse player that got lucky. The higher you rise in elo the more conceited the players get, starting at 1400s who think "I could be plat if it weren't for feeders" all the way 1800s "I am gods gift to lol and the rain man is TERRIBLE at this game TSM SIGN ME"
Judging by your logic I should be in silver, but some people are held back due to trolls/afkers/loss streaks, and some people are pushed beyond their skill level by getting extremely lucky and having someone carry their ass up. That would basically blur the borders between each skill level by even up to 100 elo each. Thats why you get people who don't know how to play at high elos and pros at low ELOs occasionally
|
|
|
On January 26 2012 13:08 gtrsrs wrote:
People have such narrow views of elo
Under 1700 BAD
Above 1900 PRO
under 1200 SUPERBAD
there's lots more variation than that
As twodown said, even 1200 players are good in the scheme of things
I would say the following, having played consistently with people at all elos from 700 to 2200
Under 700 - probably just playing to enjoy the game. Might not fully understand why some items are bad on some champs
700-1000 - lacking some fundamentals like map awareness or last hitting. May excel at other things though (I've seen 800 elo players that were dominant laners who just couldn't make good decisions or account for anything outside of their lanes)
1000-1200 - either players that are well rounded and just good, or players that are better than good but only at select matchups which they abuse
Bronze - likely very good at 1 position and average at best at others. Usually very good at 1 of the following: farming, laning, last-hitting, filling roles, teamfighting, map control
Silver - dominant players who know correct builds, timings, but lack knowledge of matchups and counters. Probably not good at ending a game. Inconsistent.
Gold - very good players who don't know what they can improve to become even better, or lack consistency to rise in the ladder. These players usually have extremely detailed knowledge about all matchups for a couple champs it even a couple riles. This elo is also where the worst attitudes start appearing
1700-plat: more consistent gold players. Won't derp away a lane or a big lead very often.
Plat: usually masters of a couple champs or at the least, very above average in all roles. Know when they can win an engage, and don't engage when they can't win. If you put 5 1900 players together and let them practice together for a month, they will beat 5 random top 50 players every time - the actual skill difference is not that great past this point, it's more of a lack of refinement and split-second decision making and comfort.
2100+: ragers.
2300+: doublelift alts
All elos think that (a) everyone below them, even people 10 elo belowthem, are HORRIBLE at the game, and (b) think that everyone above them, even 500 elo above them, is a worse player that got lucky. The higher you rise in elo the more conceited the players get, starting at 1400s who think "I could be plat if it weren't for feeders" all the way 1800s "I am gods gift to lol and the rain man is TERRIBLE at this game TSM SIGN ME"
This seems to be a pretty good summarization of the LoL ranked experience. We're just all elitist here at TL and refuse to believe that anyone who isn't a pro could be considered 'good.'
Don't forget about the little guys.....guys.
EDIT:
Holy shit that art is badass.
|
On January 26 2012 13:36 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 13:08 gtrsrs wrote:
People have such narrow views of elo
Under 1700 BAD
Above 1900 PRO
under 1200 SUPERBAD
there's lots more variation than that
As twodown said, even 1200 players are good in the scheme of things
I would say the following, having played consistently with people at all elos from 700 to 2200
Under 700 - probably just playing to enjoy the game. Might not fully understand why some items are bad on some champs
700-1000 - lacking some fundamentals like map awareness or last hitting. May excel at other things though (I've seen 800 elo players that were dominant laners who just couldn't make good decisions or account for anything outside of their lanes)
1000-1200 - either players that are well rounded and just good, or players that are better than good but only at select matchups which they abuse
Bronze - likely very good at 1 position and average at best at others. Usually very good at 1 of the following: farming, laning, last-hitting, filling roles, teamfighting, map control
Silver - dominant players who know correct builds, timings, but lack knowledge of matchups and counters. Probably not good at ending a game. Inconsistent.
Gold - very good players who don't know what they can improve to become even better, or lack consistency to rise in the ladder. These players usually have extremely detailed knowledge about all matchups for a couple champs it even a couple riles. This elo is also where the worst attitudes start appearing
1700-plat: more consistent gold players. Won't derp away a lane or a big lead very often.
Plat: usually masters of a couple champs or at the least, very above average in all roles. Know when they can win an engage, and don't engage when they can't win. If you put 5 1900 players together and let them practice together for a month, they will beat 5 random top 50 players every time - the actual skill difference is not that great past this point, it's more of a lack of refinement and split-second decision making and comfort.
2100+: ragers.
2300+: doublelift alts
All elos think that (a) everyone below them, even people 10 elo belowthem, are HORRIBLE at the game, and (b) think that everyone above them, even 500 elo above them, is a worse player that got lucky. The higher you rise in elo the more conceited the players get, starting at 1400s who think "I could be plat if it weren't for feeders" all the way 1800s "I am gods gift to lol and the rain man is TERRIBLE at this game TSM SIGN ME" This seems to be a pretty good summarization of the LoL ranked experience. We're just all elitist here at TL and refuse to believe that anyone who isn't a pro could be considered 'good.' Don't forget about the little guys.....guys.
I really don't think you can say in general that 1200s are "well rounded" or "good".
While I've never played a 1200 game, I'll assume they're worse than 1300s, and I've played a good number of games in 1300/1400. There's SO many people who will just play Vlad because he got a buff and then feed 0/6 before 15 minutes, or people who will call AD and have 50 cs by 20 minutes.
Really I don't think you get an all-around competent level until 1400-1500.
|
wow, the new champ looks so sick, i'm saving up my ip!
|
On January 26 2012 13:08 gtrsrs wrote:Silver - dominant players who know correct builds, timings, but lack knowledge of matchups and counters. Probably not good at ending a game. Inconsistent.
Gold - very good players who don't know what they can improve to become even better, or lack consistency to rise in the ladder. These players usually have extremely detailed knowledge about all matchups for a couple champs it even a couple riles. This elo is also where the worst attitudes start appearing
Though I'm not sure whether or not silver players know correct builds, but silver players (hell, pretty much every 1600 player I've played against or with in ranked, including myself) completely lack general game sense. I see this scenario in a lot of games: One team that's somewhat ahead has 2 or 3 people pushing mid while the rest of their team pushes top, where top can't easily go down to mid. And then 80% of the time, the other team completely ignores it even if they have the initiation necessary to start a fight. It could be that my sample size for this isn't large enough though (this is based off of ~20 games in 1600 elo) but I completely disagree with your assessment of gold elo players as "very good players".
We could be using different definitions of good, but IMO, any player that is making important mistakes every few minutes or so can't be considered good at all.
And the reason why 99% of people who believe that they are in elo hell believe they are in elo hell is because they can't see these opportunities, so they assume there's nothing more they can do.
|
Well statistically speaking gtrsrs's list is accurate. If you were to take the top 3% in any field you would end up with a very strong group. For the most part my personal disagreements just come down to remembering the occasional ultra stupid throw someone makes rather than the more consistent solid plays across both teams. After all which is easier to remember, that the Sion had high CS, a solid build and decent teamfight positioning or the fact he he decided that going to farm bot lane during a baron standoff giving the other team a free baron and throwing the game?
Personal investment in the game clouds a purely objective analysis.
|
On January 26 2012 13:39 Nehsb wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 13:08 gtrsrs wrote:Silver - dominant players who know correct builds, timings, but lack knowledge of matchups and counters. Probably not good at ending a game. Inconsistent.
Gold - very good players who don't know what they can improve to become even better, or lack consistency to rise in the ladder. These players usually have extremely detailed knowledge about all matchups for a couple champs it even a couple riles. This elo is also where the worst attitudes start appearing Though I'm not sure whether or not silver players know correct builds, but silver players (hell, pretty much every 1600 player I've played against or with in ranked, including myself) completely lack general game sense. I see this scenario in a lot of games: One team that's somewhat ahead has 2 or 3 people pushing mid while the rest of their team pushes top, where top can't easily go down to mid. And then 80% of the time, the other team completely ignores it even if they have the initiation necessary to start a fight. It could be that my sample size for this isn't large enough though (this is based off of ~20 games in 1600 elo) but I completely disagree with your assessment of gold elo players as "very good players". We could be using different definitions of good, but IMO, any player that is making important mistakes every few minutes or so can't be considered good at all. And the reason why 99% of people who believe that they are in elo hell believe they are in elo hell is because they can't see these opportunities, so they assume there's nothing more they can do.
Well, it's really a definition thing. We at TL wouldn't even consider Iccup B players to be very good. Good maybe (kolll would disagree and you probably, too) but definitely not very good. And those are probably better than 1600 elo. But his descriptions are pretty much spot on.
|
On January 26 2012 14:12 Keniji wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 13:39 Nehsb wrote:On January 26 2012 13:08 gtrsrs wrote:Silver - dominant players who know correct builds, timings, but lack knowledge of matchups and counters. Probably not good at ending a game. Inconsistent.
Gold - very good players who don't know what they can improve to become even better, or lack consistency to rise in the ladder. These players usually have extremely detailed knowledge about all matchups for a couple champs it even a couple riles. This elo is also where the worst attitudes start appearing Though I'm not sure whether or not silver players know correct builds, but silver players (hell, pretty much every 1600 player I've played against or with in ranked, including myself) completely lack general game sense. I see this scenario in a lot of games: One team that's somewhat ahead has 2 or 3 people pushing mid while the rest of their team pushes top, where top can't easily go down to mid. And then 80% of the time, the other team completely ignores it even if they have the initiation necessary to start a fight. It could be that my sample size for this isn't large enough though (this is based off of ~20 games in 1600 elo) but I completely disagree with your assessment of gold elo players as "very good players". We could be using different definitions of good, but IMO, any player that is making important mistakes every few minutes or so can't be considered good at all. And the reason why 99% of people who believe that they are in elo hell believe they are in elo hell is because they can't see these opportunities, so they assume there's nothing more they can do. Well, it's really a definition thing. We at TL wouldn't even consider Iccup B players to be very good. Good maybe (kolll would disagree) but definitely not very good. And those are probably better than 1600 elo. But his descriptions are pretty much spot on.
Maybe but in that case I guess my argument should be more "They have those attributes but they have no game sense or positioning ability so it doesn't matter."
|
B on iccup is WAY better than 1600. It's 2k easy.
|
CLG team discussion against DL, arguing that MiG did not have good comps they just lost to bad play or the comps, specifically the Sivir and Malphite comp, they had were the same as everyone else was running. I'm not sure why they think what Xpecial said about Lebanc beating Xerath is dumb, it seems like she would.
|
On January 26 2012 14:16 Nehsb wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 14:12 Keniji wrote:On January 26 2012 13:39 Nehsb wrote:On January 26 2012 13:08 gtrsrs wrote:Silver - dominant players who know correct builds, timings, but lack knowledge of matchups and counters. Probably not good at ending a game. Inconsistent.
Gold - very good players who don't know what they can improve to become even better, or lack consistency to rise in the ladder. These players usually have extremely detailed knowledge about all matchups for a couple champs it even a couple riles. This elo is also where the worst attitudes start appearing Though I'm not sure whether or not silver players know correct builds, but silver players (hell, pretty much every 1600 player I've played against or with in ranked, including myself) completely lack general game sense. I see this scenario in a lot of games: One team that's somewhat ahead has 2 or 3 people pushing mid while the rest of their team pushes top, where top can't easily go down to mid. And then 80% of the time, the other team completely ignores it even if they have the initiation necessary to start a fight. It could be that my sample size for this isn't large enough though (this is based off of ~20 games in 1600 elo) but I completely disagree with your assessment of gold elo players as "very good players". We could be using different definitions of good, but IMO, any player that is making important mistakes every few minutes or so can't be considered good at all. And the reason why 99% of people who believe that they are in elo hell believe they are in elo hell is because they can't see these opportunities, so they assume there's nothing more they can do. Well, it's really a definition thing. We at TL wouldn't even consider Iccup B players to be very good. Good maybe (kolll would disagree) but definitely not very good. And those are probably better than 1600 elo. But his descriptions are pretty much spot on. Maybe but in that case I guess my argument should be more "They have those attributes but they have no game sense or positioning ability so it doesn't matter."
No, they do in fact have decent game sense and positioning ability but occasionally make mistakes which causes their team to rage at them for throwing the game. ie, inconsistent. His definition seems pretty accurate.
|
On January 26 2012 14:40 BlackMagister wrote:
CLG team discussion against DL, arguing that MiG did not have good comps they just lost to bad play or the comps, specifically the Sivir and Malphite comp, they had were the same as everyone else was running. I'm not sure why they think what Xpecial said about Lebanc beating Xerath is dumb, it seems like she would.
Lol, entire team v. Doublelift.
Poor guy.
|
Well, to be fair, Double sounds like a complete idiot. I mean, its fucking MALPHITE. How the fuck do you expect to NOT get hit by malphite ult?
|
On January 26 2012 14:48 Two_DoWn wrote:
Well, to be fair, Double sounds like a complete idiot. I mean, its fucking MALPHITE. How the fuck do you expect to NOT get hit by malphite ult?
Janna tornado it! :DD Unstoppable force? trollolol. Problem, malph?
And guitar, your analysis is somewhat close to what I've seen, although I have slight differences in my own. But too lazy to type all that out. But it's funny how you post that and one of the next replies to it was exactly what you said about a 1300 thinking 1290's are bad and 1310 elo players got carried so it "skews" the numbers. lolol
Only person who really gets carried hard 100% of the time was Grackis in season 1. And it took him like 3k games to do it.
|
On January 26 2012 14:43 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 14:16 Nehsb wrote:On January 26 2012 14:12 Keniji wrote:On January 26 2012 13:39 Nehsb wrote:On January 26 2012 13:08 gtrsrs wrote:Silver - dominant players who know correct builds, timings, but lack knowledge of matchups and counters. Probably not good at ending a game. Inconsistent.
Gold - very good players who don't know what they can improve to become even better, or lack consistency to rise in the ladder. These players usually have extremely detailed knowledge about all matchups for a couple champs it even a couple riles. This elo is also where the worst attitudes start appearing Though I'm not sure whether or not silver players know correct builds, but silver players (hell, pretty much every 1600 player I've played against or with in ranked, including myself) completely lack general game sense. I see this scenario in a lot of games: One team that's somewhat ahead has 2 or 3 people pushing mid while the rest of their team pushes top, where top can't easily go down to mid. And then 80% of the time, the other team completely ignores it even if they have the initiation necessary to start a fight. It could be that my sample size for this isn't large enough though (this is based off of ~20 games in 1600 elo) but I completely disagree with your assessment of gold elo players as "very good players". We could be using different definitions of good, but IMO, any player that is making important mistakes every few minutes or so can't be considered good at all. And the reason why 99% of people who believe that they are in elo hell believe they are in elo hell is because they can't see these opportunities, so they assume there's nothing more they can do. Well, it's really a definition thing. We at TL wouldn't even consider Iccup B players to be very good. Good maybe (kolll would disagree) but definitely not very good. And those are probably better than 1600 elo. But his descriptions are pretty much spot on. Maybe but in that case I guess my argument should be more "They have those attributes but they have no game sense or positioning ability so it doesn't matter." No, they do in fact have decent game sense and positioning ability but occasionally make mistakes which causes their team to rage at them for throwing the game. ie, inconsistent. His definition seems pretty accurate.
In my experience, it's not occasionally making mistakes, it's messing up every single team fight with terrible positioning. Every ad carry I've seen at this elo doesn't just position badly in one fight, they get insta-gibbed by the enemy ap carries or slaughtered by the bruisers every single teamfight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
