|
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. |
On January 26 2012 20:52 Craton wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 19:09 Shiv. wrote:On January 26 2012 18:38 wei2coolman wrote:Just played with my pre-level 30 friend. OMG so fucking annoyingly bad. I wanted to shout at EVERYONE. Most frustrating thing EVER. I can't carry, because every single game FREE LEONA WEEK, CC EPIC CARRY TO DEATH. So fucking annoying  Play Irelia, farm top for 20 minutes, get Mercs, fly through their team like it's nobody's business. If you can't carry pre-30s, chances are, it's not their fault. not really you end up with everyone else overmatched and yourself undermatched you have to be really ahead, since usually everyone else will be behind, potentially having fed as much as you did in lane
Dunno, I just play MordekaiZer and get super fed in lane then have 250 minions when highest in enemy team has 80 and then always flash-pwn the enemy carry and then me and the clone 2v5 , screw team.
|
LOL, becca bitching at hotshot for being worse than solo queue AD carries she normally supports. Probably true  hotshot not best ad carry.
She has the most hilariously monotone bitching voice as well.
|
On January 26 2012 20:52 Craton wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 19:09 Shiv. wrote:On January 26 2012 18:38 wei2coolman wrote:Just played with my pre-level 30 friend. OMG so fucking annoyingly bad. I wanted to shout at EVERYONE. Most frustrating thing EVER. I can't carry, because every single game FREE LEONA WEEK, CC EPIC CARRY TO DEATH. So fucking annoying Play Irelia, farm top for 20 minutes, get Mercs, fly through their team like it's nobody's business. If you can't carry pre-30s, chances are, it's not their fault. not really you end up with everyone else overmatched and yourself undermatched you have to be really ahead, since usually everyone else will be behind, potentially having fed as much as you did in lane
I was assuming he was smurfing with his friend, in which case they all should be at about equal level. If he used his main account then yeah, you're right.
|
I play with a friend who got me into LOL and who is still around 1200 ELO. He is actually really good but play way too agressiv : what he lack is not the mechanics (which is pretty easy to have in LOL compared to say SC2) but the overall ideas of when to engage, when to back, where to be at a certain point in time, etc.
I think that is the real reasons 1200 can fed so much, when you think it's a good idea to be alone in the opponent's jungle when you see nobody on the map. I see my friend only losing in solo q, but in duo queue i got the absurd 22/1 KDA with graves with him as a support after 10 games.
|
Well, i'd definetely say, that someone who has a legit 1200 rating knows how to play the game. I got really pissed about losing 400 Elo down to 900 in my first 50 matches. Didn't understand why this happened, as i see myself as competent. Of course i do. Now, looking back, it's pretty easy to understand that i was really a factor in this and i lost these points rightfully. I played every lane and every role and i was really bad at ad-carry but wanted to play ap-mid even less, thought solo top was my strength while i really never played it and got stomped because i had no idea of the matchups. My support was good, but i warded not enough. I never carried a game. Still, the retardedness of your team teaches you, that you have the right to be mad about them and not about you. This begins in champ selction, people being so stupid about taking solo top at last pick etc. They are childish, they are rude and they pick what they know best and not what you want them to pick. And still, they might just do better then you. And that happenes to anyone. Now, i played a lot for fun, got a lot more experience in every lane, as well as more champs and suddenly, my elo rises again. People are still rude, childish egomaniacs but we win anyway. And this without me carrying because i play support in 80% of the games. when(if) i get back to 1200 elo, people will be fairly competent. Assholes, but competent.
So, People tend to believe they are in wrong elo because their mates are assholes, but not worse than yourself, and 1200 elo players should know the game but make a lot of mistakes.
|
I'm not really a fan of how the Elo system is set up with regard to how you're unranked at like <1200 and the excessive clumping around the the middle Elo ranges, while the higher Elos stretch out quite a bit. The whole system needs to stretch a bit better.
|
On January 26 2012 21:50 Broetchenholer wrote:
when(if) i get back to 1200 elo, people will be fairly competent. Assholes, but competent.
And this is where a lot of people will disagree. It depends on how you define ''competent.'' Example, I'm a player that struggles to break 1500, but usually, I hover around 1480. I'd say in theory, I know how to play this game and in the majority of cases, I'd make the right decisions if I have enough time to think about them. In a game, where you have to make decisions in split seconds in a lane, in and after teamfights and where actually EXECUTING those actions comes into play, it's a whole different story and that's where I struggle.
That being said, if you define a competent players as someone who has the mechanics down (last hitting / map awareness etc.), has decent decision making and knows how to CONSISTENTLY execute the knowledge he has, you won't find these players at 1200.
|
On January 26 2012 22:16 Craton wrote:
I'm not really a fan of how the Elo system is set up with regard to how you're unranked at like <1200 and the excessive clumping around the the middle Elo ranges, while the higher Elos stretch out quite a bit. The whole system needs to stretch a bit better.
How do you suggest they change it to make a better system?
|
On January 26 2012 22:16 Craton wrote:
I'm not really a fan of how the Elo system is set up with regard to how you're unranked at like <1200 and the excessive clumping around the the middle Elo ranges, while the higher Elos stretch out quite a bit. The whole system needs to stretch a bit better.
What exactly do you mean? It seems like that's how it is for any game, it can't be helped. A high level of mediocre, entry-level players (1200 range in this case), and an decreasing number of higher-skilled players the further up the ladder you go. Being "officially" unranked to everyone else makes no difference as long as you still have an actual Elo to judge your skill by.
If you meant something like another badge for sub 1200 players, that isn't going to affect the actual number of players at 1200 at all, just give an official label to the ones below them. I don't see how you can force the ladder to disperse, that would require changing the skillcap of LoL and its mechanics.
|
You'd probably need someone versed in game theory to figure out a formula that would paint a clearer picture. I don't like that you're unranked unless you're in the like top 30% of people.
|
On January 26 2012 22:37 Blyf wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 22:16 Craton wrote:
I'm not really a fan of how the Elo system is set up with regard to how you're unranked at like <1200 and the excessive clumping around the the middle Elo ranges, while the higher Elos stretch out quite a bit. The whole system needs to stretch a bit better. How do you suggest they change it to make a better system?
Yeah when it comes to any reasonable measure of player still a bell curve is going to be the simple result. Though Craton could be complaining about Riot feeling the need to shield people with low Elo. It's not like they're actually unranked, they can see their own Elo. Though they're not on the ladder either.
|
On January 26 2012 22:27 Shiv. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 21:50 Broetchenholer wrote:
when(if) i get back to 1200 elo, people will be fairly competent. Assholes, but competent. And this is where a lot of people will disagree. It depends on how you define ''competent.'' Example, I'm a player that struggles to break 1500, but usually, I hover around 1480. I'd say in theory, I know how to play this game and in the majority of cases, I'd make the right decisions if I have enough time to think about them. In a game, where you have to make decisions in split seconds in a lane, in and after teamfights and where actually EXECUTING those actions comes into play, it's a whole different story and that's where I struggle. That being said, if you define a competent players as someone who has the mechanics down (last hitting / map awareness etc.), has decent decision making and knows how to CONSISTENTLY execute the knowledge he has, you won't find these players at 1200.
Yeah, of course it all is a matter of definition. I would define a competent player as someone, who unterstands the game on a level that if a pro asks him for something that is core to his role/champ, he can do it. For example, soraka, plz ward dragon, plz time dragon, plz cv, plz don't stand in front of me. Plz silence Alistar anytime he makes a move in our direction. Soraka might not always do it the exact way the pro wanbts, or fail in the execution from time to time, but he understands the concept. And he usually does these things by himself anyway.
Thats what i would call competent. Someone like this still does a lot of wrong decisions and his mechanics are just not that good, which seperates him from people who are a lot higher.
Someone with 1400-1500 rating should be better then that. And is better then competent.
|
On January 26 2012 22:54 Craton wrote:
You'd probably need someone versed in game theory to figure out a formula that would paint a clearer picture. I don't like that you're unranked unless you're in the like top 30% of people.
Displaying the elo for people <1200 is no big deal. Whether Riot wants that or not is their decision.
"stretching the system" would make no sense. Skill distribution can be safely assumed to follow a normal distribution, and because of that you will have the vast majority of players around the center of the elo system (~1200 for LoL, an arbitrary number). As it should be.
|
Went to the DOTA 2 sub-forum to just read up the general threads in my free time, cuz I recently got interested in the game after reading a few previews. Find that than more half of the good/thoughtful posts are by the LoL sub-forum veterans. LoL sub-forum too stronk. 
|
I think the biggest reason is the fact that LoL is a teamgame with complete strangers.
Elo works best for single players and formalized teams. Throw 10 random 1200 players in a game and you have such a diverse group of skills that any ladder result from it is practicly meaningless.
It works better for high ranks cause there are ofcourse skill gaps but everyone near the top understands all the concepts of this game while at ~1200 its such an utter mish mash that individual players who might belong at 1500 or 1600 have to rely on luck to get there since the chances of there teammates being that much worse and creating uncarryable situations.
|
On January 26 2012 23:04 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 22:54 Craton wrote:
You'd probably need someone versed in game theory to figure out a formula that would paint a clearer picture. I don't like that you're unranked unless you're in the like top 30% of people. Displaying the elo for people <1200 is no big deal. Whether Riot wants that or not is their decision. "stretching the system" would make no sense. Skill distribution can be safely assumed to follow a normal distribution, and because of that you will have the vast majority of players around the center of the elo system (~1200 for LoL, an arbitrary number). As it should be.
My thoughts exactly. Well put.
|
Except you have a linear rating scale when the grouping of people is parabolic. It can be displayed more effectively than with with the existing system.
|
On January 26 2012 23:45 Craton wrote:
Except you have a linear rating scale when the grouping of people is parabolic. It can be displayed more effectively than with with the existing system.
The gouping of people is parabolic?
And why would you want to seperate the middle section more when they are of, you know, equal skill?
|
On January 26 2012 23:45 Craton wrote:
Except you have a linear rating scale when the grouping of people is parabolic. It can be displayed more effectively than with with the existing system.
This is better in a way since it pushes the top players farther out. The whole elo system is practically meaningless anyway. It's just like currency in real life. You use a useless object to represent something to make it easier to understand for the general public. Suddenly changing that system isn't going to be a good plan.
|
At this point, there isn't really much Riot can do to improve the Elo system. The only "real" way is to increase the data relevency of individual games, accounting for more factors than Win/Loss. Unfortunately, it's rather difficult to do that without creating behavioral bias within the game; team gold ratio, for instance, could be abused by intentionally prolonging games.
(I would also assume the distribution would have a positive bias. Most "true" 800- ELO players probably quit playing Ranked will before the system can put them there).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
