EPTAlso it appears to be broken right now?
[Patch 1.0.0.135: Fiora] General Discussion - Page 225
| Forum Index > LoL General |
Same rules apply, per usual. Please use the appropriate threads (QQ, Brag, Champion, etc) whenever appropriate. Keep the resident Banling content. Thanks. Happy Gaming. | ||
|
Bambipwnsu
Canada698 Posts
Also it appears to be broken right now? | ||
|
HazMat
United States17077 Posts
On March 19 2012 20:33 robertdinh wrote: I hope you don't seriously believe that such a game is a strong indication of such a thing. I hope you don't seriously believe that there IS such a thing as Elo Hell. That game probably was an indication of such thing (I didn't watch it) but I know from my own experience carrying people lower Elo than you is fucking easy. It just depends how much better you are than them. (I can carry 1600s no problem every game 100% but at 1700 it starts to get harder) | ||
|
BlueSpace
Germany2182 Posts
On March 19 2012 21:03 HazMat wrote: I hope you don't seriously believe that there IS such a thing as Elo Hell. That game probably was an indication of such thing (I didn't watch it) but I know from my own experience carrying people lower Elo than you is fucking easy. It just depends how much better you are than them. (I can carry 1600s no problem every game 100% but at 1700 it starts to get harder) Pseudo Science Incoming: Elo hell is a mental state, that people fall into if they cannot improve rapidly enough. The steady improvement in your rating becomes small compared to the steady fluctuations due to loosing and winning streaks. This causes people to get the impression that they are stuck at a certain elo. The frustration caused by this makes it harder for them to improve as well as negatively affects their performance, which might even get to a point where they will continuously under perform. At this point the person is more or less stuck. Please notice that there is no range for elo hell and it is actually not related to a specific rating. | ||
|
mr_tolkien
France8631 Posts
On March 19 2012 21:36 BlueSpace wrote: Pseudo Science Incoming: Elo hell is a mental state, that people fall into if they cannot improve rapidly enough. The steady improvement in your rating becomes small compared to the steady fluctuations due to loosing and winning streaks. This causes people to get the impression that they are stuck at a certain elo. The frustration caused by this makes it harder for them to improve as well as negatively affects their performance, which might even get to a point where they will continuously under perform. At this point the person is more or less stuck. Please notice that there is no range for elo hell and it is actually not related to a specific rating. Elo hell is just the realization that even if you have the skill to force a 60% win ratio on your games, you can be at 50% over 100 games. If you play more than 2-3 games a day, there's no elo hell. If you don't, well, there can be one. | ||
|
robertdinh
803 Posts
The reason that the well known players get out of "elo hell" much easier is because they have the clout to get whatever champ/role they want to play, and people listen to them because of their reputation or because they are afraid of looking bad on the well known player's stream. I've seen really bad players spike to 2.1k elo, i've seen really great players bang their head against the wall and get stuck 1400-1700. | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On March 19 2012 21:03 HazMat wrote: I hope you don't seriously believe that there IS such a thing as Elo Hell. That game probably was an indication of such thing (I didn't watch it) but I know from my own experience carrying people lower Elo than you is fucking easy. It just depends how much better you are than them. (I can carry 1600s no problem every game 100% but at 1700 it starts to get harder) "its impossible to play vs bad people because you dont know what their going to do" hazmat | ||
|
Nakama
Germany584 Posts
On March 19 2012 21:03 HazMat wrote: I hope you don't seriously believe that there IS such a thing as Elo Hell. That game probably was an indication of such thing (I didn't watch it) but I know from my own experience carrying people lower Elo than you is fucking easy. It just depends how much better you are than them. (I can carry 1600s no problem every game 100% but at 1700 it starts to get harder) Thats only partially true. at 1600 elo i find it "easier" to carry teams then in the so called elo Hell cause there ppl actually have a brain. I tired to carrie my friends acc up to 1500 which is still 300 below my own elo and i tell u i needed sooo many games from 1100 to 1400 it was jsut a pain in the ass no matter how hard i won my own lane or how hard i tried to gank, put up lane pressure or said my team to do drag when we can etc. if u have 1 flamer in ur team and 1 feed u are 3v5 every teamfight. It felt like the deciding factor wasnt my skill it was more like : lets hope i dont get the feeder/flamer combo this game. Once i got into 1400 range this randomness decreased so much that i was able to go the way up to 1600 in half the time i needed to reach 1400. i think everyone can get out of elo hell but it needs either luck in ur first few games or a lot of effort to do so | ||
|
robertdinh
803 Posts
| ||
|
Bambipwnsu
Canada698 Posts
On March 19 2012 21:43 Nakama wrote: Thats only partially true. at 1600 elo i find it "easier" to carry teams then in the so called elo Hell cause there ppl actually have a brain. I tired to carrie my friends acc up to 1500 which is still 300 below my own elo and i tell u i needed sooo many games from 1100 to 1400 it was jsut a pain in the ass no matter how hard i won my own lane or how hard i tried to gank, put up lane pressure or said my team to do drag when we can etc. if u have 1 flamer in ur team and 1 feed u are 3v5 every teamfight. It felt like the deciding factor wasnt my skill it was more like : lets hope i dont get the feeder/flamer combo this game. Once i got into 1400 range this randomness decreased so much that i was able to go the way up to 1600 in half the time i needed to reach 1400. i think everyone can get out of elo hell but it needs either luck in ur first few games or a lot of effort to do so I agree with Nakama. Being at around 1570 right now, i feel as if games are much easier / less random when I am the lower elo of my team, aka teammates are all 1700s than the inverse. This doesn't mean that you cant win a majority of your games when you are queueing at 1400 elo or something, but it does prevent you from having that AP alistar doing a duo top lane with fiora in your games...lol | ||
|
BlueSpace
Germany2182 Posts
On March 19 2012 21:40 mr_tolkien wrote: Elo hell is just the realization that even if you have the skill to force a 60% win ratio on your games, you can be at 50% over 100 games. If you play more than 2-3 games a day, there's no elo hell. If you don't, well, there can be one. Imagine that your elo is a straight line that slowly increases and on top of that line you have oscillations. The gradient of these oscillations is much larger than that of your improvement line. People tend to think of these oscillations as their actual elo, which is of course not the case. Only because you lost 5 games in a row does not mean, that you became a worse player over the course of these last 5 games. Also winning 5 games in a row does not mean that you actually improved. I think it would help if Riot would implement a tool that would allow you to plot your elo as a graph and also give your rating averaged over a month/week. That would allow people to actually track their improvements. Right now it is impossible for people to see at which rate they are improving. The more games you play the more rapidly you will improve. By improving faster, you actually increase the gradient of the improvement line which makes it easier to see your own improvement. There is also the added benefit, that by practicing more, you also improve faster. | ||
|
red_
United States8474 Posts
On March 19 2012 21:42 robertdinh wrote: Oh I believe there is an elo hell, and I believe it lasts all the way up to 2k elo. Anywhere below 2k you have people who got extremely lucky or extremely unlucky with matchmaking and everything inbetween. You do not have 100% control based on your own individual play, to decide the outcome of the game. Nor can you control the random people logged on who the system puts in your game. The reason that the well known players get out of "elo hell" much easier is because they have the clout to get whatever champ/role they want to play, and people listen to them because of their reputation or because they are afraid of looking bad on the well known player's stream. I've seen really bad players spike to 2.1k elo, i've seen really great players bang their head against the wall and get stuck 1400-1700. I'd love to hear about these 'really great players' stuck in 1400 elo. Just because you saw a smurf lose that one time in a 1400 game doesn't mean he's stuck there. | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On March 19 2012 22:21 red_ wrote: I'd love to hear about these 'really great players' stuck in 1400 elo. Just because you saw a smurf lose that one time in a 1400 game doesn't mean he's stuck there. I remember on elo reset there were a few pros who struggled for a little while. Mostly just because of some bads who got lucky wins. Now, obviously, elo has somewhat leveled out, but I still see people on occasion who have no business being in a certain elo. | ||
|
robertdinh
803 Posts
On March 19 2012 22:21 red_ wrote: I'd love to hear about these 'really great players' stuck in 1400 elo. Just because you saw a smurf lose that one time in a 1400 game doesn't mean he's stuck there. Of course you would love to hear about them, because you have never heard of them, because they are stuck in elo hell. | ||
|
Two_DoWn
United States13684 Posts
This, of course, gives some people the impression that they are actually good at the game. The other thing that does not get taken into account is variation. A 1500 player is MUCH more likely to play at 1200 one match and 1600 the next, while someone at 1800 will play at 1700 level one match and 1850 the next. The variation over game is drastically different, but no one wants to acknowledge their bad games. | ||
|
robertdinh
803 Posts
On March 19 2012 22:28 Two_DoWn wrote: The problem with "Elo hell" is that Riots matchmaking is actually too good. It gives everyone the feeling, at least in some games, and in every Elo, that they are a LoL god. This, of course, gives some people the impression that they are actually good at the game. The problem is that riot wanted casual pub games to have a competitive ranking attached to them and it helps to perpetuate a lot of naivete. LoL is a team game, rankings should be for 5v5 teams, not pugs thrown together with people you have never met and know nothing about. | ||
|
Two_DoWn
United States13684 Posts
On March 19 2012 22:30 robertdinh wrote: The problem is that riot wanted casual pub games to have a competitive ranking attached to them and it helps to perpetuate a lot of naivete. LoL is a team game, rankings should be for 5v5 teams, not pugs thrown together with people you have never met and know nothing about. Then play ranked 5's. And I still can guarantee that if you and a group of 4 other 1500's who trained together for a month played a group of 1800+ players that I grabbed off my friends list the day before you would still lose. If you are at a rating after about 75 games, that is your rating. Its why Saint won 4 straight 4v5's when he was dropped to 0 elo (STILL the best stream there has ever been). | ||
|
robertdinh
803 Posts
On March 19 2012 22:36 Two_DoWn wrote: Then play ranked 5's. And I still can guarantee that if you and a group of 4 other 1500's who trained together for a month played a group of 1800+ players that I grabbed off my friends list the day before you would still lose. If you are at a rating after about 75 games, that is your rating. Its why Saint won 4 straight 4v5's when he was dropped to 0 elo (STILL the best stream there has ever been). Cool dude a really high rated player on a fresh account winning some 4v5s must be all the relevant data that is needed. User was warned for this post | ||
|
mr_tolkien
France8631 Posts
On March 19 2012 22:38 robertdinh wrote: Cool dude a really high rated player on a fresh account winning some 4v5s must be all the relevant data that is needed. He never said that was ALL the data. | ||
|
Twinmold
Sweden238 Posts
I think everyone should just stop trying to reason with him. He obviously isn't going to change his mind. | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On March 19 2012 22:36 Two_DoWn wrote: Then play ranked 5's. And I still can guarantee that if you and a group of 4 other 1500's who trained together for a month played a group of 1800+ players that I grabbed off my friends list the day before you would still lose. If you are at a rating after about 75 games, that is your rating. Its why Saint won 4 straight 4v5's when he was dropped to 0 elo (STILL the best stream there has ever been). That's complete nonsense. Just recently TL B scrimmed a BR team. Every one of them were over 2k and have been playing together for quite some time. We took a game off them in which gandhi and myself 2v5d them after they just finished baron. Granted, I was quite fed, but you can't blanket a statement like that. | ||
| ||
