|
Same rules apply, per usual. Please use the appropriate threads (QQ, Brag, Champion, etc) whenever appropriate. Keep the resident Banling content.
Thanks. Happy Gaming. |
On March 19 2012 22:47 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 22:36 Two_DoWn wrote:On March 19 2012 22:30 robertdinh wrote: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. 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.
Ya I shoulda said a best of 5 or 7. Anything can happen in 1 game.
|
On March 19 2012 22:47 Twinmold wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 22:45 mr_tolkien wrote:On March 19 2012 22:38 robertdinh wrote:On March 19 2012 22:36 Two_DoWn wrote:On March 19 2012 22:30 robertdinh wrote: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. 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. He never said that was ALL the data. I think everyone should just stop trying to reason with him tbh.
Probably a wise idea, since no analysis of solo queue ranked considers even a fraction of the variables involved. There is nothing to stop you from having 12 teammates DC in a row, there is nothing to prevent you from getting a troll at a rating vs a serious player at a rating. There is nothing to stop the system from pairing up people that are equally rated in one role and roughly the same skill, but randomly atrocious at other roles. Has a top player ever lost a ranked game on a fresh account? Yes... What that means is even the best players can not have complete control over their own rating ever.
It is pretty baffling how many people try to "reason" the concept of an individual ranking in a system where you don't control who you are partnered with and against. It is simply illogical.
|
people who think they're in elo hell are just at the elo they're supposed to be at :D
|
On March 19 2012 22:51 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 22:47 Twinmold wrote:On March 19 2012 22:45 mr_tolkien wrote:On March 19 2012 22:38 robertdinh wrote:On March 19 2012 22:36 Two_DoWn wrote:On March 19 2012 22:30 robertdinh wrote: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. 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. He never said that was ALL the data. I think everyone should just stop trying to reason with him tbh. Probably a wise idea, since no analysis of solo queue ranked considers even a fraction of the variables involved. There is nothing to stop you from having 12 teammates DC in a row, there is nothing to prevent you from getting a troll at a rating vs a serious player at a rating. There is nothing to stop the system from pairing up people that are equally rated in one role and roughly the same skill, but randomly atrocious at other roles. Has a top player ever lost a ranked game on a fresh account? Yes... What that means is even the best players can not have complete control over their own rating ever. It is pretty baffling how many people try to "reason" the concept of an individual ranking in a system where you don't control who you are partnered with and against. It is simply illogical.
All those things are equally likely to be in your favour as against you though, meaning that over enough games your ELO will average out to a level that roughly indicates your skill. Obviously that can take some time and it's entirely possible to have a DC or a troll 10 games in a row, but is it possible to have a DC or a troll 50 games in a row? And never one on the other team?
It's not a perfect indication of your skill like say a 1v1 rating system, but even in SC2 you might be really great at ZvP but really bad at ZvT, and the distribution of matchups will impact on your ladder rank. Your rank still roughly indicates how well you play overall in your ladder games, and ELO in LoL does the same thing.
|
On March 19 2012 22:52 Norada wrote:
people who think they're in elo hell are just at the elo they're supposed to be at :D
If a guy loses 20 games in a row because of dc's, trolls, and really poor teammates, then technically based on what the matchmaking system is supposed to do, he wouldn't be where he is supposed to be at. Because he is supposed to be where he goes 50/50, let alone the losses not even being within his control.
On March 19 2012 22:57 Gondlem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 22:51 robertdinh wrote:On March 19 2012 22:47 Twinmold wrote:On March 19 2012 22:45 mr_tolkien wrote:On March 19 2012 22:38 robertdinh wrote:On March 19 2012 22:36 Two_DoWn wrote:On March 19 2012 22:30 robertdinh wrote: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. 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. He never said that was ALL the data. I think everyone should just stop trying to reason with him tbh. Probably a wise idea, since no analysis of solo queue ranked considers even a fraction of the variables involved. There is nothing to stop you from having 12 teammates DC in a row, there is nothing to prevent you from getting a troll at a rating vs a serious player at a rating. There is nothing to stop the system from pairing up people that are equally rated in one role and roughly the same skill, but randomly atrocious at other roles. Has a top player ever lost a ranked game on a fresh account? Yes... What that means is even the best players can not have complete control over their own rating ever. It is pretty baffling how many people try to "reason" the concept of an individual ranking in a system where you don't control who you are partnered with and against. It is simply illogical. All those things are equally likely to be in your favour as against you though, meaning that over enough games your ELO will average out to a level that roughly indicates your skill. Obviously that can take some time and it's entirely possible to have a DC or a troll 10 games in a row, but is it possible to have a DC or a troll 50 games in a row? And never one on the other team? It's not a perfect indication of your skill like say a 1v1 rating system, but even in SC2 you might be really great at ZvP but really bad at ZvT, and the distribution of matchups will impact on your ladder rank. Your rank still roughly indicates how well you play overall in your ladder games, and ELO in LoL does the same thing.
The elo system is supposed to get you to where you win 50% of your games, but LoL is a game where you individually don't control the outcome of the game. It is trying to get you to match you with games where you will go 50%, but it is not accounting for every variable, and a rating system that is rating players based on things they may or may not have any control over will never be accurate.
|
Even I stuck at 1400~1500 elo(played ~160 games in total). I don't believe in elo hell. There are many games I would have won if not for 2 idiots that feed all games. But that happen to everyone, if you are not strong enough to carry a games with 2 retards you don't get higher elo. Thats it.
When you are playing good and still losing, you are frustrated and will try to reason your loss thats where elo hell come in handy. I believe SV can reach 2000 in Korea given he play enough games. If you are good you will be at high elo no matter what server you are on.
|
This guy is trolling so hard lol.
|
On March 19 2012 23:02 HazMat wrote:
This guy is trolling so hard lol.
Is it considered trolling to point out the flaws of a solo queue ranking system where you have no consistent control over who you are matched into a game with?
On March 19 2012 23:00 Caphe wrote:
Even I stuck at 1400~1500 elo(played ~160 games in total). I don't believe in elo hell. There are many games I would have won if not for 2 idiots that feed all games. But that happen to everyone, if you are not strong enough to carry a games with 2 retards you don't get higher elo. Thats it.
When you are playing good and still losing, you are frustrated and will try to reason your loss thats where elo hell come in handy. I believe SV can reach 2000 in Korea given he play enough games. If you are good you will be at high elo no matter what server you are on.
So unless you can carry 2 significantly worse players than you, who are also at your rating (because the system is so accurate LOL) you don't get to climb in elo? Why are 2 significantly worse players at your elo? Shouldn't they be at a lower elo if they are such clear weak links in a game at that rating?
|
On March 19 2012 23:03 robertdinh wrote:Is it considered trolling to point out the flaws of a solo queue ranking system where you have no consistent control over who you are matched into a game with?
Well, when you have yet to actually point out a flaw, yes.
Every single one of your arguments basically boils down to "I played a game and I got trolled, QQ, Elo Hell."
If you play 100 games, your rating will be closer to what it actually is than if you play 5. If you play 300, it will be even closer. Shit happens in small samples.
You also seem to think that one person cant positively control the outcome of the game. Which is wrong on about a billion levels.
|
Technically those DC's, Trolls, Ragers, and Feeders are going to be on the other team more often then yours. Assuming you're not a Rager, DCer, Feeder, or Troll there is 4 chances of getting a ragin troll feeder noob on your team, and the other team has 5 chances for the Trolling noob raging feeder being on the other team.
TL;DR Noob dcing troll feeders are more likely going to be on the enemy team.
Edit: this just means suck it up and try to carry them when they're on your team, and don't lose to them on the other team. This is a sure fire way of getting higher than 50% win rate, even if you're at a 50% win rate in the games with no feeder noob troll disconnecting.
|
Nvm. I'm feeding the troll.
|
On March 19 2012 23:09 Sabin010 wrote:
Technically those DC's, Trolls, Ragers, and Feeders are going to be on the other team more often then yours. Assuming you're not a Rager, DCer, Feeder, or Troll there is 4 chances of getting a ragin troll feeder noob on your team, and the other team has 5 chances for the Trolling noob raging feeder being on the other team.
TL;DR Noob dcing troll feeders are more likely going to be on the enemy team.
No, technically the probability of them being on the other team is greater than on yours, that is not an absolute though, especially because you do not play with the same players every game.
Just because someone gets 5dc'd teammates in a row doesn't mean the game will balance out and give the enemy teams they go against 5dc'd players in a row.
On March 19 2012 23:09 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 23:03 robertdinh wrote:On March 19 2012 23:02 HazMat wrote:
This guy is trolling so hard lol. Is it considered trolling to point out the flaws of a solo queue ranking system where you have no consistent control over who you are matched into a game with? Well, when you have yet to actually point out a flaw, yes. Every single one of your arguments basically boils down to "I played a game and I got trolled, QQ, Elo Hell." If you play 100 games, your rating will be closer to what it actually is than if you play 5. If you play 300, it will be even closer. Shit happens in small samples. You also seem to think that one person cant positively control the outcome of the game. Which is wrong on about a billion levels.
Oh i've pointed out the flaws many times, you just are unable to accept them.
1. You are getting ranked in a system where you do not control the competency of your teammates, not all players at a rating are equally skilled, some are still climbing, some are tanking, and some are right where they belong, you do not control how often you get each type.
2. You do not control random elements like internet connections, the average pings on each team, the sides you start on, or the champions people will pick.
Those 2 aspects of solo queue alone make it completely illogical to deduce that it is an accurate way to rank people.
|
On March 19 2012 23:11 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 23:09 Sabin010 wrote:
Technically those DC's, Trolls, Ragers, and Feeders are going to be on the other team more often then yours. Assuming you're not a Rager, DCer, Feeder, or Troll there is 4 chances of getting a ragin troll feeder noob on your team, and the other team has 5 chances for the Trolling noob raging feeder being on the other team.
TL;DR Noob dcing troll feeders are more likely going to be on the enemy team. No, technically the probability of them being on the other team is greater than on yours, that is not an absolute though, especially because you do not play with the same players every game. Just because someone gets 5dc'd teammates in a row doesn't mean the game will balance out and give the enemy teams they go against 5dc'd players in a row.
Actually in the long run it does because the varience will decrease as the number of games played increases.
|
robertdinh you seem to have missed the opportunity to introduce me to these 'really great players' stuck at 1400. I was aware that they are obviously not famous because of Elo Hell, and was giving you the chance to shine light upon them, get them known, so that they can no longer live their plight. So, if you would please, I am awaiting the information of these players.
|
On March 19 2012 23:13 Sabin010 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 23:11 robertdinh wrote:On March 19 2012 23:09 Sabin010 wrote:
Technically those DC's, Trolls, Ragers, and Feeders are going to be on the other team more often then yours. Assuming you're not a Rager, DCer, Feeder, or Troll there is 4 chances of getting a ragin troll feeder noob on your team, and the other team has 5 chances for the Trolling noob raging feeder being on the other team.
TL;DR Noob dcing troll feeders are more likely going to be on the enemy team. No, technically the probability of them being on the other team is greater than on yours, that is not an absolute though, especially because you do not play with the same players every game. Just because someone gets 5dc'd teammates in a row doesn't mean the game will balance out and give the enemy teams they go against 5dc'd players in a row. Actually in the long run it does because the varience will decrease as the number of games played increases.
No... actually it doesn't because people are not tied into any sort of consistency. One guy having trouble with his internet and dcing in a bunch of different games does not guarantee that some other guy will someday have trouble with his internet and give those exact same groupings of people the reverse outcome.
Probability =! reality.
|
United States47024 Posts
On March 19 2012 22:58 robertdinh wrote:
The elo system is supposed to get you to where you win 50% of your games, but LoL is a game where you individually don't control the outcome of the game. It is trying to get you to match you with games where you will go 50%, but it is not accounting for every variable, and a rating system that is rating players based on things they may or may not have any control over will never be accurate.
It doesn't have to, provided that the distribution over those variables is uniform. Averaged over a very large sample of games, those variables don't alter your final outcome.
|
On March 19 2012 23:17 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2012 22:58 robertdinh wrote:
The elo system is supposed to get you to where you win 50% of your games, but LoL is a game where you individually don't control the outcome of the game. It is trying to get you to match you with games where you will go 50%, but it is not accounting for every variable, and a rating system that is rating players based on things they may or may not have any control over will never be accurate. It doesn't have to, provided that the distribution over those variables is uniform. Averaged over a very large sample of games, those variables don't alter your final outcome.
But the distribution isn't uniform.
|
How do I give my solo queue teammates advice without sounding like a commanding douche?
I mean, when I see the Alistar constantly overextended without wards or the Graves front and center in every teamfights that gets caught and killed instantly, I tell them "X, can you please top overextending/getting caught/whatever", and most of the time they rage back at me for no good reason.
|
United States47024 Posts
On March 19 2012 23:18 robertdinh wrote:
But the distribution isn't uniform.
OK, so wait. You're saying that over the 2 possible teams that someone could get slotted into, random mishaps are NOT equally likely to happen to a player on blue team as one on purple team?
Please tell me which team you think has a higher % chance of mishaps so I can queue dodge the next time I get on that color team.
|
On March 19 2012 23:21 TheYango wrote:OK, so wait. You're saying that over the 2 possible teams that someone could get slotted into, random mishaps are NOT equally likely to happen to a player on blue team as one on purple team? Please tell me which team you think has a higher % chance of mishaps so I can queue dodge the next time I get on that color team.
He has made it pretty damn clear that its always your team.
This entire train of thought is pointless. Lets talk about flowers instead. I like flowers, provided they dont give me allergies. Lulu uses lots of flower particles, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
