|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
