We should start at 0 ELO rather than 1200.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Brightinly

Senior Member

05-13-2012

What if a new player that gets to lvl 30 but is good in league gets stuck in there forever because he starts at lvl 0?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PurpleFoxx

Member

05-13-2012

I really like this. right now it seems that 1100-1500 is the true ELO hell. If we started out at 0, seems that your first few ranked games (no matter your experience) have the potential to be **** shows, but if you get out, you've clearly proven your skill, as has everyone else. Similarly, one or two losses wouldn't put you back in the hole.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Swooshter

Senior Member

05-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brightinly View Post
What if a new player that gets to lvl 30 but is good in league gets stuck in there forever because he starts at lvl 0?
The thing is, if you are good, you will get wins. Even at 900 elo, I still have 3-5 match win streaks. The problem, is that I then get losses due to trollers/bad/new/afk players that are on the way down (because they end up starting at a higher elo than elo hell). Much like the current system, if you can get an elo higher than around 1500, chances are you wont get put back into elo hell as easy, because the problem players in elo hell (the ones already mentioned) simply are not in that higher elo (save maybe an unlucky dc... but that is a whole other issue).

I would say 70% of my lost matches are due to the player types listed above. Starting at 0, means that once I get to 100+ elo, I should not have to deal with trollers, new players, and very rarely bad players. New players that get good or that are already good will get out of 0 ranked and stay out of it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Selcopa

Senior Member

05-13-2012

Bad news for you.

There are trolls, new players, bad players, leavers and every other excuse you've said in the 1700s, in the 1800s and the 1900s if they're in the 1700s when we start at 1200, they will still be everywhere if you set the elo to 0.

The thing is, on my low ELO account(under 900 elo) I am currently 10-0, now, am I going to win every game? No, but even if i lose 3 in a row, Ill still be gaining elo so fast that ill be out of there quickly, so I really am having a hard time believing in elo hell, just players that are too proud to admit that they need to get better


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Eggroll9000

Senior Member

05-18-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Selcopa View Post
Bad news for you.

There are trolls, new players, bad players, leavers and every other excuse you've said in the 1700s, in the 1800s and the 1900s if they're in the 1700s when we start at 1200, they will still be everywhere if you set the elo to 0.

The thing is, on my low ELO account(under 900 elo) I am currently 10-0, now, am I going to win every game? No, but even if i lose 3 in a row, Ill still be gaining elo so fast that ill be out of there quickly, so I really am having a hard time believing in elo hell, just players that are too proud to admit that they need to get better
If you're talking about trolls in the 1900s, you're obviously awesome and I applaud you. If you're a 1900 and find carrying out of 400 elo matches are not hard, that's great for you. Many of us don't even aspire to reach the astronomical heights of 1900. We just want to play a game in peace at 900-1200 without noobs that don't know the roles, testing out new champs, or sucking beyond belief because it's their first ranked match ever. This a thread for the common man. If you're a world class tournament player and you tell me you can 1 v 5 the whole game, good for you. The rest of us are "decent". We don't get 80-90% of the creeps, we get 60-70%. We don't belong in tournaments in Korea or whereever, but we don't deserve to get pwnd by noobs and trolls either.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

corallein

Senior Member

05-18-2012

How is it so hard to understand that YOU WOULD NOT BE 900 ELO.

Say everyone starts at 0 Elo. That includes you. And say you can't go below 0 Elo. Out of the current players, guess what the player pool is at 0 Elo? Everyone from 0-1200 Elo, including people who don't know how to play the game, ****ty trolls, generally bad players, and completely new players.

You think you're good enough to carry yourself out of that when you can't even break 1200 Elo right now? Every game would be a lottery to see who has the less ****ty team, even more than now because the pool of bad players would be bigger at 0 Elo than it is at 1200 Elo.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Selcopa

Senior Member

05-18-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggroll9000 View Post
If you're talking about trolls in the 1900s, you're obviously awesome and I applaud you. If you're a 1900 and find carrying out of 400 elo matches are not hard, that's great for you. Many of us don't even aspire to reach the astronomical heights of 1900. We just want to play a game in peace at 900-1200 without noobs that don't know the roles, testing out new champs, or sucking beyond belief because it's their first ranked match ever. This a thread for the common man. If you're a world class tournament player and you tell me you can 1 v 5 the whole game, good for you. The rest of us are "decent". We don't get 80-90% of the creeps, we get 60-70%. We don't belong in tournaments in Korea or whereever, but we don't deserve to get pwnd by noobs and trolls either.
You are missing the point. Unable to understand what i'm putting foward to you, ironically this is probably a portion of the reason you are at the elo you are.

Let me explain. You want to start at 0 ELO, your concept is that once you climb a little bit, you'll be above all the noobs and trolls.

What i'm telling you is, I've already climbed the ladder a decent portion of the way, and guess what, there are still noobs, there are still trolls, it happens very frequently still, so explain to me, when there are noobs trolls dcs and ragers in the 1700s, why are there not going to be trolls anywhere but 0 ELO in your system.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Eggroll9000

Senior Member

05-18-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Selcopa View Post
You are missing the point. Unable to understand what i'm putting foward to you, ironically this is probably a portion of the reason you are at the elo you are.

Let me explain. You want to start at 0 ELO, your concept is that once you climb a little bit, you'll be above all the noobs and trolls.

What i'm telling you is, I've already climbed the ladder a decent portion of the way, and guess what, there are still noobs, there are still trolls, it happens very frequently still, so explain to me, when there are noobs trolls dcs and ragers in the 1700s, why are there not going to be trolls anywhere but 0 ELO in your system.
No system is going to eliminate all trolls to the perfect utopia of gamer heaven and I'm not trying to achieve that with this idea. If you're a great player since day one and initiated your climb immediately from 1200, then you do not experience this issue as much as those that need to make the climb all the way from 500 or so. The fact is most people go downwards when they first start, including me. But once the climbing starts, you find yourself teamed up with people on their way down. An illustration of this exact same idea would be if tommorow, all new ranked players started at 2500 instead of 1200. You would in your 1900 elo world then be bombarded with overrated players on their way down. This is the core problem of this entire thread. Not amazing skills, not trolling, not masterful carrying. You simply are matched with overrated players constantly at 900-1200 and you take their elo hit along with them. But if you start at 0, and you reach 600. The chances you're matched with someone that's played less than 50 ranked games is 0. If at 1200, you know everyone on your team has played at least 100 games. The chances they are total noobs are virtually none. Now can some idiot still troll at 1200, 1400, 1600, 2000? Yes. We even watch them on YouTube!! But do we by design place overrated players all over the elo demeaning their value? No. At least your chances of playing someone with less than 100 wins in 1200 is 0. It solves an important part of the ELO hell issue of fresh noobs put into your queue after you have 200 wins and they have 5.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Onisake

Senior Member

05-18-2012

The concept of ELO is to put you against players near your skill level. or each team has aproximately 50/50 chance of winning.

the issue with the starting point now is that you are injected as a fresh player into the 1200 range. because this is the starting point being a freshly injected players means you may or, more likely, may not be at 1200. and there's an inflation of one team or anothers ELO be it positive or negative.

starting at the ELO floor is a good concept. over time you will eventually reach your true ELO. it will make it unfun for the people who are supposed to be at 0 ELO because they will nearly constantly be getting stomped. but most people this bad probably don't play a lot of ranked.

if you were to couple this with a bonus to winning/losing streaks it could work...better than the current system. IE: you get a slight bonus for consecutive wins/losses. lose 10 games in a row? your elo tanks. win 10 games ina row? your ELO soars.

but really a better concept is to do preliminary games. 5-10 games you have to play before you're inserted into the 'real' ladder.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

corallein

Senior Member

05-18-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onisake View Post
starting at the ELO floor is a good concept. over time you will eventually reach your true ELO. it will make it unfun for the people who are supposed to be at 0 ELO because they will nearly constantly be getting stomped. but most people this bad probably don't play a lot of ranked.
No, it's actually not. Starting everyone at 0 Elo and not letting Elo go below 0 dramatically increases the randomness of 0 Elo games because the pool of players is much larger, and so is the range of skill levels.

The current system will already put you within +/- 100 Elo of where you should be given enough games. Increasing the deviation of the random factor (your teammates) will have the effect of increasing the number of games required to have a 95% chance of being at your "true" Elo.

People already complain about "Elo hell". This would make it 10x worse.