Fix the ELO system

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Selcopa

Senior Member

12-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacyf View Post
I am at aobut 1300 elo.
Carrying on your own below 1200 is easy, people are more often than not so clueless they dont even group up, so all you need is to be strong duelist.

Problem start at 1200 elo for several reaosns.

1) there are all skills bunched here.Every smurfing 1800 elo player is starting at 1200 and test stuff here. so it often comes down to whether that 1800 elo smurf meets complete newbie and gets to like 10/0 before 15h minute.

2) players that are NOT 1200 that should be at about 900 also start here and dont know their role, but stubbornly take mid/ top.

3) at some point teams start to bunch up.it should be 5v5, but games are nearly always decided by that 1 idiot that dont knowhe shouldnt go alone and facecheck bushes.
Game result isnt decided by skilled players carryng, but by those unskilled ones doing something stupid .

4) champin picks start to matter, if your solo top picks teemo/ jungler picks shako, and enemy goes amumu/ morgana there isnt al lthat much you can do playing support becouse just those 2 ulties pretty much kil your entire team in teamfight midgame.

5) it isnt enough to do well your role. You have to be so strong to overpower other lane failing massively and not doing their job.It doesnt seem to be fair that i loose elo even tough i support perfectly, but my 7/2 ad cary throw it away mid game by suiciding repeatedly.

Bad players are bad / good players are good and system that would allow more individual aproach in elo changes in SOLO QUEUE wouldnt change it.But it would lessen the frustration coming from games when one is performing well and just cant overcome his team being realy bad.
This idea of an imaginary roadblock at the starting is a common misconception.

Consider the journey of a players who hovers the 1200 bracket(as I once did) now look at it from the view of say 100 games or even 200.

Regardless of whether the other players are smurf, dcs, ragers or whatever. Imagine all their attributes are quantified and given a number, that number is their elo..

Because 1200 is the starting point, there is a higher frequency of players who have not yet arrived at their destined elo, so there will be some 900s some 1300s a few 1900s and everything in between. But for the most part, the bulk of players are going to fit in that 1000-1400 range. This factors in all this ragers and dcs, as their chance of ruining a game is factored into the elo they belong but have not completed their journey to

Now over 200 games. This 1200ish player will float around. He's gonna go up. He's gonna go down some. Games he gets a smurf on his team or the enemy gets a 900, he's gonna get wins, when the opposite happens he will lose.

Now these games will cancel eachothers elo gains, he might only notice games where he loses but statistically they will be washing eachother out*1, as more games are played, there will be more situations for this 1200ish player to make an impact, opportunities to capitalizes on 1100 players or inferior 1200 players.

As our hero moves up the ladder, there will be less and less of these inferior players for him to take advantage of, while the number of superior players will remain close to the same. Players that deadlock with our hero will go up. Without a constant supply of bad players to boost his elo*2 he will drop back to a level where there are more easy targets.

*1: in reality, statistically you are more likely to be playing against a smurf than you are playing with one on your team, this is because you fill a slot the smurf can't take. However this also applies to those 900 elo players. You are more likely to be facing against them, furthermore, there are significantly more low elo players than smurf, so ultimately over time you will face enough low elo players to overcome the deficit of getting less smurfs on your team, even to the point that if you calculated ( frequency bad opponents + freq good teammates ) - (freq bad teammates + freq good opponents) you would result in having a position elo gain
*2 because you naturally will rise in elo without improving your skill due to having less slots on your team for bad teammates, you will always fluctuate between going up, and reaching the point where you become the bad teammate(in which case you will always have a bad teammates, you. And you will move back down until enough bad players push you back up, or you improve)


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IS149080d6605e20d28653a

Senior Member

12-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Selcopa View Post
This idea of an imaginary roadblock at the starting is a common misconception.

Consider the journey of a players who hovers the 1200 bracket(as I once did) now look at it from the view of say 100 games or even 200.

Regardless of whether the other players are smurf, dcs, ragers or whatever. Imagine all their attributes are quantified and given a number, that number is their elo..

Because 1200 is the starting point, there is a higher frequency of players who have not yet arrived at their destined elo, so there will be some 900s some 1300s a few 1900s and everything in between. But for the most part, the bulk of players are going to fit in that 1000-1400 range. This factors in all this ragers and dcs, as their chance of ruining a game is factored into the elo they belong but have not completed their journey to

Now over 200 games. This 1200ish player will float around. He's gonna go up. He's gonna go down some. Games he gets a smurf on his team or the enemy gets a 900, he's gonna get wins, when the opposite happens he will lose.

Now these games will cancel eachothers elo gains, he might only notice games where he loses but statistically they will be washing eachother out*1, as more games are played, there will be more situations for this 1200ish player to make an impact, opportunities to capitalizes on 1100 players or inferior 1200 players.

As our hero moves up the ladder, there will be less and less of these inferior players for him to take advantage of, while the number of superior players will remain close to the same. Players that deadlock with our hero will go up. Without a constant supply of bad players to boost his elo*2 he will drop back to a level where there are more easy targets.

*1: in reality, statistically you are more likely to be playing against a smurf than you are playing with one on your team, this is because you fill a slot the smurf can't take. However this also applies to those 900 elo players. You are more likely to be facing against them, furthermore, there are significantly more low elo players than smurf, so ultimately over time you will face enough low elo players to overcome the deficit of getting less smurfs on your team, even to the point that if you calculated ( frequency bad opponents + freq good teammates ) - (freq bad teammates + freq good opponents) you would result in having a position elo gain
*2 because you naturally will rise in elo without improving your skill due to having less slots on your team for bad teammates, you will always fluctuate between going up, and reaching the point where you become the bad teammate(in which case you will always have a bad teammates, you. And you will move back down until enough bad players push you back up, or you improve)

Mhm, and in all that you agree that there are 900 elo players, and 1800 elo players in same place at elo ladder, and you think RANKING system that allows such disparities is working properly becouse player ix has similar chance of stomping much less skilled player, as being stomped by a better one.
Elo system is ment to match equaly skilled players with eachother.Its the fact that there ARE such differences occuring that is wrong, regardless of whether statisticaly 50% games are won if one is in " right" place.

You keep bringing up the argument that i should be able to kill those low-skill players more often than being stomped by higher skilled ones, and you completely miss the fact that if im meeting both in same place THIS is whats wrong about the system, and not whether i loose or win.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Selcopa

Senior Member

12-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacyf View Post
Mhm, and in all that you agree that there are 900 elo players, and 1800 elo players in same place at elo ladder, and you think RANKING system that allows such disparities is working properly becouse player ix has similar chance of stomping much less skilled player, as being stomped by a better one.
Elo system is ment to match equaly skilled players with eachother.Its the fact that there ARE such differences occuring that is wrong, regardless of whether statisticaly 50% games are won if one is in " right" place.
No. You're comprehension skills are subpar.

In about 90% of the ladder this "issue" is such an anomaly that it's barely worth bringing up. At the starting point the enhanced elo pace locates people to their place so quickly that only a small bracket of people witness the phenomenon of mismatched players. Within 10 games(or less) both the 900 elo players and the 1800 will have separated by at least 500 of the 800 points.

Is it possible for people to manipulate the system with multiple accounts to manufacture an unfair matchup? Sure. This doesn't make it a broken system. The fact remains that within 100 games you have a very accurate representation of your elo and your skill level. I've yet to find a player in 1100 or even 1200 after playing 100 games to be able to "hack it" at even 1300. They might stay a little but they all move down. Pretty fast too


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IS149080d6605e20d28653a

Senior Member

12-13-2012

If i remember correctly its one of devs that in one of posts about preseason elo reset said that EVERy elo system is designed to gravitate arerage players to the middle and make extreme cases traverse to edgres of elo system, causing average players stuck at 1100-1300 elo in case of LOL.

They said most players will ocasionaly get sligtly out and than get back down to 1200.
And this is what hapen to me. im getting anywhere betwen 1100-1400, lately i even got to 1600 elo.
But mostly im stuck at about 1250.

and you know what? I am not happy how randomly skilled my teammates and oponents are,
If 1200 eo is my skill i should be able to play only with 1200 elo players, and not with dudes that play their provisional matches and havent gravitated to 900 yet, or to 1600 yet.
Games result in my elo is greatly dependant on distribution and actions of players that shouldn't even be here, and my personal elo is dependant on games outcome rather than my individual actions in that particular game.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Selcopa

Senior Member

12-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacyf View Post
If i remember correctly its one of devs that in one of posts about preseason elo reset said that EVERy elo system is designed to gravitate arerage players to the middle and make extreme cases traverse to edgres of elo system, causing average players stuck at 1100-1300 elo in case of LOL.
But don't you get it? They aren't stuck, you see stuck implies they can't go anywhere, they can move up or down, they just aren't good enough to do so.

Quote:
They said most players will ocasionaly get sligtly out and than get back down to 1200.
And this is what hapen to me. im getting anywhere betwen 1100-1400, lately i even got to 1600 elo.
But mostly im stuck at about 1250.
Its common for players to get shot up way above their level during placement matches, 4 easy wins is 200 points. Don't suck at support and there's a couple of more wins with the right team. In season 1 when I started I got to about 1500, then dropped to 1100 and finished 1275. Its not elo hell. Its simply a side effect of the enhanced elo gains. Sometimes you shoot up too high. But it dropped you down just fine.

If you were 1600 caliber. You would destroy 1250players. You'd destroy 1400 players to. If you were even 1400.caliber you would beat up.1250 players pretty easy. So its likely you are closer to 1300 caliber. And you swing around that a bit.

Quote:
and you know what? I am not happy how randomly skilled my teammates and oponents are,
This is caused not so much by smurfs and newbies. But instead simply how many different aspects of skill there are. Many players can play 2 champions in each role. When they get in situations where one of those works well. They win. But there are lots of situations where they have no good option to pick. And they force a bad choice. Putting them at a disadvantage
Quote:
If 1200 eo is my skill i should be able to play only with 1200 elo players, and not with dudes that play their provisional matches and havent gravitated to 900 yet, or to 1600 yet.
Games result in my elo is greatly dependant on distribution and actions of players that shouldn't even be here, and my personal elo is dependant on games outcome rather than my individual actions in that particular game.
This does happen already. The more games you play the more you will play against 1200 regs instead of new players. You will still get an occasional provisional player. But overall you aren't getting all new players.

No matter what elo you play it. It will take time to isolate your individual actions from the noise of your teammates actions. Including the players who Dont belong there


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IS149080d6605e20d28653a

Senior Member

12-13-2012

isnt it just tested on us server? im playing on eu. i mean that matchmaking adition that would take number of games played into account. is it on eu aswell?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Selcopa

Senior Member

12-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacyf View Post
I am at aobut 1300 elo.
Carrying on your own below 1200 is easy, people are more often than not so clueless they dont even group up, so all you need is to be strong duelist.

Problem start at 1200 elo for several reaosns.

1) there are all skills bunched here.Every smurfing 1800 elo player is starting at 1200 and test stuff here. so it often comes down to whether that 1800 elo smurf meets complete newbie and gets to like 10/0 before 15h minute.

2) players that are NOT 1200 that should be at about 900 also start here and dont know their role, but stubbornly take mid/ top.

3) at some point teams start to bunch up.it should be 5v5, but games are nearly always decided by that 1 idiot that dont knowhe shouldnt go alone and facecheck bushes.
Game result isnt decided by skilled players carryng, but by those unskilled ones doing something stupid .

4) champin picks start to matter, if your solo top picks teemo/ jungler picks shako, and enemy goes amumu/ morgana there isnt al lthat much you can do playing support becouse just those 2 ulties pretty much kil your entire team in teamfight midgame.

5) it isnt enough to do well your role. You have to be so strong to overpower other lane failing massively and not doing their job.It doesnt seem to be fair that i loose elo even tough i support perfectly, but my 7/2 ad cary throw it away mid game by suiciding repeatedly.

Bad players are bad / good players are good and system that would allow more individual aproach in elo changes in SOLO QUEUE wouldnt change it.But it would lessen the frustration coming from games when one is performing well and just cant overcome his team being realy bad.
And if you were skilled enough to be 1400 you would say THE EXACT SAME THING about the 1400s. Carrying the 1200s is easy blah blah blah, at 1400 they aren't as retarded so you can't carry.

You ask how I know this. I thought the exact same thing when j was stuck at 1300, 1500, 1700 and yes even at 1900.

Look I get the argument. I understand what you are saying. But the fact is 1300 players are better than 1200. And every bracket is like that. There's no imaginary barrier that once you get past, it gets easier. It doesn't. It only gets harder at every level. And I've been stuck at every damn level at one point, so I know this first hand


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IS149080d6605e20d28653a

Senior Member

12-14-2012

When someone sees enemy got lee top, picks wukong,despite team telling him not to, than feeds leee to 5/0/0 in 9 minutes.
When someone repeatedly facechecks bushes alone with all enemies missing and repeatedly get cought.
When at that point im supporting and i get my ad carry to 3/0.and than we get stomped in teamfights becouse we are 4v5 and becouse top lee is fed.
Than wukong is not 1300 elo player.I cant win, so i should loose elo OK.But dude that CAUSED that defeat should loose more,and bot lane that performed good should loose less and thats what im asking.

Why would you even think otherwise? it is SOLO ranked, statistics should be applied to SOLO player - it has nothing to do with where he is in the ladder.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Selcopa

Senior Member

12-14-2012

You don't know that. There are probably many instances where that wukong beats many opponents. Maybe it's not when he's top lane. Maybe it is. Maybe its different matchups. Different lanes.

The point is you observe 1 game and made a decision. That game he wasn't 1300, but maybe next game he plays better. If he doesn't he will continue to go down. Problem solved.

He might be bad from behind but excellent when he gets a lead. You really have no idea, next time if you really want to know. Add him as friend. Spectate his games. Follow his elo climb. You might be surprised at what he's good at.

Overall at this point you are grasping at straws, you've accepted that you suck, and that if you were a better player(be it a better support or any role) that you would move up in elo. At this point all you are whining about is that people who you feel play bad should lose more elo than you. Its no longer about you. Its just you want to feel better about yourself by saying "well I could have lost more elo like that guy, but I was better than him so I didn't lose as much"

Who cares about some other guy. Improve your own skills and you'll blow past him even when he loses the same amount of elo as you. Instead of settling for losing "less elo than some other guy" why don't you focus on actually winning games?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Selcopa

Senior Member

12-14-2012

And don't introduce some system that rewards "good play" they have been suggested 100s of time and they are all terrible. Especially considering that you quite frankly aren't even good enough to recognize a good play in the first place

Once you get to the point where you make intangible plays(hell, even when you get to the point where you understand what those are) your elo will go up. And you.won't whine about elo so much