Why we hate Elo-Hell believers

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Smittens91

Senior Member

12-28-2012

Calculate your elo loss/gain based on in game stats. eg: your support, your elo is based on: K/A vs Death ratios. you go 0-5-35, you get loss protection because you were in fights, and didnt feed, congratz. Lets say your an ADC and you go, iuno, 12-10-8. 12 kills, bravo, 10 deaths, tisk tisk. but 8 assists, so your ratio is 2:1, not bad. now lets say you go jungle, and your not that great, and you die in alot of ganks... and go i dunno 1-15-10, now you have contributed to 11 kills but died 15 times, you are NOT helpful. so you take a elo hit. This system accomplishes 2 things:

1) make elo represent how you do in matches
2) discourage dying, while not encouraging KS'ing cuz kills/assists have the same value. Less feeders, better games. Feeders drop elo faster, those who dont feed, hold on to their elo better even if they are in elo hell


This is a terrible idea. Counting assists and kills as the same would mean everyone gains Elo on average. It wouldn't stop being an Elo gain. It's rediculous.

Say there is a game where the ending score is 20 to 20, and half of those kills were also giving assists (usually theres a higher assist % but just for the sake of the argument...). Now, since each team has 20 kills let's say each person averages out to 4 kills and 4 deaths. Now, initially, this might look good with your system because nobody would change Elo. Which they shouldn't, it was a dead even game.

HOWEVER because there are 10 assists on each team, each player would go 4/4/2, and be given a "score" of 6:4 aka 3:2. So if every player on both teams gets their Elo adjusted by their KDA ratio, in a dead even match everyone would gain Elo. Both teams would raise. Even with giving assists HALF the weight of kills, you'd run into the same problem.

The system Riot has in place may not be perfect, but in the "perfectly balanced" game I described above, at least one team would win and one team would lose, and that team would have its players Elo adjusted accordingly.

TL;DR: Terrible idea, sorry. Not supported by math.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

The Gingerbread Man

Member

12-28-2012

If anyone who goes 14-10-10 thinks they deserve a win for carrying they are deluding themselves.
If you want rights for "I carried so hard but still lost" you're going to have to get a shi*ton better score than 14-10-10. I'm not even going to continue reading in this thread. G'day.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Larrythetapist

Senior Member

12-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smittens91 View Post
WALL OF TEXT.
I agree with this. The Elo rating systems has to rely on zero-sum gain/losses in order to have a meaning. Being 1600 Elo loses its prestige when everyone and their five year brother can get to it by grinding


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

NerfHurter pls

Senior Member

12-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbiiee View Post
I've been a fan of this idea for a while. Why should the performance of 5 people who have never/rarely play with one another heavily effect the elo of a single person? I've always thought that individual performance should have more of an impact on elo.

So if you dc you lose like 100 points. idk.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Thelohel

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

12-28-2012

I love how threads like this appear where players create all these possible' solutions' for their Elo other than just getting better.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Selcopa

Senior Member

12-29-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by sepetaiya View Post
your definition of elo hell is wrong. its not a place you cant get out of. its a place full of evil and first time rankers that play with others who have hundreds of games and its all luck as to who has the biggest newbs and more troll-like team.

first time rankers paired up with those who have hundreds of games. wheres my rp card?
Hundreds of games and all luck? That would qualify assuming they are better than their elo

Quote:
His general challenge is to show him a player who consistently plays well above his elo, yet is unable to climb.

The reality is, this person doesn't exist. You 'elo hell' is full of players with attitudes like your own. They believe their team to be the issue and their losses to be the fault of others. They are your average league player and they are 'stuck' at the average league rating. This is where they belong.
This. From a game theory stand point, there can be no other definition of elo hell other than this.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Larrythetapist

Senior Member

12-29-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gingerbread Man View Post
If anyone who goes 14-10-10 thinks they deserve a win for carrying they are deluding themselves.
If you want rights for "I carried so hard but still lost" you're going to have to get a shi*ton better score than 14-10-10. I'm not even going to continue reading in this thread. G'day.

its possible they started with something like 8 - 1 - 5 but then when team fight start and your team starts losing your scores all goes to ****


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Larrythetapist

Senior Member

12-29-2012

Hello, I'm the OP, and I guess my thread has been hijacked to discuss the existence and a new elo system.

For those who dont understand game theory and why a new elo system couldn't work, please educate yourself on basic statistics and game theory before arguing. Some of the thing and sounds intuitive and rational are will not actually work in practice when you apply group theory or prisoner's dilemma situations.

Game Theory 101: The Basics, by William Spaniel

Here is a $1 introduction to game theory book from amazon. Reading it will improve your gaming skills in multiplayer interactive games. And you will stop making arguments that sounds good to random internet people but will gives stats majors like myself (the people you pay to design matchmaking, rating systems ) mini heart attacks.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Smittens91

Senior Member

12-29-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larrythetapist View Post
I agree with this. The Elo rating systems has to rely on zero-sum gain/losses in order to have a meaning. Being 1600 Elo loses its prestige when everyone and their five year brother can get to it by grinding
LOL @ "Wall Of Text"!

To OP's post right up here ^
He is 100% correct. Almost all the ideas thrown forward by people on these forums would not mathematically work. This would suprise me, but then again math disproves Elo Hell and many other things people complain about. The funny thing about math is that for the most part, it's pure. It is always the same. It can't be wrong, as long as it is executed and understood.

Seariously, buy that Amazon book. It'd basically the only cheap, legal Elo Booster available.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ninjagear

Senior Member

12-29-2012

i think there should be a slight modifier to elo based on personal performance. most specifically outliers should receive a small modifier for their elo (+/-1). and i only mean outliers, people that do exceptionally well or exceptionally poorly. someone goes 22/1/12, when the rest of the players on the map go single digits in every category? +1 elo at the end of the match in addition to w/e they get for the win/loss. someone in that same match goes 1/19/10? -1 elo to w/e total matchmaking would give. i think this small modification to elo calcs would help hasten elo progression, and would also serve to help quiet 'elo hell' arguments. an added bonus to this type of system would make duo queue's with distant skills less relevant (if people being carried do poorly every match they end up getting less elo from the experience).