ELO is dumb

123
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

montyElGato

Senior Member

01-02-2013

Quote:
ELO itself is a broken system for team games. A legitimate matchmaking system should never "expect" you to lose. ELO was designed for tracking PERSONAL stats, and riot stupidly tried to apply a binary system to a dynamic TEAM game.
This is the problem with Elo in Lol. (It's not ELO, btw: it's not an acronym, it's a guy's last name.) Elo was designed for Chess. And it works well with other games where it's 1v1. It does not work well in team games, because your team can certainly cause you to lose even if you're doing well.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

adc

Member

01-02-2013

Any system that's based on individual performance based on KDA doesn't work in League. Because in League, it's about winning and losing. A 0/50/0 player can make the play that makes you win the game. I can't judge my 0/5 support and say he's bad because he's 0/5, but he gave our carry 4 kills and saved his life three times. The problem is, a rating system can't take that into account.

In Halo: Reach, winning and losing games doesn't matter so much as your KD. I can be a 3k Elo player playing with a bunch of 1k Elo players, and I'll probably win. But, from the way I understood it from 2 minutes of browsing, a 1k Elo player killing that 3k Elo player is going to gain a lot of Elo, as compared to the amount he loses by dying to that player.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

TheRealBOBDOLE

Member

01-02-2013

I understand that k/d alone wont work. Thats obvious. But setting thresholds could work. a super negative score such as -10 and 5 or less assists, should only punish that player. It could be done, i think they are just too lazy. As with other things (servers for example).


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

montyElGato

Senior Member

01-02-2013

It wouldn't surprise me if they set up a system where the ratings were all based on votes from your team mates. They set up the Tribunal, so that kids can go on the Internet and vote to ban people from the game; why not go all the way?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

adc

Member

01-02-2013

Again, a 0/50/0 player may make the game winning play. You CAN'T base Elo on KDA or anything to do with that, simply because it's entirely possible for the abnormal to happen. You would need a player at a very high (pro level) level of play to judge each game, to tell you who made the right plays and who didn't, so you can distribute Elo gain/loss.

Elo is an imperfect system. But there are far worse systems, and so far no systems (to my knowledge) that are better. Feel free to develop a better system for a game like League of Legends, but it's very difficult. You really do need time and money to put into it.

As for Bungie's rating system - correct me if I'm wrong, but is Halo: Reach drop in drop out like most FPS games are? If so, that's why a KD rating system works. Wins and losses in overall games don't matter as much, and you can have many different player levels in one game. But in League, where winning and losing is the only thing that matters, and you can't just drop out of a game - that's the only constant measure you can really use.

Also, in the past, Riot has had trouble with servers (anyone remember patch day in Season 1? Literally unable to play for a day or two). They did an overhaul, but it took time. They're probably working on the problem, but it isn't as easy as flipping a switch that gives them extra physical servers.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Shadowed Ruby

Senior Member

01-02-2013

The game is based on winning and not killing. I was just watching a match that at 30 minutes was 8 blue kills 25 purple kills, Blue had 2 purple inhibs down and purp had only pushed the mid tower.

K/D/A don't mean much in a game based on winning. Gold and experience denied means nothing if you let them catch up on it anyway. Those 3 in mid died 4 times without taking 1 enemy out and lost 1 tower, while 2 pushed top and bot right down to the inhibs? Yep, those deaths totally mean their Elo should be at a loss.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

TheRealBOBDOLE

Member

01-02-2013

1. No. Halo: reach is not drop in/drop out. That is one of the things that separates it. Therefore that argument is entirely invalidated. (Also, you made my point. It shouldn't be based on just win/loss, and someone CAN drop out and screw the team)

2. The player that went 0/50/0 absolutely should not be rewarded for doing just one thing right, even if it wins the game. That means it would be all luck and happen stance for the situation. They may have done one good thing, they should still be severely punished for the 50 bad things.

When someone murders 50 people and then buys a hobo a sandwich, that doesn't mean he gets a pass for the 50 murders. He can be congratulated for doing the right thing that one time, and then severely punished for his heinous crimes.

Elo isn't just imperfect. It is broken when it comes to team games like LoL. It's that simple.

All they need to do is take 2-3 weeks, shove everyone in a small hot conference room, and hash it out. It will be messy. Lives will be threatened and Farts will be dealt en masse, but its for the good of riot games over all.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

TheRealBOBDOLE

Member

01-02-2013

P.S. The only reason games matter so much in LoL is because of the Elo system. So using that as the support for Elo doesn't make sense. You can't rightly argue that it is good because it is good.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

adc

Member

01-02-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRealBOBDOLE View Post
1. No. Halo: reach is not drop in/drop out. That is one of the things that separates it. Therefore that argument is entirely invalidated. (Also, you made my point. It shouldn't be based on just win/loss, and someone CAN drop out and screw the team)

2. The player that went 0/50/0 absolutely should not be rewarded for doing just one thing right, even if it wins the game. That means it would be all luck and happen stance for the situation. They may have done one good thing, they should still be severely punished for the 50 bad things.

When someone murders 50 people and then buys a hobo a sandwich, that doesn't mean he gets a pass for the 50 murders. He can be congratulated for doing the right thing that one time, and then severely punished for his heinous crimes.

Elo isn't just imperfect. It is broken when it comes to team games like LoL. It's that simple.

All they need to do is take 2-3 weeks, shove everyone in a small hot conference room, and hash it out. It will be messy. Lives will be threatened and Farts will be dealt en masse, but its for the good of riot games over all.
1. Team performance as a whole is more important because the point of the game is not to kill the other team, but to win the game. By basing the rating on something other than winning and losing the game, you say that the point of the game is something other than that.

2. So a player can have a bad game, and then get a severe Elo loss for it? If I have a bad game and go 0/15 because I play badly and my opponent is very skilled, why should I lose 30 Elo? Would you like my 15/0 teammate who got matched up against someone who didn't know what they were doing to gain 30 Elo and be shoved into a level they don't belong in?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

TheRealBOBDOLE

Member

01-03-2013

1. The only way to win is to do certain things to get to nexus, which means they are involved in winning. That is easy stuff dude. Figure it out.

2. No. They should remove Elo altogether. It doesn't work well enough. But more to your point, YES. If you have a bad game you should be punished as badly as you did. EVERY time. This would work, because if it was a fluke, you would do better next game and go up. I you had a fluke good game, then next game you wouldn't do as well and would go back down. Its no different then someone getting lucky with team mates and being carried to a higher Elo. The only difference is that this way, there is FAR less luck involved and way more skill.
Instead of being screwed because of team mates, people would go up and down based on THEIR OWN SKILL. There is no logical way that this type of system wouldn't cater better and more accurately to a team game.


123