Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

GO TO BOARDS


Possible solutions to Ranked Solo

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Smushynumnum

Member

01-23-2013

Quote:
AD Bottom:
What if I go 0/10/0, push 11 turrets and 6 inhibitors (on my own, but let the minions get all the last hits) and the nexus, I go troll build, and I'm a mean person. Yet because I pushed EVERY turret in the game and all 3 inhibs twice single-handedly, I won the game for my team. Should I gain less Elo because - even though I won the game for my team - I never last hit a tower or inhibitor, I was never nice, and I have no kills or assists?



Tricky one right there. Were you commended by your teammates? By the opponents? Hopefully they recognized your efforts, especially if elo is on the line


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

01-23-2013

Quote:
Smushynumnum:
Also - you guys haven't addressed the (-elo) for afking or feeding. Thoughts?

You can't just not read all of the posts and then claim we're not addressing issues.
Quote:
PogoPogoPogoPogo:
AFKing is clearly not a winning strategy, so if the AFKer continues that strategy over the course of 100 matches, while you continue a very strict strategy of not-AFKing, you'll win more games than the AFKer and have more Elo overall.

The same can be said for feeding if it's intentional, it's pretty clear that it's not a winning strategy.

But the one theme to all of this that you're failing to pick up on is that WE ALREADY HAVE A SYSTEM that determines what is and isn't winning strategies. The task of putting humans down to write a program to pick out things that are and are not winning strategies is ridiculous. And it'd be less accurate than what can already be handled by The Law of Large Numbers. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers)

If whatever I'm doing is a better winning strategy (even if it's AFKing or feeding) then whatever you're doing, then over a large sample size of games, I'll win more games than you'll win.

If whatever I'm doing is a worse winning strategy (probably things like AFKing and feeding) then whatever it is you're doing, then over a large sample size of games, I'll lose more games than you'll lose.

The end result is that no matter WHAT the strategy is, the person whose strategy is most effectively destroying the enemy Nexus is going to be the person with the highest Elo.


Quote:
Smushynumnum:
Tricky one right there. Were you commended by your teammates? By the opponents? Hopefully they recognized your efforts, especially if elo is on the line

I don't want to play in a system where my Elo is effected by whether or not players honor me after the game. Moreover, that's not what the honor system was designed or implemented for, and so it will never happen.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

adc

Member

01-23-2013

Quote:
Smushynumnum:
Do you not think that if the 1400 performed far better, they should be rewarded differently?


Actually, if you're slated to lose the game you gain more Elo if you win. Because I'm 1400 and was in a 1600 game, I gained slightly more Elo than one of the 1600s did, and my 1800 friend gained slightly less.

Minus Elo for AFKing or something would be nice, but the team already loses Elo for it. What if that player's partner/mother/whatever had a heart attack and he had to rush to the hospital with them? Why should they be penalized more for it? If it's a recurring problem, the tribunal will ban them. As it is, they lose Elo.

As to the team losing less Elo for an AFKer - that would just encourage people to rage at the worst player on the team and hope to get them to AFK so they lose less Elo, which (I hope you agree) is far worse than losing some Elo. It would also cause Elo inflation, if the winning team doesn't also gain less Elo.

As for being commended - no you weren't. Hell, maybe you even got reported by your teammates because you were rude. Elo measures your ability to win games. If you win the game, you get Elo. If you lose, you lose Elo. Period. Bringing other things into the mix would make Elo a less trustworthy system. You could feasibly have a really really nice 1200 Elo player being matched with Xj9, a very strong player who's an ass.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Smushynumnum

Member

01-23-2013

Quote:
PogoPogoPogoPogo:
You can't just not read all of the posts and then claim we're not addressing issues.





I don't want to play in a system where my Elo is effected by whether or not players honor me after the game. Moreover, that's not what the honor system was designed or implemented for, and so it will never happen.



Ok, that's nice, but what about penlization in elo for afking? Lol, you still ignored the question.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

01-23-2013

I was editing it in. It included a quote from 2 pages ago... the post you still are not reading and still claiming I'm ignoring your question.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Smushynumnum

Member

01-23-2013

Quote:
AD Bottom:
Actually, if you're slated to lose the game you gain more Elo if you win. Because I'm 1400 and was in a 1600 game, I gained slightly more Elo than one of the 1600s did, and my 1800 friend gained slightly less.

Minus Elo for AFKing or something would be nice, but the team already loses Elo for it. What if that player's partner/mother/whatever had a heart attack and he had to rush to the hospital with them? Why should they be penalized more for it? If it's a recurring problem, the tribunal will ban them. As it is, they lose Elo.

As to the team losing less Elo for an AFKer - that would just encourage people to rage at the worst player on the team and hope to get them to AFK so they lose less Elo, which (I hope you agree) is far worse than losing some Elo. It would also cause Elo inflation, if the winning team doesn't also gain less Elo.

As for being commended - no you weren't. Hell, maybe you even got reported by your teammates because you were rude. Elo measures your ability to win games. If you win the game, you get Elo. If you lose, you lose Elo. Period. Bringing other things into the mix would make Elo a less trustworthy system. You could feasibly have a really really nice 1200 Elo player being matched with Xj9, a very strong player who's an ass.


Have to disagree, sorry. I think some of these ideas could be implemented, granted it would take some legwork on the developers. Shutting down all of them isn't really keeping an open mind.

In fact, I bet you more likely than not, that's why they have the new ranking system out. Bunch of people were getting frustrated with a few of the points mentioned.

Anywho, off to lunch, at work. Quality stuff Pogo - AD.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Smushynumnum

Member

01-23-2013

Quote:
PogoPogoPogoPogo:
I was editing it in. It included a quote from 2 pages ago... the post you still are not reading and still claiming I'm ignoring your question.



Confused, which quote?

Off to lunch, bbl. Also at work, so it might be a bit.

Cheers


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

adc

Member

01-23-2013

The new ranking system is exactly the same as the old ranking system. It still uses Elo behind the scenes, we just can't see it anymore. Good on your for knowing what you're talking about, though, fool.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

01-23-2013

Quote:
PogoPogoPogoPogo:
Quote:
Smushynumnum;33807410:
Also - you guys haven't addressed the (-elo) for afking or feeding. Thoughts?

You can't just not read all of the posts and then claim we're not addressing issues.
Quote:
PogoPogoPogoPogo:
AFKing is clearly not a winning strategy, so if the AFKer continues that strategy over the course of 100 matches, while you continue a very strict strategy of not-AFKing, you'll win more games than the AFKer and have more Elo overall.

The same can be said for feeding if it's intentional, it's pretty clear that it's not a winning strategy.

But the one theme to all of this that you're failing to pick up on is that WE ALREADY HAVE A SYSTEM that determines what is and isn't winning strategies. The task of putting humans down to write a program to pick out things that are and are not winning strategies is ridiculous. And it'd be less accurate than what can already be handled by The Law of Large Numbers. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers)

If whatever I'm doing is a better winning strategy (even if it's AFKing or feeding) then whatever you're doing, then over a large sample size of games, I'll win more games than you'll win.

If whatever I'm doing is a worse winning strategy (probably things like AFKing and feeding) then whatever it is you're doing, then over a large sample size of games, I'll lose more games than you'll lose.

The end result is that no matter WHAT the strategy is, the person whose strategy is most effectively destroying the enemy Nexus is going to be the person with the highest Elo.


Quote:
Smushynumnum:
Tricky one right there. Were you commended by your teammates? By the opponents? Hopefully they recognized your efforts, especially if elo is on the line

I don't want to play in a system where my Elo is effected by whether or not players honor me after the game. Moreover, that's not what the honor system was designed or implemented for, and so it will never happen.

...


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Smushynumnum

Member

01-23-2013

Quote:
AD Bottom:
The new ranking system is exactly the same as the old ranking system. It still uses Elo behind the scenes, we just can't see it anymore. Good on your for knowing what you're talking about, though, fool.



No need for insults... Anyone else reading this?

Reported.