Elo Hell Does Exist

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

TheBlackJeff

Junior Member

03-09-2013

OP - You don't have an argument to refute; you are basing your conclusions on faulty assumptions.

The minute you start going on about "bad teams" and "good teams" it becomes very clear that you don't actually understand what you are talking about.

Speaking in terms of "good teams" and "bad teams" is absurd for a number of reasons, but two simple ones would be:

1) It ignores all of the other factors (besides matchmaking) involved in winning vs losing a game of league of legends. (if it really was this simple, the best competitive teams would not ever lose, etc)

2) The only way for there to be a "good team" or "bad team" would be:

a)leave/afk (which is more likely to occur to the other team, and even if it *did* happen more often to the person in question, it would not happen often enough to be statistically relevant to their winrate over a decent sized sample of games)

OR

b) Players involved in the game who are not at their "true" elo/mmr (and off by a significant amount). This is not likely given players who have played a lot. But assuming it did occur, in the case of an assumed "elo hell", your argument would be that the player in question is at a lower elo than what their true skill reflects. This makes their team the "good team" since they are a better player than others in this range of elo


The unpopular reality is that there is no elo hell. It is just a way of explaining away the uncomfortable truth that most people are not very good at this game and they can't deal with it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

EloSatan

Senior Member

03-09-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Niqhtmare x View Post
it is impossible to be stuck at an elo you dont deserve forever
sure, its rare for lightning to strike a person crossing the road, but after he recovers from the lightning strike, he is still able to cross the road


yes, it is possible for one person to get stuck with bad luck a lot more than normal, but bad luck does not equate guaranteed loss
winning a game is 80% skill, and 20% luck
there is a reason if you put a diamond player on a bronze account, he will win every game, regardless of his bad luck, 4v5s, 3v5s, ragers, leaveers
he will win it all, because personal skill is a way larger factor than luck


youre equating elo hell to bad luck
and that makes no sense to me
bad luck is bad luck, and elo hell is being stuck at an elo you dont deserve indefinitely
you cannot make the two things the same
It doesn't have to be "forever"
It only has to be "long enough"

Maybe when that person finally gives up, statistically, he was going to break the streak and win the next 300 games STRAIGHT.

It only has to be "long enough"

What determines your getting good teammates can be described as no thing other than good luck and back luck.
Therefore, luck has an influence on the outcome of games.

Statistically, it's possible for someone to have INCREDIBLY BAD LUCK. Even if only .01% of the player base if affected by this "bad luck", that's still THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

EloSatan

Senior Member

03-09-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlackJeff View Post
OP - You don't have an argument to refute; you are basing your conclusions on faulty assumptions.

The minute you start going on about "bad teams" and "good teams" it becomes very clear that you don't actually understand what you are talking about.

Speaking in terms of "good teams" and "bad teams" is absurd for a number of reasons, but two simple ones would be:

1) It ignores all of the other factors (besides matchmaking) involved in winning vs losing a game of league of legends. (if it really was this simple, the best competitive teams would not ever lose, etc)

2) The only way for there to be a "good team" or "bad team" would be:

a)leave/afk (which is more likely to occur to the other team, and even if it *did* happen more often to the person in question, it would not happen often enough to be statistically relevant to their winrate over a decent sized sample of games)

OR

b) Players involved in the game who are not at their "true" elo/mmr (and off by a significant amount). This is not likely given players who have played a lot. But assuming it did occur, in the case of an assumed "elo hell", your argument would be that the player in question is at a lower elo than what their true skill reflects. This makes their team the "good team" since they are a better player than others in this range of elo


The unpopular reality is that there is no elo hell. It is just a way of explaining away the uncomfortable truth that most people are not very good at this game and they can't deal with it.
Once a match has been made, at that point, one team has a higher chance of winning based on the skill of the players involved.

It is possible for match making to give one person a team that is bad enough for him to be unable to carry, enough times, that it prevents him from going over a 50% win rate, halting his advancement to his true elo.

This is rare, but it happens enough to where THOUSANDS of the MILLIONS of people playing are directly impacted.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Cricket demon

Member

03-09-2013

20 games in a row of elo hell went from bronze 1 to 4 from leavers and feeders


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AxisXIViral

Senior Member

03-09-2013

Lol.

Using your logic, Elo hell can't exist, because the chances of anything happening are entirely random. The idea of Elo hell is usually that you're stuck because of bad players/trolls/afks/etc. But if everything is random chance, which it is, then how could you be stuck at all? You destroyed your own argument.

Not that I expect you to concede that, since you're so convinced you're right that you likely won't listen to reason.

The fact of the matter is, if you lost, your team got outplayed. The reasons why you got outplayed are mostly irrelevant to future games, unless they specifically apply to you, or ways you can improve. That's why you only need to focus on improving yourself, instead of blaming everyone else. I mean, I've won 4v5s before, and even a 3v5 once. If you're actually better than your enemies, it's not impossible to win a game where you have 25 kills to their 50. I've done it, and so have others.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

EloSatan

Senior Member

03-09-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cricket demon View Post
20 games in a row of elo hell went from bronze 1 to 4 from leavers and feeders
Most likely, it will balance out and you'll begin winning agin.

But having experienced a horrible strain of losses, do you see how some people can experience what you just experienced at least 60% of their games? Preventing them from advancing?

It doesn't have to be ALOT of people.

Just enough people.

can you see it?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

TheBlackJeff

Junior Member

03-09-2013

Quote:
Once a match has been made, at that point, one team has a higher chance of winning based on the skill of the players involved.

It is possible for match making to give one person a team that is bad enough for him to be unable to carry, enough times, that it prevents him from going over a 50% win rate, halting his advancement to his true elo.

This is rare, but it happens enough to where THOUSANDS of the MILLIONS of people playing are directly impacted.
Unless the conditions I already stated have happened (leaver/afk or at least one player who has a significantly higher or lower elo/mmr compared to their true skill) then the "higher chance" you are speaking about is not statistically relevant.

You seem to have trouble grasping this. The matchmaker does not determine win or loss except in the above scenarios. (and even then it only skews the odds) It does not randomly spit out teams that are 1200s players vs 1800s players.

The most significant factor in an individual's win/loss ratio is their own play relative to their peers. If they are indeed more skilled and play better than others in their current elo range, they will cause their team to be the "good team" more often than not, and rise in elo/mmr.

This is not random. If you really do belong in a significantly higher elo, then playing with 4 members of this current *lower* elo on your team and 5 on the opposite team is not going to yield teams that are "bad enough for him to be unable to carry, enough times, that it prevents him from going over a 50% win rate, halting his advancement to his true elo." Arguing that is simply nonsensical.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

EloSatan

Senior Member

03-09-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlackJeff View Post
Unless the conditions I already stated have happened (leaver/afk or at least one player who has a significantly higher or lower elo/mmr compared to their true skill) then the "higher chance" you are speaking about is not statistically relevant.

You seem to have trouble grasping this. The matchmaker does not determine win or loss except in the above scenarios. (and even then it only skews the odds) It does not randomly spit out teams that are 1200s players vs 1800s players.

The most significant factor in an individual's win/loss ratio is their own play relative to their peers. If they are indeed more skilled and play better than others in their current elo range, they will cause their team to be the "good team" more often than not, and rise in elo/mmr.

This is not random. If you really do belong in a significantly higher elo, then playing with 4 members of this current *lower* elo on your team and 5 on the opposite team is not going to yield teams that are "bad enough for him to be unable to carry, enough times, that it prevents him from going over a 50% win rate, halting his advancement to his true elo." Arguing that is simply nonsensical.
for most people, you're correct.

but for a very small percentage, you are incorrect.

In a game with millions, a very small percentage is thousands.

It is very POSSIBLE that someone can in fact "bad enough for him to be unable to carry, enough times, that it prevents him from going over a 50% win rate, halting his advancement to his true elo.

Probable? Not so much. But even the slightest probability in a sample size of millions is a SIGNIFICANTLY large enough number.

ALSO. Match making doesn't match teams up against each other with perfectly equal ELO's. Meaning:
Team A could have a combined ELO of 6123
Team B could have a combined ELO of 5901

Match making doesn't wait until it's perfect. It puts people together that are reasonably close as best it can, as fast it can. It's not PERFECT.
And also, that ELO for team B's members could repeatedly be higher than their actual skill, increasing the POSSIBILITY that elo hell exists.

Improbable, yes.
Impossible, NO NO NO NO NO.

in a sample size of MILLIONS, even a .01% chance equals THOUSANDS.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Cricket demon

Member

03-09-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by EloSatan View Post
Most likely, it will balance out and you'll begin winning agin.

But having experienced a horrible strain of losses, do you see how some people can experience what you just experienced at least 60% of their games? Preventing them from advancing?

It doesn't have to be ALOT of people.

Just enough people.

can you see it?
iv never seen a streak as worse as mine but my duo buddy has had a rough time on and off 5 streaks of leavers


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

EloSatan

Senior Member

03-09-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cricket demon View Post
iv never seen a streak as worse as mine but my duo buddy has had a rough time on and off 5 streaks of leavers
Do you believe it's possible for a good player, someone worthy of a 1550 ELO, to be constrained by his bad luck, with match making giving him teammates where it's only possible for him to win 40% of his matches?