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


Why does Riot start new lvl 30s at 1200?

12
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BaneTek

Senior Member

01-04-2011

Really straight forward question as any judgement calls about it I make in these forums results in them ignoring it... So better idea is always to ask WHY?


Simply want to know why you Devs at Riot decided 1200 was better than 100

Thanks for your time, I hope you guys give this an answer


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Dingus Khan

Senior Member

01-04-2011

ELO is based around the idea that every player is average until proven otherwise. 1200 ELO is average ELO.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

TheUndeadFish

Senior Member

01-04-2011

If you aren't able to carry yourself out of 1200 atm, you would probably have just as hard of a time carrying yourself out of 800.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

CaptainTrips01

Senior Member

01-04-2011

1200 ELO is top 25% of all players, it isn't the average. I agree with OP, it should be a bit lower.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

TodaysChaos

Senior Member

01-04-2011

Quote:
TheUndeadFish:
If you aren't able to carry yourself out of 1200 atm, you would probably have just as hard of a time carrying yourself out of 800.


This.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Heliostorm

Senior Member

01-04-2011

Quote:
Dingus Khan:
ELO is based around the idea that every player is average until proven otherwise. 1200 ELO is average ELO.


Actually, no it's not. Choosing a start point in the Elo system is completely and utterly arbitrary. It makes absolutely no difference where you start them as the system is completely relative. Eventually, depending on the start location, an average elo will be created, but that average elo is not necessarily above or below the start elo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

If they moved the starting Elo down, then the average Elo would move down and so would the top Elos. Nothing would change; if they start at 800 then 800 would be the new 1200 and 400 would be the new 800 and 1600 would be the new 2000.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Dingus Khan

Senior Member

01-04-2011

Quote:
CaptainTrips01:
1200 ELO is top 25% of all players, it isn't the average. I agree with OP, it should be a bit lower.




Err, no it's not.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

A Wild Articuno

Senior Member

01-04-2011

1200 is not the average. I believe it was somewhere in the 1000-1100 range, or some Red mentioned.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ayanaftw

Recruiter

01-04-2011

OP doesnt seem to understand that elo rating is all relative

unless u want 0 elo to be the floor and have a cess pool of bads from 0-100


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

xKoBiEx

Recruiter

01-04-2011

Sorry, original poster, but your idea is bad. Starting ranked players at basically nothing would create a new median and even more imbalance in ELO. Have you ever played a game that started ranks at 0?


12