Personal score as a replacement to ELO

1234567 ... 10
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IS1879fbf8ece39275db4d9

Senior Member

11-04-2011

I've been trying to say this for ages. ELO is a system developed to evaluate individual performance, it simply does not fit team games such as LoL. I shouldn't lose ELO because my team has two feeders if I did everything I could to win. Feeders, trolls and AFKs shouldn't gain ELO if somehow their team manage to win.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IS1f48700f529fbcca97996

Senior Member

11-04-2011

@ mdigibou:
Daymn. You're right, and the tournament client is only available for qualifiers in LAN tourney's of certain size and scale. Worst part is that, we only need the tournament map to run the replays.
See if AGM can do anything about it; else the only option left is to look for high Elo replays.

"We've recently been given access to the Tournament system so we are working on supporting the "6 player" maps. I can't promise any of the existing recordings will work though."


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

mdigibou

Senior Member

11-04-2011

he is in charge of the general RTS section, and C&C generals section, doubt he could help me with LoL


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MrSpaz

Senior Member

11-04-2011

This system would end up being horrendously, monstrously complicated, just to get it working in an even somewhat reasonable degree.

Meanwhile, the basic "win/loss" style system already works generally. What about it is it so broken that it demands such a huge overhaul? I'd rather see them come out with new content than work on this, personally.

Would you agree that, in a fairly general sense, the top elo players are better players than the low elo players? If so, then, over time and on average, I think the simple binary elo system works fairly well.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

mdigibou

Senior Member

11-04-2011

You are allowed to disagree, but youre still very wrong.

your arguement of top elo players are better? not necesarilly true. I know plenty of 1800+ skill level players stuck mucking about at 1400 because they are stuck. Theres so much luck involved with having to carry 4 other people

in addition i know there are plenty of players who have been carried upto higher elos and they dont belong there.

personally, im +75 w/l and i keep getting paired with other people that might as well not have wins.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Zeroksis

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

Member

11-04-2011

Well its good but I don't think that if you die you should get penalized! Because if you get ganked and have no other thing to do well its actually unfair! But nice system!


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MrSpaz

Senior Member

11-04-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdigibou View Post
You are allowed to disagree, but youre still very wrong.

your arguement of top elo players are better? not necesarilly true. I know plenty of 1800+ skill level players stuck mucking about at 1400 because they are stuck. Theres so much luck involved with having to carry 4 other people

in addition i know there are plenty of players who have been carried upto higher elos and they dont belong there.

personally, im +75 w/l and i keep getting paired with other people that might as well not have wins.
You tell us not to respond with anecdotes, but then you provide them for a great deal of your evidence.

Yes, there's luck involved with rising up the ranks, but not enough to completely and utterly halt an otherwise good player's progression. The system works over time -- if you're stuck at 1400 after a thousand games, chances are you haven't had a thousand games of completely bad luck. Chances are, you're a 1400-ranked player. I see people make this argument all the time -- "I am constantly carrying my games, yet I lose them." Well, maybe you aren't carrying hard enough. Maybe you're making mistakes that 1700+ players don't make. Maybe you aren't last-hitting well enough. Maybe a hundred other things that you're blind to because you're too busy focusing on the mistakes of your teammates.

If you want to convince me, get a significant data set of players that meet the following conditions:
-- Are ranked 1200-1400
-- Consistently play against/with high-ranked (1700+) players in custom games, objectively proving their worth
-- Have played a significant amount of games

If you provided me with a large amount of players that meet those conditions, I'd be more on your side here, because that would show objectively that these players are legitimately stuck in a bracket they don't deserve to be in, and that luck is actually halting their progress. But I don't believe such a data set exists. Right now, all evidence points to a generally working system. If anyone is getting consistently boned by matchmaking, they're the exception to the rule, the same way lottery winners are the exception to the rule.

I'm +120 w/l and I get paired up with total morons sometimes. It happens. Matchmaking isn't perfect -- but that's going to be no matter what system you use to rank players. You can't have perfect matchmaking; it's a logical impossibility in team games, no matter what metric you use to rank players.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

mdigibou

Senior Member

11-04-2011

I wouldnt need to provide anecdotes if your previous comments were any less elaborate that this one. I appreciate this moderately thought out reposte and ill answer as best as i can.

And to provide you with that sample size is impossible. I don't have the ability to acquire any of those statistics, i can only provide you with my own personal, limited experience. The problem with this is obvious, but I can say that my solution will not only improve my personal ranking, but the ranking of many other players who are significantly better than their ranking shows (or even moderately better, which is what this is aimed at). You also admit that there is luck involved in a competitive, ranked, ladder environment. This is my problem. Luck has no place in a competitive environment. If even one person has to deal with the outlier of 300 troll games in a row vs 300 games of enemy players being remotely competent then the system is busted.

For myself as an example. In about 75% of the games I play, i will have 70cs by 10m, maybe a kill, and will have assisted our jungler in achieving team objectives. I always buy my own wards, i always adjust my build to acommodate my enemy, I always try to guide and direct teammates who simply aren't as good as me. In that 75% of games where I am playing my lane well, solidly outplaying my enemy i will likely die less than once, and very likely get my tower before every other lane. During teamfights, my position will often reflect my role. I rarely get caught out of place (though it does happen, and it happens even in pro games as well so its not the biggest mistake although it is quite important later on). I have watched many pro games, and these goals are things that i find to be game winning objective marks. I try to focus more on my own gameplay than that of others, and i very much try hard to carry and win. I hate losing, especially when I don't deserve it. My stats don't even reflect what would be a good "personal score" under my own system, as by the time the enemy has achieved 2 inhibitors down in 23m and the team won't surrender its hard to not transfer from a 3-1-2 laning phase to a 3-5-3 end game score. You can't fight 2 fed lanes and a fed jungle by yourself unless theyre just not THAT fed.

Tl;dr. I perform better than every single person on my team during laning(its been a rare day when im outlaned in a real game), and often i perform very well during the teamfight section. I participate in team actions more often than most other teammates (besides maybe jungler/support). Why is it that my elo is the same level as the people that i consistently perform better than in solo queue? This is the problem with elo. If i am better than everyone around me, i should be placed in a higher bracket. having to "carry" someone SHOULDNT happen....ever. If my score is based on my teammates performance, it is flawed. Period.

you say you cant have perfect matchmaking, its a "logical impossibility". This is in your very limited opinion of how math, or even anything generally speaking works. It is possible, but the goal isn't perfection, its just "better". and ELO is a busted system for a team based game when the team isn't beginning its conception as a unit. This is just one step foward in a long evolution. But when you resist change by saying "you cant have it" then that's how you end up without atomic power, or maglev trains, or other incredibly amazing/occum's razor-esque things.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

mdigibou

Senior Member

11-04-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeroksis View Post
Well its good but I don't think that if you die you should get penalized! Because if you get ganked and have no other thing to do well its actually unfair! But nice system!
there are ways to play better to avoid being ganked. Sometimes you just die and it happens, but 90% of that time i guarantee there was a way out you just didn't see.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MrSpaz

Senior Member

11-05-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdigibou View Post
And to provide you with that sample size is impossible. I don't have the ability to acquire any of those statistics, i can only provide you with my own personal, limited experience.
My own personal, limited experience directly contradicts yours. Where are we now?

Quote:
my solution will not only improve my personal ranking, but the ranking of many other players who are significantly better than their ranking shows ... If even one person has to deal with the outlier of 300 troll games in a row vs 300 games of enemy players being remotely competent then the system is busted.
I disagree on both parts. Not only is there no guarantee that scores would be improved -- you simply can't make that claim without showing your system working -- but I also think that the current system, in which a very small outlier could possibly (not even guaranteed) suffer a lot of bad luck, is absolutely fine. That's the thing about luck -- over time, over a long set of games, it tends to balance back out.

Quote:
Very long anecdotal example
For myself as a counter-example: I've had my share of games that I could do absolutely nothing about, but they have been few and far between. Generally, mistakes I make carry weight, and good plays I make carry weight, enough to affect the game positively or negatively.

Quote:
This is the problem with elo. If i am better than everyone around me, i should be placed in a higher bracket. having to "carry" someone SHOULDNT happen....ever. If my score is based on my teammates performance, it is flawed. Period.
You are being ranked not only on your personal merit, but also the merit of you, as a player, on a team. You are capable -- even if it's in a limited capacity -- of making up for mistakes of your teammates. Again, I go back to what I said before: Generally speaking, the high-elo solo queue players are better than the people ranked below them. That is indicative of them generally playing better. Their actions carried more weight on their teams over time.

Quote:
you say you cant have perfect matchmaking, its a "logical impossibility". This is in your very limited opinion of how math, or even anything generally speaking works. It is possible, but the goal isn't perfection, its just "better".
I'm not sure you meant to say this quite how you said it -- you say that perfect matchmaking is possible, but then you change the subject and say that the goal isn't perfect matchmaking.

fyi, not that it has anything to do with the argument at hand, but please don't insult me -- my "limited opinion" of how math works is actually coming from twenty years of computer science work. :-) I stand by my opinion here -- in a game like this, perfect matchmaking is very much an impossibility. There will always be some aspect of it that your player base -- or at least some set of it -- isn't happy with, and there will always, always be games that players feel were bad matchups.

Quote:
and ELO is a busted system for a team based game when the team isn't beginning its conception as a unit. This is just one step foward in a long evolution. But when you resist change by saying "you cant have it" then that's how you end up without atomic power, or maglev trains, or other incredibly amazing/occum's razor-esque things.
Please don't compare technological advancements like these to a small part in the system of an online game. This is known as a Strawman argument: When you make the claim that I am arguing against something greater than the argument itself. It's inaccurate. I'm not trying to argue that improvement isn't good. It is. I'm trying to argue that the system that we have right now works just fine, that overhauling it in the hopes to improve it is unnecessary when your improvements aren't dramatic. The effort is not worth the reward. I'd rather see them devote more time to new content.

Also, you used Occam's Razor wrong.


1234567 ... 10