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 is any elo under 1700 elo considered "low elo"?

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

the Pubstarr

Recruiter

11-14-2012

Quote:
AlphariusRising:
It really is amusing to see people ignore somebody's opinion based on their elo. "Omg you don't play ranked, therefore when you say that Hecarim is a jungler, you are wrong!"


I don't know any decent player who would ever even say this.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Boats

Senior Member

11-14-2012

Quote:
Ðucktales:
whats the current decay rate? is it significant or is it so minimal it doesnt matter


I quit playing for almost 6 months. Came back and only lost like 30 elo.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

chaser676

Senior Member

11-14-2012

Quote:
Ðucktales:
whats the current decay rate? is it significant or is it so minimal it doesnt matter

25 elo a week.


Quote:
Old Man Boats:
I quit playing for almost 6 months. Came back and only lost like 30 elo.

It stops decaying at 1399


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

FOODFOOD

Senior Member

11-14-2012

In my opinion, if you're better than 50% of the playerbase, you're an above average player.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Boats

Senior Member

11-14-2012

Quote:
chaser676:
25 elo a week.



It stops decaying at 1399


Ahh that explains it


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

chaser676

Senior Member

11-14-2012

Quote:
FOODFOOD:
In my opinion, if you're better than 50% of the playerbase, you're an above average player.


What is the 50% mark? 1100?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Awdsone

Member

11-14-2012

probably bc in the 1500s u still have ad carries rushing tri force with no dorans, lee sins building tri force, or mids that don't ward.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

KirbyCake

Senior Member

11-14-2012

Because it's like people still don't know how to play the game until 1800 level
If you know how to ward, last hit, and have an idea about lane control, you're automatically plat elo leveled.

No joke, my mechanical skills are like on a 1k elo level while my strategy and theorectical knowledge of the game is like 2.8k elo.
But since I know how to ward, last hit, and knowing when to push the lane, that is good enough mechanical wise and then my dominant strategy decides the game.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Minute 31

Senior Member

11-14-2012

The thing is, you start at 1200 elo, so gold is now only 300 elo away from start. Anything below 1200 means you actually lost elo by playing, and if you put in even a small amount of effort over an extended period of time you could easily hit 1700-1800, which is where I think most players would probably stop rising if they worked at it.

Beyond 1800 is when you separate those better than the rest, and when you hit 2300-2500 you start to see people who practice and actually put thought into the game instead of following an accepted meta and learning the 'right' way to play a champ.

So that is why I think anything below 1700 is low elo, because anyone should be able to work their way to at least 1700 if they put the effort in.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Gun Pierson

Senior Member

11-14-2012

My main account is on euro where I ended 1434 and even though I was gold for a while I'm proud. I'm happy to be within the 10%, if bronze is still top 25% ofcourse. It's all in the eye of the beholder. Someone who has 2800-3000 elo might consider 2000 low elo lol.

To me everything above 1200 is certainly not low elo. It might look that way when you just look at the numbers and compare with over 2000, but that's a flawed view. You need to look at the bigger picture.