Can we please fix the ELO System already?

123
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

CredibleMushroom

Member

11-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amatzikahni View Post
The example is relevant because it shows that the system can be heavily abused. All you have to do is forcefully lose ~10 games duo queuing with different troll accounts, then slaughter noobs solo to get back to your rating and wait for the tribunal to give you a free 100+ Elo.
wouldn't it be easier to just win?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

namora

Senior Member

11-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alekseyev Karrde View Post
wouldn't it be easier to just win?
If you lose 10 game at 15 elo each with a duo smurf who you let afk/d/c, you've lost 150 elo. Then you have to win 10 games gaining 15 elo each, and you should receive 75 elo back. the total rewards from doing that is (lost 150, gained 225)75 elo at the cost of 20 games. or you can just win 5 games at 15 elo each.
So yeah, in retrospect, it seems it would be easier to just win.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Amatzikahni

Senior Member

11-29-2012

It would seem easier just to win except if you really belong at X elo and can't get enough lucky carries to get to X+100 Elo. Just tank your Elo by 200 points with trolls and win your way back up to X Elo and wait for the tribunal to get you to X+100 Elo. I'll make it more extreme if you don't understand. Say someone belongs at 1400 Elo. They queue with smurf trolls down to 700 Elo, then slaughter noobs all day to get back to ~1400 Elo. The tribunal will then boost them all the way up to 1850ish Elo even though they belong at 1400. A Silver player can get Plat even though he doesn't even deserve Gold. Yeah, the tribunal can easily spot these kinds of players, but that doesn't negate the fact that it's a flawed system and would create more work in monitoring these situations.

Also, I thank both of you for proving my point in a roundabout way. It IS much easier to just win a few games. The system proposed by EvilInuyasha and Alekseyev Karrde was only suggested because they COULD NOT win those few games—they believe that they are being pulled down by teammates and "bad luck" so harshly that they cannot win those few games. Therefore, the proposed system fails to deliver based on its purpose of implementation. Either you're: A) on a really unlucky streak that playing more will bring you out of, or B) denying the fact that you belong in your general Elo.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

namora

Senior Member

11-29-2012

Another suggestion would be to inhibit grouping of players of similar elo to the amount of games each player has played (I.e one player has played played 50 games and no other player has played less than 40 games or more than 60 games). The obvious flaw with this is that there will be a slightly longer queue time.

Yet another, more controversial suggestion is to rate players by their KDA as compared to their teammates(as such you will still be grouped with a team and lose or gain elo if your team loses or wins, the difference being that you'll lose less or gain more for player better than your teammates and vice versa you'll lose more and gain less for player worse than your teammates).

btw, amat, your initial point was that it would be easier to just win games. That initial point contradicts the example you gave to disprove the viability of a tribunal run system. It IS easier to just win a few games when there aren't(are not) trolls/leavers/afkers on either side of the field.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

gClips

Member

11-29-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowshifte View Post
the requests also come from really bad players who think it's the system and not their play that is holding them back.

you r bad


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

CredibleMushroom

Member

12-01-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amatzikahni View Post
It would seem easier just to win except if you really belong at X elo and can't get enough lucky carries to get to X+100 Elo. Just tank your Elo by 200 points with trolls and win your way back up to X Elo and wait for the tribunal to get you to X+100 Elo. I'll make it more extreme if you don't understand. Say someone belongs at 1400 Elo. They queue with smurf trolls down to 700 Elo, then slaughter noobs all day to get back to ~1400 Elo. The tribunal will then boost them all the way up to 1850ish Elo even though they belong at 1400. A Silver player can get Plat even though he doesn't even deserve Gold. Yeah, the tribunal can easily spot these kinds of players, but that doesn't negate the fact that it's a flawed system and would create more work in monitoring these situations.

Also, I thank both of you for proving my point in a roundabout way. It IS much easier to just win a few games. The system proposed by EvilInuyasha and Alekseyev Karrde was only suggested because they COULD NOT win those few games—they believe that they are being pulled down by teammates and "bad luck" so harshly that they cannot win those few games. Therefore, the proposed system fails to deliver based on its purpose of implementation. Either you're: A) on a really unlucky streak that playing more will bring you out of, or B) denying the fact that you belong in your general Elo.
I didn't say anything about my own Elo, in this thread or anywhere else. I'm actually pretty sure I'm close-ish to where I belong. Dismissing fixable flaws in the system because you feel those pointing them out are inferior is not a productive way to have this conversation.

Specific to your example, ok the 1400 player shoots up to 1850. By your reasoning of "everyone is at the elo they belong" he will drop down pretty quickly due to being outplayed. So it's an awful lot of work and burned smurf accounts (since the Tribunal would have to be issuing more than warnings for him to get any elo back) for a gain that would be temporary at best.

I am close-ish to where I belong. However my gameplay experience is frequently unsatisfying. It's entirely likely that low elo players like myself would remain low elo after a change. I'd argue that a players relative elo has no bearing on their reasonable expectation to enjoy their matches. Troll matches are either very annoying/frustrating or generally pretty meh.

I'd also argue that participants in a ranking system have the reasonable expectation that whatever their ranking, 800 or 2000, they got there because they earned it and that it goes up or down on the merits of your improvement.

I'm getting a sense this isn't the case at the mid/lower levels of the ranking, and those sincere players have just as much right to feel they've earned, and can with work improve, their rating as those at the top. If there's truely a belief that those players are where they deserve to be, high elo players derive no advantage from protecting toxic players from falling faster than the average/struggling players they torment.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Selcopa

Senior Member

12-01-2012

A 1400 elo player does not shoot up to 1850. Anything beyond +/- 200 elo is extremely rare and unlikely.

800 elo players believe they belong much higher, 2k players frequently believe they belong higher.

The suggested modification to the system is terrible. Its been discussed to death countless times always determined to be bad. I'm about to make a damn wiki that catalogs all the stupid suggestions this forum has come up with that get shot down on a weekly basis


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Amatzikahni

Senior Member

12-01-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by namora View Post
btw, amat, your initial point was that it would be easier to just win games. That initial point contradicts the example you gave to disprove the viability of a tribunal run system. It IS easier to just win a few games when there aren't(are not) trolls/leavers/afkers on either side of the field.
My example was to disprove illusion with fact. If someone feels that they belong higher but they're actually at their true Elo (illusion), then since almost everyone should be able to stomp people below them (fact), it wouldn't be hard for this player to tank his Elo with the proposed system and fight back to the Elo in which the player is "stuck" and await free tribunal Elo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alekseyev Karrde View Post
I didn't say anything about my own Elo, in this thread or anywhere else. I'm actually pretty sure I'm close-ish to where I belong. Dismissing fixable flaws in the system because you feel those pointing them out are inferior is not a productive way to have this conversation.
That was not my intention. I was pulling names based on who supported the proposed system and I should have worded my post differently. Sorry if that's how it came off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alekseyev Karrde View Post
Specific to your example, ok the 1400 player shoots up to 1850. By your reasoning of "everyone is at the elo they belong" he will drop down pretty quickly due to being outplayed. So it's an awful lot of work and burned smurf accounts (since the Tribunal would have to be issuing more than warnings for him to get any elo back) for a gain that would be temporary at best.
Again, this is exactly what my point is. If the player under the illusion does manage to get high by abusing the system, then they will continue to blame the system after they tank down to their true rating and we've solved nothing. However, one potential side effect of the proposed system is abuse with regard to rating qualifications at the end of the season. The abusers could get rewards higher than they deserve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alekseyev Karrde View Post
I am close-ish to where I belong. However my gameplay experience is frequently unsatisfying. It's entirely likely that low elo players like myself would remain low elo after a change. I'd argue that a players relative elo has no bearing on their reasonable expectation to enjoy their matches. Troll matches are either very annoying/frustrating or generally pretty meh.
I'm not addressing the fact that troll games are no fun (I think we can all agree that they aren't fun); I'm arguing that the proposed system has flaws that are greater than the current system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alekseyev Karrde View Post
I'd also argue that participants in a ranking system have the reasonable expectation that whatever their ranking, 800 or 2000, they got there because they earned it and that it goes up or down on the merits of your improvement.

I'm getting a sense this isn't the case at the mid/lower levels of the ranking, and those sincere players have just as much right to feel they've earned, and can with work improve, their rating as those at the top.
Most players are as you described; however, it would seem that many of the unhappy players are the ones posting on the forums and making suggestions on how to improve the system. There are exceptions of course, but I see a new "Elo Hell" thread practically every day. Indeed, players who are actively working to improve will go up in rating in accordance with their level of progression and those who are just playing for fun don't improve as fast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alekseyev Karrde View Post
If there's truely a belief that those players are where they deserve to be, high elo players derive no advantage from protecting toxic players from falling faster than the average/struggling players they torment.
I'm not protecting toxic players; I want them banned and much faster, but I don't believe that many people are "stuck" at a certain rating because of matchmaking giving them toxic players more frequently. It may be true in the short term (ten losses in a row isn't unheard of, and I've had worse), but it's true for the long term due to the law of averages. The problem is in determining how many games it would take someone to overcome a prolonged unlucky streak; I saw a thread that stated it would take ~721 games out to the ~fifth sigma (I don't recall the thread or the details but that's basically 1/1,000,000 players having this problem or fewer than fifty LoL players in existence), and more than half of all players will take something like ~140 games to reach their true rating.

I've been on these forums for a long time, and I have yet to see a suggestion for a workable system or an improvement to the current system; every suggestion I've seen would have a negative impact on the current system. If I could figure out a better system or see a suggestion that would improve the current system, I would persist until it gets a Red reply.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

CredibleMushroom

Member

12-02-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amatzikahni View Post
My example was to disprove illusion with fact. If someone feels that they belong higher but they're actually at their true Elo (illusion), then since almost everyone should be able to stomp people below them (fact), it wouldn't be hard for this player to tank his Elo with the proposed system and fight back to the Elo in which the player is "stuck" and await free tribunal Elo.

...

Again, this is exactly what my point is. If the player under the illusion does manage to get high by abusing the system, then they will continue to blame the system after they tank down to their true rating and we've solved nothing. However, one potential side effect of the proposed system is abuse with regard to rating qualifications at the end of the season. The abusers could get rewards higher than they deserve.
I can see what you're saying here. I'm not as confident as you that such a free-elo plan would work equally well at all Elo levels but it'd certainly be possible. As an earlier post pointed out, it'd be a lot of effort to work around the system for as much or less temporary gain than just playing normally would give you (probably with more permanency).

While i think that point holds, the end of year rewards is something I hadn't considered. There are specific times of year when an artificial temp boost of Elo above a certain threshold would come in handy and players might be unusually motivated to achieve this level by any means. I'm not sure how you fight that elegantly, but one way might be to suspend elo refunds at a certain point until those rewards are given out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amatzikahni View Post
That was not my intention. I was pulling names based on who supported the proposed system and I should have worded my post differently. Sorry if that's how it came off.
It's cool, and you're cool.

EDIT: I looked you up too. We're both 40 and 46 in ranked. What are the odds of that lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amatzikahni View Post
I'm not addressing the fact that troll games are no fun (I think we can all agree that they aren't fun); I'm arguing that the proposed system has flaws that are greater than the current system.
No system is without flaws, but I see little provision in the current one for a problem we both know exists. There could be improvements made. Now I'm not saying my solution offered here is a magic bullet, I was just trying to point out a potential low-barrier-of-effort way Riot could take steps against troll games in ranked play. If I think they're no fun, and you think they're no fun, the question then becomes what COULD be done to reduce the impact (or frequency of impact) of toxic players in ranked that there's low incentive for non-toxic players to abuse?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amatzikahni View Post
Most players are as you described; however, it would seem that many of the unhappy players are the ones posting on the forums and making suggestions on how to improve the system. There are exceptions of course, but I see a new "Elo Hell" thread practically every day. Indeed, players who are actively working to improve will go up in rating in accordance with their level of progression and those who are just playing for fun don't improve as fast.
I think it's natural that unhappy players would be the ones most vocal about attention being needed. That's generally the way things work heh. And I'll go one step further and say that no amount of changes will please everybody; no matter what you do there will be people complaining. But we can separate that fact from the substance of the complaints and see if there's merit.

"I'm frustrated with elo because every match the other team picks Jax and he's OP" is (at least I'd hope) obviously to be ignored. Champions all have counters, Riot is always balancing, and you could always pick that champion.

But if we can agree that toxic players are not to be protected and games with them arn't fun, repeated threads of "I'm frustrated with elo because I had 1-2 troll players in all of my seed games and now I cant seem to play more than two games in a row without them" might indicate a problem worth solving. Riot and the community knows these players exist and that they're a problem (Tribunal, honor system, etc), a logical step would be taking that into account in some way.

If your team has a feeder or other trolling behavior, how much can you reasonably learn from that game? You can improve your mechanics (last hitting perhaps) but from my observations (a little under 1k games i think, most of that in the low elo range) mostly you learn how to be frustrated, that the LoL community is ****, and that ones team will implode at the slightest sign of trouble. If the other team has a toxic players, what are you learning? That snowballing is fun and it's easy to split push when the other team has 4 payers. Not all the time, but a lot of the time.

You mention it taking over 140 games to reach your "true" elo. Keeping in mind that the time it takes to play 140 games of LoL is about how long it would take to get professional certifications, it becomes easier to see the source of the frustration at the lower end of the rankings when most of your games unfold as I described.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amatzikahni View Post
I'm not protecting toxic players; I want them banned and much faster, but I don't believe that many people are "stuck" at a certain rating because of matchmaking giving them toxic players more frequently.
Thing is, toxic players have either a low or dropping elo (fact, since they're causing their team to lose a lot matches). Ranking system exists to match you up with players of a certain elo ranking. Thus, on average, the lower your elo is below 1300 (just under the "unrated" elo range if i understand right) the higher your chances of being in the mix with toxic players. This is why, above their normal human pride feeling they should be rated higher than they are,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amatzikahni View Post
I've been on these forums for a long time, and I have yet to see a suggestion for a workable system or an improvement to the current system; every suggestion I've seen would have a negative impact on the current system. If I could figure out a better system or see a suggestion that would improve the current system, I would persist until it gets a Red reply.
Try your hand at it? It would be a refreshing change to have leadership against toxic players coming from high elo players and being embraced by the community instead of rage against toxic players from the community getting dismissed by high elo players.

It might also actually get something done and be good enough to earn that Red post I think we'd both like.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

KCIV4

Senior Member

12-02-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Selcopa View Post
Universal tip: figure out what you do wrong(usually by watching your replays but also watching streams help) and fix it.

Gain elo

this is just ignorant..... if he plays 100% perfectly its still ONLY 1/5 of the team.

ELO hell statistically exists with the system in place right now. BUT only for a specific amout of time. if elo exists for 50 games. then after 150 you will be out of it. the odds of being in hell for 50elo and then again after 150 games is virtually .0039

ALSO EDIT they are changing rank ques and ranking system for s3 if i am correct.


123