ELO hell - explanation that shows that BOTH sides of the argument are correct

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Xenyd04

Junior Member

08-22-2013

Hey guys, this is actually my first post on the forum but I felt like I had some knowledge that could help bring together both sides on the issue of ELO hell.

People describe ELO hell as a range of ELO where no matter how well they play, they can't win enough games to raise their ELO enough to get out of it because they constantly lose games because of their teammates. When it comes to discussing ELO hell I feel like there's 2 main camps on either side The ELO hell believers who say that they can't get out of ELO hell no matter what and the ELO hell nonbelievers who say "you need to get better etc etc". After playing a ton of LOL I've discovered that both sides are right.

So let's look at the 2 main points of the ELO hell theory and dissect them.

1. ELO hell is a range of ELO where a player is constantly losing because of others.
2. ELO hell is a range of ELO where a player cannot get out of a certain range no matter how well they play.

I think the ELO hell believers are correct on the first point and the ELO hell nonbelievers are correct on the second point.

I've played in ELO's ranging from 800 to 1700 and I can say that there are distinct differences with each range. In games ranging from 800-1200, there are many games where losses can be attributed to one single person. We've all been in games where one horrible player singlehandedly lost the game for the entire team. At higher ELO's (1500-1700), it is less likely for one feeder to throw a game alone. Most games at these ELO's are decided by more subtle interactions such as team fight outcomes, objective control, ward placement, etc. So it doesn't feel like one person is losing the game for an entire team. So on this point, ELO hell believers are absolutely correct. There is a "hell range" of ELO where you are more likely to lose the game because one person screwed you.

However, ELO hell nonbelievers are absolutely correct when they say that it is totally possible to get out of that range. Many posts have been written about self examination of one's own skill level and how to be honest with yourself and how to improve your skill level and they are all correct. The problem with most of those posts is that they simply disregard the existence of ELO hell and act like every ELO range is exactly the same, when in truth they are not. I think a more realistic assessment is to say that, yes it is possible to climb out of ELO hell, but it will be a LONG and HARD path filled with a lot of tough losses where you play well and lose because of a teammate. Because at the end of the day it is far easier for one person to lose a game than it is for one person to carry a game.

So I think that both sides of the ELO hell debate are absolutely correct. "ELO hell" does exist, however it is not impossible to climb out of it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Mace Tryndu

Senior Member

08-22-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenyd04 View Post
1. ELO hell is a range of ELO where a player is constantly losing because of others.
2. ELO hell is a range of ELO where a player cannot get out of a certain range no matter how well they play.
1: This happens at all levels of ranked play. There are some games that, given your current skill, are unwinnable or unlosable. GIVEN YOUR SKILL is the important part.

2: "no matter how well they play" is the problem with the theory. I'm currently bronze 1 @ 90LP and I'm sure a challenger level player could carry 99% or more of all my games. That being said I would think the closest thing to "elo hell" would be the inability to carry yourself out of division 1 or any ranking because you're not "better enough" than all the other players. For example: I would imagine a silver, gold, plat, diamond player who belongs in divisions maybe 5 to low 3 would have a hard time carrying out of division 1 the next bracket down. I'm not saying they couldn't or that they couldn't simply improve just that there are scenarios where it is possible that it be very difficult to reach your "true" elo.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kryptich

Member

08-22-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mace Tryndu View Post
That being said I would think the closest thing to "elo hell" would be the inability to carry yourself out of division 1 or any ranking because you're not "better enough" than all the other players.
This is right on. If you are in a league many levels below your own skill, you will be able carry yourself up at least a few divisions because of the clear dominance you will be able to establish but as you get closer and closer to your "true ranking" it will become more difficult to move up levels because you are not as much of a difference maker. However ... f you played for long enough (i.e. thousands of games) then statistically you would still get there.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Mace Tryndu

Senior Member

08-22-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kryptich View Post
However ... f you played for long enough (i.e. thousands of games) then statistically you would still get there.
Agreed. I feel my own experience is a good example of this. I started ranked as a BRAND new level 30 and got placed into silver 3. I stopped playing for a while due to RL stuff and returned to find I was in Bronze 1 as they had implemented inactivity demotions.

Long story short I'm aware that I'm not a very good player but despite my being better than most in Bronze 1, or so I feel, I'm not always good enough to capitalize or carry games.

Bronze 1 @ 90LP... SILVER OR BUST.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Jackedup86

Junior Member

08-22-2013

Here is why I do not beleive in ELO Hell.

So lets say your are a superior player than "ELO Hell" players. This means that when the teams are created you are randomly assigned 4 players from your general ELO lvl and the enemy team is made up of 5 players of your current ELO level. This means that you have a 20% less chance of being assigned a terrible player than the enemy team since your spot is taken by a relitively skilled player.

So if you have a 20% chance not to have a terrible player and a 100% chance of having a superior player (you) on your team your "Chances" of victory should be far better than the enemy team each game. Thus statistically the more games you play the more wins you will earn. The more wins you earn the higher your ELO should be thus moving you out of "ELO Hell".

If your wins are averaging around 50% then it is statistically impossible for you to be more skilled than your fellow players. Every player has their weak areas and as you work on them and close these gaps in your play you will move up in ELO. Stating that other players are you problem can be correct in isolated cases but is entirely wrong for a large game pool.

-Jackedup86


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Xenyd04

Junior Member

08-23-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackedup86 View Post
Here is why I do not beleive in ELO Hell.

So lets say your are a superior player than "ELO Hell" players. This means that when the teams are created you are randomly assigned 4 players from your general ELO lvl and the enemy team is made up of 5 players of your current ELO level. This means that you have a 20% less chance of being assigned a terrible player than the enemy team since your spot is taken by a relitively skilled player.

So if you have a 20% chance not to have a terrible player and a 100% chance of having a superior player (you) on your team your "Chances" of victory should be far better than the enemy team each game. Thus statistically the more games you play the more wins you will earn. The more wins you earn the higher your ELO should be thus moving you out of "ELO Hell".

If your wins are averaging around 50% then it is statistically impossible for you to be more skilled than your fellow players. Every player has their weak areas and as you work on them and close these gaps in your play you will move up in ELO. Stating that other players are you problem can be correct in isolated cases but is entirely wrong for a large game pool.

-Jackedup86
I agree with you that moving up from any ELO range is possible due to the reasons that you described. But I also believe that there are ELO ranges where you face more "unwinable" games than others. For example, you might have 2 out of 10 unwinable games in the 1500-1700 range, but have 4 out of 10 unwinable games in the 800-1200 range. In both situations you can win more than 50% of your games and advance, but in the second example it would be slightly more frustrating. My poiny is that extremely frustrating ranges of ELO do in fact exist. However, it is NOT impossible to get out of them.

p.s. - Losing evenly matched games where no one player obviously loses it for the team can be frustrating as well, but I don't think it's on the same level as having one really bad player making a game unwinable.