JMastiff
<Member>
<Member>
Everytime this **** comes up I just think of any normal sport that was on this world for a long time.
There is no tradition or people that share their experience like a coach would do so you really could focus on your part or a referee that would punish wrong behavior instantly. There are no real-world requirements. All is juxtaposed with artificial system that is insufficient to do the job that is inherently human.
There is another problem with the standard of the game - a constant change of rules that kind of resets the evolution everytime the change occurs. But that's a different topic also connected to the previous one.
Long story short - system is flawed. I consider solo/duo ELO as much important as my normal W/L ratio.
Get a team and do it the right way.
PS. Forgive the response here. Don't have NA account.
There is no tradition or people that share their experience like a coach would do so you really could focus on your part or a referee that would punish wrong behavior instantly. There are no real-world requirements. All is juxtaposed with artificial system that is insufficient to do the job that is inherently human.
There is another problem with the standard of the game - a constant change of rules that kind of resets the evolution everytime the change occurs. But that's a different topic also connected to the previous one.
Long story short - system is flawed. I consider solo/duo ELO as much important as my normal W/L ratio.
Get a team and do it the right way.
PS. Forgive the response here. Don't have NA account.
Err o_o
It's a team game, you aren't rewarded 100% for individual skill.
That's a silly notion, and the metric for individual skill is wonky at best.
The next best thing is the ability to win, despite your team.
That is what ELO signifies, your ability to win no matter your team.
The system is not flawed, you view of the system is flawed.
It's a team game, you aren't rewarded 100% for individual skill.
That's a silly notion, and the metric for individual skill is wonky at best.
The next best thing is the ability to win, despite your team.
That is what ELO signifies, your ability to win no matter your team.
The system is not flawed, you view of the system is flawed.
Tri lane for life.
I wouldnt go that far. There are flaws to the system. But no system which focuses on team play can be perfect because there are trolls amongst other things. A game like cod is able to focus on individual performance within a team. But lol is unable to do so because the team is so heavily reliant on each member. Or thats my opinion.
JEFFY40HANDS wrote:
I wouldnt go that far. There are flaws to the system. But no system which focuses on team play can be perfect because there are trolls amongst other things. A game like cod is able to focus on individual performance within a team. But lol is unable to do so because the team is so heavily reliant on each member. Or thats my opinion.
NO, THERE ARE NOT FLAWS.
Okay, trolls, leavers, dc's, and feeders.
What happens when you have a team and it's 3 feeders a leaver, and you vs 5 decent players?
You lose.
What happens to them?
They Win.
Net of 0 elo.
Now, the thing is, that you have an equal chance to be on either team.
So, if we assume either team has an equal chance of having feeders/whatever, and we also assume that you have an equal chance to be on each team, then we can conclude that you have an equal chance of getting feeders, or feeders being on the other team.
With this conclusion, we can draw a second conclusion, that for the sake of ELO, trolls do not matter because they aren't some crazy uncountable thing, and that there should be no adjustment made, as you have an equal chance of being trolled, or killing the other team's trolls.
What trolls/leavers/dc's/feeders DO to affect YOUR ELO, is they make the number of games required to reach your target ELO higher.
CoD.
Call of Duty is a game with a metric of kills.
Call of Duty CAN NOT quantify your individual performance in a game of Domination, or even Capture the Flag or Search and Destroy, because those all have very complicated metrics to measure in order to accurately measure individual play.
LoL is unable to do so, because it's not trying.
ELO in LoL has never been a measure of "Personal Skill", it's always been a measure of "can i win games, no matter my team?".
Some people also fall into the false sense of "oh i played well and i was punished THIS GAME, this system is broken.". Well yes, if you played 6/1, and your team played 1/27 collectively, you are going to lose.
ELO is a sift, instead of an elevator.
Anyone can climb into an elevator, but it takes work, and skill to climb through a sift.
Tri lane for life.
ZioSerpe
<Member>
<Member>
Temzilla wrote:
Err o_o
It's a team game, you aren't rewarded 100% for individual skill.
That's a silly notion, and the metric for individual skill is wonky at best.
The next best thing is the ability to win, despite your team.
That is what ELO signifies, your ability to win no matter your team.
The system is not flawed, you view of the system is flawed.
You can't say it's a team game then say you should be able to win despite your team, it's nonsense.
If Elo hurted you less for loss you played good in and less for wins you didn't contribuite in a good way to it would surely be better.
I can see how that is not hard to make happen, but seriusly, Riot pays people to balance the game. It's their job, and they should come up with something sooner or later.
For all you questions about jungling
yes Mr smartypants click on the signature
TheJohn
<Editor>
<Editor>
This system should be divided in two parts:
1. when you are in a low ELO, the game judges you and only you. If you are a good player, you'll be going up and the bad ones/trolls/leavers/rages are going down
2. In higher ELOs, you'll have the best players of each role, then you can judge the whole team
Another thing:
People are too idiot, the player is only good if he/she has a high ELO. If you see a person with 1000 ELO, you automatically thinks that human is bad or kind of good, and thats not always true.
Judging people by the ELO system is a mistake
1. when you are in a low ELO, the game judges you and only you. If you are a good player, you'll be going up and the bad ones/trolls/leavers/rages are going down
2. In higher ELOs, you'll have the best players of each role, then you can judge the whole team
Another thing:
People are too idiot, the player is only good if he/she has a high ELO. If you see a person with 1000 ELO, you automatically thinks that human is bad or kind of good, and thats not always true.
Judging people by the ELO system is a mistake
JMastiff
<Member>
<Member>
Good god, Temzil :/
I kind of can't understand what your point is. You say ELO is fine but our view is flawed? It's kinda conformist. I'll underline important things to make sure it's clear.
The view isn't flawed. The idea to use two-side skill evaluation system to matchmake 10 players and draw conclusions from that is. It doesn't make your journey to high elo longer - it's about as bad as rng based, like one team getting whole lot of advantage even before the game begins, therefore not reliable in any possible way and signifies luck at best when it comes to duo/solo Q (and simply not fun).
I kind of can't understand what your point is. You say ELO is fine but our view is flawed? It's kinda conformist. I'll underline important things to make sure it's clear.
The view isn't flawed. The idea to use two-side skill evaluation system to matchmake 10 players and draw conclusions from that is. It doesn't make your journey to high elo longer - it's about as bad as rng based, like one team getting whole lot of advantage even before the game begins, therefore not reliable in any possible way and signifies luck at best when it comes to duo/solo Q (and simply not fun).
You need to log in before commenting.
Just this. There's nothing more to be said