wRAthoFVuLK wrote:
So you are saying, if you consistently get unlucky and get with **** teams, people who AFK, ragers, but you do well and still lose, you suck?
Yes.
And, directly because of them, you deserve to be seen by others as being bad because you have a lower ELO?
Bloofyre wrote:
May a squadron of beautiful vaginas find their way to your crotch by day's end.
Thanks to TRUeLM, Plastictree, Scrax, Xiaowiriamu, foggy12, JahGFX, jhoijhoi, msrobinson, JEFFY40HANDS, Nyoike, MissMaw, and me :) for the sigs!
It's funny how you said "reading is pr0" but you obviously didn't read my post.
"There are things you can do to HELP feeders, for example; gank their lane for them.
Call MIA's from other lanes if they aren't doing it themselves.
WIN YOUR LANE (I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH) people complain about the jungler not ganking? Ok well you're losing a 1v1/2v2 it means you're bad."
"There are things you can do to HELP feeders, for example; gank their lane for them.
Call MIA's from other lanes if they aren't doing it themselves.
WIN YOUR LANE (I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH) people complain about the jungler not ganking? Ok well you're losing a 1v1/2v2 it means you're bad."
Australians, the best gamers in the world combined with the worst ping.
wRAthoFVuLK wrote:
And, directly because of them, you deserve to be seen by others as being bad because you have a lower ELO?
Yes because if you can't act as a catalyst to the noobs' success then it's on you that you lost the game. You should be winning your lane and as you're winning your lane win your partners' lanes. Get them fed along with yourself and in the end you'll just win due to your own skill. If your teammates ****ing suck well do something about it.
DocSmoothJew
<Member>
<Member>
That is the most absurd point of view ever. Your teammates suck so make them better. That's like, your squad all has pistols and you're the dude with an M249; here's 30s, upgrade their pistols to assault rifles or you deserve to die in combat.
If you gank their lanes and they end up say 3:4 instead of 0:4 that's great, but what happens come teamfight time? Their complete lack of skill will still end up losing you teamfights unless they happen to be complete right-click champs AND the enemy team doesn't focus their stupid ***es. But remind me how many complete right-click champs we have in this game? Oh, just about ZERO you say? Don't get me wrong; that's a good thing, but the only way to have a complete noob do well in teamfights just from you saving their lane is for them to be a right-click to win champ.
Just for those of you that haven't read much on the topic of Elo it's 'Elo' not "ELO". It's the inventor's last name; not an acronym.
There's really not room for debate here, Elo in LoL is based on luck of teams you get or you just start out with a team. The only way I would consider Elo viable would be as a rating for a team (max of say 3 substitutes). Then you at least have it accounting for a team's performance rather than one player's performance. Basically, I'd consider solo queue ratings to be completely inaccurate and a premade rating could be accurate assuming you've picked yourself some teammates with a similar level of dedication to the game and similar skill level.
If you gank their lanes and they end up say 3:4 instead of 0:4 that's great, but what happens come teamfight time? Their complete lack of skill will still end up losing you teamfights unless they happen to be complete right-click champs AND the enemy team doesn't focus their stupid ***es. But remind me how many complete right-click champs we have in this game? Oh, just about ZERO you say? Don't get me wrong; that's a good thing, but the only way to have a complete noob do well in teamfights just from you saving their lane is for them to be a right-click to win champ.
Just for those of you that haven't read much on the topic of Elo it's 'Elo' not "ELO". It's the inventor's last name; not an acronym.
There's really not room for debate here, Elo in LoL is based on luck of teams you get or you just start out with a team. The only way I would consider Elo viable would be as a rating for a team (max of say 3 substitutes). Then you at least have it accounting for a team's performance rather than one player's performance. Basically, I'd consider solo queue ratings to be completely inaccurate and a premade rating could be accurate assuming you've picked yourself some teammates with a similar level of dedication to the game and similar skill level.
lol you say that like you get bad teams game after game, what about bad teams on the opposing side? Oh no they are all 2k elo smurfs ofc silly me lol. Not true at all. It's as simple as "If you're good you'll rise (albeit slowly if you get bad teams) if you're bad you'll drop.
Also, Wraths points are COMPLETELY moot. He says he can't carry bad people ok, let's look at his ARRANGED 5s rating, oh ok 9 losses, how many wins? 0. Ok. Was that because of random scrubs too?
Not sure about you Mr. Smooth but if you haven't played many Ranked games you can't talk about Elo hell.
Also, Wraths points are COMPLETELY moot. He says he can't carry bad people ok, let's look at his ARRANGED 5s rating, oh ok 9 losses, how many wins? 0. Ok. Was that because of random scrubs too?
Not sure about you Mr. Smooth but if you haven't played many Ranked games you can't talk about Elo hell.
JHOIJHOI IS THE BESTEST PERSON IN THE WHOLE WORLD AND THIS SIG IS AMAZING TY <3
Holy **** don't drag me into this bro.
I told you guys 100s of times about my ranked.
Right when I turned 30 I played some ranked matches with some friends, we all just turned 30, we wanted to see how it went, we did horrible in all of them. That was half a year ago +.
Seriously, don't bring in things about other people you don't know about. That is just stupid.
I told you guys 100s of times about my ranked.
Right when I turned 30 I played some ranked matches with some friends, we all just turned 30, we wanted to see how it went, we did horrible in all of them. That was half a year ago +.
Seriously, don't bring in things about other people you don't know about. That is just stupid.
Thanks to TRUeLM, Plastictree, Scrax, Xiaowiriamu, foggy12, JahGFX, jhoijhoi, msrobinson, JEFFY40HANDS, Nyoike, MissMaw, and me :) for the sigs!
DocSmoothJew
<Member>
<Member>
Adon, you clearly see this as purely about Elo hell when it's not. It's about the basic concept of Elo as a rating in a team game. Which as I stated (not up for debate), valid for teams !valid for individuals.
The argument supporters of Elo from HoN to LoL use is completely lacking logic. I've seen what you just posted over and over: "If you're good you'll rise (albeit slowly if you get bad teams) if you're bad you'll drop." That is just dodging the issue which is Elo is a rating for a 1v1 game where you choose what level of competition you enter and Elo applied to HoN, LoL, etc. is being used as a rating for an individual who has no say in who their teammates are and what level of competition they're entering. It's a bit like a football manager getting hired and not being allowed to make any trades and then the owners yelling at him for them ending up at the lower end of the rankings at season's end.
The argument supporters of Elo from HoN to LoL use is completely lacking logic. I've seen what you just posted over and over: "If you're good you'll rise (albeit slowly if you get bad teams) if you're bad you'll drop." That is just dodging the issue which is Elo is a rating for a 1v1 game where you choose what level of competition you enter and Elo applied to HoN, LoL, etc. is being used as a rating for an individual who has no say in who their teammates are and what level of competition they're entering. It's a bit like a football manager getting hired and not being allowed to make any trades and then the owners yelling at him for them ending up at the lower end of the rankings at season's end.
You've been "in this" for 3 pages now, spewing nonsense you obviously have no clue about.
EDIT(DocSmooth ninja'd ahead of me): How is it lacking logic? The only thing holding people back is amount of games they can play/how much time they have. It doesn't matter if you get feeders/afkers or whatever because chances are, you'll be against them next game. I understand what you mean about individual rating against team rating but you realise that matchmaking gives you the fairest possible match up right?
EDIT(DocSmooth ninja'd ahead of me): How is it lacking logic? The only thing holding people back is amount of games they can play/how much time they have. It doesn't matter if you get feeders/afkers or whatever because chances are, you'll be against them next game. I understand what you mean about individual rating against team rating but you realise that matchmaking gives you the fairest possible match up right?
Australians, the best gamers in the world combined with the worst ping.
You need to log in before commenting.
<Altruistic Artist>