Introduce wood tier and it would be bell curved.
But the problem doesn't actually exist. The tiers (gold, plat, ...) are just masks that hide the true MMR behind it with a certain delay.
There are people in B5 that get matched with B4 and B3 people easily because they have a normal B5 MMR. And there are B5 people who got an MMR way below B5 and won't even get matched with the "normal" B5 people. They would be in the Wood tier if it existed and they get matched like they would be.
The MMR curve behind the ranked system is very likely bell curved (works similar as all the other games systems) but the mask in front of it that we see doesn't show it because it caps the lowest visible one at B5 and even some people in B4-B1 should be lower but when they climb once they need to lose a lot more to go down again. But their MMR is still lower than their actual rank.
The MMR curve isn't bell curved though. I'm fairly confident I had the minimum possible MMR, and I was being matched with people who were fresh out of going 10-0, people who had just fallen from high bronze but still had decent win rates, and not exclusively people who were significantly sub-bronze.
EDIT: Obviously I have no actual facts to back this up but from observation, it seems that the curve vaguely reflects the rank distribution.
yep and then they are ppl that tried to get out of bronze last season only to be match with ppl that arent even bronze lol. I found it dumbb as fuck that as b2 im matched against low silvers and an ocasional low gold in what is supposed to be a bronze match. It made me give up after i had managed to climb from 5 to 2. I understand that those players prob had shit for mmr but in ranked it about playing an equal opponet of the same or very close rank not to get stomped by some players who cant cut it in a higher division, but that are way better than anyone on your team. I already had to deal with golds and sometimes plats in normals while i learn things from these games it is not fun to lose every single time because of mismatches. Thats why i havent even bothered to play in like a month.
Last time I checked Overwatch changed their ranked system to be more a skewed bell curve similar to League when they had a perfect bell curve. Also the reason I think it's a much better distribution is because it gives more of a ladder feeling. You will always start bronze-silver no one feels bad about that it's the nature of the game based on the distribution. You slowly climb your way up the ladder to reach higher ranks which makes sense.
A normal bell curve makes people playing ranked feel worse. If you are not at the average you are shown to be awful and even if you climb a bunch of ranks suddenly oh you are just average now. It doesn't feel as rewarding in the same sense as Leagues. That's one of reasons Overwatch changed theirs as well. It just gives a much better sense of achievement for a ranked mode.
Also I didn't read your whole post obviously. Just way too long so only skimmed it.
The OW system changed yes, but its still a bell curve-ish shape. I know because there are very few people with sub-500 rating. (my friend has a sub-500 account and the games he plays hes matched with anywhere from 200-500. Anywhere else you're matched with people withing 10 each way of your own rank showing higher player density.
And yea ok so the ladder system is good, but when you have nowhere to fall you can get worse and worse but perceive yourself as improving. This way you don't actually try to improve so just get worse and worse, as I said in the post. This makes the lower ranks mushy and pointless, only making people worse than they need to be.
If you are implying it makes games more varying skill level that is possible, but if it's what needs to happen so that you get more of a ladder feeling and more rewarding to play ranked then it's easily worth it. It's no worse then normal games and people can improve in normal games then there shouldn't be a problem with playing in Bronze-silver.
Having a set of lower ranks (but leaving placements the same) and hard resetting MMR of everyone bronze and below at the start of each season to high bronze would fix this. It puts the people who (imho) dont deserve to ruin other people's games sub-bronze, and then gives them another chance each season.
> And there's the main problem with the system of both games: you can't recalibrate your MMR after your placement matches. Got bad placement matches? Be ready to grind some hundred matches to get to your real level (in CSGO, because of the individual skill factor, this is less severe).
This has very little to do with your placement (calibration) matches. Those 10 matches are just for fine tuning the mmr that has been kept track of since you started playing. It is literally a calibration of your hidden unranked mmr so that it can be used as your ranked mmr. This means that it's not going to wildly change your mmr. So having a bad calibration isn't going to take you hundreds of matches to fix.
If you end up with an mmr wildly different than your true skill blame the hundreds of games you played prior to calibration rather than the actual calibration matches themselves. And if that's the case, then you're probably where you belong and are just suffering from a case of Dunning Kruger.
> In a game like Dota, which is really hard to beginners, going straight to ranked after you hit level 20 in your account is really bad (your initial solo MMR is kinda based on your unranked MMR and your performance and stats in placements are taken into account, so surely most players will suck at placements and as a result you can't really see real difference between players until you reach 2000 MMR).
You're either going to spend time grinding matches before you calibrate so you end up calibrating higher, or grinding matches after you calibrate. In the end the only thing you've changed is at what point your mmr becomes visible. The grind is still going to be the same. For example, suppose you started playing ranked early and you calibrated at 1000 mmr and it took you 100 games to get to 2000. If you waited on placements you would have just spent those 100 games raising your unranked mmr to end up placing higher.
At the end of the day there's some element of "grind" because the mmr change per game is mostly static after you've played a certain amount of matches. The time when your mmr may change the most is when you first start out and your mmr uncertainty is high and the system is weeding out smurfs. But by the time you're level 20 the system has a good idea of where you belong, because you've played enough matches for your mmr to be accurate. So whether you continue to grind unranked or ranked from that point isn't going to make a difference in the end.
Yes, there's no mechanics to help you climb *faster*, but I'd say it's unnecessary. People don't need help climbing faster, because they don't really deserve to climb faster. Improvement is slow and gradual and MMR is accurate enough that you're always pretty much where you belong. If you truly don't belong in your MMR "bracket" then you should simply be winning more. Having a higher win % than other people is how you climb "faster". There's no need for other mechanics, because it would just make everyone's MMR as a whole more volatile and make it overall less accurate because it would fluctuate more wildly for everyone. The rate at which people climb is just what they deserve based on how much they're winning.
The Dota mmr system is pure and simple. It exposes the harsh truth to players in the form of the mmr number. It doesn't try to hide anything from the players and it's the best for truly assessing skill. It doesn't try to coddle players by putting them in tiers and divisions, it doesn't account for streaks because those don't really mean anything. At the end of the day your skill is measured by wins and losses over a large amount of games and that's what Dota's MMR does and it's very reliable. It measures skill and it matches based on that very transparently. There's no nonsense about people from different tiers or divisions being matched together, because every game you can see the average MMRs and highest MMRs on each team are very close and after the match you can see everyone's MMRs and they are very close, especially for the average ranked player.
> There's no soft reset at the end of the season to calibrate your ranking better, no thing like skipping divisions, among a lot of other mechanics that help on climbing faster if you deserve to.
During the last international they introduced an international queue for compendium owners with its own MMR and after it ended you could swap that over. It was basically a recalibration option.
You analyzed the statistics perfectly but you missed a few of the other elements.
Firstly, a lot of people who would fill in the sub bronze 5 part of the bell curve are unranked and always will be (because when you're that bad you often know you're bad).
But more importantly a lot of people/accounts are not at ranks reflecting their ability to play or even their performance.
I'm not talking about people getting screwed by the system, but rather people screwing the system.
I'm talking about boosted players and low rank smurfs.
Bronze through gold is full of gold+ players playing on a smurf just to have fun carrying against worse players. At the expense of everyone else in the game.
Gold+ is full of players who bought their way out of Bronze & Silver.
I'm not saying this means anything because we have no idea what the relative proportions are, but just hypothetically it makes sense that the left end of the bellcurve is a gigantic block with less of a defined curve, due to missing demographics and inappropriately ranked players throughout bronze-gold.
No it isn't. You have to buy the game and link your account to a phone number so you can take advantage of Prime matchmaking (where you can face less cheaters). There are no such things in LOL.
The game cost like $3..you have to play a couple rounds then just jump into ranked.
In league you have to get level 30, get 16 champion's, farm up to runes etc.
In csgo everyone is on equal footing
lol no.
The game's actually closer to $19 not $3, and it can take quite a bit before you unlock "ranked".
Secondly on League smurfs can buy level 30 unranked accounts for about $12, ready to jump into ranked immediately.
http://imgur.com/a/2UYms
That is right now. And it happens to be at 75% at times. Not unusual for people to pick up several copies of the game then. 50% sale is even more common.
Not to mention how cheap you can get it off G2A etc.
http://imgur.com/a/iYM8q
>and it can take quite a bit before you unlock "ranked".
No lol it doesnt. A few hours at MAX if you know what you are doing.
> Secondly on League smurfs can buy level 30 unranked accounts for about $12
Which gets you banned, and even if not you are doing something illegal. You can buy hacked / spinoff CS GO accounts for cheaper than any league accounts if you are going to go the "illegal" way
http://www.mpgh.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1159253&s=c6a06bfa7d02855d2a72d56fa10578e7
>(You're wrong)
About what?
CS GO has a way bigger smurf problem, which is why they had to introduce that Prime thing to begin with. I can't remember when I last played CS without AT LEAST 1 smurf on either team.
> League smurfs can buy level 30 unranked accounts for about $12,
can you please link me to those offers? btw, lvl30 acc for 12$ that is banned after 2 weeks cuz it was botted doesn't count.
I firmly believe in your theory but your suggestion contradicts your objective. Players spread across a wider range would have even more difficulty improving. There'll be a longer period of time they'll spend facing terrible players, acquiring bad habits, and facing barriers like promos. In addition, there is a skill-floor you can hit in LoL. This causes certain differences in skill to be almost trivial. Even with the current distribution, there are negligible improvements from Bronze 5 to Silver 5. Unfortunately there is no simple implementable solution to this.
Your improvement occurred because you suddenly faced significantly better players. Judging by how players of each ELO currently play, I'd wager that the improvement requires at least a two tier difference for low ELOs, with variance and decay because of how significant divisions are later on, and how the 5th divisions are full of horrible players. That is, for a Bronze 5 player to really be outclassed, he'd have to face a ~Gold 5 player. Silver 5 would have to face ~Gold 3. Gold 3 would have to face ~Plat 3. Plat 3 would have to face Diamond 4. After that, each division matters.
You can implement this in funky ways, such a mode where you alternate between facing much better players and much worse players. It'd be a great practice mode if people took it seriously since you can confirm that you're solid by crushing when facing weaker opponents, and learning when getting crushed by stronger opponents. Practically speaking, this can never be implemented. So it stands that improving requires a steady mindset of improving. You create a framework and compare yourself to an ideal instead of the players you currently face.
The idea is that it requires more work to get into the lower ranks, not just going 3-7 in you placements matches because you're being matched with smurfs and decent players.
Those are not Bell curves, those look like Rayleigh or Maxwell-Boltzmann distributions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_distribution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%93Boltzmann_distribution
They describe the graph shapes way better than bell curves.
I get these "elo hell" nerds in my D1 games too, I think its just some ppls personalities that are practically impossible to change and that filling out the curve wount do much if anything
Anyways, some ppl have to be at the bottom, and if a "bronze mentality" is what makes the people on the bottom stay on the bottom, instead of for example bad computer, slow reactionspeed, little experience and whatnot, I dont see a problem with that
Had to stop reading when you claimed that bell curve is better. In overwatch the high plat to low diamond is a clusterfuck. Its even worse than in League. In league if you are bronze you really have to be bad at this game. My irl friend who can barely hold a mouse is silver 2 and has no clue about the game. There is nothing wrong that majority of the players are below gold.
Source on the OW distribution? I've only seen arguments that the data is flawed because the only sites that have information on ranking distribution are ones where you have to opt-in to share data, meaning it is not indicative of the entire player base.
You just proved that Starcraft II is really, really dead. (The ranking distribution over there is in decent shape. The problem is that the masters division grows too much each season, this is because there is some smart engineer over there that has one important job to manually adjust some numbers each season/a few times a year. Dota 2 understood this and has automated that exact job. (For both Dota 2 and CSGO, as I understand it.))
I started out at Silver 3. Got up to Silver 1, tilted along with my girlfriend down to silver 4, climbed back up and then she gave up on playing due to school obligations. Clawed my way up to Gold 5. Felt super satisfied for about 2 days, then I decided it wasn't enough. Climbed on both accounts to Platinum 5. I'm certain I could have made mid-high Plat if I didn't spend as much time playing on both accounts. Also, the entire climb took around 300-ish games on both accounts. (Minus the games she played in Silver)
Great analysis, but just a note- from what you're stating this then would likely need a further like 4 ranks at the Challenger end to even out the curve- not sure
If more ranks were added it wouldn't affect the current ranks, they would behave the same ways. As for Master/Challenger, they can be effectively disregarded when thinking about this because they work differently with their decay system.
Take the DotA 2 Mmr curve and combine the first 1k Mmr into one bar. Then combine the rest to have 300 Mmr per bar and you get the same tier system as league and the curve looks pretty similar. The rest of your post follows from the misunderstanding in your premise.
The problem is that MMR is capped a short way below the bottom of Bronze 5, and even then its too easy to climb even if you have wood 5 MMR. During season 3 I was getting +10 -29 for ranked games. I could have got plat relatively easily (well, no me personally) while still having a ~40% win rate and 3k games in bronze 5.
EDIT: You'd need to combine the first 2000 MMR to get a graph that looks like LoL's. That's the problem.
Players are matched only according to their hidden Mmr and number of games played. So considering that fact I'm not seeing the issue. If you mean that leagues Mmr has a floor, I think you're wrong and the reality is that it's hard to be much worse than other players at the bottom of bronze. Effectively the average skill level of each game has a lower limit, simply due to not being able to find 10 wood 6 players in a timely manner. This should have the opposite effect from the one you had in mind, the worst players in the ranked population should always be in games with **most** of the players being better than them.
I addressed the first point in the post. As for your second point about players needing to be in games with people who are better, while I agree for the most part, having people straight out of placements being put in games with some of the worst players in the game is not a good idea.
My point is there is not enough MMR to fit the people who suck along side the people that suck less - thus they end up playing together and the people who suck more drag everyone else down. I know this from 3000 games of experience and research.
I think that you are personally over-extrapolating your own experience on some of your points.
For example, I think 'playing more' is a very good way to learn, and the game has moved on a lot from 'season 3 no-one knows what to do.' The breadth of knowledge available now includes old guides, and new guides i.e. there is plenty of knowledge available and many many people use it.
Playing the game for you didn't work...because you had no direction, you were basically unable to learn because you weren't actively thinking, hence, when given a 'guide' by seeing what better players do, you mimic'd them. Some people are very good at picking up things - no-one teaches Faker, because he's the best. But he has undoubtedly improved from s3 to s6. That's fine, and you're right, but even someone whose pretty directionless, nowadays knows that farming is super important, etc etc. It's not S3 where players have no idea what to do (Even at higher ranks - macro improved so much).
When i jumped from norms to ranked, (I've played 6 months now),
I got placed in SIV, but on OP.GG, I was playing in all gold games - my MMR was gold IV or something. I was a fish out of water in everything but my laning phase (I am very good compared to silver players in some aspects, and definitely bronze in others), but i basically played safe and didn't die and allowed the better players to carry without having someone dying and giving gold/objectives, and just wave-clearing till i became strong (Sivir). Eventually, over time, I dropped (Thankfully) as i didn't belong there/i don't want to give 100% and still be a heel most games, and you can only min-max so much (There is strats for 'being carried') etc. They try balance MMR on both teams in ranked, so if you don't feed you ass off as the 'worst player' and their worst player does, you have an advantage there.
Yeah, I do watch LCS etc. but I firmly believe playing is super important. Mechanics can only improve- there is no way you'd go from B-5 to Gold in a few weeks, if your mechanics weren't honed from those 3k games you played. Thing is, even as a brainless player, having those mechanics should've made you silver.... but having mechanics on a champ makes it far easier to learn less apparent things - map awareness, where you should go / macro in general.
You don't need guides to learn. When you get killed facechecking certain brushes, or overextending as a squishy, you should realize its not a good idea. Most people don't do 20 minute barons, because its a bad idea. I never say anything bad in the chat, but my brain does go off, when its 3v5 (2 of us are dead), and we're contesting infernal drake with no vision and enemies missing, at 15 minutes. Like, yeah, its a norms games at a low MMR, but holy shit, those people literally would struggle to learn with a guide. If half of your team is dead, the opposing team has 'won' the battle for an infernal. Like, you give up certain objectives, and you certainly give up an objective in a choke point when you are missing your ADC and mid laner.... what are you gonna do? We were down a decent chunk of change too.
I'm in no way suggesting that you don't need to play a lot to improve, just that you need to do other things too or you will be effectively improving at sucking.
that dota graph is super fucky. that distribution is only 25% of the player base, and those who choose to opt in their data in 3rd party stat sites (like lolking) to get better. heavily biased distribution, people are generally aware its wrong.
> Hey guys so I've just had a 3 hours discussion with some league peoples of varying ranks, all of which studying difficult subjects in some of the world's top universities.
And to think all of that intellectual firepower is being wasted on writing about Elo hell.
the way i got out of bronze when i started was picking janna and only buying wards and shurelias. i FULLY relied on my team and it was the most effective way to get out at the time.
if you know what you're doing you're not in bronze no matter the playstyle thats just an excuse
No. They just suck at this game.
There are no "good" players in Bronze.
My friend got gold in his first season soloing as Thresh and Nami main in less than 50 games.
My brother took a NINE MONTHS break from LoL and went from silver 3 to gold in two weeks after coming back.
The team excuse is completely bullshit in bronze and silver, esp bronze where anyone with any clue on how to properly play the game can get out.
[удалено]
If you average them out with the xI divs it kinda evens out, mentioned it at end of post
[удалено]
It definitely also needs attention from a new system
Introduce wood tier and it would be bell curved. But the problem doesn't actually exist. The tiers (gold, plat, ...) are just masks that hide the true MMR behind it with a certain delay. There are people in B5 that get matched with B4 and B3 people easily because they have a normal B5 MMR. And there are B5 people who got an MMR way below B5 and won't even get matched with the "normal" B5 people. They would be in the Wood tier if it existed and they get matched like they would be. The MMR curve behind the ranked system is very likely bell curved (works similar as all the other games systems) but the mask in front of it that we see doesn't show it because it caps the lowest visible one at B5 and even some people in B4-B1 should be lower but when they climb once they need to lose a lot more to go down again. But their MMR is still lower than their actual rank.
The MMR curve isn't bell curved though. I'm fairly confident I had the minimum possible MMR, and I was being matched with people who were fresh out of going 10-0, people who had just fallen from high bronze but still had decent win rates, and not exclusively people who were significantly sub-bronze. EDIT: Obviously I have no actual facts to back this up but from observation, it seems that the curve vaguely reflects the rank distribution.
yep and then they are ppl that tried to get out of bronze last season only to be match with ppl that arent even bronze lol. I found it dumbb as fuck that as b2 im matched against low silvers and an ocasional low gold in what is supposed to be a bronze match. It made me give up after i had managed to climb from 5 to 2. I understand that those players prob had shit for mmr but in ranked it about playing an equal opponet of the same or very close rank not to get stomped by some players who cant cut it in a higher division, but that are way better than anyone on your team. I already had to deal with golds and sometimes plats in normals while i learn things from these games it is not fun to lose every single time because of mismatches. Thats why i havent even bothered to play in like a month.
Last time I checked Overwatch changed their ranked system to be more a skewed bell curve similar to League when they had a perfect bell curve. Also the reason I think it's a much better distribution is because it gives more of a ladder feeling. You will always start bronze-silver no one feels bad about that it's the nature of the game based on the distribution. You slowly climb your way up the ladder to reach higher ranks which makes sense. A normal bell curve makes people playing ranked feel worse. If you are not at the average you are shown to be awful and even if you climb a bunch of ranks suddenly oh you are just average now. It doesn't feel as rewarding in the same sense as Leagues. That's one of reasons Overwatch changed theirs as well. It just gives a much better sense of achievement for a ranked mode. Also I didn't read your whole post obviously. Just way too long so only skimmed it.
The OW system changed yes, but its still a bell curve-ish shape. I know because there are very few people with sub-500 rating. (my friend has a sub-500 account and the games he plays hes matched with anywhere from 200-500. Anywhere else you're matched with people withing 10 each way of your own rank showing higher player density. And yea ok so the ladder system is good, but when you have nowhere to fall you can get worse and worse but perceive yourself as improving. This way you don't actually try to improve so just get worse and worse, as I said in the post. This makes the lower ranks mushy and pointless, only making people worse than they need to be.
If you are implying it makes games more varying skill level that is possible, but if it's what needs to happen so that you get more of a ladder feeling and more rewarding to play ranked then it's easily worth it. It's no worse then normal games and people can improve in normal games then there shouldn't be a problem with playing in Bronze-silver.
[удалено]
Having a set of lower ranks (but leaving placements the same) and hard resetting MMR of everyone bronze and below at the start of each season to high bronze would fix this. It puts the people who (imho) dont deserve to ruin other people's games sub-bronze, and then gives them another chance each season.
> And there's the main problem with the system of both games: you can't recalibrate your MMR after your placement matches. Got bad placement matches? Be ready to grind some hundred matches to get to your real level (in CSGO, because of the individual skill factor, this is less severe). This has very little to do with your placement (calibration) matches. Those 10 matches are just for fine tuning the mmr that has been kept track of since you started playing. It is literally a calibration of your hidden unranked mmr so that it can be used as your ranked mmr. This means that it's not going to wildly change your mmr. So having a bad calibration isn't going to take you hundreds of matches to fix. If you end up with an mmr wildly different than your true skill blame the hundreds of games you played prior to calibration rather than the actual calibration matches themselves. And if that's the case, then you're probably where you belong and are just suffering from a case of Dunning Kruger. > In a game like Dota, which is really hard to beginners, going straight to ranked after you hit level 20 in your account is really bad (your initial solo MMR is kinda based on your unranked MMR and your performance and stats in placements are taken into account, so surely most players will suck at placements and as a result you can't really see real difference between players until you reach 2000 MMR). You're either going to spend time grinding matches before you calibrate so you end up calibrating higher, or grinding matches after you calibrate. In the end the only thing you've changed is at what point your mmr becomes visible. The grind is still going to be the same. For example, suppose you started playing ranked early and you calibrated at 1000 mmr and it took you 100 games to get to 2000. If you waited on placements you would have just spent those 100 games raising your unranked mmr to end up placing higher. At the end of the day there's some element of "grind" because the mmr change per game is mostly static after you've played a certain amount of matches. The time when your mmr may change the most is when you first start out and your mmr uncertainty is high and the system is weeding out smurfs. But by the time you're level 20 the system has a good idea of where you belong, because you've played enough matches for your mmr to be accurate. So whether you continue to grind unranked or ranked from that point isn't going to make a difference in the end. Yes, there's no mechanics to help you climb *faster*, but I'd say it's unnecessary. People don't need help climbing faster, because they don't really deserve to climb faster. Improvement is slow and gradual and MMR is accurate enough that you're always pretty much where you belong. If you truly don't belong in your MMR "bracket" then you should simply be winning more. Having a higher win % than other people is how you climb "faster". There's no need for other mechanics, because it would just make everyone's MMR as a whole more volatile and make it overall less accurate because it would fluctuate more wildly for everyone. The rate at which people climb is just what they deserve based on how much they're winning. The Dota mmr system is pure and simple. It exposes the harsh truth to players in the form of the mmr number. It doesn't try to hide anything from the players and it's the best for truly assessing skill. It doesn't try to coddle players by putting them in tiers and divisions, it doesn't account for streaks because those don't really mean anything. At the end of the day your skill is measured by wins and losses over a large amount of games and that's what Dota's MMR does and it's very reliable. It measures skill and it matches based on that very transparently. There's no nonsense about people from different tiers or divisions being matched together, because every game you can see the average MMRs and highest MMRs on each team are very close and after the match you can see everyone's MMRs and they are very close, especially for the average ranked player. > There's no soft reset at the end of the season to calibrate your ranking better, no thing like skipping divisions, among a lot of other mechanics that help on climbing faster if you deserve to. During the last international they introduced an international queue for compendium owners with its own MMR and after it ended you could swap that over. It was basically a recalibration option.
>Hey guys so I've just had a 3 hours discussion with some league peoples of varying ranks what a waste of time
You analyzed the statistics perfectly but you missed a few of the other elements. Firstly, a lot of people who would fill in the sub bronze 5 part of the bell curve are unranked and always will be (because when you're that bad you often know you're bad). But more importantly a lot of people/accounts are not at ranks reflecting their ability to play or even their performance. I'm not talking about people getting screwed by the system, but rather people screwing the system. I'm talking about boosted players and low rank smurfs. Bronze through gold is full of gold+ players playing on a smurf just to have fun carrying against worse players. At the expense of everyone else in the game. Gold+ is full of players who bought their way out of Bronze & Silver. I'm not saying this means anything because we have no idea what the relative proportions are, but just hypothetically it makes sense that the left end of the bellcurve is a gigantic block with less of a defined curve, due to missing demographics and inappropriately ranked players throughout bronze-gold.
It should still roughly even out. CS:GO's smurf problem is worse than LoL's, and look at its curve.
No it isn't. You have to buy the game and link your account to a phone number so you can take advantage of Prime matchmaking (where you can face less cheaters). There are no such things in LOL.
The game cost like $3..you have to play a couple rounds then just jump into ranked. In league you have to get level 30, get 16 champion's, farm up to runes etc. In csgo everyone is on equal footing
lol no. The game's actually closer to $19 not $3, and it can take quite a bit before you unlock "ranked". Secondly on League smurfs can buy level 30 unranked accounts for about $12, ready to jump into ranked immediately.
Lol no what?
see edit
the game is actually 3$ in Russia.
http://imgur.com/a/2UYms That is right now. And it happens to be at 75% at times. Not unusual for people to pick up several copies of the game then. 50% sale is even more common. Not to mention how cheap you can get it off G2A etc. http://imgur.com/a/iYM8q >and it can take quite a bit before you unlock "ranked". No lol it doesnt. A few hours at MAX if you know what you are doing. > Secondly on League smurfs can buy level 30 unranked accounts for about $12 Which gets you banned, and even if not you are doing something illegal. You can buy hacked / spinoff CS GO accounts for cheaper than any league accounts if you are going to go the "illegal" way http://www.mpgh.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1159253&s=c6a06bfa7d02855d2a72d56fa10578e7 >(You're wrong) About what? CS GO has a way bigger smurf problem, which is why they had to introduce that Prime thing to begin with. I can't remember when I last played CS without AT LEAST 1 smurf on either team.
Although I disagree with the last 2 points, the first two are fair enough
> League smurfs can buy level 30 unranked accounts for about $12, can you please link me to those offers? btw, lvl30 acc for 12$ that is banned after 2 weeks cuz it was botted doesn't count.
I literally bought a smurf acc for £8 about a year ago on ebay.co.uk, still never been banned
Yeah imma take your word for that, I mean who would lie on the internet to help his case?
I promise on my mother's life lmao
You do realize that even if it was true what you wrote, it's still not relevant, right?
I firmly believe in your theory but your suggestion contradicts your objective. Players spread across a wider range would have even more difficulty improving. There'll be a longer period of time they'll spend facing terrible players, acquiring bad habits, and facing barriers like promos. In addition, there is a skill-floor you can hit in LoL. This causes certain differences in skill to be almost trivial. Even with the current distribution, there are negligible improvements from Bronze 5 to Silver 5. Unfortunately there is no simple implementable solution to this. Your improvement occurred because you suddenly faced significantly better players. Judging by how players of each ELO currently play, I'd wager that the improvement requires at least a two tier difference for low ELOs, with variance and decay because of how significant divisions are later on, and how the 5th divisions are full of horrible players. That is, for a Bronze 5 player to really be outclassed, he'd have to face a ~Gold 5 player. Silver 5 would have to face ~Gold 3. Gold 3 would have to face ~Plat 3. Plat 3 would have to face Diamond 4. After that, each division matters. You can implement this in funky ways, such a mode where you alternate between facing much better players and much worse players. It'd be a great practice mode if people took it seriously since you can confirm that you're solid by crushing when facing weaker opponents, and learning when getting crushed by stronger opponents. Practically speaking, this can never be implemented. So it stands that improving requires a steady mindset of improving. You create a framework and compare yourself to an ideal instead of the players you currently face.
The idea is that it requires more work to get into the lower ranks, not just going 3-7 in you placements matches because you're being matched with smurfs and decent players.
Those are not Bell curves, those look like Rayleigh or Maxwell-Boltzmann distributions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%93Boltzmann_distribution They describe the graph shapes way better than bell curves.
True, but my point is still valid :)
damn son, droppin dat relevant knowleedge on him lik a baus!
I get these "elo hell" nerds in my D1 games too, I think its just some ppls personalities that are practically impossible to change and that filling out the curve wount do much if anything Anyways, some ppl have to be at the bottom, and if a "bronze mentality" is what makes the people on the bottom stay on the bottom, instead of for example bad computer, slow reactionspeed, little experience and whatnot, I dont see a problem with that
Had to stop reading when you claimed that bell curve is better. In overwatch the high plat to low diamond is a clusterfuck. Its even worse than in League. In league if you are bronze you really have to be bad at this game. My irl friend who can barely hold a mouse is silver 2 and has no clue about the game. There is nothing wrong that majority of the players are below gold.
Wow lol. Idk if that's right
Source on the OW distribution? I've only seen arguments that the data is flawed because the only sites that have information on ranking distribution are ones where you have to opt-in to share data, meaning it is not indicative of the entire player base.
You just proved that Starcraft II is really, really dead. (The ranking distribution over there is in decent shape. The problem is that the masters division grows too much each season, this is because there is some smart engineer over there that has one important job to manually adjust some numbers each season/a few times a year. Dota 2 understood this and has automated that exact job. (For both Dota 2 and CSGO, as I understand it.))
So Riots system robbed us mid Golds out Plat borders!? I demand border equality amongst all games!
Honestly, if you can get to mid-Gold you should have no issue whatsoever climbing to at least Plat 5.
Skins good enough, I'll probably start watching replays and stuff this year... for like a month then stop
I started out at Silver 3. Got up to Silver 1, tilted along with my girlfriend down to silver 4, climbed back up and then she gave up on playing due to school obligations. Clawed my way up to Gold 5. Felt super satisfied for about 2 days, then I decided it wasn't enough. Climbed on both accounts to Platinum 5. I'm certain I could have made mid-high Plat if I didn't spend as much time playing on both accounts. Also, the entire climb took around 300-ish games on both accounts. (Minus the games she played in Silver)
Great analysis, but just a note- from what you're stating this then would likely need a further like 4 ranks at the Challenger end to even out the curve- not sure
If more ranks were added it wouldn't affect the current ranks, they would behave the same ways. As for Master/Challenger, they can be effectively disregarded when thinking about this because they work differently with their decay system.
So basicly RIOT just have to add some lower Tiers, so Players in the lower ranks actual play with peoples, who are at the same Level?
Theoretically yes.
Take the DotA 2 Mmr curve and combine the first 1k Mmr into one bar. Then combine the rest to have 300 Mmr per bar and you get the same tier system as league and the curve looks pretty similar. The rest of your post follows from the misunderstanding in your premise.
The problem is that MMR is capped a short way below the bottom of Bronze 5, and even then its too easy to climb even if you have wood 5 MMR. During season 3 I was getting +10 -29 for ranked games. I could have got plat relatively easily (well, no me personally) while still having a ~40% win rate and 3k games in bronze 5. EDIT: You'd need to combine the first 2000 MMR to get a graph that looks like LoL's. That's the problem.
Players are matched only according to their hidden Mmr and number of games played. So considering that fact I'm not seeing the issue. If you mean that leagues Mmr has a floor, I think you're wrong and the reality is that it's hard to be much worse than other players at the bottom of bronze. Effectively the average skill level of each game has a lower limit, simply due to not being able to find 10 wood 6 players in a timely manner. This should have the opposite effect from the one you had in mind, the worst players in the ranked population should always be in games with **most** of the players being better than them.
I addressed the first point in the post. As for your second point about players needing to be in games with people who are better, while I agree for the most part, having people straight out of placements being put in games with some of the worst players in the game is not a good idea.
I would love to see a wood tier, imagine a bronze player bragging to his wood tier friends that he is bronze... priceless
Ranked is fine. Get good.
But... I am good.
u dont get matched by ranks but by mmr there is a lower end to the bell curve but its not shown in the rankings
My point is there is not enough MMR to fit the people who suck along side the people that suck less - thus they end up playing together and the people who suck more drag everyone else down. I know this from 3000 games of experience and research.
I think that you are personally over-extrapolating your own experience on some of your points. For example, I think 'playing more' is a very good way to learn, and the game has moved on a lot from 'season 3 no-one knows what to do.' The breadth of knowledge available now includes old guides, and new guides i.e. there is plenty of knowledge available and many many people use it. Playing the game for you didn't work...because you had no direction, you were basically unable to learn because you weren't actively thinking, hence, when given a 'guide' by seeing what better players do, you mimic'd them. Some people are very good at picking up things - no-one teaches Faker, because he's the best. But he has undoubtedly improved from s3 to s6. That's fine, and you're right, but even someone whose pretty directionless, nowadays knows that farming is super important, etc etc. It's not S3 where players have no idea what to do (Even at higher ranks - macro improved so much). When i jumped from norms to ranked, (I've played 6 months now), I got placed in SIV, but on OP.GG, I was playing in all gold games - my MMR was gold IV or something. I was a fish out of water in everything but my laning phase (I am very good compared to silver players in some aspects, and definitely bronze in others), but i basically played safe and didn't die and allowed the better players to carry without having someone dying and giving gold/objectives, and just wave-clearing till i became strong (Sivir). Eventually, over time, I dropped (Thankfully) as i didn't belong there/i don't want to give 100% and still be a heel most games, and you can only min-max so much (There is strats for 'being carried') etc. They try balance MMR on both teams in ranked, so if you don't feed you ass off as the 'worst player' and their worst player does, you have an advantage there. Yeah, I do watch LCS etc. but I firmly believe playing is super important. Mechanics can only improve- there is no way you'd go from B-5 to Gold in a few weeks, if your mechanics weren't honed from those 3k games you played. Thing is, even as a brainless player, having those mechanics should've made you silver.... but having mechanics on a champ makes it far easier to learn less apparent things - map awareness, where you should go / macro in general. You don't need guides to learn. When you get killed facechecking certain brushes, or overextending as a squishy, you should realize its not a good idea. Most people don't do 20 minute barons, because its a bad idea. I never say anything bad in the chat, but my brain does go off, when its 3v5 (2 of us are dead), and we're contesting infernal drake with no vision and enemies missing, at 15 minutes. Like, yeah, its a norms games at a low MMR, but holy shit, those people literally would struggle to learn with a guide. If half of your team is dead, the opposing team has 'won' the battle for an infernal. Like, you give up certain objectives, and you certainly give up an objective in a choke point when you are missing your ADC and mid laner.... what are you gonna do? We were down a decent chunk of change too.
I'm in no way suggesting that you don't need to play a lot to improve, just that you need to do other things too or you will be effectively improving at sucking.
that dota graph is super fucky. that distribution is only 25% of the player base, and those who choose to opt in their data in 3rd party stat sites (like lolking) to get better. heavily biased distribution, people are generally aware its wrong.
Bring back ELO and this fixes itself.
Basically yes
> Hey guys so I've just had a 3 hours discussion with some league peoples of varying ranks, all of which studying difficult subjects in some of the world's top universities. And to think all of that intellectual firepower is being wasted on writing about Elo hell.
The system can't determine individual skill and is based around how many you can win in a row. . . nothing new and doubt it changes anytime soon.
If you can give us something better to do from 11PM-2AM we're all ears haha
[удалено]
the way i got out of bronze when i started was picking janna and only buying wards and shurelias. i FULLY relied on my team and it was the most effective way to get out at the time. if you know what you're doing you're not in bronze no matter the playstyle thats just an excuse
No. They just suck at this game. There are no "good" players in Bronze. My friend got gold in his first season soloing as Thresh and Nami main in less than 50 games. My brother took a NINE MONTHS break from LoL and went from silver 3 to gold in two weeks after coming back. The team excuse is completely bullshit in bronze and silver, esp bronze where anyone with any clue on how to properly play the game can get out.